[Posted] Floods in Gujarat, India

Nominator's comments: "Worst flood of the century" 171.117.194.201 (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already discussed and marked [Ready] but not posted, possibly due to not noticing it. See archive on date July 27.--Nizil (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/July_2017#.5BReady.5D_2017_Gujarat_flood (old nomination)

• Support as large number of death and unusually high rain in region. Highlighted changing climate.--Nizil (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support don't see any reason not to. Banedon (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quite surprised we didn't post it before when it was marked ready with enough Support. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I didn't support this before but the situation has changed from the last nomination(which had consensus, as pointed out). 331dot (talk) 09:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Article is adequate. Incident is notable. Previous nomination had consensus. Vanamonde (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Bencherlite^Talk 12:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi embassy attack in Kabul

Nominator's comments: It is notable being an attack on embassy apart from a other attacks in Afghanistan, which usually involves a bombing incident. Passed the sso called BBC-NYT test. Aslo gaining media coverage in Iraq and Pakistan. Amirk94391 (talk) 07:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've tweaked the blurb, suited more to our house style. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Undecided on the merits right now, but does "six dead on both sides" mean 12 dead total(6 on each side) or 6 dead total? 331dot (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I've tweaked the blurb. What do you think of it now? Amirk94391 (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 331dot (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support when article moves to start class - Article is a stub now, so support when it is updated to Start class. Been in the top news for two days now on BBC. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sherenk1: I've added some more contents to the article. I hope you'll now consider it as a Start class article.Amirk94391 (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Have I misread the consensus, or haven't we decided not to include perps in the death count? I'm of the opinion that the fate of a criminal does not belong in the title of an article about his crime. GCG (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The question would then be are the ISIL fighters criminals or combatants. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  For intentional suicide terrorist attacks on civilians the consensus is not to include the perpetrator(s). For conflicts between conventional military forces the consensus is to include all the dead. For everything else there is no absolute consensus I am aware of, so we have to judge what makes most sense in the specific circumstances. In this case it's a matter of opinion whether ISIS fighters are terrorists or a (guerilla) army, so I think it best to just give the total and leave the detail to the article which can use as many words as necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  When I give total number of Tempel Mount shooting. It was considerd wrong. I am wondering what is the difference here. Diplomatic mission are not ussualy considered as a military targed. This is political attack not some military operation. --Jenda H. (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Speaking generally, I'd say embassy attacks fall into the grey area. If the attacked embassy is nowhere near a war zone and operator and host are not currently engaged in the same war elsewhere (e.g. an attack on the Peruvian embassy in Argentina) then it is extremely unlikely to be anything other than a terrorist attack. An attack on an embassy located in a war zone is quite likely (although not always) to be military in nature, particularly if the operating country is involved in that war (e.g. the Russian embassy in Syria). It also depends on the type of attack - if its an air strike then obviously it's military, it it's a car bomb it's almost certainly terrorist or paramilitary. This means that who to include in the death toll needs to be assessed on a case by case basis. Thryduulf (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I don't think this rises above the fray as a terrorist incident, and is borderline on WP:N(E). GCG (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Minor terrorist attack (killed two, in addition to the perpetrators) in a region where terrorist attacks are (sadly) common. I agree with GCG that this is borderline even to have an article. Modest Genius ^talk 12:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Liu Wen-hsiung

Nominator's comments: Taiwanese politician, short but solid article. EternalNomad (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support per the nom, brief but solid. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Referencing looks adequate.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics hosts announced

