Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/June 2017

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

June 30[edit]

June 30, 2017 (2017-06-30) (Friday)
Armed attacks and conflicts

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

RD: Simone Veil[edit]

Article: Simone Veil (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former President of the European Parliament and a major French political figure. Pruneautalk 20:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Support Definitely notable for her role in legalizing abortion (no matter how one feels about it), and the article looks referenced and balanced.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It would be nice to source the section "Doctorats honoris causa" before posting but I think that's far less controversial than other points. Rest looks fair. --MASEM (t) 23:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a smattering of unreferenced statements, and many unreferenced awards. Stephen 23:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose too much of it unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Barry Norman[edit]

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: British film critic and TV presenter. Article is slightly thin at the moment (but not unpostably so imo) and not completely sourced at the moment but it's being worked on. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Very notable film critic and TV personality for many years. Sources should be very easy to find, especially given his links with The Guardian. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment at the moment, content is being added faster than it can be sourced so there are at least a couple of citation needed tags and other unsourced sections. It'll might need to wait until the initial flurry has settled down before this is ready. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Just finished cited everything. Should be up to speed now. Miyagawa (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, Miyagawa. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Same-sex marriage in Germany[edit]

Consensus will not develop for posting the Nth country to legalise same-sex marriage, regardless of the historical backdrop. Stephen 23:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Germany (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Bundestag votes to legalize same-sex marriage in Germany (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Bundestag votes to legalize same-sex marriage in Germany and passes a law that requires Internet companies to censor "hate speech" online
News source(s): Same-sex marriage / LGBT adoption-rights: [1]; censorship-law: [2], [3], [4]
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Seems like a big deal, does it not? Vanamonde (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Indeed it is a big deal furthermore article is well sourced and well updated reflecting the event. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yes it does, particularly given how sudden it was. Jono52795 (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Some might say this is something for de-wiki, but I believe it's important enough for en-wiki as well. Germany is the largest country in the EU (in population) and changes here oftentimes mean that other countries will follow. Same-sex marriage is legal in a couple of countries of the EU but Germany was for a long time opposed to it, so this change - which Mrs. Merkel probably did not realize would happen so quickly - is quite significant. Regards SoWhy 08:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Concur with the above. Mentioned in Portal:Current events/2017 June 30.  Sandstein  09:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Same-sex marriage in Western Europe is nothing new, given that almost every country in that region already allows it to some degree. And emphasizing just one country is undue and biased, as this becomes somewhat common in some other countries. Brandmeistertalk 09:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose well done for catching up, but not really significant news. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not new to Western Europe or the West in general. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the largest country in the EU, I'm inclined to support this, but at the same time Germany is not even the 12th EU country to legalize this, and is not even in the same decade as the first instance of it. The article even makes it clear that this result was expected, and Germany is moving from a position that is "marriage" in all but name. The article has inline tags which should be sorted before posting.128.214.163.160 (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This feels like one of those "hey guys! We forgot to repeal this stupid law a decade ago" sort of deals. Call me when it's the UAE.GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. While everyone expects this will be approved, the legislation still has to be endorsed by the Bundesrat and signed by the President. Even if there are no objections, that process won't be completed for at least a week. Better to post when the legislation is actually enacted rather than when only one part of government has endorsed it. Dragons flight (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a proposal from the Bundesrat, so there is no need for it to endorse it again (and thus is unlikely to happen based on Art. 77, 78 Grundgesetz). The signing is a formality, considering that the President has no real power to reject such laws (and considering he is a member of the SPD and thus presumably supports the law anyway). Regards SoWhy 12:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Our article says: "The bill is now pending before the Bundesrat, which is expected to vote on 7 July, after which it must be signed into law by the President." Is that incorrect? If they have to "vote" and "sign", then it would seem in principle they could choose not to do so, right? I agree that acceptance in this case seems assured, but I am still skeptical of posting any legislative changes before all the i's are dotted and t's crossed. Dragons flight (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we didn't post the legalisation of same-sex marriage in 2013 in France (either nomination) or in the UK, so I'm not sure why Germany is a different category. As noted above, this is no longer a particularly big deal in Europe. BencherliteTalk 12:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Bencherlite, who sums it up nicely. Modest Genius talk 13:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Major international coverage [5][6][7][8][9] Rami R 13:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both on the fact it is too early (not yet official), that it was was expected to happen, and that Germany is far from the first country in this region to do so. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Worth a blurb because it was sudden, having come less than a week after Merkel said, seemingly offhandedly, that it was time for a vote of conscience on the matter; politically interesting, in that she personally voted against it; and significant, as affecting the most populous country in Europe. (Seems she recognized it was inevitable and did some fancy footwork to deal quickly with a potentially divisive topic.) Plus, global coverage. Sca (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Bencherlite mostly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per Sca. Funcrunch (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeThere's standing consensus that this sort of thing has become too common to be news, and Germany is a rather liberal Western Democracy. Had they voted it down that would have been more notable, but still not postworthy. μηδείς (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think we pretty much stopped posting the endless succession of governments legalizing SSM. This particular culture-war battle is over in the West and has been for a couple of years now. If Russia or Saudi Arabia go there then I will reconsider. Otherwise this is just more of the same. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose for the blurb as it stands: not notable global news but national news. However on that same day another law called the "Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz" ("network enforcement law") has been passed as well. That latter law is at least as important as that same-sex marriage law and got extensive press coverage as well. Furthermore that latter law also affects multinational companies and content on the global Internet. Weak support if the blurb informs about both laws. --Fixuture (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Bencherlite and Ad Orientem. An EU country legalising same sex marriage is now firmly the category of things expected to happen at sooner or later. Very welcome news for those who want to get married in Germany, but no longer significant on a global scale. Same-sex marriage#Opinion polling has a table that includes the percentage support for same-sex marriage in the most recent poll - if it is legalised in a country with significantly less than 50% support in a recent poll or it's the first country in a geopolitical region then it's worth a nomination imo, otherwise it's not imho. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for blurb, not altblurb. Big news for German residents and citizens. Also historically notable given Germany's homophobic past.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this was inevitable. However, Germany has done plenty to atone for the Holocaust, and it is no longer news that the government welcomes the Roma people or the Jews. Moreover, they are far from the only nation with a dodgy record on gay rights... Stormy clouds (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - brilliant news for progressives like myself, but no longer worthy of ITN. EU nations legalising gay marriage is now an inevitability, and this was a routine amendment (no referendum involved). Therefore I will oppose, and will especially oppose the alt blurb, which is long-winded and disingenuous in terms of links. - Stormy clouds (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Lots of nations have legalized same sex marriage. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not all nations made gays wear pink triangles less than a century ago though. Nobody seems to be paying attention to the historical context here--sad!Zigzig20s (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What a ridiculous argument. How many countries allowed gay marriage 70 years ago? Look at what Alan Turing and Oscar Wilde were put through. This is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in either a pro-gay or anti-German animus. μηδείς (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest close Clearly there is no consensus to post this and given the level of participation it would require an avalanche of support votes to change that reality. I suggest this discussion be closed accordingly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would second this. This dispute seems irreconcilable at this point in time, so further discussion will get us nowhere. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the rush? It's not as if a newer blurb has been posted (or even suggested). Rami R 18:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The second story is really not the same as the first. Perhaps it can be proposed on its own. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is rushing here. The nomination has been open for two days and has received a very good level of participation. Between that and the vote split there is no realistic possibility of gaining a consensus to post this. The real question is, why keep a discussion open where the outcome is not in doubt? -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leider stimmt das. Sca (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] GST India Launch[edit]

Strong consensus against posting this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Goods_and_Services_Tax_(India) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ India launches Goods and Services Tax (Post)
News source(s): Financial Times, NYTimes, Washington Post, Forbes
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The indirect tax reform will create the largest single market in the world (bigger than EU and USA combined). It has been in news for quite a long time in major publications from across the world. It will be launched formally from the Indian parliament on the midnight of 1 July 2017. Regards, theTigerKing  04:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when tags are removed from article - Sherenk1 (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm doubtful of the significance of this; but even if that were not an issue, article is a total disaster at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on impact. The rationale offered in the nomination ("will create the largest single market in the world") cannot be found in the article. Indeed, markets are usually measured in product, and the entire Indian market is 1/9th to 1/8th the size of either the US or EU. The article gives the impression that this is a routine restructuring of taxes and authority is highly decentralized and differential - not things I associate with a "singular market". Many countries routinely restructure their tax regimes. Something more must be provided, or the article must make the case more clearly, before readers can appreciate the impact of this.128.214.163.160 (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can someone here make the case for significance without running up against CBALL? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose So India's making a large scale change to its taxation laws to unify several existing taxes. I'm not seeing a major relevancy of this (yes, India's the second largest populous market and technically making this the largest unified tax code but it also is strictly limited to India. It would be different if it were a EU-type group for all SE Asian countries or the like adopting a common tax scheme.) --MASEM (t) 13:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Unreferenced content.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - Lack of international impact, lack of international media attention and a poor article with multiple orange tags mean that this item is stifled from main page inclusion in my opinion. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 29[edit]

June 29, 2017 (2017-06-29) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Closed] UN peacekeeping cuts[edit]

Uniform consensus against posting. Re-open if reworded to focus on troop withdrawal per discussion below. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: United Nations peacekeeping#Financing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United States pressures the United Nations to cut $600 million in funding for UN peacekeeping operations (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The United States pressures the United Nations to severe cuts of its peacekeeping operations
Alternative blurb II: ​ The United Nations cuts its peacekeeping budget by $600m due to United States pressure
Alternative blurb III: ​ The United Nations cuts its peacekeeping budget by $600m due to United States pressure and announces an end to its peacekeeping operation in Ivory Coast and a reduction of its peacekeepers in Darfur, Sudan
News source(s): [10], [11] / [12], [13]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Notable, global news. It got extensive press coverage around the world, article has been updated and is in a proper state and I don't see any reason for why this shouldn't be featured ITN. It's incredibly significant as many will die or suffer due to these cuts instead of funding-increases in the short term; not even to speak of any long-term consequences. Fixuture (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this is a notable global event. However, closer observation shows that all of these cuts amount to Nikki Haley simply stating the new US budget and its ramifications on the UN. We would not post cuts made by the US government to domestic or foreign policy, (much less a relatively small amount), and procedurally, that is what this news item amounts to. To assume long-term consequences like deaths is WP:CRYSTAL (not to detract from the work of the peacekeepers), but the localised nature of these cuts mean that it is not suited to ITN. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
closer observation shows that all of these cuts amount to Nikki Haley simply stating the new US budget and its ramifications on the UN
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. The cuts themselves are of significance and not who stated anything about them.
We would not post cuts made by the US government to domestic or foreign policy, (much less a relatively small amount), and procedurally, that is what this news item amounts to.
These are cuts to funding of UN peacekeeping activities and not cuts made to domestic programs. This is (part of) why they're so significant. It's not a small amount and in addition that amount has drastic consequences.
To assume long-term consequences like deaths is WP:CRYSTAL
WP:CRYSTAL is about contents not the process of evaluation of significance on ITN.
the localised nature of these cuts mean that it is not suited to ITN
They are not of "localised nature" but of global nature.
--Fixuture (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fixuture: - I think that you misinterpreted me. I mean that all of these budgets cuts are originated from the USA, and cuts in their budget, rather than a change to UN policy. This puts these cuts on a plane with alterations to US military spending (which also would be of international significance and could result in lost lives). They are localised in that it is only the United States who are implementing these cuts currently. We would not post anything about conventional budget cuts in the USA, even those which are much larger in scale that millions of dollars, so I feel that this should not be posted as, in essence, this is what it boils down to. - Stormy clouds (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply because nothing has actually happened yet.--WaltCip (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
False. What happened is a deal that reduced the budget by $600m. Note: I just added altblurb 3 which I'd prefer --Fixuture (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose to altblurb III. This is an ITN blurb, not a featured article. The blurb is way, way too long for inclusion on the main page. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose They have reduced their peacekeeping budget but they still keep the mission. Nothing has changed for the most part. --MASEM (t) 22:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Budgetary action by bureaucratic organization. I think a blurb focusing on the actual withdrawal of troops would stand a better chance.128.214.69.207 (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose with some reluctance. If Google's EUR 2.4 billion fine is not worth posting a US$ 600 million reduction isn't worth posting either. A blurb focusing on the actual ending of the peacekeeping operation is more feasible, per IP. Banedon (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: Louis Nicollin[edit]

Article: Louis Nicollin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Goal
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article has been updated and sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. No problem here. Everything is referenced.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support not the best article in the world, but it's a brief coverage of this BLP and is properly sourced. Good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Cardinal Pell Charges[edit]

Speedy-closing as nominator. Don't post charges on ITN - message received. Apologies, and thanks for rapid clarification. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: George Pell (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Cardinal George Pell of the Catholic Church is charged in Australia on sexual assault charges. (Post)
News source(s): BBC New York Times
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I would be apprehensive about this one, and would be tempted to hold until a conviction if/when that occurs. However, this is all over the global news, and such an action could take years. He is third in the Vatican hierarchy, so this has massive, long-lasting repercussions globally, and an ITN placement will facilitate readers in finding the articles they are looking for (one of our mission statements), so I would recommend a blurb at this point. If this nomination goes against procedure vis-á-vis WP:BLP, speedy-close at will. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose good faith nomination. There is a longstanding and very strong consensus that we do not post charges at ITN. Convictions of notable persons are sometimes posted, Those nominations are handled on a case by case basis. I am open to a speedy close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a significant story but let us wait until it says "is convicted of". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 28[edit]

June 28, 2017 (2017-06-28) (Wednesday)
Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Sports

June 27[edit]

June 27, 2017 (2017-06-27) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Posted] 2017 Caracas helicopter incident[edit]

Article: 2017 Caracas helicopter incident (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A police helicopter attacks the Supreme Court and the Interior Ministry of Venezuela. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News, CNN, New York Times
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A strange event in what one side is calling a coup attempt/terrorist attack and others are calling a staged operation. I thought @ZiaLater: did a great job of cleaning up the article. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me) 19:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • support - Definitely a strange event. Article is good for ITN. BabbaQ (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait/leaning Oppose. Although the article on its own is passable, it and the blurb do not put this incident in perspective, hence making me doubt that this is ITN-worthy at this moment. It's certainly a rather spectacular way to stage a coup or whatever that was, but without clearer indications on where this stands in the broader situation in Venezuela, I wouldn't put it up. MikeLynch (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This weird situation shows how the events in Venezuela are inching closer towards violence. These actions performed by the assailants (could be government or anti-government) only shows the risks that parties are willing to take in the crisis.--ZiaLater (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article in good shape, describes a frankly bizarre incident and links into a current and very newsworthy larger subject (and what I read of the 2017 Ven. Const. Crisis article was likewise well written and sourced). Aside, it is really weird the number of Lebanese immigrants in Venezuela. I would not have expected that.128.214.163.160 (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with alt blurb The word commandeered discounts the very strong likelihood of a false flag attack (speculated in the article). GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:GreatCaesarsGhost. Keep it short and neutral. "A police helicopter attacks the Supreme Court and the Interior Ministry of Venezuela". That way the reader can go to the article and decide for themselves what happened.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me) 21:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BorgQueen: So I think this is an interesting story, and it is In The News - however this blurb sounds like it belongs in a tabloid. Helicopters don't 'attack' anymore than other pieces of equipment do; also they didn't attack "the court" they may have attack a court house, or some people - also the article says the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (Venezuela) replaced the "supreme court" in 1999, meaning such an institution doesn't even exist. Please revisit this blurb. — xaosflux Talk 03:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This was adjusted by Stephen, thank you Stephen. — xaosflux Talk 12:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Dave Semenko[edit]

Article: Dave_Semenko (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Toronto Star
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Two time Stanley Cup winner with the Edmonton Oilers. Article needs a few refs but could be easily brought up to par. Floydian τ ¢ 16:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Almost none of the prose (of which there needs to be more) is sourced, and of the rest only his nicknames are. Thryduulf (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added refs to the prose and expanded it with sections and a lede. I'll leave the stats and trades to someone more familiar with NHL articles. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The prose is better and sourced, but the statistics remains entirely unsourced, the transactions are unintegreated and unsourced and in the awards section only the nicknames are sourced. Still well short of the quality required for the main page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The transactions should be integrated into the prose, not its own bulleted unsourced section. Then I'll support. If I have time, I'll look for the refs and migrate the info myself. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Michael Bond[edit]

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Creator of Paddington Bear. Article is comprehensive and almost entirely referenced (I'm about to see if I can make that completely referenced). Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, article looks sufficient for our purposes. It would be nice to get a proper lead (of more than two sentences) and a source for the bibliography, but I don't think we need to hold it up for those. Modest Genius talk 13:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the lead-in could definitely use some work, but it would be an easy fix. Much of the article is well sourced, seems okay to me. --Dellavien (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've lengthened the lead a little. Can do with more about Paddington being hugely loved or something. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • NB ITN tends to insist that lists of television/film appearances for actors (or television/film credits for directors) are properly sourced before posting. Here the entries on the lists of his books are nearly all unsourced, and ITN ought to be consistent on this sort of thing. BencherliteTalk 17:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Bencherlite. How does our reader verify all these works? ISBNs will do the trick, should only take half an hour for someone without screaming kids. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support decent article. Aiken D 19:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bencherlite and The Rambling Man: all bibliography entries now have ISBNs at least. Formatting of the list might be improvable but I've run out of time for now. Marking ready as I can't see anything else that should get in the way. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted excellent work. BencherliteTalk 22:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Anthony Young[edit]

Article: Anthony Young (baseball) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Post
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support article is short but sufficient.--Jayron32 05:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support article is barely start class (we used to require B-class) but what's there is alright. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm expanding it some today. Yesterday I just focused on making sure everything there was sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm marking it ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 23:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2nd Ransomware attack / Ukraine cyber attack[edit]

Articles: Petya (malware) (talk · history · tag) and 2017 cyberattacks on Ukraine (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A second large scale cyber attack in as many months involving ransomware causes severe disruptions around the world. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A large scale ransomware attack using Petya causes severe disruptions around the world.
Alternative blurb II: ​ A cyberattack on Ukraine computer systems spreads the ransomware Petya around the world and causes severe disruptions.
News source(s): Reuters, [14]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is a different crisis compared to the Wannycry attack from May which we posted, but having similar scale and effects. (There's suggestions underlying Wannacry code may be involved but it's a different vector). MASEM (t) 22:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support since wide coverage and it brought down some government operations. Banedon (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article in good shape. Brian Everlasting (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose weak coverage in the article, we are getting to the point where we should only post these kind of attacks if they are truly significant, which this was not. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Among those affected was Chernobyl plant's radiation monitoring system, which was switched to manual mode: [15]. Brandmeistertalk 10:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure it is a dangerous site, but Chernobyl has been shut down for decades. I don't see how a temporary loss of automated monitoring is all that significant. Interfering with operations at an active power plant would be rather more significant. Dragons flight (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite, that's a great headline grabber, but it's not suddenly going to go into (another) meltdown, we know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article could use a bit more details (especially when compared to the WannaCry article). I'm willing to change my position to support if/when it's done. The attack itself does look significant to me since it has spread to multiple continents now and has hit some government facilities. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support while I agree with TRM that these events get less newsworthy over time, I think that this article is still the right side of the line for ITN and is in a sufficiently decent condition. BencherliteTalk 09:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per TRM. "the quality of the updated content" and "the significance of the developments" are both meh. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the article could use some expansion. But according to this NPR article, Petya has hit at least 65 countries by now. Among the victims well-known global companies. Isn't it significant enough? --BorgQueen (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Impacts, sure, but I don't see "severe disruptions" in RS, including the one you cite. We have to be able to differentiate the "new normal" from exceptional cases. It's a GF nom, let everyone express their opinion and we'll play it as it lies.GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's a new twist developing [16] in that some security experts think this was purposely done against Ukraine on the anniversary of an assassination attempt and Ukraine's independence from USSR, meant to silence and or impact the local media there. Add that it's still spreading (affecting FedEx now...), as well as the possibility that it's also meant to wipe hard drives and not just encrypt them. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Comparing this to WannaCry, I don't yet see Petya having a similar range or impact. (As represented by comparing the impacts described in each article.) I don't think it yet reaches a level suitable to ITN. That could change if the worm continues to spread, but I don't think we are there yet. Dragons flight (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't think it reaches the same criteria as the WannaCry attack. If this frequency of attack continues, however, I feel like an ongoing placement for an overall 2017 ransomware attacks page. - Stormy clouds (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Notable global news. It has an extensive press coverage. Also while such events may get a bit less newsworthy they're still more significant and newsworthy than most of the other content featured in ITN. Furthermore the level of press coverage suggests quite some newsworthiness. I don't see any reason to not include it. --Fixuture (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - struggling with this one. I don't question that we need to give serious consideration to the impact of these infections and to represent on the main page in an appropriate way. What makes me cautious to support a particular one is that there is quite significant potential to post a lot of these, thus for me there does to some extent need to be a bias towards not posting unless it is proven that a particular infection is very clearly above and beyond. Ongoing seems a good solution in principle, but in practise once it becomes ongoing we may as well hardcode the relevant list into the template (with a function to update the year at the appropriate time), as I struggle to envisage circumstances under which ransomware goes quiet for a significant period of time. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider the "potential for posting a lot of these" as a proper rationale for not posting. There also is the potential to post a lot about sport events which as of right now is getting done and such events are far less significant than events such as this one. Just because it's new doesn't mean we should block it out. Furthermore what separates them is the amount of press coverage and their impact - this one had a relatively high impact and press coverage. I support a blurb but wouldn't oppose an Ongoing item if people support that over a blurb - however if we go for Ongoing we need to be faster with posting. --Fixuture (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it is a proper rationale, as a routine event is by definition not significant. A small selection of sporting events are posted as they distinguish themselves from other events in the same sport. Take for example, the college football playoff, which gets exponentially more media coverage and is of greater concern to more people than most ITN items. The consensus has decided that it does not warrant inclusion as it is an amateur-level event for which the more noteworthy professional event is posted.GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "routine event". --Fixuture (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's debatable and precisely the question on the table. But you said the "potential for posting a lot of these" is not a valid rationale. It clearly is valid as reoccurrence of similar events is not noteworthy. If you meant this is CBALL, I disagree as we can apply a common sense extrapolation that these events are more likely to continue rather than cease. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support press is now reporting this malware was part of the 2017 cyberattacks on Ukraine. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've updated the blurb to show that the cyberattack is likely a core article that needs to be updated, plus a new article from the NYTimes. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose From what I've seen, this doesn't seem to be on the same scale as the WannaCry attack. According to the article, it seems to mainly be affecting Ukraine, whereas WannaCry affected everyone who hadn't updated their PCs for the last few months. — Gestrid (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It hit Ukraine because one vector appeared to be through a mandatory accounting software package by Ukraine law, but anyone that has significant business offices in the Ukraine has also been affected. Last I saw, while 80% of it was Ukraine, 20% of the reports were outside of it. Plus all signs point to this as a cyberattack designed to take down a country-level government. That itself is news. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore I don't think cyberattacks need to be on the scale of WannaCry to get featured. And while it doesn't seem to have affected many private individuals it was still quite disruptive: please take a look at the list of major businesses and infrastructure affected (worldwide and in the Ukraine). Also the level of press coverage was and still is high which is more than a hint for significance and notability. --Fixuture (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support While I stand by what I said above, and I don't believe we should play into the attacker's hands by helping hype this up (which seems to be at least one of their intentions), I do see the significance of the attack, per the comments made below my original comment above. — Gestrid (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Now I see the article is more detailed. I think it's good to go. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support for Alt2 I stand by previous, but based on new work and Alt2 reframing the issue, I'm withdrawing opposition. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted an edited version of alt II. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Michael Nyqvist[edit]

Article: Michael Nyqvist (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [17]
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 --BabbaQ (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it.BabbaQ (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Farc officially ceases to be an armed group[edit]

Strong consensus against posting - Stormy clouds (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articles: FARC (talk · history · tag) and Colombian peace process (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ FARC rebel group completed its disarmament process, putting an end to half a century of Colombian conflict. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC), (Euronews), (The Guardian), (Al Jazeera)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Yes we already posted something related, but this is official end to American longest war. Jenda H. (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (leaning to Oppose) – I think it is a premature to claim that the disarmament brings the Colombian conflict to an end. There is also no way of confirming that the weapons the FARC turned in to the government over the past year or so are the group's complete arsenal. Let's keep in mind this group is still quite active in the coca-producing regions of South America. There are also a lot of FARC dissidents across Colombia and its nearby countries, which makes this agreement very difficult. I'm open to discuss this, however, since most sources are claiming that the conflict is over (which I don't necessarily agree will happen overnight in practice). MX (✉ • ✎) 00:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose mainly because we've already posted something on this multiple times and there are plenty of new blurbs on ITN right now. Willing to change my mind, but will need some reasons for why this, too, is a milestone worth posting. Banedon (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain given that the weapons, while having been collected and are being catalogued, haven't actually been removed yet. I wonder if the bigger milestone would be when they actually enter politics(as they are working towards) 331dot (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • An important milestone for FARC, but it's premature to say that the Colombian conflict is over when the ELN is still active (and indeed the BBC story says that there's a fear that the ELN will get hold of some of the remaining FARC weapons caches that have yet to be deactivated). Also, the FARC article is a sprawling mess that needs updating and improving (e.g. the "organization and structure" section is still written in places as if the armed struggle is ongoing). BencherliteTalk 09:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We posted for the ETA disarmament in April, and FARC is of a similar scale. Ergo, I'll support, article quality assumed. - Stormy clouds (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No longer convinced of importance following recent news coverage, and article ameliorations have not materialised. Therefore, I'll switch to oppose. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the horse died several months ago. μηδείς (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on a combination of article quality and notability. This particular junction seems to be an awfully flimsy one to hang a blurb around, considering the technical aspects of "disarmament" and where this fits in the larger scheme. Impactful parts of this story have been posted in the recent past which did not have this problem (Nobel Peace Prize last year). I also agree that the FARC article needs a line-by-line before it can go up.128.214.69.166 (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Google record EU fine[edit]

No consensus. Stephen 23:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Google (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Google receive a record fine of 2.42bn euros from the European Union for having "abused its power". (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Google receive a record fine of 2.42bn euros from the European Union for "promoting its own shopping comparison service at the top of search results"
Alternative blurb II: ​ The European Union orders Google to pay €2.42 billion for abuse of power.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The European Union fines Google with €2.42 billion for illegally promoting its own price comparison service in searches.
News source(s): BBC, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post
Credits:

Article needs updating
 109.144.219.249 (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support owing to size but article needs updating. Banedon (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article Google litigation should mention this case and be the bold link after updating it. Currently none of the articles is updated. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose place the fine into context, approximately 10% of the net income for Google's parent company this year, so yes, it's big in absolute terms, but a bit like fining a footballer a month's wages. Plus articles not in the right state. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's confusing. €2.42 billion is big in absolute terms, 10% of (global?) net income is big in relative terms. It's big either way, no? And this is the second biggest Co in the world; compares to Ronaldo getting a month's wages docked. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Google are considering an appeal. So the fine may be reduced? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per TRM. This fine is pennies to Google. They sweat this much money in day-to-day operations.--WaltCip (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For Google a trivial amount and effectively a hand-slap. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait because the issue here is are they abusing their position at the go to search engine by displaying ads based on searches. The big fine is EU saying this has to change. Real news is about change happening or not and that has not occurred. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for a modification of the alt-blurb I but wait until some article (new or present) is updated with information on this. It's notable global news and has received much press coverage. It does not matter how much this hurts Google - it's a significant development in general and also the press coverage suggests it's very notable. --Fixuture (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for posting it now as the article has been updated. I also added an additional altblurb. €2.42bn is much − a record actually − and it doesn't matter that much what people think about how much it'll hurt Google. For instance as it's also notable for being a precedent and a clear signal. --Fixuture (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the "Google can shrug this off easily" argument is unfair. If they cannot shrug off the fine easily, it would not have been imposed. Like, if you sue your neighbor for some grievance, would you demand $1 billion in compensation that your neighbor has no chance of paying? This fine is EUR 2.42 billion. That's way bigger than the size of most corporations. Plus the ruling forces Google to change its search algorithms, which is clearly a lasting consequence. Banedon (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider that Alphabet has some $300B in assets and cash on hand. Furthermore, it's not changing the search algorthim, just how search results for the Shopping part are prioritized. The only interesting thing of note that I saw that if Google remains in violation, they're fined 5% of their daily revenues while they are not compliant. If there's anything more world-changing, it is the other ruling that Canada's Supreme Court dropped on Google today that they must filter out certain results WORLDWIDE, which has severe free speech issues - but also not the type of story that is ITN featured. --MASEM (t) 01:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course Alphabet has a market capitalization of $656+ billion so this is not going to put them out of business or anything. But it's still EUR 2.42 billion. That's larger than most companies in the world. You remember when I converted human life to monetary value (at a rate of one human life = $8 million, see Value of life)? 2.42 billion is worth some 300 lives at this rate, and a disaster of this magnitude would easily be posted. I know you don't agree with this kind of comparison, but I'll still say tossing this sum aside as inconsequential is unfair. Also, of course they'll have to change their search algorithms, or how will they change their search results? Banedon (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's about relative amounts, not absolute ones. We should never compare dollars to lives (much less compare lives to lives in different events), it is a matter of the context. Yes, Google's fighting this, they don't want to pay it, but they're not going to go belly up tomorrow. If it were a smaller search engine company, but otherwise the same situation, they would have likely gotten a fine relative to what they can afford. --MASEM (t) 02:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it's the absolute amount that is important. That's what makes it remarkable. You seem to think the world water speed record would be unremarkable if it was set by a powerboat instead of a rowboat. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • False analogy. This fine is the equivalent of fining a professional footballer a month's wages. Irritating but nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Maybe one of these days I'll oppose a nomination in which 100 people died on the grounds that it is insignificant. After all, for a country with 10 million people, having 100 people die is even less by proportion than fining a professional footballer a month's wages. Banedon (talk) 06:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Reductio ad absurdum. Paying a fine that's well within your ability to do so is not equivalent to being killed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yet if this fine comes through, the impact on the EU is likely to be greater than if 100 of its citizens die suddenly. EUR 2.4 billion is likely to be greater than the economic output of 100 individuals over their lifetimes, and the EU has ~740 million people, making 100 a "mere" blip. One could also argue that Grenfell Tower burning down is inconsequential since the economic damage is a "mere" rounding error in the face of the UK's $2.6 trillion GDP. The same economic damage is also likely less than EUR 2.4 billion, but do we care? Banedon (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Previous answer applies. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I'm not sure why your analogy is valid and his is automatically absurd. You're off your rocker if you think that Google is shrugging this off. The story here is the "do not evil" company got a huge smackdown for being evil, and the course of European commerce will be dramatically altered. HOWEVER, this is necessarily WP:CBALL, and I don't think anyone ever actually updated the article, so oppose.GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here ya go, a decent article form New Scientist - The hefty sum – the largest ever doled out by the EU’s competition regulators – will sting in the short term, but Google can handle it. Alphabet, Google’s parent company, made a profit of $2.5 billion (€2.2 billion) in the first six weeks of 2017 alone. Yes, it'll change the way they have to behave, but meh, caught their pants down and got a tiny spanking. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whole websites dedicated to that sort of thing (apparently). But I think New Scientist may be right there, unfortunately. It certainly seems sufficiently notable to be added to the Google article, so I have done so. Still not sure it counts as "litigation", however. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, there are also articles like this one with "... the fine severely limits Google's ability to refine and improve its core product, which could mean big headwinds for Google in Europe" or even this whose title says everything. Banedon (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 26[edit]

June 26, 2017 (2017-06-26) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Law and crime

Media

Politics and elections

Sports

[Posted] 2017 America's Cup[edit]

Article: 2017 America's Cup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In sailing, the America's Cup concludes with Team New Zealand defeating Oracle Team USA. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support in principle. I think the unsourced sportsblog commentary of each day should be deleted though. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everything after the "Day 1" section needs references, and like the above, I think such a thorough commentary is unnecessary. Some sections have no references, but include content from standalone articles which is suitably referenced, and those articles are linked in said sections.128.214.53.104 (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Goodness me, are we writing a yachting magazine column now? Surprised we don't see what each crew had for breakfast each day. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Huge WP:V/CITE FAIL. This is going to take some work before it can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post this now please I've removed the objectionable material. If I understand your rules it should now be posted, as it's listed in WP:ITNR. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still a couple of unreferenced sections, though one of them links on to main articles that are referenced. The section on broadcasting could use refs, though. GoldenRing (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Thanks to Dweller, now looking in postable shape. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted ITN/R item with the article in good shape. GoldenRing (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dweller: do you know of a usable image of the Team New Zealand yacht? GoldenRing (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry no. I know nothing about sailing, other than it was in the news in the UK and I know that the Americas Cup is A Big Thing. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • A quick search through file space doesn't turn up anything more recent than about 2012, which seems a shame, but there it is. GoldenRing (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa! There are still really serious gaps in referencing. An entire section lacks a single cite. The ref-improve tag should not have been removed and this article should not have been posted in it's current condition. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think people were of the opinion that the relevant sections were sourced in their main articles, but I've addressed that now, anyway. Thanks. The refimprove tag was for the overall article and was clearly inappropriate. If only all of our articles were so poorly referenced. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Desh Bandhu Gupta[edit]

