[Posted] RD: James Rosenquist

 —MBlaze Lightning ^T 11:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. For what's a top twenty list of Pop art icons without his name on it? That would be a total fail. --Bagoto (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is fine. Pictures have been a snagging point for RD noms lately.128.214.163.208 (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support too many external links but article content is satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 03:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Gilbert Baker

 – Muboshgu (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It would be nice to add his picture, if anyone has one.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing available via Free Image Search Tool. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked someone who may have one to upload it, but haven't heard back yet. By the way, we are citing his own website in three instances, which should be avoided. Is there a way to replace this with an RS please?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only one instance now. Perhaps we could just remove the sentence?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have a picture now.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Article seems to be in good shape. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Article is in good shape. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 06:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article in good shape for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Mike Hall

Nominator's comments: Cyclist extraordinaire, died near completion of extreme marathon event while in 2nd place. Kevin McE (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose mostly unreferenced or abuse of external links interwoven inline into the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at the moment due to referencing issues. If referencing issues are fixed, I will support. Capitalistroadster (talk)
• Support, seems well referenced. Don't see any abuse. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  It applied to a version of the article five days ago, which was edited here to remove the embedded external links. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  So not sure why still any oppose. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Interstate 85 bridge collapse

[Closed] Falcon 9 reused

[Posted] Dissolution of Venezuelan legislature

Nominator's comments: Described by NY Times as a step closer to a dictatorship in Venezuela, and condemned as a coup by many. EternalNomad (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose latter sections entirely unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support major unexpected development with serious consequences. International reactions are coming in as well as domestic ones. I've expanded National_Assembly_(Venezuela)#Removal_of_powers to hopefully an adequate length. Note that this is an effective but not literal dissolution, so the altblurb should be used. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per TRM. No citations in the "1961 Constitution", "1999 Constitution", "Structure and Powers" sections, additional cites needed for the "Political composition" section. Improve those issues and I would support this. --Jayron32 00:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per LukeSurl. To quote the CNN article, "The ruling sent shock waves across the region. The Peruvian government broke off diplomatic relations with Venezuela over the matter, recalling Mariano López Chávarry, its ambassador to Caracas". Banedon (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per LukeSurl on importance. Quality isn't there yet. (Would probably argue that this deserves a separate article.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per TRM/Jayron, only on article quality. This is clearly something that should be at ITN, but the article needs a lot of fixing up, and following Ed, perhaps should be a separate article in the long-term (though that make take a lot more time). --MASEM (t) 02:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support after fixing article - As per above arguments. Sherenk1 (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• A standalone article has been created at 2017 Venezuelan self-coup d'état, and is already extensive. This avoids the sourcing issues with the National Assembly (Venezuela) article. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Still oppose the stand-alone article on the following issues 1) first paragraph on Background section lacks sourcing. 2) Outside of lead, NONE of the events of the actual Coup d'Etat are discussed at all. Indeed, outside of one sentence in a very short lead section, there is NO discussion of the events of the coup. The main body's last mentioned event is "a 7 February 2017 meeting" We'd need an entire new section to give the chronology and details of the dismissal by the judiciary. We have none of that yet. Still needs expansion before it is ready. --Jayron32 11:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Support coup article now. Currently in sufficient shape for posting. Thanks to all who expanded it. --Jayron32 00:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support It needs a little expansion and there is a CN tag. But otherwise this is major news that needs to be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is no longer a stub and has some substance. International recognition has occurred, especially among controversy with OAS states.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Slide toward dictatorship is a major story and the article is now of sufficient quality.Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support AltBlurbII and the self-coup article that it focuses on, but without the last bit about dictatorship (leave it up to the reader to come to that conclusion). --Tocino 04:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is still a CN tag but otherwise it looks good. Fix the tag and I think we can post this. Side note- the article was briefly locked due to some POV Edit/Move warring. I have lowered the PP to extended confirmed and will be keeping an eye on it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Article and blurb may need updating prior to posting. Fuebaey (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This is a rapidly evolving situation. It appears the Venezuelan Supreme Court is backpeddling on its decision after enormous international condemnation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added altblurb III. Fuebaey (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ready The article now looks to be in good shape now. I am going to suggest that the posting admin adjust the blurb to reflect recent developments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I suggest changing it to something like "The Venezuelan Supreme Court strips the National Assembly of legislative power in a move widely described as a "self-coup". After, internal criticism, the ruling was reversed." Some called it a dictatorship move, but a more neutral description that is being used is an attempted "self-coup".--ZiaLater (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 01:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Arrest of Park Geun-hye

