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.
A suicide attack on a foreign military convoy in Kandahar kills at least eleven nearby children and wounds sixteen including five Romanian soldiers. (The Times of India)
The Israel Defense Forces say they shot dead three Palestinians in two incidents yesterday. The IDF says one was killed trying to breach the Israeli-Gazan border fence while a second was wounded and arrested. They say the second incident saw two men shot dead after bypassing the fence and throwing explosives at IDF soldiers. (The Wire)
The U.S.-led coalition in Iraq declares an end to major combat operations against ISIL in Iraq and closes the Coalition Forces Land Component Command headquarters. The U.S.-led coalition says in a statement that it would transition "from supporting and enabling combat operations to the training and development of self-sufficient Iraqi security-related capabilities". (Reuters)
Iran's Tasnim News Agency denies reports that yesterday's missile attack in Hama and Aleppo Governorate hit an Iranian military base and says that no Iranian soldiers were killed in the attack. (Reuters)
A Syrian military source cited by pro-Syrian government news outlet Al-Masdar News says that an Israeli F-35 killed more than 30 soldiers yesterday in an attack that completely destroyed the Syrian government's Brigade 47 missile base in Hama. (Al-Masdar News)
Polish Foreign Minister Jacek Czaputowicz says the nation will oppose European Union budget rules set to be introduced on May 2 by the European Commission. The proposals would see funding in the 2021-2027 budget cut for countries where democratic principles and the rule of law are deemed under threat. (The Washington Post)
Japan lodges a formal complaint after footage appears on YouTube of a USF-16fighter jet based at Misawa Air Base in Aomori flying at high speed and low altitude through mountains in an apparent breach of regulations. Japanese law prohibits aircraft from descending below 150 feet in non-residential areas. (The Telegraph)
SAPO arrests three in the greater Stockholm area suspected of plotting a terror attack. SAPO says the case has an international connection; local media reports one of the detainees is an Uzbekistani citizen. (ABC News)
ISIL terror suspect Husnain Rashid appears before Woolwich Crown Court in London. Rashid pleads not guilty to planning and encouraging terrorism, distributing terrorist material, and breaching a notice issued under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. The charges include an allegation he posted details of Prince George's school and encouraged an attack against him. (ITV)
Pakistan's Interior Ministry removes chief prosecutor Chaudhry Azhar from the case, which concerns the murders of 166 people. The Interior Ministry said Azhar did "not take the government line". Seven alleged Lashkar-e-Taiba members have been facing charges since 2009 but nobody has yet been convicted in Pakistan. (The Times of India)
The United Nations suspends Miriam Maluwa as director of the UNAIDS programme in Ethiopia. Maluwa is a key witness in allegations of sexual assault against a programme director, Luiz Loures. Loures is accused of attacking colleague Martina Brostrom in a lift and is due to leave his post today. Brostrom today said she has no confidence the UN will deliver justice as it reopens its investigation. (The Times of India)(The Times of India)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The 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.
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.
Comment. There's a reference needed for opinion in her swimming career. I'd also prefer a live link for ref 10 to cover the quotations after her resignation, though as the full citation is given it's not essential. The bio section could do with breaking up and reorganising; I've put in some subheads but more is needed; I'll try to get to it later. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Extremely important in the context of it likely triggering the United States to pull out of the Iran agreement. Other reactions are certain as well, although it is currently unknown. FlowerRoad (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beyond the stub nature of the article, which does not include the other side of the argument for balance, this piece suggests that Netanyahu is talking about programs from the past, not the present. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose posting accusations. It's no secret that Netanyahu is not a fan of Iran. If Trump ends the Iran deal, that may merit posting. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose full stop. There's no difference between Netanyahu and Trump here, nothing. This is a new version of sabre-rattling, just because North Korea has gone cold. Time to find a new enemy to justify everything else. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My AFD is doomed. Ironically North Korea gets peace, meanwhile Iran gets the "IraqIran has weapons of mass destruction" treatment. Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose because non-trivial work is needed in getting this ready. And there are few people that can do that due to apparent scarcity of English sources. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2018 (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] Avengers: Infinity War box office record
Although not unanimous, there appears to be a general consensus against posting at this time. IMO there is very little likelihood of that consensus being reversed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: A pretty notable achievement in terms of sheer hard cash ($630m global). Also, this is the article millions of people will be coming to Wikipedia to read, and this blurb would put a link on the front page for them. LukeSurltc08:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Past similar discussions(such as for Star Wars:The Force Awakens) have suggested that a movie would merit posting only if it breaks the all time earnings record, not just for an opening weekend. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a very useful way of doing things. This film is in the news (and the public consciousness) now, but will be far less so if/when it reaches ~$2bn takings. The opening weekend is an industry standard way of assessing a film's initial impact which is widely reported in the news, and we have a nice, quotable record which we can make into a blurb with a decent supporting article. --LukeSurltc09:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion for TFA is here. Some comments from there: ""Biggest of all time" yes, if it reaches that, but opening weekend sales are more a piece of marketing than anything else"; "An event like this is a trivial figure in the grander scheme of the world, like being a presidential frontrunner or having a big lead in the middle of the sports season. If it becomes the highest grossing film of all time, definite support"; "Oppose as media generated uber hype, no surprises, and trivia. Please consider making this a DYK."; "Frequently broken record and hardly a surprise for the franchise" and so on. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question Whats the deal on refs for a plot summary? The article is pretty good, but I dunno how you cite a plot summary other than "go watch it". --LaserLegs (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, plot summaries do not require referencing for just that reason. Just referencing a critic's plot summary should handle any exceptions or excuses. - Floydianτ¢13:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its generally assumed that the work itself is fine for implicit sorting of a plot summary as long as no interpretation or analysis is included. --Masem (t) 13:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These types of records meaning little more than verifying the inexorable economic principle of price inflation. Every year, things cost more money, so more money is made on movies. It doesn't necessarily mean more people saw it, or more people bought tickets, just that this year's tickets cost more than last year's tickets. --Jayron3214:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Because that's not in the article and where there are inflation-adjusted numbers, they show TFA at first place. Regards SoWhy15:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TFA probably keeps the domestic (US + Canada) record adjusted for inflation. The nomination is for the global opening. Infinity War is certain to get the record there, but sources rarely talk about adjusted international numbers. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Although this is a lot more significant than your typical commercial jargon ("Number 1 Movie in America! Wow!"), this record gets broken pretty frequently. Looking at the link in the blurb it's happened 4 times now in just under three years (Jurassic World -> Force Awakens -> Fate and Furious -> Infinity War). It may well get broken again in under a year when the next Jurassic World, Star Wars, or Avengers movie is released, though I admit that's WP:CRYSTAL. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see how we can have ~60 sporting events every year but this is not notable because it happens too frequently. I know it's apples to oranges, but that's kind of the point: the standard for what's remarkable in sport (one of the two teams that could have won the Boat Frenzy did!!!) is so much lower than other disciplines because it's easier to articulate. ghost15:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - given just how much it broke the record by - $100 million (a 20% increase on the previous holder), without opening in China or Russia - and that it secured the record domestically as well, it makes sense to recognise this achievement. The article is also decent, and there is no denying, per the nomination, that many people are coming to the website seeking this article as a result of its record-breaking exploits. Posting it would thereby fulfill the primary purpose of ITN. I understand the rationale against posting, but I think that the arguments above overwhelm this. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - considering the frequency of other items at ITN, I don't think that a record being broken thrice in a four year time span is too excessive, and agree that holding posting for later records, when readership is vastly diminished, would not be a great idea. I also don't think that the largest opening ever in one of the largest fields of entertainment is trivial or irrelevant, I don't think that the fact that this was somewhat expected diminishes it, nor do I think that it is solely media driven hype, as was thrown at TFA when it was nominated. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I recognize why this is news, and why this specific record breaking is not just incremental compared to past. But, it is only a matter of time that the next big blockbuster will come along and break this record. Additionally, this is an area where we a bit too much Western bias. Yes, Hollywood >> Bollywood in terms of money, but this is really focusing too much on one specific nation's industry, even though it serves a worldwide audience. I'd like to try to see if we can better balance that with other nation's film industries as appropriate, and to that end, that should focus on things like the nation's indsutry awards (BAFTAs for one), rather than box office take which is just going to be large period because Hollywood has the money to make that happen. --Masem (t) 15:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Come back if it beats the all-time record (or better yet the inflation-adjusted record), not just the raw opening weekend number. That metric is promoted by film studios merely to get more people to see the film; it's not of historical importance. Modest Geniustalk16:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are lots of different records for films, which are broken often. If it becomes the highest-grossing film of all time (currently held by Avatar), I would support posting that. Reach Out to the Truth16:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support Once the movie is released in China and Russia and a box office total is collected, then it should be posted (Awestruck1 (talk) 20:42 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Comment - Even the BBC article suggests that this may not be true, as there are reports that some villages have not been given access to electricity, plus the definition of electrification (10% of all of its homes and public buildings being connected to the grid) is extremely loose.--WaltCip (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based on how electrical grids work, just having connections to some to remote villages is huge. Connecting other buildings is minor compared to getting power to the village. - Floydianτ¢12:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insignificant government pronouncement. Even the BBC is doubting it ans they cannot independently confirm so. But it may be suitable for DYK nomination. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2018 (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.
An Israeli military officer states IDF snipers are targeting the legs of protestors and deaths are largely the unintentional result of protestors bending over, missing shots, and the subsequent rounds ricocheting from intended targets. (Haaretz)
A Palestinian youth is shot and injured at the border near al-Awdeh after approaching the border fence. (W.A.F.A.)
In response to a Yesh Din petition to the Israeli High Court calling for a ban on the use of live rounds to prevent protestors breaching the border fence, the Israeli government says its rules of engagement meet local and international law, that intelligence used to justify decisions will be submitted to the court, and that the protests are considered part of the ongoing conflict with Hamas. (Ynetnews)
Amnesty International makes a fresh call for an arms embargo against Israel, claiming "malicious tactics" and "murderous" attacks on Gazan civilians justify one. (The Jerusalem Post)
The Syrian Army, along with what is believed to be Iranian-backed militias, took control villages east of the Euphrates river near the city of Deir ez-Zor that were under the control by Kurdish-led forces in a rare clash with the Syrian Democratic Forces. The territory was later recaptured by U.S.-backed forces in a counter-attack spearheaded by the YPG with help from U.S.-led coalition jets that took off from American bases in northern Syria. The U.S. military says in a statement that the "coalition used established deconfliction channels to de-escalate the situation". (Reuters)
The leaders of the United Kingdom, Germany and France agree on their support for the Iran nuclear deal as the best way to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons. (The Hill)
In Newport, Wales McCauley Cox drove his car into a crowd outside a nightclub and intentionally hit and injured 4 people before he fled the scene. He claimed he was trying to stop a fight but was found guilty and sentenced for causing grievous bodily harm with intent, causing serious injury through dangerous driving and causing actual bodily harm. Teens Benjamin Thomas and Callum Banton pleaded guilty to affray for their part in starting the brawl which preceded the attack. (South Wales Argus)
The Israel Defense Forces detain one of two Lebanese shepherds who they say crossed the United Nations-patrolled border between the two nations. Lebanon calls the detention an "abduction". The IDF says the female shepherd, detained in the disputed Shebaa region, was quickly repatriated. (The Jerusalem Post)
A police operation in nine commercial premises of the district of La Victoria, in Lima, Peru, managed to seize two tons of pharmaceutical and natural products with an expired shelf life, without sanitary registration, and allegedly falsified. The police officers in charge of this raid on informed that now they will continue to find the whereabouts of all the people involved in the commercialization of this merchandise. (Perú 21)
Brazil surfer Rodrigo Koxa breaks the record for the largest wave ever surfed. The wave occurred off the coast of Nazaré, Portugal and measured 24.4 meters (80 feet). (BBC)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment – Permastub remark is inaccurate (article is 16k+ bytes and growing). Subject's death occurred under highly unusual circumstances, which spurred on the recent article creation—but by no means is subject notability limited to one event. Traywick was a highly-vocal and prominent activist, featured in substantive independent coverage from sources including Vice, BBC News, MIT Technology Review, Popular Mechanics, The Atlantic, Gizmodo, The Verge, Futurism, IFLScience, BioEdge, Reddit, among others, including several live-streamed podcasts and documentaries. His self-experimentation with DIY gene editing in efforts to make widely accessible and inexpensive treatments available to the public for incurable conditions—bypassing any and all safeguards and regulations—elicited a stern warning in direct response from the FDA, completely shifting the tone of the field. Interviews from contemporaries just weeks prior to his death include such choice statements as: “Roberts told the livestream audience that they wanted to "eliminate" Traywick from the biohacking community before he 'hurts people.'” Without being conspiratorial, further press coverage is likely, and there's already no shortage of material from which to draw upon to create a well-balanced and well-referenced article. Traywick was the primary subject of a soon-to-be released feature film, latest working title: Transhuman: Biohackers and Immortalists, directed by Ford Fischer. ー「宜しく 」 クロノ カム 19:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC), 07:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC) 06:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as outlined in previous comment. The article continues to grow; with five days remaining in the evaluation period there's time to resolve length concerns. ー「宜しく 」 クロノ カム 08:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Has been rumored over last few days, but now confirmed to be a full stock buyout. This leaves US with three major cellular providers. Past business deals of this size are generally considered notable for ITN posting when the deal (agreed by both sides) is announced even if we know there's going to be federal trade oversight on the deal (They tried to merge before and it fell through at fed regulation level, but the situation for why they are merging has changed since). I note I don't think either article is up to shape or updated at this point. Masem (t) 00:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1) One line update in both articles isn't enough; 2) Orange tags in both the Sprint article, lots of unreferenced content in T-Mobile; 3) Wait and reassess once the deal is confirmed. The fact that this particular merger was tried and failed before tells me it could fail again. Isa (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with your first two points, but the third is incorrect: Several years ago AT&T (#1 carrier) attempted to purchase T-Mobile (#4). This time it's T-Mo absorbing Sprint. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@LaserLegs: The New York Times source says "Sprint and T-Mobile have tried unsuccessfully to merge before. They were effectively blocked four years ago by regulators in the Obama administration who worried that shrinking the market for wireless providers would give consumers fewer choices and lead to higher prices." Isa (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While it may be true that mergers and acquisitions are posted upon announcement, this is not the first time that T-Mobile has attempted to merge with Sprint. It was rejected in the past by regulators. In this case, it truly will be newsworthy if this merger is approved, as it would be a reversal of prior regulatory policy from only a few years ago.--WaltCip (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I had pre-prepared a prose summary for this article so it is reasonably detailed and updated. I might consider holding this until the end of the season because Barcelona are four games away from the first ever unbeaten season in La Liga. Harambe Walks (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose missing refs in the shirt sponsors, managerial changes, most of the infobox, and "autonomous community" (I don't know or care what that is but if you're gonna drop it in, source it). Also it's yet another domestic soccer league. It's hard to write prose updates for these points based seasons .. you can't cram a game-by-game in the summary section but FFS it's just a wall of tables and a one liner about FC Barcelona sealing the title. For the worlds most popular sport, these articles are boring AF. Unrelated, I need to get a coin made with "Real Madrid" on one side and "FC Barcelona" on the other so I could predict the La Liga champion with 50/50 accuracy. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"FFS it's just a wall of tables and a one liner about FC Barcelona sealing the title" - that's odd because on my screen there's a five-paragraph summary section. Harambe Walks (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Harambe, I'm sorry, I genuinely didn't mean to disparage your efforts. All I'm saying is in a season with 340 matches there had to be more than five paragraphs worth of notability. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that not every single game requires summarization. I am not sure exactly how much summary is needed for a "football" season; as this is out of my area of expertise, I'm not offering a support or oppose to this. How would I know if those five paragraphs are enough or not enough? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting how nonsensical it is. We have season articles for each club too, their quality varies, but honestly, not even Britannica would expect a summary of the 340 games (I made it 380 by the way). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was just confirming that I did in fact write "you can't cram a game-by-game in the summary section" -- which I did. Not sure what compelled you to bring up "MLB" -- especially since we posted the championship tournament [1] and not the boring wall of tables season summary. Oh well. Thanks for participating TRM! --LaserLegs (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This will undoubtedly be posted now because "OMG soccer", go ahead and nominate it again if FC Barcelona goes undefeated -- Soccer records are ITN/R anyway and it further cements La Liga as an utter joke of a competitive soccer league. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaldari: - La Liga is watched world-wide by a massive audience. To call it a regional-interest story is preposterous, and simply false. Moreover, opposing on these grounds makes no sense, or else we would not post half of the items currently on ITN/R. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt it is watched world-wide, however, at least where I'm at, it's not on Google News Sports page and not mentioned in sports news coverage. Perhaps as a European, your view is a bit different than mine. As to the proliferation of regional sports news on ITN, I think we could stand to cut back on it quite a bit. For example, most of the world doesn't even know what snooker is (believe it or not), but we always cover it at ITN as well as pretty much every U.S.-based championship of any sport. Kaldari (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. There are two ongoing discussions at WT:ITNR on this exact topic. I won't repeat what has already been said there, but in summary I think La Liga should be one of the leagues we post once the season is completely over, not when one team gains an unassailable lead. Come back in a few weeks. Modest Geniustalk16:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Soccer is not like other sports--the trophy is awarded and celebrations are held as soon as one team gains an unbeatable lead. Barcelona is hosting the championship parade today, not at the end of the season. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Should also note that La Liga is considered the number one ranked soccer league in the Europe by UEFA, which implies that it's also the number one ranked domestic soccer league in the world. The Premier League may be number one in dollars, but La Liga is number one in terms of how competitive their teams are. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]
@Pawnkingthree: That last bit is actually not true--Manchester City will receive the trophy at their second-last home game of the season, against Huddersfield on May 6. It appears in this case that the club chose that date, which indicates that the club has the right to schedule their trophy presentation whenever they want, once they have an insurmountable lead. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Weak support Article is a bit heavy on the tables, and light on the prose, but I won't hold it up for that. Congrats to Barça --Jayron3218:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is so "ITN worthy" that you're cool with posting the article where none of the managers in the staffing table are referenced? This must be critically important to the readers of Wikipedia! --LaserLegs (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:BLUE comes into that. The majority of the article is sourced, and in modern football most managers are new to the season, so they are sourced in the managerial changes box. If anyone has a serious doubt that Zinedine Zidane is the manager of Real Madrid or that Diego Simeone is the manager of Atlético Madrid I welcome them to put a cn tag and I can get round to that. Harambe Walks (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm applying the same standards which are used for a list of works for a deceased artist: in those cases WP:BLUE has not been applied, and the the article held to an exacting standard of referencing. Maybe it's because of BLP? But then, that'd apply to managers too... --LaserLegs (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Surely this should read "Barcelona wins"? I'd also argue the blurb should explain what "La Liga" is, e.g.: "…Barcelona wins the La Liga football championship." — Hugh (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our standard phrasing is 'Competition X concludes with Y as the champions defeating Z in the final'. Which of course only works if we follow WP:ITNR and post at the correct time - when the competition ends. Modest Geniustalk10:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my mistake. Corrected to the standard wording for sports items, but that doesn't fit a league with no final. Open to suggestions. Modest Geniustalk14:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment - Curious why this was posted now given that La Liga doesn't finish until 20th May when Manchester City winning the English Premier League was nixed partly as consensus was to post it at season's conclusion. yorkshiresky (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yorkshiresky while I'm not privy to that particular discussion, the summary of the season on the Premier League season article is not very well written or well sourced. For example, the last (unsourced paragraph) mentions an "Albion", which me having seen the game know was West Brom, but both them and Brighton are already named in the section (and are both better known by their town than as Albion). Harambe Walks (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Israel launches airstrikes on Hamas ships in Gaza's port and a Hamas building in Deir al-Balah in response to the ongoing, and sometimes violent, protests. (Ynetnews)
Egypt opens the Rafah Crossing into the Gaza Strip for three days, saying it is to be used by students, those requiring medical assistance, and people with permits to enter Egypt. (Haaretz)
A suicide bombing in a restaurant in Galkayo, Somalia, kills three military officials and two soldiers. Eight more people are injured, some critically. al-Shabaab claims responsibility. (CNN)
Bone remains of more than 140 children and about 200 young llamas were found in the Peruvian city of Trujillo, near the Chan Chan citadel, according to a National Geographic publication. This discovery, which would date from the time of the little-known Chimú pre-Columbian civilization (about 550 years ago), would be, for researchers, the largest mass sacrifice of children in the American continent. (El Comercio)(National Geographic)
A communal toilet collapses in Bhandup, Mumbai, India. Several people are trapped and require rescue, with two dying en route to hospital. (First Post)
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.
