^ should be posted. Nergaal (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • what about them? We need a target and suggested blurb to evaluate this. (Google news only shows the UN council supporting the Syrian ceasefire today...) --MASEM (t) 00:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume the reference is to the fact that five non-permanent members of the Security Council begin their terms each January 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support upon necessary sourcing improvements - There's a lack of inline cites in much of the article, this has to be fixed. Also I note the death update says it was "early hours of the 30th", should this not be sorted under that? --MASEM (t) 15:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now Very poor referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unreferenced. Still don't understand the initial support. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. At this time there is reasonable referencing including all major claims and contentious items. A footnote for every sentence describing a playing career, while optimal, is not required and the refimprove tag seems no longer justified. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Note that she died on Dec 26 (Monday) but the news of her death only was announced Thursday by her family. Thus sorted at this date. --MASEM (t) 17:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Personally, I think this needs more than sourcing. Her biography section (the prose) is almost devoid of her acting career. And there's the extensive filmography section, which I have no opinion on but others might feel strongly about. Fuebaey (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm working to fill in what I can - just that her obits take her though her schooling and then just lay out her acting, without any deep biographical aspects. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - would be good to have more detail in bio, but meets minimum criteria for main page as is. MurielMary (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A stub with no prose information on her acting career. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose under-referenced and weak. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support obviously mayor diplomatic incident. There will be Russian response which should be included in blurb. --Jenda H. (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Putin rejected his foreign minister's suggestion of retaliatory action against US diplomats. [4] 331dot (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Non-story trumped up by the Obama administration. Too US-centric. Snoozefest. Time to move on.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zigzig20s: As stated above, "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." As Neljack states below, this is getting a lot of coverage for a "non-story". If you don't like what RS cover, you will have to take it up with them. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also extremely POV-pushing. It's a desperate attempt by the Obama administration and the Democrats to suggest HRC did not lose because she was a bad candidate. I find it extremely misogynistic to suggest she needs an excuse like this. Besides, both Russia and the United States (president-elect Trump!) deny it. So, this could be a rumour (or fake news?). Wikipedia is not supposed to be a tabloid. Let's move on.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we will disregard your comments. And the United States has imposed these sanctions and the United States government, including its President and its official intelligence agencies, has concluded that Russia interfered with the election. The far-right politician you make repeated references to does not hold any government office, or other office, and doesn't speak for the United States. --Tataral (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean president-elect Trump? This is outrageous. Calling him "far right" as you just did sounds like an attempt to POV-push the "In the News" section of the main page. Please don't do that. Since the nominator is biased, I would suggest closing this ITN nomination. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is a far-right politician by any objective standard. That is purely a descriptive term. It was you who brought him into this discussion, although he has no relevance for what we are discussing. --Tataral (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not objective at all. It's an opinion. Mentioning Trump here is perfectly germane because he denies these allegations pushed by the Obama administration two weeks before they become obsolete. Enough already! Time to retire gracefully. And no, we don't need this POV-pushing ITN, thank you very much.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's not relevant at all, he's a private individual who doesn't hold any public office. We just stick to what the US government says and the official actions it takes on behalf of the United States; in this case the US government has taken extensive actions against Putin Russia that have received broad coverage around the world and been described as highly significant. --Tataral (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. Trump will be POTUS in 20 days. The USFG is currently under the leadership of Obama, but their position will change as soon as Trump becomes President. I don't think ITN should cover the tantrums of a lame duck president. I love Obama, but the context is too POV. Let's drop it and move on.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Private individuals are entitled to hold private opinions, but do not speak for countries, and certainly not for the United States. The United States government has taken extensive action against Russia in response to Russian cyber warfare, trolling and whatnot, and that's what we base our discussion on. --Tataral (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's not just a private individual; he's the president-elect! Anyway, lots of editors oppose this nomination, so I think it may be time for you to drop it.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The President of the United States is Barack Obama. Speculation as to who might become president of that country at some point in the future has no bearing on the issue discussed here; the sanctions have already been imposed by the current US government. --Tataral (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no speculation. Trump was elected.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to this is quite clear. The U.S. political system was specifically designed so that one and only one person can speak for the U.S. and command U.S. foreign policy at any given time. Until January 19 and partway through January 20, that person is BHO. After his inauguration on January 20, that person will be DJT. The date of this particular action comes before the new inauguration. Political leanings have nothing whatsoever to do with it. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a non-story. Russia has not retaliated, and Trump is not impressed with Obama's tantrum. Nobody is. This ITN nomination is clearly partisan POV-pushing, but it's boring.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I am not sure how a diplomatic incident involving two of the most powerful countries in the world and the expulsion of dozens of diplomats is a "non-story". The media certainly does not seem to agree. Neljack (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose political sabre-rattling. If something tangible happens, then we could consider it. This story is going to run and run and run and run and obviously take a few critical turns once Trumpmeister takes his throne, this is merely an opening tit-for-tat volley. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man:

This story is going to run and run and run and run

And still it wasn't linked in the In the news section?! --Fixuture (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree absolutely both saber-rattling and tit-for-tat volley, minor in the overall scheme of things. Agree at the same time that it is going to "run and run and run" ... at least for a few days. Insofar as it is noteworthy, it is noteworthy in that we truly have not seen anything on this scale since the Cold War, and certainly not since the current media environment. For whatever it is worth, I don't think we have ever seen this kind of action in response to a claim of domestic electoral interference. That last aside, these kinds of expulsion-counterexpulsion used to be quite common at that time (front section, but small mid-section mention), but the baby-boomer bulge has passed, and increasingly the majority of people never knew the everyday realities of the Cold War. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, oppose at present. The US sanctions on Russia and Russia's reaction seems like a story that could be worth covering. However, the election interference article is huge and finding the "news" part of that is quite hard. At a minimum, I would want to be able to link to a specific section focused on the sanctions. Whatever article is targeted should also explain in what way these are the "the most extensive sanctions against Russia since the Cold War". The current target article merely parrots that claim, but doesn't give any additional historical context in the prose. Dragons flight (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dragons flight:

However, the election interference article is huge and finding the "news" part of that is quite hard

The entirety of it is newsworthy imo. If this doesn't get added to the In the news section as a blurb (whether linked to a section and/or to the entirety of the issue) it might also get added to the "Ongoing" part of it.