[Closed] RD: Alexei Abrikosov

[Posted] United Kingdom invocation of Article 50

Nominator's comments: Notable. Will start reactions. Sherenk1 (talk)

• Support if and once it happens (far as I can tell, it hasn't happened yet). This has been lingering in the background for quite some time, and will likely be in the news for a while longer. Adding a blurb. Banedon (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this should be posted at 12:30 p.m. today when Tusk receives the letter. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Rambling Man: That will be 11:30 (UTC) correct? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep. The end of the Union is nigh... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Major political event, possibly the start of the collapse of the EU. Mjroots (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The major world papers are covering it. Although it's been sort of inevitable since the referendum result, much like Trump's inauguration it's still headline news.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this is the 3rd time this story would reach ITN. And there is going to be another nomination for the actual exit. Four entries for basically the same story is excessive. Nergaal (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep, the fourth one will be in two years time. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the second time was a month ago. Nergaal (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to the second nomination? I only remember the first, and can't find the second after searching the February archives. Banedon (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1st in June 2016, 2nd on January 26, 2017. Nergaal (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, more than two months ago then? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I opposed the 2nd nomination, but it was posted anyway (and the fact that the objection at the time was overcome in two months says something about how it shouldn't have been posted ...). Still, having posted that isn't a very good argument against posting this - after all, this is the significant event that the 2nd nomination was referring to. Banedon (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I am surprised nobody mentioned that the current update is just one sentence long. Nergaal (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think since the entire article is dealing with the invocation of Article 50, and is in very good condition, it's just fine as it is! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Such major and far-reaching geopolitical shifts do not come along very often. - The Bounder (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yes, this is the third major news related to the same story, but it is not less significant than the previous two. The news enjoys popularity and is widely covered in the media, which easily meets our notability requirements. I'd also support the news pertaining to the actual exit once it happens in two years from now.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Should we add to the blurb that the pound has fallen drastically?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  No, because it hasn't. Or at least if it did, it has rebounded!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. Good luck to all of you editors across the pond. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting Support. It may have featured before but this time it's the big one. It's really happening now...--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose posting until something actually happens (ie they leave the EU), as per our normal non-UK news practices. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Not going to recommend pulling but will voice my Oppose. This is the start of a process (the signature on a letter) that will take many months/years to complete, and thus far too early in the situation to be at ITN. When the withdrawl is actually complete, then that was the appropriate point for posting. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely "in the news" all over the world though.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just being in the news is not a metric for inclusion; it's a minimum requirement but there are plenty of other factors to avoid having stories keep popping up over and over and over again (the same logic about being in the news means we should have a daily Trump ITN entry for all matters, and no, that's not going to happen). And historically, on things like this, where we know the end result (when the UK withdraw from the EU is completed) will definitely be a major bit of news, we generally wait on posting until all the red tape is resolved. We posted when the vote to affirm Brexit happened, we posted that the last internal legal challenge in the UK court was resolved assuring this was going forward, and so the next major point is either the completion of the process, or if there is some significant legal huddle from outside the UK that might stop it (I dunno if there is or not). --MASEM (t) 14:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was a major point in the process, however. This was the point of no return that begins the withdrawal process. At any point before the receipt of the letter, the UK could have decided to do nothing, and Brexit would have not happened. The letter is the trigger that initiates the process, and for that reason, it receives the attention. It wasn't a mere formality, it literally is the only event that actually matter to start the withdrawal process. --Jayron32 14:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, it feels like any of these points already posted were points of no return, given 1) the referendum vote result and 2) the intention by the PM to follow through on it, only hampered by the need to pass Parliamentary law to enable it. That this was signed was effectively no surprise, once that law passed. I agree that in the overall timeline of Brexit, this letter is a critical date as the official start of the process, but we have to be a bit more selective to avoid every step of this otherwise major ITN-appropriate process from being blurbed every time something happens. I'm not asking for anything to be pulled, there was clear consensus to post, but I'm concerned there's not long-term thinking going on here with Brexit in ITN, hence my oppose. (Whereas we have taken extremely great strides with things like the Syrian civil war or the US presidental election to post the very key highlights) --MASEM (t) 15:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that this is one of the very key highlights. Assuming that the UK actually does leave the EU (whether it is possible to withdraw an article 50 notification is not clear in the legislation), this is one of the four most important points: from most to least important: Referendum result, leaving, triggering of article 50, passing to legislation to enable article 50 be triggered. Four stories in 2¾ years is hardly excessive in my view. Thryduulf (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this is the key moment. Everything that preceded it and everything that follows it is somewhat irrelevant now. We can't go back and we are on a destined path. It's unique, it's something that could destroy both the United Kingdom and the European Union. So it's notable. Of course I understand that those outside this tiny blob "off of France" may not quite grasp it. But that's not relevant I'm afraid. It's in the news, it has strong consensus and it's here to stay. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is there any merit to noting Proposed second Scottish independence referendum within this? I don't know that it warrants it's own ITN bullet, but perhaps merging it with this? --Natural R_X 14:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  When it becomes a formal proposal, I'd say we should consider it. --Jayron32 15:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd oppose that, even if it becomes a formal proposal. Per longstanding precedent, we don't post the initiation of referendums, only the results. Banedon (talk) 05:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Those above saying that the referendum was the key moment are missing the point; that was a purely advisory referendum which carried no legal powers, and the government was perfectly free to disregard it had they so wished. (Catalonia voted to withdraw from Spain in 2014 yet remains singularly non-independent; except in a few places like California and Ireland where they're written into the law, governments are under no obligation to respect referendum results.) The formal triggering of Article 50 is the declaration of independence; 12:30 today was when Brexit—and consequently the near-certain dissolution of the UK—went from "something that is likely to happen" to "something that is certain to happen". ‑ Iridescent 19:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2888 months later.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 2017 Broadband Consumer Privacy Proposal repeal