Oppose based on article quality; I declined to nominate this because it seemed too far from acceptable. The only sourced content about him is that he founded Burning Man, and that he died. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment. Still some uncited material; for an article of this contentious nature everything must be covered by reliable sources with inline citations, especially as no doubt many of the other subjects involved are alive. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Large chunks of the article are still cited to articles in a local newspaper, The Daily Gleaner. I personally have no idea how reliable this is, but I would not consider the equivalent UK newspaper reliable for such matters. Perhaps someone knowledgeable about Canadian press could weigh in. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I share the concern of Espresso Addict to a great extant. Just because every sentence is marked with citation superscript that doesn't mean everything is right. This article is biased and heavily unduly slanted towards opinion of one paper/journalist. That paper is used almost 10 times as standard reference and reference-called 16 more times, that is over 85% of all the references. For an article that host such odd negative biographymultiple high-quality sources" are required. And that Daily Gleaner is not even notable, for us to asses how reliable it is (notwithstanding it has that next-to-nothing stub) and all the stories were written by one journalist; more cause for concern. I am not sympathetic to this subject or how he lived, but sympathetic about what Wikipedia should present. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
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.
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: Alfie Evans was a seriously ill 1-year old child whose treatment, and eventual withdrawal of life support, was the subject of the Alfie Evans case. This has been an ongoing story in the UK for the past few weeks and had international dimensions as well. There is an argument here for a blurb, but for me simply listing "Alfie Evans" under recent deaths sufficiently informs a reader of the main page who is familiar with the name about this final, tragic, development. This is technically a case where the article is regarding a case rather than specifically being a biography, but I see no utility in that obstructing an RD item. LukeSurltc07:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I was thinking of nominating this myself after seeing it appear in WaPost and WSJ. Only making note this was not an isolated story only to the UK (likely in part of the Pope's/Vatican's involvement) --Masem (t) 14:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for posting. This really ought to be a blurb, not because he was "very important" or whatever but because this story has been in and out of the news for a year, and the legal battle (also the title of the article) is the story here, not the individual. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb - If the standard we're using for a blurb is that the individual should be a transformative world leader or someone whose death makes news for a significant length of time, I don't believe this subject passes the Thatcher-Mandela standard.--WaltCip (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Putting this as a blurb would be epitome of excessiveness and belittling to the death like this that we blurbed few weeks ago. By that standard we should just copy whatever is on the BBC front page and paste on the ITN template everyday. –Ammarpad (talk)
You're opposed to the "In the news" section featuring stories which are "in the news"? How odd. Hawking was an obit, the saga of the end of his life was not the central story of his life. Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Three Palestinians are killed and over 300 hurt according to the Hamas-run health ministry as thousands protested. The Israeli army says that hundreds of rioters tried to infiltrate Israel, attempted to start fires in a number of ways, and attacked the security fence with explosive devices, grenades, and rocks. (The Times of Israel)
Conservative media site RedState fires most of its staff and its owner Salem Media Group freezes the site, stating they could "no longer support the entire roster of writers and editors". Staff claim they were fired for their opposition to U.S. PresidentDonald Trump. (The Hill)
Jet engine manufacturer CFM International calls for heightened checks of its CFM56-7B after a Boeing 737 passenger died in an accident this month. The CFM56-7B is one of the most commonly used engines worldwide. (CNBC)
The Chinese captain of MV Ever Juder is charged in connection with an oil pipeline rupture and fire that killed five. He and 21 of his crew are detained in Balikpapan, Indonesia after the ship's anchor was dropped in a prohibited area. The dragging anchor struck and ruptured the pipe. (Splash)
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi invites Chinese President Xi Jinping to an informal summit next year as he began an ice-breaking visit to China on Friday in which the giant neighbors are seeking to re-set troubled ties. (Reuters)
Nikolas Cruz, the accused suspect of the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School, is due to be in court. The hearing is expected to deal with several procedural issues, possibly including the setting of an initial trial date. (NBC News)
Fred and Cindy Warmbier, the parents of detained American student Otto Warmbier, files a lawsuit against North Korea government, stating that Otto was "tortured and murdered", and also claimed that the DPRK "intentionally destroyed" their son's life. (The Sydney Morning Herald)
A photograph from the Hubble Space Telescope reveals a companion star that survived the explosion of a supernova in galaxy NGC 7424. This brings strong evidence to a theory according to which Type IIb "stripped-envelope" supernovae are due to stellar companions capturing hydrogen from the progenitor star's envelope before its explosion. (UPI)
Astronomers from the Outer Solar System Origins Survey (OSSOS) announce the discovery of ~80-kilometre (50 mi) asteroid 2015 KE172, a detached object orbiting 44–222 times the distance from Earth to the Sun. (Minor Planet Center)
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: Needs a lot more references; I'll work on that shortly. Technical question – should names of political parties be translated? –FlyingAce✈hello21:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I have fully referenced the article (except for one award), added some more information about his presidential term, and copyedited most of it. I would appreciate it if someone with better English skills could go over it, in case I missed something (there are a couple of paragraphs that could use a rewrite, but it's bedtime here). –FlyingAce✈hello05:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the missing reference, tweaked some of the wording and added more information about his work as mayor. I believe we are set now, but if anything else needs work, let me know. –FlyingAce✈hello20:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: A technically important article (neonicotinoids are the world's most widely used pesticides) and one that's gathering a lot of public interest (people are interested in saving bees) Smurrayinchester14:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Interesting, and important. However, 1) No evidence this is actually in the news (which is a shame but oh well) and 2) Article has missing refs and dead links. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
International coverage of SFOs scooter menace: [3][4][5][6][7]. Just because some WP:RS has covered a thing, does not mean that thing is "in the news". It's 2018, online publications spewing out rehashed wire stories about something in an effort to rise in search engine rankings and get more eyes on ads is not the same as featuring something. Come on. My benchmark is to use the aggregators Google and Bing. Widely reported stories trend on those. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The European Union is not a "online publication spewing out rehashed wire stories." When it bans something it is binding on 28 member states and gets widely reported, as is the case here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Literally everything the EU bans or approves affects 28 countries, not impressed. I look for news coverage, simple as that. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Let's use Google News as an example. There I get ~20 headlines each in "domestic" "international" "science" "health" etc. I can set my location to pretty much anywhere in the world, and while there is some overlap, the feed is effectively local. I just browsed through over 300 distinct headlines in a failed attempt to find this story. If I can't find it without typing "neonicotinoid" in a search box, it is not "in the news." ghost16:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose for now. The article is in pretty good shape overall, however the update is far too minimal. There's basically one line of text in body of the target article (repeated in the lead) describing the ban. If this could be expanded to provide some more context, that would fix the problem.--Jayron3216:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but agree with Jayron that the article needs a slightly more meaty update. i'm confused by why other editors are not finding this is in the news; it is still on the science & environment index page of BBC, for example. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've provided what should be sufficient expansion, but I'm a little concerned about the rest of the article, which has a few CN tags and several instances of large sections being sourced to a single reference. Vanamonde (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The handshake between the leaders of the two Koreas symbolizes one of the biggest breakthrough in world's peace process of 2018 from the remaining of World War II. Chongkian (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely notable and in the news merely by its occurrence. I think we should wait till the summit ends, and hopefully the article will have more content then. There might be an outcome from the summit worth highlighting in the blurb. --LukeSurltc08:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Unlike a lot of similar summits, the mere occurrence of this one is highly notable. I don't think we need to wait for the end to post it. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does this declaration technically count as the elusive peace treaty to end the Korean War? It's a technicality, but so is the extended "state of war" that is often discussed. --LukeSurltc10:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell it doesn't. I'd prefer to go for the denuclearisation angle in the blurb, as this is more what news orgs are picking up on. --LukeSurltc10:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to how the Empire of Japan and the Soviet Union never formally declared peace after the declaration of war in WWII, the Korean War never formally ended and has technically been active for the last 68 years. Brendon the Wizard✉️ ✨17:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, or legally, there never was a peace treaty between the German Reich or its successor state(s) and its enemies, although one was alluded to at Potsdam. (However, the 1990 "Two Plus Four" treaty on German Reunification is considered by many observers to have formally ended the state of war.) – Sca (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An explosion occurs in the Husky Oil Refinery in Superior, Wisconsin. Five people are reportedly injured. Local residents have been ordered to evacuate. (mix108)
Thirteen children are killed after their school bus collides with a train in the Uttar Pradesh, India. (BBC)
Bill Cosby is found guilty of three counts in regard to an aggravated sexual assault of a woman in 2004 in a retrial. He faces a maximum sentence of ten years imprisonment and a fine of up to $25,000 on each count. (NBC News)
Nominator's comments: Breaking news, so article (and by extension, second article) will need updating. I imagine this will happen rather quickly. Some unsourced content, but should be easy to fix. Floydianτ¢18:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but article quality issues... This is easily a ITN story, but we need clarity on the blurb. Cosby's article is nearly there but there's a few tagged areas and the -ography sections lack references. If we are talking the allegations articles, there's far too much proseline in that, even though it seems reasonably sourced. It's more quality less than sourcing here. --Masem (t) 18:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose for now; both potential targets have some cleanup issues, the Cosby article has some sourcing issues (esp. in Honors and Filmography/Discography sections) and the allegations article is a bit bloated, though that one is less of an issue for me. I really wouldn't object to the allegations article being the bold highlight, but it'd be nice to tighten up both of them before they hit the main page. --Jayron3218:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak Support Though I hesitate to support stories about individual crimes with few exceptions for things such as terrorism, we recently posted to ITN a high-profile conviction for murder demonstrating that such stories are ITN worthy as long as they show significant interest which this one clearly does. As others have mentioned, I would recommend making any changes to the article deemed necessary. Brendon the Wizard✉️ ✨18:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don’t now if I’m going against the status quo or not but this story has been in the news off and on ever since it first broke several years ago, and it’s constantly blasted on the news whenever a major development like this happens. It’s not “just an individual crime” when it’s multiple charges of the same crime by at least 50 different alleged victims. 66.31.81.200 (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I typically don't call for posting criminal activity in general with exceptions for extreme cases such as terrorism (both international and domestic) and mass killings or shootings. However, I do recognize that this is story is demonstrably notable and highly publicized, meaning I have no real reason to oppose it, which is why I did support it (except the article really does need better sourcing to pass BLP concerns, in all cases this should be fixed before we post stories) Brendon the Wizard✉️ ✨19:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - notable story, worthy of a blurb, but my lord the referencing issues are bad. BLP people - this cannot go up until it is impeccable sourced - there is no room for unsourced material in such a contentious BLP. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing weak support, changing !vote to oppose I just realized we should probably wait until the sentencing to post... Brendon the Wizard✉️ ✨19:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we (at ITN) weigh the conviction more than the sentence, barring an unusual sentence. We also generally ignore appeals in cases like this (and I believe I've read they're already planning to appeal this). --Masem (t) 20:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending article improvement? Masem above cleared away my only reservations based on the notability of the event. Cosby's bio has 13 ((cn)) tags as of now, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Suggested alt blurb with the sex assault article being the highlight, and also mentioning last year's mistrial for perspective and reference. 66.31.81.200 (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, but Cosby's article needs better sourcing. The other target article, about the allegations, is pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the bolding as per the alt-blurb. The article Bill Cosby has citation issues, however these do not relate to the news story so IMO it is not essential to have these sorted before posting if this is not a bold article. --LukeSurltc10:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ahmed Abu Hussein, aged 24, becomes the second journalist killed while covering protests at the Israel–Gaza border. Hussein was hospitalized in Gaza after being shot by Israeli Defence Forces two weeks prior while wearing a press jacket. (The Jerusalem Post)
Four mass graves are found in Gasabo, Rwanda, thought to date back to the 1994 genocide. Around 3,000 people from the area remain missing. Houses are demolished to access the graves. (BBC)
Around 500 experts from over 70 countries meet in Paris to start a two-day counterterror conference discussing methods of cutting financing to Al-Qaeda and ISIL. (The Tampa Bay Times)
The terror trial of Beate Zschäpe hears closing arguments in Germany. In addition to a series of murders, Zschäpe stands accused of bombings and bank robberies. (The Local)
Israeli border police officer Ben Deri receives a 9-month sentence for fatally shooting Palestinian teen Nadeem Nawara in 2014. Deri was convicted of causing the unarmed boy's death by negligence. No charges were brought over the shootings of two other teens, one of whom also died. The court heard Deri used live ammunition without authorisation. (The Guardian)
Scotland's Parliament approves a bill devolving authority for social care payments. The bill arranges staggered introduction with complete devolution by 2021 and formation of a new agency to administer it. (BBC)
Reza Pahlavi, former crown prince and son of Iran's last Shah, asked authorities for access to the body of Reza Shah, through trusted doctors and scientific experts. He also added his grandfather must ultimately be buried again in Iran, in a manner that respects the wishes of their family and the Iranian people. (Newsweek)
A flaw, called the "Ghost in the Locks" exploit, is reported with hotel keycard systems created by the Swedish lock company Assa Abloy. The company states that they began deploying a patch in February. (BBC)
Astronomers detect light from 14 colliding galaxies. Due to the distances involved, the light comes from events which occurred around 12 billion years ago. (BBC)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Weak Oppose I'm not sure if all of the relatively few sources are WP:RS. Also I am not sure how "in the news" this is. I am open to correction if the sources are in fact reliable and there are more than a couple of short obituaries in local news outlets. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: No lasting impact, but since developments in this case has made the news at various points + we're short blurbs, nominating this to see what ITN thinks. Banedon (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – As long as we don't call him an "inventor," as most of the big news sites do. Basic submarine-technology was invented a century-plus ago. The only thing Wall invented was a cockamamy tale about his voyage, if one may use the term, with Ms. Wall. Sca (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose. Since when did ITN post tabloid stories about a single murder? This is local crime news with no major encyclopaedic impact. Modest Geniustalk14:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have generally posted the conviction of people considered "high profile" on criminal charges, eg Oscar Pistorius back [Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/September 2014 here]. --Masem (t) 14:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose I agree with Modest Genius. A single murder has been to extremely noteworthy in order to reach ITN, and I don't believe Madsen is as (in)famous as Pistorius. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong about that. I agree that a murder on a personal submarine is rare, but rarity is not a sufficient reason to post this, in my opinion. Lepricavark (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support this has been in the news on and off for months, and was headline-breaking news where I reside and there's literally no connection between this news story and where I am, so it's clearly big news, and something our readers would be interested in. The conviction is in, we posted Pistorius, and rightly so, and this is simply a parallel to that. Notable person kills notable person and then denies it. Seems obviously an ITN item to me. Plus article is okay too. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. But that's water under the bridge really, although making that claim about Hindley indicates to me that you have a very different interpretation to news and crime from me, so it's probably best to can the conversation right now. P.S. the Madsen article was created in 2011, so I'm unclear about your "were it not for the murder" comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Madsen article was barely there at the time of the murder. Neither of these people are remarkable in any sense. Rich guy kills journalist, chops her up - it's salacious. A sensational story doesn't become encyclopedic because the MSM picks it up. ghost16:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That it was "barely" here is irrelevant. Featured for some time all over reliable sources, of interest to our readers, and of suitable quality. Works for me. Now I suggest you all go and do something more useful than simply argue the toss with me, after all it won't make any difference now. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support – It's a seamy story all right, but it's long been featured intermittently on mainline news sites (including NYT), and not only English-language [12]ones. The sordid circumstances, and not least the underwater aspect, inevitably generate high reader interest. Sca (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
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:Golden State Killer (talk·history·tag) Blurb: After three decades, police arrest a person they suspect to be the Golden State Killer. (Post) Alternative blurb: Police arrested 72-year-old Joseph James DeAngelo as the suspected Golden State Killer, alleged to have committed 50 rapes and 12 murders. News source(s):[13][14] Credits:
Oppose I can see the interest in a cold case suddenly have been solved, but they have only arrested and charged him. The person will have a trial. Per BLP and per past ITN approaches, we post these if the trial determines sentences him. --Masem (t) 18:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem. Yeah, at minimum the person's name shouldn't be in the blurb per BLP; and when he is convicted seems a better time to post it (and it should be news then too) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This person was not a known fugitive like El Chapo, who had also escaped from prison, or even someone famous like a head of state. They only suspect this person is the killer. WP:BLP is controlling. 331dot (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Ongoing protest campaign continuing to receive deep coverage in reliable sources. Recent removal treated a largely weekly protest with major mobilizations on Fridays as "stale" b/c of diminished Monday-Wednesday coverage. Carwil (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe hold the nomination until Saturday, then? Support, but prefer a standalone blurb. I'm wary of using ongoing for too long (surely an editor committed enough could update Syrian Civil War every day with new RS). But I think the five executions (Hey, they know where every bullet landed) this week warrant mention. ghost11:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's been out of the news for a few weeks and the article hasn't been significantly updated with new developments for a while. There have been a few edits, but it looks mostly like cleanup of the organization. Most of the things going on now are minor and restricted to local news. And, lets try not to anticipate events before they happen. OtterAM (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stepen: Maybe "10,000 people is not a high number," but "it was the first breach of the security fence in five consecutive weeks of Palestinian protests," and Israeli army spokesman called it an "audacious" and "severe" attack.(LATimes)--Mhhosseintalk18:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. I think the recent events need to be going on for more than 1 day (referring to the April 27 update; there's nothing since Apr 20 before then), so if there's something for 2 or more days, I would consider supporting. SpencerT•C00:58, 28 April 2018 (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.