Template implementation for Thryduulf's closure. Stale - Stormy clouds (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Desh Bandhu Gupta (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Businessman founder of Lupin Limited. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support not the greatest article in the world but what's there is referenced and appears to cover the major points. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stale. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Removed] Remove Battle of Raqqa from Ongoing[edit]

Article: Battle of Raqqa (2017) (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: Of the last 14 days, only 8 have updates in the article, and in the last 7 days 200 words have been added in total. Edit History suggests that work has significantly slowed. Article Talk page has a section complaining about lack of updates. The best route for this article on ITN is to blurb the declared result if/when that happens, but it makes no sense to keep an un-updated article on front page. 128.214.53.104 (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the standard is new updates on a regular basis, but there is (properly) no quantitative requirement for either. There are unquestionably new updates, so the question is whether you consider the current update frequency "regular." GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If it isn't being updated it should be removed. LordAtlas (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal, infrequent updates is indicative of this no longer being of "ongoing" interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per TRM. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as the original poster, I feel like the page, while in good order, is no longer worthy of ongoing status. The conflict has dragged on, and will inevitably be on ITN when it ends. Removal now is apt in my view. - Stormy clouds (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed BencherliteTalk 21:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 25[edit]

June 25, 2017 (2017-06-25) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Sports

[Posted] RD: Gordon Wilson[edit]

Article: Gordon Wilson (Scottish politician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: leader of the SNP 1979–1990, represented Dundee East in the House of Commons 1974–1987 Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A rather short article with some gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose a few citations missing and a {{dn}} on the religion. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posted BencherliteTalk 09:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2017 Bahawalpur explosion[edit]

Article: 2017 Bahawalpur explosion (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An oil tanker explosion near Ahmedpur East, Bahawalpur District in Pakistan kills at least 128 people and injuring at least 100 others. (Post)
News source(s): CNN BBC Al Jazeera
Credits:

Nominator's comments: An explosion that killed a large number of people and also injured a large number of people. The article definitely needs a lot of work (I just started it, but am headed to bed shortly) so feel free to help update it if you can. Andise1 (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose stub but certainly one hell of a disaster. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, wait until the article is in shape; ai caramba, this is pretty bad. Vanamonde (talk) 08:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - TRM consider switching your !vote to support once I'm done updating the article. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - once more info is available of course Spiderone 10:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Keep in mind that reactions from other countries that little more than condolences should not be included, or should be summed up. --MASEM (t) 13:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I renamed the article 2017 Ahmedpur East explosion, because the incident happened there near Ahmedpur East. Bahawalpur District was named by the Bahawalpur town, and that is a confusion. Please modify the blurb.- EugεnS¡m¡on 13:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Corrected link and blurb to reflect the new title. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Somebody moved the article back, and that old title is incorrect. I don't want to explain again why I have that move. The previous name should be somehow protected beacuse it is the correct one. - EugεnS¡m¡on 15:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 24[edit]

June 24, 2017 (2017-06-24) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and medicine

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: Maria Mutagamba[edit]

Article: Maria Mutagamba (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New Vision
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Ugandan politician - Vivvt (Talk) 19:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Cholera outbreak in Yemen[edit]

Article: Cholera outbreaks and pandemics (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The World Health Organization estimates that 200,000 people in Yemen have been infected with cholera. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A cholera outbreak in Yemen kills at least 1,300 people infects more than 200,000 others.
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera, NPR.
Credits:

Article updated

 Vanamonde (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominator: seems like a very significant epidemic. Vanamonde (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support not the greatest analytical coverage I've ever seen as the target is a list of outbreaks, this one being covered in a couple of sentences. Would also suggest just spelling out WHO in case someone gets confused with The Who, bound to happen... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'll work on expanding that a little when I've got a moment...we've also got to keep due weight in mind. I abbreviated WHO for brevity, but I've expanded it now. I can easily see somebody asking me to abbreviate again. Vanamonde (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support agree with TRM that more expansion would be nice if possible. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when article is created – With the WHO calling it "the worst Cholera outbreak in the world" this should definitely have its own article. More than 200,000 people infected and 1,300 known deaths with the disease continuing to spread rapidly. Once an article is made specifically for this outbreak, I'll support on notability. I've added an alt blurb with a potential title for the article that includes the loss of life. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Definitely. Sherenk1 (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. 200,000 is a lot of people. Might be good to contextualize it with the drone war.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with mention of context in the ongoing civil war. 140.206.88.109 (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support per above. This really needs expansion. Ideally if enough material were found it could be split off into it's own article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The problem with this is that the article on the Yemeni Civil War, which would be an obvious target, is currently locked down for editing and has an orange tag stating it's outdated. (I got a wrist slap for using my admin privileges to edit it to add this information.) I contemplated starting an article but couldn't find enough reliable material yesterday to do. The medical project object to writing medical-related articles based heavily on news items. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    While it's not ideal, the original blurb's target is Cholera outbreaks and pandemics#Notable_outbreaks_(2010–present) which is satisfactory, so as this has sufficient consensus, I'd post that one, post-haste. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You prefer the list to 2017 Yemen cholera outbreak? I've put a little additional info in the article, but the WHO server went down as I was editing so I can't get more. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    When I commented above, that (on my browser) was still a red link. It's decent. Either way we can post this ASAP. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd post it myself, but I'd probably get a(nother) slap on the wrist. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Major disease outbreak with major media coverage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 06:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2017 Sichuan landslide[edit]

Article: 2017 Sichuan landslide (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 15 people are killed and around 100 are missing following a landslide in Sichuan, China. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article a stub, still in the process of getting updated Sherenk1 (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I would probably have supported if article were in a reasonable state at time of nomination. It's not, so I'm not. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article has zero substance. Schwede66 06:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to support; article is now in an acceptable shape, and the number of lives potentially lost makes it an internationally relevant event. Schwede66 19:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on article quality (stub, citations needed) and lack of proposed blurb. With a better article and suitable blurb I'd probably support. Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support blurb added, article appears to have been substantially worked over since StillWaitingForConnection, Schwede66 and Thryduulf opined. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the blurb and the article are both sufficient now Spiderone 10:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Given the remoteness of the area, news is not going to be coming fast, but the core details are in place to emphasize the size of this disaster. --MASEM (t) 13:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Article has been expanded and updated, and I have updated the blurb to reflect more recent estimates of number of missing, which has fallen below 100. Members of 62 families were at one point feared buried. 140.206.88.109 (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support – Still rather brief, but acceptable for breaking news, which in a way this still is. Sca (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 23[edit]

June 23, 2017 (2017-06-23) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and incidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

[Posted] June 2017 Pakistan bombings[edit]

Article: June 2017 Pakistan bombings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 80 people are killed and more than 200 others injured in multiple bombings in Pakistani cities of Quetta and Parachinar. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Pakistan, at least 80 people are killed and more than 200 others injured in multiple bombings in Quetta and Parachinar.
News source(s): CNN NYT BBC TIME Guardian

Al Jazeera LA Times
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A significant no. of fatalities with wide spread international coverage. Mfarazbaig (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as article content is decent, and it's been a while since the last major attack with similar casualties. Mar4d (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The death toll is now up to 63, or 67 if including the Karachi shootings. What's not clear is that the three attacks were coordinated; they took place in three separate cities, hundreds of miles apart, and were likely carried out by three different (and opposing) terrorist groups. The only thing in common between them is that they all chose Eid ul-Fitr as the target date of their attacks. The single deadliest incident is the coordinated twin bombings in Parachinar, which have killed 50 with the death toll expected to rise further. News on Karachi is still unfolding, but unless the death toll increases significantly that incident might not be notable in itself. 140.206.254.141 (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article is a little scattered, but acceptable, given the circumstances; a death toll of 60 is tragically high, and certainly enough to meet the threshold. Vanamonde (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support decent enough, notable enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Updated blurb and marked ready. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 01:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing: 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis[edit]

Article: 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Has been in the news for more than 24 hours. Would love to see a blurb but satisfied with Ongoing. Sherenk1 (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose unless there's new evidence to consider. [18] StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is seeing plenty of continued coverage and it's not like the article isn't being updated either. Banedon (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a look at the changes being made to the article in the last few days shows nothing of real substance being added. BencherliteTalk 10:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Gabe Pressman[edit]

Article: Gabe Pressman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Brianga (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support just one citation missing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support until the four cn-tags in the "Career" section are fixed, after which I'll give it my full support. There shouldn't be any problem finding reputable sourcing for those four cn-tagged items. Otherwise, this is a pretty good article. Christian Roess (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update - Referencing is now updated. Marking as Ready. I am changing my vote from "weak support" to "support." (And on a side note, as things turned out, it was not easy finding reliable sources for the 5 tagged items. It took me a few hours to find some, then I had to delete items, and revise some sentences).Christian Roess (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Could do with some references for the awards; the eleven Emmys checks out in an obit I could access but the others are more elusive (in particular the Peabody isn't in our list of 1984 awards); also ref 5 is a dead link. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • yeah, you're right about ref 5 (here) already being a dead link. And you know, that's precisely the source that lists all those awards, including the year of the award. And the crazy thing is, there's no archive page at the 41nbc.com site. And the Wayback machine (web archive) seems down temporarily. So I'll have to get back to you on this. Changed status from "Ready" to "Needs Attention" until this is fixed. Thanks for the status update. Christian Roess (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've found the Peabody ref (the year was wrong); even with the NBC obit functional it would be good to have confirmation, as obits often seem to get these details wrong. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok, I hear you. I'll track some of this other stuff down, hopefully within the next 24 hours. And not rely on the obit so much. Thanks. Christian Roess (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm probably over-picky; if more than one obit states the same details for an award then it's probably fine. You can always hide the less-prestigious ones until refs can be found. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status update - followed the advice of the administrator Espresso Addict, and replaced the dead URL with link to the exact same obituary available at "NBC 4 New York," (meanwhile, this link has been saved via the Wayback Machine, in case we need it as a back-up source down the line). This is obviously a pre-written obituary already on file that was circulated through NBC wire services, since Gabe Pressman spent much of his career at WNBC.. Anyhow, this article lists all these awards, and the years each was awarded.. I was able to find a few other citations for the major awards, and I also linked to a New York Daily News obit written by their staff for some of the citations. IOW, the latter obit doesn't seem to be just copying from the NBC obit. And I will tag this as Needs Attention: Ready? In the section header to alert an administrator that a final assessment is near at hand. Christian Roess (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 22[edit]

June 22, 2017 (2017-06-22) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Sports

[Closed] RD: Des Hanafin[edit]

Stale BencherliteTalk 22:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Des Hanafin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Irish Times
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
 —MBlaze Lightning T 05:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The references about his reelection in 1960 and his 1961 vote against the Fianna Fáil nominee for Chair of the County Council are marked as permanent dead links. His children's political positions are not referenced in this article, but they are on their own articles. Those are the only issues I can see. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support poor lead but main body is okay and sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • MBlaze, it is rather poor form to mark your own nominations "ready". That is an assessment that should be performed by somebody else. Vanamonde (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until close paraphrasing issues are addressed; they aren't huge, but enough to be a problem. There's also one instance of content not being supported by a source (or simply missing a source); and a good bit of redundancy between the political career and politics sections. We could just dump the latter, and merge any unique content into the section above it. Vanamonde (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was true for the Tipperary Star, but not for Independent.ie, as far as I can tell: [19] In any case, article looks a lot better now; though I'd still merge the politics with the political career (into the last paragraph), that's not something to hold the nomination up over any longer. Vanamonde (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] RD: Quett Masire[edit]

Stale BencherliteTalk 22:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Quett Masire (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Independent
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
 —MBlaze Lightning T 05:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Tonnes of unsourced content. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: Article needs way more sources to meet the criteria. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Ireland and Afghanistan Test Cricket[edit]

Articles: Ireland cricket team (talk · history · tag) and Afghanistan national cricket team (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The cricket teams of Ireland and Afghanistan are awarded Test status by the ICC. (Post)
News source(s): RTÉ
Credits:

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Major development in cricket (the world's second most-followed sport) as two new nations are given test status. Target articles will only need updates to reflect this, rather than a major overhaul. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issues addressed with referencing and a broad rewrite to ensure no copy-pasting. It appears that the info was copied from another Wikipedia article though, so not a copyright concern. Just bad editing by someone who does not know how links work. - Stormy clouds (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support This is, of course, massively important news for the 2nd most popular spectator sport in the world, but I'm a little unsure how important it is in the worldwide scheme of things. I'm trying to think of an equivalent for other sports, without a huge amount of success. Black Kite (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • - the addition of two new NFL teams, but on a larger scale? - Stormy clouds (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the Two-tier Test cricket article, it appears to be a step towards establishing a baseball-style conference system, with the now 12 Test nations split into two groups of six teams who then have a playoff for the championship. Quite a radical departure from the current system where teams arrange Test matches by themselves, but arguably necessary to reverse the long-term decline in Test audiences compared to ODIs and Twenty20.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So is test still the premier level of the sport? ITN tends to be stingy with anything outside of the top tier. If this a cynical move of a fading form, maybe it doesn't pass muster. 159.53.78.143 (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionalists would say yes :) But viewing figures suggest otherwise. However,the idea of a "Division 1" and "Division 2" seems to have been abandoned, so at least Afganistan and Ireland would get to play the top teams straightaway and not be put into a group of minnows from which they would need to be promoted.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Major news for the sport. Articles look good enough. Pratyush (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: why is one article titled "national cricket team" and the other not? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I guess some readers may be enticed to read the articles if they spot that difference. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's 17 years since the last country, Bangladesh, were granted Test status. Articles look in good shape. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since well over a billion English speakers watch and enjoy cricket so this is part of the broad interest that ITN should be piquing. Prepared, right now, to lay my entire mortgage, savings, house, cats, wendy house, that this won't be posted because of systemic bias. Or worse, it'll be posted, then pulled because of the same. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that bet. 5 Supporting and none opposed. And your pet project was both posted and not pulled, so maybe the system works!159.53.78.142 (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My pet project is on ITNR so it's bound to be posted. What are you talking about? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"well over a billion English speakers watch and enjoy cricket"? Sounds like Fake News to me. English language says there are 400 million native speakers of English and 1.1 billion who have it as a second language. The 400 million presumably includes about 300 million Americans, and the 1.1 billion appear to be spread all over the world including those vast swathes of the world that have no interest in cricket. Cricket-loving India has 1.3 billion people, but Languages of India says India has an estimated 125 million English speakers (and presumably quite a lot of them hate sport in general and/or cricket in particular). So I can't see how one gets up to 'well over a billion English speakers ...'. (However, I still support the posting of this item - as far as I know, nothing in our rules says that an item must interest over a billion English speakers before it can be posted at ITN). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support New Test teams don't come along every day. I'm seeing quite a lot of coverage of this. The story of the rise of the Afghanistan cricket team in particular is truly remarkabale.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay then, six hours in, even with US commentators awake, this has unanimous support, so marking as [ready]. Preparing my financial downfall... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I trust you are well versed in the numerous requested moves for Cricket? That alone means this may post but will never remain. This is, after all, American Wikipedia, lest you forget. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need to bold the teams in the blurb. --LukeSurl t c 22:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Dang, Thryduulf, you couldn't let him twist in the wind a bit longer? You spoilt our fun, ya did. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support. I woke up this morning and saw the headline news and my jaw dropped (in a good way). This is the biggest news in cricket, one of the world's major sports, for years. Will have major impacts for many years to come. --dmmaus (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really, Martin? My reading of the above bet is that if it's pulled, TRM gets to keep his wendy house :) Tlhslobus (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-post support, good call and fast response. Earth-shattering news in the world of cricket. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Post-posting support due notability + rarity.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have eaten my hat, Wendy house and other accoutrements. Perhaps I should make such threats more often. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can the blurb be clarified to explain what is meant by "test"? Sounds like they are taking an exam in school. Appears to be something more significant than that they're in demonstration mode but I can't tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.206.164 (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Deporation of Iraqi Christians[edit]

Consensus against, at least at this stage of the story. BencherliteTalk 21:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Persecution_of_Christians#Iraq (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A Federal judge has temporarily blocked the deportation of 114 Iraqi Christians after the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit arguing that the Iraqis would face persecution in their home country. (Post)
News source(s): Holpuch, Amanda (2017-06-22). "US judge halts deportation of more than 100 Iraqi Christians". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2017-06-23.
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Significant and current news story about Christians who have been in the United States for many years and now face deportation under the current administration's immigration policy. The judge has issued a temporary order blocking the deportation for two weeks when he will issue a new order. As a class action lawsuit the decision protects "all Iraqi nationals within the jurisdiction of the Detroit Ice field office" Seraphim System (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose posting a temporary order; too local a domestic policy issue. 331dot (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think U.S. Domestic policy is entirely appropriate for English Wikipedia, especially when it is something of national (even international) interest like the current immigration policy. It's not a "local story" - it's a federal court, only the jurisdiction is limited. These two things really shouldn't be confused. It is being covered by the international press, the citation I added it for The Guardian - but if consensus is against it because it is a the temporary order then I will re-nominate when the final decision is made. Seraphim System (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A temporary blocking order while a case is in progress is not news. This case does have potential to set case law which would be the time to post, but definitely not now. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 21[edit]

June 21, 2017 (2017-06-21) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Steffi Martin[edit]

Article: Steffi Martin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sächsische Zeitung (German)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Olympic gold winner twice - Vivvt (Talk) 06:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Only a basic article, but what's there is referenced and there is nothing obvious missing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest support for a "greatest Olympian" the article is borderline stub. But what's there is fair enough, albeit far too brief. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support per TRM and Thryduulf. Nothing more added to the article since the two comments above mine. So the article is still ok. Just basic information that is adequately sourced. Christian Roess (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Vanamonde (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Kelechi Emeteole[edit]

Stale BencherliteTalk 22:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Kelechi Emeteole (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Vanguard (Nigeria)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Nigerian football player and coach - Vivvt (Talk) 04:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak oppose. What's there is referenced, but I'd like to see some mention of his playing career other than as an international. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Yes! I have been skeptical about this nomination myself. I am not getting anything at all about his playing career, but many references concentrate on his coaching career only. He seems more a coach than a player. - Vivvt (Talk) 10:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that much about football, but I know that any old player does not get to play for a large national team like Nigeria, so he must have been noteworthy to some extent. There is currently not even a list of clubs he played for or a mention of what position he played. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I understand your points and hence have dropped a note at WT:FOOTBALL to seek help from regulars. Hope they can find sources to improve the article. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Destruction of the Great Mosque of al-Nuri[edit]

Article: Great Mosque of al-Nuri (Mosul) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the Battle of Mosul, Islamic State forces destroy the Great Mosque of al-Nuri. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the Battle of Mosul, the Great Mosque of al-Nuri is destroyed.
News source(s): BBC Al Jazeera
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Destruction of a significant 12th-century landmark which was also a sort of Leaning Tower of Pisa-like architectural oddity. The place where ISIS declared their caliphate. Posting this would be a way of mentioning the ongoing Battle of Mosul without having to bold that very lengthy article. Article has been updated tense-wise, but currently only a sentence on the actual destruction. LukeSurl t c 20:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose support the principle, the story is fascinating and the destruction is unfathomably sad, but the article is too weak. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This incident was reported less than an hour ago, and the article contains all the pertinent information on the destruction (i.e. the claim and counterclaim of responsibility) that Al Jazeera (who I would trust to be the best reporters on this) have. I assume some reactions will be reported within the next few hours. --LukeSurl t c 20:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISIS news sources counter-claim that it was a US airstrike that destoyed the site. I'm not sure they're really a reliable source, but I've added an alt-blurb in the passive voice if want to avoid attributing this. --LukeSurl t c 20:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs to be mentioned in the article, but not the blurb given that IS is the only source for the claim. And bluntly IS is not a reliable source for the time of day. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose – 'IS' destroying architectural monuments is nothing new. (Destruction is central to their ethos.) Sca (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – It is not new with IS destruction but this is a very significant destructed building. BabbaQ (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a very significant architectural monument whose deliberate destruction is an ITN worthy event. Article quality, while not great, appears to be minimally adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • BBC have some reactions in their story now. May be worth inclusion in article? (too late for me right now) --LukeSurl t c 23:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Ad Orientem. Banedon (talk) 05:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted, but I'd like the discussion to continue here, because there are some unresolved issues. Ideally, this should have a picture; and there isn't clarity over the passive blurb (which I have now used, as being safer). The article may also easily develop issues, given the nature of the subject. Vanamonde (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any reason why the Saudi story, which has been ready for 12 hours or so, wasn't posted yet? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not particularly: I came to this discussion from seeing a post elsewhere, and so dealt with it first. If that story is still unposted when I come back online in half an hour, I will deal with it. Vanamonde (talk)
  • Comment Somewhat conflicted on this, though for clarity I'm neither opposing nor requesting a pull. Not in doubt that it's a significant building. But this was one of a series of destructions in a very short space of time 2014, and as can be seen from the wikilink there were also other highly significant buildings and structures destroyed thereafter, which to my knowledge were not posted. Aside from true but unrevealing answers such as WP:CCC and the question of which ones were nominated (after the response to the one in the diff it's hardly surprising that others weren't nominated), I'm basically curious as to what people feel makes this one stand out? I feel this is a better place to ask than the talk page as I'm basically trying to understand the merits of this particular successful nomination. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you 100%. All three supports call this particular mosque "significant" but I can find no documentation/indication of that elsewhere. I have no idea if it is or not. I do find the site significant in re it's role in the bookends of IS history; the caliphate was declared here and it was the last major stronghold of IS in Iraq. 159.53.174.140 (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • SS on notability. Go with the alternate blurb, as the origins of the destruction are disputed. NB I've not yet checked the quality of the article --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Pull, not a big deal considering what ISIS has done before. And this is no UNESCO WHS. --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support article is of sufficient quality and properly updated.--Jayron32 01:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] International Dublin Literary Award[edit]

Proposed image
Article: International Dublin Literary Award (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ José Eduardo Agualusa wins the International Dublin Literary Award for his novel A General Theory of Oblivion. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ José Eduardo Agualusa wins the International Dublin Literary Award for his novel A General Theory of Oblivion.
News source(s): Irish Times
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: As with A Horse Walks Into a Bar last week, the award-winning book is currently a red-link. There are three candidates for what the bold link could be, International Dublin Literary Award, José Eduardo Agualusa or A General Theory of Oblivion. LukeSurl t c 15:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per ITNR, "Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article." so we unbold the book, and bold the author. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the bio is in a very poor state, the book article needs to exist too. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - stub article for book created. I will work on expansion. Bio is still a mess though. - Stormy clouds (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A General Theory of Oblivion looks reasonably ok now, so I'd like to bold it instead and post the entry. Any objections? --BorgQueen (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be okay with posting it if the background section were sourced. We can rely on the book itself for in-universe things like the plot, but I'm not happy doing that for anything that relates it to the real world. Vanamonde (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done to the best of my ability at least. The novel is heavily based on historical events and a true story per all RS's, so that section just gave a historical background to Angola c. 1970's, which has now been sourced. Additional links added also. - Stormy clouds (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest the image is now changed to the author, and ITNR instructions are updated to say we can change the target if no-one can be bothered to fix the real target. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added image to the Nom. - Stormy clouds (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said at WP:ERRORS, I'm not sure about the licensing of this image, and would welcome further thoughts from image experts. BencherliteTalk 14:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article about the author is a horror show when it comes to references...Zigzig20s (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Con Sciacca[edit]

Article: Con Sciacca (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Brisbane Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Australian politician, Order of Australia - Vivvt (Talk) 12:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Sorin Grindeanu removed as PM of Romania[edit]

No consensus to post formed and outdated. Wait until the successor is appointed. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Sorin Grindeanu (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A vote of no confidence in the Parliament of Romania removes Prime Minister Sorin Grindeanu (pictured) from office. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Ousting of a sitting Prime Minister. LukeSurl t c 11:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, there is no immediate succession and the office is vacant until filled. --LukeSurl t c 11:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, include in the inevitable blurb about the new Prime Minister of Romania. i.e. Following the ousting of Sorin Grindeanu in a no confidence vote, X becomes [[Prime Minister of Romania]]. I feel this would be more apt. - Stormy clouds (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question – is he a time-limited lame duck waiting to be replaced (or to somehow consolidate his position?), or has he actually gone and the post vacant or being performed by someone else on a caretaker basis? And (appreciating this is asking a lot but making the point that consensus will be formed more quickly once this is clear) can sources be provided for the answer? In one case I would oppose as premature, in the other I would support. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appreciate the help. It certainly is confusing. Though I consider it unlikely that a system or constitution would specifically leave open the possibility that the country is without government of any kind, and therefore I presume that there is an objective answer. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @StillWaitingForConnection: I've been watching a fair bit of Yes Minister recently, and I'm reminded of the senior civil servant's line "A Minister's absence is a godsend! You can do the job properly for once." :) --LukeSurl t c 14:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked the user who made these changes to provide a source. Nothing in any English-language news I can see mentions an acting Prime Ministerial role held by Grindeanu or anyone else in the interim, though I imagine Romanian press is covering this with more accuracy and detail. --LukeSurl t c 19:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously this issue needs to be cleared up before any ITN posting. Acting PM is a thing in Romania (last happened in 2015), so I expect this editor is correct, they have just not cited the (likely Romanian language) source for this information. --LukeSurl t c 19:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My discussion with the editor is here. I think they speak Romanian, but aren't familiar with en wiki's referencing policy. I've got to be busy today, so if someone else wants to pick up that thread that'd be great. --LukeSurl t c 10:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is not a normal transition of power, but the result of an ongoing struggle that included large protests that made ITN back in February. It's an interesting turn of events that I was completely unaware of until seeing this nom. And we could use some non-US/UK news on ITN.159.53.174.141 (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: only 2 out of 5 blurbs relate to US/UK. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose article needs work, referencing, updating, story is borderline in any case, but a super quality article might just swing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this totally dominates Romanian news and is the climax of a week of crisis. I'd even argue this kind of event should be ITNR. Banedon (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. The article is good. - EugεnS¡m¡on 07:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now as despite efforts above, the current situation is as clear as mud to such an extent that the blurb's accuracy might be in question. Am not questioning importance. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now per Stormy. I too am not doubting the importance of this, but I recommend waiting until a new Prime Minister is put in and then making it one blurb for both the removal and the new PM. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Prince Mohammed bin Salman[edit]

Article: Mohammad bin Salman (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Saudi Arabia's king deposes crown prince, promotes his son Mohammad bin Salman as successor (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Saudi Arabia, Mohammad bin Salman is appointed Crown Prince following the king's deposition of Muhammad bin Nayef.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Sign that things are changing since mostly men in 70s and 80s rule the country Sherenk1 (talk) 07:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Oppose for now. Interesting development, and one which will have global ramifications given the country's diplomatic ties ad geopolitical position of importance. However, it is not a change in the head of state, and the article needs work to get up to snuff, so I'll oppose for now. - Stormy clouds (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issues fixed, queries addressed, I will change to support - Stormy clouds (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose By convention, we only post changes in the head of state or government (whichever applies given the type of government), and not subordinate positions. I see no reason to make an exception in this case. Subordinate positions are routinely shuffled, and sometimes with much controversy, in governments across the world.128.214.53.104 (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This being a monarchy, a person becoming heir apparent is the same as a person becoming President-elect of the United States of the united states. And we do post becoming a President-elect when it happens. Thue (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True. However, this being a monarchy, the interim period is indefinite. The president-elect lies in wait in limbo for two months. Mohammad could be there for two decades. So, while the parallel is apt, I don't feel that we should equate them here. - Stormy clouds (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Stormy clouds: I understand the logic but believe posting a named successor is an appropriate way of bridging the difference between absolute monarchy and presidential or parliamentary democracies. In an absolute monarchy, the head of state will always die, abdicate or be overthrown, any of which would be an ITN story and therefore it's simply a moment of convenience to also mention the successor in that same blurb. Plus, as you point out, this could be years away, and therefore the risk of undue emphasis within a short space of time is relatively low. In democracies it is relatively rare for the leader to die in office, however more frequent that the leader of the country will change. Therefore I think the convention of naming a successor when selected, and including a mention of them during the death blurb of their predecessor, is an equitable way of handling these two extremely different forms of rule. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is a significant shift plus the article is in very good condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. By definition, in an absolute monarchy we would post a blurb for the death of a sitting head of state, and where the successor is pre-determined we would in the same blurb name the successor. Thus, to post this would not be inconsistent with how we handle democracies - post when the successor is known, and include information in other appropriate blurbs when there is an opportunity to do so. Combined with the fact that for him to be deposed or die would most likely in and of itself be ITN-worthy, there is logic to posting in this instance.

    Whilst a bit cute about the language, we posted the point at which Kim Jong-un became heir apparant of North Korea (29 September 2010). If anything this is more significant to the wider world, given North Korea's isolationist and consistently provocative stance and Kim Jong-un seeming at the time to be very much in the mould of his father. I'd also note that accusations of Western bias have grown particularly acute over recent months, and while I don't condone the way in which these accusations have been made, they are not without merit. There have also been a disproportionate number of blurbs in recent months related to destruction and death, with ITN/Rs being the only real respite. Finally, the article is decent. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - as regards notability the BBC's analysis convinces me this is a fairly big deal in the power games of the country - and Saudi Arabia is a big and important country. --LukeSurl t c 15:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that I've added an image of Mohammad bin Salman to the protected main page images list, in case it is desired to post this with a picture. BencherliteTalk 16:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- Even at a simple level, this means bin Salman is now Saudi PM , effectively a change in leadership if we're trying to justify posting compared to other political changes. But I would think its clear that any change like this in the Saudi royal family has significant sway on the regions politics, much less the world. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't agree with the rationale being posted here. a) He is not PM; the king is. He is deputy first PM. b) it is not similar to President-elect of the United States, as that person has always (and absent extraordinary circumstances, will always) become President at a scheduled date. This is the third Crown Prince of Salman's two-year regency. It is far from given that he will be king. c) we very consciously do not post the designation AND inauguration of democratic leaders. The ITN/R rules should not come into play here, as they absolutely would be invoked if and when he becomes king. However, I would support posting if the change itself was of encyclopedic significance. I don't see it.159.53.78.140 (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - "crown prince" / "heir apparent" is a notable position in a monarchy of this type, and a change in this is newsworthy. It's not directly tied to the 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis or the 2017 Riyadh Summit, but as a news editor I see smoke. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible support - very important development in the Islamic eschatology. This video explains it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUwCmGST5IQ 65.95.136.96 (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per LukeSurl. Banedon (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. I have tweaked the blurb, to make the language more straightforward; comments are welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Planet Nine[edit]

no consensus, and stale, as older than the oldest story now posted μηδείς (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Planet Nine (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ New analysis discovers a bias in the evidence behind the Planet Nine hypothesis, disfavouring its existence (Post)
News source(s): [20] [21] [22] [23]
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Since we were brave / crazy enough to feature this in January 2016 ... Banedon (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant support. It's a disgrace that we posted it, and therefore we should follow through with the retraction. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is confusing. What's a disgrace, and what needs retracting? This is science, not football instant replays. Tom Ruen (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the Shankman paper mentioned in the news articles - "We conclude that the orbital distribution of the OSSOS sample is consistent with being detected from a uniform underlying angular distribution." Their conclusion reflects only their survey. They identified the biases in their survey and assume the other surveys are also biased, but those biases are unidentified and may or may not match those of their survey. This is brought up in the articles in Nature and Science. If this is mentioned In_the_news the article should reflect that. Agmartin (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 20[edit]

June 20, 2017 (2017-06-20) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Closed] 2017 Brussels attack[edit]

Clear consensus against. BencherliteTalk 07:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: 2017 Brussels attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
Credits:
 Rævhuld (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, not many details are known at this point, and it's just the new everyday occurrence in Europe anyway. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No serious injuries to bystanders, and the culprit was immediately dealt with. Very much a non-starter of a story, shouldn't even have an article on it, much less ITN. --MASEM (t) 23:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Masem. Pretty much just a suicide by cop. --LukeSurl t c 23:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Yet Another Terrorist Attack in Europe. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Belgium. Europe is far too broad for your pointiness. LordAtlas (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It should not even have a standalone article, let alone be included at ITN, but of course enough editors will vote keep at an AfD anyways.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This should go to AfD not here, does anyone want to nominate? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose, but this "just another day in" stuff is offensive and thoughtless. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: Prodigy[edit]

Article: Prodigy (rapper) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Thechased (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As much as I like hip-hop, I thought the band has dissolved. Brandmeistertalk 20:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Large sections, including the whole of "Musical career", unsourced. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose although now it's better sourced since it was nominated. Only two cn-tags there. The discography section needs some sources, and although the separate "Prodigy discography" page is well-sourced, it's only well-sourced in a few of its sections. Christian Roess (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - thought better of my vote, and changed to "weak oppose," instead of "weak support." Just a little under the quality threshold. I'll tag this "Attention Needed" in case an administrator comes along and the 2 cn-tags are fixed, and the discography section gets some citations. And maybe we can get it posted before it's stale. Christian Roess (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Article is now well referenced, and ready to go.—MBlaze Lightning T 05:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now that the most glaring problems seem to have been fixed. Nice work MBlaze Lightning. Will mark "Ready". Christian Roess (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We need a status update or a decision on this from an Administrator: post it or explain why it's not ready, or close it out if it is "stale". And by-the-way, let me give a brief rant, and correct me if I'm wrong: this RD nomination is newer than both Brian Cant and Otto Warmbier, so this Prodigy nomination could have been switched out with one of those, couldn't it? As things now stand, that may not happen. Alas... Christian Roess (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it can, and it should be, so you might need to ping three or four admins to get some attention. I'd try Vanamonde93 as they're pretty helpful and around quite a bit. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support FWIW, this death was actually in my regular news, unlike pretty much anyone else that comes across RD, and the article has improved massively since nomination (thanks MBL!).128.214.53.104 (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on a moment sorry, Christian Roess and other folks. Saw the pings and came by to post, and went so far as to open the template in the edit window; but while glancing over the article, I found a large number of prose errors, which made me take a closer look; and I find some content without a source, and more worryingly, content not supported by a recently added source; which makes a lot of the rest of it also suspect. This needs more work; or perhaps an admin bolder than I. We still have a little time to post it; at the time of writing, there's two RDs that are older than this. Vanamonde (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to apologize Vanamonde93. I saw your edits, and those are legitimate concerns you expressed. You are only doing what an administrator is supposed to do. And we certainly needed some other eyes on this ASAP, before the nomination went stale. So I say good job here. Thanks. Christian Roess (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation needed tags have been dealt with, can the article be posted now? —MBlaze Lightning T 12:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    MBlaze, with all due respect, you said once above that the issues had been dealt with; and I came to the article, and found several issues in a very short span of time. These issues included content not supported by the sources. So, I think it is reasonable for me to ask that somebody else checks over the article, particularly with respect to verifiability, before I post it. Vanamonde (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've only looked at the "Early life" section and I found at least one instance of failed verification (now tagged). I've run out of time to check the rest of the article, but given that finding and Vanamonde93's comments, the whole article does need to be checked before posting. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ok, we now have a status update from reliable administrators. This article still Needs Attention. As I go through the sourcing, some of the url's are already decomposing (link rot). They're not pointing to the original source, as Thryduulf has noted. Meanwhile, I notice that MBlaze Lightning is still working on fixing those, even as I'm writing this comment. Also, as Vanamonde points out, there are grammatical and prose inconsistencies that are showing up. Of course, the article is still in a "fluid" editing situation, maybe because Prodigy continues to be a controversial and "galvanizing" figure even in death (hundreds of edits by dozens of different editors in the last 4 days,). And so that can account for some of the editing & sourcing inconsistencies that plague the article. Of course, my apologies for some of the things I surely missed or overlooked. Christian Roess (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • MBlaze Lightning and I have made some good progress on the article, addressing the latest problems that were brought to our attention. Anyhow, looks to be close to a "Ready" status. Although they're corrected, it's always good to have someone to double-check that the sources are cited accurately. Christian Roess (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted I think this is good enough now, and although I commented above, I opposed, so I think I'm OK to post it. Any other admin may revert this without discussing it with me - it's midnight here. Black Kite (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Removed] Grenfell Tower - remove from ongoing?[edit]

Article: Grenfell Tower fire (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: Nomination submitted by StillWaitingForConnection, template filled by User:Stormy clouds. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before I'm shot down here, I want to make the point that I was the very first person to weigh in on the initial nomination and make the point that it was out of the ordinary, and therefore should not be opposed despite the nomination being premature. I'm not in any doubt as to how huge the incident was, the unexpected nature of the event, or the ongoing struggles that the survivors are facing.