Nominator's comments: This has been announced as a done deal that will be ratified at the next IOC meeting in Peru. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The IOC's press department—who are not exactly reticent when it comes to self-publicity—don't appear to be aware of this. The linked source itself says that the decision isn't going to be ratified until September. ‑ Iridescent 20:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NBC mentions a statement by Thomas Bach on the IOC website. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, scratch that—the reason I wasn't seeing it is because this story is three weeks old and had already dropped off the front page of their website. Oppose as stale. ‑ Iridescent 20:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's three weeks old why is it hitting the news in the US and France today? 331dot (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. It's trivially easy to demonstrate both that the press release was dated 11 July, and that the story was in the press at that time.[1], [2], [3], [4] ‑ Iridescent 21:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those stories refer to the beginning of the crafting of this agreement, saying that the final decision would be announced in September. Today they announced the agreement ahead of time. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait (Leaning Oppose) - saw this, and was tempted to nominate. However, with the caveat that it is yet to be officially announced, I would wait for such an eventuality to post. Besides, articles need significant work to get up to standard anyway. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute the quality issues but how much more official can it get than the head of the IOC announcing this? 331dot (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The official step will be the formal elections at the 131st IOC Session. Merely coronations now but still the point when we should post. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll point out that the ITNR listing only states "announcement". In the past that has been after the IOC vote, but they decided to do something different this time. The formal vote will likely get far less attention now. The vote has been described as a 'ratification' which suggests the decision will not change. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the ratification refers to the cities giving their assent. Abductive (reasoning) 06:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Bach was referring to the upcoming IOC meeting.(see the Reuters story). Both cities are already excited and celebrating this deal. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait (Leaning Support) - Unusual dual allocation so worthy of publication. But wait till the deal is official between the three parties, IOC, Paris bid committee and LA bid committee, some time in August. I know we are close, LA has declared their candidacy for 2028, but I would like formal statement from IOC that 2024 is Paris and 2028 is LA. Meanwhile, please upgrade the articles, especially 2028. Hektor (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support now, pending quality updates Can you imagine how ridiculous it would look to post this months after it was known? It's extremely unlikely the "official" vote will even get much press. We're going to be getting "stale" votes. GCG (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But this news is already stale. I say wait until it's a done deal. Abductive (reasoning) 02:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a done deal. The 'ratification' being described for September suggests that the IOC voters won't be making the decision anymore, but agreeing to this agreement. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it seems like it is a done deal. Abductive (reasoning) 02:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not stale. The prior report indicated that the finalists for 24 & 28 were LA and Paris because no other quality bids were made. It was also stated that, logically, one city would get 24 and the other 28. In this, there was no great divergence from prior finalists announcements. The actual decision on the host city for each was just announced, so it is new. GCG (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Done deal now. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the games articles are thin, but the bids article is much better. If I were capable of writing a coherent alt-blurb I would, but the bids might make a better bold link. --CosmicAdventure (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No issue with that. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The IOC statement says The IOC will continue to work in close collaboration with Los Angeles in the lead-up to the possible ratification of the tripartite agreement by the full IOC membership at the 131st IOC Session in Lima, Peru, in September 2017. (emphasis mine). I know this is a done deal, but I don't think it's accurate to say the IOC have announced this. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refusing to ratify this would mean no hosts. It's a formality. The decision has been made. Bach certainly qualifies as an IOC representative. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alt blurb suggested. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the alt. In general blurbs should always be technically correct IMO. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as stale per Iridescent. We've known since July 11 that LA and Paris were getting '24 and '28. That was the news story - the first ever double award. I don't think the order in which the two are going is that significant. Also, I doubt when this was added to ITN/R it was envisioned that there would be no other bidders except for the two winners.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm happy for this to post now, with the alt blurb, though I understand the arguments about the timing of this (IOC not thinking of poor ITN editors when they make these announcements, very inconsiderate). If this fails now, I think we can pass this as ITN/R on 13 September when the formal selection/ratification occurs.

Could Bids for the 2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics be linked (maybe as bold) from the word "agreement" in the alt blurb? It contains the relevant details nicely.--LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if it is posted now that it shouldn't be later. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely this is the first time we've had multiple votes each for stale, post, and wait? GCG (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stale and wait alone are certainly a very unusual combination! I certainly can't recall a recent occurrence but The Rambling Man has a much better memory for this sort of thing than I do. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm changing my notvote to Support since this now seems to be a done deal and is being reported in the media to a greater extent. Abductive (reasoning) 02:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Stale] RD: Sam Shepard

Nominator's comments: Playwright, actor, author, Chuck Yeager in The Right Stuff. Hektor (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose—not just paragraphs but entire sections are unreferenced. ‑ Iridescent 17:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – per Iridescent. Huge swaths of unreferenced material here, most apparent in the "Writing and acting" section. Getting this article in shape could be a daunting task. A good start to getting this cleaned up would be to verify his actual "birth name," and then go on from there. Christian Roess (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Sam Shephard died on Thursday, July 27. But his death was announced today (Monday, July 31). And that's across all media sources. Therefore, listing it today is justified, imo. However, in my experience posting to RD/ITN, this has often been a point of contention. So I say we keep it here under the July 31st section. As is. Anyhow, that's my two cents, for what it's worth. Christian Roess (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  This was previously raised, and I believe the consensus was that we need to place this on the date, but we could use a "NEW" tag in the header to draw attention. GCG (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @GreatCaesarsGhost: Is this a very recent consensus? Leonard Cohen's was left on the 10th. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I'm misremembering this, but up in yellow on this page we have "Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC." The "event" for RD would be the death, not the announcement of a death. We could be seen in this case as playing with the dates to keep a big name up (assuming it ever goes up). GCG (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  We had a discussion about this a few months back. The consensus was that where there was a "significant" gap between the event happening and the event being reported that we would take the date of appearance in the earliest reliable sources as the marker for which section it should appear in. IIRC there was no consensus on exactly what "significant" means, but 1-2 days definitely isn't and 5-6 days definitely is. This was about 4 days which falls in the grey area, but personally I'd have placed it on the day of the announcement (31st). The [New] header tag is a much more recent idea, and that can be used to highlight any nomination made in the day before yesterday's section or older (use in yesterday's section is permitted but not encouraged), regardless of why the nomination was made there. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  yes, that makes sense and I go along with that. Also, thanks to GCG for the link to that previous discussion Thyrduulf is referring to. OK, here's my take: This section is called ITN. The question is: when is the RD first "in the news"? Sam Shepard's death was "in the news" on July 31. It was not "in the news" on July 27, the date of Shephard's death. So let's post it under July 31. Next, we don't necessarily use a notability criteria to decide on an RD posting. We evaluate an article's quality first. But let's not ignore that the mainstream media does have a notability criteria for their obits. They do decide which deaths are "notable" deaths, and these are posted promptly. But on the other hand (as often as not) with less notable figures, there can be a lag time for their death announcement. And that lag times shows up in the RD nomination process. Here's a rather stark, but recent example: Sterling Seagrave. According to this source, Seagrave died on May 1, 2017 (see here: Verso: Sterling Seagrave 1937-2017). But his death was only announced 3 days ago (July 31). Right now, Seagrave's Wikipedia article has not been updated since he died. But if it is revised, and meets our quality standard, shouldn't we list his RD nomination under the July 31 banner? Of course. This seems to be the point Thryduulf is making: that's a "significant" gap. But how about posting the nomination today? I say that should be a consideration, because we still don't have Seagrave's obituary notice via any mainstream media sources. And the only obit source is from his daughter, which has been posted at Seagrave's publisher's website. Christian Roess (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  For a notice of a death, a close family member (who is not estranged and not in a dispute with the (allegedly) deceased) posting on a publisher's website is usually going to be sufficiently reliable. It's not independent, but that requirement is not the most important for verification of objective facts. If you do want to make sure, then look for coverage in local newspapers in the area where he lived and/or died. If they all report the death on 31 July then put the nomination on that date (mark it [New]). If there is nothing other than the publisher before today then put it on today's date, but I suspect that regardless it will be sorted to the 31st if/when added to the template. The oldest currently there is from the 30th so there is still time. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Stale. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Ongoing: 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis

[Stale] RD: Jeanne Moreau

Nominator's comments: French screen icon Sherenk1 (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Lead actress in many landmark French films, such as Diary of a Chambermaid. Hektor (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose her notability is not in question (nor part of this discussion); the article quality is insufficient (e.g. inadequate referencing) for it to be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The article looks fine. Lots of in-line references.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not about how many references there are, not at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Two sections have zero references. --Jayron32 17:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please add CN tags at the end of each sentence where you want a reference?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a BLP, so we should be looking to reference any and all claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of screen space, they were the two largest sections in the whole article, so I'm not sure how you needed guidance in finding them. But OK, they've been appropriately tagged. Add refs for those, and you'll be good. --Jayron32 12:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Stale. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuelan Constituent Assembly

Nominator's comments: Besides being WP:ITNR, it is a polemic election: Decisive event during the Venezuelan protests, more than 14 deaths during the election day, several governments' spokespersons announced that they won't recognize the results and the United States vowed to take action against the election. Jamez42 (talk) 05:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on principle but we need to definitely wait to know what the blurb should be. Far too much claims and misinformation from the two sides in Venezuela as well as other countries (like the US) trying to swing support. It's difficult to discern what the "truth" is here. -MASEM (t) 05:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Added a blurb as well. Maybe too long. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on the merits. This is not ITNR as this isn't a general election or change in head of state, but given the turmoil in Venezuela this does merit posting. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This is not on ITNR and the current blurb isn't neutral either. This could well be an important development in Venezuelan politics, but I think we should wait for the new constitution to be either voted on in a referendum or enacted without one. Forming the constitutional assembly is not in itself the big issue here - that is the constitution that they will produce. Modest Genius ^talk 10:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose An uncontested election in a country on the verge of civil war is not an election. This is an administrative matter that will have no lasting impact, as it's results will be not be acknowledged by the opposition. We rejected a similar vote 11 days ago in the same country for this reason. To post this now would confer legitimacy and show WP:UNDUE preference for Maduro. GCG (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The prior vote was essentially a poll of the populace called by the legislature. This is far more substantive. 331dot (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that opinion pulling shows the NO vote eviscerating the YES vote. A success for YES, especially a large one, would show the boycott held. GCG (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support an important development in the crisis, though obviously we wait till the results are announced. I've added an alt blurb that I think is more neutral. I think it is important to note the boycott in the blurb. I don't know if will make sense to quote the partisan makeup of the elected assembly in the blurb (i.e. "biggest party") like we usually do for parliamentary elections. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The preliminary (and official) results, according to the president of the Electoral Council, are that eight million people voted, meaning a turnout of around 40%; the final results will be very similar. The Public Ministry declared that the official number of deaths at the moment is 10. If possible, I recommend including in the blurb that the election took place among violence. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support I support the topic but, as others have said, the blurb could be improved. I suggest including a reference to the criticism by members of the international community and US sanctions in order to demonstrate newsworthiness.Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Those elections have had international impact. Cambalachero (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Enough supports. Why are we not posting? Sherenk1 (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's been a week since the nomination, the Constituency Assembly was swore in and it had it first session, so I added the Assembly article as article2 and I'll provide some of the highlights this week. I'm not sure about how's the best way to summarize the events in a blurb:

• The Attorney General Luisa Ortega Díaz was removed by the Assembly and Tarek William Saab was named as her replacement.
• Diosdado Cabello declared that the Assembly would take place for two years (meaning that the new constitution may take this long to be drafted).
• The European Union, Mercosur, the Organization of American States and the Holy See and several states condemned the election.
• Nicolás Maduro becomes the fourth head of state sanctioned by the United States along with Kim Jong Un, Robert Mugabe and Bashar al-Assad.
• Over 10 deaths during the election day.
• Smartmatic, the provider of the electoral machines, declared that the results were tampered. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Anton Vratuša

Nominator's comments: Yugoslavian and Slovenian politician and diplomat, former PM of Slovenia EternalNomad (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The last sentence of the "Life" section needs a citation, and the article needs at least some mention of what he did between 1980 and his death. Additionally, but not standing in the way of posting, the article could do with expansion and the picture needs a caption. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Added some references. I think it's good to go, though expansion is always possible. After 1980, he was mostly retired from public offices, so no need to go in details on that. --Tone 10:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article meets minimum standards. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - leaning toward weak support. I'm having difficulty with verifying some of the sources. Citation #9 (https://www.gzs.si/pripone/ec+diplomacy+31_5.pdf) is the most glaring, with a 404 gateway error. But it does seem to be close to meeting minimum standards. Christian Roess (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Fixed the reference with another one, the SAZU biography. Posting. --Tone 08:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: iPod nano

[Stale] RD: John G. Morris

Nominator's comments: Long time photo editor for Life, NYT. GCG (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose The article is in good shape overall, but in the award section there are two cn tags and two dead sources. A good clean-up sourcing in that section and I'll give this nomination my support. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the "awards" section could be turned into prose in the "career" section. I also think the prose in the "publications" section could be moved to the "Career" section.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose lead is too weak, referencing is far too poor. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Stale. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Paul Shanley