Three people are shot and critically wounded, two of them Dallas Police officers and the other a security guard, at a Home Depot in Dallas, Texas. The suspected shooter, who was also attempting to shoplift merchandise, was arrested soon after. One of the police officers died from his injuries the next day. (CBS News)(ABC News)
In Lima, Peru, a 36-year-old man gets on a public transport bus and sets fire to the passengers, after spraying them with gasoline, leaving 10 people injured. The most affected, a 22-year-old young woman, was seriously injured and believed to be the target of the attack. (Panamericana Televsión)(Diario Correo)
An alleged arson attack kills 18 in a karaoke lounge in Qingyuan, China. A suspect is arrested. (The Guardian)
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support as the article is in good shape. I'd action this soon as we have Anzac Day in New Zealand (and Australia) and given that he was the highest-ranked WWII veteran, this will go through the news media quite quickly. Schwede6623:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
support - perhaps the Awards and accolades section needs some extra source but other than that it is ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Article:2018 Nicaraguan protests (talk·history·tag) Ongoing item nomination (Post) Alternative blurb: Protests break out in Nicaragua, resulting in at least 26 deaths Alternative blurb II: Protests break out in Nicaragua after a social security reform, resulting in at least 26 deaths Alternative blurb III: Protests break out in Nicaragua, demanding the resignation of president Daniel Ortega, resulting in at least 26 deaths News source(s):Al JazeeraABC NewsReuters Credits:
Support blurb Has been in the news and events have been escalating. I think posting a blurb would be fitting, which then goes down to ongoing if events continue and the article stays updated. SpencerT•C17:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing The article is showing updates basically daily for a week, that seems to be ongoing, especially since no one has produced a blurb which would be more detailed than "There are protests in Nicaragua". Seems like a perfect target for ongoing. Would consider a blurb if it were properly worded, but one has not yet been produced. --Jayron3217:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing as nominated. This has started almost a week ago and the news has been virtually the same everyday since then and even today no major difference from the previous days. It may be renominated for blurb when it culminated in some serious changes or political moves–Ammarpad (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would suggest renominating if the protests end and/or if, for example, Ortega resigns as president. For now, the social security reforms were pulled back due to the protests. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll suggest some blurbs for the time being, but I recommend reconsidering it since English is not my mother tongue. I should also note that the Nicaraguan Red Cross estimate is of 9 deaths and that Ortega cancelled the social reforms, but protesters now ask for his resignation.--Jamez42 (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Positive news from the city and country. Article has slight referencing issues and there has been a minor update on the pledge. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Modest Genius - there's currently only a sentence on this action in the article, and that's probably the correct level of detail for this at the current time. In terms of international aid, $50m isn't that much, and promises of aid don't always result in actual action. I think the re-opening of the mosque after reconstruction is complete would be a reasonable ITNC nomination. --LukeSurltc13:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support the update to the pledge of rebuiling is too short and should be placed into it own tab on the page. Must be updated and added to be posted. --Awestruck1 (talk) 20:44 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - Good faith, but the pledging of money alone isn't highly significant. Brendon the Wizard✉️ ✨14:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Mass airstrike on civilans, namely women and children. Article is still a stub; please feel free to help update the article to make it suitable enough for ITN (I will try to update the article as much as I can though). Andise1 (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When quoting casualty ranges, blurbs should be in the form "at least <minimum estimate>" rather than "as many as <maximum estimate>" (see alt blurb). I think this is notable, though the article will need some more expansion before it is ready. I'm also cautious about leaning too much on the RT reporting, as this is not a particularly reliable/neutral source. --LukeSurltc10:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andise1: Is there any source for The planes repeatedly flew over the area where the strike was being conducted, thus preventing medical personnel from being able to help the victims other than RT? It's a very accusatory statement, and RT is allied with the opposite side of this conflict to the Saudis. --LukeSurltc08:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Meaningful text in the article describing the actual event is basically no longer than the blurb would be; other than the blurb text there are two quotes. Nothing else meaningful is in the article, so it is too short to provide any real useful information to the reader. If someone were to greatly expand the article, I would re-read it and reconsider. --Jayron3217:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It's better than it was; it would be nice to see more here, but I won't hold it up with an oppose vote. It's tolerable for the main page. --Jayron3214:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added three ((Unreliable source?)) tags to some strong statements that are currently sourced only to RT and Press TV. Given that these organisations are effectively state broadcasters of Saudi opponents in this conflict they cannot be the sole source in what amount to accusations of war crimes. --LukeSurltc10:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's ready to go now. I've edited a bit to qualify some statements ("X said Y happened", rather than "Y happened") where necessary and avoid leaning anything too strong on questionable sources. In particular, I've changed "targeted" to "hit", so as to not necessarily imply intention. Going forward, we should be aware that in international politics and war, both sides can produce professional news copy which suits their purposes, and we need to be careful about accepting these verbatim. --LukeSurltc15:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support The expansion of content and sources cleared up any concerns regarding sourcing & a tragic event with several dozen casualties is inherently significant, especially one this careless and hostile. Brendon the Wizard✉️ ✨19:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Undecided Might merit a blurb. Changes of heads of state are usually blurb worthy. However, his office is largely unrecognized, but on the other side the circumstance is highly unusually (death by airstrike), which usually increases the blurbworthiness. HaEr48 (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ferry operator DFDS has discontinued their Rosyth – Zeebrugge ferry service. DFDS says it is no longer profitable to operate the route. The change follows a fire aboard the MV Finlandia Seaways a day before. The Scottish government seeks urgent talks between DFDS and Transport Secretary Humza Yousaf. (BBC)
The U.S. State Department orders the families of U.S. diplomats in Nicaragua to leave amid riots by protestors against proposed pension changes. President Daniel Ortega has scrapped the changes but further protests are nonetheless anticipated. (BBC)
Danish prosecutors seek a life sentence for Peter Madsen, accused of murdering a Swedish journalist on board his self-built submarine. Psychiatric evidence describes Madsen as presenting "psychopathic traits" and a "high risk" of offending further. (The Straits Times)
The owners of the Dutch ship MV FWN Rapide announce the ship was attacked by pirates last night while sailing from Ghana to Nigeria and 12 of the crew abducted. (Splash 24/7)
Suspect Salah Abdeslam and a co-defendant are convicted of attempting to murder police officers and terror offences in Belgium, with each receiving a 20-year sentence. Abdeslam is being held in France awaiting trial for the 2015 attacks. (BBC)
It is confirmed runner Matt Campbell, a former MasterChef semifinalist, died in hospital after collapsing during yesterday's London Marathon. The race was the hottest since the annual event began. (BBC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose on article quality. Neither has been updated adequately and the human penis article is very poorly referenced. I am Neutral on the merits of the nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know of a more suitable article than penis (or scrotum)? Those were just the two that first came to my mind, but open to others if more suitable ones exist. Andise1 (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support with different target article (Penis transplantation). However the human penis article also has this section which makes it seem like this transplant is an incremental advance. Open to changing my mind, but will need some indication of why this is so different from previously-performed penis transplants. Banedon (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
support If the first heart transplant was notable (and WP was not there then) then this is. Although might have to watch the wording. "Male secual organ"/"urinary gland", I do not know.Lihaas (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most people are stupid. The heart is just a pump; that's why it was the first organ to be transplanted. People only think its special because of the mythical association as the seat of emotion, which is WP:FRINGE. Hawkeye7(discuss)05:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral / mixed It's interesting and certainly notable, but DYK does seem more fitting. I'm willing to switch to either support or oppose based on other editors' comments. I agree with Banedon that there should be indication of what makes transplant in particular unique compared to past transplants. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all of the above, this is the kind of nomination that will garner controversy should it be posted...it’s just plain out obscene. Kirliator (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technically, this was completed in March, they're likely only reporting it now to make sure the man was recovering. This might be stale for that reason. --Masem (t) 04:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do we not post things when the news reports about them? This is technically "in the news" now, whereas in March it was not. Andise1 (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because several editors have opposed this on the basis on obscenity, I just checked WP:Obscenity. There is absolutely nothing there that would allow this news item to be ruled obscene. Those objections would appear to fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and therefore count for nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lepricavark, better suited for DYK, not ITN. In addition, this nomination is starting to become the source of bias from both sides of the issue (e.g. one side claiming it is obscene, and the other claiming it isn’t and that the the former is posting just because they don’t like it. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try once more. What in this item is obscene according to Wikipedia policy? I have asked this of several people who have already suggested it. None has responded. It looks an awful lot like "I don't like it" to me. HiLo48 (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I seriously doubt that there is any encyclopedic benefit that can be gained by putting this front and center on the main page. I also don't appreciate Hilo's bludgeoning of voters. That puts me off even more. WaltCip (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And do you really think the Wikipedia community should appreciate a bunch of conservatives trying to control what gets published in direct contravention of policy? I am the one defending Wikipedia policy here. The conservatives are ignoring and confronting it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the reasons aren't backed up in policy, then the posting admin that oversees this nom will take that into account. You do not need to harangue, harass, bully, bludgeon, etc. every single oppose vote that even hints the slightest discomfort with this blurb. Doing so only imperils your own position. Of course, none of this is notwithstanding the fact that this may not even be news, per Modest Genius. In which case, DYK is an ideal forum to bring this up at, not ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the utility on going for a double-bold blurb for this. In which article is the reader going to find info on the transplant? Currently the answer is neither. Human_penis#Surgical_replacement makes no mention of this 2018 transplant and says the first successful transplant was 2005. I find no mention of transplants in the Scrotum article. Oppose unless there is a meaningful addition to article space regarding this event. --LukeSurltc09:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There's nothing obscene about this, but the sources indicate that it is an incremental advance over previous transplants. The BBC are crediting the breakthrough as having happened in 2016. Also, for scientific stories we wait for the publication of a paper in a peer-reviewed journal; it's unclear to me whether that standard applies to medicine as well (for a new drug we should certainly wait for a published clinical trial). DYK might be suitable if penis transplant has been suitably expanded. Modest Geniustalk10:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support ah, so not just Europe then. Unstoppable tragedy strikes North America and horribly so. Support because it's notable that it's in Canada, it's notable that it has a reasonably high casualty count, the article is already good enough to post, it's in the news globally, this is ready already. Blurb sucks, but otherwise post now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Support although I'm not certain we should call it a "vehicular attack". The BBC news are currently reporting the local police as calling it an "apparent attack" so I've proposed an alt-blurb but that could do with being more succint. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. This is undoubtedly either a terrorist attack or a lone wolf copycat of a terrorist attack. Suggested second alt blurb. Also CNN is reporting “at least 9 dead” and “at least 16 injured”, so I’ve added those stats to my blurb. 66.31.81.200 (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That ten was a nine when I asked, but simply updating is the way to go. Saying "at least" kind of implies (at least some) of the injured are expected to die, rather than might. Not the most positive (or neutral) thinking. InedibleHulk(talk)01:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, where on earth are you getting I don't think this has happened outside of Europe before from? Indiscriminate ramming attacks are fairly routine in Israel, and there were three high-profile ramming attacks in North America last year alone (Charlottesville, Edmonton and NYC). ‑ Iridescent 208:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Significant and prominently featured in Englang media (and also, quite frankly, because it's not in the U.S.) – Sca (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's futile, but as a Canadian citizen living in the USA I can't decide what's more pathetic and insulting here: the flippant disregard for stories about tragedies in the USA or that this (not terrorist) attack in Canada is "ITN worthy" "because it's not in the U.S.)" --LaserLegs (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2018 (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.
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support in principle, oppose on quality. Not only is there that orange tag, that proseline in the "early career" section is a problem. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support this resignation will have a lasting effect on the socio-political dynamic in the country. The resignation came after lots of protests which are in itself notable. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support but please see the Armenian Protests discussion below instead; the protests that led to this should absolutely be mentioned in the blurb + the protests article is more ready for ITN. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What maintenance tag? I checked all three articles in the blurb and I haven't come across one. Is everyone talking about the expand suggestion tag? Is that even a maintenance tag? Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "What maintenance tag?" is right. This article has a tag saying that someone who speaks Armenian (!!) should help translate and migrate content from the Armenian page to the English. Instead of posting this we're posting the names of professional athletes, one of whom set a record times at the London Marathon and the other (whose photo is now on the home page) hasn't even had their Wikipedia page updated with information about the London event. This article is ready to be posted.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but there's still an orange-level tag in one section. I lack the expertise to know if it still applies or has already been dealt with. Modest Geniustalk10:46, 24 April 2018 (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:Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (talk ·history·tag) Blurb: The Duchess of Cambridge gives birth to a son the fifth in line to the British throne (Post) News source(s):Sky News Credits:
Nominator's comments: This is going to be going round the world like wildfire when the states wakes up to this news, this is going to to be in the news all round the world and has already begun. WTKitty (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to neutral, as we didn't post one for Charlotte. Yet another example of how ITN is IMHO dysfunctional because it serves as a vassal for editor prejudice and original research rather than reader convenience and the posting of things that are actually *in the news*. But hey ho, there's nothing I can do about that I guess... — Amakuru (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru What "prejudice" is involved here? No prejudice was involved in forming my opinion. ITN is not a news ticker and has never been based solely on what is in the news(if it were, we would post Donald Trump's tweets almost daily); we use factors like editorial judgement and article quality to evaluate what merits posting. As I stated, we did not post Charlotte because her birth is of little consequence as she is not directly in line for the throne, once George has kids she will be bumped down. The same goes for this child. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: you say it's down to editorial judgement, yet the judgement of those who !vote here seems to differ from the judgement of all the most of the major news outlets of the world, including the serious outlets not just tabloids. I get that WP:OR and WP:SYNTH don't apply to main page content selection, but we should still be presenting the world as it is, not how we think it should be, and it should still be reader-focused. Perhaps you and I have a different view of what ITN should be about, but I think one of its main purposes, especially given its prominent position on the main page, should be to navigate editors to the articles they want to see at the moment. Kate Middleton's article has seen a big spike in views in the past couple of days, because readers want to read it, and "she is not directly in line for the throne" is not a reason why we shouldn't provide a link to the article for people. — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Readers want to read about Kim Kardashian's hairstyle, should that be a permanent link in the ITN box? We need to reflect what readers are interested in, but this is also an encyclopedia, and what readers are interested in also needs to be viewed through that lens. ITN is not a news ticker or tabloid. What you think is important for readers is not necessarily what I think is important for readers, or what other editors think, and so on. Hence the need for discussion and consensus. "She/he is not in line for the throne" is absolutely a reason not to post this, as if it was not a royal birth, it would not be in the news at all. It has no consequence to who the head of state of the UK/other nations is(which is why George was posted). If consensus turns and decides this merits posting, I would post it despite my personal views, but I don't expect that to happen. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We posted George because he is directly in line for the throne, we didn't post Charlotte because she isn't, the same should go for this son. Once George has children, his new brother will be bumped down the line. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. George was maybe justified (just about) as he will probably become king some day. Other more minor royal births are not. It would be huge systemic bias if we posted this sort of story about the British royal family but not those of other countries. Just being in the news is not sufficient for ITN; we are not a tabloid newspaper. Modest Geniustalk12:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - by the logic above how did the winner of a horse race get to be in the news then? It is still just a horse race and hundreds take place each day. What is being missed here is this is not What is notable but what is in the news. Articles are for what is notable. ITN is well for what is in the news that is connected to articles. This event will have more coverage than it deseerves, but it will get massive amounts of coverage. How this does not meet the ITN standards is beyond me. All I see from the opposers is I don't like this being given news coverage so lets not include it. That is not hwo ITN works AFAIK. WTKitty (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also since when did the need to sit ones arse on the British throne become criteria for what is and is not in the news? I assume from the comments here the Wedding of Prince Harry is an automatic no because his arse isn't going to be sat on the throne of England because he is behind this boy. These decisions must be consistent or they are simply arbitrary. WTKitty (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is nothing to do with this nomination it is distraction, there is zero criteria ere regarding ITN it is all just simple opinion and Like/dislike of nominations. WTKitty (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We judge significance of news, not just number of articles written about a subject. Otherwise ITN would be all Kardashian all the time. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm a monarchist and this doesn't belong on the main page. While I am very happy for the couple, the birth of princes that have no realistic chance of succeeding to the throne is just not that important. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Add We don't really have a lot of precedent for this sort of thing as monarchies have gone out of style in much of the world and the British Royal Family is typically the only one that gets a lot of global press. But FWIW my feeling is that the birth or death of heirs apparent, that is to say those who in the normal course of events are expected to succeed to a throne, probably should get a blurb. Others who are not expected to succeed usually will not merit any notice here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose A baby is born into a rich family. What number in line is he for the throne? The throne that has barely any power? This is insignificant and an example of systemic bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2018 (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.
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.
Rival Hamas and Fatah members clash in the Gaza Strip at a tent set up by the family of Mohammed Ayoub, 14, to receive condolences on his death in the protests. Hamas later dismantles the tent and orders all present to leave. (The Times of Israel)
Israel's Defence Forces, Border Police, and Shin Bet jointly arrest nineteen suspected terrorists, fifteen of them Hamas members detained for links to GazanHamas activist Khaled al-Din Hamed, in Ramallah. Troops disable a Hamas printing press and seize money and a car. (Israel National News)
Following recent attacks in Manchester and London, The Sunday Times says a leaked Home Office report reviewing the attacks proposes a new strategy increasing information sharing on terror suspects from MI5 to other organisations before they are considered to require surveillance. Also included are harsher sentences for terror offences, and additional attention on "communities where the threat from terrorism and radicalisation is highest". (BBC News)
Police evacuate Mont Saint-Michel abbey, a major tourist site, and launch a house-by-house search for a possible terrorist after a visitor is heard shouting "I'm going to kill a cop." The suspect is not found. (ABC Online)
West Australian Premier Mark McGowan says he is willing to use state law to block livestock export ships on animal welfare grounds. The move comes as MV Awassi Express is detained in Fremantle undergoing ventilation upgrades mandated by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority after video emerged of 2,400 sheep dying on board during a voyage last August. MV Maysora left the port last week despite inspectors reporting water troughs that were empty or filled with faeces. (ABC)
A report shows German crime rates fell by 10% in 2017, with crimes by foreigners down 22.8% amid controversy over crimes by migrants. Murder, drug offences, and burglaries were among the categories to rise. (Deutsche Welle)
UK Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt writes to social media firms including Google and Facebook giving them until the end of the month to come up with ways to counter online bullying, underage usage, and unhealthy amounts of interaction online. He says they will face new legislation if they do not comply. (BBC News)
Kenyan runners Eliud Kipchoge and Vivian Cheruiyot win the men's and women's events respectively. The event was the hottest since the inaugural race in 1981 with temperatures hitting 23.2 °C (73.8 °F). (Deutsche Welle)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
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.
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: Not ITNR but considering the stability situation in the region, this change of govt seems pretty big. Granted the article is woeful, but if its supportive pending improvements here then that'd be an incentive to improve the article. (MKR down under may be getting more headlines but this is more globally important). Lihaas (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not Worthy He's not even the leader of the country (Kyrgyzstan is a presidential republic), and I doubt we'd even post news about a new president here. Sorry, just an impoverished minor and in general unimportant country of a few million people. Randomnickname567 (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Size and population are irrelevant. Per longstanding consensus, we post most if not all changes in head-of-state. Also, please leave your jingoistic sentiments at the door; your comments about the country being "unimportant" and "not worthy" are frankly insulting.--WaltCip (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support but please do consider changing the bolded article to the Prime Minister of Kyrgyzstan article, not the article about the individual as it is a stub. I agree with WaltCip's arguments: changes of heads of state are inherently significant per longstanding consensus, and arguments that essentially boil down to "that country doesn't matter" hold no validity here. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree w/ WaltClip about the jingoistic nonsense. Just want to add it was not head of state, hence I did not tag it as ITNR.Lihaas (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Barely a stub now, but with nearly 60 people killed its guaranteed to be posted once it has a few more lines of prose. LaserLegs (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.....which I wasn't too keen on either, and kinda goes to my point that these attacks are frequent. Are we going to post one of these a month? 331dot (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality. It's a stub and will require significant expansion before it could be posted. As for the merits, I see 331dot's point. These events have become common place over there. Assuming the article is sufficiently improved, I would likely give it a weak support only due to the high death toll. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tragic but commonplace event that probably doesn't require an article, and should be subsumed into a list of attacks in that region. Stephen02:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and share the sentiment that this shouldn't even deserve a standalone page. It is pure WP:RECENTISM in action. Before even this is developed above mere news pieces paraphrasing; another bomb will explode and all attention will be to the new stub. In the next few years we will be left with thousands of permanent stubs on everyday's bombing. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality / support when improved - Feel free to contact me when the article is improved and I will support this, but all ITN listings should meet the quality thresholds necessary. We posted last month's Kabul bombing because it demonstrated clear significance. I believe 331dot's argument that we shouldn't post this because they seem to happen frequently is a blatantly obvious WP:CRYSTAL argument. Unlike annually scheduled events, you can't just declare that a mass killing in Kabul will happen every month, or that it's just Afghanistan being Afghanistan. I'd even say that asking "Are we going to post one of these a month?" is subtly jingoistic of you, even though I wouldn't go as far as to say you made the argument in bad faith. The significance of this event is beyond question based on our precedents; it's the quality of the article that should be addressed instead. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not WP:CRYSTAL to state that Afghanistan has a history of terrorist attacks and that it seems unlikely to change in the near future.(if any expert or politician foresees a quick end to the terrorism there, I'd love to read that piece.) The War in Afghanistan template in the nominated article shows 4 attacks(not including this one) this year, 14 last year, 19 in 2016, and 11 in 2015. That's just about one a month, and that is just the ones that merit articles. I am just asking if we are going to have a permanent Afghanistan War link in the ITN box, maybe in Ongoing. No more, no less. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, asserting that it's going to happen again, regardless of whether or not you have reasons x y and z to assert that it's likely, is literally a WP:CRYSTAL argument. ITN occurs on a case-by-case instance and this case meets every notability threshold that we have. You're literally opposing because you assert it's probably going to happen again in the near future, that's more or less Wikipedia's textbook definition of a WP:CRYSTAL argument. Don't pretend that it's not. We both oppose this nomination, but the valid reason is that the article needs a lot of work. TheRamblingMan makes an excellent point. Every time there is a mass shooting in the US that kills 4-5 people, the nominations get slapped down because many Americans concerned with Americentrism unintentionally and ironically make the Americentric argument that it's local news, not global news -- then when a mass tragedy in a country facing crisis occurs, we see godawful arguments that assert that it's just the Middle East and/or -stan countries having terrorists as usual, therefore it's unimportant and not notable because it's just Afghanistan being a broken county or something. In both instances, these are highly problematic arguments yet despite contradicting each other we tend to see the two endlessly in ITN. In summary, I hope to see the article improved and would support allowing more time to pass for necessary changes to be made before closing as a SNOW oppose as many of us only take issue with the article's current state, not the subject it covers. Cheers. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Additional comment: I would like to add that I do see where you are coming from; questions along the lines of at what point do terrorist attacks become normalized and insignificant? are certainly worth considering, but I'm unconvinced that this event in particular is unimportant and I still maintain my problems with the argument that this event is not ITN worthy because there might be another one next month. I felt that I may have been too harsh and I wanted to clarify this. Cheers. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but with dramatic regret this is hilarious. Every time a US shooter gets nominated for glory here, we get the usual "well, if you don't like it, nominate some of the mass killings in the war-torn areas of the world". Then, once a "mass killing in a worn-torn area of the world" is nominated, it's all about "nah, it's just life there". Pathetic and insulting. In other news, article is a stub so unsuitable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? What's pathetic and insulting here is precisely what I've written. There is no application "in the mirror". People who complain about repeated US gun crime noms are told to nominate other such tragic events (which are 20 times+ more tragic) and when someone does, it's all about the "war zone, forget it, not notable" bullshit. Cheers bro. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support upon improvement Even though it is a war zone, this was a mass-casualty attack against civilians, so it is definitely notable. Article is regrettably not in shape though. EternalNomad (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas says Palestinian engineer Fadi al-Batsh, shot dead on his way to a mosque in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, today, was an important member. Hamas does not ascribe responsibility for the killing but the victim's relatives allege Israeli involvement. Israeli Education Minister Naftali Bennett calls al-Batsh a terrorist and says no burial will be permitted in Gaza. (WOWK TV)(Israel National News)
Libyan terrorists bomb an oil pipeline near Mrada, causing an explosion and fire. The same pipeline was previously attacked in December. (Xinhua)
Opposition demonstrations in Antananarivo, Madagascar, turn violent. Prime Minister Olivier Mahafaly Solonandrasana says one died and seventeen were injured but opposition Parliamentarian Hanitra Razafimanantsoa, who supports ex-President Marc Ravalomanana, says two were shot dead and two babies at a nearby hospital killed by tear gas. (Xinhua)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Newly created. After further review I may nominate it for AfD, unless why he is notable (apart from death news) is added. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly a BLP1E, and should be at "Assassination of Fadi Mohammad al-Batsh" (the reactions are more notable then the person). And right now, as a non-RD blurb news item, I don't see this yet significant to merit posting. --Masem (t) 13:15, 22 April 2018 (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.