--Fixuture (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per TRM. Standard US/Russia diplomatic non-story. The US expels some diplomats, Russia does same. Its an old old story well trodden by both sides. Unlike the US-Israel issue recently, this is SOP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  If the claim that these are the most extensive diplomatic sanctions on Russia in 25 years is accurate, then I have trouble seeing how this could be considered standard behavior. However, as I said above, the article doesn't do a good job of elaborating on that claim at present. Dragons flight (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on the merits but oppose at this time per Dragons flight. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support posting now per Neljack. It is still a diplomatic spat between two of the most powerful countries in the world. If a particular section is desired then the "Obama_administration" section works. Banedon (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I saw this yesterday (hence why I moved it to the 29th) and was considering posting, but when you look at the "penalty", its a newspaper slap rather than anything devastating, and far from threatening US/Russia diplomatic relations since this was only aimed at intelligence officiers. There was reportedly going to be solid evidence presented for this reasoning but I haven't seen a story yet cover it. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is not a minor diplomatic tiff. The sanctions and in particular the expulsion of so many diplomats is without modern precedent. I'm not sure this was ever done even during the most tense periods of the Cold War. That combined with the US presentation of hard evidence of Russian meddling combines to make this ITN worthy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The evidence released so far is actually considered weak by security experts [5] and certainly not hard evidence of hacking the election. That someone in Russia was getting into various US systems, sure, but that doesn't tie it to the Russian gov't. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which "security experts"? Both the CIA and the FBI have repeatedly stated that Russia was responsible, going back at least as far as December 9. (The first CIA report confirmation is actually older than that -- the public statement was simply a report that it existed.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The Obama administration has three weeks left and has virtually nothing to lose from this act, similar to their abstention from the UN Israeli vote. We posted the election almost two months ago and we don't follow up with conjecture. If say, someone presents information which makes the election invalid then that would be worthy of posting. This no. That the Russians have chosen not to respond in kind makes this even more of a non-story. Fuebaey (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per User:Banedon & User:Neljack & because the 2016 United States election interference by Russia article wasn't in the in the news section yet which is really an omission... --Fixuture (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I would have supported this startling diplomatic offensive, but the fact that Putin says Russia won't retaliate in tit-for-tat Soviet style takes much of the steam outta the story, for now at least. (Maybe he expects DT to reverse it?) Sca (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, the non-story becomes even more unremarkable. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Was the interference ITN worthy? If not, then it's hard to see how this response is. -- Shudde ^talk 16:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically, the interference was unknown, subtle, and very diffuse over time as to not be any single event to be nominated at any point, it only became something ITN-able when the US gov't made the first allegations that Russia was interferring with the election. It's like any other cybersecurity hack - that "event" is usually not discovered until months later and after sufficient investigation and PR management has been set in place before it is publicly announced. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Definitely ITN material considering that this will mean trouble for Trump when he becomes "President" in January. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  All "what" will mean trouble for Trump, a presumed ally of Putin? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Particularly given that analysts are taking Putin's non-response as trying to avoid any issues with the next administration, and most seem to recognize that this sanction will likely be revoked shortly thereafter. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose because, as TRM described it, this is saber rattling. According to the NYT article listed as a source above "Despite the international fallout and political repercussions surrounding the announcement, it is not clear how much effect the sanctions will have, except on the ousted diplomats, who have until midday Sunday to leave the country. G.R.U. officials rarely travel to the United States, or keep assets here." Calidum 17:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the D does undo it after he becomes the P, that would be blurbable – a significant reversal of U.S. policy. It would also make him look compromised, but that seems to be S.O.P. for him. Sca (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Calidum: Imo it doesn't really matter how much of an effect it has: the more newsworthy thing are the (severity/resoluteness of) the accusations by the US.

@Sca: Imo that would also be blurbable and a different subject. Probably it wouldn't even be linked to the same article. --Fixuture (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Fixuture (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose If these people were spies and hackers, why weren't they expelled when we found that out? This is not news, it is an attempt to create news. μηδείς (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is the presumptive hackers are alleged to be in Russia; this is billed as a 'consequence.' Sca (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them. Count Iblis (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, Donald Trump's reaction to Putin's decision to not retaliate, makes this newsworthy, this is definitely not business as usual. The wiki-article must, of course, first be updated properly before we can post this. Count Iblis (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Nonsense. Trump is appeasing some yanks while sucking up to the Russians. It's nothing, a storm in a teacup. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DTweets are not RSs, IMO. – Sca (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple actual reliable sources disagree with you, but thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, Yank is capitalized, according to my sources, whose identity I never will reveal. Sca (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. For one thing, it should be "alleged interference" since they still deny it. But this issue has been and will continue to be "ongoing," which if anywhere, is where it would fit, IMO. I added an updated source. And I'd suggest not using Wired as a source for this kind of issue, any more than I'd use Rolling Stone. --Light show (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more that it should be "alleged" seen as both sides (Russia and the US/Trump) deny it. Or, it should be "the Obama administration's allegations of..."Zigzig20s (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason for considering this as ongoing is it indirectly relates to this. --Light show (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (I voted "support" further up) - 2016 United States election interference by Russia wasn't in the In the news section so far, despite mayor coverage and obvious significance, was it? I think it really should be and that this would be a good occasion. --Fixuture (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Reasons have been provided above - Sherenk1 (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Debbie Reynolds (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ American actress, screenwriter, and author Carrie Fisher, 60, and her mother, 84-year-old actress and dancer Debbie Reynolds, die one day apart.
Alternative blurb II: ​ American actress, screenwriter, and author Carrie Fisher and her mother, actress and dancer Debbie Reynolds, die one day apart.
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

• Nominated by Calidum (talk · give credit)