[Posted] RD: Ahmed Kathrada

Nominator's comments: A prominent anti-apartheid activist. Article is in OK state, updated after his death. HaEr48 (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose several unreferenced claims, bare URLs need to be fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Went through the article and added references when needed. Also fixed the bare URLs. HaEr48 (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imprisonment and Awards sections still lacking refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gave it another round. Fixed those sections as well, removed some unsourced statements, and added some pictures. HaEr48 (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Provisional support conditional on problems with article identified by The Rambling Man being fixed. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — looks good to go. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 15:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 01:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: David Storey

 —MBlaze Lightning ^T 03:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Why is this person's death considered in the news? The fact that a person has an article does not make his death notably in the news. The nominator should explain this. ITN is not an obituary, and that a dead person has an article does not make him ipso facto "in the news". μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Medeis: You are aware of the consensus we've been working under for a good while now? The one that's mentioned in the nomination template? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I always like to be spanked. Unfortunately, the RfC held that having an article establishes the decedent's notability. But what matters here is whether the death is notable; whether it is a notable death. Dozens of people who have articles about them die daily, we don't postevery stiff. It is the nominator's duty to show that the "death is in in the news". μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that's not the metric. As long as the death has been verified, and the person was notable, then the RFC says we can post the RD (as long as quality is met). It is not about the death itself being notable. (I do note that to the best I can tell, we have yet to have a case where a notable person's death has only been noted through way of the common "short form obit" used to document the average person's death; all deaths have been documented in at least one long-form obit, such as the NYTimes in this example). --MASEM (t) 05:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suppose what I meant was a widely noted death; I did not mean to imply that an unordinary death was necessary. It behooves the nominator to show this, as well as to justify the nomination in his comments. The RfC certainly does not say that we post any dead person with an article--the nominator has to justify the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.". The Rambling Man (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "in the news"? Well if the BBC, The Guardian, The New York Times, The Spectator, The Times &c. &c. &c. are anything to go by, it's "in the news". A quick Google search demonstrates that perfectly adequately. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose the article needs a bit more, certainly from a reference perspective, and is sadly a little bit weak, but there's little doubting this individual's prominence given the wide and mainstream coverage around the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - There's no question the person is notable. But is the death notable? That notability needs to be verified within the article.--WaltCip (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no such requirement for the "death" to be notable, per the RD RFC. It only needs to be verifiable. (That said, the fact the NYTimes and BBC have a long-form obit leaves no question about the death being notable). --MASEM (t) 16:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD." The Rambling Man (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once the article has been expanded and the lede fleshed out. Notable and all over the newspapers.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once minor improvements are made. Storey was a notable person and his death has received widespread coverage as per Rambling Man. It is quite likely that a notable person's death will receive widespread publicity in their native country and other countries where they are well known. Their death will not be as publicised in other countries as not every notable person is a household name throughout the world. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Cyclone Debbie