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Weak oppose: Filmography and television section unreferenced. Plus, I just realized how odd this article does not have a career section highlighting his life in his acting life. Main issue is unreferenced filmography section.Support All issues fixed. Great work! Ready for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its sourced and all, but I find it rather lacking beyond just documenting his career. It's very bland. I realize his career path into films is not a deep and motivational journey compared to people like Brad Pitt, and we're not going to have a superlong article, but we should be able to get past how bland this currently reads. Unfortunately, those are likely concerns past ITN's role. --Masem (t) 13:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - all sections sourced. Other concerns such as expansion of life and career section is something to be taken care of after or during ITN. We review article quality and it is sufficient for ITN inclusion. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose. The death penalty already existed in India. They can apply it (or not apply it) to whatever crimes they wish. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose It's not insignificant but we have historically avoided this kind of internal legislative news. In the unlikely event that this does get posted I agree with the above comments that we need to change the target article which I have not looked at for quality purposes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the point is that these cases (especially the latter) have been dominating Indian news. Check the aftermath section of the Kathua rape case article for example. The blurb does make it seem like domestic legislation, but I can't think of a better one. Banedon (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
oppose considering the executive asks the final KANGAROO court to review its decision...this is nothing more than vote grabbing.Lihaas (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2018 (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.
Palestinians riot along the Israel-Gaza border fence, burning tyres and flying flaming kites across the border to set Israeli fields ablaze; Israel Defence Forces soldiers respond with tear gas and live fire, killing four Palestinians, including a 15-year-old, according to the Hamas-run health ministry. (Haaretz)(The Times of Israel)
B’Tselem alleges Israeli forces have been firing on tents around 400 metres back from the border housing protestors including the elderly and children, and attacked peaceful protestors with tear gas. (B’Tselem)
Wells Fargo bank is fined US$1 billion by the United States government for mishandling of mortgages and automobile loans. Wells Fargo is also ordered to reimburse customers who were overcharged. (CNN)
The Basque separatist terrorist group ETA apologises to "every victim" of its actions. The ETA killed more than 800 people in its 40-year history, committing terrorists attacks throughout Spain. (BBC News)
A court in Radom, Poland, hands a six-month suspended prison term and a 10,000 zloty fine to a Russian pilot who caused a security scare during Pope Francis's 2016 visit for World Youth Day. The Russian had flown from the Czech Republic to compete in an international aerobatics competition and unknowingly violated a no-fly zone imposed for the papal visit. After failing to contact the aircraft, local authorities scrambled two F-16 fighter jets to intercept it. (Radio Poland)
Polish Justice Minister and Prosecutor General Zbigniew Ziobro announces plans for a change to national self defence law to allow people to use more force than their attacks, and orders prosecutors to abandon proceedings against a businessman who shot at a getaway car containing fleeing robbers. (Radio Poland)
The U.S. Department of Justice announces it intends to appeal yesterday's ruling that an unnamed detained ISIL suspect in the custody of U.S. troops in Iraq cannot be transferred to an unnamed foreign nation. The man has dual U.S.-Saudi Arabian citizenship. (CNN)
A Myanmar police captain testifies in court that he and his colleagues were ordered by their superiors to entrap two Reuters journalists, who were arrested on 12 December 2017 for "possessing state secrets" under a colonial-era law. The journalists had been working on a report documenting the massacre at Inn Din. (Reuters)(Voice of America)
The UKAudit Office rejects a Treasury estimate of the cost of leaving the European Union that was repeated by Prime MinisterTheresa May. Rather than the official £35–39 billion estimate, the watchdog says that figure misleadingly included £7.2 billion earmarked directly for private hands and did not include up to £3 billion in budget contributions and £2.9 billion in European Development Fund payments. (FXstreet)
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.
This still a BLP, and I’m uncomfortable that an article with so much negative information would be put on the Main Page when he has just taken his own life. Ultimately the admins will decide if my concerns have validity. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2018 (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 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.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose quite the surprise, however the target article is a stub class with no mention of the shut down. In addition, the article provided is very vague in terms of content, as it does not mention why North Korea shut down the facility; most of the content in the source is also just a repeat of past events. SamaranEmerald (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a bit more to this story than just shutting down the test site; I've added a different target and blurb, though the target is not yet updated with this news. --Masem (t) 00:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Oppose if it wasn’t for the fact that the summit between Kim and Moon are next week, I would undoubtedly support this nomination. However the summit itself will be the dominating news next week, which will largely make this nomination, should it be posted, obsolete. Kirliator (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait – This whole situation remains in flux. Suggest we wait to see whether the proclaimed sea change in DPRK policies actually comes to pass – in some tangible way. Sca (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2018 (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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Weak support blurb Given his influence on pop music in general (indeed, he appeared on many lists of influential young musicians), I feel he is on the borderline of blurb/RD listing. Sceptre (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose for RD. Article is in fairly good shape source-wise, although the writing leaves a lot to be desired - it's basically all WP:PROSELINE. There are a couple of CN tags to fix and the discography needs referencing, which shouldn't take too long. Don't think he's blurb worthy.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb No, obviously no blurb. Being among a influental young musician is very very far from being top of one's field. Needs a few references here and there but overall looks pretty near ready Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb - According to WP:ITNRD, "In rare cases, the death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb". While Avicii has been quite famous in the past few years, he was hardly "transformative" or "leader" in his field. Is there any award or other recognition that named him as the top in world music? HaEr48 (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, wait on blurb. If the death itself becomes newsworthy for the manner of death, then we can revisit the blurb. So far, all we know is that he died. If we can't say more than that, RD is sufficient. --Jayron3218:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD - As with others, I think we should wait on blurb until the circumstances behind the death become apparent. Jayden (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD (once a few unsourced paras are dealt with) but Oppose blurb - Barbara Bush was certainly more influential than him, and is only in RD. -Zanhe (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Support blurb on principle, wikipedia's editor base is normally not into modern EDM music, but it's one of the biggest music genres in todays market and he is one of it's biggest names, the unexpected young death of a supremely popular (his biggest single has 1.4 billion views on youtube) musician should be exactly what the blurb feature is made for. There's no precedent for such a big EDM musician to have died so obviously there's noone to compare it too, Frankie Knuckles never had mainstream popularity. This is the first death of a worldwide EDM figure. The Barbara Bush comparison is odd, she is not even close to being one of the most notable first ladies, unlike Avicii in EDM. Certainly meets the Paul Walker and Carrie Fisher standard, the difference here is that Star Wars and action movies appeal to an older white male base that edits Wikipedia. GuzzyG (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb Definitely not making the same kind of impact of Paul Walker or Carrie Fisher's deaths, nor anywhere close to Mandela/Thatcher/Prince/Bowie. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a cardiac arrest on a public flight and a car crash are more tabloid worthy then an undisclosed cause of death in Oman but we're an encyclopedia and what is more important, first death of a international (1.4 billion views on ONE song) EDM performer, or two character actors, i don't even listen to this kind of rubbish but a point has to be made if 1.4 billion people (more would be unaccounted) have listened to your song and you have died young and unexpected like this and not to mention the FIRST major performer in your field then by principle you should be blurb worthy. When historians track specific 21st century entertainment who will show up more, Avicii or Paul Walker? GuzzyG (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment, i'm in shock, honestly - this Thatcher/Mandela saying has to go if we posted people like Walker and Fisher. IF you're expecting Thatcher/Mandela types then that's like 10 people a century. I think it's a straight up disgrace that a 10 day old aircrash is still on our main page but a leader in their genre dying at an unexpected young age and the number one story on the front page of BBC cannot be posted. 11 billion streams on spotify and you're not of "sufficient worldwide notability". A joke. I dislike this kind of music and am generally a luddite but i call it for what it is. GuzzyG (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I consider Walker/Fisher/Prince to be mistakes, and I don't believe compounding errors undoes those which are past. 10 people in a century? Sure, sounds good to me. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb: Just my opinion as it's not going to happen. This Thatcher/Mandela yardstick would be honourable but it hasn't been fully uniform. I would honestly not put Debbie Reynolds, Carrie Fisher and Paul Walker in that category of people who changed the course of human history. However there have been people from the world of popular culture whose premature deaths have been news stories in an of themselves. I'm not talking cult figures like Lil Peep, but when someone measurably famous like Avicii or Chester Bennington dies prematurely that falls in the same bracket as Fisher and Walker: well-known, contributed to multi-million dollar works, death is big news but not world changer. Just my two cents. Harambe Walks (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who are Reynolds, Fisher or Walker? I would have oppose their blurbs as well. Also, if we post blurb for Avicii then in the future someone might cite it as precedent to allow even more "famous people" blurbs. IMO, we should stick with the bar set formally by WP:ITNRD, "the death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb", and not by previous example which might have been a mistake. HaEr48 (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Significant? The article overall is mostly well referenced, you only added about 3 or 4 CN tags. Does an article really need to be perfect to be listed as in the news? – numbermaniac01:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, we consider articles related to the recently deceased to still be covered by BLP (generally for 6 mo to 2 years from their death, depending). --Masem (t) 13:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Tidy article about a meeting of about 50 governments, almost all represented by their heads of government. Prince Charles' appointment as the next head is the main BBC headline, but I prefer simply linking to the article. I believe it's just closing as I type, a few past/preent/future tense issues can be ironed out over the next few hours. LukeSurltc16:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Commonwealth leaders meet"... so what? What makes this meeting more notable than any other? It's not Prince Charles. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support decent article, in the news. Blurb should mention Charles even if it's not the bold article. A table of attendees would be nice, but not required. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Over the last few years ITN has shifted to posting summits only when they have major outcomes. The only concrete result from this CHOGM seems to be agreeing how the succession will work when Elizabeth II finally dies, which hasn't happened yet. Otherwise it's just the usual chat between politicians. Modest Geniustalk18:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - hard to find articles about it from outside the Commonwealth, but then again the Commonwealth covers a lot so I guess it's newsworthy. Juxlos (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per LaserLegs and Jayden, the Commonwealth spans some 50+ nations, so this not a small diplomatic meeting. Even if it only reaffirms Prince Charles as Elizabeth II’ successor to the throne, it’s still newsworthy in my opinion. Kirliator (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Concur that meeting of 50-or thereabout of heads of state is non trivial diplomatic meeting and it doesn't happen always. This is really also in the news. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We recently removed the G20 as an ITNR [Removed_Remove:_G20_summits], but would still allow a G20 to be posted if something of significant note occurred. I see that that same principle should apply here. The fact the Commonwealth leaders are meeting is not news itself, it is whatever resolves come out of it. --Masem (t) 05:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, just truth. It matters not a jot who is the head of the Commonwealth, especially when they are the next in line to the throne. If it had been decided that Robert Mugabe or Beyonce was to be the next head, then that's significant. Noting that the natural succession will occur is not significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now What happened in the meeting? This is a reoccurring event, but if something unique happened at it then we can post this. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2018 (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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support Sourcing is fine. (However, I do think this fails BLPCRIME, he's only notable for the bombing and trial, and so really should be covered at something like Death of Robert Smith Vance. However, that issue can wait until after the RD is off the page. --Masem (t) 06:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good referencing throughout the article, seems fine to post. – numbermaniac 13:37, 20 April 2018 (
Support Bombing AND trial? that sounds like two events to me ;). Not to mention the execution (the oldest), counting three events to me. GuzzyG (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jet pilot Andy Hill, accused of eleven counts of manslaughter over a 2015 crash at Shoreham Airshow in England, makes an initial Magistrates' Court appearance. He indicates he will deny the charges and the case is transferred to Crown Court. (BBC News)
A woman goes on trial in England accused of murdering a man who was voluntarily euthanised in Belgium after she allegedly attacked him with acid. Prosecutors say medical evidence indicates "he could not bear to live in that condition." (BBC News)
The High Court in Glasgow jails corrupt juror Catherine Leahy for six years in the first case of its kind in Scotland. (The Guardian)
The police bomb group moved out to an apartment in Rosenhoff, Oslo, when informed that there might be explosives in the apartment. One person was found slightly injured. (Aftenposten)
Two deputies are shot dead at a Chinese restaurant in Trenton, Florida, in what appears to be a targeted killing. The gunman was found dead outside the restaurant. (CNN)
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: New article that is a bit short, but I believe sufficient as it is difficult to expand her story a lot without getting into trivia and legends. Iselilja (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Article is a little under prepared, but the protests are daily and if precedent in georgia is anything this is getting precarious. "Velvet Revolution" they are calling it (yes, soros' closed society sounds involved). --Lihaas (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now but conditional support if there's even a blurb to support (that's kind of important) and the article is improved. I'm interested, but the article has very poor translations in it such as "Oppositional signals spark the flag of Armenia, clamoring for the motto of the movement" which even with context does't make sense. The article needs a lot of work and the nom didn't even offer a blurb for me to support, so oppose by default, but if improvements are made before this closes as oppose I'll reconsider my vote. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changing !vote to Support - The new blurb looks good and there has been significant progress made on the article. Now that @The Rambling Man:'s concern has been dealt with & @Pawnkingthree:'s concern that there were only 100 protesters is obsolete (now there's reportedly well over 50,000 participating and hundreds of arrests) I no longer have reasons to oppose this blurb. The latest developments in this event seem to be warning signs of a government in crisis, meaning this story demonstrates long-term significance regardless of whether the protests succeed or fail. Update: I reinforce my support now that this article has been significantly improved since my last comment. I am impressed with the the sourcing and the subject has become more notable with the resignation of high-level politicians as a direct response to the protests. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC) BrendonTheWizard (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on notability, really a minor protest. The article claims that 115k people participated in it (some 5 times the size of the largest rally during the 2014 revolution in the Ukraine), but it's sourced by twitter of all places. Which brings me to the quality threshold, which I think the article does not pass. Many statements are very poorly sourced by twitter/facebook posts, many are not sourced at all. IF someone fixes them then maybe I can tentatively support it, but then the blurb should mention the actual number of people on the square since the current one may be misleading, not to mention that arresting an mp in itself for organising a rally is not in itself ITN-worthyRandomnickname567 (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Support now that Sargsyan has resigned, which makes the protests a notable event. The article was improved too, most statements were sources, and notable unsourced ones I removed. Randomnickname567 (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Marking the country's 50th anniversary of independence, Swaziland's King Mswati III officially renames the country the Kingdom of eSwatini. (BBC) -- – HonorTheKing (talk)18:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Unusal and interesting. But Oppose for now based on article quality. Needs to be fully referenced and updated.BabbaQ (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The nominator's comments say more than the article does. If it's to mark the 50th anniversary of independence then the article needs to be updated to say that. But even if it's updated and referenced, I still don't think it's that notable. It's the whim of an absolute monarch. Has it been recognized by any other government?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also support in principle, but that update isn't good enough. One sentence that explains it less than the nomination comment above. I want to know why "eSwatini". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think either organisation has any mechanism for or interest in objecting to a name change. If a recognised member turns up and says “this is my new name now” that’s it. —LukeSurltc08:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems very obvious. So what if it's the whim of an absolute monarch - it's still something that affects the entire country fundamentally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banedon (talk • contribs) 03:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and pull? Seriously, from a quality standpoint the article is not even close. Did any of the supporters actually bother to read it? Whole huge unreferenced sections. We demand better from an RD posting of some TV actress. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This story seemed intriguing and slightly humorous, but in retrospect the play accorded it on major news sites (BBC, Guardian, Reuters, NYT) seems to have been excessive, even hypey. Sca (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Post-pulling support in principle - once the sourcing concerns are fixed, I'd support re-adding it. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if you ask me, this was the King’s decision, I’m not sure if he took into account of the world accepting the name change immediately. It will probably be called Swaziland in general for ages to come. Python Dan (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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: Diaz-Canel was selected as the only candidate on Wednesday and RSs are indicating that he will be unanimously approved by the National Assembly on Thursday (i.e. later today). We should post as soon as that happens, which will be the point he officially takes over. However his article is a bit bare bones at present, with only one sentence of update edit: I've added a short section. Modest Geniustalk12:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As he is described as "a party technocrat who is little-known to the public" there's probably not much more out there to add to the article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I am basing my oppose on past precedent at ITN. We generally have a higher standard for presidents prime ministers etc. But in all honesty I think I would oppose posting this in its current state even if it wasn't a head of state. It is not up to scratch for the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As Cuba is a sovereign state its covered under ITN/R and so postable as long as the quality is of a sufficient level. The article is shorter than some (given the new President is a relatively unknown technocrat in a single-party communist regime that is not exactly unusual) however it is sourced, contains the relevant biographical info and no glaring errors. Most heads of state have long careers in the public eye before they reach the top spot. Cuba has been about the Castro's and only the Castro's for the last 50 years+. Coupled with the wide variety of sanctions on the country, the lack of information in the western media on other public figures there is also not unusual. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. IMHO an article that can be summed up as "X exists, was born on... was a party technocrat... and is now the dictator err... President of country Y" no matter how well sourced, is not the kind of quality article we promote on the front page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ITNA is fairly clear about the need for consensus before posting. I fail to see why this had to be posted so quickly before discussion could take place. ghost15:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of ITNR items must be discussed at ITNC, as you well know. If it was a GA, sure, but the article is short and lean. Some people may have raised legitimate objection if given time. ghost16:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I actually thought that was the case. If it isn't, there should at least be some scrutiny of them. Now, backtracking slightly on my "real leader" comment, I've seen another source (BBC) that says Díaz-Canel will in fact become the "real leader"; while the The Guardian link says it's more of a transition. I don't know, but I think the additional link to First Secretary might help. Adpete (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What, zero scrutiny on an article linked from the ITN blurb? Surely that's a policy that needs fixing. Anyway, on this blurb and link, I argue that something needs to change because it's not a simple succession but more like a transition arrangement. See e.g. NY Times ("Castros still hold sway" [25]); ABC ("Castro is almost certain to remain the most powerful person in Cuba for the time being" [26]). Adpete (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: These protests are no longer making headlines. Last activity noted in the article is 16 April, last major protests were 13 April. LukeSurltc10:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pull At this point, this news is over a month old. In the wiki page, there is no event in May. It should be removed.