That said, Bencherlite suggested below the original nomination that this be nominated for removal if there were disagreement in its being moved from ITN to ongoing. I can certainly see why the move to ongoing was made – the story is very high profile, there is still discontent among those in the immediate area about the support being received from the government and council, and the incident is still making news headlines albeit to a far lesser extent. I also have no objection to the boldness of the action.

However, despite my personal support for the victims – including those victims who are still alive and their families – I don't see on what grounds the incident itself can be considered ongoing, save for the fact that the police have stated it could take weeks to go through the building thoroughly. I would contrast this to for instance a set of deadly wildfires lasting several weeks, where the actual incident itself - the fires - are still ongoing after the story is bumped by four to six newer events. My concern is that we risk setting a precident whereby the ongoing section is seen as a test of super-importance (a test that Grenfell Tower would undoubtedly pass I should note). StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove - This is not an ongoing story. Period. The fire is out.--WaltCip (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the right time for this to possibly return to ITN would be when the conclusions of the inquiry are published (that is a very long way off). That is the point at which there might be major news headlines again (though it will stay in the headlines in the UK for the next few weeks). The Finsbury Park incident is not in the news any more and was never likely to stay in the news for long (am still puzzled why that went up in the first place). Slightly related question: if the blurb entry on Helmut Kohl drops off before the usual 7 days for an RD item, would that be moved to RD? And does the same sort of criterion apply to ongoing? (i.e. is ongoing for items that drop off too quickly while they are still in the news, or is ongoing for stuff that goes on for weeks and months?) Carcharoth (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - the fire is out, so it is no longer an ongoing development. The only major ITN-worthy story to come from the fire will be the death toll, which may rise as the ruins are searched, or the demolition of the tower. Neither will happen soon, with both taking many weeks if not months, so an ongoing placement is not warranted. I did support for blurb, but ongoing is not being correctly applied here in my view. - Stormy clouds (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove I made this point below, after seeing it had been moved, but was unable to follow up. The fire is out. The political fallout continues, but that is not (yet) ITN worthy. Vanamonde (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Following on from Carcharoth's point, I'd say Ongoing is for (a) stories that have incremental updates over a period of time, none of which are necessarily ITN-worthy on their own but together clearly are (the Olympics, major battles of attrition, extensive forest fires, etc), and (b) items that are still major news and are still getting updates about developments after the blurb has aged off the main section. If it is not clear whether a story is over when the blurb gets bumped off then adding it to ongoing pending discussion is the right thing to do. In this case, the main news has happened and there is nothing now but ongoing investigations, political fallout and simmering discontent that does not (yet) rise to the level of ITN, but if (when?) it blows up (hopefully figuratively) ongoing would hamper that event getting a blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that I agree with this point. It's unquestionably within an admin's discretion to assume that something of this nature is ongoing provided that there's a credible argument, given the existing consensus that it's Main Page worthy. Here, consensus subsequently turned out against, but there was definitely a credible argument to the contrary and was no need to bureaucratically ask, the onus was on providing a consensus to remove. I also sadly agree that at some point in the future Grenfell Tower is likely to return to ITN.

    All that being true, this was handled in a textbook way by everyone. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 19[edit]

June 19, 2017 (2017-06-19) (Monday)
Armed conflict and attack

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology
  • Personal information of about 200 million U.S. citizens has been exposed on the Internet since January when unsecured files were uploaded by Republican contractor Deep Root Analytics. The data, available via publicly accessible providers such as Amazon Web Services, included birth dates, home addresses, telephone numbers, religious affiliations, ethnicities, and political views. The problem was discovered by an UpGuard analyst. (BBC) (Salon)

RD: Zoltan Sarosy[edit]

Article: Zoltan Sarosy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [24]
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: He was a 110 year old chess master (the world's oldest) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Mustafa Tlass[edit]

Article: Mustafa Tlass (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Islah Haber
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Well-Known Syrian politician who served as its defense minister for nearly three decades. Article well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support in principle, but there are some rather exceptional statements that still do not have sources. Vanamonde (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support seems ok now. G2G. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I've just tagged some a good half dozen places where a citation is missing or where it is unclear whether it is covered by a citation or not. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Otto Warmbier[edit]

Article: Otto Warmbier (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): "Otto Warmbier, US student sent home from N Korea, dies". BBC. 19 June 2017. Retrieved 19 June 2017.
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Zigzig20s (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose we don't need the whole memorial thing, his death can be covered in one sentence, not paragraphs of quotes. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There's cleanup to do , like the lengthy blockquote, but aside from one "who?", it's fairly complete for posting. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the lengthy blockquote, replacing it with a one-sentence summary. --LukeSurl t c 21:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should note I support RD only Unless this cases an international incident, there's nothing much special about it. (Arguably, this is a case of WP:BLP1E - he was not notable before, and it is the imprisonment and his coma/death that made him newsworthy, but that's neither here or there right now). --MASEM (t) 22:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the article is adequate for a RD item in its current state. --LukeSurl t c 21:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Any undue emphasis on reactions looks to have been removed and the article appears to meet our standards for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should this be considered for a blurb? I'm not claiming Mandela-level importance or anything, but the story here isn't just his death, but his death after being held captive by North Korea (and presumably mistreated, although I don't think anyone has confirmed this yet). An RD listing is underselling it a bit, in my opinion. I understand that RDs are automatic and blurbs are precious, but I think similar allowances have been made in the past when the actual death of the person in question is more of a story than their life or career was. Do what you will, it's just something I thought may be worth considering. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD only - this is a tricky situation, in that this story is in the news because of his captivity in North Korea (which he derived his notability from). He has died shortly after returning to the US under suspicious circumstances. As far as I can see, the only blurb pertinent to this person would be a blurb directly implicating North Korea in his death (something with large, long-lasting international consequence). However, while one would tend to suspect it given North Korea's history, it is unproven so violates WP:CRYSTAL - if North Korea can be implicated for his death with encyclopedic information, then blurb. Otherwise, RD only. Article looks fine. - Stormy clouds (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the assumed abuse at the hand's of his captors that makes this man's death noteworthy. Every headline reporting his death makes the NK connection without directly implicating them; so too could our blurb.GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are an encyclopedia, so we have inherently less space for assumptions, especially against soviergn states and especially on the main page. -Stormy clouds (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point was not that we should assume facts, but that the assumption of facts by certain parties is a story. John McCain has called it murder; if Trump follows suit, or there is any substantive official reaction, I would support a blurb. - GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this day and age, words of condemnation ring hollow and do not have the weight of "official action" that they used to.--WaltCip (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Brian Cant[edit]

Article: Brian Cant (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Notable British Children's TV presenter. Some minor referencing work needed. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack[edit]

Clear consensus against posting. Possible headway on this year's Darwin Award winner, though, so take the positives. - Stormy clouds (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
 EugεnS¡m¡on 18:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It should be included.
  • Conditional support. This needs to be expanded first. Also, this is another failed attack--maybe we shouldn't post those?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on expansion. Yawn, another vehicular attack in Europe, when are they going to pass meaningful vehicle control laws?? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really have to "prove a point" every time something like this comes up? To even compare gun control and vehicle related things... just cut it out. It only makes you look bad and does not help your point one bit. The contrary more like. 91.49.68.181 (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And actually there is a massive difference between a country being targeted by terrorists and one who actively enables its population to arm itself to the teeth and rampage, daily. For context, in the last week, 14 people have been killed and 41 injured in mass shootings in the US. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose On any other day, I would agree this is ITN. However, unlike more recent incidents in the UK, here we have what seems to be an rather ineffective result - the attempted attacker was killed quickly and no injuries or damage to civilians. That makes it a non-story in light of what else is going on. --MASEM (t) 19:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Very short article, only casualty is the perpetrator. In France especially, there seem to have been relatively a lot of these type of attacks which cause no fatalities except sometimes the perpetrator: 2017 Notre Dame attack, Notre Dame Cathedral bombing attempt, Louvre machete attack, March 2017 Île-de-France attacks... Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose idiot made idiotic attempt and failed, epically. Perhaps a Darwin Award? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to article quality (still a stub) and the fact that he caused no injuries.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Passing incident of meager import. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose TRM beat me to it. This should be a nomination for a Darwin Award, not ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - No fatalities, no political motivations, no religious targeting, no lasting consequences, no ITN listing. I would also advocte closure, though I am not averse to the idea of a Darwin Award. Can we make a barnstar for it? Pleeeeeeease? - Stormy clouds (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] [Posted] Finsbury Park incident[edit]

Posted and will remain so. The arguments against posting are/were (1) an IP saying that the article was not sufficiently developed (not now relevant); (2) a comment that this was not a terrorist attack (well, it's being treated as one by police since it strongly appears to be a targeted attack on Muslims); (3) an argument that it was routine for London (not an argument that commanded support); (4) - and this was the main argument - that the same incident elsewhere in the world would not be posted and so it is trivial / lacking appropriate newsworthiness. The stronger arguments are the counter-arguments, namely that (a) newsworthiness will inevitably include a degree of location specificity i.e. what is newsworthy in London may not be so in a capital city elsewhere in the world and vice versa, and (b) ITN has traditionally be able to tell the difference between the trivial e.g. the Kardashian family's exploits and the appropriate e.g. a UK terrorist attack specifically targeting Muslims when the UK does not have a history of such attacks. Comparisons between events that were or were not posted is not always terribly helpful, since ITN can only work on the consensus of those who participate in any particular discussion, ITN does not run on a formal system of precedent (outside ITNR), and a failure to post can in some circumstances be explained by the absence of a nomination or a decent article. Overall, my view is that sufficient time has elapsed for discussion and that the consensus here, involving number and quality of arguments, is in favour of keeping this posted. Participants are welcome to discuss the general question of ITN's approach to stories in different countries but not under this heading, thank you. BencherliteTalk 18:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2017 Finsbury Park attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Multiple persons are injured when a vehicle runs down pedestrians outside a London mosque. (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Obviously this is a developing story/incident but if it turns out to be terrorism and especially if there are fatalities, I would expect this will end up being posted. For now I suggest waiting until we know a bit more before posting. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait I think we should wait until more information on the incident has been confirmed or updated such as if this was actually and incident or attack. Must await for more information to come in. Afterwards Support from me. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Now clear this is a significant incident attracting international attention and different reactions from government and society. AusLondonder (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. The impression I am getting from early reports is that this was a potential lone wolf terrorist attack targetting Muslims. If this is the case then clearly this is huge news worthy of posting, given the rarity of us posting stories where Muslims were not only victims within an indiscriminately targetted group, but specifically the targets, of terrorism. If this is not the case then it's just a man driving into a group of people with a tragic outcome. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC) Switched to support StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A part of me wonders whether we'll eventually have a "yet another terrorist attack in the UK?" kind of reaction similar to what happens with US shootings. Leaning towards support regardless, given the wide coverage. Banedon (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Banendon: I really hope it does not get to that stage, not least as a resident of London, but we are not there yet. Thryduulf (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until more details emerge, and the article has more content. Right now the article is quite short, only start class IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the page has moved to 2017 Finsbury Park attack now, so links should be changed. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support there's nothing much to wait for. One dead, nearly a dozen injured, a man shouting "kill all Muslims" arrested, no-one else suspected, no other crimes to report, article is more than adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A racially (or religiously)-motivated terrorist in London by a white man against Muslims - there will be a massive amount of attention on how the government and others deal with this compared to how they've have dealt with previous attacks. This is absolutely significant, and the reports are stable enough now to post imo. Thryduulf (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I really wish we had decent enough coverage of similar incidents outside Europe to be able to post those and avoid continuing the Europe/US ITN monopoly; the protests in East India, and the bomb in Colombia, come to mind. But that is no reason to ignore this incident. Decent article. Vanamonde (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article is not great, and contains little more information than what can be gleaned from headlines. A full third of the wordcount is used in the "Reactions" section, even more than is dedicated to describing the event itself. There really needs to be more to this article before it goes up.128.214.69.166 (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support sadly this sort of thing will continue until Europe implements some meaningful vehicle control laws. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 09:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@CosmicAdventure: If you could base your !vote on policies please, it would be appreciated going into the future. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 10:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Might CosmicAdventure have been parodying gun control advocates? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He has been "parodying" that on three of four different nominations now to prove a point of european bias or something. It is rather ridiculous and distasteful in my oppinon, almost blatant trolling even, but if that is how he wants to act then that is up to him. 91.49.68.181 (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I know that the news media likes to hype terrorist/hate crimes, but with only one dead, I don't see this attack as particularly important. AQFK (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Although it's crass irony, I can see what CosmicAdventure is driving at (no pun intended). This is becoming a frequently common occurrence in Western Europe; almost approaching the level of mass shootings in the USA. We're going to have to start applying more discretion to posting these stories.--WaltCip (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely agree, but the motive behind this one in my opinion makes it too difficult to do it this time. That this was a terrorist attack specifically targetting non-Muslims overrides what I would otherwise agree is a justifiable reason to oppose, on the basis that while we're posting too many UK terror attacks. But I can't recall us ever posting a terrorist attack specifically targetting Muslims, anywhere, relative to the frequency with which it might happen. Certainly if I'm mistaken it's extremely rare that we do. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. What is important is not the number of dead (it's reported that the person who died at the scene was already receiving first aid before the attack so it may be unrelated) but the apparently deliberate targeting of Muslims, which is a new development. The article is adequate. (And can I say it's a sad state of affairs when we need a disambiguation page for "June 2017 London attack.")--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I appreciate the various arguments that have been put forward but we have posted quite a few UK-based stories on ITN lately. A disproportionately high number, it seems. At the same time, I don't necessarily think that this is a major incident (only one fatality, for instance) and must ask, had this event happened in another, perhaps developing country, would we be reporting on it here? I also disagree with the statement that the deliberate attacking of Muslims is a new development in Britain; it isn't, there have been a wide range of attacks on mosques, Muslims, and those (mistakenly) believed to be Muslims in the UK during this century. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A racially motivated attack as this appears to be is likely going to be ITN regardless of whether it happened, UK, US, or wherenot, and as it seems this appears connected as a reaction to the previous 3 terrorist events in UK, highlights it more. Article is fine (in a previous version, I think it had unnecessarily language about the questionable past of the mosque but that's been removed save for a specific reaction comment). --MASEM (t) 13:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. - Not a terrorist attack. This is part of London violence almost daily routine. 2017 Bogota bombing - no article (3 deaths). Just saying. EugεnS¡m¡on 13:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The suggestion that this is not a terrorist attack is factually incorrect. I fail to see your point as far as the redlink is concerned. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Not a major incident. It happened in London and apparently we're considering posting it here. If it happened in Mogadishu, would we be having the same conversation? We might not even have heard about it. Only one person died; not significant.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Zigzig20s: If this happened in Mogadishu and received worldwide attention then yes I would consider it as it is in the news globally. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it wouldn't. My point is that we should be careful and not become a parody of the globalized elite that some of us are. This is not a major incident.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this had only made a side column on a few major news websites then yes I would agree with you. This story though has made it to the front on multiple sources. I don't think I am going to change your mind but as I said in the news means in the news and this is defiantly front and center. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kim Kardashian gets many headlines too. That's not an argument, I'm sorry. No one, or potentially only one person, died. Not a major incident.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose/wait According to the BBC [25], it isn't yet even established that the sole casualty died from the attack as he was already being given first aid on the ground before being run over. The police will now establish a causality link between it. Frankly, one possible casualty is not notable enough for the mainpage, but I could see it becoming more important if the attacker for example is a part of some far-right group for example. But that depends on when the police is releasing information on the attacker. --Pudeo (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're an encyclopedia. Not an identity politics sensationalistic blog. I still don't think it would make it significant.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments immediately above are in and of themselves identity politics. Now, I have no problem with that, except that opposition to the idea is fundamental to your opposition of opposing this story. It completely undermines the basis of your argument. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I cant believe there are editors here saying that this isn't a terrorist attack, this runs against everything that has been in the reliable sources. As far as a death count goes again what is the threshold for the number of people dead? Some of you cite this as a reason to oppose but this treads into a gray area... is a story approved for ITN with 5 deaths?.... 10?.... 15? ... 20+? It isn't a good idea/factor in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a terrorist attack and a major incident in the eyes of the authorities, who I would argue are in a better place to make such judgments than the armchair pundits around here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: if this had happened in Africa, Asia or South America, there wouldn't even be an article - let alone a debate about whether or not to feature it on the main page. Jim Michael (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fact is, it did not happen in Africa, Asia, or South America. This occurred in Europe, which is generally thought of as having more capable security forces and where these incidents used to be rare. European incidents also have a higher quality and quantity of news coverage that allows for creating better articles. I don't really see how your oppose is relevant. Mamyles (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My oppose is very relevant because far worse things that are more notable than this happen every day. We're already far too centred on Europe and North America. News coverage doesn't make it important. Jim Michael (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"News coverage doesn't make it important." not true, news coverage absolutely does make it important and underpins the very reason for the existence of ITN. Don't confuse your interpretation of systemic bias with items that are globally notable (as evidenced by worldwide media coverage). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many trivial things receive a huge amount of media coverage. If news coverage were what determined ITN, we'd have featured many stories about the Kardashian family. Jim Michael (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. I'm conscious of the fact that that there have been four terror attacks in England in 3 months and we have posted the other three, and I'm quite confident that I supported all three. It's a rate at which I do not think we would consider for any country other than the US, noting that the US has roughly 6 times the population. I have the integrity to point out that I'm conscious of the risk of inherent bias on my own part. I'm also conscious of the fact that the three terrorist attacks we posted all featured a significantly higher number of fatalities. I can therefore completely see how some might come to the conclusion that this incident does not cut the mustard.

    However, the fact that this was a terrorist attack specifically targetted at Muslims to my knowledge sets it aside from any incident that we've actually posted. Some of the opponents make the point that attacks on Muslims are not as rare as is being portrayed. When was the last one we posted? Are we systemically under-representing the issue? Has there been a higher profile one than this of late? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support You do not get these kinds of incidents in London every other day, plus now clear the attack was politically motivated as "a response" to the London attack, and is being investigated by the Counter Terrorism Command. Taken in its context, this event is of major political significance, just as the Quebec City mosque shooting, which was also posted. Tachfin (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another attack? There are breaking news reports of an attack at a London underground station with multiple stab victims... WTH is going on over there? London is starting to sound like a downright dangerous place. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard. This appears to have been either a false alarm or a hoax (thank God). -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I distinctly remember a story with no fatalities getting posted due to political motivations. This is no different in my eyes. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is the political motivations rather than the death toll which make this notable. That was my point - if a politically/religiously motivated attack with no fatalities gets posted on notability, this item is equally valid for inclusion (article quality assuming - and the article's fine). An attack in a major city is news all by itself - an attack targeting a specific religion is big news, and is suitable for ITN (see the aforementioned Quebec City mosque shooting). Also, please AGF, as I am not the only proponent of the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS rationale here. Besides, I am advocating actively against it here - I am in support. - Stormy clouds (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Terrorism in London? Nowadays it's as surprising as explosions in Aleppo. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with that is this is how you feel, it cant explain the widespread worldwide coverage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, not at all, it's just that violence in London is now commonplace. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This was a terrorist, politically-motivated attack. Having one or zero deaths hasn't stopped other attacks from being posted, like 2017 Congressional baseball shooting where the only death (to date) was the perpetrator. Funcrunch (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose, the rationale "but this time it happened in X!!!" is exactly the kind of bias we usually rail against here. We need to be more conscious of proximity bias; if you live in the UK, sure it's going to seem like a huge story. But the actual facts are not spectacular. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm going to say my piece, and won't be drawn into any arguments about my oppose. Arguing on this page with those who don't share your view is borderline childish and petty, as seen above. The event is notable enough to warrant an article, but it is well below the threshold of notability to deserve posting on the Main Page. Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest support per above. 65.95.136.96 (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The 2016 Ansbach bombing in Germany injured 15 people and was not posted. The 2016 Würzburg train attack, also in Germany, in which 5 people were injured, doesn't even seem to have been nominated. Both are labelled terrorist attacks. --Njardarlogar (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 170 people and counting have been killed by Mussie terrorism in the past week. Have we posted 170 blurbs for those victims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.86.233 (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If by "Mussie" you mean "Muslim", then no, we haven't seen 170 people noted here in the past week "killed by Mussie terrorism". The worst event this last week was the fire in the London building, and that has not been attributed to any terrorist activity. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, unusual incident, in that the targets were Muslim. Also, there is canvassing in racist boards elsewhere on the internet to oppose this nomination. Abductive (reasoning) 00:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There have been many anti-Muslim attacks. It's not unusual - and even if it were, that wouldn't justify its inclusion. Many crimes are unusual in some way. There's nothing that makes this an important crime - it's publicised much more than it needs to be because it's the sort of event that the media love to report in depth. There is usually less real news in summer, so that's increased the coverage even more. Jim Michael (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Most victims of terrorist attacks are Muslim. Posting this just shows our cultural bias. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, because this is an unusual attack - non-Muslim on Muslims in a Western country - indeed, it might be unique. Also, as posted above, there is persistent canvassing on racist noticeboard to not post this (per a couple of comments above, at least), so I think it's a good thing that we have. Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pull. Being unusual doesn't make it ITN-worthy. Attacks by non-Muslims against Muslims aren't rare - it's just unusual for them to be in the form of a vehicle-ramming attack. We don't decide what to post based on what people on forums (supposedly) want. Jim Michael (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted--Jayron32 03:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So, are we going to post a blurb for every murder? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Almost no murders have encyclopaedia articles which is an absolute pre-requisite for appearing on ITN. Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and pull. While tragic, doesn't have the high level impact (death toll, impact on policy, etc.) to merit a blurb on ITN. SpencerT♦C 18:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull Convention is to explain the decision to post when consensus is not clear. Pudeo explicitly asked Jayron32 to elaborate on this, but was rebuffed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8046:7B0:60AE:F26A:C9F6:4AC2 (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull As I said, the news media likes to over-hype terrorist/hate crimes, but doesn't mean that we have to over-hype it, too. With not single confirmed fatality, this attack isn't of any particularly significance. And no, this attack is not unique. There are lots of hate crimes against Muslims in Western countries.
Posting this just demonstrates our cultural bias. Because it happened in a Western country predominately populated by white people, it gets put on the front page of Wikipedia. If this had happened in a non-Western country predominately populated with brown people, there probably wouldn't even be an article about such a non-event, let alone front page coverage. Posting this is just another sad example of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull It had / has had no immediate broader impact. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 11:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull There is only one death, no consensus here anyway, and I can't see a reason for posting this when we didn't post the US congressmen shooting or the Brussels attack. 2.102.184.54 (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah alright, I was also wrong about the death from this story too, apparently the person had already collapsed and was receiving first aid. An attack that causes a few injuries shouldn't be on the front page, unless something makes it very notable like an attack on congressmen. 2.102.184.54 (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't pull try defeating this kind of perceived bias by nominating more stories which can push this one off. Right now if we remove this story ITN looks dismal on the main page. Just removing this kind of thing is not the way to restore parity to under-represented areas of the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to pretend something is notable because ITN isn't looking juicy, fewer stories are better than stories than aren't notable and are out of place. 2.102.184.54 (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're not pretending it's notable. It is notable, or did you nominate the article for deletion? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notable enough for ITN anyway. If we posted every terror attack we'd be updating ITN every day. We're more discerning and only choose the most notable. A few injuries on the general public doesn't cut the mustard. 2.102.184.54 (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well wouldn't it be great if we had so many quality articles that we could update ITN every day! That would be brilliant. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull Still not a sufficiently major incident for the main page. No consensus to post this.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment where were all these "pull" voters when we had the 2017 Congressional baseball shooting posted? Only the perp died there, and only six injured. Funny how we have our own bias here, anti-UK story, pro-US story. And we all know which one will have longer lasting impact... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That shouldn't have been posted either. Jim Michael (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that once the admin had made the bold decision to post it, not one single editor made any fuss at all. Curious, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The notability on the Congressional shooting was that a senior Congressional leader was shot. The supposed notability here is that this substantially rises above the scores of hate crimes against Muslims that occur in the UK every week. Without a single fatality attributed to the attack, how can you make that case? It is clearly bias for you, as a Brit, to criticize a US story by omitting the very factor that made that story notable (and you do so to support a UK article with no such notability). Every single opposition to posting that story made the same mistake, which the admin(s) rightfully choose to disregard. 159.53.174.141 (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, do you need me to link the number of mass shootings that take place in the US with fatalities most of the time? That this was a failed attempt to actually kill someone reduces its notability to practically zero. And no, people don't drive vehicles into Muslims in the UK. Ever. That has never happened. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So your case is that what makes this notable is that a car was used? Fine, argue THAT on the merits. And what made the other case notable is the highest ranked American politician getting shot since Reagan in '81. 159.53.46.143 (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid a lot of people are shot every single day in the US. It's not common to be ploughed down by a vehicle because you're a Muslim anywhere. 17:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment It is not in my opinion appropriate to call for an article to be pulled when you have already expressed opposition to posting. The at-a-glance post-posting reaction above is misleading at best. In the spirit of AGF I will not describe what it is at worst, on this particular occasion. To pull in such circumstances would be to actively encourage such behavior. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it most cases it's simply sour grapes. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree on your main point, but comments should be limited to the posting objection (no consensus) and not the merits of notability. 159.53.46.143 (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you should be petitioning the posting admin who assessed consensus and arrived at a conclusion in disagreement with your own personal view of consensus. Perhaps the admin didn't simply count votes, or perhaps he used the principles of ITN to assist him (e.g. news people would be looking for, decent article quality etc). Who knows? Did you ask him? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull There was no consensus to post this at the time it was posted. TL565 (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a consensus, per the posting admin's assessment. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for those claiming "no consensus to post", what about the "no consensus to post" at 2017 Congressional Baseball shooting? And what about the distinct lack of "pull" complaints thereafter? Perhaps some of us just accept that some stories are posted despite us not personally liking it and move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You realize you are bludgeoning right? TL565 (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] US Supreme Court hands victory to Chevron in Lago Agrio case[edit]

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Articles: Lago Agrio case (talk · history · tag) and Chevron Corporation (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the Lago Agrio case, the United States Supreme Court upholds lower court decision blocking enforcement of $8.646 billion judgment against Chevron Corporation (Post)
News source(s): Reuters (2017-06-19). "U.S. Top Court Hands Chevron Victory in Ecuador Pollution Case". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-06-22. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)
Credits:
 Seraphim System (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This does not set any precedence in US case law since the Court summarily rejected to hear the case, and since this means that there's no penalty, the status quo remains. --MASEM (t) 21:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean precendent, that is not the issue. This case is complex litigation that was filed in 1993 — the United States Supreme Court decision effectively marks the last stage of that litigation. This is the last stage of a major case that has received significant media attention (of course the Supreme Court decides many cases every day that do not receive media attention.) Seraphim System (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, from the article, it looks like Chevron is going to counter-sue Donziger for RICO charges, as well as the fact that Ecuador looks to be taking action against Chevron in Canada. This case has many more years based on that. --MASEM (t) 05:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this story is older than all those which are currently posted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does that not render this entire discussion moot, as the nom came too late? - Stormy clouds (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rather a sordid saga, but not quite enough for the main page, in my opinion; also rather old. Furthermore, the case isn't quite complete, as Masem says, and we don't really have an article on the case; that title is a redirect. Vanamonde (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 18[edit]

June 18, 2017 (2017-06-18) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and medicine

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

[Posted] 2017 U.S. Open[edit]

Article: 2017 U.S. Open (golf) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In golf, Brooks Koepka wins the U.S. Open with a tournament record equalling score of 16 under par. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In golf, Brooks Koepka claims his first major title, winning the U.S. Open.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: I will be the first to acknowledge that the article needs work. I'll do my best, but may require assistance in getting this up to snuff. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not strictly accurate to describe this as "men's golf" as qualification for the U.S. Open is technically open to all golfers. --LukeSurl t c 17:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LukeSurl: - good catch. It has been amended. I had forgotten that rules though in my defence it does not normally get put into effect. - Stormy clouds (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support article is borderline lame with regard to any kind of critical analysis of the final round, but there's at least some prose there. I would post a merger of the two proposed blurbs, i.e. we don't link "golf" but we don't need to mention it being his "first" major. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – ITNR, and prose has progressed to an acceptable point.