No consensus. Stephen 01:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Article: Cyclone Debbie (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Cyclone Debbie (pictured) strikes Queensland, Australia, killing at least one person and causing extensive damage. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:

• Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Typhoon2013 (talk · give credit) and Cyclonebiskit (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Stub as of now but will be expanded as more information comes in. It is being compared to Cyclone Yasi. Sherenk1 (talk)

Done. Though the one for TCs should stay as Current until we see what the page look like when it dissipates. Thank you for this, though. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Too early to tell if this cyclone will be significant enough for an ITN item but worth keeping an eye on. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – on a global level, most major Australian cyclones fall far short of reaching ITN level as they strike largely unpopulated/sparsely populate areas (namely Western Australia) or effective preparations limit loss of life (ex: Cyclone Yasi). Would have to wait a day or two to see if the damage warrants this being posted. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curious: Has an cyclone ever affected a major Australian city that's not Darwin? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagittarian Milky Way: the entire country can be affected by cyclones in one way or another (i.e. Cyclone Alby infamously affected areas around Perth as a non-tropical system). The two largest cities I can think of that are somewhat regularly impacted are Cairns and Mackay. Brisbane has been his multiple times by severe floods related to topical cyclones: 1974, 2010–11, and 2013 are the first three events that come to mind. Western Australia doesn't have any major cities along the cyclone-prone coastline, just towns. But it's the smaller towns that usually suffer the brunt of major cyclones, such as Innisfail in Cyclone Larry. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait until impacts are clearer. Being the largest storm in 2+ years seems potentially noteworthy, but we can't post on potential article content, only actual article content. Once we have the article fleshed out with the impacts, which may include the effectiveness of preparations etc., then we can assess the article. --Jayron32 18:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because the article looks in good shape and because this is a significant storm with at least 1 fatality. Brian Everlasting (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Damage thus far seems to be less than expected, but the storm has been significantly disruptive. The event is still ongoing, however, with torrential rains continuing to fall. Some areas have seen over 1,000 mm (half a year's-worth) in just 48 hours. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose although the article is top notch (as is usually the case with such strong support from the various weather-based Wikiprojects) the impact is not significant at this time. A lot of rain, sadly one fatality, and a lot of inconvenience, but not really rising to the level of ITN blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – I don't see this reaching ITN level with the damage that has already taken place. The worst damage is relatively localized and thankfully there were minimal casualties. Can always be renominated if the flooding proves more notable. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, currently the main national news story in Australia and one of the biggest floods in a long time (decades?), with millions of dollars of damage. Just scrapes into ITN in my opinion. Laurdecl ^talk 05:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – The death toll has risen to five. Laurdecl ^talk 03:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - doesn't rise to the level of significance that we usually require for ITN weather events. Landfalling tropical cyclones almost always dominate the news cycles in their respective regions, and while the damage is widespread, it's not exceptional by any means. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Posted] Hong Kong Chief Executive election