The only substantive new information to the article, made after it was pulled, was a single sentence about a Woman's protest. It may or may not still be in the news, that's of minimal importance given that if no one can be bothered to expand the article with that information, there's no need to keep it in ongoing. It may be the biggest story in the world right now; that doesn't matter if the article is not receiving quality updates. If you can provide enough information to make it clear that this article needs, and is getting, daily updates then sure, maybe we can add it to ongoing. At the state it was in when it was removed, that was not evident from the article text. --Jayron3214:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What Jayron32 is telling you—correctly—is that we don't care about the sources for the purposes of ITN. The purpose of the Main Page is to highlight quality Wikipedia articles, not to highlight articles for which sources exist but which haven't been written. ‑ Iridescent18:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I find amazing is that the amount of effort you just wasted complaining about this could have been better applied to fixing the article text. Had you, days ago, added that information to the article then it, very likely, would never have come up in discussion to be removed from ongoing. As usual, it's much easier to assume some mysterious "others" will do necessary work, and then complain when it isn't done. Go fix the article, because posting sources here is of no use to the encyclopedia. --Jayron3218:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Updated — This protest is running on a largely weekly cycle of larger protests on Fridays. Extensive coverage continues, including profile pieces in places like The New York Times of individuals killed. I don't object to the pressure to keep the article up to date but now it is. Maybe we can avoid nominating it for removal on a Wednesday or Thursday, only to have to debate re-adding it later in the week.--Carwil (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As Israel marks Memorial Day followed immediately by Independence Day a truck driver is arrested at a checkpoint at the Reihan Crossing in the West Bank suspected of being on his way to launch a terror attack. The truck's contents were marked as supplies for communities on the border but were actually explosives. Israeli Defence Minister Avigdor Liberman orders the checkpoint closed. Henceforth only humanitarian cases will be allowed passage at Israel's discretion. (Israel National News)(Haaretz)
An Egyptian court jails three Muslim Brotherhood members for life and 36 others for ten years each for terror offences. Fourteen others are acquitted. (News24)
UK media regulator Ofcom launches investigations into RT over possible breaches of impartiality rules in its coverage of the poisoning. Ofcom warns producer TV Novosti it may be forced to cease UK broadcasting. (Reuters)
Search and rescue operations end after a crewman missing after a fire broke out aboard drillship MV Geo Technical in the South China Sea yesterday is found dead on the vessel. A gas leak discovered today was hampering the efforts. (The Star)(The Maritime Executive)
Nigerian investigators release a final report finding the disaster occurred because of an unidentified engine malfunction which was mismanaged by the crew leading to a stall. The resulting crash killed fifteen. (The Aviation Herald)
Russian investigators say the flight crew received indications of a failure in the heating for the pitot-static system, which measures parameters including airspeed. The crew received mismatching airspeed information prior to the crash near Moscow. All 71 on board died. (The Aviation Herald)
A Crown Court in Englandjails Daryll Rowe for life with a minimum of 12 years for deliberately infecting five men with HIV and attempting to infect five more. He is the first person convicted of deliberate HIV transmission in the United Kingdom. (BBC News)
Initially sparked by proposed social security reforms, culminated in demands for president Daniel Ortega to step down and a government crackdown. (The Guardian).
Reports emerge Palestinian cyclist Alaa Al-Daly, 21, had his leg amputated after being shot by an Israeli sniper on the first day of the protests and as a result can no longer compete in the upcoming Asian Games. (Reuters)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support I've just trimmed the uncited contentious stuff that I couldn't find cites for that were guaranteed not to be a circular citation and referenced everything else. Miyagawa (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: I'm not sure if this should be considered for the ITN sections, but I'd still like to open a discussion. Venezuela currently has a de jure Supreme Tribunal, also called the Supreme Tribunal in exile, named during last year's protests, and a de facto one. Not long ago the de jure Supreme Tribunal approved the pre trial of Maduro due to corruption charges realted to Operation Car Wash after a motion was introduced by the former Attorney General Luisa Ortega Díaz, and yesterday the opposition controlled Assembly approved to proceed with the trial with a two thirds majority, legally removing him from the presidency. Although it's unlikely that Maduro will leave the office, the region has showed support of the decision. Jamez42 (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - for fairly obvious reasons we cannot have the target article be in Spanish, or not on en.wikipedia.org. No comment on the nomination thus far however, but without a suitable target article, any further discussion is moot. - Stormy clouds (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As noted by the ABC News article, this trial is mostly symbolic, as those involved have no recognized authority by the current ruling gov't (which I'm aware its the call towards corruption in the gov't that is at issue here). And as this only is a start of the trial, it would be better to recognize when it is over; even if it has no recognized authority, various world leaders may speak towards it and support it. --Masem (t) 17:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional oppose - The news section for en.wikipedia.org should link to another article on en.wikipedia.org. If there was an English Wikipedia article that covers the subject, then I may reconsider, but oppose for now. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Close per WP:SNOW. We will not link an article from another wiki at the main page. And the news is not newsworthy anyway: even if this was a regular trial, we would include it as news when there is a sentence, not when the trial has just started. Cambalachero (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article 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: Legendary Professional Wrestler and Weightlifter Spman
Support I added an article from the NYT, which covers his death in a lot more detail than the ESPN one (Sammartino was the guy in New York City for a while). Vilhjalmsson (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. Unreferenced, but there's no question about his importance to professional wrestling. Hopefully someone can whip the article into shape. --PlasmaTwa223:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support this article pretty much needs to be fixed up for this. He's one of the most significant figures in pro wrestling ever.★Trekker (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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: Famous professional wrestler and manager for three decades GaryColemanFan
Support Much like with Samartino I think the pro wrestling project needs to come together here and try to fix up anything that needs fixing.★Trekker (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The names of 3,607 employees of Unit 731, a Japanese military medical experimentation unit associated with war crimes during World War II, are released. Prosecutors in the United States had kept their identities secret following the war in exchange for access to data gleaned from the project. (Newsweek)
Eight people go on trial in Navarra, Spain, accused of terrorism after an alleged attack on two Civil Guards in a controversial case with the prosecution seeking a total 375 years imprisonment for the defendants. The defence claims the incident was nothing more than a bar brawl and Amnesty International describes the charges as "inappropriate". (The Local)
Oil exploration ship MV Ocean Geos catches fire after an explosion on board off Kuala Baram, Indonesia. Of the crew, 37 are evacuated including two injured and one more remains missing. Four firefighting tugs are in attendance. (The New Straits Times)(Offshore Support Journal Online)
Tanker ships MT Crystal Sunrise and MT Astro Saturn collide off Singapore, causing damage to both vessels and a butane leak. (Channel NewsAsia)
The European Commission announces plans to force tech companies worldwide that provide services within the European Union to supply data on their users in counterterror investigations. (The Guardian)
In ice hockey, the Las Vegas Golden Knights became the first NHL franchise to complete a 4-game sweep in the postseason during their inaugural season after their victory over the Los Angeles Kings. (ESPN)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Right, before you all say "only one person died", this is a highly unusual accident. Yes, uncontained engine failures happen several times a year. However, they do not usually end in fatalities. Article is in good shape, well-formed and well referenced. Mjroots (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support If this was competing for space among several other concurrent blurbs, the accident is not as bad as it could have been and I would not think it appropriate to post it. However, blurbs are slow right now, so this seems like a good story to keep ITN looking fresh, and it is an unusual accident. --Masem (t) 05:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment correct me if I’m wrong, but if I recall, wasn’t there a similar incident some time back about a year or two ago involving an aircraft in an accident with a single fatality that was posted to ITN? Kirliator (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. A minor accident with few casualties and no broader implications. Weak opposition only because we could do with some turnover in blurbs. Modest Geniustalk10:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support excellent article a shining example of what recent disaster articles should look like, certainly actually in the news, since WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is a totally made up nonsense number that doesn't actually exist no problem there ... in terms of the made up "broader implications" requirement, second uncontained engine failure on Southwest 737 in 2 years .... interesting. Weak because I still think we over-post disaster stories. --76.122.98.253 (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC) --LaserLegs (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. An unfortunate accident, but a minor one. No foul play appears to be involved, just a random mechanical failure due in part to worn parts. I don't think the slow news cycle is a sufficient reason to make an exception. ZettaComposer (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose similar to the nomination made regarding the Youtube Headquarters Shooting earlier this month, this nomination has all ready attracted a number of bias from both sides of the argument, with one side stating this is “unusual” and “major”, while the other arguing that this is “minor” and “short-term”; this is the kind of nomination that spells trouble, especially if it concerns only a single fatality. Python Dan (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "unusual", it's extremely unusual. And that's not bias, it's just statistics. But as Pawnkingthree, "First fatality on a US airline since 2009" - compare that with.... oh, I don't know, deaths from US gun crime since 2009? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Python Dan, this is an example of when systematic bias put an event at a dangerous level. Besides, as unusual as this accident is in nature, this is nothing more than another aircraft accident. Kirliator (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose minor event, if it led to anything changing in the world of aviation it might be of interest, but I can't see that happening, a one-off catastrophic engine failure is just as Martinevans123 notes really, a chance in a million, and with the number of flights per day, there was always going to be a chance it'd happen some time. And it did. This would be a far better candidate for DYK as how well the pilot did getting such a broken aircraft down without further fatalities. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 is a major news story at this time, the first death causing American flight in close to one decade, and should be featured in ITN. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, if this happened anywhere else on planet earth it wouldn't get a sniff, but because it happened in the US (as noted by several supporters) it's more notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apple and pears. That crash killed 92, not one, and was one of the worst disasters of the year. This is just a minor accident. So no, we wouldn't post a rickety Soviet military plane which had an engine failure and only killed one person, definitely not. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a military plane and the person killed on duty, no we likely wouldn't. If it were a commercial plane and it was a passenger, we'd probably would. Unfortunately, I can't think of any close examples to pull from here and searching ITNC isn't immediately providing any results. --Masem (t) 14:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, you missed the point again, you're attempting to compare a hull loss with 92 deaths to a minor incident in which one person died. There is no comparison here, and just because it involved Americans and was in America, it doesn't make it more notable, despite what some supporters have said. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed just because something is not in America does not make it more notable. So just let me know the minimum number of deaths and we're all set. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of low death toll aircraft disasters don't get posted. However, a lack of deaths does not necessarily mean a lack of notability. IMvHO, the unusual circumstances in this case merited a nomination. Mjroots (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also we generally only post commercial aviation incidents or where a larger number of civilians were involved. Incidents involving cargo planes, military planes, and private aircraft typically are not considered ITN with common sense exceptions. --Masem (t) 13:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - minor incident in terms of fatalities. Any lasting notability or impact will arise due to potential changes in airline policy, but to post on these grounds would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. If the crash is truly so intriguing, take the (admittedly excellent) article to DYK. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Airplane accidents are not uncommon, even in the US, and often result in more deaths than this. Though airline accidents are rare in the US, in my opinion that distinction does not increase significant enough for a blurb. Mamyles (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2018 (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.
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.
Strong support. Just confirmed that she has indeed died at the age of 92. I would also weakly support a complete blurb as this is a very significant death given the impact that Mrs. Bush had on many issues and topics. 66.31.81.200 (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly oppose Such a beautiful and very heartfelt passing, but the article needs source work. I'll wait til the obits come in so fix the article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Support RD: Article is in okay enough shape for RD posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many gaps in referencing. I expect this will likely be cleaned up in short order, but we can't post it until it is solidly sourced. FTR I also agree that although very sad, this is not blurb worthy. RD is fine once it is ready. Memory eternal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb - an important American but not significant enough for her death to be in other than RD. Nancy Reagan was first lady for twice as long and was a little more politically active, and was only in RD, though I think the process was little different then (March 2016). Adpete (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD but unsure about blurb. It's very sad, and it's certainly significant as she was the only first lady to watch her son become president, but her influence was limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendonTheWizard (talk • contribs) 22:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, he did specify that Bush watch[ed] her son become president; Adams died before her son ascended to the office. Of course, that's a minor distinction and doesn't really mean much as far as blurb worthiness (blurbiness?) is concerned. Lepricavark (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was referring specifically to witnessing it, but as I specified in my original post I still don't support a blurb. She lacked real influence outside of the US as I said, unlike figures such as Nelson Mandela or more recently Stephen Hawking which absolutely deserved blurbs. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Posted RD but discussion of a blurb can continue (though I don't think I see consensus). FWIW, to TRM and Muboshgu, I checked the state of the article when you !voted, and I believe gaps in sourcing have been sufficiently covered, hence posting. --Masem (t) 03:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support, and also weak support blurb. I kind of wish that RD allowed a five-word description of the deceased individual; in that case I wouldn't support a blurb at all. Davey2116 (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb - the wife of the most influential figure in the history of South Africa, who had actual separate political impact, did not merit a blurb. Bush certainly doesn't. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support One unsourced statement of questionable encyclopedic importance (a mistaken death report in 2014) that I removed, and everything else is good to good here. --Masem (t) 03:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support - sufficiently referenced. There's one tagged sentence, but it can be deleted if a citation can't be found. -Zanhe (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2018 (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 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.
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.
Malaysia announces the arrest of six alleged Islamic State members accused of plotting to abduct and murder police and assault places of worship. Authorities appeal for information on four more suspects. (Channel NewsAsia)
Israel announces sanctions on the owners of fourteen bus companies, and their families, in response to the firms transporting Palestinian protestors to the Gaza-Israel border. (The Washington Post)
A leaked draft report by fire investigators BRS Global for the Metropolitan Police reveals new details of mistakes in the construction and refurbishment of Grenfell Tower in London. As well as flammable cladding the report finds errors in window and cavity installation. It concludes the fire would have not spread beyond a single flat and all 71 victims would have survived had refurbishment not been performed, and that victims may also have survived had they sought refuge behind fire doors protecting waste chute rooms on each floor. (The Evening Standard)(The Independent)(The Evening Standard)
A warehouse in Cirebon, Indonesia, collapses onto a neighbouring arts centre where teenagers were preparing for a dance show. At least seven people die, six of them children. (The Straits Times)
An initial report on a collision between container ships MV Tolten and MV Hamburg Bay near Karachi, Pakistan, that caused millions of rupees in damage and lost cargo last month suggests errors by MV Toltens captain caused the collision and better tug provision by Karachi Port would have prevented it. (Geo)
Firefighters reopen the sealed Korean fishing ship FV Dong Won 701 in the Port of Timaru, New Zealand, in a bid to finally extinguish the fire that broke out on April 9. (NZCity.co.nz)
An international team researching a plastic-consuming bacterium discovered in 2016 at a Japaneselandfill site announce the accidental synthesis of an artificial enzyme that breaks down plastics more efficiently than the bacterium. The team suggest the molecule could be used for environmentally sound plastics disposal. (The Guardian)
Eight people, including a juvenile and a caretaker for a local temple, go on trial in Kathua, Jammu and Kashmir, accused of abducting an eight-year-old girl, keeping her captive, sexually abusing her, and murdering her in a high-profile case that has already been the subject of nationwide protests and pretrial Supreme Court proceedings. (The Times of India)
Police clash with KKE protestors in Athens, Greece, firing tear gas as the crowd uses angle grinders in an attempt to topple a statue of former U.S. President Harry Truman in response to the United States' airstrikes in Syria. Three protestors are injured. (eKathimerini)
Russian investigative journalist Maxim Borodin falls from a window in Yekaterinburg and dies. Local officials say the death is non-suspicious but Novy Dens chief editor and international monitor OSCE both say he may have been murdered. (BBC)
Archaeologists announce the discovery of a treasure haul potentially linked to 10th Century DanishKingHarald Bluetooth in Rügen, Germany. The initial finds were made by amateur treasure hunters in January and the total haul is the largest of its type. (BBC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
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.
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: I propose to remove the Rif Dimashq offensive (February–April 2018) article from the main page "ongoing" section. First, the offensive is essentially complete, with the government declaring two days ago that the locale was fully liberated, and I don't see that any reliable sources are debating this; indeed reliable sources agree the locale is under full government control. Secondly, the article itself has not received any substantive updates since April 14 either. Thirdly, there is already a blurb describing both the chemical attack and the response, which seem to be where the story has migrated, seeing as the offensive itself has ended. Given those three things, we should think about taking this off of "ongoing". --Jayron3216:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated 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.
Comment Not to change too much from Cellodont's submission, but as the Boston Marathon is an ITNR, I've refactors this to be more to this point. I would comment that we generally do not focus to much on the first X of a nation to win this type of event (We're a global work), but we certainly can ID the winners, and if either article is in good shape, can make them secondary targets. I will note the Marathon article needs prose before this can be posted. --Masem (t) 19:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment I totally agree with the new blurb, go for it. Hope someone gets this done soon, it's relevant/great news for Japan, for the USA, and everybody, really.Cellodont (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)cellodont[reply]
Oppose Classic example of stub. Mere rephrasing of news piece. This needs non trivial work and lot of actual encylopeic prose before even considering judging its quality. At present, this is unpresentable in every respect. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment good point. The 2018 boston marathon article has all the salient info on the race that anyone in the future is likely to be looking for, but it's not exactly a good read as a redirect from the front page. this is big news, though....maybe the blurb should point primarily to Kawauchi's and Linden's Wikipedia articles, and secondarily to the little stub? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cellodont (talk • contribs) 20:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality and unsure about significance. I'm typically opposed to annual events unless there's something unique that occurred during them, and if the winner was the first woman period to win the even then I'd consider that more interesting, but I'm debating whether or not the first woman in a few decades is enough to make the 2018 Boston Marathon worthy of ITN. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gazans launch a kite carrying a firebomb over the Israeli border near Kibbutz Kissufim, starting a fire in a field. It is the fourth such incident this week. Local authorities alert residents to be vigilant for potential repeat attacks. (The Times of Israel)
A car bomb in Kirkuk, Iraq, kills and injures several civilians. The blast follows a bombing at Hor Rajab, Baghdad, earlier in the day that wounded one civilian. (Iraqi News)
Militants disguised as United Nations troops attack two military bases near Timbuktu, Mali, using rockets and two car bombs. At least one soldier at the bases, used by France and the UN, is killed and more than twelve others are wounded. (BBC News)
Russia sends landing shipNikolai Filchenkov, chartered civilian vessel MV Alexander Tkachenko, and transport ship Orsk to Syria laden with military equipment. (Metro)
Deputy tourism and antiquities minister Qais Hussein Rashid unveils a United Nations-brokered plan for "re-constructing touristic, archaeological and heritage sites" damaged by ISIL in Mosul. (Iraqi News)
The UKDepartment of Transport rejects a call by road safety campaign NGOBrake for tougher legislation on licencing for commercial drivers in response to a crash that killed eight last year. (BBC News)
A court in Somaliland jails poet Nacima Qorane for three years for bringing the state into contempt by writing a poem calling for reunification with Somalia. (BBC)
Boston marks the fifth anniversary of the April 2013 bombing with a private ceremony inside the Boston Public Library. The bells at a local church rang at 2:49 p.m. to mark the exact time the two bombs exploded seconds apart near the marathon's finish line. (AP News)
An asteroid, 2018 GE3, sized between 37 and 138 metres (121 and 453 ft) passes 193,000 kilometres (120,000 mi) from Earth, possibly the largest known asteroid to ever pass that close in observational history. (Minor Planet Center)
Another asteroid, 2018 GY3, which had passed 301,000 kilometres (187,000 mi) from Earth on April 10, is identified as the lost asteroid 2008 GY21, which had passed similarly close to Earth in 2008. (Minor Planet Center)
Scientists say that they have identified genes that cause deadly heart condition pulmonary arterial hypertension which kills 50% of those affected within five years. (BBC News)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose for Referencing - I support on principle as he is an extremely well known actor, but have to oppose due to large amounts of unsourced information. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose based on notability concerns. A mayor of a population 28k town, the article was created today, and the refs are entirely local and largely obits. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Power~enwiki:: We've had articles that were created on the day of or before being nominated (David Buckel for example) yet they are in sufficient length and well sourced. As for the sourcing, local or obits, they are still reliable and serve as reliable citations for the article. Nobility is not a reason to oppose an article, I thought it was if the article was well sourced and in sufficient length. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being notable is generally a necessary requirement to have a standalone article. If there are doubts about notability due to only local sources, that's a problem. --Masem (t) 01:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is not really the place for a notability discussion but she would appear to meet criteria 2 of WP:POLITICIAN as a “major local political figure who has received significant press coverage.” The article is sufficiently detailed and the referencing looks fine. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on notability. We've established that new articles do not receive the benefit of assumed notability because there has been no time for editors to consider it. WP:POLITICIAN says that statewide office holders have notability, but local officials only qualify if they are "major" and have "received significant press coverage." There is zero evidence provided here to this end. ghost16:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per established precedence regarding notability on RD. Recently created articles formed as a result of an obit tend to be of questionable standard.--WaltCip (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there is "established precedence" for this then it needs to be added to WP:ITNRD in my opinion. I see there was a discussion about this a couple of months ago, but it's still not entirely clear where we stand now. Are we saying an article created recently must undergo a notability discussion before it gets posted to RD?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose newly created article has not been touched enough to know whether it can withstand notability test, as they are essential orbits synthesis. Wikipedia should not be solely memorialising people on mainpage and later delete the article because of notability. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - if anyone questions the person's notability, they should just go ahead and nominate it for AfD. Otherwise it should be presumed notable and judged on quality alone, which is certainly good enough. -Zanhe (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have no idea whether she's notable or not, especially as our editors can't decide on how big a town has to be for it's mayor to be notable (honestly, the AfDs are all over the place), but I'm working on the basis that anyone from the Western world who didn't have an article prior to dying probably wasn't notable, and I don't see any coverage that isn't local anyway. Black Kite (talk)23:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the only existing reason this individual wouldn't be a candidate for RD is that she has no article. So the opposers need to AFD it, or cancel. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Muboshgu. Not sure why this hasn't been posted yet, it fits all the RD criteria. (And isn't holding elective office generally notable enough to have an article?) The oppose !voters should bring it to talk instead of here. Davey2116 (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retroactive strong Oppose The idea that a less than 1-term mayor of a municipality of less than 28,000 people is sufficiently notable for inclusion on RD is patently absurd. I have seen former heads of state passed over for RD for less. The entry should be taken down posthaste, right now this appears to be nothing short of a gross violation of WP:BIAS. --Varavour (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Varavour We post all RDs whose quality is sufficient. Perhaps the "former heads of state" you saw "passed over" had poor quality articles. If you believe that this individual isn't worthy of an article, that's a different discussion, and you can start that at WP:AFD. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2018 (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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The 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.