    I note that this would have gained consensus far faster had the article been ready when nominated. A lot of people don't like opposing ITNRs because on the one hand they want it posted, but on the other hand if they oppose then they're going to have to review the article a second time, having already wasted time on an article which should have been ready for review. On the other hand, those who are uneasy about the ITN/R criteria on notability can justifiably point to a lack of prose as a legitimate reason to oppose. If you nominate before it's ready, there's a good chance the story won't get posted at all. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While in general I would agree with that sentiment, in this case the article was not ready but the event it sescribed had occurred a full day ago. If I had waited any longer, the nom would be stale, and very few people would even interact with it, as happened with some RD's below. Marked ready -Stormy clouds (talk) 07:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is "-16" or "16 under par" going to be better understood by those without good knowledge of golf? My knowledge is basic and had to think -16 was 16 under par (which is what I understand golf scores to be). Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would go with "16 under par" - seems much clearer to me.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Stormy clouds (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The wording towards the end of the blurb is awkward: "tournament record equalling" should theoretically be "tournament-record-equaling", but I think it would be better to say "equaling the tournament record score of 16 under par". Also if we use "equaling", it should be one "l", as is normal in the U.S.; an alternative might be to say "tying". pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 01:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, ITN rarely posts details of the scores or results. The last three times that the US Open has been posted, the blurb has simply been "In golf, X wins the US Open." Same for the PGA, the Open and the Masters (although occasionally the blurb has mentioned the venue, or a nationality, and in one instance that X beat Y in a playoff). So I have posted with a plain blurb as per default settings. BencherliteTalk 07:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Tim Hague[edit]

Article: Tim Hague (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 —MBlaze Lightning T 06:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose seriously under-referenced prose, and where is all the data in the MMA record table referenced? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] French legislative election[edit]

Proposed image
Article: French legislative election, 2017 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ La République En Marche!, led by Emmanuel Macron (pictured), gains the most seats in the French National Assembly. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Emmanuel Macron's (pictured) En Marche wins a majority of seats in the French legislative election
Alternative blurb II: ​ La République En Marche! secures an absolute majority of seats in the National Assembly following the French legislative election.
News source(s): BBC News, NYT, Washington Post
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 Fuebaey (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment No comment on the article yet, but this is an oddly worded blurb; we should just say "wins the most seats", "wins a majority", "is projected to win a majority" or something like that. "Gains the most seats" can be understood in many ways. Vanamonde (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a better wording for the hook, as suggested by Vanamonde93. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support complete and thorough article on ITNR subject. Added an altblurb. In English media the party is shortly referred to as En Marche, I removed the link to the Natl Assy as it's not needed for the blurb, and clarified that the election resulted in a simple majority. I don't think Macron's picture should be used, as it was just up on ITN and this particular election concerns his party and not directly himself, but I'll leave that decision to someone else.128.214.69.166 (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should use the word "majority" in the blurb, as "gains the most seats" only implies a plurality (En Marche has 308/577 or 350/577 if you include their coalition partners). A paragraph or two of reaction/analysis would be welcome. --LukeSurl t c 10:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for blurb.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marking ready for altblurb. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure this is ready. Much of French_legislative_election,_2017#Campaign is still written in the future tense, there's no prose analysis of the 2nd round results, and no summary of the results in the lead. --LukeSurl t c 16:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose while I empathise with Luke's concern, this is still one of the better election ITNRs. Having said that, the fact that the lead fails to mention the result must have passed all our supporters by. Please, read the whole article before casting a vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take another look, perhaps? I've thrown something into the lede. I don't like either of the current blurbs as they associate the party with Macron; he's not the story here. Mélencron 03:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 24 Hour of Le Mans[edit]

Article: 2017 24 Hours of Le Mans (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In motorsport, Porsche win their third successive 24 Hours of Le Mans. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In motorsport, Porsche, driven by Timo Bernhard, Brendon Hartley and Earl Bamber, win the 24 Hours of Le Mans.
News source(s): ESPN, Reuters, Sky Sports
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 Fuebaey (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as ITNR. Although I'd like to see the race section expanded some more. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, 2017_24_Hours_of_Le_Mans#Race_summary is sufficient prose to post. --LukeSurl t c 10:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marking ready ITNR and the article is appropriately sourced, summarized, and ready to go. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted using the 2015 blurb formula (the 2016 race wasn't posted). BencherliteTalk 08:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well done! I wanted to post it but wasn't quite sure about the wording. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2017 Portugal wildfires[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2017 Portugal wildfires (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Wildfires (satellite image pictured) in Portugal kill at least 62 people. (Post)
News source(s): ABC News, The Guardian, BBC, AP.
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Exceptionally deadly wildfires for the region, at least 47 died on a single road when a fire overtook the area. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on significance, apparently the deadliest in Portugal since 1966. What is there is well referenced, but the article should really be expanded a bit before posting. Mjroots (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haven't looked into what has been updated between your comment and mine, but in my opinion there's just about enough to post. Quality itself is good. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Major story of global significance given the rising incidence of wildfires worldwide. High death toll may rise further. Sca (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – have looked at all pages in categories for 2015, 2016 and 2017, nothing appears to have come close to this in terms of death toll so I'm satisfied that this isn't the start of a slippery slope. Some of the articles I looked at did involve considerable damage to property, such as Fort McMurray and the 2015 Russian wildfires which also resulted in 33 fatalities – both were posted. No information yet on damage to buildings in this case, though one would assume given the death toll that it will be comparable. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accepted It should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rævhuld (talk • contribs)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2017 ICC Champions Trophy[edit]

Articles: 2017 ICC Champions Trophy Final (talk · history · tag) and 2017 ICC Champions Trophy (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In cricket, Pakistan defeat India by 180 runs in the final to win the ICC Champions Trophy. (Post)
News source(s): Dawn, Guardian, BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: cricket match finals between India and Pakistan are one of the most watched games in cricket history, viewed by billions of people worldwide. I guess This final is being live telecast in over 200 countries as per ICC. Saqib (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – would be nice to have something involving a team from outside EU or US/Canada featured on the page, and indeed something pleasant for a change. However as this is not ITNR I could not support this unless the prose update were significantly above average. I won't be on-wiki at the appropriate time, but for the benefit of the reviewing admin if the update is high-quality I would lend my support. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those who don't watch cricket, there are three major variants - Test, One Day Internationals and Twenty20. This particular competition is the one-day and comes behind the (ITNR) one-day World Cup in prominence. Fuebaey (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support given that it's a major cricket tournament, and an international one. Additionally, an India vs Pakistan final is estimated to have 1.5 billion viewers which makes it larger in that respect than several football rivalries [26]. Mar4d (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the victory margin was the largest by any team in the final of an ICC ODI tournament.[2] Nauriya (Rendezvous) 2:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on significance but the prose summary extensive enough yet - the India innings is only just acceptable quality for me, the Pakistan innings section is good prose but there needs to be more of it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the innings sections are better. They're currently far too short. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article meets minimum standards now. --LukeSurl t c 10:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 17[edit]

June 17, 2017 (2017-06-17) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Closed] Iranian missile strike[edit]

No consensus, and no point in further discussion as it is older than the oldest story on ITN at present. BencherliteTalk 19:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2017 Deir ez-Zor missile strike (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Iran launches a missile strike against ISIL facilities in the Deir ez-Zor region, Syria. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Iran launches a missile strike against ISIL facilities in Syria in retaliation for the terror attacks in Tehran.
News source(s): CNN, Tasnim
Credits:

Article updated
 Brandmeistertalk 22:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'd have said merge if the Tehran attacks blurb was still on ITN, but since it isn't, this is a natural update. Banedon (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Half decent article in a generally neglected area. Vanamonde (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there is no analysis of the "effect" of this missile launch. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As of now, it's there, under the strike section, the article has been expanded by someone else. Brandmeistertalk 12:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that's very biased, very propaganda-based, not at all what we'd expect from an encyclopedic neutrally worded article on Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was one of the users expanding the article. I've basically added Iranian official statements to the page with attribution. Whether their statements are propagandistic or simple expression of their sentiment remains a personal judgement. I would say it's a mix of both. But at any rate, Iran remains the primary source of original coverage of the event for obvious reasons. What is interesting is that so far there seems to be a curious silence by rival governments about the event. They probably find it difficult to either condemn or approve a show of iron fist by Iran against ISIS which adds to the significance of the event in my eyes. Expectant of Light (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose purely on notability. The war on ISIS is well represented on ITN, as is Iranian foreign policy. This event is not categorically different than what happens over there on a daily basis. While this is (apparently) the first time that Iran has used ballistic missiles in this particular conflict, I don't think that's enough to clear the notability bar.128.214.69.166 (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support* I think it is quite a remarkable development. First time Iran uses its ballistic precision missiles to target ISIS which has significant strategic military and political implications beyond revenging the victims of Tehran attacks, as in the message it sends to rivals in the region. And the comments by world leaders and analysts seem to be just coming up. I just added an "Analysis" section to the page to host these emerging reactions. Expectant of Light (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Iran had already intervened significantly in the conflict and had come into direct warfare with ISIL. No doubt an interesting development, but not ITN worthy in my eyes. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - definitely an escalation. The article already uses this article from The Washington Post. Strangely, I can't find coverage by the BBC of this anywhere. Carcharoth (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] RD: John G. Avildsen[edit]

Article: John G. Avildsen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Oscar-winning director of Rocky Sherenk1 (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Support - referencing is needed, but this is shaping up well. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once article is brought up to snuff. Daniel Case (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Extremely poor referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Too much unreferenced content.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stale, since all current RD entries are folks who died after this person. Marked as closed. Vanamonde (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Baldwin Lonsdale[edit]

Article: Baldwin Lonsdale (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Baldwin Lonsdale, the President of Vanuatu, dies in Port Vila. (Post)
News source(s): Radio NZ
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Death of an incumbent head of state. EternalNomad (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • RD support, weak oppose on a blurb - Given the size and relatively tiny importance of Vanuatu in the world political picture, and that under Vanuatu's law that the MPs will elect a new president in the next few weeks and that will be a ITNR blurb (which we can then mention to replace Lonsdale), a blurb isn't really needed right now. --MASEM (t) 03:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD only per Masem and I suggest that the blurb about his successor being chosen mention his death("After the death of President Lonsdale, the Parliament of Vanuatu elects......). 331dot (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD only per above comments. Include his death in the upcoming ITNR blurb. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb, Presidential death in office is important and rare. Sad news however. - EugεnS¡m¡on 16:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose blurb - support RD Granted it's a small country but we are still talking about the death of an incumbent head of state which should merit a blurb. Unfortunately while the article quality is adequate, if barely, for RD; it does not rise to the quality expected for a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD per above. —MBlaze Lightning T 09:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Vanamonde (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 16[edit]

June 16, 2017 (2017-06-16) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Music
Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: Stephen Furst[edit]

Article: Stephen Furst (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 —MBlaze Lightning T 17:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Good job on fixing the referencing. Miyagawa (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Referencing all good now. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support definitely good to go. What's delaying this? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are some conflicts between the section I've just retitled 'Obesity, diabetes and activism' & 'Personal life and death'; the two need amalgamating and the story ironing out. Some of the references do not seem to me adequate (including a private blog and www.dermasciences.com). Espresso Addict (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Amazon/Whole Foods[edit]

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 18:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articles: Amazon.com (talk · history · tag) and Whole Foods Market (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Amazon.com agrees to purchase Whole Foods Market for $13.4 billion. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Amazon expands its physical retail holdings by agreeing to acquire Whole Foods Market for $13.4 billion.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In American retail, Amazon.com and Walmart agree acquisitions of Whole Foods Market and Bonobos respectively.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Amazon.com offers to purchase Whole Foods Market for $13.4 billion.
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

Both articles updated
 Thechased (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Major news about two companies whose products are purchased by millions of consumers around the world every day.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Whole Foods is known to have been struggling of late, this is not a surprising nor large buyout for the business realm. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Another acqui$ition. Yawn. Sca (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support not due to the actual deal, but due to the fact that this could dramatically affect the retail industry. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: - WP:CRYSTAL? Stormy clouds (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that the article speculate on its effects, but stating that those effects are the reason this merits posting. It's not speculation to see that Amazon's aggressive business practices and efforts as an heretofore online business to move into physical retail will have effects on retail as whole. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Headlines like "The Amazon-Walmart Showdown That Explains the Modern Economy" and "Amazon-Whole Foods deal roils Wall St" tells me this story is a big deal (and it is). I let the business press and markets weigh in, rather than my narrow view of whats interesting or important to me. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose On the one hand there is an interesting backstory regarding the evolution of the retail industry. But in the grand scheme of things this is small potatoes and the money involved is chump change compared to what we usually look for in these kinds of stories/nominations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - very notable acquisition. An ITN placement will allow users to easily navigate to the relevant articles (one of the aims of the project). I feel it is elevated above normal acquisitions due to the notability of its participants. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whole Foods is a relatively small niche player, and a faltering one – due in part to its narrow selection and upscale pricing structure. We aren't here to 'allow' readers to read more about commercial enterprises. Sca (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Translation: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Abductive (reasoning) 03:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Abductive: Nothing to do with not liking it. Whole Foods' annual sales ($744 million) equate to 0.65 percent of U.S. leader Kroger's sales ($115 billion) and 1.2 percent of second-place Albertsons' sales ($58 billion). Translation: Whole Foods is a relatively small niche player. Sca (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My phrasing was incorrect - I meant to say that ItN facilitates users in finding articles that they will be looking for anyway due to their presence in the news. Both articles are updated, so we are ready to run on this issue. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Secondary sources say that this deal is unusual and marks a profound change to Amazon's business model and to the future of US retail generally. US retail is, with 42 million workers and $4 trillion of economic activity, important. Abductive (reasoning) 03:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not well placed to judge how big a deal this for shoppers. The numbers seem sufficient to give it serious consideration and therefore it really falls down to how noticeable this would be on the high street. What I will say is that if Alt 2 were to be used then the current bolding seems wrong. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@StillWaitingForConnection: - Alt 2 has Amazon and Whole Foods Market (the featured articles) emboldened. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me phrase it another way. If Walmart and Bonobos are not bolded, then alt2 should not be under consideration. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@StillWaitingForConnection: -  Done. Bonobos requires work however. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - for now, and I will not support until this deal actually happens. Also, please take note that reputable media sources are reporting that investors believe a rival bid is likely and that Whole Foods share prices rose above the Amazon.com offer price. So let's wait until the acquisition actually happens, which won't happen until the latter half of 2017 (according to today's Reuter's article that I just linked to in my comment here).. Christian Roess (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian Roess: With this sort of event it is the announcement that usually gets more attention than the close of the transaction itself.(In this case, the markets have been affected by the announcement[27]) If we do nothing until the deal closes it will then be opposed on the grounds that it isn't in the news- but opposing now because it hasn't happened yet means there is a defacto prohibition against business related stories on ITN. We've tried to open up more to business stories recently due to this. A rival bid(likely resulting in a battle for who buys Whole Foods) would likely also merit posting as it too would affect the markets. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what we tend to do with politics I would assume that the consensus would be to post when it's signed, sealed and delivered – as we did with the Taoiseach despite the announcement being the higher profile moment than the actual handover. That said, I think a discussion at WT:ITN would be appropriate, because the situation is a bit more murky with huge acquisitions.

In practise what I think we need to do is have the discussion at announcement time to judge the consensus on whether a deal cuts the mustard, but then only post when it's a done deal. This would mark a significant change from current practise. My suggestion to achieve this would be that when consensus is reached on an acquisition, it be added to WP:ITNR with a diff of that consensus being evaluated, so that we then don't fall into the trap of "oppose – stale" that has in the past frozen out acquisitions from being posted. When the deal is done, someone can nominate it as an ITNR and thus we're only judging quality rather than repeating the significance argument again? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see now my vote generated some comments. I'm away from my computer still, but I'll comment now on my hand-held. The thing is that after reading through WP:NOT, my take-away is that, based on those guidelines, it is inappropriate to post this now, before the deal goes through. But this is certainly an item for Wikinews, and indeed it was posted there on June 17. So my "oppose vote" is based on my reading of those guidelines. My personal opinion is similar: I don't believe that ITN is a weather- vane as such, moving this way and that, and is not answerable to the wild fluctuations of business and market news. Because if we try and figure out which way the wind is blowing there, we are on a slippery slope: speculating, crystal-balling,etc.. and it turns into conjecture on our part. Again, sorry for the slow response. Sometimes I am out of the loop. I will comment further below when I get the chance, because StillWaitingforConnection, Banedon, and 331dot make some Interesting points. Christian Roess (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but with amended blurb - this is a huge deal ($13.4 billion) and is making waves throughout the market. WFM surged by 29.10% for example, while TGT went down by 5.14%. It's true however that this deal is less likely to go through than other such offers (per Christian Roess; in particular WFM is currently worth more than Amazon's offer price which is a red flag), hence I suggest posting but with alt blurb 3. Banedon (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem. Vanamonde (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose You're telling me that I might be able to buy groceries on the internet? - me, 1999. The business angle on this is equally weak, and I wouldn't support this even if the deal is struck as it is proposed. There were 4 M&A deals that were larger than this one just in one quarter last year, for example.128.214.69.166 (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually the reverse- Amazon selling groceries in a physical store. The markets quaked as a result of this deal. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon already sells a huge variety of products. A couple years ago I got a radiator for my car there. Sca (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose already out of the news, not likely to happen, pure crystal balling to post this now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just Googled for "amazon whole foods" and found [28] [29] [30] [31], clearly still in the news. Banedon (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted as blurb] Death of Helmut Kohl[edit]

Pointless bickering on a item that clearly had support. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Helmut Kohl (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl (pictured) dies at the age of 87. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, AP. DPA, Reuters, Guardian.
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Long-serving German Chancellor spanning the period before and after re-unification. Updating in progress and article is seeing increased editing activity. Carcharoth (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be a blurb. Kohl was the architect of the reunification of Germany. --LukeSurl t c 15:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb, subject to article quality. Highly notable West German politician. Mjroots (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blurb, if not for him, who else? Referencing etc seems to be in order as well. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. Goes without saying, one of Europe's most significant statesmen in the past 50 years, one of the preeminent world leaders from the Cold War era and practically the father of modern Germany (and the euro and the EU as we know it today, with Mitterrand). --Tataral (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb One of the most influential European leaders of the 20th century. I see no issues with article quality.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also support a blurb, not just because of his position but because of what he did during that time. However I cannot support the nomination yet as the Chancellorship section (ultimately the reason we're supporting a blurb) is not sufficiently sourced. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Major figure towards the end of the Cold War; on par with Helmut Schmidt. EternalNomad (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb subject to quite a bit of sourcing improvement per StillWaitingForConnection. Black Kite (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bit surprised to check back and find unanimous support for a blurb. Could someone convert the nomination, or write a blurb? I was thinking the article needs more updating and referencing, so it might be a while before it is ready. Carcharoth (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Stormy clouds (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Significant gaps in referencing. We need to remember to actually look at the article before rushing to support a nomination, even a significant one like this. It's more important that we get it right than we get it up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's references for every section already. EDIT:Well there were, but they have now been changed to CN tags for some reason. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple CN tags. Many paragraphs lack any citations at all. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All these have been remedied now. It would be more helpful if people helped adding citations instead of peppering the article with CN tags (and thus leaving all the actual work to others) for uncontroversial and well-known material for which it would be easy to find references (eg. Kohl forming a new government after German reunification). --Tataral (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any claim of fact that is not WP:BLUE should have a citation and articles must be adequately referenced before being posted at ITN. This nomination was being rushed through w/o adequate referencing. Further I am not an expert on modern German political history. Nor do I have immediate access to references that would likely have helped. That said, I commend those who so swiftly fixed the referencing issues. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not nominate the article. I have spent the last hour improving the references of the article. The article didn't include any CN tags at one point, but then more were added.--Tataral (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving to Support blurb Article now appears well referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb if article quality up to snuff. Towering figure of international politics in the second half of the 20th century. Neutralitytalk 16:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - Article has been updated to address concerns. Marked ready. - Stormy clouds (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picture - do we have a suitable picture to use? Carcharoth (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - not sure if allowed for use however. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problems with licencing. Mjroots (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sca (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Major figure in late 20th C. European politics (to state the obvious).
Here's another photo option. Sca (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC) ⇒[reply]
  • Support blurb He was definitively a major figure in modern history, whose death certainly merits a blurb. The news also receives wide media coverage as one would expect.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted as blurb. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Recent death would have been amply sufficient.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, we'll remember that next time a former US President dies. How about that? --Tataral (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Boiler-plate America bashing is exceptionally lame, you can stop any time. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Blurb RD would have been fine, this story is not making top headlines anywhere, it's not going be to a week long extravaganza like it was for Michael Jackson. Same would be true for Jimmy Carter or Jacques Chirac or Tony Blair. Too late now I suppose, no sense in pulling it, best to leave the European bias on display for all to see. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did Carter or Chirac or Blair reunify a divided country and help create the EU? Bias is not addressed by excluding content. "Top headlines" while helpful is not a requirement, I'd be willing to bet this is headlines in Germany. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My bar for death blubs in news coverage, not the individuals accomplishments in life. The de wiki hasn't even featured it on their main page, interestingly. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course free to judge nominations as you see fit, even if your opinion don't jibe with past practice. Most look at the whole situation; blurbs and ITN in general has never been solely about news coverage. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue. He is featured on their main page. They don't seem to post deaths in the news section of the main page, ever, because they have a separate section for all deaths. --Tataral (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"this story is not making top headlines anywhere" is a laughable and blatantly wrong claim, as everyone who have read any serious newspapers/other sources (maybe not the ones read by Trump) are aware of (it was the main story on BBC's website last time I checked, and FAZ has devoted the entire front page of their website to his death). I've never ever seen any European bias on ITN, rather the opposite; European topics are systematically held to ten times higher standards than American topics here. --Tataral (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your personal attack calling my position "laughable" and associating me with the repugnant Trump. 4 of the 5 stories in the box right now are euro-centric, so.... --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You made a verifiably inaccurate claim, and there is no personal attack. --Tataral (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the stories on the page right now are ITN/R, one was a death blurb of one of the people at the heart of the fall of the iron curtain, one is Grenfell Tower which is undeniably the biggest story going right now... and the fifth is the non-fatal shooting of a senator. I agree with CosmicAdventure on which one looks out of place, albeit for the exact opposite reason... StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should close this. There is nothing more that needs to be discussed about this actual ITN item. --LukeSurl t c 21:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 15[edit]

June 15, 2017 (2017-06-15) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

[Closed] Xuzhou kindergarten explosion[edit]

Article: 2017 Xuzhou kindergarten bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A suicide bomber kills eight people at a kindergarten in Xuzhou, China. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A suicide bomber kills eight people and injures more than 60 at a kindergarten in Xuzhou, China.
News source(s): CNN BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Major attack in China. Andise1 (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support but would like to see expansion of the article if possible. May not have info coming relatively fast due to area, so current writeup seems good for now. --MASEM (t) 21:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, but like Masem would like to see some expansion. Vanamonde (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose hard to see the significance of this in the larger picture. Banedon (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is a tragic event, the article is weak but is probably all we have based on current information. Not sure what the "larger picture" really means, it's not 9/11, but it's not Britney kissing Madonna either. About time we started addressing the systemic bias here and this wouldn't be the worst place to start. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stale. This is now older than the oldest current blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] EU mobile roaming charges scrapped[edit]

Consensus against. BencherliteTalk 07:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: European Union roaming regulations (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Noted as one of the greatest successes of EU Sherenk1 (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—quite aside from the fact that you haven't actually given a blurb, "phone calls will now be cheaper from some providers in some circumstances" is really not much of a story. (It not only doesn't make the front page of BBC News—the primary news source for the English-language market most affected by this change—but is buried below the fold even on their "European news" page.) Although Noted as one of the greatest successes of EU ought to win some kind of prize for most overblown hyperbole in an ITN/C nom, even by the standards of European Commission press releases (who routinely describe everything they ever do as "a historic landmark"). ‑ Iridescent 18:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Adding) As a note to readers who aren't familiar with this, this isn't the abolition of international charges or anything like that, which might potentially be significant. It's a change to the default behavior of phones, such that within the EEA (not the EU) all phones registered in an EEA country will behave as if they're in that country. (Thus, if Amelie in Strasbourg happens to stray across the river, her phone will treat her as still being in France, and consequently if she phones Bertrand in France she'll be billed at local and not long-distance rates; however, if she phones Carl who's also on the German side of the border she'll be billed at international rates as her phone will treat her as still being in France, even if she's standing right next to him.) The change will be an obvious benefit for people who go on holiday and want to phone their friends at home, and for people who live near borders and constantly have to check they're on their home network before allowing their phone to do anything that uses data, but this really isn't the start of some kind of communications revolution. ‑ Iridescent 19:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not significant, long-term news. --MASEM (t) 18:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Good news for travellers, but not notable for ITN. This is Paul (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think above commentators are too harsh. "One of the greatest successes" is used in both the given source and the EC press release. Obviously this will have long-term consequences, presumably for as long as the EU exists. This kind of arrangement requires the agreement of all participating countries, which is obviously not easy, and it's of interest to the entire EU population of 500 million people. Banedon (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, ITN is not for wronging great wrights. Abductive (reasoning) 05:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are people against this? The Amazon story affects less people and probably affects them way less than this. 79.116.199.219 (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is well written, and will affect many people's behaviour. Narayanese (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Bills go down in relatively wealthy part of world is not front page material. The only noteworthy aspect of this is the political side, which is not sufficient to override the unconvincing nature of the story. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Supranational Organisation forces phone companies to cut fees" isn't exactly that major. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I was very pleased to use my cell phone in Norway last week free of charge, but I also remarked to my hosts that "this should have happened 20 years ago". This is great DYK material, but it's utterly trivial per ITN norms. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: P. N. Bhagwati[edit]

Article: P. N. Bhagwati (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): News18
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Pioneer of Public Interest Litigation and Former Chief Justice of India Sherenk1 (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] UN negotiations on a Nuclear-Weapon-Ban treaty[edit]

Good faith nomination, but no chance that the start of discussions will be posted. If anything significant is agreed in the discussions then that is the time to nominate. Thryduulf (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Nuclear-Weapon-Ban treaty (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The second, decisive round of UN negotiations on a Nuclear-Weapon-Ban treaty starts at New York. (Post)
News source(s): Mainichi Japan, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Frankfurter Rundschau, Independent
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Unlike biological or chemical weapons, nuclear weapons are not yet legally banned. To close this gap in international law and to set a strong impulse towards disarmament and de-escalation of international conflicts, 132 out of 193 UN states came together in march 2017. They negotiated a draft for a ban treaty and will discuss it again at New York from 15 June to 7 July. There are good chances that a text will be adopted, which will be submitted to the UN General Assembly in autumn 2017. This question has world-wide, existential impact. It is discussed controversially, mainly between states possessing or not nuclear weapons. The negotiations are intensely observed by governments, organisations of civil society and the media. Jwollbold (talk) 04:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until something happens, as is conventional for ITN. Banedon (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without prejudice to renomination after 7th July if anything ITN-worthy emerges. "Discussions start" isn't the sort of thing that gets posted at ITN. BencherliteTalk 06:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 14[edit]

June 14, 2017 (2017-06-14) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economics

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Posted] 2017 Man Booker International Prize[edit]

Articles: Man Booker International Prize#2017 (talk · history · tag) and A Horse Walks Into a Bar (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ David Grossman wins the Man Booker International Prize for A Horse Walks Into a Bar. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ David Grossman wins the Man Booker International Prize for his novel A Horse Walks Into a Bar (translated by Jessica Cohen)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: ITNR item. Not sure how much prose we need on this and where it should be located. On the one hand, Man Booker International Prize#2017 may be just about adequate in its current state. On the other, A Horse Walks Into a Bar is a redlink at the current time. (For what its worth, I'm perfectly happy to post a redlink to the main page if the main update is elsewhere - personally I think that readers see far too few redlinks and get the impression the encylopedia is basically complete.) LukeSurl t c 12:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. If I have time later I'll create a stub about the novel. I'm sorry I'm working all day.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The prize article is fine and ready to go. Not necessary for posting but I would recommend that if someone source the awards on Grossman's page, that would help (and potentially make it a second link). A quick check shows at least a few RS reviews for the book itself so the stub would also help, but neither of these are necessary for posting now. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I remember correctly, the format of the Man Booker International prize changed recently from a writer's body of work to one piece crediting the author and the translator. Leaving half the prize off the front page looks bad. While redlinks (like citation issues/NPOV/unecyclopedic language/etc) are prevalent in articles, I doubt, given the current climate, that this will fly on the main page. Writing a one line stub (A Horse Walks Into a Bar is a 2017 novel by David Grossman. An English translation of the work by Jessica Cohen won the 2017 Man Booker International Prize.) with a reference is better than nothing in this case. Plus it shouldn't be too difficult to source a short paragraph plot summary from those book reviews. Fuebaey (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as it is ITNR. Stub article for the novel has been created here. - Stormy clouds (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I write now it is no longer a stub but a very healthy start article (that could be a bold article). Kudos for creating and expanding this so quickly. --LukeSurl t c 15:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Don Matthews[edit]

Article: Don Matthews (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Hall-of-Fame Football coach. PFHLai (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Coaching records section is unreferenced and there are some unreferenced claims in the career section (although they should be easy to cite) - all now tagged. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: I just threw in a few refs. Hopefully OK now. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The coaching records section is still tagged as unreferenced. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose per above it appears that a tag is still there, yet a brief inspection would conclude that most of that material is now cited by the reference given. Anyone with expert understanding prepared to salvage this? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stale and will not be posted (the four people currently listed as Recent Deaths died more recently than this). BencherliteTalk 07:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Countess Mountbatten of Burma[edit]

Article: Patricia Knatchbull, 2nd Countess Mountbatten of Burma (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Member of the British Royal Family and Godmother to Prince Charles. Former member of the House of Lords  The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support She was a rather notable figure and significant within the world of the British aristocracy (a not insignificant world). --Varavour (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The "Activities" section has an orange banner, and the sentence "Later they became one of the few married couples each of whom held a peerage in their own right, and whose descendants are slated to inherit titles through both." needs updating and citing. Thryduulf (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nominator. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Varaour and The C of E: All that matters for recent deaths is the article quality, and it still has the orange banner so it will not be posted until that and any other issues are resolved. Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in addition, none of her grandchildren are sourced in the article or are her honours. Neither is the fact that she was in the boat during the bombing. Or that she has in fact died. Fuebaey (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose please re-read the rules governing the posting of RDs. This article lacks the required quality, by quite some margin, and the need to score WikiCup points does not mean we prematurely post items because the nominator then unnecessarily supports his own nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stale and will not be posted (the four people currently listed as Recent Deaths died more recently than this). BencherliteTalk 07:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Ernestina Herrera de Noble[edit]

Article: Ernestina Herrera de Noble (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Director of the highest sold newspaper in Argentina. First woman to become director of a mainstream newspaper in South America. Cambalachero (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This article's layout is not up to standard and it only covers two controversial topics in depth, which raises BLP issues. So first off, the article needs an overhaul or a makeover. The entire page has one section only, called "Life and times." The other problem is the article covers only two topics in depth: (1) that Herrera de Noble had a controlling stake in Clarín, Argentina's most widely circulated newspaper; and (2) legal disputes with various family members that were made public. The first topic should be discussed in another Wikipedia article (i.e., that Clarín became a media conglomerate under her watch). The second topic involves potential BLP issues, ie., legal disputes with family members, discussions that her adopted children were orphans whose real parents were abducted and killed by a previous political regime. I understand that these issues are cited and sourced, but they seem cherry-picked, because media moguls are often subject to wild speculations, conjectures, and controversial accusations. - Christian Roess (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stale and will not be posted (the four people currently listed as Recent Deaths died more recently than this). BencherliteTalk 07:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2017 Congressional Baseball shooting[edit]

Article: 2017 Congressional Baseball shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Virginia five people are injured and one killed in a shooting targeting Republican members of Congress and staff. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Five are injured following an attempted assassination of GOP Congressmen in Alexandria, Virginia.
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: A US American Congressman was shot. It is breaking news in every international and most of the national newspaper. (Incomplete nomination by User:Rævhuld, completed by OZOO 16:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]