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 – Good article, edit protected, etc. On a side note, what an absolutely horrible time for this family. I can't imagine.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with note: We don't normally post combined death blurbs, but considering the news coverage, the proximity of the deaths, and Reynolds and Fisher's mother-daughter relationship, I think that may be the best way to handle this one. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we could figure out how to throw that together, I think it would be a good thing for sure.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tossed something up. I'm agnostic on including the ages. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks better without the ages, but I could be convinced either way.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support amending current blurb, as Kudzu1 mentioned. APK whisper in my ear 02:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - but by the time admins here post this, someone else will kick the bucket :/ .. too slow you guys, too slow..--Stemoc 02:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support combined blurb - Definitely. Unusual situations call for unusual measures. Neutron (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support combined blurb - top-field actress and special situation. Definitely combine.--BabbaQ (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Filmography and stage work are completely unsourced, while the awards section needs some work on sourcing as well. Truly an unexpectedly horrible chain of events for the family :( —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support combined blurb Both actresses are absolute icons. A very unusual and tragic series of events. EternalNomad (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support combined blurb Both very notable actors. The close proximity of their deaths is notable as well. †dismas†|^(talk) 02:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support combined blurb The obvious answer here. Brianga (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support combined blurb, out of necessity. She was an internationally famous star years before Carrie was even born (ie. Singin in the Rain (1952). There are numerous books about and by her. The blurb should really list her name first, with Carrie next, regardless of the timing, such as "she died a day after her film star daughter Carrie Fisher ..." In fact, she was a regular headliner in Las Vegas when Carrie was still in kindergarten.--Light show (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Is anyone actually looking at the article quality rather than just rushing to turn ITN into a memorial website? Referencing is far below acceptable standards. Seriously, some of the support !votes appear to be in total disregard of even the most minimal standards at ITN. We are NOT a news ticker and we need to put a check on reactions to recent, albeit unfortunate, events. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that seems to be immediately wrong with the Reynolds article is a lack of referencing in the filmography section. As soon as we can get that looked on—which never takes that long—we should be fine. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this recent post. No one has been able to respond after an entire day. --Light show (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'm in a position to answer those questions. I think it's better to have a source than not, but sometimes it seems a bit unnecessary—for example, we wouldn't need multiple reliable sources affirming that Humphrey Bogart was in Casablanca or that Janet Leigh was in Psycho. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Are we looking at the same article? I'm looking at Debbie Reynolds and seeing massive gaps in referencing and multiple orange tags. As of right now this is far below acceptable standards for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see one orange tag in an early section which is likely merited, and I see a second, claiming a section with references currently being added to it contains no references. There looks to be a handful of editors going to town on this article right now, it should be fine very soon, thus explaining why I'm not concerned and feel no worry about a pre-emptive thumbs up. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see three and very large gaps. When you post a Support !vote you are saying the article is good to go, which this is clearly not. If and when it is I will be happy to change my position. We DO NOT post articles in this condition. Orange tags are a showstopper for any article nominated to be featured on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could change my vote to "hold" or something of the like, but I don't see how that would be explicitly helpful to the discussion at this stage. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support combined blurb. First, Reynolds is notable on her own merit, but second, that is very unusual. epicgenius (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even looked at the article quality or read the guidelines for ITN? -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think that a 14-year-old article that has been actively edited by 1,100 different editors and has 160 watchers should not suddenly be considered no good. The article's history and the opinion of its regular editors should be considered and maybe have superior value. --Light show (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I think the guidelines and standards upheld by longstanding consensus at ITN should take precedence. And no one is saying the article is no good. But that is a long ways from being up to scratch for being promoted on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: Yes. And I think it can be improved. But it doesn't need to be improved to a Good Article immediately. In fact, I don't think it can happen that fast. We have to consider the long history of the page (since 2002). epicgenius (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: Please consider commenting at some point in that talk page post I noted. In any case, the only rationale I've yet seen for this filmography issue has been V, material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, which ignores the prior 1,100 editors' opinions about what is likely to be challenged. Does anyone think that of her hundreds of roles in film, tv, and stage, that anyone is seriously going to "challenge" it suddenly? All they have to do is Google the question or use IMDB or TCM. These aren't political opinions or quotes, after all. They're borderline trivia.--Light show (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius and Light show: As always, I invite people who want to change the ITN standards to participate here more often. I'm on your side. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support combined blurb, very unusual and both were very notable people. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We are still weak on sourcing. For example, we have a block quote that is not given an inline cite (though the prose claims it is on liner notes: this should have an explicit citation per QUOTATION), and her stage work is not yet sourced, particularly as there's a few non-linked works in there. --MASEM (t) 04:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed --Light show (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support combined blurb Yes, I opposed the blurb for Carrie alone but that's water under the bridge. As noted, this is an unusual situation (And now watch Andrew Ridgely drop dead tomorrow). Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This article looks a lot better now. Sourcing is much more thorough and information and quotes for which citations cannot be found have been removed or commented out. I think this is ready to post as a blurb. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenting out quotes that appeared revelant (like the long block quote I mentioned before) is lazy, and not addressing the problem. For example, that block quote just needed to cite the details of the record that the liner notes appeared in. Should be very straight forward to do. --MASEM (t) 04:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • T'weren't me. Anyway, that can be addressed later. The priority should be improving the article to the point where it can be featured on the front page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because it seemed out of place and excessive for the small section. see edit. I considered just citing it, but it was still excessive for a pretty mediocre quote which was almost as long as the entire section. --Light show (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Removing relevant material can be seen as degrading the quality of the article. I can't say for sure in this case if it does or not, but that was an extremely easy thing to supply the source for (to whomever removed it, it looked like Light show). It's one thing if the quote was added with no idea where it came from or who spoke it, and you exhaust Google in trying to find it on the web or in books (in which case it has to be removed), but saying "Oh we can deal with that after it is posted to ITN" is not appropriate here. I know there's a sense of urgency to update the blurb (which I agree with given that we have decided to post Fisher's), but we cannot sacrifice quality just to expedite things. --MASEM (t) 04:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:SOFIXIT. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. Masem is free to criticize the article's state, that doesn't mean that he has to fix it or that he hasn't dismisses his complaints. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • And this is one of the many, many reasons why ITN/C is bad. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • I actually did work yesterday to fix up Fisher before it was RD'd, despite not having worked on the article at all before. I was on travel most of today so couldn't do that for Reynolds now. I'm just seeing very sloppy fixes that avoid real problems simply to say that what's left is fine. --MASEM (t) 06:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support combined blurb it's a slow time of year for news, and this is the news. Why the hell not make a combined blurb? – Muboshgu (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not adequately referenced. If it gets there, it's RD only for me, a combined blurb is tabloid and kitsch. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support combined blurb - both very notable people in the film industry. The rarity of the coincidental timing. Seems biased to give one a blurb and the other a RD so all things considered a combined blurb is the way to go. Mjroots (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• RD only, no blurb, and wait for adequate referencing per The Rambling Man. Reynolds doesn't have the same level of fame as Fisher, and at this point people are just rushing in and trying to list things based on emotion rather than the guidelines.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted combined blurb. Thanks to those who improved Debbie Reynolds. I posted a version that included both ages, because ages are usually part of death blurbs. Though the result in this case is quite long, it didn't seem unreasonable on the current main page. I didn't use the blurb with ages above, as I thought the writing was a bit too awkward; however feel free to suggest other (shorter) phrasing. Dragons flight (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use two sentences? "American actress, screenwriter, and author Carrie Fisher (pictured) dies at age 60. Her mother, actress and dancer Debbie Reynolds dies one day later at age 84." -- reduces the number of commas in the sentence. Banedon (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I might also suggest changing "dancer" to "singer" since Reynolds seems to be better known for that part of her career than dance. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support this suggestion by Kudzu. She could dance, but that was always in support of her acting on screen or stage, whereas she sang professionally for decades. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "singer". Dragons flight (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Who dafuk is the second female??? Did we get this low for the sake of Star Wars fandom? Didn't she die of old age? Can we remove all the other entries and say something about the Rogue One also? Nergaal (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wookiepedia has no entry on Ms Reynolds, so don't attribute a drop of her fame to Star Wars. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Picture The combined blurb is sensible and sourcing of her filmography is a minor issue. The significant issue is the image which we now use. We have already had Carrie Fisher's picture for a day or two and so we should now use a photo of Debbie Reynolds such as the one pictured (right). Reynolds was more accomplished and a bigger star in her day and so should get top billing now, Andrew D. (talk) 09:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with Andrew D. Tragic as this is, there is an element of irony here in the fact that some of the same people that lauded Carrie Fisher's accomplishments seem unaware of how famous Debbie Reynolds was in her day. She was not called 'Hollywood royalty' for nothing. Having them both up there is the best thing to do. Let's just concentrate on improving the articles and working on other articles in the news as they come in. Carcharoth (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, and bravo to any suggestions of continuing to be productive. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD Article, is much improved. Oppose combined blurb Reynolds does not come close to meriting a blurb and we are not supposed to be a memorial page. Unfortunately it's starting to look like one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What? She is both Academy Award and Golden Globe nominated. And had a leading role in an iconic film. Has had an extensive career in acting. You are wrong in your assessment.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blurbs for deaths are extremely rare. The usual standard is that they were not just important, but at the very pinnacle of their field, a truly iconic figure and or their death was surprising to a degree that it was close to shocking. Robin Williams comes to mind in the entertainment field as justifying a blurb. If the standard you describe above were applied, ITN would be just a running obituary ticker.

Exactly. BabbaQ you are wrong in saying that Ad Orientem is wrong. Loads of people are nominated for GG and Oscars, if we included all their deaths, ITN would be swamped with them. I think if it weren't for the Carrie Fisher angle, nobody much would be arguing for Debbie Reyolds to have a blurb. Wikipedia is not fancruft or tabloid media.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You both make a assessment based on the notion of fancruft and disliking a joined blurb between mother and daughter. I make my assessment based on Reynolds career. She was a top-field actress, and a blurb is appropriate here.BabbaQ (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose no inline citations. MurielMary (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Ditto. Sca (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added an archive to the PD citation at the bottom. To be fair, there were inline citations - just very few in the middle of the article. It should be easy enough to use the archive link for shortened footnotes. The more important question is whether we want to post an article virtually identical to his US Air Force biography. Fuebaey (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So with the PD citation, does that mean that inline citations are not needed? There are still whole paragraphs which are completely uncited, including one with a whole list of uncited awards and honours, and some paragraphs with one citation partway through. MurielMary (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that depends on your interpretation of WP:Verifiability. Some people'll read All content must be verifiable and say well it is - the citation at the bottom of the page is a spitting copy of the article. Others might say All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material, which can be fixed by simply adding:

<ref>Seth J. McKee, US Air Force biography</ref>

to contentious statements (as of this timestamp). Could use ((sfn)), but I'm not sure how that'll mesh with ((USGovernment)). Fuebaey (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD Died as the highest-ranking survivor of D-Day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.177.37 (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with necessary improvements. A good number of paras without sources. Any film role which she was not in a starring role needs sourcing. I suspect tthere might be calls for a blurb, but she falls into the same class of actor as Leonard Nimoy, and not really appropriate, though one can argue her death was a surprise given the events of the last week, --MASEM (t) 18:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose inadequately referenced. Agree that no blurb is necessary here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support after a few more sources in the text; my support does not hinge on sourcing the filmography section, per previous discussions. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I would support a blurb as well. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is good enough to go up, imho. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I added a blurb to the nomination in case people thought she should receive one (her death was not really expected). I support this for RD and would not be opposed to a blurb posting if there was consensus and the article was in great shape. Andise1 (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the alt blurb, since it wasn't in my nomination, and people have already voted. If you suggest one be added, I suggest you add it to your comment/vote. Brianga (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD – A beloved actress by many, including myself, but not of the caliber for a blurb. Article could still use some sourcing improvement as of this comment, but it's largely good to go for posting imo. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. Far too many gaps in referencing. Also Oppose blurb. She wasn't that important. Still very sad news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD - She should be in RD as a notable actress and writer.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD on improvement Lots of unreferenced sentences and even paragraphs at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems referenced enough for inclusion on the RD list. Killiondude (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Where are the guidelines for that specific level of references? After all, it's a BLP, so presumably you're not advocating we post an article with shedloads of unverifiable claims? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb. Her death was a surprise to many as she was only 60 (which is not "old" these days) and seemed to be in good health in her later years. She was known around the world for her portrayal of Princess Leia and many people knew her from other roles as well. I'm not a ITN regular, so if I'm missing why George Michael would get a blurb and not Fisher, please let me know the details. Thanks, †dismas†|^(talk) 19:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - this is a top of the field actress as part of a major film series. She is also a best selling writer and stage actress.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. The level of readership since the heart attack shows that she's in the same league as George Michael. Andrew D. (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both RD and blurb pending the addition of citations to cover the uncited paragraphs currently there. Supporting blurb on the basis that she was the lead actress from the third highest grossing film of all time. Miyagawa (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. I think the relative surprise of her death combined with her high profile role merit a blurb- though I can see the other side and am conflicted, but coming down on the support side. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I am incredibly shocked about her death, and 2016 might be the absolute worst year for notable deaths. Damn you, 2016! 70Jack90 (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I too am shocked, but that isn't a reason to support or oppose this nomination; it needs to be evaluated per the guidelines. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb. Easily more notable than George Michael on a global scale. Elia Soaten (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  In your opinion. She's best known for being a supporting actor in three films that changed the world of film. But Mark Hamill did too, as did Peter Mayhew and Kenny Baker, but I doubt we'd see/have seen blurbs for any of those. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  TRM, what does Mark Hamill have to do with this blurb? Has he died? Do you own a magic ball to see in to the future with? Fisher is also a best selling author etc. BabbaQ (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I was just noting that comparing notability is, once again, deceptive and subjective. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, you are probably right Mark won't get a blurb. His career faded into utter obscurity and actually became the butt of many jokes post Star Wars. He was cast as the failure opposite to Ford's success. Fisher however became a voice for drug/alcohol abuse and depression. Her semi-biographical work, Postcards from the Edge was made into a movie. Her Biography Wishful Drinking was turned into an HBO documentary. Her mental illness and adovacy kept her in the limelight---people without mental illness and who don't know mentally ill people may not directly recall why she was in the news, but it kept her in the news.74.124.47.10 (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support blurb - top of the field actress deserves a blurb on ITN. - EugεnS¡m¡on 21:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Have done some work on the citations and I think there's enough there now. Also support blurb due to her international renown (she would be recognisable and known in many parts of the world as Princess Leia). MurielMary (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb she was known for a single thing, and died of poor health. No need to appease the nerdom. Nergaal (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that "she was known for a single thing"(known for writing and mental health advocacy) as well as "died of poor health"; this states "Fisher showed no sign of being ill". This was a surprise. If you don't want to "appease the nerdom", fair enough. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you go ask somebody on the street what do the know about Fischer will anybody say "writing and mental health advocacy"? At best they will mention she had an affair with an actual icon, icon which was married at the time. If SW7 didn't come out last year nobody would have remembered her, and with SW7 she had a very similar role to the freak death guy from the last ST. Nergaal (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal, your rationale is confusing. She is a noted author as well as an actress. And for one of the most iconic roles ever. Are we suppose to take your rationale as a contemporary joke or are you serious?.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Leia is "one of the most iconic roles ever". Do you have a source for that? Mary Poppins, Ripley, Hermione etc are all "iconic".... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For example, this. (But I think the search results speak for themselves.) epicgenius (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, ok, the character was iconic. I'm still struggling for "one of the most iconic roles ever", especially as the most iconic moment of her iconic role is her being stereotypically nearly naked and chained to a fat Hutt. Granted she took him out, with help.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly naked and chained to a fat Hutt isn't that bad. Trust me, it could be worse. (Jar-Jar Binks was downright embarrassing.) epicgenius (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Fisher was known for being a main character in one of the most popular, iconic movie series of the entire century. (I'm assuming the above oppose vote ^^^ is a joke.) epicgenius (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD but Oppose blurb. George Michael and David Bowie and Prince, yes. Carrie Fisher is not at the same level as those celebrities. Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC) Of the Star Wars actors and people, I would only put George Lucas and Harrison Ford at the level of warranting a blurb. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. This is the sudden death of a well-known actress and writer. I don't see how people can feel she is less worthy of a blurb than George Micheal -- they both are. Calidum 22:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support getting SOMETHING up ASAP. She is so well-known that NOT having anything on the front page makes WP look like it's slow on the uptake. Yes, the blurb could be improved but getting it up there quickly as-is is better than spending time to change it around. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't fret, it'll happen, probably sooner rather than later as more American admins come online, but we aren't a news ticker, that's for Wikinews. We actually should be trying to exercise editorial quality control, and until such a time that the article is well sourced per WP:BLP and WP:V we shouldn't post it. However, that won't amount to hill of beans once the usual crew get involved, so start your stopwatch, not long now! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason 2016 has been a smorgasbord of celebrity deaths is that we are the right number of years away from the period in time when celebrity culture really took off. So each year will be like this for the foreseeable future, with every person weighing in to support a blurb for the celebrity they recognise the most from their personal memories. Objectivity takes a back seat to subjectivity. Carcharoth (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Davidwr: I completely agree, but we need people like you to participate more often to change the usual consensus in discussions here. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The usual consensus is for an American admin to steam-roller across whatever discussion is happening and post popular Americans to RD regardless. It's happened for a couple of a years. If we can "change the usual consensus" to avoid that, so much the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not at all what I meant. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm quite sure that's not what you meant but that's the truth. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not getting sucked into more of your shit, thanks. Please take your negativity elsewhere. Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Personal attack noted, looking forward to seeing you later! FYI: WP:ADMINACCT, WP:NPA, etc etc.. !! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a ... creative interpretation of NPA. Note away; not a single other person is going to read it as a personal attack. I'm out. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Not at all, you claiming what I'm saying is "shit" is abundantly a personal attack. Thankfully we have it on file, the ever-growing purple one. Good to see you're out, dereliction of your duty per WP:ADMINACCT, it seems you need to take a break to cool off. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Why am I not at all surprised that you -- particularly you -- would come to that conclusion? And why do I strongly suspect that you will automatically dismiss (as either inaccurate, inappropriate, or irrelevant) what I just said as shit ... although you will never say it in those words here? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment still 10 [citation needed] tags to be fixed before this is even close to ready, even "just for RD". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - Well known actress for 40 years, including an iconic role; well known author and mental health advocate. Also, if it matters, she is better known than George Michael. Neutron (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  "she is better known than George Michael" according to whom? What metric are you using? Did she sell over 100 million records worldwide? No, she was a supporting actor in a movie franchise. Oh yeah. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I could not find a figure for how many people have seen the Star Wars films she was in, but our Star Wars article does say the films (probably including the three she was not in) grossed $6.46 billion, which is pretty good. She was a co-lead in the first three films, not a "supporting actor." As for George Michael, he appeals to a much narrower demographic. Both my 85-year-old mother and my 25-year-old son knew who Carrie Fisher was, but I strongly doubt that either knew who George Michael was until after he died. If that's not scientific enough for you, it's all I've got. Neutron (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support blurb She had an iconic role in an extremely popular franchise. JDDJS (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Well, I kind of knew that my hatting of the discussion would be reverted ;) In any case, there's a consensus for a RD when the references are fixed. Everyone, be nice when discussing other possibilities. --Tone 23:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb I know it's a shock to us all and it's right after Christmas and George Michael just died and this is making 2016 suck even more but ... we did not give Leonard Nimoy anything more than an RD when he died, and I daresay that in the context of the Star Trek franchise he was even more iconic than she was in the context of her franchise (plus, despite his own battle with addiction, he still managed to do more other work outside of the franchise and offscreen as well than she did). So if Spock's actor isn't blurb-worthy, Princess Leia's isn't, either. Daniel Case (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Daniel Case: Hey Daniel, nice to see you around—I know we met in 2012, but I can't recall if we've interacted since then. Anyhow, who's to say that consensus can't change? :-) Put a different way, is there a compelling reason to not post Fisher that doesn't rely on past discussions? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The ed17: Hi again . To me this relies on the outcome of past discussions, not those discussions themselves. Daniel Case (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • To be fair... I agree Nimoy is a legend, but he was pretty old and Spock had been played by someone else for years before he died, while Fisher was young and still has another role as Leia coming up. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I would argue that all things considered Nimoy was more accomplished:

Nimoy: Best known before Trek for guest appearances on a number of TV shows, particularly the original Twilight Zone, The Man From U.N.C.L.E. and The Lieutenant. After Trek, did Mission:Impossible Invasion of the Body Snatchers, In Search of... in addition to almost every movie in the franchise save the ones with the TNG cast, and did a two-part episode of that show as well. Did lots of stage work, playing Sherlock Holmes and Caligula among others. Behind the camera, directed two of the films plus a blockbuster comedy and one of Liam Neeson's first American leads. Wrote two books with contradictory titles. Published a lot of photography in books and galleries.

Fisher: Best known before A New Hope for her cameo in Shampoo where she became best known for something that happened off-camera: turning down Warren Beatty when he publicly propositioned her. Best known after, outside of the movies, for her supporting performance in When Harry Met Sally and a memorable 30 Rock episode. In between, was delegated by John Landis to keep John Belushi from using too much coke on the set of The Blues Brothers, in one of the all-time worst personnel decisions ever, and gave the best lowdown on what really happened on the sets of the Star Wars films in a lengthy Rolling Stone interview. Wrote the roman à clef Postcards from the Edge and the screenplay for its film version.

I'm not saying she never did anything else outside Princess Leia. But Leonard Nimoy was undeniably more accomplished, and we didn't give him a blurb either.

Oh, yeah, someone else was playing Spock, I know, to which I point you to the last scene of Rogue One (I joked when her episode on the plane was reported that that happened when she finally got a good look at how she looked digitally regressed in that scene). Daniel Case (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support blurb – An iconic actor (and only woman) from one of the best-known films of all time. And to those who say she is less well-known than George Michael, tell Google that. "Carrie Fisher" has over 28 million hits, while "George Michael" (a more common name to boot) doesn't even have 10 million.  – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 23:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, I Googled "George Michael" and got over 28 millions hits. "Carrie Fisher" gets over 34 millions. "Leonard Nimoy" gets 3.7 million. I wonder what the Ghits will be in 5 years time? Really, though, we shouldn't be resorting to Ghits for something like this. I'd support a blurb to end this increasingly fraught discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support for Blurb Can we just post it already? she died like 6 hours ago, she was a known celebrity mainly due to the Star Wars franchise so a blurb is acceptable. Fisher was young and I'm sorry that we have to move down George Michael from the news but this dead will be far more remembered in the next decade or so.--Stemoc 23:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  We should probably rename "In the News" to "In the Somewhat Recent Past". Neutron (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Blurb I think the correlation of Star Wars fans and Wikipedia editors is causing some to lost sight, especially regarding the "more known then George Michael" which is bollocks and as one of the first gay mainstream pop stars infinitely more historically important and yes will be remembered more in "the next decade or so". We wouldn't post Mark Hamil so why Carrie? GuzzyG (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD As much as I am a huge Star Wars fan, I have to admit I don't think the article really qualifies for a blurb because it needs some improvement and Fisher, while definitely a notable and relevant celebrity, has not achieved the level of stardom and international fame as George Michael, Prince or David Bowie, who had blurbs. κατάσταση 00:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Carrie Fisher herself said this:

  "Perpetual celebrity — the kind where any mention of you will interest a significant percentage of the public until the day you die, even if that day comes decades after your last real contribution to the culture — is exceedingly rare, reserved for the likes of Muhammad Ali." - Carrie Fisher in The Princess Diarist