Comment do we have an EPL article which has a suitable summary? I would find it quite a challenge to summarise hundreds and hundreds of matches adequately... We don't demand that of Superbowl or MLB articles because they have playoffs and finals, so applying it to a nine-month long season with hundreds of matches seems odd, particularly as, by the nature of this ITN nom, any summary will focus on Man City and ignore the rest of the division. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support a few missing refs about arm band sponsors but I don't care. Going forward, it might be nice to bold the winning teams season article. [27] is a good example -- minus the referencing issues. 2015–16 Premier League has a summary, but generally agree with TRM above. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question I honestly do not know, is this "in the news" now that Man City has clinched it or in May when all the games have been played? What matters more to fans, the "winner" or the conclusion of the season? --LaserLegs (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs at least a basic prose summary of the season. Doesn't need much, a paragraph or two summing up the season would suffice. It doesn't even need to be cited. If this is met you can consider this a support. AIRcorn(talk)22:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Added a very basic prose summary. It is hard to cover all possibilities as every other position could still change before the end of the season. It would also be a pretty boring read if we did. However it is just enough and comparable to other sports articles that have been featured. AIRcorn(talk)23:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we established that league champions are posted at the end of the competition, not at the point of clinching (see Six Nations last month)? I actually prefer the latter, but we should be consistent. ghost12:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ITNR explicitly states that events are posted at the conclusion of the tournament, not when leads become unassailable. Given that the Premier League is the only domestic competition on there, we shouldn't have a problem of them all finishing at once. It's unclear to me whether it's better to wait or to post now, but the rules as written are to wait until the final game has been played and all positions are resolved. Modest Geniustalk12:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The EPL is generally posted when the champions are known (see 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 postings), provided a season summary is given (see 2017 nomination) - like in motorsport articles. Of course, consensus can change in this or following cases. Fuebaey (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2018 (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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article 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.
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.
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.
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.
Another pointed and irrelevant comment; this is ITNR, so if you object to its inclusion on notability grounds, do something about it there rather than make such unhelpful comments here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) OK, to my surprise, WP:ITNSPORTS does seem to assume that sports and this horse race are relevant news stories, but on the other hand this is just silly, so I'm abstaining from sports ITNs from now on. Sandstein 16:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The horse races at ITNR are very arbitrary. Nothing egregious, but many more prestigious races (Ascot, Preakness, Dubai WC) missing. Oppose this on the lack of refs. 75.188.224.208 (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about this race but 150,000 people gather to watch the Kentucky Derby, a two minute race, live every year. hardly "obscure". One man's "obscure" event is another's most important. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given this horse race is held in "little old England" with a population of around a sixth or less of the United States, and according to the Financial Times, the 2016 race (for instance) had " 70,000 spectators and a global television audience of 600m". So anyone trying to make any point about this being obscure, or not amongst the most viewed or most relevant to our readers is clearly not in touch with the reality of the situation, assuming we believe what at least one reliable source is telling us. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who removed the Ready, but just taking a look, where is the prize money breakdown referenced? I can find plenty of sources to back up the finishing order etc, but not the prizes. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The prize quoted there look like the 2017 figures and I'm not sure that's a primary source - this one is the race's official website [29]. I've added a citation to the Racing Post result which confirms the finishing order and prize money. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are we really holding this up for a minor disagreement regarding the source for a trivial part of the article? Just delete that column if it's problematic; the article hardly needs it. Modest Geniustalk12:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still no comments almost two days since the problem seems to have been fixed. Last time I marked this ready it was removed, so I'm marking it [needs attention]. As far as I can tell the issues have been fixed (I don't have access to the Racing Post article but will assume good faith). Modest Geniustalk10:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An explosion strikes a major weapons depot linked to Hezbollah and Iran in Mount Azzan, near Aleppo, Syria. Local media and Sky News reports an unidentified jet attacked the site, possibly as part of Western coalition airstrikes in the region, but al-Mayadeen denies any airstrike happened and said controlled explosions were carried out at the site yesterday. (The Times of Israel)
The Egyptian military says 14 terrorists attacked a Sinai military base today, with four of them blowing themselves up and killing eight soldiers. (Egypt Today)
A storm blasts central US with heavy snow, winds, and hail, forcing flight cancellations, creating treacherous road conditions and killing at least three people. (ABC News)
The US Navy concludes its investigation into the October crash of a T-45C Goshawk military training jet in Tennessee that killed both on board, concluding pilot error caused the accident. (Navy Times)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Died April 14, but not announced until April 16, so should it go there? Anyway, the article is far from postable now and may not get there in time. I'll aim for DYK if I can't get it here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2018 (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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Strongest oppose These cruft filled "reactions to" articles are a blight on Wikipedia. And there aren't significant updates meriting ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose and would suggest merging/deletion of that article back to the main topic. "Reaction" articles should be more than just quote farms which that one is. Reactions should only be included if there's actual "actions" tied to it, just not strong words. --Masem (t) 20:30, 14 April 2018 (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.
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.
Article:2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs (talk·history·tag) Blurb: A US-led coalition launches a military attack against Syria. (Post) Alternative blurb: US and allies launch strikes on Syria chemical weapons sites Alternative blurb II: The US, UK and France have have bombed multiple government targets in Syria targeting alleged chemical weapons sites. Alternative blurb III: The United States, along with the UK and France, bomb multiple government targets in Syria in response to a chemical attack. Alternative blurb IV: The United States, the United Kingdom and France bomb alleged Syrian chemical weapons sites in response to the suspected chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria. News source(s):BBC among many others Credits:
Nominator's comments: Obviously pre-mature to post in its current state, but the title and content should stabilize in a few hours once news coverage happens. The importance should be obvious. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The existing title is marginally better ("American-led" is of questionable accuracy, though "coalition" is vague) and that article was created first; if you don't want to move your contributions to the other article, hopefully an admin can hist-merge and move them for you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Coalition is of questionable accuracy, no news source has stated that CJTF-OIR is involved. News stories throughout the week has shown that the US reached out to UK and France. Nice4What (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Coalition refers to the obvious fact that more than one country is involved. To be perfectly clear, it would be irrational to argue about this much longer; do not disrupt editing by insisting on a content fork. Regardless of whether you are right or wrong about the title, there should be one article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given this is in response to the suspected chemical attack, it might make sense to combine said blurbs. No comment yet on the article. --Masem (t) 02:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Support The article is in reasonable shape right now. But might need some update on impact and casualties as detail will emerge. I searched the news sources, there isn't a lot yet. HaEr48 (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please. Can we have some actual world news on the front page for once, as opposed to the usual fare of obscure sports trophies and vehicle crashes? Sandstein 05:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality Again, reaction sections broken out by country with just statements are not approprate. It can be a lot cleaner and terser here. --Masem (t) 05:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Altblurb II only The coalition of countries directly attacking the Syrian government is unfathomably important. Russia has already threatened retaliation, which if possible should also be mentioned. Continue to update this blurb as events unfold; reactions from other major countries in the region could rapidly escalate the situation. I would also like to add that we should not simply refer to the United Kingdom and France as "its [the United States] allies" in the blurb. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The report I read said that Trump noted it as "Britain, France and the United States", presumably to shift some of blame for the now inevitable slew of terror attacks towards Europe and away from the US. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NOPE, "The nations of Britain, France, and the United States of America have marshalled their righteous power against barbarism and brutality," President Trump said in an address to the nation from the White House at about 21:00 local time (02:00 BST).BBC. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've given up caring already. If we're unable to post this because we can't work out what order to put the UK and France after the United States, I give up. §|The Rambling Man]] (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would be highly ironic if the possible starting point of a possible nuclear WW3 weren't mentioned in the In the news category.--Adûnâi (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - with the proviso we use the second blurb. Oppose otherwise. Also wonder if it would be better to mention France second after the U.S. It makes sense alphabetically and France appears to have made a more substantial contribution to the attack than the UK. Weak support because this is just the latest minor instalment in a very long-running war. AusLondonder (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support article is okay, but by no means should we use the term "coalition", it's really just the US, France and the UK. Or maybe don't even mention that, the BBC are calling them "western powers"... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2018 (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.
I'm not much of a Wikipedia editor, so I don't know the proper procedure for getting things into current events, but I think tens of thousands of people protesting against election results[1][2] is notable, but I'm also admittedly biased because I think the goings-on of countries that silence their media are important to note in global news. Would appreciate input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:33C0:6A80:5D:8F16:47D9:4ED1 (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The British government issues a statement saying it is "highly likely" the Assad regime used chemical weapons on its own people, and that since such an action could not go unchallenged, Britain would work with United States and France to coordinate an international response, without specifying what measures the United Kingdom would take. (CNN)
Police say a bombing took place in Barawe, Lower Shabelle, Somalia, at a football stadium yesterday, the first time a stadium in the country has been targeted, killed up to five spectators. (Reuters)
Armed bandits storm a mining site in the northwestern Nigerian state of Zamfara, killing 26 people, including 16 illegal gold miners. (CNN)
The Government of Ecuador says that the three Ecuadorian journalists kidnapped by rebel members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia on 26 March have been murdered. President Lenín Moreno orders military operations on the Colombian border to catch the murderers, offering a reward of US$100,000. (The Guardian)
The fire aboard Korean ship FV Dong Won 701 in the Port of Timaru, New Zealand, enters its fifth day. Fire and Emergency New Zealand rejects a proposal to tow the vessel out to sea as too dangerous. Firefighters commence efforts to seal the ship to suffocate ongoing fires. (Stuff)
A bus overturns near the village of Vakarel, Bulgaria, killing six people and injuring 20. (Reuters)
The Nepalese Accident Investigation Commission concludes its investigation, finding the plane stalled after the flight crew lost situational awareness and began a rapid ascent to avoid terrain whilst still configured for landing. (The Aviation Herald)
French judges clear the Tarnac Nine, accused of performing an anarchist terror sabotage in a controversial trial, of wrongdoing and describe the existence of a terror group as a "fiction". Defence lawyers had accused ex-PresidentNicolas Sarkozy's government of misusing counterterror law. (The Guardian)
An unidentified civilian is jailed for three and a half years for terror offences connected to banned neo-Nazi group National Action. Acquitted Finnish national Mikko Vehvilainen, a serving soldier in the British Army, is jailed alongside him for a weapons offence, receiving 12 months. (BBC)(BBC)(The Birmingham Mail)
The Parliament of Portugal passed a new law, by a 109 vote margin, making it easier for people to change their legal gender. Portuguese citizens from the age of 16 will now be able to change their gender and name in documents without the need of a medical report. (BBC)
An Islamic State member is sentenced in Vienna to nine years in prison, among others for instigating a 12-year-old boy to commit a Christmas market bombing in Ludwigshafen, Germany. (Deutsche Welle)
An al-Hashd al-Shaabi statement claims the group launched missiles over the Syrian border at Islamic State militants preparing to launch an international assault, killing and injuring dozens of militants. (Iraqi News)
Thousands of pro-European Union supporters of Open Britain, the European Movement and Britain for Europe demonstrate across the United Kingdom calling for a referendum on the final terms of the UK's planned exit from the European Union. (The Belfast Telegraph)
Elliott Broidy resigns as deputy financial chairman of the U.S. Republican National Committee following reports that he negotiated a $1.6 million payoff with a Playboy Playmate over claims he had impregnated her. (Politico)
The U.S. government releases a report by Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz that accuses former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe of improperly authorizing a media disclosure and "lack of candor" concerning this disclosure. (The Hill)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: The creator and longtime host of Coast to Coast AM, a radio program which now has a cumulative audience of 2.75 million (still significant, but much less than under Bell) and is heard internationally on over 600 radio stations. I am not sure if this meets the requirements to be posted because I have not participated here often as of late. — Godsy (TALKCONT)16:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per P2K3. Referencing is dreadful. I hope this gets cleaned up so we can post it. Art Bell was a truly iconic figure in the world of weird and fringe. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – If you haven't paid much or any attention to this article aside from now, most of the "dreadful parts" appear to have been POV-forked onto this article from the Coast article as part of an ongoing effort to rid the latter of anything not pertaining to the program's current agenda. Your first clue should have been the fact that the program has been in wide syndication for approximately a quarter century, yet the article lacks a history section. Merely mentioning "East of the Rockies" and "West of the Rockies" without bothering to explain its purpose, namely the fact that the callers in the program's early days under Bell were heavily weighted towards the West Coast (specifically California and Nevada), with Bell deciding to give the eastern two-thirds of the U.S. equal footing with the western third for access to the call-in lines, should be viewed as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE violation. Evidently, judging from how long this has been going on, the community is just fine with a social media site for the program's producers masquerading as an encyclopedia entry. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Brutal rape of 8 year old. Making headlines due to protests for arresting those accused. Also it has "become a religious flashpoint in an already polarised Indian region." Sherenk1 (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not an opinion, an actual question: We seem to keep seeing lurid crime stories popping up out of India, and I'm starting to fear the creation a stereotype. I would imagine this sort of thing does happen with some regularity worldwide. In some places it's local news, in others the story is censored to avoid bad press. Might this be a case of selective journalism? Likewise with the public response, which can be both fed by sensationalism and ignored or inflated to serve tabloid purposes. GCG (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I partially concur with GCG's assessment. The selection of ITN stories from India has not been flattering lately. However, I think this is symptomatic of ITN as a whole, as ITN has a very strong bias towards disaster or crime stories.--WaltCip (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject is undoubtedly a vicious crime. But vicious crimes occur daily all over the world. We generally try to steer clear of these kinds of hyper sensationalized tabloid press stories. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Commment The original BBC story has more detail and reporting. Its in Kashmir rather than just 'India' and involves land politics, corruption of officials etc etc. Its not just 'local news'. Rape as a nasty crime is bad enough. Rape used as a terror tactic to ethnically cleanse a region is very different. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reading through, I understand the severity of the situation in that Kashmir region. But, however, I'm having difficulty trying to determine how extensive these protests are (which is the only reason this should be posted as a blurb per both the news stories and this nom). it's difficult to tell if is tens, hundreds, or thousands of people, and the lack of specificity generally suggests these are small-scale protests, which we generally do not post. --Masem (t) 14:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While indisputably a gruesome crime, isolated incidents such as this are usually not appropriate for ITN. If the protests became highly violent, or if the crime itself were politically motivated that would be another story, but as far as I can tell neither is the case. EternalNomad (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. We can't go posting every rape or murder conviction, let alone every trial. Horrible for those affected, but sensationalist reporting is not for ITN. This is local tabloid news. Modest Geniustalk18:56, 13 April 2018 (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.
Adalah and Al Mezan say Gazan doctors had to amputate the legs of two young protestors wounded by Israeli fire after Israel refused permission for their transfer to Ramallah in the West Bank for treatment. Israel says the men were refused transfers because they were involved in violence. (The Times of Israel)
The 9th International Conference on the Holy City of Jerusalem begins, with Israel denying access to the Palestinian Authority-hosted conference to a number of foreign invitees including a party of thirteen Indians, two buses containing academics, and Ghanan MP Ras Mubarak. Israel's ambassador to Ghana denies ever issuing Mubarak with permission to enter the Occupied Palestinian Territories, calling Mubarak a "propaganda machine" and claims it's a "complete lie". (al-Jazeera)
Syrian government fighters remove the last rebels from Douma, completing the Syrian government's recapture of former rebel stronghold Eastern Ghouta. (al-Jazeera)
Steve Huffman, co-founder and CEO of Reddit, says racism is allowed on the website. Some users criticize his position, while others praise Huffman for defending free speech. (BBC)
Counterterror forces in Ninevah arrest and charge four suspected Islamic State members over a fatal bombing at a market in regional capital Mosul last year. Separately, authorities discover an unidentified corpse in Mosul thought to be connected. (al-Bawaba News)
A mass grave containing burnt bodies is found in al-Tarabisha, Anbar. (Iraqi News)
Backpage CEO Carl Ferrer pleads guilty to conspiracy and money laundering and agrees to assist in the prosecution of other Backpage employees, including co-founders Michael Lacey and James Larkin, who were charged with several counts of human trafficking on April 6 after the site was seized by the FBI. (The Wall Street Journal)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Weak support The article looks good but it's impossible to double-check the references. They're either in a foreign language I can't read, or offline.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per above. The problem here is that unless we have someone who can verify sources, we have a hell of a lot of good faith to assume that those references aren't just completely unsuitable. I'd like someone conversant in the language and who is a trusted Wikipedian to let us know that we're not about to post something horrifically abusive to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - there's no need to fear foreign language sources. Google translate now works quite well and I could easily verify his death and other biographical information from this link. -Zanhe (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't trust Google Translate at all. That's just me. If you found English language information on this individual, hopefully you added it to the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2018 (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.
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 a former US Senator, though not one that's been in the news any time recently. The article currently is almost a stub; hopefully the obit coverage will allow it to be expanded. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tamer Abu Daqqa, a resident of Khan Younis, Gaza, claims he is the man shown on an unauthorised video taken by an Israeli soldier being shot by a sniper through the border fence. Daqqa rejects Israeli claims he was a ringleader of violence and says he was assisting wounded Palestinians. (The Jerusalem Post)
Israeli Defence Minister Avigdor Liberman bars 110 Palestinians from entering Israel to attend a joint Israeli-Palestinian Remembrance Day ceremony in Tel Aviv. (The Jerusalem Post)
Spain's Audiencia Nacional sentences ten Islamic extremists to between eight and twelve years in prison for a plot to launch attacks against Barcelona landmarks and behead a hostage on camera. The cell was convicted yesterday. (El País)
The Abu Dhabi Federal Appeal Court jails two Egyptians and a Saudi for fifteen years each and fines them for promoting terrorist ideologies online. The court orders them deported after release, their computer equipment seized, and their social media presences deleted. (Gulf News)
Lawyers representing Ayanle Hassan Ali, accused of three attempted murders in a 2016 Toronto knife attack on Canadian soldiers, say he should be acquitted entirely of allegations the charges had a terrorist motive and found not criminally responsible for the underlying offences on the grounds of his mental health. (CBC.ca)
The fire onboard South Korean ship FV Don Wong 701 in the Port of Timaru, New Zealand, enters its third day. At least four vessels – MV Searuby, MV San Granit, MV Longview Logger and MV Jeppesen Maersk – are delayed from arriving. (Stuff)(Stuff)
The athletic therapist for the Humboldt Broncos, Dayna Brons, dies from injuries sustained in the crash, raising the death toll to 16. (Sportsnet.ca)
Saskatchewan politicians seek a redesign of the intersection where the crash occurred, which was also previously the scene of a six-death crash in 1997. (Sportsnet.ca)
The family of a man killed in California when his Tesla Model X crashed with the Autopilot engaged says they intend to sue the carmaker. His wife further says he had complained of flaws in the vehicle's behaviour and predicted his death in a collision with the barrier his car ultimately hit. (Electrek)
Elmira Medynska, the partner of Russian whistleblower Alexander Perepilichnyy, tells his inquest at the Central Criminal Court in London he seemed nervous and had been unwell prior to his death. The inquest is attempting to determine if Perepilichnyy had been murdered. (BBC)
South Korean politician Ahn Hee-jung is indicted on accusations he repeatedly raped his aide Kim Ji-eun, who previously accused him publicly of sexual abuse. (Gulf News)
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.