  • Support on the merits as there seems to have been a political motivation. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait -article needs updates, and story needs to develop. Will support if these criteria are satisfied, as it is notable. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No deaths (except the attacker), and mass shootings are (unfortunately) an almost daily occurrence in the US. Why would this attack have more long-term consequences than any of hundreds in recent years? This wouldn't even be in the media if it didn't happen to be a group of politicians, and the motive seems to be entirely speculative at this point. Lack of encyclopaedic value IMO. Modest Genius talk 16:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please note, this is an assault against high-ranking U.S. officials, rather than a random shooting -- including the Majority Whip. That doesn't happen very often.
  • Is there any evidence that this was a targeted attack or assassination attempt? Let's not get caught up in media speculation on the motives. Modest Genius talk 18:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to step into the assassination charge just yet. Too little is known. Absolutely it was an assault with a deadly weapon, however. The odds of the shooter not knowing who he was shooting at, given the notoriety of the event, are impossibly slim.
  • Oppose, per Modest Genius. Yes, it is dominating news coverage both nationally and internationally at the moment, but I don't think it rises to the level of ITN, especially with the Grenfell Park fire (which actually did kill people) leading the section at the moment.
    Now if it had taken place at the actual game, that might have been different, but this was just a practice session. Daniel Case (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This was no ordinary mass shooting, but an assassination attempt against several Republican congresspeople who were apparently targeted because they were Republicans.(which is in the current reporting)[37] Oppose if you wish but this isn't normal for American politics. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would say regarding the blurb that only the shooter has died; I think we typically don't include that information in a way that suggests the perpetrator was a victim. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose This looks like a near miss from being a political assassination/massacre. Thank God for the police. But at the moment the only death is the gunman and the other injuries don't appear life threatening. If we were in one of ITNs periodic long dry spells I'd probably support this, but we are not. Right now I don't think it's enough for ITN, especially given the level of violent crime that routinely occurs in the United States and the fact that we generally ignore mass shooting that don't involve a very high death toll. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is big, an attempted assassination doesn't happen too often, and this can be tied to the Kathy Griffin and the Shakespeare play incidents. Regardless, someone targeting members of a specific party to kill, is notable. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The shooting is "in the news", so it should be "In the News". If you really care about the greater significance beyond the news of the day, it's an assassination attempt on members of the U.S. Congress. This is not a "run of the mill" shooting. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ITN is not a news ticker. We're supposed to highlight articles which have been updated to reflect important current events which will have long-term encyclopaedic value. Not everything that appears in the newspapers is suitable for ITN. Modest Genius talk 18:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, attempted assassination on US Congressmen doesn't happen every day. --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ad Orientem and per Modest Genius. Christian Roess (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Not the typical type of shooting in the US. Politically motivated assassination attempt(s) that thankfully failed. Ample coverage of this story as well. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - ASITUSA. The only death was the shooter. We have to set the bar really high on attempted assassinations, and a Congressman isn't going to cut it for ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "ASITUSA"? Only 435 of them (plus 100 Senators) out of over 324 million isn't a high enough bar? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @WaltCip: It isn't even just Congressmen, but a member of Congressional leadership that was injured(the majority whip) and clearly targeted for political reasons(the shooter asked which party was on the field before he started) . 331dot (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Sounds rather macabre, but I would have supported if there were high-profile deaths. As it is, it's just a standard USA mass shooting that happened to include a few people of notability. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. This is a tough one. Yes, mass shootings happen regularly in the US and the perpetrator was the only death, but an assassination attempt of a member of Congress is very rare and this came very close to succeeding - it was only because a member with a leadership position was there that there was security at all, according to Rand Paul [38].--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While I'm not sure whether this should be posted at ITN, I want to say that I strongly disagree with the argument made by Modest Genius and others that this is a common event in the United States. The attempted assassination of a congressman is not at all common, and very different in terms of the attention it receives than things like inner-city violence or some disgruntled worker shooting their coworkers. I believe this is only the second time a member of congress has been injured in an assassination attempt during my lifetime (I'm almost 36). For comparison, I believe 4 British Members of Parliament have been assassinated during my lifetime, and at least a couple others have been significantly injured in attacks. Saying this sort of thing happens a lot in the US or that the event isn't even notable is just nonsense. That being said, given the lack of fatalities other than the perpetrator, I'm not sure if this rises to the level of posting at ITN. Calathan (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unless it would have any influence on gun legislation and that is just crystal balling. Not notable enough in itself for me with the incredibly deep partisan divide in the US and despite being an "assassination attempt". Politically motivated crimes from the left and right surely are not uncommon nowadays (the Portland mess for example) as are mass shootings in general. Only thing that sets this apart is that people who could actually bring about change got targeted. But in general i wouldnt say that an injured public office holder is more notable than a couple of dead in the many shootings that take place in the US regularly. And as for being in the news everywhere, well news is a business and the 24/7 news cycle needs to get filled so... yea, that isnt a very high bar anymore either in my oppinion. 91.49.74.201 (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While it is Yet Another Shooting in the US, it was at a gathering of several Congressmen. An assassination attempt at federal gov't officials is not thing that happens even close to routinely as other gun crimes in the US. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Another day, another shooting. In fact, that was the second shooting today: four killed in San Francisco. There is nothing notable nor interesting about either of them. Isa (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Isanae: Was the San Francisco shooting against several Congresspeople, including a member of leadership, targeted for political reasons? 331dot (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing notable nor interesting about either of them. Do what? Please tell me your joking. If your not that might cause me to question your judgement to the degree that I wonder if you should even be commenting here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, that escalated to ad hominem quickly. Isa (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments that are inane at best, and callous at worst are not exempt from being called out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your viewpoint, but (correct me if I am invoking incorrectly) what about WP:AGF? - Stormy clouds (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. An assassination attempt against such a high-ranking politician with blatant political motivation is a very rare event. I'm baffled at people who say there's nothing "interesting" about it. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - attacks against politicians are rare the US, so it's big news.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A shooting of a congress member (let alone a Majority Whip) is very unusual; the last one before this was Giffords in 2011. This is a very sad situation illustrating how divided our nation has become... EternalNomad (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability, third ranking member of congress in critical condition, many wounded, would-be assassin with political motives and high-powered weapon shot dead, worldwide coverage. μηδείς (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is in great shape, especially considering it was just created hours ago. Marking as ready. Mamyles (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Article is great. however, US mass shootings are not rare, and this was a failed assassination with no fatalities. On a slow news day, fine, but on a day with another mass shooting (not politically motivated, but still), no. Four are dead in San Francisco, and it has (justifiably) not been nominated. No fatalities whatsoever means this gets an oppose, unfortunately, no matter how morbidly interesting. WP:UNDUE in my view, especially if no long term change occurs as a result (And we can't say that it will - WP:CRYSTAL. Oppose - Stormy clouds (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Stormy clouds: The perpetrator is dead. Oh, and the targets were members of Congress, not UPS workers. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: - We don't count perpetrator among fatalities on ITN (see talk). Oh, and unlike the UPS workers, none of the Congressmen are dead. - Stormy clouds (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Joseph: - 2011, if I am not mistaken. And the congress person did not die then either, so I would have opposed it too. Especially if there were more severe shootings the same day. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Stormy clouds: So someone has to die in order to be mentioned? Is that a new policy you just made up? That a Congressman was shot in an attempted assassination is extremely notable and it reflects poorly on Wikipedia that it's not mentioned. I am trying to AGF but it's hard to not think that there is a bias among people who are opposing the mention on the front page. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Joseph: - I did not make up that rule, but it is a pretty good metric to adopt, or else the main page would be like an RNS news feed. I am frankly rather offended that you would assume bias (an unfounded claim, as far as I can see) simply because, due to WP:UNDUE and the lack of lasting consequences (again, no one is dead), that I oppose. Slamming bias on those who disagree with you in debate and discourse discourages further discussion, and violates much of the good natured grounding of Wikipedia. While we are at it though, claiming this has links to Kathy Griffin is unencyclopedic and rather tabloid-esque, and exposes a clear, non-centred perspective - she is far from the first to fictionally refer to the murder of politicians. Or was the Hollywood elite also at fault here? I assure you that I am not biased against the US or the GOP. Moreover, I'll lend those in support the same courtesy. I just don't think this is ITN material - it is a viewpoint (supported by the aforementioned Wikipedia rules), not a liberal cuck conspiracy. - Stormy clouds (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with reasoning of Stormy clouds. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The name of the article has been changed to 2017 Congressional baseball shooting (without the capital letter on baseball).
  • Unmarking as ready - there is too much dissent and disagreement here to call this one as consensus yet. (if I am incorrect or biased in this assertion reverse it). Stormy clouds (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um you are involved here though, shouldn't a neutral party unmark this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, any user can (un)mark. [Ready] is just encouraging a neutral administrator to judge consensus, and is added if a user believes consensus may be reached. Mamyles (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think about it, if we want to get picky, SC should not be allowed to mark or even post here, since the topic is either US Politics or Gun Control and that requires someone to be EC which he isn't, being under 500 posts. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Joseph: - Justifiable, but harsh. I have adhered to the rules here as far as I can see, but if you want me to go away, I will with haste. Your wish is my command, those I hope you allow me remain in the interests of impartiality. If I have crossed a line, please tell me so - as you correctly pointed out, I am a novice here, trying to learn. - Stormy clouds (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I won't lie however - this sort of rhetoric is dissapointing and disheartening to me. - Stormy clouds (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And yet absolutely the norm. To say that it disheartening is one thing, but to me it also appears as a chilling effect. You, me, and perhaps others that commented here should all be disregarded then. That it even was checked if you do have 500 edits is quite worrying to be honest, even if technically perhaps correct (the best way of being correct after all lol)91.49.70.200 (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Obviously not just another mass shooting. Big news also in Italy. --Jaqen (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The oppose opinions are not convincing, this was a high profile attack. I agree with others here questioning why a death must almost always be involved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as it stands from a quick head count, there are 14 in support, and 9 in opposition. While this clearly indicates a majority, where lies the threshold for consensus? I for one do not know in this case where it is. Can a more experienced editor please tell me if we are at consensus or no consensus? - Stormy clouds (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not a vote count, it's the weighted merit of arguments. Essentially this boils down to which argument is better: that having high profile targets and a large amount of global coverage means this should be posted, or that there were few casualties for this to be significant/notable. Mamyles (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mamyles: - thanks for the clarification. I was unsure on the procedure here. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support not a "mass shooting" this was a targeted assassination attempt. Getting awfully tired of "yawn another mass shooting in America" since vehicular murder seems to be totally out of control in Europe and yet we melt the WP servers heaping on support every single time it happens. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being a citizen of the US and a european country i do have to agree with you there, nutjobs killing people for various reasons in europe is almost as common as it is in the US. Means are different but that is about it. But anyway, exactly that "yawn effect" for me is a very sad side effect of things like this, a non polilically motivated shooting or what have you. People get numb to it quite fast. It is a shocking crime, just like any other shooting in the US or any vehicular murder in europe. And both are sadly way too common. But getting all defensive about something like that and basically "lashing out" at another too common tragedy is not the best aproach, dont you think? 91.49.70.200 (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@CosmicAdventure: - I understand your viewpoint, and as a European can also agree that the epidemic of vehicular assaults is draining. However, there are clear differences between this incident and the ones to which you are referring. A) People die in those attacks, and the fatalities make it noteworthy and of lasting impact. Terror attacks which result in no fatalities, or only see the perpetrator die, are often not even nominated. (See 2017 Louvre machete attack, as well as another Parisien incident in January), and this incident is one such case. B) Those are terror attacks - the incidents to which you refer are orchestrated by an organised terror group - Daesh/ISIL, which makes them more globally notable and of lasting impact, as they could strike again, killing more people. When such attacks occur in the US, irresepective of method, they are posted (Pulse, San Bernadinho). This incident appears to be a one-off, and to assume it is part of a concerted effort is WP:CRYSTAL. C) Even despite their recent regularity, these attacks are far less frequent than mass shootings in the US, so featuring them is fine. To address this shooting would be WP:UNDUE, especially if more severe shootings with fatalities are neglected. D) No lasting consequence - those attacks have long lasting consequences on a global stage. Barring legislation change in the Capitol, this one will not (to assume this will happen is crystal balling), so it is frankly of less consequence to ITN. Apologies for the convoluted and long answer. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not buying this argument put forth by most of the "support" voters that this was a "targeted assassinations attempt" of a high-ranking political official. And therefore this is not just another mass shooting, just because one of America's "power elite" was almost killed. The problem with this argument is that the shooter (the perpetrator) is dead, and so we are just speculating about the shooter's real motives. Yeah, I know the argument here is to "connect the dots" and it seems an obvious political assassination attempt. But it's not our job here at Wikipedia to "connect the dots," or engage in this kind of speculation. Christian Roess (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not speculation; witnesses have reported that the shooter asked if it was Republicans or Democrats on the field and started shooting after he got the answer. He was there to harm Republican members of Congress.(I link to the source above). 331dot (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look, if we want to post this as an ITN item because it was a mass shooting involving Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Congress, that's fine. All I said was that I didn't buy into the "support"-voters who are calling this a targeted assassination. Witnesses report that the shooter asked if Republicans or Democrats were around and ipso facto it's now quite clearly a case of a targeted assassination attempt (?), no ifs-ands-or-buts? Speculation. Or at best, pure conjecture. Furthermore, the perpetrator is dead, so he isn't able to give first-hand testimony. - Christian Roess (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted, without the assumption that the attacker was targeting Republicans, which is likely but unproven, and not really an essential detail. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Leo Varadkar becomes Taoiseach[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: Leo Varadkar (talk · history · tag) and Fine Gael leadership election, 2017 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Leo Varadkar becomes Taoiseach of Ireland. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Following his election as leader of Fine Gael on 2 June, Leo Varadkar becomes Taoiseach of Ireland.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The Dáil (Ireland's House of Commons) elects Leo Varadkar (pictured) as Taoiseach (Prime Minister).
Alternative blurb III: ​ The Dáil (Ireland's House of Commons) elects the Fine Gael Party's new leader, Leo Varadkar (pictured) as Taoiseach (Prime Minister).
News source(s): BBC, RTÉ
Credits:

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: In the discussion at the time of the party leadership election the was a split between posting at the time and waiting for Varadkar to become Taoiseach (prime minister). It wasn't posted at the time. Leo Varadkar is the bold article if we go with the simple "there's a new Taoiseach" line. Alternatively we lead with the detailed Fine Gael leadership election, 2017 article which goes into more depth of how he came to be the successor, although this event actually occurred a few weeks ago. Both articles are in an OK state. LukeSurl t c 13:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: As one of those who favoured waiting until he was actually elected by the Dail, I now support posting (subject to the usual quality checks, which I leave to others better qualified to assess such things), as he has now been elected. I will probably shortly add an altblurb that mentions the Dail vote, since that's what made him Taoiseach, but I'm happy to go along with the existing blurb if that's preferred. (I'm now off to bed, so I'll leave the updates to others, and I'll also let others worry about whether the blurb should mention that he's gay and half-Indian, which is arguably what makes his elevation more notable than usual). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Oppose until the article is properly updated. As of right now this development is not reflected in the lead and there is scant information on his election as Taoiseach in the body of the article. Fix this and we should be good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support primary blurb. Article has been adequately updated and looks good enough for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support altblurb 1. Not the most influential post in the world, and wasn't through a general election, but nonetheless an interesting appointment of a head of government. Modest Genius talk 14:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt 2 per previous discussions – assuming the article is adequately updated. Fine Gael isn't needed in the blurb. Sca (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Leo Varadkar article contains the basic information now. If editors consider there to be deficiencies in this, please add them or outline what needs to be done. --LukeSurl t c 15:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - proposed this when he won the leadership election in Fine Gael. Certainly notable and the articles are ready to go as far as I see. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - strongly oppose alt blurbs 2 and 3 however. The links exist to inform curious readers what the Dáil and Taoiseach are. One would not describe the US Senate as (America's House of Lords) in an ITN blurb, and the same principle stands here. Original or Alt 1 are far better. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alt2 was suggested to make the blurb readily intelligible to the largest proportion of readers. The roughly 300 million native speakers of U.S. English comprise about two-thirds of all native speakers of English worldwide. Taoiseach is a non-English word unknown to most English speakers, and I see nothing wrong – or offensive to Hibernophiles such as Stormy – with putting prime minister (lower case) in parentheses after it as an explanation. Sca (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: - I understand that, but then referring to the Dáil as Ireland's House of Commons is not going to help the Americans out too much in my opinion, being a uniquely Anglophilic of concepts. Besides, will the standard Wikipedian not be willing to click the link and find out. I get the aim, but the blurb is sloppy, overly long, and leaves out a well-sourced companion article that explains a weird (by foreign standards) succession. Tuigim nach bhfuil muid ar fad in ann an teanga dhúchais a tuiscint go soileir, but I trust users (may be misguided in this though). Stormy clouds (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Transparency. Sca (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection, I much prefer Alt 1, so would go with it. I would also adopt the image which has been added. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Modest Genius talk 16:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as per previous nomination, additional notability is derived from his status as Ireland's first homosexual Taoiseach, as well as being the first Irish leader of Indian descent. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now has universal support and issues with the article seem to have been addressed. Marking ready. Modest Genius talk 19:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the delay in posting?: It was marked Ready 2 hours ago, and nobody has objected, so what's stopping it being posted? Tlhslobus (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bongwarrior. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tlhslobus: The delay will have been waiting for an uninvolved (or not significantly involved) admin who had the time to (a) assess the consensus and (b) check the state of the article. Exactly the same as with everything that gets posted. Sometimes a nomination is marked ready just as a suitable admin is checking their watchlist, other times it will be a few hours before someone is available - it's entirely luck of the draw. Thryduulf (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Thryduulf. For future reference, how long do you recommend waiting before asking 'Why the delay?'? (Or alternatively is it genuinely never necessary to ask?) Tlhslobus (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And would it be useful to add your reply to the 'Please do not' list near the top of this page (e.g. Please do not ask 'why the delay in posting?', unless there have been no objections to posting since it was marked 'Ready', and at least X hours have elapsed.)? (Note: I'm expecting that this conversation will be very short, as otherwise it should presumably be moved to Wikipedia talk:In the news). Tlhslobus (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's been more than 5-6 hours then you can ask an admin to take a look. This is best done by placing a message on the talk page of an admin who is a regular at ITN, who is active currently or has recently been active, and who has not participated in the discussion. They are not obliged to do anything of course. Posting on the nomination thread is unlikely to achieve anything in most cases. This isn't on the "please don't" list as this is not something that comes up very often and the list is not exhaustive (to keep it manageable and avoid tldr). Thryduulf (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Hein Verbruggen[edit]

Article: Hein Verbruggen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBCWashington Post
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Fram (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Article is quite good in quality. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The "Controversy" section needs significantly more citations - I've tagged. Some of these points may be covered by existing refs but it isn't clear. Thryduulf (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose too lopsided for my liking. I get that cycling went through a rough patch during his tenure (think Sepp Blatter) but when a controversy section outweighs the rest of the biography at the rate of 2+:1 it's about time to considered trimming it and/or writing more about what he achieved as president. The biography section, in comparison, is fairly weak. Fuebaey (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stale and will not be posted (the four people currently listed as Recent Deaths died more recently than this). BencherliteTalk 07:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted - moved to ongoing] Grenfell Tower fire[edit]

Posted, and will remain so. Stephen 03:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Grenfell Tower fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 24-storey Grenfell Tower in London (pictured) is gutted by fire. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The 24-storey Grenfell Tower in London (pictured) is destroyed by fire with a number of fatalities reported.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Major fire destroys a residential tower block. Mjroots (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for sufficient details to emerge, though I find it difficult to envisage circumstances in which I wouldn't support. Would invite people who are minded to oppose until significance is demonstrated (I'm often one of them) to take a look at the pictures of the incident to understand why this is not a premature nomination. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC) Switched to support. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I don't think the originally nominated image would be particularly helpful. Undoubtedly free images of the incident itself will be uploaded in the very near future. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that a picture of the burning/burnt out building would be better, but we don't have one yet. Mjroots (talk) 05:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We now have an image of the smoking building. Swapped into nom. Mjroots (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I would support this - I'm watching Sky News and people are talking about the historic nature of the fire, and there could be hundreds of people killed - "unprecedented" is what they are saying. Of course we'll know more later today but there should be considerable interest in the article. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprecendented is one of those words that is used far too often nowadays. It was used on Sky's coverage of election night more than once. That said, my eyes and memory tell me that it's likely to be accurate in this instance. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Error in Template:Reply to: Input contains forbidden characters. Already been posted, but I want to clarify that it wasn't the journalists' opinion, but they were quoting an expert who called it unprecedented (I think someone with city of London or fire expert). Sky started repeating its live feed and I saw this bit twice, so I remember that. I know how TV hypes things up. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A building with no real previous notability, and with no deaths that I see reported. Such fires happen all the time, this doesn't seem unusual. (Contrast that to the fire in a Baghdad building fire we posted about 6 monhts or so ago, that was notable before it was destroyed by fire, and which killed numerous people. This is an example of bad article that fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NEVENT. --MASEM (t) 05:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The suggestion that entire 24 storey buildings are completely gutted by fire all the time is a complete nonsense, invalidating the rest of your argument about the article itself. That is of course separate from the question of whether we should post, where you're right to point out (by inference) that there is not yet sufficient evidence to suggest that this is exceptional enough. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A key point is what importance this building had before the fire. A 24-story building is extremely commonplace in the world (and certainly in London), and as it appears to be just an apartment building, that makes the importance even less important. If it was, say, The Shard or Canary Wharf Tower , which have a notable history due their importance/architecture, that might be something. But this is very much similar equivalent to BLP1E , for buildings. Without any significant casualities nor something appearing to have been set maliciously, it is something that happens, and not a news story. --MASEM (t) 06:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The Shaanxi Y-8 8520 of the Myanmar Air Force had no notability before it crashed, much the same as Grenfell Tower before it was gutted by fire. So that's the end of the BLP1E-like argument. It is the biggest fire in London for decades, leaving 120 families (300+ people?) homeless. I don't know how you can say it is not news, when it is being reported in the Netherlands, Australia, Singapore and no doubt many other countries. Mjroots (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Accidents that cause significant causalities are different types of events, where it doesn't happen what happened before but the aftereffects. (and with any type of aviation event, there is usually an extensive detailed investigation to make sure it does not happen again, whereas building fires do not get close to the same detailed review). Also, to argue about the 300+ people temporarily displaced compared to deaths from other significant world tragedies going on (but which don't get significant coverage due to the long tail of events such as the Syrian civil war), this is arguably trying to push a first-world problem. Mind you, I suspect that there was initial concern due to the heightened terror situation that "a fire in a London skyscraper" could be a possible terrorist attack, but it's clearly been proven as a simple accident. --MASEM (t) 06:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No such thing has been proven in respect of the cause of the fire. Kindly refrain from making such assertions. Mjroots (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You say it fails WP:NEVENT, but is lead article on all UK news sites, television and radio. Wait before posting, but clearly a notable event. yorkshiresky (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not look at a spat of news to determine notability but the enduring coverage of a topic. There is no indication that in a week (for example) this will still be news. If it turns out there were significant casualities or damage in the surrounding buildings, maybe that's something, but this is a routine fire. This is what should be coverage at Wikinews, not an encyclopedia looking for long-term topics of importance. --MASEM (t) 06:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We won't know the death toll until firefighters are able to go through the building, but it has been suggested the ultimate death toll could be as high as 100. The fire department has confirmed fatalities, but has refrained from giving a number so far. Dragons flight (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Death toll aside, Ronan Point (half a century ago) is a good example of why the thrust of Masem's argument is garbage. Firefighters have confirmed "a number of fatalities", so clearly in that regard this at a minimum matches Ronan Point. Clearly it is not common for fires to spread so rapidly through buildings of this size - they're normally specifically designed to withstand and contain fire for a considerbale time (indeed it's being reported that the fire safety advice within this very building in the event of a fire below was to close the doors, block the cracks in the doors and call the emergency services). And if, as seems highly likely, there is a non-malicious root cause behind this fire, it's likely that the pressure to legislate and make changes will be on a par with Ronan Point.
    All of this is of course separate from the question of posting, but for as long as an ITN regular is making the assertion that the article shouldn't exist stands (that assertion, if supported, would automatically prevent posting), it's appropriate to continue the conversation here. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please keep in mind, at the time of my comments, there were no reports of fatalities; injured yet, but no deaths. A lot does change now that there are fatalities. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clearly a very significant news event. Spurious arguments above suggesting this is a common occurrence should be discounted. Also important to note that some of the "refurbishment" regarding the addition of plastic cladding, concerns regarding health and safety and some of the advice issued by the authorities about staying inside in the event of an fire could have made this incident more newsworthy than usual. Also being live broadcast in several countries. AusLondonder (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now confirmed that there are fatalities, number not reported. Mjroots (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. The speculation is that there is likely to have been a large number of fatalities. Assuming that is correct, I support posting once a preliminary death toll has been reported. Dragons flight (talk) 07:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose sensational, for sure. But fires do happen, everday, around the world. That media coverage is skewed towards global cities such as London should not dictate what we post here and what not. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per AusLondonder. Fortunately fires like this are not everyday occurences, despite some comments above. Optimist on the run (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support due to it being confirmed that there are a number of fatalities, and due to the spread of a fire over such a large building in such a short space of time being unusual. Building regulations specifically require high rise buildings to be able to withstand the spread of fire for a certain period of time, and therefore either the nature of the fire was exceptional, or the shortcomings of the building have had exceptional consequences. In this regard this seems comparable to the Ronan Point explosion, with what appears to be a significantly greater casualty count.
    My previous stance of wait and see seems untenable, because the nature of the opposition convinces me that the discussion will be stalled out indefinitely if I don't nail my colours to the mast. That is not a criticism of the people in question's stances, but of my lack of confidence in the functioning ITNC. I have no confidence that this process is anything other than a vote count nowadays. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked as ready. Mjroots (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have removed the [Ready] - we don't have a suitable blurb yet ("gutted by fire" is simultaneously sensationalist, and yet downplays the fact that many people have lost their lives) and several people above have commented Wait. Smurrayinchester 08:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, suggestions for alternative blurbs are welcome. Blurb can always be updated once posted (I can do this myself). I could have posted this myself, but I didn't because I nominated it. Admin tools are not to be used for an admin to gain an advantage over a non-admin. Marking as ready merely flags the situation up for an uninvoled admin to make a final decision on. Mjroots (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the image used above is currently tagged as lacking permission on Commons. Optimist on the run (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Original image returned to the nom. Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • FWIW I see little point in using the original image. I would actually rather people complained about us running the story with an unrelated image, as that tends to speed up the process of a free one being uploaded. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as there were "several hundred people in the building" when the fire started, so it's clearly a rather notable event. Sentence needs a hyphen, though: "The 24-storey Grenfell Tower..."
  • Comment added altblurb, a number of sources are reporting saying the building is destroyed. yorkshiresky (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's in the news and the article title isn't obvious so ITN will help editors and readers in navigating to the topic. Such major fires are notable because they are not so frequent in London – see Fires in London. Andrew D. (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The most recent similar fire in the UK I can find was the 2009 Lakanal House tower block fire which was half the height of this tower, and it's almost certainly the most significant fire in London since the 2011 riots. File:Grenfell Tower fire morning.jpg is a better picture though. Thryduulf (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is getting a great deal of news coverage and this sort of event is rare(large towers catching fire). 331dot (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Major news event, article in good shape, etc. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted with Alt, and original image pending permission on the one of the building on fire. Black Kite (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When the death toll is reported, please don't write "(including X children)" that always feels really tacky to me. Every death is a tragedy, and the # each of dead and injured will suffice. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and please change the picture to this.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The free-nature of that image is under debate, so we can't use it until it is cleared up. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about this one, but clipped?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No permission confirmed for that one yet, either (see the OTRS notice). Black Kite (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be OK on this one now. Thincat (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... and this one too. I think the first one is more illustrative. The photographer has put a CC licence on Twitter as noted in the file descriptions. Thincat (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm using the first one, anyone feel clear to change it if necessary. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose per Masen & IP. The importance of this event is overblown. Hard to imagine any kind of lasting impact from this kind of disaster. Banedon (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hard to imagine any kind of lasting impact"!? You mean other than the safety of every tower block in the country being called into question, examinations being carried out urgently into all buildings with similar cladding and all tower blocks that have recently been refurbished? Other than the government's inaction following the report into the lesser 2009 fire being called into question? Other than the safety of the government's cuts to the fire service being called into question? Other than the whole ecosystem of private management of council housing, and cuts to council housing budgets being seriously examined at a national level? As for "overblown" the fire is still not extinguished over 30 hours after it began, and the most senior officer of the largest fire brigade in the country calling it the most significant fire of hisher 3529-year career. I'm finding it extremely hard to believe that you've actually read anything about this incident at all. Thryduulf (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • minor corrections. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thryduulf, you are illustrating why I think it's hard to imagine this has any kind of lasting impact. This is a story in which reading the headline tells one everything that's worth knowing. All these reactions - from "the safety of every tower block in the country being called into question" to "cuts to council housing budgets being seriously examined" - are to be expected. There is nothing surprising about this, and nothing to see. Even if policy changes to the tune of "UK government approves large increase to council housing budgets" happen, that is still something not appropriate to ITN, since it's completely internal to the UK. Besides, as per longstanding ITN convention, we post these when they actually happen, not when they start being considered. If this actually leads to some kind of worldwide change in building policy, then that might be something, but I don't see it happening. As for the most senior officer of the largest fire brigade in the country calling it the most significant fire of her career, that simply means she wasn't around during other, more significant fires, e.g. the World Trade Center burning down in the 9/11 attacks. This kind of statement sounds impressive, but once you compare things on a global scale, where there are thousands of firemen with decade-long careers, it really isn't. Banedon (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really think any judgement like that is a little premature when very many are still unaccounted for and the final death toll totally unknown. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given the numbers being reported missing and statements that no further survivors are likely, the final death toll could exceed 50. Mjroots (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • And it's worth noting, Masem's oppose vote was early, before any fatalities had been reported, so voting now "per Masem" is misleading.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • The prime minister has also announced a public enquiry into the fire and its circumstances, and The Sun has devoted about half today's paper to the story (not a publication I regard as a reliable source, or endorse, but I happened to spot it in the supermarket rack) - neither things associated with a run-of-the-mill event. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Bencherlite I can see why you did this, but it's a bit odd, surely. The fire has been put out; what continues is the political upheaval, and I'm not sure that makes it ITN worthy. Vanamonde (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then nominate it for removal if you want and see what people think. BencherliteTalk 07:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 13[edit]

June 13, 2017 (2017-06-13) (Tuesday)
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: Anita Pallenberg[edit]

Article: Anita Pallenberg (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 —MBlaze Lightning T 09:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Generally referencing is good. There are a couple of "page needed" tags for book references which ideally should be cleared up.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Bangladesh landslides[edit]

Article: 2017 Bangladesh landslides (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ More than 150 people are killed in Bangladesh’s worst-ever monsoon-related landslides. (Post)
News source(s): BBCReuters Al Jazeera
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: More than 100 died. Article still stub, waiting for updates. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't bother, a fire in London is more important to the Wikipedia crowds.
If you don't like what the "crowd" chooses, feel free to join the crowd and/or contribute to the article to bring it up to an appropriate posting standard. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, the readership for these two topics was Fire=347,223 vs Landslide=322. That's three orders of magnitude. I don't mind if the landslide gets posted too but it's still not going to get so much traffic. Andrew D. (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hard to judge this article because it is a stub, but to quote the BBC article: "Landslides caused by monsoons often occur in the southern hills in Bangladesh." So this isn't all that unusual there. Coverage of this, while it exists, seems limited. That said, if the article was significantly improved I could support it. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not enough of an article to judge at this stage, though the death toll suggests that if the article were there then there's a case. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on principle of notability. The last one with a similar death toll that we have an article for was ten years ago. 171.116.122.242 (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability. However, reluctant but strong oppose given the current state of the article. It is currently not in condition to be an article here at all, let alone on the main page. As it is fixed, post. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article should be redirected to 2017 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, since it was Deep Depression BOB 03 that caused the landslides.Jason Rees (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Five more sources have been added, as well as more details on the extent of the disaster and the response. Death toll figures are now 156 dead and more missing and injured. Al Jazeera quoted the head of Bangladesh's Disaster Management Department as saying that these landslides were the worst in the country's history. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marking "ready" for someone else to have a look at; article is on the short side, but is well referenced and appears to cover the basics, and no longer a stub. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support notable disaster and article in in a state adequate for posting. --LukeSurl t c 10:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article has been further updated with many more sources. Official death toll is now at 152, still more than than 2007 mudslides mentioned by 171.116.122.242. @331dot:, @StillWaitingForConnection:, @Stormy clouds: would you consider re-reviewing? And can anyone help with an image? Thank you, 70.67.222.124 (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@70.67.222.124: -  Done. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Ongoing] Qatar diplomatic crisis[edit]

Article: 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): Khaleej Times
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Still going strong with frequent updates Sherenk1 (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Things are happening but its nearly all diplomatic actions and nothing like wars or other crisis. Barring major changes I don't think this is good ongoing. --MASEM (t) 04:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, albeit reluctantly as this is entirely sensible nomination and worthy of serious consideration. My view however, is that we posted the break-off of relations as a blurb, and what has happened since is not uncommon when countries in close proximity to one another have recently broken-off relations. There's the justification, there's the blame game, there's the hardening of stances, there's the linking of the other countries to crime and/or of a threat to peace.
    For me, the justification for an ongoing would be the reasonable suggestion that the break-off of relations (and those things which were obviously going to be a direct consequence) are not as far as this situation goes. "Reasonable suggestion" is not a phrase we use often on Wikipedia, but seems an appropriate one here. No-one is going to scream at us from the rooftops condemning us for linking to this article on the main page if conflict does not follow. On the other hand, there will be people screaming at us from the rooftops if we do not treat future diplomatic disputes with the ongoing treatment, unless we have some form of reason to point to as to why this one was singled out.
    I'll conclude on two points, with the caveat that if made in isolation the former would seem sarcastic and the latter trying to put off the posting of a story I'm opposing, but both are meant in good faith as entirely straight and respectful comments. Firstly, if irregular and less than friendly interactions between neighbouring nations were in and of themselves sufficient for ongoing posts, we would have Israel and North Korea hard-coded into the template. The fact is that we do post those nations in blurbs from time-to-time, as and when specific actions which really do go above and beyond the "norm" of their relations come to light. Secondly, and assuming the argument is that those situations are decades old and therefore not comparable to this one, I would say that now is too soon to really judge whether this should be an ongoing. The immediate practical aftermath of the diplomatic severance is still emerging, and while that process is taking place it's hard to make a fair assessment of whether things are still getting notably worse, or whether we're seeing a lagging effect of news that has already been reported. In another couple of weeks it would be easier to make this assessment. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 12[edit]

June 12, 2017 (2017-06-12) (Monday)
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

[Posted] RD: Masahide Ōta[edit]

Article: Masahide Ōta (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Japanese politician - Vivvt (Talk) 09:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Article looks adequate to post. --LukeSurl t c 15:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Appended "Support" in above comment in good faith. @LukeSurl: feel free to revert if you don't like it. - Vivvt (Talk) 10:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gave it a copyedit and marked. Probably have to rethink RDs if a decently expanded nomination sits for five days with just one comment. Fuebaey (talk) 04:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. This wasn't nominated until the section was two-days old which is probably why it has sat for so long. If you want to discus how to avoid this then WT:ITN is the place. Thryduulf (talk) 07:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NBA Finals[edit]

Closing as stale at this point (older than oldest current blurb) --MASEM (t) 14:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: 2017 NBA Finals (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In basketball, the Golden State Warriors (Finals MVP Durant pictured) defeat the Cleveland Cavaliers to win the 2017 NBA Finals. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Game 5 needs a recap MASEM (t) 04:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • MVP is Kevin Durant, but I don't immediately see a good shot of him in the GS uniform that is free. --MASEM (t) 04:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why can't we use an OKC photo? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only because we don't have room to explain "Hey this was him only a few years ago" with the jersey change. But if that's not seen as a problem, then we do have images. --MASEM (t) 04:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some {{citation needed}} tags. Once they're good and Game 5 is recapped, we can post. Adding some images would be nice (see 2016 World Series). – Muboshgu (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle. I've also added picture of Kevin Durant who was named MVP of the Finals.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could we link MVP please? Not an acronym that's universally used. Black Kite (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] RD: C. Narayana Reddy[edit]