  Quoted from the obituary in The New York Times. There is also an element of a quiet news period around Christmas and New Year giving greater prominence to celebrity deaths. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In terms of expediting this, I see much sourcing has been added. There are about 4-5 places that need CNs, but this is far far improved from my initial !vote (notably, all films where she wasn't a major role are sourced, a key fact I am glad to see). I would propose to have this marked Ready for RD , and pinging @Ad Orientem:, @The Rambling Man: and @Black Kite: for concurrence. --MASEM (t) 00:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there has been marked improvement but there are still serious gaps in the television and video game credits and further south. But we are getting there. On a side note, once the remaining cite gaps are filled I think we can put this in RD until consensus is gained on whether to blurb or not to blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just spent about 20-30 min to fill in a dozen+ gaps in the tv and video game sourcing. There are still some gaps, but of types that I am comfortable that can be fixed now this is at RD and balancing the timing aspect. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Blurb This is looking in pretty good nick now. AIRcorn (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - I'm seeing sufficient international coverage. Banedon (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb: And can I add it is frankly embarrassing Wikipedia hasn't posted this yet. The article is in fine fettle, the subject is an internationally known actress with a starring role in several of the most famous films ever made, and practically every major English-language media outlet in the country has this as a top or the top story. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb: Classic case of both systemic bias and inability for the Wikipedia 'mob' to follow stipulated guidelines currently at Wikipedia:In_the_news#Recent_deaths_section. There is a sui generis clause in the section on RD which references blurbs. I want to take everyone to this page and this page, demonstrating the comparison between a true sui generis situation such as the deaths of Michael Jackson and Nelson Mandela, compared to the deaths of Carrie Fisher and George Michael, who are orders of magnitude less impactful. To me the question should be - tomorrow morning when I get up, will the death of Carrie Fisher be such a momentous event as to be the top headline in newspapers from Mumbai to Tel Aviv to Seoul? Because the deaths of Mandela and Michael Jackson were. The deaths of Carrie Fisher and George Michael will not be. That's not to say these individuals were not important or that their deaths were not sudden and sad, but that's precisely what RD is for! Colipon+(Talk) 01:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Addendum: a similar and equally reliable test is to simply follow the "New York Times rule" - a very reliable gauge of any person's notability globally as it is widely recognized as the world's newspaper of record. The deaths of Michael Jackson, Nelson Mandela, and Margaret Thatcher were top "all-cap" headlines, taking up the majority of space on the front page of the print addition. The deaths of George Michael and Carrie Fisher will at most be a front-page inset, if it makes to the front page at all. Colipon+(Talk) 01:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot accept the idea that the New York Times is the world's newspaper of record, and I see no evidence that it is widely regarded as such. The NYT is hardly read in much of the world. The Guardian probably has a bigger worldwide presence. Neljack (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your point, this is colored by my own bias. That said I hope you will also appreciate that I feel sometimes like I am the lone wolf fighting systemic bias here and giving things a truly global perspective- trying to bring perspectives from countries that ordinary Wikipedia editors have no exposure to or don't care to think about (with no malice of course). For what it is worth I have checked both state-run and more 'independent' Chinese websites and neither George Michael nor Carrie Fisher feature at all, let alone being the top headline - and if you respond by raising the 'state censorship card' I should make it clear that both the deaths of Michael Jackson and Nelson Mandela were top stories on Chinese web portals. Colipon+(Talk) 02:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colipon, I do very much appreciate your attempts to combat systemic bias and I agree with you here that Fisher doesn't warrant a blurb and the rush to give her one seems indicative of systemic bias. Neljack (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colipon, of the other large international wikipedias: dewiki, eswiki, ptwiki, frwiki, plwiki all have Fisher on their front pages - this does not appear to be solely an American story. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux, my argument had nothing to do with notability or international reach; it was about the magnitude of international significance compared to other, far more impactful figures, specifically as it relates to what constitutes the standard for a 'blurb' vs an RD. As a side point, those wikis you pointed out have different systems for organizing RDs, so they are not comparable to the English wiki. Colipon+(Talk) 04:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it is worth, the NYT certainly used to share that position with the Times in the English-speaking world (including the ESL world and various Times regional editions). However, this is the post-truth era -- has been for at least 15 years now (correlated against certain world events and the rise of social media) -- and there is a significant percentage of the English-speaking population which no longer trusts any large-scale news source to give the appropriate weight to each piece of news, or even assumes that the really important news is being suppressed by precisely those institutions. All that being said, the front page/front section notability of either newspaper should not be taken as the sole measure of ITN notability ... although the front page/specific section (sports, entertainment etc) might be. Media outlets such as that are designed to have specialized sections. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • While the print edition won't come out until tomorrow, her death is front page center with a large photo on their page. Would not be surprised if it is an all caps death in the print---look at the discussion generated.2602:30A:C7F8:75A0:E131:D2B9:43E:BBBB (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • She has a fairly large article on the front page. About a fifth of the page including photo---below the fold, but still front page.74.124.47.10 (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The fact that I have to chime in to support, confirms my decision to retire a few years ago as this has become too big of a bureaucracy. Just about every major news source has Carrie's death on the main page. Carrie gained fame through Star Wars---arguably one of the most influencial films ever. The timeliness of her death, in conjunctions with Rogue One dominating the box offices and the revival of the franchise makes it timely. Wikipedia is one of the few resources that people come to looking for facts/information that still isn't reporting her death on the front page. Seriously, pick a media outlet, and she is on their front page! Even the Wall Street Journal has it on their front page! Breitbart---Check. Slate---Check. CNN/ABC/NBC/NYTimes/CBS/Washingtonpost/Huffingtonpost---check. And oh, between her glory days, she remained relevant as an author and advocate.2602:30A:C7F8:75A0:E131:D2B9:43E:BBBB (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC) (an admin known to use the ... a lot ;-) )[reply]

The US is not the only country with news sources to consider. Neljack (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ITN is not a news ticker. It exists to promote high quality articles about topicla subjects that are "in the news." -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb It would be hard to describe Carrie Fisher as one of the leading actors of the past few decades. If she qualifies for a blurb, there must been dozens of actors who would. That would lower the bar too far. The concerns about systemic bias also seem to me to have force. Neljack (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD - leaving this open for determination if 'upgrade' to Blurb is warranted. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb for much the same reasons as I opposed blurb for George Michael. The Wikipedia:In_the_news#Recent_deaths_section states "For deaths where the person's life is the main story, where the news reporting of the death consists solely of obituaries, or where the update to the article in question is merely a statement of the time and cause of death, the "recent deaths" section is usually used." Like my previous remarks, I would suggest that this is appropriate here as the other options (cause of death itself is a major story or rare cases [of] the death of major transformative world leaders) don't seem to apply here. Incidentally, while I would tentatively say that Carrie Fisher is a little more culturally significant than George Michael I don't think that argument really matters as neither of them were transformative world leaders. Greenshed (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I oppose the blurb in general, I will point that here, Fisher had been in the news a week prior for suffering a heart attack, but which she seemed fine and recovered from. And then news she died, which no one was expecting. This far exceeds the "merely a statement of time and death", as the death was surprising. I just feel that the press are putting far too much on her being a major star of one overly popular film franchise, making her death seem bigger than life. They did the same with Nimoy, and we kept him to RD. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You make a fair point (although I am not aware that any reliable source had said that she had recovered and was fine). However, the guidelines do not cover every eventuality and while the sad circumstances of Fisher's death are not quite a simple one-liner, her death itself was not a major news story like, for example the death of Gaddafi. Thinking about where to draw the line between RD and Blurb, I'd say that on the spectrum from a one line note of time and cause of death all the way through to a major news story about a death itself we are much nearer the beginning than the end. Greenshed (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Given a quick glance at this discussion thread, the number of comments already posted and the relative split between support and oppose on the question of a blurb, I think the odds of gaining consensus are somewhere between slim and none. And I think I just saw slim hopping the last train out of town. But I'm WP:INVOLVED so I will let someone else close this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ad Orientem: I disagree. :-) Even when you made your comment, in pure numbers it was approximately 2-1 in favor of a blurb, albeit it's difficult to parse all of the statements above (I accept that you might come up with different numbers, but not enough to say no consensus). Plus there's another four supports below. Marking [ready]. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using a slightly longer glance I get a count of 14 people only supporting RD or actively opposing a blurb and 23 specifically supporting a blurb at the time of this comment. There are a few others that don't bold a preference saying things like Support getting SOMETHING up ASAP and just ordinary supports with no obvious position. Not quite 2:1, but not even close to slim. Especially given the four !votes below. AIRcorn (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment about "American bias": It's important to note that visitors from the United States account for the highest demographic of users to Wikipedia ([15]) with about 20%, or 1 in 5 visitors coming from the U.S. It would make sense to post something relevant to those users, even if it reflects an American bias. Additionally, most actors and actresses are born in the United States considering that is where Hollywood is located, so it would also make sense to post a large number of popular Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A25F:FB9A:B15F:E82D:2A7D:BC0A (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot disagree too strongly with the above comment. We are not here to cater to any demographic or nationality. We are an encyclopedia, period. Nor are we a news ticker. If people want information that provides current news and caters to the interests of various groups, buy a tabloid newspaper. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above is neither for, nor against this nomination. I'm just merely trying to rationalize as to why there is an inherent bias on ITN for American-related topics. The contributors to ITN are reflective of Wikipedia users as a whole, which is why there is always support for American-related topics. While it may be frustrating for us non-Americans, we cannot discount the importance and value of these American-related topics to American ITN contributors, and by extension, American Wikipedia users. Likewise, we cannot discount any other nation, like the United Kingdom or Canada or Australia or New Zealand or France or Germany, or, or, or.