Comment The link to the Sexual Offenses act sections doesn't align with the article. I've tagged it as such and left a comment on the talk page. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose The latest in the endless stream of nominations all on the same topic. This or that country legalized SSM of homosexual sex. This has long since ceased to be major news. If Russia or Saudi Arabia legalize SSM someone drop me a line as I'd probably support that nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So unlike European countries or Australia where it was ambiguous, T&T has an explicit law on the books. They're actually closer to Russia or SA. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2018 (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.
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: Blind Paralympic runner from the UK, eight times gold medallist. Article is well sourced, if a little short. I will try to expand - Dumelow (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
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.
Wait until we get some details to put in a blurb. We usually have a higher bar for casualties in military related crashes, but if the initial reports are accurate, this may meet it. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Article has no useful information beyond the date and time when the crash happened. Less than a stub. When the article has expanded to a reasonable state, it can be reassessed. --Jayron3210:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Change to weak support Article is at the BARE minimum of length; I would prefer to see more information actually put in it, but begrudgingly this probably just barely crosses the line to acceptable. --Jayron3216:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support We should wait, but this should definitely get on the main page after more info is available. This is the first 200 fatality- plane crash in 3 years, I believe. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk12:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - article bashed into something resembling a shape. Bit sketchy on details but we can only work with what is published. Mjroots (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support although we don't usually post military aircraft crashes this one involved family members, and the number of casualties is horrifying. EternalNomad (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though we generally don't post military crashes, this had family members aboard; even if that wasn't the case, a 200+ casualty crash of any type is significant. --Masem (t) 13:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This article does not meet the minimum length defined in ITN guidelines of "three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs". Mamyles (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this as an issue, but reviewing the most current sources, there's literally not much more that can be said that isn't filler that would be inappropriate for us. Until they have some idea of the cause of the crash, I can't see a reasonable expansion possible here. --Masem (t) 13:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There will be clearly more to be said once they evaluate why the crash happened. That could hours, days, or weeks from that info coming due, and while we're not talking a third-world country here, I'd not expect rapid assessment of this from Algeria as one would have in the US or Europe. Because we have no idea when that will come, and could be days from now, we're at a point where the article does cover every known detail as comprehensively as possible. --Masem (t) 14:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Currently has 957 characters of prose. DYK requires 1500 to get on the main page. WP:STUB gives a cutoff of 250 words, and this has 154. It's a stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For a stub it's informative, but the last 50 words are (unreferenced) background, and it still seems too thin for Main Page exposure. Sca (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: further to my "support", above; this is well beyond the requirements for inclusion, and - despite the irrelevant comments above about DYK and stubs, etc - seems to be good to go. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits14:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
⇒ As an aside, German Wiki has it on their ITN, but it links to a stub of just 69 words, which seems an obvious bid to get it out there pronto due to the high death toll. I don't think we want to go down that road. Sca (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose stub. It contains every published scrap of information and it's a stub. It's a stub because other than it happening, nothing is known about the event. We're only talking about this because of WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. When details about the aircraft (like date of delivery) are known, and a preliminary cause are known, and the article updated, then lets talk. There is absolutely no reason what so ever to rush this to the main page of Wikipedia. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any requirement to wait for a cause to be known, even a "preliminary cause", is there? Again date of aircraft delivery might be informative, but is it an actual requirement for posting? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC) p.s. count: says Characters = 1,045 and Words = 167[reply]
The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective. In my subjective opinion, it's not updated enough. Admins determining consensus will decide of my !vote matters. Deal with it. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So we just have subjective views on this, then. Yes, I think I can just about deal with that, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC) I can offer to add "in your face, dude", if you feel that would help.[reply]
What's needed is some info about why the military personnel (and their families) were being transported from Algiers to Béchar, near the Moroccan border. Was it a routine flight or something else? Also, a bit of background might be relevant regarding the Il-76, a Soviet-era plane. As this one crashed just after takeoff a technical fault seems likely. How old was it? Sca (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agree it is well beyond the requirements for inclusion. By the time all the shoutin' is over here, the article will be in decent shape anyway. Darkest TreeTalk16:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a new rule against non-English references? And what's the problem with Google books? Books published by academic presses are considered the gold standard of reliable sources, far more so than news articles. -Zanhe (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some people have raised this objection on occasion but it has absolutely not reached “consensus”. It is clear that this individual is notable and any editor who things otherwise should go to AfD rather than object here. —LukeSurltc08:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I said "apparent consensus". I created Tyler Hilinski posthumously and it was opposed here (though still never nominated for deletion). Another athlete got a posthumous article rejected here, and was either kept or no consensus at AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support and people wonder why Wikipedia still has a systemic bias problem. The sources are fine; the article is looking good and should be posted. As for the concept article creation time is relevant, the template itself says anybody with an article is notable. -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.227 (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A well-referenced article on a recently deceased person. The technical objections raised above do not aid the encyclopaedia and are not even valid technicalies as they have no basis in policy. —LukeSurltc08:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's just testimony, though. There's no legislation likely to come out of the U.S. Congress, and as far as I'm aware nothing major came out of this hearing. The "data scandal" article is also pretty rough. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is literally all over the news (it hits the perfect combo of high tech celebrity, social media, and politics), but it's just testimony. From what I've read, there's nothing that seals the deal on the Russian interference (if it did or did not happen), and no other major revelations came out of this. It's a lot of noise that has very little end results at this point. --Masem (t) 22:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As Masem wrote, this is celebrity drama with zero long-term significance yet. Facebook had similar controversies before and nothing illegal had been done in those controversies so they died down. Speaking of Russian interference, there are far more notable events that happened but were not promoted at ITN. wumbolo^^^22:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Orange tagged article. It's dominating the news, and would be a welcome break from our usual fare of cricket scandals and soccer scores. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Very short. There's a quotation in the lead 'he resigned in 2003 under "extremely controversial circumstances."' which isn't cited there or elsewhere. In view of the BLP concerns I'd like to see more referencing on this issue. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Complete non-starter. The proposed blurb bears no relation to any content in either article mentioned, and the Douma attack is already being discussed in a separate nomination below. This should be closed. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too soon. If the threat keeps up and draws more media attention, then we can consider this. Analogously, the Cuban Missile Crisis would've been worth posting if ITN existed back then, and we should not wait until one side fired missiles; however that episode also stayed in mainstream news for a long time. Banedon (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The lead is a bit light on text, per WP:LEAD, however there is a prose summary of each round, which is well referenced. Meets minimum standards. --Jayron3213:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - well for her, and congratulations, but this is not a story of lasting international significance, and is not worthy of ITN in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment will election results come in in the next few days? If so, wait until the result, which will certainly be worthy. -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.227 (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The results will probably come in within hours (the election was supposed to end at 7 pm, but some people have been standing in line for hours and are still waiting to get in, due to the usual bureaucratic SNAFU our election office is well known for...) – Alenshatalk20:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's really no point in us all going round on this until someone updates the article. Then we need a sourced paragraph on reactions, which is what sinks most of these ITN-R election articles. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I added an alternative blurb, since we now know the results and the article has been updated. This is definitely newsworthy enough to add. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd like to see some mention of the electoral conduct; for example The Guardian is quoting the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe criticising the electoral conduct.[33]Espresso Addict (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Posted a modified blurb, substituting "a coalition" for "Fidesz". The article makes it clear that it was an alliance of Fidesz and the KDNP which won the election, and I am not comfortable highlighting only one of those parties, even if it is the major partner in the coalition. If folks wish to change this, further discussion is welcome, here or at WP:ERRORS. Vanamonde (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - there's fairly little detail about the attack itself (where exactly, with what, when, etc.) and this might have to wait. Once fixed Strong support - even by Syrian Civil War standards this is highly abnormal. Juxlos (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as it stands. This is never going to fly folks, every genuine reliable source is adding "alleged" or "purported" or "apparent" as a caveat to the event itself. What might swing it is simply that at least 70 people were killed (although I heard on the radio [BBC] that this was a very low estimate) in this attack. It's indisputably in the news, and indisputably a significant act, we just need to get the blurb right without wandering into POV or speculation. Article is sufficient in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. "Alleged" or "apparent" or even "suspected" can easily be added to the blurb. Can we be less precise about the number of deaths? BBC is hedging on 70 vs 48 by calling it "dozens". Espresso Addict (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's where you're plain wrong. If we add "alleged" or "apparent" or "suspected", no-one will support this nomination. That's very much how ITN works. With all the experience I have here, I should know...... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because absurd decisions have been made in the past... I'd support with that sort of wording if the article can be got into posting quality. We make ITN a laughing stock when we apparently ignore important encyclopedic news in favour of posting sports/election results & transport accidents. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not really about "absurd" decisions, it's really about the uncertainty and then the liability. We don't tend to post "it may be this" kind of stories, and we certainly wouldn't post this as a de facto "chemical attack", so all we have now to get this onto the main page is an single attack which has killed dozens in Syria. And that's considered "plus ca change". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think User:The Rambling Man continues to make excellent arguments. I would argue that the evidence is overwhelming that "A chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria kills at least 70 people." is unquestionably true. However, there may also be good reasons not to post this particular blurb. For example, a pacifist may want to avoid drawing attention to an event that may lead the United States into world war 3. Brian Everlasting (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose minus "background" and "reactions" it's a stub. Personally I'm tired of the phrase "anti government activists" in the Syrian civil war articles. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: Al Jazeera did not used the "alleged" tone when discussing the incident and some other more recent articles have followed suit, though older stories are still more popular in searches. As further news breaks, some wording may change. United Nations emergency meeting is to be held regarding the situation.----ZiaLater (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle It's not a stub. The article has 2500 characters of prose, which is a start class. It'll be expanded and it's minimally long enough now. The "background" section does and should count to the total, since obviously the background matters to why a chemical attack would happen here. The "reactions" are bulleted so they don't count to the character count. Obviously that POV tag needs to be dealt with first. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as this is part of a larger event that is already listed as ongoing. or rather, we could just remove the other if we choose to post this. GCG (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. If you take out the BG and the reactions section, there's hardly anything about the actual "event" (attack or whatever it will be considered). I agree the BG section is needed, but it should not dominate, and reaction sections like the one here are highly discouraged, it should not be a quotefarm but actual reactions, such as medical or military aid being offered, etc. As such, it is far too stubby to post. --Masem (t) 14:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is seeing more than enough coverage to warrant posting, especially given the threats of escalation. Banedon (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With UN resolutions being discussed and a veto being used, I think this is at a point where it should be posted quickly. Banedon (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – As the facts remain contested, along with the death toll, this might be better posted under 'ungoing' IMO. Sca (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As this is now trending toward posting, can I ask again if it is appropriate to post a sub-event of an item already posted as ongoing? GCG (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I am opposing because this is a lower tiered league than the Premier League, soccer is already sufficiently represented at ITN/R, such as with the Champions League, as mentioned by GCG, and the article isn't that great. It's one short section of prose followed by a ton of tables. One specific issue is "clean sheets". The term is used once, in a section header, and never defined. Not everyone knows what one of those is. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "lower tiered league"; it's the top league in Germany just as the EPL is the top league in England. It may not have as high a profile or as many TV viewers worldwide, but that's a different thing. And it should be fairly trivial to wikilink Shutout#Association football somewhere.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, so you actually already know that this "specific reason" is really nothing to even be noted here, and something that the addition of, what, 14 extra bytes would solve in a jiffy? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit ironic to see someone who argued for the inclusion of the NCAA football national champion on grounds like cultural significance dismiss this so easily. This is a top tier domestic league. Bayern is among the best club teams on earth(really hate to say that, cannot stand them lol), unlike the NCAA national champion which is worlds apart from the top of the game. The german league is among the strongest in europe, probably world wide, as well. It is culturally significant, it is domestic top tier, has high attendance, the winner of the league is among the best teams on earth and the quality of the league is easily in the top 5 world wide i would say, probably top 3 even. So if you oppose this Muboshgu, will you oppose next years college football final as well? 91.248.254.186 (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article appears to be reasonably well referenced and the Bundesliga is a significant competition. It has the highest average attendance of any league in the world and UEFA rates it as the second best in Europe based on Champions League performance. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Domestic football is a big deal. The point at which a league is sufficiently notable for ITN posting is arbitrary, but for me La Liga, the English Premiership and the Bundesliga (in that order) are the three that are above that line. 2017–18_Bundesliga#Summary appears to be adequate prose in the article. --LukeSurltc14:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My concern isn't that this is a domestic league; it's that the Champions League, which is the premier event for these clubs, is ITNR already. GCG (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm just seeing "I don't like it", the Bundesliga is probably in the top three football leagues in the world, and football has a global audience of billions, so this will be of interest to a vast number of our readers across the continents of our planet. Probably more so than college basketball I would guess....... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question is this the "top of the sport"? I thought the UEFA Champions League was that -- if that's the case, this is a simple qualifier. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it need to be "top of the sport" to feature as a normal ITN? Is "top of the sport" a new ITN criterion I've missed?? I've never heard anything so preposterous in my highly experienced life. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Champions League is, despite its name, actually a knock-out competition, not directly comparable to individual countries' leagues.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So the "top tier" of European football is the UEFA? Or are those just demonstration games? Im honestly trying to understand -- because I don't know. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Teams compete in domestic leagues, such as the Premier League in England, or the Bundesliga in Germany. These events are organised on a domestic scale, not by UEFA. Then, based on how well they performed in the preceding season, teams enter the UEFA Champions League, where they play against other European clubs initially in a league, and subsequently (i.e. now) in knockout football. However, clubs spend the vast majority of their time playing in the domestic league - 38 games as opposed to about a dozen in the Champions League, so they should not be ignored. Winning the domestic league is a big deal, however, suffice it to say, and warrants attention at ITN. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So there are 55 member countries in the UEFA .. subject to article quality are all of their championships a big deal suitable for posting to ITN? --LaserLegs (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With association football being as big as it is, we purposes have whats at ITNR to limit how many stories in this area that would come up at ITNR. As there are more significant tourneys in that region that include Germany, we should focus on that, rather than the nationals. --Masem (t) 17:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the stranger arguments I've seen here. We don't limit our number of American gun crime stories, the consensus to post or otherwise makes that self-limiting. We don't have ITNR to limit stories, we have it to accept stories which have been endlessly debated. That we post the Premier League knocks this other "significant tourneys" debate into the long grass. According to that, we'd only ever post the winner of the Champions League, which we don't. And since football truly global and watched by literally billions, I think we're all able to accept that a few extra stories about it here will do Wikipedia no harm at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ec There is a difference between what we can plan and what we can't. We're not going to cap, say, hurricane disasters if there's 10 that strike and made deadly landfall, but we're still discrimating towards hurricanes with minimal damage or impact and certainly not posting every hurricane that forms. But when we have events we can plan on, one of the considerations at ITNR is how many stories in that topic area are generated per year. We try to avoid over-saturation where we can in any one specific topic area, and in a case where we have a tiered sport like these European leagues, we have to make a concerted effort of drawing a line to avoid excessive coverage of incremental elements. And while I do see the ITNR suggests only adding three specific national events in addition to the Premiere League on the bases those four have assured slots, I still think it becomes a bias issue if we're not including the other 30-some national results, but at the same time ITN can't handle those 30-some blurbs. --Masem (t) 19:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Template:U. It's not bias to only choose the leagues which are ranked the highest, and have other visible advantages over the others (attendance, TV audience, global column inches, commercial investments). I don't think any Welshman, Irishman, Gibraltarian, Andorran, Sammarinese, Luxembourger etc would legitimately question Wikipedia neutrality if their national league was excluded. Harambe Walks (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Soccer is the most important thing in the world. The article has a well referenced wall of tables, a brief prose summary which is also sourced. Open wide for some soccer! --LaserLegs (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We already posted when he was convicted (last July). While the circumstances here are a bit odd - he missed a court date to turn himself in and spend two days hiding before he turned himself in - we don't usually cover when sentences of established convinctions start. --Masem (t) 01:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: As said, we have already covered this when he was sentenced. The sentence turning into actual prison is just a trivial consequence; Lula was not detained back then because the lawyers were delaying it with their tricks. This may had been newsworthy if the PT insisted to "resist" the arrest and the whole thing turned into an open conflict for some days, or something like that (and then justifying a specific article), but that was not the case. He resisted the arrest for just some hours, and then gave up without major incidents. Cambalachero (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another RD where the article was only created after the subject's death. Whilst his death was certainly part of a notable event, it doesn't appear that he was notable himself beforehand. Every source in the article is dated today. I suspect if this was to be AfD'd, it would not survive via WP:BLP1E. Black Kite (talk)23:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have serious doubts about the notability of this topic. While it is undoubtedly getting a lot of immediate attention, I suspect that this is not going to pass SUSTAINED and I'm not seeing the long term significance of this, admittedly tragic event. Once again we have people rushing to create articles about whatever is in the news w/o consideration for whether the subject is likely to meet our guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I am withdrawing my oppose. After spending some time looking at traffic safety (and death) statistics for developed countries I now believe that the number of fatalities in this case is so far outside the norm as to establish notability. That said I do think we should have a discussion about setting some kind of rough guidelines about disaster related nominations. But that is a separate issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Top of my news feed this morning. It's in the news. So was a prison fire in Venezuela, a mall fire in Russia, a shooting in France, a suicide bombing in Afghanistan, a package bomber in the USA (very briefly, as we know, the USA sucks), a plane crash in Nepal, a fire in Azerbaijan, and a terrorist attack in Burkina Faso. A bridge collapse in Miami was not posted. That's just for March. Yes WP:OSE but in the absence of WP:MINIMUMDEATHS Opposes should explain what (other than happening in Canada) makes this tragedy any different from the endless parade of utterly irrelevant barely above stub disaster stories pushed to ITN on a weekly basis. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With the likely exception of the terrorist bombing, I think I can see arguments for the long term significance of most of the events you cited. This looks like a really awful traffic accident to me. But that's pretty much all I'm seeing right now. Maybe some new highway safety regulations will emerge from this, but at the moment I'm not seeing that as likely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Long term significance of a prison fire in Venezuela? Really? Five years from now that article will be within 50 words of what it is today. I think these disaster stories are totally over-represented at ITN, but rather than editorialize, I rely simply on them being "in the news". Wanna stop it? (I DO!) start an RFC. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A bad fire in a prison almost always has long term significance. Even if there is no call for safety reform, which given the current political situation in the workers paradise that is Venezuela, does seem unlikely; it has already become part of the broader story about that country's slide into far left authoritarian dictatorship. I have no real doubts about its notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support given that this is the kind of stuff that gets usually posted (+ various sports events), this one should be posted, too. In the meantime, we keep ignoring the really important developments (Saudi-Arabia, Ethiopia etc. etc.). Daily Mail, not an encyclopedia. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B40E:B531:60CB:8185 (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cpmment I have no real opinion on posting this or not, but as a general note regarding notability or otherwise I recommend examining the public domain highways accident reports over many decades from the US National Transportation Safety Board. The bottom line being when you get a very large mass casualty vehicle accident in a developed nation you can usually expect lasting significance because there tend to be regulatory proposals and the like come out of them, many of which go on to become actual laws. Not that it's guaranteed to be the case by any means but it's worth having at the back of one's mind. -- BobTheIP editing as 88.111.218.152 (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I admit I am slightly biased as I'm one of the editors working on the article. The article is currently sufficient and will be expanded once more information is released (the victims names are slowly being released, for example, but they won't be added until confirmed by a better source than Twitter). With regards to the argument about this event's notability, I don't believe it has merit. This event meets the WP:GNG and will almost certainly have longstanding repercussions for the community, province, team and hockey league. Perhaps not world-changing effects, but effects nevertheless. It is also well in-line with other minor events that have received articles and been posted to ITN. --PlasmaTwa219:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support the juxtaposition of a large road traffic accident in somewhere like Canada, combined with the drastic loss of a large proportion of a single sporting team, makes this notable enough for me. The article is sufficient, the blurb, however, is not. It needs to link in bold text the target article, and the most recent update is that 15 people have sadly died. Other than that, it's good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No opinion on ongoing worthiness, but the wording needs considerable care. The blurb had ongoing arguments at Errors almost its entire tenure. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since the only oppose is by somebody with some rather sarcastic things to say about current events/ITN, I'm marking as ready. -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.227 (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm troubled by the fact that the detail of his wife's name (Millie Akaka in the legend, Mary Chong in the infobox) is unclear and his marriage isn't mentioned in the text. Not itself necessarily a huge problem but I think it's indicative of a patchy article with big gaps in coverage. Many achievements mentioned in obits are not in the article, giving undue weight to the Time article assessment. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A news on sentencing a former head of state to 24 years in prison for corruption is a big deal that merits inclusion and it even deserves an update in a separate (sub)section of the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support on principle, oppose on quality - Noted that there was a nomination for her arrest which was not posted (appropriately), this is the right point to post. However, I feel the article's organization (why she was on trial comes before anything that discusses her impeachment and why she was arrested) and the major block of text of CNs require improvement here before posting. --Masem (t) 14:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
