• Support - A short article, but the sourcing looks good to me. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: - apparently his death is fake news? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thanks. I hope I can be forgiven for not spotting it as fake news, since it was an Associated Press report which spread the news[1]? But obviously this RD can be closed! Fram (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose BLP sources maintenance tag needs to be addressed. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - click, sees warranted tag at the top, opposes.  MPJ-DK  01:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs some work with sourcing. --Tone 15:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Opposed - several unsourced sections.  MPJ-DK  01:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose poorly referenced for a BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Opposed - poor reference and a link to an external site in lieu of a full bibliography  MPJ-DK  01:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Question what is being updated here which benefits our readers? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The medal table, for starters? —Angga1061 19:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angga1061 (talk • contribs)

Ok, the completely unreferenced table of numbers? Not what I'd consider a substantive enough update for an Ongoing item at all, so I oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support if the medals table is sourced. I personally wouldn't have supported posting this to ITN either based on the same grounds, but overall it's not too far from being ready for ongoing. Notability is of course not a problem, as it's in the interest of 45 participating nations, but the article just needs a few more citations for verification. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No, just tweaking the medal table is not something for ongoing. Nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Not only is it not nonsense, it's quite common here. We've posted ongoing multi-nation sporting events several times in the last year FIFA 18 last month and Winter Olympics 18 (which was just updating a medal table; Asian games is ran by olympic committees). If I were to oppose an all-Asia event because I'm not hearing about it over in the Anglosphere I'd be acting based on my blindspots. I'm not saying or even implying "american bias!!!!" (I criticize those comments on a regular basis), but it would be inaccurate to say that tweaking the medal table isn't something we post to ongoing, as we do that routinely. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it's nonsense. Substantial updates are required. Just tweaking a number here or there isn't substantial. (Your link to the Winter Olympics wasn't a link to a table being tweaked, more a chronological summary of the games in toto. This is not that.) Sorry about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair point regarding the Olympics, but what of FIFA? If I'm not mistaken, the most substantial updates there were simply the advancement of teams game after game. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I think each game summary was updated, along with a link to each game's RS. It was certainly more than just tweaking a medal table. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  On that point alone I respectfully disagree because the most content for each game was simply listing the score and the date with a source, which is essentially just a table in a different format, but your overall point is fair. It is not too much to ask to have substantial updates, I just wouldn't say FIFA's was any more substantial than this. However, Black Kite is right in his comment below: the games are over in a few days, so we need not discuss any further. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The updates were more substantial than just tweaking numbers in an unreferenced table. That is all. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• More to the point, there are only three days of competition left, so it hardly seems worth adding it now. Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That is true. Even if the article is sourced better, it won't be ongoing for much longer. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I would contend that the World Cup and the Olympics are the only two sporting events that should appear in the Ongoing section. Lepricavark (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• We would normally post Chronological summary of the 2018 Asian Games, but it doesn't exist. Stephen 23:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose only because the article is not receiving sufficient, quality updates. If the article was being improved daily with properly referenced, well written prose then I wouldn't have any problem with keeping this ongoing, but the quality does not provide value to readers as it has been maintained so far. --Jayron32 10:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I withdraw this nomination. Black Kite is right; there are only a few days left before the Games close on Sunday, so it's ridiculous to nominate it as for Ongoing just now. —Angga1061 15:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC); edited 16:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Short, but otherwise in good shape. Vanamonde (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the woman is barely dead yet a fair use image is included here? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Image has been removed. Does that change TRM's opinion to support? MurielMary (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak support since she never actually flew as a cosmonaut, her bio is a little weak, but what's there is ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't usually post inaugurations or swearings-in. They usually get less attention than the election itself. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with 331dot and suggest this be closed. Being in ITN/R list means that an event is determined as worthy of posting ceteris paribus. So it may, or may not be posted at the time it is due depending on consensus reached. The crux here, is that, it doesn't mean that the event must be posted. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The user isn't claiming this is ITNR(the election was, but this isn't). 331dot (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim he said that also. But he is basing this nomination in lieu of the election (which is ITN/R and wasn't posted). –Ammarpad (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is ITNR. The results were not officially recognized until August 24:

On 10 August, it was announced that Mnangagwa's inauguration, which had been scheduled for 12 August, would be delayed after Chamisa petitioned to challenge the election results in court, with a ruling due by the end of the month.^[1] On 24 August 2018, the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe dismissed Chamisa's challenge and officially declared Mnangagwa the winner in a unanimous ruling.^[2][3][4][5] The Chief Justice Luke Malaba noted that Chamisa refused both a recount and access to the ballot boxes.^[6] Mnangagwa's inauguration and official swearing-in was then held on 26 August.^[7][8]

If we don't allow this to be posted, we create a Catch-22 situation. We can't first decline posting because the results are not conclusive and then when they do become conclusive, and the election is renominated, say the election is now stale. I have supplied an altblurb. Forget the actual swear-in and move this nomination to August 24.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe we usually post inauguration if the results are contested or inconclusive at first. --Tone 10:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The previous nom was rejected because article was not up to the mark. Still the quality has not improved. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I went back and checked. Right. Stalled nominations are not a reason for re-posting later. --Tone 11:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose right now If the article becomes better and a better blurb is supplied (Mnangagwa was already President, he just got re-elected) Kingsif (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, the last election was Mugabe's re-election. It's true that Mnangagwa was already President, but he was serving out the remainder of Mugabe's term. This was his first election, but he was also the incumbent. I provided a second alternate blurb which should clarify this. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 14:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on merit and when quality concerns are dealt with. I agree with Coffeeandcrumbs; I disagree with the rationale of opposing because the election was more newsworthy when the election wasn't posted. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 14:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Caveated support for posting as a 24 August nom with a blurb which explains why. Right now we'd look daft to post any of the suggestions as, like it or not, all other news outlets have been there, done that, some time ago. We ought to simply justify the late addition with some carefully crafted words along the lines of "following an unsuccessful challenge to the results". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Elections are often disputed, and if we gave credence to the dispute by holding off on the posting, that would justify posting when the outcome was decided. That did not happen here. This is an everyday occurrence of going stale for want of quality. ghost 13:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Ghost, Sherenk1, and Tone.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment shootings in the United States almost never get consensus, I don't see how this one will. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• We'll see, I suppose. Kirbanzo (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This should be eligible for WP:DYK if there's a "hook" other than people dying to use. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's not ITN worthy, we could try that, although it's likely to be rejected there too as it's relating to current events. Kirbanzo (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose and suggest rapid close. 100% domestic crime. --Masem (t) 03:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that it's "100% domestic crime" doesn't immediately disqualify it. See the "Please do not..." section above - it says that the fact that it only relates to a single country is not a valid reason for ITN denial. Kirbanzo (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm meaning it is a domestic crime rather than an act of terrorism. --Masem (t) 03:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Does a mass shooting have to be terrorism-related in order to be ITN-worthy? Common sense (at least to me) says no. This shooting has plenty of news coverage despite happening only yesterday, so even if no terrorist organization had a hand in it, it's still notable to be, at least, considered for ITN. Let me end on this rhetorical question: if Wikipedia existed in 1999 at the time of the Columbine shootings, would you have done the same thing you're doing here, not knowing how influential it would be? Kirbanzo (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes it should be more than domestic crime. It's in the news because it is shocking and thus getting coverage, but it isn't anything that can be done until lawmakers step on on gun control. We're also toying on the hypothetic MINIMUMDEATHS here with only 3 (+ shooter) killed. --Masem (t) 04:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay then so we bury our heads in the sand? That's no way to handle newsworthy tragedies. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No, we recognize that ITN would be flooded if we covered all domestic crimes of this scale. We did not post the Fredericton shootings with the same death toll a few weeks ago for that reason. This is getting attention only because it happened in a public place, but the rational has already been determine: a guy lost, went home, got a gun, and came back to shoot his competitors. Stupid reason for people to die, not disagreeing it was a tragedy, but it's not likely to have any larger effect on the world being a domestic crime. --Masem (t) 06:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support because it's "in the news" and the article is solid. But, the Europeans will lose their shit with this nomination and it will never get posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Just doesn't reach the level of newsworthiness required for ITN. A shooting with only two victims in a country where this happens literally every single day. In fact, this is the third shooting just this month with at least two victims. This isn't even the deadliest; a shooting on 12 August in Clearlake, California resulted in four deaths. AusLondonder (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This got news coverage. The shooting in Clearlake didn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've got to agree with Muboshgu: this story is the feature on the BBC, displacing John McCain, Neil Simon, and even a British woman being jailed in Iran on the same day. It's definitely in the news. Kingsif (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am widely speculating here, but the reason it is probably featured is because the media is latching onto this being connected to video games (even though this wasn't a violent video game). Video games still hold that stigma and there have been attempts to sway that language despite evidence disproving that link. Regardless of that speculation, ITN does not consider the relative weight (location or frequency of articles) in determining what is posted, we are not a news ticker. --Masem (t) 06:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excellent point, Masem. Sensationalism is the game of the media, it does not mean we are obliged to follow. AusLondonder (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my comment above Kingsif (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Shootings with only two fatalities are not ITN material. And FTR I am an American and would oppose posting such an event from pretty much anywhere other than maybe the Vatican. The sensational press coverage notwithstanding, this probably occurs daily all over the world. And the long term significance of this event is likely around zero. [Prayers for those affected.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's seen widespread coverage, even in international outlets. The article is pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose a mass killing with just two victims in the United States is an everyday occurrence, literally. This one made the news because no-one knew how many victims there were for some hours, and mis-reports inflated the toll. This should just be a line on the List of mass shootings in the United States (although what's happened to that list?!!) as it is just another trivial crime which will have absolutely no lasting impact and is of extraordinarily limited encyclopedic value. It's hardly a weekend in Chicago is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A US city once averaged 6.15 murders per day for a whole year, most by gun of course. That's the record I think. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I will once again repeat that all these shootings in the United States are simply a consequence of the extremely loose policies on acquiring guns, and the right news that merits inclusion would be any policy change against the notoriously profit-seeking arms industry that would limit easy access to guns instead of just counting victims of instances that no-one cares to prevent.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose yet another shooting in America, this time with an even lower death toll than the Capital Gazette Shooting or the Santa Fe School Shooting. You people need to get it in your head that shootings in the U.S. are common and often times have death tolls within the single digits. SamaranEmerald (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I concur with all of the above opposers, especially power wiki and Kiril. This shooting is tragic, but otherwise short-term and minor despite the Nominator’s comment. Simply put, this nomination is doomed from the beginning. –Kirliator (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Unfortunate, yes, but as pointed out above, those happen so often that we could have ITN filled every day with such shootings. I disagree with Ad Orientem's assessment though: This might very well be ITN material if it happened in other (developed) countries because then it would be something that rarely happens. If the shooting had taken place at this year's Gamescom for example, I'd probably have supported posting to ITN because mass shootings are - thankfully - extremely rare in Germany and thus generate far more coverage when one happens. Regards SoWhy 09:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now Sourcing is not that good. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The list of awards (esp. those without bluelinks) need sourcing, as well as a few paras in the playwright section. --Masem (t) 16:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose pending sourcing improvements. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - why Neil Simon, one of the greatest American playwrights of all time, gets only an RD, and Aretha Franklin a blurb? Simon was certainly top of his field, unrivaled in his era. What makes him less notable than someone of the ilk of Lauren Bacall or Christopher Lee? Is it because he is less "popular"?? The blurb vs RD paradigm is unsustainable, and a re-writing of guidelines is overdue. Colipon+(Talk) 20:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't be opposed to a blurb either. Davey2116 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• He won't be getting either at this rate. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Left his field in 2003, riding the momentum of a noted flop, so no longer a transformative figure in it. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, once they've been a transformative figure they always remain a transformative figure (But their relative level of that can be surpassed) --Masem (t) 13:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but those arguments are about as solid as living figures never dying, child actors never aging or retired basketball players playing basketball forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Colipon: The news coverage for Simon is less than for McCain or Franklin. Don't remember Bacall's or Lee's. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The awards section does not have any sources. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Influential individual. pbp 22:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Per the instructions "Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. " The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose maintenance tagged and inadequate BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. More work is required on referencing especially on awards and works. If it was cleaned up, I would support a blurb given it is a Level 5 Vital article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Level 5 seems to be the lowest level of vitality, not the highest. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Vital articles" are selected by a handful of people in pages which receive fewer views than my user page. Not worth consideration. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll bite...[4] WHAAAA!? Also, blurb talk before refs are fixed is a distraction. ghost 17:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This sudden emergence of "Vital article" claims is troubling and should be dismissed out of hand. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So far it seems to have been used as an attempt to boost ITN postings for U.S.-centric subjects. Whether or not this is the actual intent is up for debate.--WaltCip (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The level 4 VAs actually represent a pretty good standard for blurb-worthy. The level 5s are laughable. Like, George Carlin (lvl 4) laughable, not Pauly Shore (lvl 5) laughable. ghost 12:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think as a rule of thumb, "vital article rating can be ignored". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I participate in the WP:VA project, my feeling is that living persons are included simply because it's a waste of time to argue against including them. Brittanica made due for centuries without entries on WP:BLPs. And level-5 is a free-for-all; I very much doubt we'd include this guy or that one or Dog the Bounty Hunter as blurbs. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. So in summary, ignore all vital article claims. They are useless and have no impact or meaning here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colombian referendum, 2018 : A seven-part referendum is being held in Colombia on seven proposals aimed at reducing corruption.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aréat (talk • contribs) 09:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Close The election results have not come in. This referendum is occurring on 26 August 2018. Actually, right now as I write this. Please close as too soon. It can be renominated properly tomorrow or whenever results are announced.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• close per above. When the results are known and there is some information in the article about the significance of them, it can be reconsidered. I'd also like there to be more background - are the proposals controversial at all for example. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 15:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Biography looks good, the filmography and awards sections need some references. This should probably be under 25 August, if this was the day it was reported. --Tone 18:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per lack of sources as noted by Tone. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lists are in the article since 2012, and the same as in German. But I will work on it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All awards are now referenced, and all shows. Need sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article: John McCain (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ American politician John McCain dies at age 81. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ American politician and twice Presidential candidate John McCain (pictured) dies at the age of 81.
Alternative blurb II: ​ United States Senator and twice presidential candidate John McCain (pictured) dies at 81.
Alternative blurb III: ​ United States Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain (pictured) dies at 81.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ United States Senator and 2008 presidential candidate John McCain (pictured) dies at the age of 81.
Alternative blurb V: ​ American statesman John McCain (pictured) dies at the age of 81.
News source(s): NBC, NYT
Credits:

• Nominated by Davey2116 (talk · give credit)

Article updated

• Support Given this was well known that he was close to dying (and that he went off his treatment a few days ago), the article appears to be in good shape save for the citation format tag on the references, which is not a showstopper for posting for me. --Masem (t) 00:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support for blurb I've been waffling myself on if this should be a blurb (any other senior-level congressperson or the equivalent would be RD only, and even when the person has something else going for them, specificly John Glenn we'd only post as a RD), but there are at least three things that put this over the edge for me: 1) The article is an FA and was in good quality at nomination time, and ITN is meant to showcase quality content on the main page - this doesn't mean FA is an automatic blurb but it should weigh some; 2) he's known as a POW; and 3) he has done a reasonable amount of accomplishments that represent the highest an individual congressperson can do without being president, he for all purposes does meet "top of their field" when it comes to American policities. This should be seen as the extreme exception and not the rule. --Masem (t) 06:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Masem: We shouldn't judge McCain on his influence within "American politics", but within politics in general. There are a very large number of individuals who had large domestic influence (larger, within their countries, than McCain had) for whom we've not posted blurbs; Manuel Noriega comes to mind. His impact doesn't have to have been global; but it does have to be comparable to global figures; and McCain's influence simply isn't at that level. Very few politicians who didn't hold nation-wide elected office have anywhere close to the impact of those deaths we usually post (Franklin, Prince, Vajpayee, Hawking, Mandela, Castro...). Vanamonde (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not a big fan of posting RDs as blurbs, but I'll go with this one, plus it's a featured article, which makes a change on quality. Black Kite (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - definitely deserved. Thechased (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• RD only, no comment on article quality. -- KTC (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, article is an FA, and I think he deserves a blurb. Daniel Case (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My argument for a blurb would be that a) unlike most dead pols that age he was most politically prominent in the last decade of his life, due to his 2008 presidential bid and his recent sorta opposition to Trump and b) his war record. Daniel Case (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• RD only for now Blurbs should be based on coverage and it's too soon to judge that. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD only as this is a FA (and looked good when I checked it the other day) there should be no hesitation in posting that. I don't support a blurb now, but may change my mind. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a slow news month; this may be front-page news in the US the entire week, especially as Trump's (lack of) reaction will be covered excessively. If the BBC, the Times of India, the Sydney Morning Herald are also giving it front-page/multi-day treatment, it will need to be a blurb. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Certainly warrants an RD and happy to go with a blurb. Classified as a level 5 vital article so blurb is probably warranted although some may dispute this. Former featured article so quality is there. News is already receiving widespread coverage. Sitting US Senator so is newsworthy especially in US. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Blurb After Ted Kennedy probably the most consequential modern American political figure who was never elected president. His influence extended far beyond the borders of this country. Article is FA so no quality issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose blurb As much as I am saddened to hear about his death, and I don't doubt his death will get global coverage (hence the "weak"), he wasn't a head of state and I'm not entirely convinced his career in military or politics had a world-transforming impact. EternalNomad (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb per Ad Orientem. Spengouli (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Longstanding political figure, US Presidential candidate, with featured article. Already has obituaries out, despite it being night in half the world. Kingsif (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should be expected that media organisations have obituaries ready to go for famous figures who are over 80 years old, especially if they have cancer, and especially if they choose to stop treatment. They've had the obituaries ready for days, if not weeks and months, and just pressed the publish button when he died. It's not a measure of the newsworthiness of his death. Chrisclear (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Kingsif: How many of those obituaries are from outside the U.S.? Surely the American media wrote their obituaries for McCain before he died. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Muboshgu: Very good question. Just searching for "john mccain obituary uk" brings up many — both the BBC and The Guardian already have at least 2 each. (Looks like the BBC just went to 3). Kingsif (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even for those published outside the US, they would have written them in recent days/weeks/months. His death was hardly unexpected.Chrisclear (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb - 100% deserved. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I'd say the second alt blurb sounds best. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb: His article has FA status and McCain was a major political figure in the United States for decades. While I don't think ITN should turn into RD, there have been a string of rather notable deaths, as seen by Aretha Franklin, Kofi Annan, and PM Vajpayee, and McCain certainly fits the criteria for notability and article quality. He warrants a blurb. --PootisHeavy (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb The death appears to be receiving a very large amount of coverage. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both RD and Blurb John McCain's article is both very high in quality (featured) and a level 5 vital article in politicians (not just US politicians), so notability is not in question. McCain was a well-known POW and prominent US politician, having served a long career as a senator in addition to being a presidential candidate. I have no personal leanings on this one as I neither love nor hate McCain, but he's without question notable. I understand that we may need to wait for more coverage to emerge in order to post a blurb, though. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Although I’m aware that most of us commenting thus far are probably US based so we should wait a few hours to get more opinions. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose blurb, support RD. Some perspective is needed here. Although he had a lengthy political career, he was only a member of the house of representatives and senator. If this is posted as a blurb, then in addition to validating concerns about systemic bias, it also creates a poor precedent for the future deaths of many hundreds / thousands of politicians who are never elected as the head of their government or head of state. Chrisclear (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• While you have a fair point, McCain is a level 5 vital article on politicians in general, not just in the United States. This wouldn't set a precedent that any member of a legislature should have a blurb. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 01:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "level 5 vital article" means almost nothing here. That said, he was possibly the most prominent living politician in the United States never elected president. (Bernie, Hillary, and Newt Gingrich might have argued at various times) power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think any of those figures were as influential, especially in foreign affairs as McCain. Hillary was Secretary of State but I can't think of anything she did of really lasting significance. McCain is probably the man most responsible for normalizing relations with Vietnam. among many other accomplishments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Does this "most prominent (living) politician who was never elected head of government" criterion apply to politicians outside the United States? Or does it apply to US politicians only? Chrisclear (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the other RD's with blurbs recently including people from India and Africa, it's clear that the influence of politicians is considered worldwide. Also, it's outside of reason to accuse people of US-centric bias when we're in a discussion about a US politician. Kingsif (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It applies outside of the US. If Jeremy Corbyn were to die right now, that would be highly notable. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 01:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• McCain's is a level 5 vital article BECAUSE of Wikipedia's systemic bias. The number of comments in this thread is further evidence of it, as is the five Edit conflicts I experienced while trying to post this. (Sorry I had to make a post to make that point.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Our "Vital article" categorization means very very little, particularly with respect to individuals from recent times. There's no systematic criteria at all; for instance, level 5 VAs include John Compton, prime minister of a country of 200,000 (would you support a blurb for his death?) but not Sirimavo Bandaranaike, who despite being the first elected female head of state in the world, isn't a VA at all. Vanamonde (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Vital articles" are cherry-picked by very few individuals in a project which gets fewer daily pageviews than my user page. It's completely inappropriate to starting waving "vital article" around as some kind of free pass here. And as Vanamonde notes, it's completely flawed in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Although I think the blurb could be better. Natureium (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb The section of this page detailing how to voice an opinion on ITN says "please do not...oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." This is not to say that systemic bias isn't an issue, but this death is very obviously highly notable. We have systemic bias, sure, but that doesn't mean we should hesitate to discuss what is a very salient news item. This is the culmination of weeks of news coverage of a politician so notable that we rated it a level-5 vital article on people and politicians. I don't think this will set a precedent that any member of a legislature will get a blurb, McCain wasn't any member of a legislature and our own vital article rating scheme and the news coverage make that clear. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb and RD his figure as a US Presidential Candidate has some effect worldwide. Abequinn14 (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically support blurb IV. Abequinn14 (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand, how can someone has effect worldwide simply by being a US Presidential Candidate? Outside the US his popularity as a Presidential Candidate is being shadowed by Barack Obama I think. Hddty. (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment added alt blurb. Kingsif (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I like the addition of "twice presidential candidate" since it tells readers unfamiliar with McCain why the death is notable, but think "after a battle with brain cancer" is unnecessary since the cause can easily be learned from the article. Omitting would save copy and probably also help drive traffic. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Query Was McCain the Republican presidential candidate in 2008 only? Was his campaign for the Republican nomination in 2000 unsuccessful? If yes, then "twice presidential candidate" seems to be misleading, when compared to Gary Johnson, for example, who was his party's candidate for two presidential elections. Chrisclear (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• He sought the Republican nomination in 2000 but did not get it. So “twice presidential candidate” is a little misleading. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought so. If merely attempting to win a party's nomination counts as being a "presidential candidate", then there would probably be a large number of politicians to have made that faux "achievement". Whereas Gary Johnson fits the "twice presidential candidate" description much better. Chrisclear (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strongly oppose blurb - As a Senator, his death was neither unexpected nor does he rise to the level of standard set by our previous blurbs. WaltCip (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb McCain has been serving as a Senator for decades, and has continuously had a profound impact on American politics. His military service and time as a POW has also received intense attention. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb. His Senate career was not unlike many other senators, being a US Senator should not be a ticket to a blurb, it wouldn't be for other legislative bodies. Presidential candidate shouldn't be a ticket to a blurb, either. 331dot (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sen. McCain was a very vocal and inspirational politician whose decades-long career impacted not only upon US politics, but also the Western hemisphere. A well-deserved mention. Thevaluablediamond (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 49 out of the last 50 edits to ITN were this nomination, (and a solid majority of the last 100) and most every time I try to post another edit I'm warned that it's an old revision. I'd say this demonstrably shows that it's of far more interest than any other nomination at the moment. I wouldn't believe that it's genuinely not of enough interest to get a blurb. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 01:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the criteria for an ITN item goes beyond mere 'interest'. Otherwise Kim Kardashian and Donald Trump would both be ongoing items. Chrisclear (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The latest Trump-related nomination got <5 replies, so I respectfully disagree. In this context, interest is a reflection of newsworthiness. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Blurb John McCain was definitely a highly influential and well regarded American Politician and war hero, and his death has been very widely reported in the news, it seems fitting that we should follow suit and add to our ITN. His article is also featured status, which makes it even easier to support a blurb. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 01:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb and RD It's a Lv 5 vital article and a featured article. Slam dunk. pbp 02:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that most of the things trending on Twitter for the last couple of hours are McCain-related. pbp 02:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I wonder what Europeans opinion on this, its still dawn there. Hddty. (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's on the front page of the online edition of the BBC, The Telegraph, and the German edition of Der Spiegel at the moment. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 02:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb, opposition politician, never held highest office in country. Abductive (reasoning) 02:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "opposition politician" isn't really an applicable term in the US political system, especially in regards to such a powerful Senator. Kingsif (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As a citizen of the US, I took the time to explain this to my non-US fellow Wikipedians. Let me rephrase: McCain was not the President. He should not be posted as a blurb, it goes against consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 07:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Blurb Here in the Czech Republic already three obituaries in main media outlets ([5] [6] [7]) and it is middle of the night. Even the news about the end of treatment was covered in all major media outlets, including tabloids.--Jklamo (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Blurb if this had been literally any other non-president level politician I would've opposed. But for this one, I'll let it pass. Juxlos (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb The event is clearly encyclopedically notable enough to warrant one. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 24 support, 7 oppose votes. Suitable consensus seems to have been reached. Kingsif (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Most of these "support" votes that you've counted were supporting an RD, not an ITN mention Openlydialectic (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: vote mobs tend to have a stranglehold on WP death blurb nominations and this one is likely going to get posted; what is likely going to be absent is the examination of the actual criteria listed at ITN/DC and potential effects of systemic bias. However, to me this is a case worth considering. McCain almost certainly is of a higher order on the 'blurbworthiness' compared to Franklin, George Michael, Christopher Lee, or Lauren Bacall, all of whom got their own blurbs. He is also perhaps Trump's biggest antagonist inside his own party, and his death has political consequences that is likely to lead to continual coverage. A quick-and-dirty examination of the Daily Yomiuri, El Pais, the French language version of France 24, BBC, O Globo (Brazil), and mainland Chinese newsportal Sina shows this as the top story or the top "international" story. Al Jazeera does not show it (yet), but barring some bizarre circumstance, will soon. When measured on global newsworthiness, his death is certainly receiving more attention than that of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, which we also posted as a blurb. Colipon+(Talk) 02:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Your last sentence is particularly interesting. At the heart of it, you have raised the issue of "news as entertainment", particularly in a world where clicks matter more than content. Does ITN consider the importance of the person who has died? Or merely how many clicks a person generates? It's plainly obvious that a US politician with white skin gets more clicks than a dark skinned Indian politician. But unlike McCain, who was only a senator, Vajpayee actually led his country's government. Surely that makes Vajpayee more notable than McCain, regardless of how many clicks McCain generates? Chrisclear (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Chrisclear:, you keep bringing up accusations of US-centric bias, and have now moved onto racial bias. Please refrain from doing so and base your comments or criticisms on actual criteria. Kingsif (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You have a vivid imagination! I was merely posing the questions - to which I am genuinely interested in an answer: Does ITN consider the importance of the person who has died? Or merely how many clicks a person generates? Chrisclear (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians generally are encyclopedic in nature because they make major policy decisions that affect vast swathes of humankind. Vajpayee did so, but his influence was limited to South Asia. If Mohatma Gandhi or Indira Gandhi died today, I have no doubt they would have achieved consensus for a blurb; indeed, Mandela did so as well, justifiably. So race is a non-issue. The newsworthiness of the event has nothing to do with clicks, but more to do with the fact that this man is globally known and globally influential - whereas Vajpeyee, while he did serve political office on a country of one billion, was not.