[Posted to RD] RD: Charlie Gard

Nominator's comments: Highly publicised death following extended legal battle in the United Kingdom between the parents and the staff of Great Ormond Street Hospital. Posting as Charlie Gard would be fine, as it is a direct redirect to the nominated article. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'd like to see a bit more sourcing in the opening paragraph under medical background, but overall the article is in decent shape and meets our standards. Memory eternal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, dead person does not have a standalone article, so cannot meet RD rules. Abductive (reasoning) 19:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - if the word case at the end of the title inhibits what is a (formerly) BLP and servicable article from being listed at RD and ITN, should I boldly move the page? It was previously located at Charlie Gard, but was moved per a talk page discussion to the current title to fit with the consensus established by Ashya King case and Terri Schiavo case per naming convention. Thoughts? Stormy clouds (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what, the word case is at the end for a reason. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of this. As nominator, I support posting it in whatever form you wish to title it. The word case denotes, accurately, that the article is not about Gard in its entirety. However, this would not pass as a blurb, and is in the news. I feel it should be on the main page, the article condition assumed appropriate, rather than holding it back for semantics. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as an RD; deceased does not have an article. and I suspect wouldn't merit one(though his case and the controversy about him does). 331dot (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We made an exception for Ian Brady, so it don't know why we can't do the same here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I did not comment on that discussion but in reviewing it, it seems that some argued that Brady likely merited a standalone article. I am not convinced that Gard does. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Article is well-documented in case is very notable. Death has attracted international coverage. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the case might be notable (in the tabloid press), the individual is not. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then we are very busy, as we have to inform the BBC^[1], The Telegraph^[2], The Guardian^[3], The Chicago Tribune^[4], the Irish Independent^[5], The Irish Time^[6], The Washington Post^[7], Reuters^[8], The Associated Press^[9] The New York Times^[10] and a shed-load of other reputable sources that they have all been arbitrarily demoted to tabloid status by an IP editor on Wikipedia. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Per previous comment and that of 331. A tear-jerker for sure, but that's all. Sca (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Support invoking WP:IAR re lack of stand-alone article. Mjroots (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also support blurb if that is the only way this will get posted.Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - a death that has been in the news. People will be looking for this article. The name will be conspicuous by omission if left off the RD section. Arguments over whether this technically meets the RD criteria seem pedantic. If this is technically excluded from RD then we've encountered a rule that prevents us from improving/maintaining Wikipedia. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment yet but I need to stress that "People will be looking for this article." is not a valid reason for ITN. We are not a news ticker or a newspaper so people coming here expecting to find news stories are using WP wrong. We do want to highlight articles of good quality that are also in the news as to help draw interested editors to help improve further, though. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ITN#Purpose - One of the stated purposes of ITN is "to help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". I may be interpreting this in an incorrect manner (and am fully open to constructive admin criticism for doing so), but it seems to support User:LukeSurl. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support demonstrably global news and certainly fulfilling one of the ITN tenets of featuring items our readers would be looking for, medical conditions and legal cases make it even more encyclopeically valuable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I see the coverage and that the article is in good shape, and I don't see a problem with having an RD for a person that doesn't have a standalone article on principle. But the counterissue that the child never got past a year, so there's clearly nothing about him as a person that we can document, which becomes similar to the situation around putting Stubbs the cat in RD. Alternatively if we think of this as a blurb about a significant case over treatment rights in the UK, the problem is that there doesn't appear to be anything groundbreaking here yet to change the law or challenge that (something more akin to the creation of the AMBER Alert - we'd not have noted the death of Amber, but this would be more appropriate). And then one has to ask how many other such challenges like this happen out there and why this one is special to have this much news coverage. Hence my neutrality here, I could see this as a valid thing to post but also can see it problematic that reflects Western media bias. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, this is a time I need to remind the admins; no vote counting, judge it by the arguments. This case does not meet RD qualifications, there is no lasting impact, and it is a tabloid story. Abductive (reasoning) 22:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive: - Judging by the arguments, all three of these complaints can be addressed with relative ease. Multiple editors have invoked WP:IAR, which trumps RD qualifications. There is the same amount of lasting impact for this RD as there are for most, if not all, others - someone is dead. Finally, consult the cornucopia of non-tabloid, reputable sources added above in my response to a similar complaint. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The no lasting impact thing proves that this is tabloid story. Multiple users are wrong, and the reason why is that they think like tabloids. Abductive (reasoning) 00:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to make a couple of points. First Charlie Gard absolutely would pass WP:ANYBIO. The only reason he doesn't have his own article is for the very good and practical reason that it is easier to fold it all into the broader discussion of his legal case. Secondly there is precedent for posting people to RD in such situations as we recently did in the case of the notorious serial killer Ian Brady. I concur that this should not be the norm, but this does seem like one of those situations where WP:COMMONSENSE should prevail. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No, he would not pass anybio, as he fails WP:BLP1E. Abductive (reasoning) 00:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per TRM and Ad Orientem. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD per IAR. With everyone from Trump to the Pope weighing in, this is a truly international story and the article is good. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Pawnkingthree and TRM. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 08:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Certainly meets the requirements. Rest in heavenly peace. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TDKR Chicago 101: whether you support or oppose this, it does not meet the requirements for an automatic RD entry as there is no article that is solely a biography of the person who died. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Covered in international media, I would dispute the claim it doesn't have a lasting impact- there's a BBC article at the moment entitled Charlie Gard: A case that changed everything, which as the title suggests lays out the likely lasting impact of the case, including the impact to the reputation of GOSH, the impact of digital media and the court battle. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If this is posted, it should be as a blurb and not RD, as it is the event of his death and the controversy regarding him that is notable, leaving aside the fact he has no standalone article.331dot (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as RD If the supporters feel this event is so notable that it needs to be posted, judge it on its merits as a blurb. What we are trying to do is squeeze a story that does not merit a blurb under the very low standard of an RD. Fine; but RD does have standards, which is that the person has to be notable enough to have an article. This is a clear cut case of WP:1E. RS are perfectly capable of posting tabloid stories, which is what this. We do not post everything that appears in RS, per WP:KARDASHIAN. GCG (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't necessarily call it a tabloid story, but definitely a case of media bias to pick up on one specific case where there was issues over parental control of treatment options over the hospital/government side, which is something that happens all the time. Why this case got called out of many, I don't know, but we should avoid catering to that. (In the states, we had a similar problem with Death of JonBenét Ramsey, in which most recognized that the only reason the case got as much media attention was that the family was white and affluent. I don't know/can't tell if that's the case here, but that's also not the only reason). --MASEM (t) 16:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tabloid implies lurid or vulgar sensationalism. Debate related to the end-of-life law is fair game. When we pick up one case and make it the center of repeated and outsized coverage, it quickly becomes lurid and vulgar. GCG (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -it now appears that, aside from the RD nomination, there is a further debate as to whether or not this merits a blurb. Would such a debate procedurally necessitate a new nom, or would it occur here? Stormy clouds (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need a new discussion. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD, neutral on blurb. This child has generated more coverage and controversy than any of us likely will. His death is undoubtedly 'in the news', and at this stage no one seems to be arguing about the quality of the article title. The fact that a congenitally ill child who made international news has a brief personal biography seems beside the point. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it's pretty clear there's a well argued consensus in favour of at least RD, so let's post that ASAP, and we'll see what happens about a blurb. Unnecessary accusations of tabloid-brains have been proven suitably ridiculous as this has been covered in RS and globally. The debate here also should focus on the fact that we have an article, we have a precedent, we have no reason not to post this under the current criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted as RD. I read a consensus in favor of posting, though certainly not universal approval. Much of the disagreement (though not all) centers on the lack of a standalone article for Charlie Gard. The current RD rules allow any person with a stand-alone article to be posted without regards to notability / significance provided their article is of sufficient quality. However, to my mind, there is nothing about the current rules that prohibit posting at RD for individuals who lack a stand-alone article, provided a consensus exists to do so, but such persons won't automatically qualify for posting. I suppose if someone wants to view this as an exercise of IAR then they are free to do so. It is certainly in keeping with the spirit of IAR that one shouldn't let inflexible rules stand in the way of improving the encyclopedia. Dragons flight (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Although I disagree with the decision, I must commend the elocution of the judgement. Thanks for taking the time, @Dragons flight:. GCG (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm late to this discussion, but I completely agree with Dragons flight's decision and reasoning. I've been rather disgusted by the relentless and disproportionate tabloid coverage, but RD is the correct place for this. Modest Genius ^talk 10:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Stale] RD: Inder Kumar