per Masem, in principle yes, but not of sufficient quality to support yet. Only the lede appears to have been updated so far, not the appropriate section of the article itself.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose. It is in a terrible state, orange tags on every section aside from the lead itself for over two years. It's going to need just about a complete re-write to even begin to approach front page standards. It's a depressing sight. Challenger l (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have rewritten and sourced the prose at least to a respectable degree (nothing close to Miyazaki's but enough to pass quality). I'm going to try to source the TV/Film sections now, but I did want to highlight the biggest problems have been fixed. --Masem (t) 20:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is like trying to hit 101 or more with 6 darts. Hardly anything is sourced, and it seems a whole "Early life" section (ie: where was he born, where did he grow up, how did he get into darts) is missing. Still, if anyone does it, they can have a speedboat. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's a challenge, and a terrible one to consider that Bristow, before Taylor, was simply unparalleled. And yet his article is a junkyard. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I started trying to source the first sentence in the body (winning the 1980 Championship against Bobby George) and got bogged down really quickly. If I can't plug in sources like I'm felling trees on this one, it's not going to happen unless everyone pitches in. At the moment, people seem to be fiddling around the wording (and in some instances adding even more unsourced content!), that's great, but for a BLP (which technically this is of course), it's the referencing that's the priority. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Terrible article. Normally I don't mind pitching in with referencing, but what are we to do with stuff like " Bristow had not only supreme talent for one so young but an imposing personality and uncontained self belief."? Needs a major re-write.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meh Sourcing isn't so good and there are POV problems. But as a guy who likes to inform people about wrestling history and was pinged here, I feel compelled to say go for it. Nothing jumps out as blatantly false (though I'm no Johnny V expert). InedibleHulk(talk)10:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now a fine gent but this article is not in a state to be posted. The removal of unsourced content (a huge problem for players who played before the Internet age) has reduced this entry into bare bones, his whole career after Chelsea (which included Manchester United, Milan and PSG) is one sentence. 84 international caps are described in one sentence and I've only just doubled the international section by adding his World Cup red card. Harambe Walks (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment target article has some referencing issues, and isn't suitable for ongoing because it's not getting regular updates. If there is a medals article or something then nominate that. Or if you want, nom the opening for a blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not getting regular updates because all that's happened so far is the opening ceremony. That was last night. It's 8:20 am on the first day of competition right now. Not many medals awarded so far. Please give it time. HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as I did four years ago. [34] Except for the Olympics I don't feel sports events are what Ongoing was intended for, especially regional/otherwise limited entry criteria ones like this. When did we take out this event from ITNR? I would be more comfortable posting a blurb. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I concur with 331dot that the Olympics (and probably the World Cup) are more suited for Ongoing. This event does not rise to that level. Lepricavark (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb is definitely better than ongoing in this case. However, the article does not appear updated, nothing about the opening ceremony, for example (I know there is a separate article, but even that one is very short). --Tone13:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied across the information and links from the sub-articles, this should be sufficient - we don't want to make the main article too long. Black Kite (talk)14:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I know we don't usually post items with a low number of casualties, but there are unusual circumstances here - a female shooter and a high-profile company targeted.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support News sources are covering the story in detail, article is of sufficient depth and quality and referencing looks good. --Jayron3214:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nowhere in ITN criteria does it say we reject news for having too low a death toll, or being domestic terrorism, or what have you. This is in the news and it's a quality article. Opposers are forgetting the purpose of ITN is to promote good, updated content on items that are in the news. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have to be fully aware of the media affect here, and remember that Youtube is part of the media community. They are of course going to highlight this big time, but this is nothing at all close to the Charlie Hebdo shooting from a few years back. There's a huge media bias in why this story is being covered as deeply as it is, is that it affected one of the media's "own". If this was any other random workplace without the name "YouTube", the coverage would be non-existent. --Masem (t) 14:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not importance perceived of event x. The criteria is set out for ITN, and that is is there reliable, in-depth news coverage of an event. Comparison to other similar events has zero bearing on this nomination. All nominations are held on their own merits not on a scale of comparison. WTKitty (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. Which is why we evaluate article quality and merely use the news to decide if people are likely to be hearing about this story outside of Wikipedia. By trying to "curate" the list based on your own views of what should, and should not, be important, you are treating this as a news ticker. You are merely trying to curate your own news ticker and control what stories people do and don't see based on your own editorial opinion of what we should and should not find important. That's a news ticker. If instead we just put up good articles about current events that's what we should be doing. "I don't think the news should cover this" is not a criteria for ITN. Bias is not avoided by refusing to acknowledge work created by Wikipedia editors just because you don't like where those editors live. Two biases are not a correction. Instead, just write articles yourself from underrepresented areas. --Jayron3214:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the point here is that gun crime occurs all the time in the US, and in this case only one person died, the perp. That it happened at YouTube is trivia. The event is borderline trivia, probably better covered in a long list of this year's shootings. Posting this would actively open floodgates for every single trivial gun event in the US that receives a day's news coverage. Which would be junk. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we strictly only went by media coverage and a sufficient update to an article for quality, then ITN would be flooded by Trump-related stories. We have to recognize that the media has its own focus that is different from the goals of an encyclopedia. We do need to curate, and understand that even if a story is the leading headline for all major papers, it may not be appropriate for Wikipedia (NOT#NEWS still exists and is still consider valid) nor ITN's front page, even if the update and quality to the article are there. We try to avoid geographical biases, but we also need to try to avoid topic-area biases too that are generated by the media. This is one of those cases. --Masem (t) 14:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is larger than just "gun crime in the U.S.", as it is a female shooter (you have to acknowledge how rare that is) and that it's (apparently) over the issue of the monetization of her videos. So many U.S. shootings don't get articles, let alone nominated here at ITN. Sometimes, they're worth posting. Like Parkland, Newtown, Sutherland Springs, and I think this too. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How does the shooter being female impact the newsworthiness of the story, other than that it's a statistical anomaly? Answer: It doesn't. The conclusion is still the same - guns are ridiculously easy to get a hold of in the U.S., and mass shootings are pervasively frequent as a result.--WaltCip (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And that right there brings us back to the crux of the matter: U.S.-related stories are being rejected by editors not on their merits, but on the idea that mass shootings are "pervasively frequent". Not all of them are nominated, but somehow, their frequency means they all need to be rejected? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And right there you hit the nail on the head again, we have lists and lists of mass shootings, this one is not unique, is not interesting, is not important, is not going to change anything, and will be forgotten in moments. We don't reject them all by any means, that's an absurd accusation. Promoting this is the quickest way to junk ITN with a proliferation of totally meaningless shoot-em-up's in the United States on the main page. Perhaps start an American Wikipedia where you could have a mass shooting ticker instead? It would be frequently updated, like another RD line? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I may support the nomination, but the reasons of this incident are not elaborated. The article says that she claims that Youtube "demonetized most of her videos", and that can be easily understood as an action over an individual user. Actually, the requirements of AdSense have changed: before, you needed to have a channel with at least 10,000 views in total, now you need 4,000 hours of watch time in the last year and at least 1,000 subscribers. A significant number of Youtube video creators do not meet those draconian requirements and ceased to receive monetization; this woman was just one of them. Of course, it does not justify her, but it gives context. See here: How YouTube creators get paid for ads and why some have been angry. Cambalachero (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but YouTube stiffing a few of its less productive users a few bucks is not the same thing as the U.S. declaring Israel a sovereign state.--WaltCip (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we can’t post EVERY mass shooting that occurs in the U.S, Wikipedia is not U.S-centric even if it gets widespread coverage. Kirliator (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while Pawnkingthree is absolutely right that this does not qualify for a snow close, I don't think it qualifies for an ITN posting either. This is a relatively minor incident with minimal impact. Lepricavark (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above opposers, a minor shooting at best. In addition, I don’t recall a previous posting where the shooting had no fatalities other than the perpetrator, though correct me if I’m wrong. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is it happened at Youtube. Millions (maybe hundreds of millions?) of people use youtube every day. That makes it more ITN-worthy in my opinion. The only real argument for not posting it may be that we obviously don't want to encourage copycats. We may need to have a real conversation about this--what does law enforcement think--should we avoid "promoting" these stories? But they are all over the newspapers.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Widespread news coverage does not automatically mean this event warrants an ITN post, as there is no formal criteria. I have seen posts make it to ITN with barely any coverage, and get posted. Likewise, there have been countless times where events on the ITN nominations received international coverage, yet failed to get posted on the bulletin. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This would set a very dangerous precedent into posting any shooting that happens around the world. We generally only post shootings/attacks with significant casualties or large ramifications (such as the Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, or the assassination of a major political figure), and I don't think this meets either. EternalNomad (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was pleasantly surprised when I saw soon after the shooting that no one had tried to ITN it. I guess my surprise was too soon. This is a minor incident. Things like this happen all the time. The only person dead was the shooter. Natureium (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and the absolutely incredible (and by that I mean it in its literal sense) thing is that we have two admins voting in favour of posting it. Seriously. Who's watching the watchmen these days? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and for the record, contrary to what one of these admins has claimed (Template:Xt), some of us are all too aware of what should and should not go onto ITN, and while this article might be of decent quality, the news item it relates to is trivial and of limited interest to a handful of individuals in a small region on the planet who can't control themselves and their guns. Instantly forgettable fodder. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the only real reason why this event is getting widespread coverage is because YouTube is mentioned, if this wasn't YouTube or any other major business or corporation, this would not be on the board. Python Dan (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose stub. Story is in the news, event is relatively rare, advanced building codes, enforcement, communications and emergency management in the United States means death toll and damage are relatively low (and WP:MINIMUMDEATHS isn't a thing). But ... it's barely a stub. --22:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaserLegs (talk • contribs)
Oppose, people in a first-world country are inconvenienced due to unusual weather, news at 11. This is not at all appropriate for an ITN. --Masem (t) 23:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is there no list of works? Surely she released something in her career? "she acted in several films"? Nice job on the cleanup BabbaQ. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a updater. I would prefer it in ongoing events instead of blurb. I have also proposed alternative blurb which does not focus on number of deaths. ALT2 uses SC/ST caste groups instead of term Dalit because it is unrecognized term by the government and definition of Dalit sometimes do not include ST caste groups. The protests are against the court order on the SC/ST atrocities act, not government. So I had proposed ALT1.--Nizil (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It's basically a stub. For someone with a 50-year career I would expect there to be enough out there for a little expansion. If this could be done I will switch to support.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's good enough and long enough for the main page. It's 3,000 characters of prose, which is a Start-class article. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as per other sport ITNRs we need a better /larger summary of the game; additionally, factors such as broadcaster, estimated audiance, etc. should also be included. --Masem (t) 03:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re The pages will do need some work and should be totally up to speed by some time tomorrow at the latest. Especially as more is written about the championship game and the winning team. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Last year's women's was significant because it halted Connecticut's 111-game winning streak. If this year's is not ready, especially since the women's is not in the ITNR either, it should not hold up the nomination.—Bagumba (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting the Men's Tournament once it is judged to be ready. I strongly oppose posting the Women's Tournament because it's just not that big of a deal even in America. It should not have been posted last year, either. Lepricavark (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see no reason not to include the Woman's results (though that game also has need of updates). It is standard practice that if there are both men's and women's divisions of a sport finale happening effectively at the same time that we should post both. I know the Women's NCAA has nowhere close to the viewership of the Men's, but if we're posting the Men's, it's systematic bias to not post the Women's that ended the day before. --Masem (t) 14:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not systemic bias to refrain from posting something that is not receiving sufficient attention even in its own country. The reality is that the Women's Tournament does not receive nearly the same level of news coverage as the Men's Tournament. Most American sports fans don't care about the Women's Tournament and it would be an insult to our readers to pretend otherwise. Lepricavark (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know or care enough about sports to decide if the game summary is adequate, but it's refed well enough for me. Nice work. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re The game summary is lengthened, should be long enough. I've added the broadcasters, crowd size at the Alamodome, and the overnight ratings. I'll debold the tourney article and remove it from the template, since I don't have the time to work on it today and it shouldn't hold up the game article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment meh, it's a naff expansion, but probably enough. What I am interested in is the wording on ITNR about these men/women events, which explicitly states Template:Xt and as far as I can see, there's nothing specifying that the women's event should not be listed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The tournaments started and ended on different days and occurred in different locations(The final games were in Columbus, Ohio for the women and San Antonio, Texas for the men) I usually take "simultaneous" to mean the same time in the same location. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand what "simultaneous" means, but I allowed it some latitude because clearly those who added it to ITNR meant, in spirit, "in the same timeframe", like the Boat Race (yeah, yeah) where the women's race takes place an hour before the men's, that's not simultaneous but it it was is meant. I very much doubt that any sporting contest holds a men's and women's final simultaneously per the dicdef, so we need to use our common sense here. I'm not sure why the location is relevant in the slightest. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my view is that the locations(in this case, not even the same state) suggest that we are talking about two different events. But I don't feel particularly strongly about it. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well clearly they're two different events (like the two different senior Boat Races), they just aren't collocated. If we need to change the wording at ITNR, then I suggest you make a proposal, because right now there's nothing really (barring the use of common sense) to exclude the women's final, apart from all the personal opinions above. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is the kind of thing which professional astronomers look at as a curio, but if the general public likes it, why not? Banedon (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on whether you call a supernova a "star". Some people probably will, and others will not. Calling it a main sequence star is indisputably correct, but it's somewhat technical. Banedon (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article is now four paragraphs and offers a rather complete overview of the topic given available information, so it's closer to B-class than a stub. Mamyles (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Post-Posting Comment I support this; however, it is kind of in geocentric language with the language of "the farthest-known star, 9 billion light-years away." I think it should specify that it is 9 billion light-years away *from earth* and make some indication that this is the farthest *detected* star as opposed to the farthest-known star. Is it farthest or furthest? Granted these are a bit nit-picky; I understand that basically every person who uses Wikipedia is from Earth, but the language used implies humans and earth is the center of the universe and "we" are the only place with so-far discovered life and therefore, find it reasonable to make a measurement without specifying that Earth is the starting point in our line of analysis.
So I likely confused you all. What I would propose for the wording is "Astronomers report the discovery of MACS J1149 Lensed Star 1, nicknamed Icarus (detection pictured), becoming the farthest-detected star by humans at 9 billion light-years away from Earth."
I also added "by humans" to indicate who it was detected by. Should we say something else like a telescope, a satellite, machinery, etc.? We could say "with the aid of technology" or something like that.
Note: I am working under the assumption (of the possibility) that life exists outside of Earth and that is why I am being particular in decentering earthly human experience.
TenorTwelve (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind (feel free to change the nomination however you see fit; I don't own it) but I think it's better to make it a blurb and roll it into ongoing if it continues to make the news. Banedon (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No way is that a neutral article title. I see a few sources using it, but nowhere close to universal to comply with BLP, but that's a heck of a WP:NEO and should be avoided. --Masem (t) 03:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that those cases have a matter of decades of historical record to establish those names. This is neogolism that we have no idea if it will hold. It might, in the far future, but not now. --Masem (t) 06:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the blurb is wrong. The China response is Trump's specific tariffs on a number of Chinese products from last week; the steel/aluminium tariff applies worldwide and was announced back in March 1. --Masem (t) 14:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That, or the article is not updated properly; the China response in the article is in the section about the China-specific tariffs, but checking news articles, it seems China was already going after tariffs with the steel/aluminium ones. There's a disconnect that needs to be fixed here. --Masem (t) 14:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Implementing and retaliating against tariffs happens every year. We've been hearing about tariffs against Chinese dumping for decades. Having a connection to an unpopular figure does not make this incident more notable than others. Mamyles (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It's definitely figured prominently in Eng-lang news for a couple days, but it might be more appropriate in 'Ongoing.' (If a blurb were to be posted, I'd make it "retaliates against" stedda "to.") Sca (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support for either blurb or ongoing per nom. The article is in good shape, and it's a notable development, in a story that we haven't posted yet. Davey2116 (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you say none of these tariffs have taken effect? To quote from the article, "China implemented their tariffs on April 2, 2018." Banedon (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is relatively minor in the grand scheme of the economies of these two nations. If the situation escalates, we should revisit. But for now, I don't think this is that important. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You edit conflicted with me making the nomination, but the article is currently tagged for neutrality. I haven't got time to investigate how serious the problems are. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until consensus is reached regarding the alleged NPOV issues. For the record, I don't think the article is all that bad, though there are some areas where UNDUE might be an issue. And the opening post on the talk page over this is simply a screed that should have been deleted per NOTFORUM. However there have been posts since then and so we are where we are. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - until issues identified above are resolved. However, should this be a blurb discussion? She would pass the Thatcher-Mandela axis, after all, and is a significant figure in the history of South Africa, and the story has occupied ten-fifteen minutes on the main Irish news broadcast, so international significance is clear. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I haven't read the entire article to see what Template:U has mentioned as being biased, whether that assumption is accurate and how to improve it. However, this tag is too important to ignore. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support - I think this death is too notable to leave out. However, I do agree the article needs fixing up. I would support posting once the article's issues have been fixed. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Support - I've cleaned up the worst of the neutrality issues,especially in the lede, and removed the tag. I doubt the article would ever meet the standards of the neutrality tagger, since she was very controversial, and even sympathetic sources like sahistory.org.za struggle to be hagiographic. Overall, she's a highly significant figure, whose death should make the front page. Park3r (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Recounts are not uncommon, though perhaps less so at the national level. If this merits posting at all, it shouldn't be until the recount is completed and if the result is changed. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional wait for either 3 months (according to Marcos) or 6 months or more (according to Robredo), and if Marcos wins the protest. –HTD10:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose sadly, since 1) it might not actually change the outcome of the election and 2) it's for the position of vice president, which is still subordinate to the president. Banedon (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have in the past required elections to have at least a paragraph of sourced post-election reactions, which this lacks. ETA: The incoming president's article is also very short and orange-tagged for lack of sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't planned. China turned off most support for the station in early 2016 but had no plans for how to decommision it, then a few months later, they found it was dropping altitude and they had no control of the station from ground control. Since then, they've been running models after models about when and where it would land on Earth. --Masem (t) 00:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per Masem, this was not a planned event. China basically abandoned it two years ago, and left it to do what it will. It just happened to fall back to Earth this week. --Jayron3213:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This longtime official falling on their sword (and who was apparently going to resign soon anyway due to health reasons) doesn't seem significant enough to be posted on its own. Perhaps update the blurb as SC suggests. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]