Nomination stale, article degraded by edit war and possible malicious editing. -- Stormy clouds (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: C. Narayana Reddy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sahitya Akademi Indian Express
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Prolific Indian poet - Vivvt (Talk) 09:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect a sockpuppet vandalism by Reddyvi. I have requested @Cyphoidbomb: to help me out on this. - Vivvt (Talk) 12:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any obvious connection to WP:PADMASOCK (as Vivvt suspected), or any glaring indication of sockpuppetry, but I do get the sense that Reddyvi is pushing ownership. Interested editors should keep an eye open for that. It's a brand new user making a lot of bold changes and strong assertions. Most of their edits are erroneously marked as minor, so they should probably be informed of the appropriate use of WP:MINOR. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Cyphoidbomb: for your comments. If not sock we might simply have to deal with him. But I doubt a new user would know how to revert an edit and also address an editor in almost all their edit summaries.
I personally have no energy to sit and teach such people. I might let the article get hampered than let that happen to my brain. - Vivvt (Talk) 03:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article appears reasonably comprehensive and is in good enough shape. No major gaps in sourcing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Wait - the edit history as well as above comments indicate an edit war. Our hands are tied until this is resolved. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - definite edit war. Messages left on talk pages. Cannot be posted mid-dispute, irrespective of all other factors. Neither parties, including the nominator, appear innocent, and the dispute must be resolved ASAP. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes @Stormy clouds:, I am off the article now and given the rants the other part throws at the article's talk page while conversing with @There'sNoTime: I think this might just go stale with the poor quality of article and unsourced stuff stuffed in it now. For the record, the article's version which @Thryduulf and Sherenk1: supported is here. - Vivvt (Talk) 03:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vivvt: - Very well. Then I am happy to support on notability. Stormy clouds (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Stormy clouds: Notability is never a question for RD. Quality is. And thanks to another IP it has degraded more. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 11[edit]

June 11, 2017 (2017-06-11) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

[Closed] Puerto Rican referendum[edit]

Strong consensus against posting this. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Puerto Rican status referendum, 2017 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Puerto Rico votes in a referendum to become a U.S. state. (Post)
News source(s): NY Times, Independent
Credits:
 Brandmeistertalk 07:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment does this actually mean they will be accepted into the US or is there another round of decision-making for Trump and his cronies? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are many more rounds, and US PR is pretty profligate with referendums.128.214.163.160 (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, oppose as it seems this has happened before and still no actual "becoming a State" actually happened. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Oppose Per NBC, this was because of a result of low turnout because party leaders who opposed statehood asked their followers to boycott the referendum, and they did. Also, per the same source, the result of the vote was non-binding. If this had happened without the boycott, then I might consider supporting. The Rambling Man, to answer your question, according to NBC, the next step is for the Puerto Rican governor to take the vote to Congress as proof the PR wants to become a state. (That was my understanding, anyway.) — Gestrid (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This was pretty much a nonbinding poll of the populace where most of them didn't show up. Congress doesn't have to (and probably won't given everything else going on in DC now) listen to them. These votes have occurred every so often before without effect. Probably the President signing a statehood bill would be the only postable milestone in PR becoming a state. 331dot (talk) 07:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While we did post Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012, it's unclear what impact this referendum will have, if any. Would potentially consider if/when US Congress approves statehood. SpencerT♦C 10:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. If this leads to any actual legislative movement (by the US Congress) towards making Puerto Rico a state, then we can consider it. A non-binding plebiscite which purely confirms the result of five years ago (which had no real result) doesn't change anything on its own. Modest Genius talk 10:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No lasting impact.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: Errol Christie[edit]

Article: Errol Christie (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Times
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: English boxer. EternalNomad (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Ongoing] Marawi crisis[edit]

Article: Marawi crisis (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Nominate for ongoing Sherenk1 (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Significant developments in a short amount of time. 221.205.107.138 (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose According to the article, the most recent notable events happened on June 4, 6, 9 and 11, or just less than 1 update every two days. All of these, except the June 4 update were crime-blotter or body-count updates. Event has picked up in the news, but I am still unconvinced that the article is suitable for Ongoing.128.214.163.160 (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical question. Shouldn't this nomination be showing up in purple? The Ongoing line in the template is marked yes. 331dot (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @331dot: I just previewed it with the parameter set to "add", and it showed up in purple then. It seems the parameter doesn't recognize "yes" as a valid answer, so it defaults to "no". I've gone ahead and fixed it. — Gestrid (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While stuff has been happening in the past week, updates from that point (Marawi crisis#June 6 and on) have been underwhelming. This had been bumped to Ongoing before, but lack of consistent updates at that point led to removal. I'm not convinced it will stay at a reasonable enough update quality and quantity to be suitable for Ongoing. SpencerT♦C 10:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Stanley Cup Finals[edit]

Article: 2017 Stanley Cup Finals (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Pittsburgh Penguins defeat the Nashville Predators in Game 6 of the 2017 Stanley Cup Finals winning their second consecutive Stanley Cup. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In ice hockey, the Pittsburgh Penguins defeat the Nashville Predators to win the Stanley Cup.
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 StrikeDog (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support and note that this nom is ITNR. Decent amount of prose and game summaries. 128.214.69.204 (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) This is on ITNR, adding the template parameter. Mostly looks good - there are referenced prose summaries of each game and a decent amount of content. However, the 'Teams' section is currently unreferenced. Fix that and I'll support the alt blurb. Note ITNR indicates we should also mention the Conn Smythe winner. Modest Genius talk 10:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Modest Genius; sort the "Teams" section out and it's an easy support. Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The details in the Teams sections are lifted from the teams' respective 2016-2017 season pages, which are in turn sourced to the NHL. There's a convention that actors' and musicians' film/discography does not need to be sourced, so long as those items have a Wikipedia page and it is in turn acceptably referenced. Should there not be a similar allowance here?128.214.69.204 (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That "allowance" is lazy and should be discouraged. Relying on Wikipedia articles which change regularly to verifiably source information is inadequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on whether WP:ICEHOCKEY should have such a rule, but bold links from the Main Page are held to higher standards than other articles. Consensus at ITN has been that every section needs references. It shouldn't be hard to find sources to cite for those statements. Modest Genius talk 11:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Unsourced sections. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: no progress has been made on the unreferenced sections. Modest Genius talk 10:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 10[edit]

June 10, 2017 (2017-06-10) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi freed under an amnesty[edit]

Articles: Saif al-Islam Gaddafi (talk · history · tag) and Aftermath of the 2011 Libyan Civil War (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Saif al-Islam Gaddafi released under an amnesty by the Zintan militia group Abu Bakr al-Siddiq Battalion (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

First article updated, second needs updating

 Count Iblis (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Not notable enough to put on ITN. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

French Open[edit]

Article: 2017 French Open – Women's Singles (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In tennis, Jeļena Ostapenko defeats Simona Halep at the 2017 French Open (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ (if Halep will win) In tennis, Simona Halep defeats Jeļena Ostapenko at the French Open and becomes first Romanian WTA number 1.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Rafael Nadal defeats Stan Wawrinka and Jeļena Ostapenko defeats Simona Halep at the 2017 French Open.
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 EugεnS¡m¡on 08:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

  • Wait Till both mens' singles and womens' singles winners have been announced, and we can include them in a single, grammatical blurb. Vanamonde (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC) till we have at least one winner, per below. Vanamonde (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previously for tennis majors when the women's article was ready we've posted that and updated the blurb with the men's when that comes in. I prefer that approach. --LukeSurl t c 08:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. We doesn't have to wait for both winners, because could be complicated to include Halep's World No.1 if she will win. EugεnS¡m¡on 09:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Lacks a match summary. When I click on an article I'd like to read what the French Open was about. What I got from the article is a bunch of stats (why don't I just visit the official website?) and trivia (why should I care that Ostapenko was the first Latvian?). What I don't get is a description of how she won the title. Did you know she lost the first set? How? Oh, I just read the score and clicked on a reference. That defeats the purpose of highlighting the article.
I would also wait for the men's singles to conclude before posting since ITNSPORTS explicitly states both male and female events. Posting one and forgoing consensus to post the other, to me at least, looks like an excuse to use ITN primarily as a news ticker. Fuebaey (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 9[edit]

June 9, 2017 (2017-06-09) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Politics and elections
Sports

[Posted] United Nations Ocean Conference[edit]

Article: United Nations Ocean Conference (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ On June 9 the United Nations Ocean Conference concludes with a Call for Action for the conservation and sustainable use of the oceans, seas and marine resources. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ On 9 June the United Nations Ocean Conference ends at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City.
Alternative blurb II: ​ On 9 June the United Nations Ocean Conference concludes with a Call for Action for the conservation and sustainable use of the oceans, seas and marine resources signed by representatives of the 193 UN member states.
Alternative blurb III: ​ On 9 June the United Nations Ocean Conference concludes with a Call for Action for the conservation and sustainable use of the oceans, seas and marine resources signed by representatives of the 193 UN member states, over 1,300 voluntary commitments and financial pledges.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ The inaugural United Nations Ocean Conference concludes with over 1,300 voluntary commitments by UN member states on marine protected areas, marine debris reduction and other strategic measures to promote marine conservation and sustainable use of marine resources.
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Global, highly notable news which got extensive news coverage around the world and is more than appropriate here.

What follows is a list of arguments that speak for an inclusion of the item in the In the news-section. Further down you will find a tl;dr.
Nominator's reasoning for inclusion
It is a bit lengthy as I intended to properly include all major arguments for inclusion and as I consider this a discussion of high global importance (due to which I dedicated my time and effort to it). I also ask for a proper discussion which requires some time to unfold and opposers to address the specific points made if they choose to oppose the inclusion:
  • It gained major news coverage around the world, among those covering it are:
  • A conference
  • by the United Nations
  • unique in kind and a premier
  • With extensive press coverage around the world
  • on a highly signficiant subject that affects billions worldwide
  • where important and grand decisions that affect billions worldwide have been made
is very notable imo.
  • Some important decisions were made as outcome of the conference. Note that in the 1st discussion Sca stated "Wake me up when it's over." and 331dot stated "That would change if something of note occurs there, such as a notable agreement or other change in policy.". The conference has ended now.
The outcomes include:
  • Over 1300 voluntary commitments for action − such as on marine protected areas − have been made
  • Indonesia published its Vessel Monitoring System platform for fishing transparency and management
  • Delegates from China, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines made a promise to work to keep plastic out of the oceans([39]) among other things
  • China plans to establish 10 to 20 "demonstration zones" by 2020, introduced a regulation which requires that 35 percent of the country's total shoreline should be natural by 2020 and started an international sailing competition among other things and promises
  • Gabon announced that it will create one of Africa’s largest marine protected areas with around 53,000 square kilometres of ocean when combined with its existing zones.
  • The Maldives announced a phase out of its non-biodegradable plastic, Austria pledged to reduce the number of plastic bags used per person to 25 a year by 2019 and Pakistan announced its first marine protected area.
  • A $1 million grant was added to the US-based international wildlife organisation Wildlife Conservation Society's $15 million MPA Fund created in 2016
  • Germany pledged to allocate €670 million for marine conservation projects and made 11 voluntary commitments
  • Nine of the world’s biggest fishing companies from Asia, Europe and the US have signed up for The Seafood Business for Ocean Stewardship (SeaBOS) initiative, supported by the Stockholm Resilience Centre, aiming to end unsustainable practices.
  • Outcomes also include various statements of high-level national officials such as by Bolivia's President Evo Morales, Albert II, Prince of Monaco, India's Minister of State for External Affairs M. J. Akbar and many others
  • A "Call for Action" declaration signed by the 193 UN member states has been made unitedly; by consensus it adoption a 14-point Call for Action where participating Heads of State and Government and senior representatives "affirm our strong commitment to conserve and sustainably use our oceans, seas and marine resources tor sustainable development."
It has been called a success. (e.g. see [40], [41], [42])
  • Other conferences of similar kind have been featured earlier. They include:
The 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development was not featured due to the opposition of 3 users of which 1 has been banned now and with another user stating: This is what those "people" get paid for. What editor here gets on ITN for showing up to work? The 2013 United Nations Climate Change Conference was also not featured due to 1 user opposing and a "walkout by ministers and NGOs" at / perceived failure of the conference.
  • To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.
  • To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events.
  • To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them.
  • To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource.
I think this nomination perfectly fits this as a) it was extensively covered by the news and is of high interest to the public b) the article in question is quality content on a current event c) is about a subject many readers are likely to be interested in (as it affects all of them and as this subject is of high importance) d) it emphasizes Wikipedia as a dynamic resource of the world
If you don't like the blurb and altblurbs suggest more alternative ones. Please note that Wikipedia is not a democracy; its "means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting" and that such should be based upon the merit of arguments made. Especially due to this I ask opposers to make very clear why they oppose the inclusion of this despite the points I made here.

TL;DR:

  • Can you please condense the above wall of text (preferably collapsed and then summarised in 1-2 short paragraphs or 6-8 sentences) so that those who may be interested in the nomination can assess it without being put off by the length. I personally do not enjoy having to scroll several times to get to the bottom of a nom (especially those 'heading towards a no-consensus' extended discussions). Fuebaey (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright. Added a short summary of the points below it. The sentence on top was intended to be the short version. --Fixuture (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a sidenote I'd like to clarify that no individual, organization, company or nation has asked me to create that article or any ITN nomination or has otherwise directed any of my contributions to Wikipedia. I did this entirely on my own, in my spare time, as citizen of Earth and out of interest in the preservation and well-being of my species, Earth and Wikipedia. --Fixuture (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not notable. End of story. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:B5: I'd like to note that this does not address #2 of my arguments for inclusion where I described how it's notable (i.e. why would you find it not notable?). --Fixuture (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. 9 June or 9 July? I've added altblurb4 to reflect this being the first conference. The article IMO requires some cleanup and more focus on the history of efforts and condensing the agreements into a more uniform section rather than a disparate list. If an online summary of the Call to Action is available, this should be cited and made easy to find in the article. 171.116.245.211 (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @171.116.245.211: Oops 9 June of course: fixed it. Thank you for adding an altblurb. The article might not be perfect but it's definitely of sufficient quality for ITN. But please go ahead and improve it. Furthermore it would be nice if you could specify what needs cleanup so that it could be carried out. --Fixuture (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but principally due to the state of the article. There should be a clear section about the outcomes and summarizing the wall of text above, along with any pending things that are being taking back to national governments. It also needs to avoid a lot of prose line. I otherwise don't find any issue with posting the closing of the conference. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Alright. I just added an "Outcomes" section to the article which should make that clearer. Which "pending things" are you referring to? What prose lines do you mean and why should respective be avoided? --Fixuture (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See the comments from Spencer and 331dot below. The importance is there, and sourcing might be, but we're still looking at a poorly written article which can't go on the front page yet. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I just improved it. I'll keep working on it by some additional minor changes. --Fixuture (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Leaning toward supporting, but the article seems to be sections filled with 1- or 2-sentence paragraphs/quotes, without good organization or flow, making it a little hard to follow. Were there any significant multi-national agreements? United_Nations_Ocean_Conference#Outcomes seems to be "Nation X did this, Nation Y announces this, Nation Z pledged money", but it's not grouped in an organized manner. First short paragraph is about plastics, second paragraph is about (actually I'm not 100% sure since the quote from China is a little bit vague)...fishing?, the third is about a marine protected area, the fourth has some information about plastics and then a marine protected area, etc. I don't know if a chronological ordering is better, or something based on themes (there are private sector and research projects section, but additional sections as well). SpencerT♦C 18:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Spencer: Alright, I will try to improve it.
but the article seems to be sections filled with 1- or 2-sentence paragraphs/quotes, without good organization or flow
Could you please help me correct these then? I don't see how they're badly organized or how the flow would be bad. However, English is not my native language so that might impair me a bit in improving its flow. I do think that the article's quality can be improved but that it's sufficient for ITN inclusion − especially when considering that the article hasn't existed since long ago and that articles are typically improved over time.
Were there any significant multi-national agreements?
Yes. See the outcomes section: mainly it's the Call for Action. But the outcomes aren't constrained to multi-national agreements. There have also been voluntary national commitments for instance.
"Nation X did this, Nation Y announces this, Nation Z pledged money", but it's not grouped in an organized manner. First short paragraph is about plastics, second paragraph is about (actually I'm not 100% sure since the quote from China is a little bit vague)...fishing?, the third is about a marine protected area, the fourth has some information about plastics and then a marine protected area, etc. I don't know if a chronological ordering is better, or something based on themes (there are private sector and research projects section, but additional sections as well)
Good point. I will try to improve the ordering. I think they should be ordered by theme and actor (e.g. private sector). However I invite you to help improve it according to what you think would be more appropriate.
--Fixuture (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Spencer: I just improved it. I also added comments in the page's source that explain the content & ordering (note that subsections for each of them wouldn't make sense imo). --Fixuture (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I'm quite busy at work this week and don't have the time to work on correcting this on my own. I did a quick search for UN conferences that have been posted on ITN before, but none are similar enough to see if they're a good guide (I found 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference and Durban Review Conference, but ITN standards may have changed slightly since those were posted). The organization is still confusing. I see in paragraph 2 that "China, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines" made plastics-related pledges, and then 6 paragraphs later, The "Maldives announced a phase out of its non-biodegradable plastic, Austria pledged to reduce the number of plastic bags used per person to 25 a year by 2019". Again, grouping these ideas thematically would make a little more sense in my mind (putting all plastics-related things together in a paragraph, putting all protected areas together in a paragraph, etc.). A summary of the Call to Action would likely be helpful as well. Thank you for your work on the article! Best, SpencerT♦C 17:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Spencer: I'm not sure if collapsing my reasoning was a good idea - there I listed all the many similar conferences that have been featured (including notes). Please take a look.
I see in paragraph 2 that "China, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines" made plastics-related pledges, and then 6 paragraphs later, The "Maldives announced a phase out of its non-biodegradable plastic, Austria pledged to reduce the number of plastic bags used per person to 25 a year by 2019".
Okay, that's a good point. I wasn't sure if it should be kept like this. I will fix it. Note that those other countries don't work as directly to keep plastics out of the oceans as they're not bordering them.
Again, grouping these ideas thematically would make a little more sense in my mind (putting all plastics-related things together in a paragraph, putting all protected areas together in a paragraph, etc.). A summary of the Call to Action would likely be helpful as well.
That's a good point too and I will try to improve it further accordingly. It could mean that some country-paragraphs need to be split though. And I will also see if I can get together a proper summary of the Call to Action.
Thank you for your constructive input!
--Fixuture (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I made a number of improvements now. --Fixuture (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Concerns have largely been addressed and I made a few tweaks. Would also like to see a summary of the call to action, but I think it's in a minimum state of readiness at this point. SpencerT♦C 10:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak support of altblurb 1 pending article improvement as noted above. Given the TLDR wall of text(now condensed) above and other explanations by the nominator I'm concerned that this would be seen as promoting a cause which is why I strongly oppose the longer explanatory blurbs. I am also concerned because "calls to action" and "voluntary commitments" are largely toothless platitudes and talk(and likely these 'voluntary commitments' were things that were going to happen anyway) No binding treaty came out of this conference. Also, while this is mentioned in many news outlets it isn't top headline news. Other conferences (G7, for one) get far more attention. All that said, there probably is enough coverage on this, and there was enough participation(most countries, it seems) that it merits posting. This being the first such conference is notable as well. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would also encourage the nominator to not try as hard next time. If a nomination merits inclusion it will stand on its own without long explanations and professions of posting this without prompting by anyone else. I (and others) assume nothing about the motivations of the nominator without evidence; repeated claims of a lack of association or prompting might lead some to think the opposite. Just a thought. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot:
I am also concerned because "calls to action" and "voluntary commitments" are largely toothless platitudes and talk(and likely these 'voluntary commitments' were things that were going to happen anyway) No binding treaty came out of this conference.
You do have a point there. However the outcomes are not constrained to just "calls to action" and "voluntary commitments". Furthermore those are signficant enough already. Saying they are "largely toothless platitudes" would mean that the organizations and nations which made them have no credibility. I don't think that this is the case. And in addition to that they are also significant as they are the plans our species has come up for the management of a range of global problems.
Also, while this is mentioned in many news outlets it isn't top headline news.
True, but that's not a criteria for ITN inclusion. (Also it has been somewhat headliny in some countries and some press organizations, albeit definitely not "top headline news".)
Thank you for your input.
--Fixuture (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it ended with a "call for action"? Well that's bound to save the oceans then. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: I'd like to note that the call for action is not the only outcome of this event. Please do see #3 of my arguments for inclusion above. Furthermore it's significant as that's basically the plans our species has come up for the management of a range of global problems. Furthermore it's not just some call for action but a call for action signed by all delegates of all UN member states. Its sufficiency for solving this problem is not a criteria for inclusion. It seems more like you'd oppose specific blurbs which may make it appear as if the call for action was the only outcome of the conference. --Fixuture (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but people make pledges and promises and sign up to treaties all the time and fail to meet the or remove themselves. This will be nothing different. I'm not changing my position on this, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your elaboration. You don't need to of course. However I'd just like to note that the subject/cause of pledges, promises and treaties as well as the level they're made on / the participating parties can make them signficant despite of that. Furthermore I think that "this will be nothing different" and that basically "they're meaningless as they're not met all the time" is a subjective judgement which may or may not be a POV or accurate. --Fixuture (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment so far participation in this discussion is rather low. I hope it's okay if I invite more participants by creating requests for comments on relevant WikiProjects or should I rather wait with that? Note that RfCs come with info here on which audience was invited to the discussion and that others can create RfCs too. --Fixuture (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if you feel it necessary you are safe in notifying relevant WikiProjects as long as you do so neutrally(i.e. not encouraging only potential supporters to come here); any more and you might be considered to be canvassing. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: It's sad to see only so few participating. I will notify 3 of the 7 WikiProjects set on the article, namely WikiProject Oceans, WikiProject International relations and WikiProject Environment. I will do so in around 30 minutes and with a neutral message that only notifies them about this discussion. I have made the experience that only very few WikiProject members do check for new entries on the relevant talk pages so it probably won't help. However, if some actually come here due to these notifications and if other participants in here think there was bias in the selection of WikiProjects which were invited I suggest them to invite members of other WikiProjects via the same way. --Fixuture (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Comments have been requested on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oceans. --Fixuture (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Comments have been requested on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations. --Fixuture (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Comments have been requested on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment. --Fixuture (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Article looks good Sherenk1 (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - this sounds like one of those things where steady progress will be made, but there are no flashy headlines. If we look at the UN story on this [43] then there's quite a lot of reasons in favour of posting. It's the first conference of its kind, 6000 people participated (big by all standards for conferences), and there were 1300 voluntary commitments. Since there are fewer than 300 countries in this world, this is an average of some 5 commitments per country, which is certainly substantial. Add that to the fact that there clearly is space on ITN right now and I think it's sufficient to support this. Weak support because of the dearth of mainstream coverage - but as mentioned, it's something that doesn't have flashy headlines. Banedon (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a short summary of the debate thus far: 5 supports; 3 oppose. The supports include 2 "weak" ones and the nominator. The oppose include 1 IP editor of 5 edits noncomprehensively objecting due to unnotability, 1 objecting due to the state of the article which has been improved therafter and 1 objecting due to notability concerns which are addressed in my collapsed reasoning, Banedon's rationale and my comment on it. --Fixuture (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 03:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Adam West[edit]

Article: Adam West (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Hollywood Reporter, Variety, The Guardian, Washington Post
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Actor most famous for playing Batman. Article is lengthy enough but not everything is cited. Aiken D 15:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Unfortunately, the article is in really bad shape. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are most of the sources about his ancestry reliable? From this diff I mean sources 6, 7, 8 and 9. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. This one is going to take a lot of work to get it up to scratch. Huge gaps in referencing to the point where putting up CN tags would be a waste of time. I just tagged the whole article for ref improve. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article seems adequate and, in any case, our readers will be reading it in large numbers regardless. The subject is a major pop culture figure and it looks insensitive and clueless if we don't update the main page in a timely way. Andrew D. (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose far too inadequately sourced for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support good enough. Rami R 14:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. We don't post poor quality articles to the main page. And there are orange tags on the article which are a showstopper at ITN. Referencing remains unacceptably low. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and yet I have no idea why. It's in the news now, and should be posted now. The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit shouldn't worry about giving its readers reasons to edit. Rami R 17:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would something like Contemporary Theatre, Film & Television from Gale be an acceptable source for film credits? Zagalejo^^^ 18:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to think that passes WP:RS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per Andrew D. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too much unreferenced content.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for those who wish to post poorly sourced BLPs, both the German and the French Wikipedias promote that kind of approach, in fact it seems that a single admin gets to add these things to their main page. Here, on en.wiki, we have a threshold below which we don't publish articles onto the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - no way we're lowering our standards to get this up on the Main page: this RD-nomination still needs a lot more sourcing. But it has improved some in the last 2 days, I'll say that. Christian Roess (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Everything under Career, except "Batman" and "2010s", needs more references. An edit for style wouldn't hurt, either.128.214.163.160 (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until it's brought up to code. Daniel Case (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a big thank you to User: MBlaze Lightning who has added an "under construction" template and has radically improved the references. Can't be far off the required quality now. Films and TV seem to be fully sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 19 [citation needed] indicates we're not that close to the quality required at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17 of those are for TV shows which have their own wiki articles and where West is already sourced? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean "where West is already mentioned". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Martinevans123 The same issue came up at #2017 Stanley Cup Finals. One editor's answer was: [B]old links from the Main Page are held to higher standards than other articles. Consensus at ITN has been that every section needs references. In other words, this article probably (I'm new to ITNC.) won't be accepted unless those refs are carried over to the Adam West page. — Gestrid (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think you're right there. I'm sure if everyone who's commented added just a couple of sources, the article would be ready in just a few minutes. Is IMDb acceptable as a source? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say probably not. Even though every edit to IMDb pages is apparently reviewed, we have no idea how much effort they actually put forward in verifying the edits, and all those edits come from its users (WP:USERG). An essay (not policy) on citing IMDb can be found at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. — Gestrid (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moot Despite ITN's snub and the nay-sayers' tag-bombing, the article has had well over a million readers – more than all current RD entries combined. Andrew D. (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the article now has only one remaining "citation needed" tag. If that really is a show-stopper, the claim could easily be deleted or commented out. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is well-referenced now. —MBlaze Lightning T 11:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Now sufficiently referenced.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think the article is ready now.Stormy clouds (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marking as ready - There has been a noticeable shift to support in terms of consensus in latest votes following the significant updates. I'm marking as ready, though per Andrew D., we may have missed the boat on this one unfortunately. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, now five days ago. Hardly "in the news" any more? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC) But great to see the Daily Mail breaking the real story... [reply]
  • Posted --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Shanghai Cooperation Organisation[edit]

No consensus. Stephen 02:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

 61.245.25.4 (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC) (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose two reasons: (a) so what? (b) target is woefully referenced and nowhere near the quality needed for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Not clear on the significance of this. Many of these sorts of groupings are largely toothless and/or have little influence on policies. I would need some sort of explanation about why this is important. Article quality is also a concern as TRM states. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While it isn't an issue in this instance as the fact can easily be sourced elsewhere, the day Wikipedia accepts either RFE/RL or Russia Today as reliable sources is the day we may as well give up and go home. ‑ Iridescent 15:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This seems to be a minor regional grouping, and even having read the article I don't get any sense of its actual purpose or that it undertakes really significant activities. This doesn't seem to be hitting the news anywhere outside the countries involved; whilst one might suspect that's a reflection of our bias, it may also suggest that the organisation just isn't that relevant in international terms. There's an absence of any compelling reasons to post - the nomination didn't even attempt to convince us. Modest Genius talk 20:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a reflection of bias. This organization covers most of Asia in area, and includes the two most populous countries in the world as well as two of the five permanent members of the UN security council. Saying it lacks international relevance is clearly incorrect too since there are so many countries in the organization (by definition making it international). If this is not posted it should only be because of article quality. Banedon (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 8[edit]

June 8, 2017 (2017-06-08) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and medicine

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Glenne Headly[edit]

Article: Glenne Headly (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 —MBlaze Lightning T 16:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now, because of close paraphrasing issues: [44]. I'm assuming the first, flagrant violation is youtube lifting from Wikipedia, but the second hit is also a problem. Vanamonde (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The close paraphrasing issues have been addressed so it should be good to go now. —MBlaze Lightning T 08:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RD: James Hardy[edit]

Article: James Hardy (American football) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): LA Times
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Thechased (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] United Kingdom general election, 2017[edit]

Article: United Kingdom general election, 2017 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the UK general election, the ruling Conservative Party led by Theresa May (pictured) lose their majority but remain the largest party. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ (withdrawn)
Alternative blurb II: ​ In the UK general election, the ruling Conservative Party led by Theresa May (pictured) lose their majority and enter a coalition with the Democratic Unionist Party.
Alternative blurb III: ​ In the UK general election, the ruling Conservative Party led by Theresa May (pictured) lose their majority but are expected to remain in office with Democratic Unionist Party support.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ In the UK general election, the ruling Conservative Party (leader Theresa May pictured) lose their majority but remain the largest party
Credits:

Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Should have the results in 12 hours. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - @Sherenk1:: how will this play out as a news item on ITN? If Theresa May and the Tories simply maintain a majority of similar size to their current one (a likely outcome, given polls), the status quo will only slightly be changed, as the only major difference will be the length of time the Conservatives have in power. There will be no new PM or governing party in this scenario. If this transpires, will we post? Stormy clouds (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • A valid scenario but with a country as big/important in world politics as the UK, we would still post (presuming article quality), since the election results will be all over the news. The only time this may be a consideration is if we're talking a tiny nation where there's barely any coverage of an election that clearly was going to fall one way and did fall that way to no one's surprise; if we don't see major reporting about that, we'd possibly consider not posting due to lack of anything "newsworthy". --MASEM (t) 13:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding that ITNR covers even that scenario, so the only possibility that general elections are NOT posted is because they are not updated, article is otherwise in poor condition, or they are not nominated. Even the "election" of President of Somalia got posted. In any case, none of this applies to today's UK election.128.214.69.207 (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ITNR says we shouldn't question whether the election results from country X should be posted as to avoid that discussion at ITNC; but they do allow flexibility that exceptions can be made in the case of a tiny election that occurs as everyone in the world had expected, to the point where the "in the news" aspect might actually fail and there's minimal coverage of it. UK's election is not going to have minimal coverage particularly in light of the events there in the last few weeks. This one will be posted. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There may not be a new governing party, but technically there will be a new government. Parliament has been dissolved so a new government must be formed at the invitation of the Queen.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
National elections get posted even if there is no change in the status quo. Article looks great, looking forward to featuring once results are announced. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Answer understood. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment despite what Sherenk1 claims, I doubt we'll see a result until early morning tomorrow, possibly even 10 to 12 hours from now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ↑ What he said. The unusual circumstances of this election, in which the North is expected to swing towards the Conservatives and the South East towards Labour, mean that even if the usual early-declaring northern seats like Sunderland show a huge Tory swing it can't be presumed that that swing will be replicated nationwide and that there will be a Tory landslide. Anyone who cares about the result of this election isn't going to be getting their updates from Wikipedia; this is a case where there really is no rush and it's better to be right than to be quick. ‑ Iridescent 19:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is looking like it could be a nail biter (huge upset for the Tories) and will probably take all night before we know for sure what the new Parliament will look like. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close – it's going to be several hours before it's appropriate to consider posting, and the only measure on which this should be judged is the accuracy/neutrality of the blurb and the quality of the update, neither of which any reasonable person can assess yet. Can be presumed notable per ITNR. There's no argument of this somehow slipping by unnoticed, which is the usual argument given when an election in a non-English-speaking country is prematurely nominated. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It makes no sense to close given that we do anticipate some type of result in 24 hr. The date (for tracking purposes) won't change, so it would be renominated on this same day. Unless we hear that a full by-hand recount is in store, this will still be posted once a result is obtained. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some actual constructive feedback, I've put up two blurbs, based on the two feasible outcomes at this point (Tories scrape a majority, or lose their majority but remain the largest party.) - based on the Irish election post from last year. Commented out is a blurb to be used if May resigns/is rolled. Smurrayinchester 03:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that my suggestion of closure is not going to be implemented, I'd say that using the word "narrowly" in the event of a Tory majority would be inappropriate given that there was never a "large" majority post-2015. It would be narrow in the context of what was expected, anticipated, speculated upon, polling evidence and so on. But in the context of what Wikipedia would look back to – the 2015 result – it would not be that narrow. The primary blurb does seem the more likely to be needed at this stage, though we're firmly into tight marginal territory and therefore still too early to say.
    But my whole point about the absurdity of this nomination remains true. And I challenge anyone. Anyone. To explain to me the sense of nominating an ITNR of this high a profile before the outcome is known. It's just ludicrous.
    My reason for raising this question here, rather than take it to the talk page, is that the premature nature of this nomination will either slow down the posting of the article (as no-one has a clue when to look at the article to judge the update), or result in the article being posted before an update is here, as people vote based on the event's importance (which never was and never will be in doubt), and someone posts based on the votes. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It gives time for interested parties to review the rest of the article for completeness and the like, so that once the event happens, and the article is update, the blurb can be posted in a timely manner. This is commonly done when the event is known to going to happen like elections or sporting events and where news coverage is 100% assured due to the magnitude of the event. --MASEM (t) 04:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the argument, but appreciate the logical and succinct answer. Will drop for now as this is a done deal, and raise at a more appropriate time on talk. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb 1. Barring the sky falling in in Fife North East and Brighton Pavillion, the Tories cannot mathematically reach 326. Sceptre (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit: Labour hold Ashfield. Tory would need to win every single seat to reach 326. Sceptre (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, result officially confirmed by BBC after Southampton Test (UK Parliament constituency). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now purely on article quality. There are some significant gaps in referencing near the top of the parties and candidates section and the results section needs significant expansion and better referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - FWIW, the result is definitely a hung parliament. There is one seat left to declare, but the count there has been suspended to allow counters time to recuperate - see here. The current blurb is fine. No comment on the state of the article - difficult to assess at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now as it needs improvement in current state - one sentence in the body of the article about the result, plus some extra details in the lead, is not enough. No doubt it will improve later. BencherliteTalk 09:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Quality looks good, everything well cited. Added an alt-blurb about forming of coalition. Smurrayinchester 09:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with blurb 1. Factual and readers can click the article to find details on this complex situation. --LukeSurl t c 09:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added altblurb3 as altblurb2 seems factually wrong, but I've temporarily left altblurb2 in case somebody wants to correct it.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any mention of coalition or agreements with the DUP - it is too early to say this for sure. It would be better to link hung parliament and/or minority government. Carcharoth (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original blurb. Posting coalition details is CRYSTAL, and blurb can be changed through ERRORS should it be desirable to include later details.128.214.163.159 (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb 4. The DUP issue is still unresolved and seems likely to be an informal understanding rather than a formal coalition. I therefore tweaked the blurb slightly to avoid mentioning them. Modest Genius talk 10:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original blurb, per 128... above. Mjroots (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative blurb 3 - Not yet a formal coalition with the DUP, but it's clear they'll be working together LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 12:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt blurb 3 as it is not yet clear whether it will be a formal coalition with the DUP.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure what we're waiting for here - marking ready. It's on ITNR, the article is fine, and the posting admin can judge which blurb to use. Modest Genius talk 13:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see a clear consensus for which blurb to use, since there are subtle details about the election result that do seem to be needed to be communicated in this. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the blurb, consider precedent of the ITN post for the 2010 hung parliament. Something similar might be:
    "After the general election, Theresa May (pictured) of the Conservative Party remains Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, heading a minority government with the Democratic Unionist Party." Neegzistuoja (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technically, she has been to see the Queen and says she intends to form a government. It can't be emphasised enough that there is no formal agreement yet with the DUP. Breaking news is that they are "entering discussions" with the Conservatives. It is not until those discussions have taken place that we can be sure that this will happen. Carcharoth (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC) For anyone needing a refresher or intro to this, see here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting (avoiding mention of the DUP) since article is in better updated shape than when I looked earlier. If there are any suggestions for a better blurb, please go to WP:ERRORS. BencherliteTalk 14:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-support for alternative blurb II Not the full story. Not sure how WP:ERRORS works so posting my comments here. 65.95.136.96 (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Jebel Irhoud fossils of Homo sapiens[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Jebel Irhoud (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Max Planck Institute analyses of fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco may indicate that Homo sapiens evolved at least 100,000 years earlier than previously thought. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Scientists of the Max Planck Institute analysed fossils found in Jebel Irhoud, Morocco which suggest that Homo sapiens evolved over 300,000 years ago − 100,000 years earlier than previously thought.
News source(s): [45],[46],[47],[48]
Credits:

Article updated

 Prioryman (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support major find in paleo-archaeology, increases the age of Homo sapiens by 50% and gives a broad continental domain for early humans. While there have been lots of paleo-biological discoveries in the past few years, this single one convincingly challenges established theories of genesis and migration of humans on nearly all points. Article is fine. News was frontpaged on the BBC and LA Times early today, and also on Natures feed.128.214.69.207 (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's a published study in Nature, and the article seems fairly updated (only nit being that the dates that the modern excavation/aging have been done aren't clear). --MASEM (t) 14:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's just a single study but it seems to be quite a significant challenge to the previous consensus about the date and location of the origin of our species. Andrew D. (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, it's actually two separate but complementary studies published simultaneously in Nature. So it's stronger than a single study. Prioryman (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This was "breaking news" on the Guardian website yesterday :) Significant find, article updated.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Major news in all large networks, milestone in anthrop. science. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is ready to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a major finding. Very notable global news and signficant coverage. However I think that the blurb could be improved a bit. Added an altblurb (which could also be improved) as a suggestion. --Fixuture (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted with original blurb, though I agree it's not optimal. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting comment This story shows just how tenuous science's grasp is on the homonid family tree. It is fortunate that the Graecopithecus story from May was not posted, but that finding is consistent with this one. Abductive (reasoning) 04:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Espresso Addict and Prioryman: I do not believe we need to mention the Max Planck institute in this blurb. It seems to distract from the real story, which is the fossils. We could just begin "Analyses of fossils..." Would either of you object if I took it out? Vanamonde (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ERRORS is where you want to go. FWIW, I also think the blurb is too long and couched.128.214.163.159 (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's too long. I didn't add the first eight words of the blurb and I wouldn't mind if they were taken out. Prioryman (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! It looks like it's been edited to lengthen since I put it up. If you are editing ITN, you could consider swapping this item up one; I put it in the second slot because of the image, which has now been swapped for Theresa May. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed and bumped up. Stephen 01:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 7[edit]

June 7, 2017 (2017-06-07) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime
  • Crime in London
    • A childcare worker in London is reportedly stabbed by three Muslim women while on her way to work, suffering non life threatening injuries. (BBC News)

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Ed Victor[edit]

Article: Ed Victor (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, New York Daily News
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 —MBlaze Lightning T 06:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Posted This one seems to have slipped through the cracks but it looks good to me. I am boldly posting it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Trento Longaretti[edit]

Article: Trento Longaretti (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Il Giorno, Corriere
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support decent article, well referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comprehensive and well-written article with no referencing issues. Good to go. Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Vanamonde (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posted-support – yes agree, this article is comprehensive and the sourcing is very good. Maybe it should be up for GA consideration (?). I randomly checked various Italian-language sources via Google Translate, and it seems that this article has been carefully attended to, by various editors, for awhile now. Christian Roess (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] [Ongoing] The United Nations Ocean Conference[edit]

Closing good faith nom. Event not an ongoing ITN item. Consensus against posting was established when this was suggested as a blurb. Circumstances have not been altered since, and the nom features personal attacks on other editors. This won't be posted. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: The United Nations Ocean Conference (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Global, highly notable news which got sufficient news coverage around the world and is more than appropriate here.
I suggested a blurb, instead of an Ongoing-entry, earlier which was opposed.

A conference

  • By the United Nations
  • Unique in kind and a premier
  • With sufficient press coverage around the world
  • On a highly signficiant subject that affects billions worldwide

is very notable imo. We are allowed to and very much should make such decisions. Let's fairly decide on this together.
____________________________________

  • For those who say that there's many other conferences we well and that we haven't posted many so far or that it doesn't meet some current / alleged / personal requirements: why would a high number of conferences prevent conferences being posted to the In the news-section? Also I don't think that it's that many conferences. Especially when we only post the ones on highly notable, global subjects.
  • For those who say that the conference is "just talk", "means nothing" or would "only be relevant if there are some concrete outcomes or treaty of it" etc: the conferences themselves as well as potential non-agreements or inaction are of high interest to the public and notable. Furthermore there are already some concrete results such as over 800 voluntary committments on things like managing protected areas and a platform for fishing-transparency. As a sidenote events such as this one are uncomparably more significant than sports events which keep getting posted.
  • For those who say that the article is not in an appropriate state I ask them to elaborate what exactly they mean and that (at best) they themselves improve it. I don't think it's in an inappropriate state.
  • Furthermore while I do try to and still do maintain good faith it increasingly seems considerable that (mainly? US-based) users The Rambling Man, Masem, Iridescent, 331dot, WaltCip and Sca aim to hold monopoly on decisions being made here with a particular intend that might cause the In the news-items to be rather biased in a particular way. I say this because I've been a bit estranged by some of their participations here for quite some time and as the last discussion was closed with basically only their vote-comments rather quickly before others participated as well. That might very well be simply because they as interested citizens like to take part in the In the news-section discussions - but if that's indeed the case I still would like to include the possibility of bias. Furthermore I'd like to thank @EMsmile: for working some relevant info into Sustainable Development Goals. I hope that this time, today on the World Oceans Day, more people will participate in this discussion and ask it not to be closed too early and before quite a number of other people participated as well.

This is very important − imo everything is pointing towards inclusion in the In the news-section and I can't see any good reason not to. What do you say? Fixuture (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Sca (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Oppose This was closed once. You don't get to abuse the system and open a second nomination of the same thing. LordAtlas (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion which was closed was on the nomination of a blurb, not an Ongoing-item. --Fixuture (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You had your chance then. You are now just trying to waste other people's time by gaming the system. LordAtlas (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Please assume good faith too: I'm not "trying to waste people's time" - that makes no sense at all - and I am not trying to "game the system". --Fixuture (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to right great wrongs. You are in the wrong place. LordAtlas (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vehemently Oppose - As above. This is not ab ongoing news item, and was already shot down. You need consensus here - this page cannot be used as a battering ram. The story is important, but stop trying to force the issue. Moreover, don't levy baseless accusations against other editors. They are sinply following consensus opinion and procedure. This should not be posted, and you should reconsider rationally the way in which you approach this community and its project, as your current strategy will not suffice any further. To quote Leslie Odom Jr, "careful how you proceed good man, intenperate indeed good man" etc. We all have to adhere to the rules, even when we don't like the outcome. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that was shut down was a blurb. This discussion is about an Ongoing item. The conference is ongoing. Yes and I hope to build consensus in this discussion. I'm not trying to force the issue but am taking up the responsibility for us, the Wikipedia community, to feature important stories / information when we can and when it's appropriate. These were not accusations but a note about a concern about bias that I have. I adhere to the rules.
Why should it not be posted?
--Fixuture (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as misunderstanding or misapplication of the system. Ongoing is for events which are long-term and persistently in the news, which have either had a blurb posted which cannot remain indefinitely despite the persistence of coverage, or are considered important enough but difficult to produce an appropriate blurb for. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This event is long-term in its effects and outcomes and is persistently in the news for the few days that it takes place. It would only be displayed under Ongoing for these few days. And it is certainly important enough. Please take a step back and reassess - we should not become a static bureaucracy but open-mindedly, progressively and lively assess each nomination and rationale even if they, potentially, might imply changes. --Fixuture (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fixuture: - discussion is closed. I am issuing this comment to tell you to refrain from any further argument, a the discussion has been explicitly closed, and I have now brought that to your attention. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] [Ongoing] Battle of Raqqa[edit]

Article: Battle of Raqqa (2017) (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: I fleshed out the article to a significant degree and added multiple reputable references before suggesting it here. This story is certainly of international importance and is attracting worldwide attention, so merits addition to ongoing. The recent page activity backs this up in my opinion. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Raqqa has been repeatedly described as the de facto capital of the Islamic State, so this battle exceeds any regular conflicts in the region in terms of importance and scale. It means that the coalition forces have the opportunity to strike a serious blow to Daesh, and is being reported thusly globally. Therefore, it should be placed in ongoing. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. I would have liked to see a bit more coverage (for some reason it's not very widespread, although it's there if I look for it), but there's sufficient coverage regardless. Banedon (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not seeing this on frontpages. It's overshadowed by things like yet another NK missile test, new Homo sapiens find (which would make a great blurb actually), and UK elections. Additionally, this is not the first time that we've been told Raqqa is on the verge of falling. If this gets frontpaged by RSes then I would support this, but it could very likely turn into another abortive attempt that goes nowhere and has no definitive end. By the sources in the article, the battle started on the 6th and the first neighborhoods were captured on the 8th. Give it a day or two to see how this shakes out.128.214.69.166 (talk) 07:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though I'm a little concerned that the YPGs are not mentioned in the lead; they are the major constituent of the SDF, after all. Vanamonde (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment definitely in the news, article sufficient, looks likely to be ongoing, but we'll need to test it in a week's time, will it be updated? For now, it's good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to ongoing BencherliteTalk 19:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2017 Myanmar Air Force Shaanxi Y-8 crash[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2017 Myanmar Air Force Shaanxi Y-8 crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A Shaanxi Y-8 of the Myanmar Air Force (example pictured) with 122 people on board crashes into the Andaman Sea off Dawei. (Post)
News source(s): The Independent,Channel News Asia
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Large military transport, potential high death toll. Mjroots (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • An aviation disaster of this magnitude is notable. Article looks in decent state considering how recently this was reported. --LukeSurl t c 13:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Most of the causalities were family of military members, so this would not qualify as "losses in line of duty" that other military aviation disasters are typically treated as, so agree this likely is ITN. Article is sufficiently detailed for now knowing there's a long tail of news around the investigation and like. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Blurb says 106 people on board, article says 104. Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now updated to 120. Figures often inaccurate in breaking news stories, but that isn't a big deal. Mjroots (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Inaccuracy is no big deal, but the article and blurb being consistent is. Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability. A beefier article would be nice but not essential at this stage. Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while it may be inevitable, isn't this a little premature? The source in the nomination says the aircraft has been declared missing, not that it has crashed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other sources now confirm it has crashed, additional source added to nom. Mjroots (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked as ready, it's now night in Myanmar and little likelihood of major developments until tomorrow morning (about midnight UTC). Mjroots (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support as notability is undoubtedly there. Article a bit short for my tastes, but given that we don't deal in speculation I suppose there isn't too much more that can be said. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this looks pretty much good to go, but still there's a conflict between the proposed blurb and the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blurb updated, although I would expect the posting admin to make a final check and make any small adjustments necessary. Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted BencherliteTalk 19:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Tehran attacks[edit]

Article: 2017 Tehran attacks (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least twelve people are killed and 42 others injured in simultaneous terrorist attacks at the Iranian parliament and the Mausoleum of Ruhollah Khomeini. (Post)
News source(s): NBC News Guardian Independent Le Monde Fars News Agency
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Attacks of this sort are rare in Iran. Still developing; ISIS seems to be responsible. Also may be a hostage situation. Will be a bit before this is ready but I wanted to bring it up. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Support in principle, been seeing a lot about this, but the situation is too fuzzy to post at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This number of killed people, i.e. 8, contains the attackers, according to the Iranian official figures. We'd better report only the number of dead victims. Mhhossein talk 10:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not rare in Iran, just in Tehran. A big attack was in Balochistan a few weeks ago and Zarif travelled to Islamabad after tat too.Lihaas (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Balochistan and Islamabad are in Pakistan. Tehran is in Iran. Dragons flight (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No clue about geography and politics, but a big mouth: Sistan and Baluchestan Province & Mohammad Javad Zarif. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless, you know something I don't, the attack Lihaas appears to be referencing [57] is still in Pakistan's Balochistan province and not in Iran's Baluchestan. Dragons flight (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice try, but Lihaas clearly refered to the attack in Iran. But good to know that you have at least some basic search engine compentencies. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed... the ignorance of Wikipedia editors is not totally hopeless... just somewhat hopeless. 128.227.136.203 (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: significant attack in a prominent regional power. Eminently In the News worthy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Very important incident! On the top of headlines--Sahehco (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: perhaps the group's most significant act of terrorism to date. NIGHTdevil 13:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but wait Wait for the situation to resolve, it seems there's still a hostage crisis going on. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose still a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle as unusual for Tehran, but yes, it's still sketchy, and I expect it may take a while for details to emerge. Sca (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per TRM. Article needs development. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Article is in my opinion long enough – though I'd never discourage more. However the unsourced statements tagged as citation needed are directly relevant to the argument that this is far enough out of the norm be posted (which I believe it is). Would be inclined to support when these are resolved. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Mardetanha (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: historic incident as it is Iran.BabbaQ (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Significant terror incident. 221.205.236.199 (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but the blurb should be updated - the article's infobox list 19 dead (13 victims, 6 attackers).--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The attackers are not contained as the victims of a terrorist incident. GTVM92 (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Mhhossein's comment above. We've had this confusing problem on a number of similar news items - sometimes attackers are included, sometimes they're not.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with an image of the attacks at the main news. There are good images of the attacks in the commons. GTVM92 (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Definitely meets standards in terms of notability, and the article is fine.-LtNOWIS (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support. It's getting major news coverage in the United States. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted --Jayron32 00:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 6[edit]

June 6, 2017 (2017-06-06) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: Adnan Khashoggi[edit]

Article: Adnan Khashoggi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times, BBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 —MBlaze Lightning T 05:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose too much of it is unreferenced. But Queen's song "Khashoggi's Ship" is now rotating round my noggin. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] The United Nations Ocean Conference[edit]

No consensus will develop to post that a conference simply occurs, despite the protestations of the nominator. Stephen 02:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: The United Nations Ocean Conference (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United Nations Ocean Conference is an ongoing United Nations conference taking place on 5-9 June 2017 that seeks to mobilize global action for the conservation, cleanliness and sustainable use of the oceans, seas and marine resources (Post)
News source(s): [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Global, highly notable news which got sufficient news coverage around the world and is more than appropriate here.
Alternatively it could be added to [Ongoing] but I very much support a blurb. If you don't like my suggested blurb add additional ones / edit.
 Fixuture (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose posting the mere occurrence of a conference(either as a blurb or ongoing). Many conferences, seminars, and meetings occur on many subjects even under UN auspices. If a notable agreement comes out of the conference, that may merit posting. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Well I don't see a point here or at least don't agree: why would a high number of conferences prevent conferences being posted to the In the news-section? Also I don't think that it's that many conferences. Especially when we only post the ones on highly notable, global subjects. The conferences themselves as well as potential non-agreements are of high interest to the public and notable. As a sidenote events such as this one are uncomparably more significant than sports events which keep getting posted. --Fixuture (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand me, I apologize for being unclear. My point is only that the mere occurrence of a conference is not necessarily notable. Anyone can hold a conference on any subject, but its occurrence isn't necessarily notable. (I'm holding a conference in my living room about Wikipedia editing, want to come?) That would change if something of note occurs there, such as a notable agreement or other change in policy. Otherwise the conference is just talk. Sports and conferences are different animals and hard to compare(some die hard fans would likely disagree with your significance statement, different things are important to different people). 331dot (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point is only that the mere occurrence of a conference is not necessarily notable. Anyone can hold a conference on any subject, but its occurrence isn't necessarily notable.
Alright, I agree with that.
That would change if something of note occurs there, such as a notable agreement or other change in policy. Otherwise the conference is just talk.
I do not agree that this only changes at that point and that it's "just talk". (As a sidenote over 800 voluntary commitments have already come out of the conference.)
Sports and conferences are different animals and hard to compare
I do not find them hard to compare but even if others find that hard to do that wouldn't be a reason not to.
_______________________________________________________
We are here to find consensus on which conferences are notable / ITN-worthy and which aren't.
A conference
  • By the United Nations
  • Unique in kind and a premier
  • With sufficient press coverage
  • On a highly signficiant subject that affects billions worldwide
is very notable imo. We are allowed to and very much should make such decisions. Let's fairly decide on this together.
--Fixuture (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your passion but we will have to agree to disagree. 331dot (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per 331dot - this is not comparable to the G8 or G20 conferences which we generally do post due to their occurrences due to direct influence on world politics. Should there be some proposed treaty/etc., that would be a ITN element to post. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Why? I do not agree. See my comment above. --Fixuture (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If this produces some kind of significant treaty (which seems somewhat unlikely given that as far as I can tell neither the US, Russia or India have even bothered to attend), that will be potentially newsworthy, but to judge by both the Wikipedia article and their own website this looks like an absolutely bog-standard UN junket (do you realize just how many of these things there are?) which is getting zero significant coverage and will be forgotten even by the participants within a week. This discussion is moot in any case, since the article is absolutely atrocious and packed with outright bullshit like The conference is the first-ever UN conference on oceans (what were UNCLOS I? and UNCLOS II? and UNCLOS III?) and couldn't be featured on the main page even if we wanted to. ‑ Iridescent 23:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: Fixed that error. It seems to also be an error of the source.
I do not think that it's a standard conference with a significance comparable to most of the other ones. But even if there's a non-low number of such conferences that's imo no reason for why this should be insignificant / not ITN-worthy.
It did get signficiant coverage (maybe not in your country; note we don't intend to be US-biased).
I don't think it will be forgotten by participants within a week - that's just an unfounded claim of yours. And even if they do that would be notable as well and no reason for why the conference would be not notable or ITN-worthy.
I don't think the article is "absolutely atrocious" and invite you to correct any "outright bullshit".
(And now I wait for The Rambling Man to join the usual US/UK-based first responders that keep on opposing such ITN items, in the hope that others will participate as well.)
--Fixuture (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 • Oppose – Wake me up when it's over. Sca (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

June 5[edit]

June 5, 2017 (2017-06-05) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and order

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Andy Cunningham (actor)[edit]

Article: Andy Cunningham (actor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Not sure if this is too short, but it's in the news, so posting here for scrutiny. Vanamonde (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose it's a stub, and this ought to be listed under 5 June. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Still a stub several days later. What's more, it was a redirect until after he died. Modest Genius talk 20:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Peter Sallis[edit]

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Rcsprinter123 (rhapsodise) 16:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Needs a ton of work. For example, his career section only has two sources and two sections have no sources. And IMDB is being used as a ref too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Lugnuts. Usually this is the sort of article I'd have a go at rescuing, but I don't have time tonight; hopefully someone will have a go at it. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Last of the classic trio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.119.234 (talk) 04:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose lacking in references. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I thought of nominating this myself yesterday, saw the total lack of sources, and decided not to bother. Vanamonde (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is now well sourced after the work of a few very diligent editors. 93 11:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Referencing issues have been addressed. —MBlaze Lightning T 11:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FYI, this death was on 2 June, not 5 June. Vanamonde (talk) 12:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The ton of work has been done. Now referenced and good to go.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked as ready, good work on the referencing. Mjroots (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Cheick Tiote[edit]

Article: Cheick Tioté (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Independent
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I always feel a sense of dread going to look at an RD candidate in the pop culture or sports areas, but was pleasantly surprised to see the article is not only thorough, but excellently sourced as well. Black Kite (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Looks ready to go. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Thorough and referenced, marking "ready". SpencerT♦C 17:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Qatari foreign relations[edit]

Article: 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and United Arab Emirates announce that they intend to cut relations with Qatar. (Post)
News source(s): Sputnik News Al Arabiya Forex Live BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Breaking News, will add more appropriate sources when they come. Significant developments in foreign relations among Gulf States; more countries may follow. EternalNomad (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait, but likely support This seems to be based on accusations that Qatar has been funding terrorism, but it's not 100% clear from the breaking stories. Regardless, with all three states severing ties and telling Qatar citizens they have a few weeks to get back, this is a major diplomatic issue in the region. --MASEM (t) 03:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I did a bit of editing on this earlier today, and others have taken a lead to explain the BG of the situation much better and events of the last few weeks that are likely reasons for it (per sources), so this now seems ready to go. --MASEM (t) 17:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Masem, however article not updated. Banedon (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Huge implications for GCC relations. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose article not adequately updated; some of the countries mentioned in blurb are NOT mentioned in article as having cut ties, and most importantly, the Wikipedia article provides zero context for the event. Readers learn nothing about the event by reading the Wikipedia article. That's not good for posting. Article will need a LOT of work before it is ready for the main page. --Jayron32 04:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not going to oppose for now as this is breaking news. However the article does need some updating and there are a handful of CN tags that need to be addressed. Once these issues have been addressed I will take another look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Updated the article. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there needs to be more an update. Events over the last week or two have led to this and that needs to be explained. (eg this was from Thursday for example - also please note I'm not questioning this being the right day to post, I'm just saying there was backhistory to consider). This didn't come out of left field. --MASEM (t) 05:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - seems to be a major unexpected diplomatic development. Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Looks like an article has been created: 2017 Qatar Diplomatic Crisis but it is a stub right now Sherenk1 (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I would support a well-written standalone article which details this carefully and covers the consequences. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the merits but I agree that more of an update is needed. It's unusual for a single country to break diplomatic relations with another country, let alone several in what seems to be a coordinated move. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support major diplomatic development concerning multiple countries. feminist 11:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Are there better RS please? I cringe a bit at Sputnik because President Macron said they were no better than RT at spreading fake news...Zigzig20s (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've just seen it in the Council on Foreign Relations e-mail newsletter, so it's definitely a thing.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've switched the article in the above template to 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis which is the dedicated article for this. --LukeSurl t c 11:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a major diplomatic crises in the region. --Saqib (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as this is a major diplomatic event. Meanwhile, the number of countries that cut their relations with Qatar has grown to six.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
7 actually. --Saqib (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is sufficiently notable, but the article is not yet ready. For a story like this, we need the article to have a fair bit of depth what this event actually means (both practically and politically) for the posting to be useful to readers. --LukeSurl t c 12:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now per Jayron, 331dot, RM. Thin. Sca (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose without prejudice. The article is frankly unsuitable for the frontpage. But, I want to stress that this is no fault of the nominator or editors. This was a very weird, bizarre and completely unforseen turn of events and I don't think even the most becoffeed analyst can make heads or tails of this. This absolutely deserves to get to the frontpage, but the article must be more than a dry reading of Foreign Office releases.128.214.185.142 (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with improved article. With the closing of the airspace to Qatari aircraft by the involved countries, the dispute has escalated a lot. Qatar depends a lot on imports for its food and a lot of this has now been blocked, so Qatar will have to find other sources on the very short term, only Saudi Arabia's arch enemy Iran is able to fulfill that role. Count Iblis (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – for expanded article. Sca (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 03:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 4[edit]

June 4, 2017 (2017-06-04) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Closed] One Love Manchester[edit]

No consensus will develop to post. Stephen 02:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: One Love Manchester (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A benefit concert raises over $13 million (£10 million) for the victims of a deadly bombing at the Manchester Arena. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A benefit concert raises over £10 million for the victims of a deadly bombing at the Manchester Arena.
News source(s): [63] [64]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Apologies for the somewhat late nom. I was waiting for a more concrete ticket sales numbers, as opposed to the unsourced estimated number that was in the article on Sunday. The source I've included is the source used for the amount raised so far. There has been no announcement about how much was raised through any official fundraising method method other than the British Red Cross, but I wanted to get this into at least ITNC while it's still in the news. Note that, while the concert itself was a good idea, it's how much was raised that is really important and why I think it should be included in ITN. — Gestrid (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - The natural place to put it is to merge with the original Manchester attack blurb, but that's rolled off the box; further, with the London attack, this has been rather overshadowed. $13 million is also really not that much (we rejected a lot of blurbs for business deals much bigger than this size). Having said that, I did see quite a lot of coverage on this, hence I only weakly oppose this. Maybe it would have been better to nominate this as ongoing when the Manchester attack blurb rolled off the box. Banedon (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, business deals are generally made by people or businesses with a lot more money than most of us with the expectation of getting something in return. That people (mostly those in the UK, most likely, for a variety of reasons) gave that much money is pretty notable in my opinion. The numbers from the portions of the charity specifically setup for those outside the UK, including at least one US-based 501(c)(3) organization that partnered with the BRC, have not come out yet, but, as I said, I wanted to get this into ITNC before it no longer qualified as an ITN. — Gestrid (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not important in the long run and if anything would be part of the bombing. LordAtlas (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it's a good news story and it's a shame it's quite inconsequential I'm afraid. Things like Comic Relief and Children in Need routinely raise in excess of £50m in a night, so the magnitude of the fund-raising isn't particuarly notable either. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my reply to Banedon. The numbers for the international portion of the charity haven't come in yet. — Gestrid (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is in good shape. The concert apparently attracted several performers, not just Grande. It raised a lot of money. It was definitely in the news, although I didn't watch it. ITN could do with more philanthropy, so I support this nomination.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose good faith nomination, but it's not surprising a lot of money would be raised after a tragic incident. If more developments come out about the attack in the next few days, it might merit Ongoing(of which this fundraiser would be an incremental update) but it isn't significant enough on its own to post. 331dot (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added a blurb that removes the reference to the computed US Dollar amount raised. The manual of style states that it in "country-specific articles, use the currency of the country." Also in "articles that are not specific to a country, express amounts of money in United States dollars, euros, or pounds sterling." I don't see the need to convert a GBP amount into US Dollars - this is not USA-pedia. Gfcvoice (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose. I wish there were a way of incorporating this into the blurb about London Bridge – much of the media coverage focussed on the fact that while that happened this still went ahead and was all the more poignant and defiant of terrorism as a consequence. Nonetheless I don't see how we can do it succinctly. If someone were to convince me otherwise I'd be delighted to support, but regrettably I can't justify supporting this as a stand-alone. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I really didn't work that much of the article, just a few updates, put section with online streaming etc. This was a pretty amazing way to respond to a terror attack with an all-star A-list lineup organized in just a week, raised a huge amount of money. I agree with above that ITN needs more philanthropy. —МандичкаYO 😜 16:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If it was something on the scope of Je Suis Charlie, a memorialized event across multiple continents, that would be something. A relatively local event from one that got worldwide attention is really not ITN-appropriate. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose good faith nom. Not sufficiently significant for ITN and we already posted the Manchester attack. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not important enough. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Ötzi murder case reopened[edit]

Closing w/o prejudice to reopening if/when the article is updated. For now there is nothing to discuss. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Ötzi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ötzi murder case reopened (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating
 Count Iblis (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not the type of story that makes for ITN, better as a DYK, if it could be fashioned for that. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose good faith nom. I can't find anything in the article that seems to relate to the blurb. What is this supposed to be about? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the linked news source and I don't think any of that is in the article, or I missed it somewhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Maltese general election, 2017[edit]

Article: Maltese general election, 2017 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Labour Party led by Joseph Muscat is re-elected and wins a renewed majority in the Parliament of Malta. (Post)
News source(s): "Labour cruises to 55.2% majority; Muscat says people have chosen to stay the course". Times of Malta. 4 June 2017.
"Malta election: PM Joseph Muscat wins snap poll". BBC News. 4 June 2017.
"Prime Minister Joseph Muscat wins Malta election". Al Jazeera. 4 June 2017.
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 Xwejnusgozo (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. The results table near the bottom is still blank and there is an orange tag challenging the neutrality of the article at the top. Both of these issues need to be resolved before we can post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No prose about the election itself, the results, or the impact thereof. In addition to the table; which is a necessary (but not sufficient) update as well. --Jayron32 03:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose tagged for neutrality issues and no results. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The neutrality tag has been removed. There are now % results for the first-preference votes. Because of the complex electoral system it seems that the seats have not yet been fully assigned. The candidates section needs the main parties added in districts 9-13. --LukeSurl t c 12:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will the article be OK for ITN once the candidates section is completed? It will take some more time until the seats are fully assigned (the counting process used in Maltese elections has been described as "painfully slow" by the Times of Malta here), but the victory for Labour is clear. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Xwejnusgozo:, this would cuurently be posted as the second item, so it will be OK for ITN posting for a while yet. Stephen 02:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The candidates list is a data entry slog but it's almost there. A paragraph or two on "reactions" would be desirable as well. --LukeSurl t c 10:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Candidates list is done.--LukeSurl t c 12:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reaction section done as well. Article is ready. --LukeSurl t c 13:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bumping this in the hope that an admin notices. This has been ready for almost 12 hours now.--LukeSurl t c
  • @Jayron32: Can this be posted? It's been ready for nearly a day. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Stephen: This article has been ready for 24 hours how. Can we please post before it becomes stale? --LukeSurl t c 12:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 3[edit]

June 3, 2017 (2017-06-03) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture
  • Pope Francis meets with 400 children from towns hit by earthquakes in central Italy on August 24, 2016. A few children offer brief testimony about their experiences during the earthquake, which hit parts of central Italy and resulted in nearly 300 deaths. (Catholic News Agency)

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

[Posted] June 2017 London attacks[edit]

Article: June 2017 London attacks (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 9 people are killed and 30 injured in an attack in London through a hit-and-run vehicle on London Bridge followed by knife attacks at Borough Market. (Post)
Credits:
  • Wait till we actually know the nature of this incident. It needs a blurb as well, but a blurb can't be added without more information. This is Paul (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@This is Paul:

Hi Paul, I'm sorry I do not have time to post in the correct format/procedure right now, as I'm personally trying to work out what the hell is happening in London.

I truly hope you'll be able to get this on the main page as quickly as possible, as I know there are many thousands of people, right now, desperately trying to get further information. And lots of us are looking at Wikipedia for it.