Nominator's comments: Indian Actor Sherenk1 (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The article needs expanding - there are only two prose sections, "Controversy" and "Death." What about his life before 2014? On the plus side it's nice to have a fully referenced filmography for once.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC) I still have concerns; see below. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support post artcle expansion Regards, theTigerKing  18:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Article needs a little more sourcing. There are three or four cn tags. Should be easy to source. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - All cn tags now gone, article looks good.--Stemoc 01:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not ready to support yet. I feel the lengthy Controversy section may be WP:UNDUE. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, I'm trying to rework it. There's a lot of fluff in there, but I'm noting he was granted bail within two months, but no mention of a trial? GCG (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose I think the volume of the "controversies" section gives it undue weight, the rest of the article seems okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Stale. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Pakistan PM court verdict

Article: Panama Papers case (Pakistan) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Based on the Supreme Court verdict relating to Panama Papers, Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (pictured) is forced to resign on corruption allegations. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Supreme Court of Pakistan delivers a verdict in a case filed following the Panama Papers leak, forcing Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (pictured) to resign.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Pakistan's Supreme Court has disqualified Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from holding public office following an investigation into corruption allegations.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The Supreme Court of Pakistan disqualifies Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from holding public office following a corruption investigation.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif resigned after the Supreme Court of Pakistan disqualification verdict.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

• Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Amirk94391 (talk · give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Notable. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support disqualification of a Prime Minister is really huge news. I would support it for ITNR.Amirk94391 (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on signficance (if the Prime Minister of Pakistan is head of state this might be ITNR) but I'm not a fan of the blurb - can it be more succinct? I haven't evaluated the article. Thryduulf (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on significance, wait until the article is brought into shape. I share Thryduulf's concerns about the blurb, and have proposed an alternative. Article has sentences and paragraphs lacking references, and suffers from an over-reliance on primary and/or out of date sources in several cases. The lead, for instance, does not reflect this verdict as I am writing this. Vanamonde (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it's only "head of government" but I'd still support it for ITNR. Banedon (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding and support alt 3. Banedon (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt blurb. PM forced to resign due to improper activity is notable. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note relates to Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/July_2017#.5BClosed.5D_Calibri_font_in_.22Fontgate.22. --Saqib (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on significance, as the removal of a PM from office is notable. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 08:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Supportper LukeSurl. Mjroots (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Hang on a moment We've gotten a string of supports here, but the fact remains that there are statements in the article, including statements about living people, without sources. We should not post unless and until these have been addressed. Vanamonde (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: which statements are you referring to ? please point out so that I fix them without any delay.--Saqib (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: After a brief look: most of "opposition response", and a number of sentences in "Before the Supreme Court". Vanamonde (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: what do you think of it now? [7]. --Saqib (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: the article seems to be alright. I think it should be posted now without any delay.Amirk94391 (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not fantastic, but better now, certainly. Vanamonde (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support If there were issues with article per Vanamonde, I don't see them now, and this is clearly of significance (a sitting world leader being forced to resign). --MASEM (t) 13:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Masem.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

• Support – Head of government of the world's most populous democracy quits. Sca (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since when? Thought they had less than 1.32 billion people of India Regards, theTigerKing  17:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support should be posted by now! --Saqib (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Significant development. Should be posted without further delay! Blurb - Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif resigns following the Supreme Court's disqualification verdictRegards, theTigerKing  17:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Marked as ready. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This seems to have already been decided, but I'll toss in a wholehearted support for what it's worth. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't this been posted? Sca (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Surprising that this article was ready with enough support some 10 hours ago and still not posted? Sherenk1 (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted blurb. Yes, I voted, but this has been ready for a while, and has unanimous support. Attention needed on the image. The last time I posted an image I fracked it up, so I'm just going to pass the buck on that. Vanamonde (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Thryduulf: You seem to be around: would you be willing to switch the image? Vanamonde (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Never mind, handling it elsewhere, since response time here has been very slow in the past few days. Vanamonde (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've only just seen this ping. Due to illness I've got limited concentration available today, so I'm not undertaking complex admin tasks at the moment. Sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Jeff Bezos

[Posted] RD: D. L Menard

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Looks to be fully-referenced and ready to go. Christian Roess (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Support 45 rpm section is cited from discogs, which I believe is a wiki. Otherwise good. GCG (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GreatCaesarsGhost:: Discodogs is a website that lists all of his music work and it not a wiki. To avoid any opposition, I have added new sources to the section including obits. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ALBUMAVOID lists discogs among "Websites with user-generated content" that "should never be used as sources." But with the changes this is now good to go. GCG (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support Everything is referenced and it looks good to go to me!Zigzig20s (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Stale] RD: June Foray