• Support blurb Carrie Fisher's death is top-page news and she played a central role in one of the world's most popular franchises, with which her face has become indelibly associated.--Beneficii (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb – Fisher was a well-known individual, almost five decades within the film industry and obviously well-known across the globe for her notable role in an iconic franchise -- it stands to reason that we take note of this. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support for blurb: If George Michaels who died suddenly at a relatively young age just like Fisher who died suddenly and had global fame and created a strong impact on pop culture and portrayed a cultural icon along that, then she deserves a blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. IMO the current ITN standards for blurbs are too high and Fisher is an actress and celebrity of sufficient renown that a blurb is warranted, especially given the sudden nature of the death. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Patar knight: I completely agree and would invite you to chime in more often here. The standards can only be changed with more editors and consensus. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready for blurb (marked by someone before I could). Those supporting a blurb now outweigh the opposition 2:1, so consensus seems to be quite clear. Calidum 05:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The division really seems to come down to two specific issues. Well, three, if you count personal opinions about "Star Wars" by people who either never saw "Star Wars" or never saw anything in it, but that third does not seem to hold very much sway here at all.

The more minor of the original two is Fisher's personal credentials. I say "minor" as, in such a case, looking only at the personal credentials will inherently be swayed by personal opinion as to their value. To that, I would say that Fisher's credentials are certainly significant, but that she was not the Everest of any of her fields. To use the Nimoy comparison, Nimoy certainly came closer, although ironically he may have been handicapped in potential subsequent achievements precisely by his association with his most well-known role.

The other issue is the real elephant in this room. The original "Star Wars" trilogy was unquestionably a highly significant change, not only in the standards of SF space opera or in the film technologies used, but also in the way it ushered in the blockbuster (multiple viewing by a highly targeted audience) and tied-in merchandising filmmaking trends. (That effect may have started in the U.S., but it has definitely spread worldwide. You personally may not own a piece of SW merchandise, but I strongly suspect nearly all of you know someone who does.) Fisher happened to be one of three leading actors in that trilogy. Her acting in those films was reasonably solid, but not truly exceptional, as might be expected of someone cast in part deliberately because of her lack of previous major roles. However, her having acted in that role has indelibly associated her with that film franchise, especially in light of its recent successful revival with her in a significant role.

So the decision of "blurb-level newsworthiness" here rests almost entirely on to what extent Fisher's accomplishments are inseparable from the "Star Wars" phenomenon. If her other accomplishments are truly to be considered independently of Star Wars, she does not rate even an RD -- not because she has not done good things with her life, but because none of those things were genuinely exceptional within their sphere. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to be exceptional anymore to make it to RD, just notable. AIRcorn (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I personally, in this context, understand notability to require exceptionality in one's field, or possibly a key world event in which one was a major contributor. Otherwise we would be ITN'ing every single person who has ever appeared semi-regularly in the pages of a major newspaper. (Yes, "Star Wars" does qualify as a key world event, for the reasons outlined above. Not all key world events involve major loss of life, STEM advances, or politics. In fact, one of Wikipedia's ITN strongest systemic biases is the determination to share mass media's bias toward "if it bleeds, it leads".) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you ignored anyone's major claim to fame, they'd be a lot less blurb-worthy. Calidum 06:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice that I chose to stay out of this vote. I consider my final paragraph to be a question I should not personally be answering ... not if I want to see my own ITN choices with anything resembling neutrality in the future. (The last time I argued for blurb vs RD was for someone who was genuinely considered exceptional (not just notable) in their own field, on a worldwide basis -- and I was still accused of regionalism, ironically by someone who personally defines it without in the least realizing it.) However, I do think that the way the community answers this one will identify very important things about the current nature of the Wikipedia community. - Tenebris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.171.90 (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question people who support a blurb should argue why she deserves it when Leonard Nimroy didn't get one. Nergaal (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it should be argued on its own merits. Besides, like all of Wikipedia, this place is inconsistent. What gets posted depends on who shows up and other vagaries. Also this happened, which has moved the goalposts somewhat. AIRcorn (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That had nothing to do with blurbs. Nergaal (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Blurb People seem to forget as well as being an extremely well-known actress world-wide, she was also a notable author and scriptwriter/editor. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} Nergaal (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Postcards from the Edge Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with blurb. High profile individual whose impact went beyond just the Star Wars films. – The Bounder (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

impact went beyond just the Star Wars films ^{[citation needed]}. Nergaal (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Blurb posted per consensus established here.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? I see many opposes, which in contrast to most supports are well-reasoned and based on policies and evidence. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite surprised that she has a blurb. But then if Paul Simon writes a song about you, maybe that's enough. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I bet some supports came from Star Wars fans. Brandmeister^talk 12:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I bet you are right. That's a no brainer, seeing as to how Star Wars is one of the biggest franchises in the world. That being said, Carrie's fandom goes beyond just Star Wars. Her battle with depression and drug addiction helped to destigmatize the issues and make it something people talked about. Her openness about her personal demons, post Star Wars, have helped millions of people. Yes, interest in her is high due to her being in Star Wars---but isn't that why virtually every news media is covering her death on the front page? Because it is a lead story? Her millions of fans are looking for the story and information related to her death, which is exactly what makes this notable and worthy of a blurb as compared to some obscure issue nobody has heard about or cares about? (Admin note, I already supported above under a different IP.)74.124.47.10 (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We need an automatic tool to weed them out. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