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.193.222 (talk • contribs)

  • Wait until details are clear of the attack. We still know little about what happened, and WP is not meant to be a source of breaking news. --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Too many questions, and given the terror level is currently high in the UK from the Manchester attack, they are being extra cautious by treating these as connected incidents. In comment to the IP's statement above, we are not a newspaper and have no deadline, and people that come here to learn about breaking news are coming to the wrong place. BBC is a much better source than we are. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - and IP 86.20.193.222, I'd look at a reliable news source for information, because Wikipedia is certainly not one of those. Black Kite (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Something appears to have happened in London. That's about all we know right now. Frankly this nomination is probably premature since we don't even have a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is. I was contemplating nominating it (even came to ITNC a few time to check if someone else had done o). As of right now its not as notable as say Manchester (and well also be putting UK up on Friday before this would drop off). So oppose for now unless something biggerin reaction or casualties happens.Lihaas (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, unfortunately too early for this, article is also unstable with a couple of quite disruptive editors at the moment going at it. Sagecandor (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait as per others due to evolving story and lack of blurb. Though it should be noted that this has been declared terrorism. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • support, the text from this bbc report: A van has struck pedestrians on London Bridge in central London leaving a number of casualties, including fatalities. Police have declared a "terrorist incident" there and at nearby Borough Market - it seems unlikely that this portion of the information will change and further information will be built upon these declarations. Leave off the information on the stabbings as the news sources seem to be in a state of confusion about these attacks. Edaham (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The police are assuming it is a terrorist incident given the recentness of Manchester, they have in no way verified the intent (even if it was an accident or intentional). It might be a terrorist event, but that's not based on the approach the police are taking in the immediate hours following it. And if this was just an accident or domestic crime, then its not appropriate for ITN. --MASEM (t) 01:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, the whitewashing here is ridiculous. You guys would just like to pretend these sort of things never happened. Keep the white[insert_accurate_PC_color]washing going. 79.116.236.27 (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopened I have reopened as I think the details have sufficiently settled down, enough to write a blurb. The hit-and-run on London Bridge and the stabbings at Borough Market were done by the same three perps (who are now dead), for a total of 9 deaths (including those 3) and 30 injured. Every other vent that has been noted the police have determined are unrelated events (the explosions at the Market were confirmed as controlled explosions). To that end, I also support posting this now. 6 innocent deaths + 30 more injured so shortly after the concert attack is notable. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, no question. It's probably ready to post now, consensus allowing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article on the attacks is of high enough quality to allow for a blurb to be posted. StrikeDog (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on admins! Post this, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.196 (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is good to go. Another serious terrorist attack at the heart of a European capital city with a half-decent article? Please get on with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happened to WP:NOTNEWS? Britmax (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing, but this is another serious terrorist attack at the heart of a European capital city with a half-decent article, the kind of thing we post at ITN. The story has very much stabilised so all the "wait" votes are effectively now covered. Cheers, God bless London. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we are a news channel, then? Britmax (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't follow, are you complaining about all of ITN or just this specific story? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. --Tone 08:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at the number of people urging speed in the postings above and tell me that some of them haven't been sucked into thinking that this is a news channel. Britmax (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You saw the Champion's League nom was posted in three hours, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You saw the Manila attack nom was posted in six hours, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And Trump's latest disaster posted in four hours? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Britmax: Are you arguing that the article was not ready for posting? If it was ready for posting, there is no need for an artificial and arbitrary hold on it. (such things have been considered and rejected in the past as well) 331dot (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the article was ready for posting. I am considering arguing, in a more suitable place, that Wikipedia has become a news channel by stealth. I have already pointed out that ITN is part of this process. Within this process the article is fine but my argument is that this process should not be hosted here at all. This is not the place for that argument, though. Britmax (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One little panel on one page of an encyclopedia does not make it a news channel. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not just "one page", is it, it's our little shop window? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's our Front Page, and ITN is a fixture there – something most readers expect to find and always look at. Sca (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No does arguing against this specific nom which clearly has more consideration applied than those I noted above. But as 331dot says below, you are free to open some discussion about ticker by stealth or whatever. After all, we could just rename the section, What was In The News. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Britmax: You are certainly free to attempt to make that argument, though for various reasons I won't repeat now it has been tried and failed many times. I don't think you will ever get consensus to remove this. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are certain stories that are going to have clear enduring notability (meeting NEVENT) in the first few hours, and this is effectively one of those (more than a few injured in the heart of a major metro center and shortly after an earlier attack a week+ prior? It's going to remain notable). Myself and others that initially !voted wait recognized that details were sparse and it was more a matter of making sure what we posted wasn't vague or based on guesses of the media. --MASEM (t) 10:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting Oppose - This is neither the first terror attack in the UK (or London), not close to being the most serious. If we are going to be posting every terror attack that happens, ITN will shortly become a news ticker of the mundane and depressing. If people want news, there are plenty of news websites for that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so should a terror attack take place in Washington or New York or San Francisco, we can discount it because it's not the first in the United States and unless it has a death toll of more than 2,996 we can discount it because it's not the most serious? I think you're missing the primary purpose of ITN, To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, this story is still in the top news on BBC News, The New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Le Monde, El Pais, Pravda, Times of India etc etc, this is newsworthy around the globe nearly 36 hours later. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly yes. Its a minor terror attack with a low loss of life and little significant lasting impact (apart from possibly causing pedestrian barriers on bridges to be jumped to the top of the council works queue). You seem to think people are coming to ITN "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" which is not the case. They are coming here because articles like this are presented *as* news. The majority of breaking news articles are based almost entirely on primary news sources and are written like news articles. The only real difference between this and an article in an actual newspaper is the number of sources drawn upon. If the genuine purpose of ITN was to lead to encyclopedic content relevant to the breaking news, the title should just redirect to 'UK foreign policy in the Middle-east' or something similar. It would be vastly more educational. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's directly against the purpose of the project. And how you claim " little significant lasting impact" without a crystal ball is beyond me. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have a page for that WP:CRYSTALBALL. If you mean against the purpose of ITN - currently ITN is demonstratably not in line (for many articles) with its own stated purpose, being a sub-standard news ticker rather than providing encyclopedic content related to things that are in the news. This nomination is at best, a nicely written summary of primary news stories. Which is pointless to someone looking for information related to the news item. Just go to the BBC and find a better written summary, with the benefit its not being updated by 100 people with agendas. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you think the purpose of ITN needs re-defining, feel free to start the discussion, as this item clearly meets the requirements of the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I said, unambiguously, was that this article does not meet ITN's current stated purpose. It currently being a current news article based on current news articles. If you want re-define the project so that ITN allows basic news reports on current events. Feel free to start *that* discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then improve the article. The primary purpose of ITN is To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. As demonstrated, this is likely to be something the readers are searching for. I'm not the one making assertions otherwise so I have no need to start any discussion, it's down to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Champions League[edit]

Article: 2017 UEFA Champions League Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In association football, Real Madrid win the UEFA Champions League, defeating Juventus in the final (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Background info is good. Article currently has statistical summary but not prose summary (update: looks like someone's working on it right now). LukeSurl t c 20:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait until I finish writing the summary and have others pick it apart. Support now that the prose summary is done. Probably could add a post-match section too, given that Madrid set a few records in the final. SounderBruce 21:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work. Looks ready to post now. Cristiano Ronaldo was man-of-the-match, so one of the many free images of him could be used for the ITN photo. --LukeSurl t c 22:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good to go. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Real Madrid wins. But not in British English. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - match summary good – hats off to SounderBruce for getting it done so quickly. Ronaldo being pictured is something I also support if desired, as the current Main Page image just doesn't work at the necessary size. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. --Tone 23:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be more informative to say something like: "In association football, Real Madrid becomes the first team to defend the UEFA Champions League, defeating Juventus in the final" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.196 (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2[edit]

June 2, 2017 (2017-06-02) (Friday)
Arts and culture
  • Rock am Ring
    • A terrorist threat results in the evacuation of tens of thousands of fans at the first day of the annual Rock am Ring music festival at the Zeppelinfeld in Nuremberg, Germany. Organizers say they hope the festival will resume Saturday. (BBC)

Health and medicine

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Jeffrey Tate[edit]

Article: Jeffrey Tate (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Der Spiegel (German)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: British conductor, worked with various international orchestras. Article is in reasonably good shape thanks to others - I've only just spotted something about his death and thought a late nomination here might be worthwhile. BencherliteTalk 21:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Stratolaunch begins ground testing[edit]

No consensus. Stephen 02:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Articles: Scaled Composites Stratolaunch (talk · history · tag) and Paul Allen (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen launches the Stratolaunch, the world's largest aeroplane. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Stratolaunch, with a wingspan of 117m, becomes the largest plane ever following its unveiling.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Stratolaunch Systems launch the Stratolaunch, the world's largest aeroplane.
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: A technological development this significant is worthy of ITN, and the target articles are well-sourced. Stormy clouds (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this may not be strictly encyclopedic as an argument, but getting some positive news on the main page would be pleasant among terror attacks and climate change issues. Stormy clouds (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Notable on a few levels, as the largest aircraft and for its purpose(to launch rockets).331dot (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. According to the article this is not a test flight, but merely the start of ground testing. I would support the first flight and first service flight of this, because it is a significant development, but we shouldn't post every step of the process, and I'm not convinced (so far) that this is a sufficiently notable step. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I've renamed this nomination section from "Stratolaunch test flight" to "Stratolaunch begins ground testing" to avoid misunderstandings. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as encyclopedic and on article quality. Largest of the type, relatively novel use of a aircraft make it notable. A single clarification needed tag seems unnecessary to me; I didn't have trouble understanding the sentence.128.214.163.199 (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Thryduulf. Interesting, but still experimental and unproven. Sca (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose as per Thryduulf. I think this design is notable, but the critical thing for a new aircraft is when (if?) it actually flies. I can see myself supporting when that happens. --LukeSurl t c 13:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in Support - for all the people querying about the actual flight of the plane, it is scheduled to first launch a test flight in 2019. I feel that this represents a significant enough period in time that we can just report on it twice, given that it is both a record-setting aeroplane (of high interest to Wikipedians) and as it has applications in space travel, meaning it is a truly ground-breaking development. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the moment it is an interesting and potentially ground-breaking aircraft, but it wont actually be ground-breaking until it leaves theg ground imo. If something notable happens during ground testing then feel free to nominate that, but this feels just like a routine step. Thryduulf (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Surely it's ground-breaking when it returns to the ground. Unless it's successful, of course... GoldenRing (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose easy to roll out something, much more difficult to make it fly. Maiden flight will get my vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Airplane or aeroplane? 183.184.219.162 (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think ITN usually goes with "aircraft" to avoid complaints at WP:ERRORS from people who use whichever variety of English the blurb doesn't. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should reflect the nationality that the article has used. Since this is an American effort, I would expect "airplane" to be used. If it was a British company, "aeroplane". --MASEM (t) 16:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 • Just wondering – I thought perhaps aeroplane was becoming somewhat archaic, even in British English. No? Sca (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No; where did you get that idea? "Airplane" in the US and Canada, "Aeroplane" everywhere else. ‑ Iridescent 20:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I got the idea from the fact that, even in the UK, one does not go out for a "breath of fresh aer." But whatever. Sca (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Operating on the ground is SOP for testing. Given this is meant to a potential air-borne rocket launching platform there are 2, perhaps three more points we'd definitely put to ITN: when it completes its air-worthiness tests and deemed ready to go, when a rocket is successfully launched from it in the air, and possibly if they plan a similar test while it is on the ground. The ground-testing is not really a key point even though news sources have picked up on that. --MASEM (t) 23:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose per Thryduulf, TRM and others. Maiden flight should in my opinion be a no-brainer of a post. Should add that I do have sympathy with Stormy clouds' reasoning - the Main Page has been pretty grim of late. . StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ITN can only reflect the world as it is. Sca (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question does wingspan actually matter? That is, is there any kind of technological barrier against having a plane with wingspan of e.g. 1 km? My understanding of skyscrapers is that we can already build much-higher skyscrapers than the world's tallest buildings, it's just a matter of desire, money, and practicality. If that's the same with planes as well then I don't see how this is worth posting. Banedon (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I don't know if a 1 km flying wing is impossible with current technology but we don't live in Star Wars so no benefit could possibly be gained from making a wing that long just to pulverize a world record to dust. Believe it or not but the skyscraper world record is limited by nausea. It is very possible to make a skyscraper taller with the same cost by following the bend so you don't break philosophy but it would sway alarmingly in high wind and that would make people seasick and freak them out. Alternatively, it could have a lower percentage of air but there'd be less floor to offset the increased amount of steel. Or the windows and exterior walls could be replaced by a thicker wall with no windows but people want to not work in a kilometer-tall vertical bunker. Or there could be columns everywhere but floors that are column-less from core to windows rent for more money. Or the core could have less elevators and more column but the elevators would become a transportation bottleneck. Or there could be more elevators per shaft but you'd have to change elevators too many times just to get near the top. Or elevators could be many floors tall but people can only tolerate double deck elevators. Or elevators could be made faster but the world elevator speed record is already 47 miles per hour and air resistance in the shaft is becoming a problem. Or the elevators could accelerate and decelerate faster but that would make people uncomfortable (or float in the air, which means you are falling). Or buildings could be wider and more pyramidal but this would cause an exponential increase in materials. Maximum distance from a window is also a limiting factor (people rich enough to live or work in the world's tallest building are picky). As for airplanes, it is very hard to get a very large airplane off the ground. The Airbus A380 needs to go like 175 miles per hour just to take off while small planes can take off at less than 65 miles an hour. If you scale an airplane up exactly the weight goes up with the cube of the size but the wing area and strength only goes up with the square of the size. And you cannot scale it up exactly (this is the reason a sparrow can have only 2 legs way thinner than it's body while an elephant has 4 tree trunks for legs and can't even jump) The Space Shuttle lands at 214 to 226 miles an hour and needs a parachute just to stop and it's not even as heavy as a jumbo jet (it needs to land that fast cause each kilo of wing takes like 10 kilos of fuel to send to space) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's the problem right - if it's already possible to make a plane with 1km wingspan, but it's not done because of issues of practicality (the takeoff speed you mentioned), cost, and so on, then this really isn't much of an achievement. It just means someone has enough time and money to throw at this project, and there wasn't actually a technological breakthrough. Banedon (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's physically possible with current technology I'd guess it'd be nothing but wing, shaped somewhat like a bridge with buttloads of engines and slight arches and landing gears and maybe guy wires and designed so that some parts have more lift and and pull the other parts up like a suspension bridge and maybe only 100 meters long and 10-20 meters thick. It'd cost many billions of dollars - at least c.100 times this airplane and probably not a trillion dollars and could carry many times less percent of it's weight than a cargo plane (maybe close to zero). Ask someone who's isn't just making educated guesses if I'm right. And just because something is possible with current technology doesn't mean anything: If the world's current paint production level was used to paint America's land (ignoring places it can't stick) it could be done in 35 years but asking for 3 square meters of painting the ground per day per capita for decades is a bit much. Practicality is a consideration or we'd have fighter spaceplanes with rayguns in orbit and Mars colonies right now. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Fine Gael leadership election, 2017[edit]

Lack of overall consensus, and thread appears to have fallen dormant. Will wait for his confirmation as Taoiseach to re-post. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC) )[reply]

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

Template:ITN candidate

  • It's the change in Taoiseach rather than Fine Gael leader which we should stress in the blurb. Does this happen immediately? Fine Gael leadership election, 2017 is currently inadequate in its discussion of what this election means for the Irish executive, it doesn't actually even mention the word "Taoiseach" once. I support this on notability however, as pretty much all Prime Ministerial changes are notable. --LukeSurl t c 10:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Effectively, yes. However, like with the withdrawal from the Paris Accord, there is legal tape to circumvent first. However, unless the coalition falls apart (and all sides have vowed that it won't), the winner becomes Taoiseach within the next fortnight having won the election. In that way, reporting it in ITN is similar to Macron's victory. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, thank you for this clarification. Would you be able to add something along these lines to the article? --LukeSurl t c 12:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stormy clouds and I have made some additions and I'm satisfied the article explains this well. We should make sure any blurb posted doesn't imply that the Taoiseach succession is immediate or guaranteed (as it's possible the government could collapse before the succession). I've had a go at this in alt II but my wording isn't very elegant. --LukeSurl t c 13:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a Leo Varadkar victory (something which looks like a foregone conclusion at this point) would be further notable as he would become the first LGBT Taoiseach, and one of the first European politicians to hold such a high office. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leo Varadkar has officially won, and a prime ministerial change will occur. Article focus has been changed to reflect this. Please post Stormy clouds (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless my phone is loading a cached version, the article hasn't yet been updated to include the election results. These would be required before posting. --LukeSurl t c 17:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait: The Dail vote on him becoming Taoiseach is NOT a formality. Fine Gael is in a minority Government dependent on continuing support from Fianna Fail and Independents. As Harold Wilson once said, a week is a long time in politics, and to assume there will be no hitches along the way is WP:Crystal. Following Varadkar's win, Fianna Fail leader Micheál Martin has already said that he wants to be assured that Varadkar genuinely intends to stick to the programme negotiated a year ago. Subject to the usual article quality requirements, I will definitely support posting if and when he is elected Taoiseach by the Dail (or when he then officially receives his seal of office from President Higgins a few hours later). Tlhslobus (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now - although I see Tlhslobus' point, this is in the news now and in a week's time the election will no longer be news, and there isn't going to be an article on the Dail vote. News sources are using confident but not certain phrases such as Ireland "set" to have first gay PM and Leo Varadkar becomes Ireland's "prime minister-elect". Alt blurb II maintains this careful balance in the ITN style. In general terms we do not usually wait for inauguration when an election has produced a new something-elect.
In terms of the article quality, I think it's at minimum standards now, though some "reaction" coverage would be helpful --LukeSurl t c 19:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I fully expect it will be in the news in both British and Irish media if and when he gets elected. If we post now and he doesn't get elected, we almost certainly won't post his non-election, so lots of our non-Irish readers will be carrying around misleading information in their heads for a long time to come. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say, not many non-Irish/non-British readers carry any information around in their heads about the Taoiseach – a title which to most of us sounds like something related to Eastern mysticism. – Sca (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, especially as regards non-Irish/non-British readers, but our posting this may cause them to carry around in their head the info that we Irish have elected a new (and gay) Prime Minister, which is fine if it turns out to be true, but not if it turns out to be mistaken. But you do implicitly raise a valid but relatively minor question as to whether the blurbs should be changed to refer to Prime Minister, with Taoiseach being hidden in a wikilink - however this relatively minor issue is just the sort of thing that can be debated at WP:ERRORS. Incidentally a mistaken posting is also quite likely to be carried around uncorrected in the heads of many British readers. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about Taoiseach in parentheses, and linked? Sca (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, but isn't that what's already in the two blurbs that mention the job?Tlhslobus (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Alt4, offered above. Sca (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning support. Stormy clouds' rationale for the largest ever aeroplane nomination (which I opposed) – that we need some good news on the page – does have some validity, and this is a story which if not posted now is going to be posted on the procedural date. My view is that if we end up with egg on our faces over posting this prematurely, it will be the example cited evermore as the reason why we never jump the gun. The reason I say "leaning support" rather than "IAR support" is that I want to be reassured that the gap between this election and Varadkar replacing Kenny is procedural rather than political in nature. If it's purely procedural, then forget all the bureaucracy and just do it now. If there's reason to believe there's anything more than a hypothetical but in practise non-existent chance of him not becoming Taoiseach, then obviously we must wait. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why nobody is reporting when it's going to happen is because there is currently nothing purely procedural about the matter - basically it will almost certainly become purely procedural (in practice if not in theory) if Fianna Fail leader Micheál Martin says 'go ahead', but so far all he has said is that he is seeking assurances that Varadkar is genuinely committed to the programme negotiated with Varadkar's predecessor a year ago (see my links and extract below in my next reply). If Martin says No, Varadkar will not become Taoiseach (at least not without months of negotiation and/or a general election). Tlhslobus (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The reliable sources are reporting this as meaning that he will become Taoiseach. I think we are entitled and probably bound to rely on that judgment rather than our own speculation. He will also be the first gay and first ethnic minority Taoiseach. Neljack (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps things have changed since, but last time I looked the most 'reliable' Irish source, RTE, made no mention of Varadkar as inevitable Taoiseach, but described him as 'a Dail vote away from being Taoiseach' ('Leo Varadkar, the new Fine Gael leader, is now a Dáil vote away from being the country's youngest ever taoiseach.'), and mentioned Fianna Fail leader Micheál Martin's statement that he is seeking assurances that Varadkar is genuinely committed to the programme negotiated with Varadkar's predecessor a year ago (here, with extract below). If Martin says No, Varadkar will not become Taoiseach, at least not without months of negotiation and/or a general election. I have also yet to see any reliable source give a date for when he will become Taoiseach, because nobody knows when the Dail vote will take place, presumably because Martin has yet to give any clear indication of what he will do in such a vote - if it was inevitable they would be telling us 'when the Dail meets next Tuesday (or Wednesday, or whenever)'. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Extract as promised above) RTE says here: Speaking on RTÉ's Six One News, Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin said he is looking forward to meeting with the new leader of Fine Gael, most likely in the next week. He said the "Fine Gael angst over the leadership issue" has meant that politics has not been as productive as it could have been. Mr Martin said his party will need reassurances from the new leader that he is committed to making Ireland a "fairer and more decent place". He said he also needs to ensure that Mr Varadkar will hold to the 'confidence and supply agreement' in good faith.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Changes in heads of state/government are what we report here, not the leadership of political parties. Once he becomes PM we can post the news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ad Orientem, I was a bit surprised to be in a minority of one (give-or-take some qualifiers like 'leaning towards') before you turned up.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but for very good reasons (IMO) we don't post changes in the leadership of political parties. Yes, this nomination will likely be stale if he is not to become Taoiseach for another ten days. So what? Just renominate. And assuming the article is up to scratch, this will be posted because changes in heads of state/government are ITNR items. Also I think it will be more impressive to post the first openly gay PM in European history than the first gay political party leader. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're looking for the first openly gay PM in European history, you've missed you're opportunity by 3.5 years. See Xavier Bettel. --Jayron32 05:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that too. You're over 8 years late, per Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir. --Jayron32 05:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question changes in head of state are ITNR, no? Banedon (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Which is why I have suggested that this be renominated once that actually happens. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Like the PM is head of UK government, as in various other parliamentary systems. Sca (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very relevant point of order, Jayron32. ITNR also says "Changes to the head of government are discussed on their own merits. If election is held in two rounds, only the second round results (i.e., when the official is actually elected) are usually posted." This is in effect a two-round election (first the party vote, then the Dail vote, which is the vote when he actually gets elected, assuming he does indeed get elected). Of course we could presumably also post now that Teresa May is "set" or "poised" to remain the British PM after next Thursday, on the basis that there are plenty of 'reliable sources' (possibly even The Irish Sun?) telling us she is "set" or "poised" to win the election. Indeed it is obviously absolutely disgraceful that we failed to let our readers know last October that Hillary Clinton was "set" and "poised" to be the first female President of the US.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt4 – Pitched to Irish/British and non-Irish/non-British readers alike. Sca (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've no problem with its use of 'Prime Minister (Taoiseach)', but as Alt 3 says 'becoming Prime Minister' when he has NOT become Prime Minister (at least not yet), are you suggesting we should now be posting Fake News? Tlhslobus (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. Substituted Alt4 above. Sca (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Irish Times article quoted above in support of posting (The Irish Times says "poised to become Ireland’s next and youngest-ever taoiseach") actually says "A decade later, the 38-year-old Varadkar is now the new leader of Fine Gael, poised to become Ireland’s next and youngest-ever taoiseach – assuming he can agree terms with Independents and Fianna Fáil.". The omission above of that 'assuming' clause totally changes the meaning of what the article said, in a manner that is thoroughly misleading. And we are given The Irish Sun as a 'reliable source', both above and in our current Varadkar article, which also fails to report the caution of reliable sources like The Irish Times and RTE (quoted above by me) when it just says (in its Leader of Fine Gael section) "He will become Ireland's first openly gay Taoiseach, as well as the youngest and the first of half-Indian descent.[23][24]" (by the way, [23] is The Irish Sun, basically the Irish edition of the famous British tabloid, which would not usually be seen as a reliable source, especially when it differs from RTE and The Irish Times). Where reliable sources differ this is supposed to be mentioned, so this also raises issues regarding article quality (I may or may not try to fix that myself later if I have the time and energy, but I'd first hope some person less involved in this dispute might do it instead).Tlhslobus (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per other people and especially oppose alt4 which is showing signs of floundering. LordAtlas (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 1[edit]

[Posted] RD: Roy Barraclough[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose. Most of the article has no sources. Vanamonde (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2017 Resorts World Manila attack[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

  • Note: I've added a blurb. --Jayron32 03:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concrete information is still sketchy, but supposedly this wasn't a mass shooting at all, and it may not even have been intended as an attack. Investigators are theorizing that this may have been a botched robbery, and most/all of the fatalities so far were caused by smoke inhalation. This should be posted either way, I would think, but it's still early. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to edit the blurb as needed. I wrote it based on the state of the article at the time. --Jayron32 04:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral per Bongwarrior but note with some irony that the blurb it's likely to push out is the one on the Marawi crisis, which is also Phillipines related + takes up more news time in the country + will have longer-lasting consequences than this. Banedon (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support posting I saw this earlier and thought to nominate it, but I was unclear on what was going on and ended up taking a nap. I suggest being as vague as we can be in the blurb until specifics are confirmed. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Regardless if the deaths were not a result of the attack, this would still be considered a significant disaster. Give it a couple more hours for stabilization of details before posting. --MASEM (t) 05:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is just the wording of the event. It reads as though the shooter shot everyone and that just wasn't the case.
  • Support with alt2 Needs a better blurb showing how the victims died. They weren't shot. LordAtlas (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with alt-blurb2. Major causality event, but current understanding is that no one was actually shot and that it was not an intentional attack / terrorism. Dragons flight (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt2 covered on every major news outlet, high amount of casualties. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt2 obviously. Good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think we should post Alt2. Whether or not this was terrorism is down to speculation. The local authorities assert that it was a robbery based on no evidence. ISIS claims the attack as their own, again with no evidence. There's circumstantial evidence either way: ISIS previously threatened to increase attacks as part of the local uprising; the perpetrators killed themselves during the attack; there was no use of explosives; no one was apparently shot; the perpetrators took a large amount of casino chips during the attack, and so one. I think it's better to call this an "attack" and change later to "robbery" if there's consensus from authorities, than to call it a "robbery" and then have to sift through the back-and-forth at ERRORS if it turns out to be terrorism.128.214.69.207 (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt2, per the above comments. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Ecx2 Posted alt 2. SpencerT♦C 09:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest we use File:Resorts World Manila.JPG as the ITN image as it more directly relates to an ITN item than a photo of Trump. --LukeSurl t c 10:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SpencerT♦C 17:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] US will withdraw from Paris Agreement on climate change[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose I think it's more relevant that China have committed to it, rather than yet another Trumpism. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is that virtually every other country had committed to it. Now that the US is out, it might destabilize the whole agreement, since the US might hypothetically gain a competitive advantage by polluting unchecked. So it could conceivably have the consequence that China quits it too. So I can't see how you think the big news is that China had previously committed to it (when China thought the US was also in). Also, "rather than yet another Trumpism" is hardly a worthy argument in an ITN discussion. Thue (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WaitSupport Thue has a valid point here, but this also only an intent to withdraw. There is now likely going to be internal politicking going on, possibly on the budget as a bargaining point, before the signature is actually withdrawn. I would wait until the US has committed to the withdraw. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the New York Times article points out, the withdrawal could take 4 years. This is real news, the top headline everywhere, with real consequences RIGHT NOW - there is a reason why e.g. the New York Times is making it a headline now, and not in 4 years. We should of course also post it in 4 years, if the US actually goes through with the withdrawal - 2 posts in 4 years about this extremely significant news item is not too much. Thue (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a good point, I thought it would be something in a few months with bargaining involved, but clearly it's much longer. Add that there's potential ramifications for some other already-signed countries to drop out, plus a handful of US states their their own action to uphold it, and this is too significant a data point to miss. --MASEM (t) 22:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, obviously. This is a huge international story and it is being covered as such by just about every news outlet in the world. Just as with Brexit, the correct time to post is now, when the process begins, not when it is formally completed (which, again as in Brexit, will take a long time). Nsk92 (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • With Brexit, we posted three times, all at hard points of action: the results of the referendum, the court's judgement that they would have to evoke Section 50 to widthdraw, and the actual passage of legislation to evoke Section 50. This presently is an intent to withdraw (the US already signed) so we should wait until the point of action, the actual "de-signing" point. --MASEM (t) 21:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The actual withdrawal is in 4 years. You want to wait 4 years to post this? Thue (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Withdrawing from this agreement is of significant international interest, and more than a standard "Trumpism". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Aside from the US ceding influence on the accord, there is fear that it could upend the whole agreement by motivating other nations to pull out or otherwise not meet their commitments. Major international impact. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is from the WaPo story cited by the nominator: "Withdrawing the United States from the agreement could take years due to the accord’s legal structure and language." By that time, a lot could happen -- and somebody else could be president. This is a typical Trumpian media event designed to gain control of a few news cycles before CNN, NYT and WaPo go back to their usual Russia conspiracy mongering. Whiff of greatness (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who remembers George W. Bush's dance on Kyoto, or that dramatic moment when Canada withdrew in 2011? I certainly had to look it up. In another week, this incident will be remembered as "the Trumpism that happened after covfefe" -- if it's remembered at all. Whiff of greatness (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is clearly ITN-worthy (it's not every day the world's largest economy announces its intention to withdraw from a top-tier international agreement), but the Paris Agreement article currently has only a sentence on the topic, along with a rather speculative and narrow sub-section based on discussions by delegates at a pensions conference. Nick-D (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not think we should expect more yet on this; the news is abuzz with tons of speculation of what might happen but that's not our purposes. The article should state Trump is seeking withdrawl and provide his reasons for it, and any immediate reaction (such as several US cities and three states working to support the agreement despite a lack of federal support). Any more detail is beyond our current scope. (The Paris Agreement is otherwise very good). --MASEM (t) 23:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While a lot may happen in 4 years, this is big news now, drawing reactions from many world leaders (compare other "Trumpisms" like "covfefe" or the orb - no reactions apart from Twitter and a concentrated amount of media articles around a few days).  Seagull123  Φ  22:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is like a terror attack perpetrated by the US on the rest of the world so its news worthy..--Stemoc 22:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trumpose (Oppose), not more Trump creep and this time just about a non-binding agreement. Whether the US is in it officially or not, it really makes little impact, because of the lack of enforcement. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Very significant news. --Bruzaholm (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Article is quite well sourced now. Added altblurb specifying that it was an agreement on climate change mitigation, more than an agreement on climate change. Neegzistuoja (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Such sad news. But why are we not linking the actual article: United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherenk1 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Heavy global coverage of what is probably biggest move yet to implement DT's benighted vision of Amerika über Allies (sic). – Sca (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support heavy global coverage, international diplomatic consequences, what more can we ask for? Banedon (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted a modified version of the altblurb. The US Withdrawal article is the subject of a merge discussion; if that closes as "don't merge" we can change the link later. --Jayron32 00:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (was about to post this myself but Jayron beat me to it.) While I share the concerns expressed by some that we don't want ITN to become a Trump news ticker, sometimes he does things that clearly are really significant news. This falls into that category. On a side note the article appears to be in acceptable condition for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image needs to be yanked as soon as possible. This image is not currently available under a free license, so it may not appear on the front page. Without going into detail due to the confidentiality agreement I have through OTRS, it is not public domain. ~ Rob13Talk 02:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started the process of posting a replacement. In the future, please post such concerns to WP:ERRORS; when noted here they tend to get missed. Problems with currently appearing main page content is dealt with faster if posted at WP:ERRORS. --Jayron32 02:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support - internationally significant, major story. Neutralitytalk 06:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this another Trump story? - The United States announces its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change mitigation. This is shorter blurb, more direct. So what if it's the president that announces things, this is a US action. - hahnchen 09:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- and yes, this is a Trump story; he seems to have gone against all advice, and the consensus within his own party, to do this, and has made it very clear that he, and he alone, is the person responsible for this decision. However, we should be linking United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, not the main Paris Agreement article. -- The Anome (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read above again. When I said "The US Withdrawal article is the subject of a merge discussion; if that closes as "don't merge" we can change the link later" what I meant by that was "The US Withdrawal article is the subject of a merge discussion; if that closes as "don't merge" we can change the link later". I hope that clears up your confusion. --Jayron32 03:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trump made the decision as representative of the US people. He campaigned against it, and the US people rewarded him for it. The US refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, this is not new. The US should not hide behind Trump. - hahnchen 09:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Removed] Remove Battle of Mosul from Ongoing[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

  • Support removal, per nom. SpencerT♦C 10:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal; it seems like it's now time to remove this. We can always add it back should conditions warrant. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal. Not much is served by keeping this on ongoing. I imagine that within the next few months the battle will be over, and if there is a clear point where this happens (probably a declaration of victory by the Iraqi government) that would be an ITN item. --LukeSurl t c 10:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support has outstayed its welcome by some distance. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per previous comments. Sca (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. BencherliteTalk 15:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Kathy Griffin controversy[edit]

Template:Archivetop Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose Not notable (enough). No article. No encyclopedic value in the long run. LordAtlas (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fairly decent article (few BLP issues should be easy to solve), person has a history of controversial behavior, item most certainly in the news. Going to give this snowball a chance. 14 minutes was a little extreme for an "ITN regular" to just decide what "we don't post" per some unwritten rule. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is not significant enough for ITN.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Hollywood drama, nothing of importance in the long-term. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unencyclopedic, no lasting impact, etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a case of censorship in the United States, but at the same time, everyone agrees this content should be censored (herself included now). Did she break the law? Perhaps, if the Secret Service is investigating her. But as far as ITN is concerned, this is too anecdotal.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose This is the type of political mudslinging WP overall (much less ITN) needs to be involved in until its permanence is better known. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - not a significant event as per various above. --LukeSurl t c 20:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archivebottom

  1. ^ Template:Cite news
  2. ^ Template:Cite news
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/June_2017&oldid=1145749792"