Nominator's comments: Unfortunately, in terms of roles (of which she had many) much is unsourced, though I see a few "overarching" sources that could be used [11] [12] that can help. MASEM (t) 04:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose prose and tables need more references. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But dahlink, who needs references ven you haf tcharm? – Sca (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unfortunately, lack of refs. Aiken D 21:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Stale. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Nitish Kumar

[Ready] 2017 Gujarat flood

 Vanamonde (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. Much like the China floods that were nominated not too long ago, this is the monsoon season in that area and this sort of flooding doesn't seem unusual. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Due to the number of people killed. Article looks good and well sourced. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a disaster of this magnitude generally mandates a blurb. Article seems well sourced, though is probably at the minimum detail required. Regularity of event doesn't really sway me, as, for example, we post details destructive hurricanes even though an annual hurricane season is predictable of itself. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I tried to find some historical figures to weigh how common this is, but failed. To LukeSurl's point, there is a difference between regularity and predictability. If we start posting natural disasters on ITN every week, we'd have to reevaluate our standards. But that is not a problem yet. GCG (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• With 3 support and one weak oppose, this seems good enough for an admin to make the call. Marking ready. GCG (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: While the article has enough content, it needs a good amount of copyediting. It currently reads quite clunkily. Trying to do some of that myself, but some of the information is not presented in a format that's easy to understand for readers (for example, The Banaskantha, Patan, Gandhinagar, Morbi, Surendranagar, Mehsana and Sabarkantha received 267%, 208%, 189%, 174%, 172%, 130% and 115% rainfall respectively in the said period.) Spencer^T♦C 18:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Spencer: fair point. I've made an effort to copy-edit, though in all honesty part of the problem is with the source material itself; hasty reporting in smaller English newspapers in south Asia tends to mean that grammar goes out the window. Vanamonde (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Renominated mistakenly. Already reverted. 200+ death is significant. Considered as the “the worst flood of the century”[13] in north Gujarat by state Chief Minister as the north Gujarat receives little rain in most years. Highlights changing climate.--Nizil (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Transgender ban in US military

[Closed] 2017 CONCACAF Gold Cup

[Posted] RD: Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu

Nominator's comments: Couple of unferenced statements, but generally in decent shape. Vanamonde (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support yes, a couple of refs needed, otherwise just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs added, FYI. Vanamonde (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Live album release and some of the Career claims aren't referenced still. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess it wasn't: I had assumed, incorrectly, that it was in the following ref. The content is not to be found in mainstream refs after a quick search, so removed. Vanamonde (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and marking ready, article is good to go. Bencherlite^Talk 11:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @ posting admin: in your place, I'd IAR and remove Bob DeMoss, which has been on the main page for a couple of days, instead of Jim Vance, which I just posted. Vanamonde (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Comment. I was just about to post this but I got an edit conflict with Vanamonde93 adding Jim Vance. As Vance would be displaced by Yunupingu adding him now feels a bit pointy, so I'll leave Vance up there for a few hours before posting this (unless someone beats me to to it). Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See my comment above, Thryduulf. Vanamonde (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't we just add a second line? That is done occasionally, no? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Before anyone posts, it might be worth considering Australian Aboriginal avoidance practices regarding avoidance of naming the dead. Note that the BBC source given, and the main Australian media sources, are referring to him as "Dr G Yunupingu" rather than the full name that is the title of his article. Does this affect how, or whether, his name should appear in RD? Neegzistuoja (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it merits discussion, and with this READY so soon after death, there's little harm in waiting 6 hours for comment. My vote is to post per WP:WIAE. We post images of Mohammad, the article for Emperor Shōwa is entitled "Hirohito." I totally respect the argument, but without wiping the entry as well, what's the point? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually those are false equivalencies. A better example is Madonna/Bono. I support this suggestion and think we should change title of article, with full name in the first line. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for being sensitive, but it's not possible for us to list this on the MP without using his name, in one form or another. That article suggests that any form of the name - not just the full one - would have to be avoided. I think WP:NOTCENSORED has to apply - we don't avoid using a neutral and factual phrase on the MP just because a certain group of people might find it objectionable. Modest Genius ^talk 17:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Article says DOD is 7/25, not 7/26. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted, replacing DeMoss as requested above. Unfortunately there is no way to not name the person in RD to meet cultural requirements. Stephen 03:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Ongoing: 2017 World Aquatics Championships

[Closed] Ongoing: 2017 Temple Mount crisis

[Closed] Adobe Flash no longer updated

[Posted] RD: Barbara Sinatra

Nominator's comments: Fourth wife of Frank Sinatra Sherenk1 (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Is she really notable in her own right?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  AFD is the place to ask that. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  While the article is not particularly extensive, she would likely to pass GNG on her charitable works alone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose CN. She's had some celebrity derived from her association with Frank, but distinct in several ways (and since his death as well) noted in RS. There is this thing that happens where obscure RD noms get one support vote (from the reliable TRM) and no other support or oppose, and then they fall off. There are enough editors wandering these parts that abstention on the simple question of quality seems to me like a de facto vote of "obscure." GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC) UPDATE - I removed the movie with the CN which is so negligible that RT has zero reviews for it. - GCG - 18:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The "Legacy and portrayals" section needs more citations (the ref at the end of the paragraph verifies only the last sentence), but when that is fixed it will be good to post. A more extensive article would be significantly desirable, but what's there is enough (just). Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now sufficiently referenced. Still wouldn't mind more depth though. Thryduulf (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Bencherlite^Talk 13:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Lahore suicide bombing