• Object to blurb post - What procedural legitimacy does the blurb have? Again, like George Michael below, this reeks of systemic bias. The more of these RDs we post as blurbs, the more we 'inflate' blurb-worthiness generally, as editors continue to cite precedence for later blurb posts. Colipon+(Talk) 13:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb. Yes, she also did work in mental health advocacy and as an author, but she was by no means famed for this work internationally to the level we usually require of these blurbs. — foxj 13:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull blurb and restore to RD. There is no evidence of consensus for posting this even if we accept some of the !votes that are obviously fan based. The argument for a blurb is extremely weak when looking at the ITN/RD criteria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• At the point of posting the blurb (which was within an acceptable timely manner to allow consensus to form given the time-constraints of ITN) there were approx 24 blurb supports, 9 RD supports but oppose blurbs, 3 opposes, and 4 generic supports. There was *clear* consensus to post a blurb by any standard under which WP:CONSENSUS is measured. If the best argument is 'fans voted for it' and other such vote-nullification arguments, you need to provide much better ones. As the choice between blurb and RD is basically a subjective opinion (not based on solely article quality like RD but on the super-notability of the person) complaining other peoples subjective opinion is wrong is not going to go far. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You said that much better than I can. The idea that there was no consensus was laughable. The pile-on opposes, from people who've already expressed an opinion, shouldn't change that. Calidum 14:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Pull the bar is too low with this one. Maybe George Michael should be removed too, but that guy remained in the pop culture for a long time. Nergaal (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest we close this It's up as a blurb, it's not unanimous and doesn't have to be. This conversation isn't likely to be productive, unless we go to WT:ITN to try to establish a way to differentiate RD and blurb deaths going forward. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have done this - the guidelines are established at ITN/DC; no one cares to follow it because in reality, the closing admin looks at a group of "support" or "oppose" votes and decides based on their discretion as opposed to 'testing' the arguments presented against the 'rules' stipulated. Admins can step up and better enforce those rules - and remember that the most popular opinions are not necessarily the right ones. In my opinion a lack of standards also makes ITN one of the remaining 'amateur' corners of the main page, where our systemic bias is apparent for the rest of the world to see. Colipon+(Talk) 16:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A major popular musician, and a relatively young age of 53. Worthy of a blurb. Article looks well-sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Major international star, well-sourced article.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, recommend blurb His article and supporting list articles are all extremely well sourced. RD is obvious but a blurb argument could be made, though maybe just a notch below Bowie or Prince in influence. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb, the list of hundred million+ record-sellers isn't long. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, recommend blurb too some people simply forget the magnitude of his fame in the 80s/90s (virtually to the level of Michael Jackson, Madonna and Prince) and to plenty, is still remembered even to the younger generations. Not putting him on blurb is like not putting David Bowie, Prince and Michael Jackson on too. Donnie Park (talk) 23:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning George Michael in the same sentence as David Bowie, Prince and Michael Jackson in 2016 is ridiculous. Outside the UK, he was hardly noticed in the past dozen or so years except by those obsessed with celebrity gossip. --71.183.132.17 (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect he'll be mentioned many times today in the same sentence as David Bowie, quite literally. I don't recall any requirement for a person to remain equally "noticed" throughout their life for them to be lastingly notable. Do you think that seven number one singles in the US counts for nothing? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD, neutral on blurb. The article is in good shape and is actively being improved (I lost count of the number of edit conflicts I had while adding sources!). I've added a proposed blurb as people seem interested in having one. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support World-famous --Jaqen (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - 100 million records sold. This is not an insignificant figure in pop culture. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- Per everything above. Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 00:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, would not outright oppose blurb Good, well-maintained article for a very noteworthy musician and public figure.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted - Added blurb as well - numerous folks in support. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I modified the blurb to include "pop star"—there are many musicians but not many pop stars. Am open to better/more standard wording. I'm really happy at how fast this went up, and I'm looking forward to seeing the article get improved even more over the next few hours. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should the blurb mention that he was openly gay? He had a few songs about it, for example, Outside, An Easier Affair, My Mother Had a Brother, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. We don't post people's sexual preferences in ITN blurbs. If we have ever done so in the past I can't recall it. The only circumstance I might support doing this would be if that was the principal item for which the subject was known. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your line of thinking and reasoning for proposing this, Zigzig20s, but I have to agree with Ad. Putting up a blurb like "Gay pop star George Michael dies at the age of 53" is going to give off unintended connotations, imho. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Oppose for now solely on article quality. There are a few too many gaps in referencing. That said, overall I think the article is not in horrible shape and it should not require much work to get it up to snuff. I have tagged the paragraphs lacking at least one citation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless / until the article has shown significant improvement / new material. The point of ITN is to showcase new (including improved). material. Greenshed (talk) 02:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there is no such requirement to feature "improved" material. The article must be updated to reflect the news factor, which here was covered in two sentences about his passing, and that's all we'd expect for such an update. --MASEM (t) 02:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Wikipedia:In_the_news#Recent_deaths_section states "For deaths where the person's life is the main story, where the news reporting of the death consists solely of obituaries, or where the update to the article in question is merely a statement of the time and cause of death, the "recent deaths" section is usually used." I would suggest that this this is appropriate here as the other options (cause of death itself is a major story or rare cases [of] the death of major transformative world leaders) don't seem to apply here. Greenshed (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except that there have been several indepth bio articles on Michael's life that are being used by editors to clean up and/or improve the article. It's not going to transform the article dramatically at this point. And of course, these are guidelines - the ultimate decision is by consensus which is overwhelmingly in favor of retaining the blurb. --MASEM (t) 02:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Leaving aside the fact that that the recent comments "oppose blurb", even the earlier remarks above are not overwhelmingly in favor of retaining the blurb. See "Support RD, neutral on blurb", "Support, would not outright oppose blurb", "Oppose for now solely on article quality" (and of course my remarks). I'd say that there was a general consensus in favour of blurb but that, with the new comments, now things are less clear. Personally, i'd move to RD - it only conveys a little less information - his age (cf "George Michael dies at the age of 53" with "Recent deaths: Rick Parfitt, George Michael, ..." - but it does reduce prominence which I think is appropriate per Colipon's remarks below. Greenshed (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb: Let me give another perspective. A blurb for a death, in my view, should truly be reserved for those individuals with vast international significance and the death itself garnering widespread coverage in multiple cultural spheres. I honestly do not believe George Michael to be a global figure to the same renown as, say, Michael Jackson. Jackson was a cultural icon on top of being a musician, truly one for the generations; his death was headline news from Senegal to South Korea, from Fiji to Kazakhstan. You go to those countries now, you may be hard pressed to find a person on the street who even knows of George Michael, let alone care about his death. I do not doubt George Michael's popularity in the anglosphere, particularly in his homeland of Britain, but to me this is an RD, not a blurb. Colipon+(Talk) 13:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how do you know? There's media coverage, but there's also the fact that he sold 100 million records. And--even though the blurb does not mention it--he was openly gay. As a member of WikiProject LGBT Studies, I have no doubt that he may not be getting sufficient media coverage in a place like Kazakhstan because of anti-gay censorship. Let's not encourage that.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well he is actually getting media coverage in Kazakhstan. See http://kazakh-tv.kz/en/view/world_news/page_179274_the-sun-goes-down-on-beloved-pop-star-george-michael Greenshed (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this is the English Wikipedia, I would expect most users to be from the English-speaking world (or anglosphere). 2607:FEA8:A25F:FB9A:EC7F:DEC2:A3DB:B838 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb per Colipon. Banedon (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing opposition per counterarguments given above. Banedon (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb unexpected death of a "pop icon", easily outweighs people like Paul Walker, although Michael wasn't American, he was Greek so perhaps that's part of the issue? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not sure how to decide where that line is between RD and blurb in some of these cases. At first I thought, well if there's a death article, like Death of Nelson Mandela, Death of Michael Jackson, Death of David Bowie, that shows the kind of significance of the death as an event to merit a blurb. But then Death of Muhammad Ali is a redirect, and I think his was a blurb-worth death as well. At first I thought, "this isn't significant enough", but then considering the LGBT angle, maybe it is. I dunno. Some of these cases are ambiguous. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think there's any angle at all per LGBT, who cares? He was an iconic song-meister, that we wouldn't consider him on a par with (or indeed, way beyond) a bit-part Hollywood actor is absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The "angle" that I refer to is that he came out before many other celebrities had, and I've been reading some stories including quotes of LGBT individuals saying that it helped them to understand that they're normal even though they're not straight. If the "bit-part Hollywood actor" you're referring to is Paul Walker, I think it's clear that posting was a mistake. I opposed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  He "came out" after being caught in some toilets soliciting men, so let's not be too precious and laudatory about it. But nevertheless, his impact was significant enough for a blurb. No more needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the Will Rogers Memorial Park (created by guess who?). He also had quite a few gay-themed songs as I said before.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Point taken. I'm not opposing a blurb here, just trying to find consistency from one to another, including the deaths that haven't happened yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no requirement that an RD blurb have a Death of... with it, though having a significant Death of... article is a very strong indicator that a blurb shoukd be made. Also keep in mind he was only 53, and no indication of being in medical condition just before (the bout with pneumonia was in 2012, so not a leading indicator). Surprising deaths of notable people is a mertic we do consider too. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb. I was never any fan of Wham! or George Michael (indeed I still bear the psychological scars of being forced to take my younger sister to the George Michael Faith concert in Birmingham in 1988), but this was one of the most iconic artists of the 1980s, without doubt. For those above suggesting that only the anglosphere would be interested in the story (which would be big enough as it is), I can assure you that Michael was a huge star in India (i.e. [21]) and Wham! were the first Western band to play in China, a huge issue at the time [22]. Black Kite (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. World famous beyond reasonable doubt. --Barry Bubbles (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC) Moved post obviously posted accidentally in wrong section. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Firstly, per the NY Attorney General, the Foundation can't be dissolved while their investigation into past impropriety is ongoing. Hence, at best Trump is announcing his intention to do something that will happen at some poorly defined time in the future. In addition, even if the Foundation is dissolved, I don't think that event would be significant enough news to warrant inclusion at ITN. Dragons flight (talk) 08:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Dragon flight. Neljack (talk) 08:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose simply not that newsworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Good faith nomination. We don't generally post political stuff unless it involves changes in government or head of state. And this is just too common for ITN. Every country in the world has had this kinda-sorta scandal and we can't post all of them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too controversial, too US-centric, not important at all in the grand scheme of things.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

22 December 2016 (UTC)