I did not even support the blurb, by the way; I am just wanting to inject a voice of reason into this discussion.Colipon+(Talk) 03:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Chrisclear. My understanding is that sites that rely on clicks are doing so because clicks correlate or translate to revenue from ad impressions. Wikipedia has no ads, so I'm not sure why any editor would be interested in clicks or page view traffic in this context.

  Who does and does not get an "In the news" blurb on the English Wikipedia and who does and does not get a "Recent deaths" entry on the English Wikipedia are interesting topics to explore, in my opinion. The editorial discussions on this page do, in many ways, entail a level of judging and weighing a person's contributions and impact on society, as well as the person's age and the general expectedness of the death. And the views on this topic can be wide. For example, there have been suggestions in the recent past that former U.S. presidents not get blurbs. I very much doubt we'll ever set that standard. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb. You might say that he just missed the mark of being a "major transformative world leader" in his "field". He was, after all, never elected President. But he was about as admired a figure as a politician of his rank and party can aspire to in his home country; and let's not forget that he is also a figure of some consequence in the history of Vietnam. As such, his death is being noted as front page news well outside the USA and the English speaking world. Front page news around the world, IOW. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first possibly-convincing argument I have read over the past three hours. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being front page news throughout the world should certainly be at least "possibly-convincing." European editors are confirming that from the UK to Czechia to Germany his death is a front page story. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 03:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose blurb, weak support RD We do not post mere MPs/senators and he did not win the presidency. Only supporting RD as this will be posted. Also the page has orange tags.Lihaas (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the "orange tags" was the Recent Death template, which is not an "issue." This inaccurate listing as an orange tag has been fixed. The other was vague, added mid-discussion, and the rationale for putting it there was never described. It has been removed. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 03:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD and oppose blurb per above !votes on reasons for supporting RD and opposing blurb. 184.153.25.119 (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, oppose blurb John McCain is not at the Mandela/Annan/Aretha Franklin level, and to suggest that he was is regionalism at its finest. For politicians, the Mandela level would be to be a transformative president or a Nobel Peace Prize winner (granted, this is not a hard rule), and despite McCain's fine career, McCain was not that. McCain's influence was primarily felt within the borders of the United States, so he does not merit a blurb. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

• What if we listed him as a "celebrated war veteran and Vietnam POW", instead of a politician? Even his military achievements are highly notable. This is ignoring the headline news in just about every country worldwide. His influence may have been technically limited to the US, but his presence was not, both while living and now dead. Kingsif (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too much puffery and I don't think his presidential candidacy was consequential. The appropriate term in this case is statesman in the tradition of Benjamin Franklin, Frederick Douglass, Robert Kennedy, and Ted Kennedy. None of whom held the highest office in the land.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD and blurb His influence was primarily felt within the borders of the USA, but the USA is among the most influential and powerful countries in the world. 1779Days (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD and concerned that whilst there are discussions going on among editors about the relative merits of RD and blurb, neither gets done. There's an obvious consensus in favour of noting John McCain's death and his article somewhere in the 'In the news' section. This should be shown as an RD for now and then 'upgraded' to blurb if there is a consensus on doing so. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Prospectively posted to RD in the mean time without prejudice to a blurb posting; I would like the discussion regarding a blurb to run a little longer than 3ish hours, but the article quality is there for a posting in the section. I am planning to check back here tomorrow to assess the discussion, but any admin who feels otherwise can remove this from RD/bump to blurb, etc. (Frequently life gets in the way and I'm not always available to check back here as frequently as I would like). Best, Spencer^T•C 04:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support for "In the News" - One of the most significant political figures in the United States of the past 25 years. KConWiki (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb and it's a good thing I didn't write it. It would be too much to mention his status as a Republican who refused to succumb to Trumpism. Connor Behan (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Conceding that it is still early in Europe, I think we are getting close to the point where we need to acknowledge that there is a consensus to post this. It would take a fairly dramatic wave of oppose votes without any new supports to tip the scales away from posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Early in Europe? presuming youre not in e Europe did you not sleep yet? I awoke 2 hours ago.Lihaas (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's really late here and yeah, I do need to go to bed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb domestic news. We barely posted the news about rthe death of a former prime minister of india for 7 years, and now you wanna post the news about a former US senator? What's next? Should we post the news about former US senatorial candidates dying too? This is ridiculous Openlydialectic (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I believe alt5 (which I added) correctly conveys his notability as a statesman. I would also be ok with the original blurb. His presidential candidacy was not that notable. His long career as a legislator and shadow diplomat should be our focus. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb per Wugapodes. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 04:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Regardless of what of your party, most people respect the contributions he has made to the US. He has been really influential and somewhat progressive (at least in energy) and really wants to see the best for America and the world. --JungleEntity (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In the US - sure. But can at least a SINGLE EDITOR on this page take into consideration the fact that this is NOT AN AMERICAN WIKIPEDIA. The levels of self-glorification here are astonishing. Shame. Openlydialectic (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of non-American topics does not have to come at a cost of excluding newsworthy American topics. I personally have worked tirelessly to promote several articles about non-american people and events. Enough with these "bias" accusations. Before McCain, ITN had a single American blurb and a single RD. This has been a consistent pattern that has existed for the few months I have been contributing to ITN. There have been several days in which we did not have a single American blurb or RD on ITN. It is not a competition. ITN is well above the norm on inclusion of news from other nations. We currently have 3 Indians on ITN, a story about Asian Games and we're about to post an RD for a Zimbabwean politician. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't really count the recent death items as it was decided a while ago that having a decent article was the only criteria needed for posting there. So we essentially have one American and one Indian item in the section where editor opinion on worthiness still plays a role. AIRcorn (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Coffeeandcrumbs. Very often, accusations of Americentrism and editor-shaming come from an (ironically) Americentric position that forgets how America is a foreign country to the rest of the world, and American news can be worldwide news. McCain's death is internationally front page news, as evidenced by the news headlines coming from several European countries. It's not just local news if you're a reader from another country. The threshold should be whether or not the news story is relevant across the world, and in this case we have more than enough reason to believe that it is. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 05:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb. McCain was well-known, sure, but his international profile is largely the result of his unsuccessful candidacy for the presidency. He didn't hold a cabinet position either; his career has been confined to the national legislature. This is a case where his profile far outstrips his actual influence. We wouldn't even consider a blurb for a person in an analogous position in any other country. The blurb for Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who was de facto head of the most populous democracy for six years, had less support than this one. Systemic bias is real. Oh, and then there's all the "such an inspiring figure" votes, which have nothing at all to with whether this is blurb-worthy. Vanamonde (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb sad passing but just a politician who died of natural causes. Not "transformative" by any means. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb McCain did have a huge impact in American politics, death is making headlines globally, and I'd say he was a top figure in his career profession.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb. An inspirational person, and received lots of media attention as a presidential candidate, but he was not that extraordinary when you compare to politicians who recently died worldwide, for example at Deaths in 2018. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb I suggest everybody here who support a blurb read the guidelines. Items 1 would suggest RD, item 2 does not apply, which leaves us with item 3: "the death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb". McCain is not a "world leader", he's an American politician, not even a head of government. Whether he was transformative in the US (or not) is irrelevant. Isa (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb. Very high profile in the US certainly, but not really an international figure. He didn't hold the highest office, wasn't transformative of his field and his achievements were essentially all domestic. We wouldn't blurb Ken Clarke or Neil Kinnock who are approximately seminar figures in UK politics. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 07:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb Yes he was a big domestic politician, but didn't hold any major political office nor did he have any major military achievements recognised internationally. It's only news because he was a prominent Republican opponent of President Trump but I wouldn't say that meets the criteria. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Blurb - sad news, and McCain was a highly respected statesman, but he does not merit a blurb. He never held the office of president, and never was head of state. If we post all significant politicians as blurbs, we will never stop. Added to this is the fact that his death was anticipated, and the media knew it was coming from a year out. Sad news, but not a surprise, and not a world-altering figure. Stormy clouds (talk) 07:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on the state of the consensus Wikipedia is not a vote, but the support to oppose ratio is 2:1. (~34 to 17 by my count) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 07:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on the state of the consensus Wikipedia is not a vote, but for some reason you've counted all votes - whether in support of RD or ITN as votes supporting an ITN mention. Openlydialectic (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• And now European editors are having a chance to weigh in, the tide is very much turning towards maintaining the status quo, ie RD. We simply don't blurb every American politician who's had plenty of TV time, what next, Sarah Palin? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb. This is getting a lot of clicks, but one way we avoid bias is by deferring to more objective measures of a person’s “rank”. McCain was a senator (insufficient) and an unsuccessful presidential candidate (insufficient). Readers interested in his biography can click the RD link and that’s enough. LukeSurl ^{t c} 08:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. If Kofi Annan's death warrants enough to deserve a blurb, despite receiving far less media attention in both the United States and the rest of the world, John McCain's death deserves one as well. Just because a number of qualified people have died in a short span does not mean that each cannot have their own blurb. Ac2k (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Um, Annan was UN sec-gen and Nobel Prize winner, McCain was American politician and failed presidential candidate. Mitt Romney and Bob Dole next? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • If Mitt Romney's and Bob Dole's deaths received a significant amount of media attention around the world, their deaths would deserve a blurb as well. McCain and Annan worked in different fields, as such, it is impossible to compare their achievements at this level. Besides, devaluing McCain as solely an "American" or as a "failed presidential candidate" undermines how influential McCain was in American politics, and how influential American politics is on the rest of the world. Even non-executive American politicians like US senators receive far more attention than the heads of state of small and medium-sized countries. Ac2k (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • " received a significant amount of media attention around the world, their deaths would deserve a blurb as well." no, that's absolutely incorrect. Attention in the media does not equate to "transformative" in an individual's actions. McCain was a nice guy, a politician and a failed presidential candidate. He was in no way "transformative". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "despite receiving far less media attention in (...) the rest of the world." ^{[citation needed]} Openlydialectic (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If you want some examples, BBC currently has McCain's photo and death as the primary article, while Annan's death received a smaller photo and was not the primary article. Der Spiegel currently has a large photo of McCain as the main headline, Annan's death was the third article from the top with a smaller picture. Looking further on, attention devoted to Annan's death decreased significantly in the hours following the announcement. Ac2k (talk) 08:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb. Due to international attention to the passing of this former US presidential candidate whose death also has ramifications for the balance of power in the US senate.Icewhiz (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • All that is just domestic politics, and we routinely do not post stories that relate only to one country's domestic politics. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 08:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • A person's death has nothing to do with the domestic politics occurring within the nation at the time. Ac2k (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • And a person's news coverage has nothing to do with the ITN death blurb criterion of being "transformative". McCain was not. He was a politician who failed to become the president. Twice. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. Very much top of his field, and given McCain's focus on US foreign policy this has very much international ramifications. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:49C3:EFC1:10C5:4494 (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose blurb I just can't get away from the feeling that if a similar politician from any other country was nominated it would get shot down in flames. Some sort of consistency is needed here. I will stay weak because there is no doubt this is getting headlines and that should factor in somewhat to posting here. AIRcorn (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think part of the reason would be that US politicians are significantly more influential and famous than national politicians of other countries. McCain and some other prominent US senators and executive branch members are probably the only non heads of state that have some recognition worldwide. Ac2k (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thus spoke systemic bias at its worst. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. Kim Kardashian likely has better name recognition in the English-speaking world than Shinzo Abe. Name recognition matters not in the slightest; it's influence that counts. Vanamonde (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Blurb the usual complaints of "Systemic Bias" are absolute bollocks, fly in the face of "Please do not ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one." and should be rightly ignored as disruptive crap that has no bearing on the nomination. That said, my bar for death blurbs is very high, McCain is not of Mandela/Thatcher notability or influence (neither is any other individual presently in the box) and this is what RD is for. Can we please stop trying to blurb everyone? Please? --LaserLegs (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not what the complaints of systemic bias are about, as you would know if you had actually read all of them. It's not "McCain isn't blurb-worthy because he had only domestic influence." It's "McCain isn't blurb-worthy, because his influence was not that large; and if a similar politician from another country had been nominated, they'd have been shot down in flames, as Aircorn noted." That's systemic bias. Vanamonde (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few quotes from above: "Oppose blurb domestic news", "Oppose blurb" ... his achievements were essentially all domestic.", "All that is just domestic politics, and we routinely do not post stories that relate only to one country's domestic politics.". AKA the usual "Waaaa I don't like America" even one person dragged up the old USAPEDIA trope. Like I said, usual crap. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm from America, and I oppose this as a blurb. If this were USApedia, he would get a blurb in a second, but it isn't. He did not have a worldwide influence. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD/Oppose blurb not a globally transformative world leader (which is the ITN criteria for a blurb). MurielMary (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD/Oppose blurb not a country/world leader. No real lasting impact internationally when compared against Mandela etc. Arguably the McCain-Feingold is important domestically to the US - but domestic campaign finance reform is not exactly blurb-worthy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb. Insufficient international notability. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Blurb - Sufficient arguments have been provided above. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb - I don't like to engage in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but since we lack proper guidelines, ITN is all about precendent. And given that we failed to post blurb for the death of an eight-year Australian prime minister, I don't think that the a career senator and one-time presidential candidate transcends the world stage in the same way as Vajpayee, Annan or Aretha Franklin.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• (Closed) Consensus will not develop to post as a blurb. Stephen 11:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Boldly re-opening as discussion had only be open for 11 hours, and the state of the consensus is around 35 for support blurb, and around 24 for oppose blurb, which is a narrow consensus. Davey2116 (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus is not a vote tally. It's based on strength of arguments. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not as if I don't already know that. But the arguments being made on both sides aren't noticeably different in strength; if anything, the supports are pointing to the immense (international) coverage of his death and his long career as a legislator, and some of the opposes are only based on "systemic bias", which is invalid because a resolve to post more non-U.S. stories does not mean that U.S. stories should not be posted. Davey2116 (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles: 2018 Challenge Cup (talk · history · tag) and Catalans Dragons (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Catalans Dragons rugby league team (pictured), based in the South of France, win the 2018 Challenge Cup final, becoming the first team not from the North of England to do so. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC)
Credits:

• Nominated by Kingsif (talk · give credit)

Article updated

• Oppose on current quality; they're not the "defending champions", and the entire article body are box scores; we've avoided posting major championships (such as Wimbledon) because of that. Regarding notability: I've never heard of this, but it might make the cut, especially in a very slow news week. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It no longer says "defending champions", and it has some detailed sections before the box scores. To answer notability for you: the championship is the competition between over 100 teams to determine the best rugby league team in the entire Northern Hemisphere. Kingsif (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support this on notability - it is a big deal in Rugby League - but the article is in no way ready for the Main Page - there isn't a single piece of prose about the final, let alone many of the rounds before it. So, at the moment, Oppose. Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There has to be some limit to the number of rugby events posted. We already have 7 on ITN, and there's been at least 2 additional posted in the last year. There's a general acceptance that we only post the very top end of competition; American Football has been limited to one for this very reason. ghost 11:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @GreatCaesarsGhost: rugby is not one sport, like football is not one sport. Also, American Football is played in one country, not the world, so the analogy is faulty. Rugby league just had the championship of the entire Northern hemisphere, in which a team from a country that has never won before took the trophy. Would you reconsider? Kingsif (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• League and union are distinct codes, but we're not talking golf & tennis; they're very similar. Nevertheless, let us concede for the sake of civility that that the support of league surpasses American Football in breath and width, so it gets more events posted. I'm fine with this; but how many more? Rugby and "soccer" seems to always have another (and another) event that is the biggest thing evar, and we post uncritically because those sports are so big. This event in particular seems to overlap heavily with the ITNR Super League; do we need both? Sports with bigger and wider followings should get more events posted, but there must be limits. ghost 13:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose ITN should only be posted for the top in each sport. For rugby league, that is Women's Rugby League World Cup and Rugby League World Cup. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The top-level professional rugby league club competition in the Northern hemisphere are the Women's Super League (rugby league) and Super League. If this were to be posted that would be a change to WP:ITNR#Rugby league. I do not see "the first team not from the North of England to do so" as an especially exceptional achievement in light of the fact that this is already limited to the Northern Hemisphere and is AFAIK the second-level competition in the Northern Hemisphere. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Though I would disagree — the North of England is an area covering a few hundred miles, with the Northern Hemisphere being literally half the world, and have apparently dominated this competition for its entire history — it's clear that nobody wants to post this, it seems from lack of Wikipedia coverage of Rugby league in general. From reading the articles and searching the web, the Challenge Cup is not "second-level" to the Super League, which is mostly British teams and has only been played for 20 years. The Challenge Cup article itself explains how placement in the Super League affects if teams can enter the Challenge Cup, it seems like they are actually equal level. Perhaps Wikipedia needs more information on Rugby League completely, but that's for someone else. I also don't have the knowledge to expand the page with prose, but I have asked in the WP for Rugby League. Kingsif (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]