Nominator's comments: Significant number of deaths in a notable city. The blast is getting media coverage across Pakistan and many other countries. Passes the so-called BBC test. Amirk94391 (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose By my count, this is the tenth attack in Pakistan this year with a double-digit death toll (excluding perps). Tragic, but unfortunately veering towards normal. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per GCG. Terrorist attack in a area known for terrorism. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support - the article looks good, and the death toll is significant. - EugεnS¡m¡on 20:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Article looks good. Quite a number of people died. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Death toll tragically high, enough that we should post even given that the area is prone to violence. Article in decent shape. Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if it's not notable enough, then the article should be redirected. As it stands, it seems perfectly notable and super tragic. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No sign this item is actually "In the news" (beyond the obligatory wire service articles reporting that a bomb went off and X people died). --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That is patently untrue. In addition to the BBC and the Pakistani news sources above, the story has been covered by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, by Al Jazeera, by The Hindu (among the better English newspapers in India), and the New York Times. This is very much a story of international importance. Vanamonde (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, it's a routine bombing in Pakistan, and all the articles cited are boiler plate 3 paragraph "This happened, this many people died, we think it was this islamist group". I don't care about "international importance" but unless I actively search for the story, I don't see it any place. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This wasn't even the deadliest attack of the day. 36 were killed in Kabul. Another 35 in Ghar the day before. These were not even nominated. "If you think those were notable, you can nominate them." Yeah, and then I'm being pointy. We're going to need to work this out sooner rather than later. GCG (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Article meets ITN standards quality-wise and there is consensus to post. Spencer^T♦C 18:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Sun Zhengcai investigation

[Closed] Balangiga bells

[Posted] RD: Flo Steinberg

Nominator's comments: Comic publisher. Article looks OK. LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose several statements without reference in this BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Which ones? Could you add ((cn)) where you think referencing is needed. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• One of those statements has been removed, the other referenced. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, gets my support and is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I see one CN but it seems from context that it was from the prior cited interview. Would certainly be nice to note a woman in a man's field, though I know that's not the point. On balance, I think the article is well-cited. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Bencherlite^Talk 11:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: John Kundla

Nominator's comments: 5-time NBA Champion GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support Minneapolis Lakers section has an unreferenced paragraph. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

got that one, don't see any other concerns. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Does his head coaching record need sourcing? Just a question.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so. Added citations for the NBA & NBL, college is cited already. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and marking ready, citations done. Bencherlite^Talk 11:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Vanamonde (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Bob DeMoss

Nominator's comments: High-profile college football player and coach with legendary career at Perdue University. Article well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support for a "legendary career", it's very brief, but adequately referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Rambling Man: I have expanded the career section using sources. If more must be expanded to demonstrate his "legendary" career, I am waiting for more obits to be published to have a variety of sources throughout the article. I think for now it should be expanded well enough using the resources I had. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Appears to be well referenced. Is "Perdue" a misspelling or an earlier name of the school? It successfully redirects, FWIW. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Embassy attack in Amman

Nominator's comments: Attacks on embassies is not common in Jordan. Article still needs to be updated as possible connection with recent tensions at Jerusalem Sherenk1 (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, fallout from events at the Temple Mount/al-Aqsa Mosque which were not posted. Does not deserve an article, let alone being on the Front Page. Abductive (reasoning) 05:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as Abductive notes, we didn't get close to posting the Temple Mount issue, so this one is a non-starter. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's also not a shooting: "Israel's foreign ministry said a Jordanian attacked a security guard with a screwdriver in a residential building used by the embassy." The security guard may have fired back in self-defense, but that's it. At best, this is a domestic crime and shouldn't even be an article. --MASEM (t) 06:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the above. Vanamonde (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Do reconsider as it is being reported as "one of the most serious incidents between the two countries since they signed a peace treaty in 1994" and is leading to a diplomatic crisis. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait. This could be an issue if it degenerates further (and also if it is accurate that embassy staff are not being permitted to leave, essentially being held as hostages) but I don't feel it is yet. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Although perhaps not the embassy attack, but I think that something needs to be posted regarding the Israeli-Palestinian tensions. The situation there has escalated considerably since the 2017 Temple Mount shooting 10 days ago, and what is happening there now definitely does not look like par for the course. There was the initial shooting, then Israel installed metal detectors at the Temple Mount; the muslims in protest started boycotting the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the 3-d holiest site in Islam; the Palestinian authority suspended all cooperation with Israel, and there have been several deadly stabbing attacks, including the embassy one. That's far from business as usual, even for that part of the world. Nsk92 (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nsk92: if there is a single article that covers these events then it's worth considering a nomination to Ongoing. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: This article seems to match for ongoing news, 2017_Temple_Mount_crisis Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2017 Open Championship