Nominator's comments: Hong Kong "isn't even a country", but it is a SAR. Marking this ITNR as a result. Banedon (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hong Kong isn't a sovereign state. This isn't ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – This not being ITN/R doesn't bother me, as I think it meets ITN standards on its own strength. Hong Kong's political situation has been awkward for the past twenty years and from what I've heard on the Dutch news about this, there are a lot of protests going on regarding this election. The fact that it is getting international attention elevates it to ITN in my opinion. I'd personally change the blurb to mention the allegations of Beijing manipulations rather than the president's gender, however. ~Mable (chat) 07:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Notable. Article looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as written. The Carrie Lam article is tagged for neutrality issues and poor quality standards. The election article is good, but we shouldn't be featuring Lam at all with her article in its current condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - we don't post California's gubernatorial elections either. Nergaal (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is California a communist Special Administrative Region of the United States under a One Country, Two Systems system that doesn't use dollars, drives on the left, uses Fraktur or Blackletter or some other type that mainland Americans find hard to read and has border controls to prevent illegal crossing? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some Americans seem to think so. We do inspect stuff at the border! --47.138.161.183 (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on notability grounds. This isn't ITN/R, but ITN/R states "…dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits.". Hong Kong is a significant, populous, and geopolitically important entity with substantial autonomy and substantial differences from the rest of China (see One Country, Two Systems). The Chief Executive is an important office. If Hong Kong Chief Executive election, 2017 is the sole bold article (and that looks ready), the quality of Carrie Lam at present should be sufficient. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is notable enough for ITN. Both article appear to be of acceptable quality. I've engaged on the talk page to inquire about why an orange tag was applied. Mamyles (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the Lam article didn't seem to need those tags, removed until specific issues are highlighted. This is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. I've added some vital CN tags. There's some overt analysis and speculation which has no source. Also in the Personal Life section. --Jayron32 15:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Just de-bold Lam. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be OK with that. The election article looks fine. --Jayron32 17:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  You have the power. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Not anymore. I've voted. See WP:SUPERVOTE. I've ineligiblized myself to commit an admin action because I have a preferred outcome. When an admin who hasn't taken a position comes along, they can assess consensus. --Jayron32 17:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  (1) you opposed (2) we have WP:COMMONSENSE for a reason too. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  There's hundreds of admins anyways, and it got posted. I'm not very important to this process; that's the beauty of Wikipedia, no one is important at all. It gets done by somebody. Furthermore, no one has ever filed a complaint against an admin for declining to use his/her tools, whereas we have thousands of cases where such complaints are filed for using one's tools where one was not supposed to. Simply put, nothing bad can come to any admin, of the hundreds of us, who just ignored this request to post the item and moved on; indeed we don't even know how many of such admins there are. Rather, if I had posted this, someone would have the right to be a pain in the ass about it. Its much easier to simply avoid all of that and let someone else deal with it. I can't possibly be sanctioned for simply passing by and not using my admin tools. --Jayron32 18:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 22:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think "first leader" is too broad of a label. Hong Kong has had plenty of "female leaders," at least in the business field (see [5]). The article supports the statement "first female Chief Executive". Maybe "first political leader" could work. ^Falling_Gravity 06:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FallingGravity: It's not wrong per se to post your concern here, but you will get a faster response by posting to WP:ERRORS. 331dot (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian parliamentary election

Nominator's comments: News is breaking, there is still a slim possibility that Bulgarian Socialist Party actually won (will update blurb if that happens). EternalNomad (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak support results are in there now, the article could use a bit more around the results, but the fact of the matter is that the data is now available and mainly sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose article does not yet have sufficient prose describing the results of the election. --Jayron32 17:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak oppose Results and aftermath still lack sufficient prose. Data completion and sourcing has improved, but right now all we have is tables with no real prose to give context or anything. --Jayron32 17:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Bulgaria has a smaller population than NJ, and we wouldn't even post the results of the NJ legislatorial election. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What on earth has that got to do with anything? All results of general elections in states on the List of sovereign states are ITN/R and therefore will be posted (assuming that the article is up to scratch, of course, which this one isn't quite yet). Black Kite (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of elections in small nations which have not been posted. This might be a borderline case. ITN/R is irrelevant, since the list was simply compiled by admins without consensus. Unless there's an RfC that decided all general elections would be posted, there's no policy, just a fiat. μηδείς (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Medeis: It is well established that everything currently on ITN/R should be there, however it got there, until at discussion at WT:ITN/R arrives at a consensus that it should be removed. If you disagree with the current entry regarding general elections then start a discussion there, arguing on individual entries will get you nowhere. Thryduulf (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, you simply confirm my argument, everything is there by fiat. The burden is not on me to prove otherwise, nor will I comment further on the matter. μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Until any effort is made to remove elections of heads of sovereign states from ITNR, it is safe to ignore this kind of protest vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at WT:ITNR so we can resolve this once and for all. Then when we have consensus, we will record it against that ITNR item, and/or modify or remove it, and there will be no grounds for such future protest !votes. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was easy enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Russian Protests

Nominator's comments: Breaking headlines. Article just added by another user but I am expecting this to blow up. Feel free to remove if I am wrong. Sherenk1 (talk)

• Oppose - More of the same. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support The protests seem to have developed into something of note, but the article needs heavy work. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning oppose, but wait. BBC is reporting that the main opposition leader was arrested as part of this, so this might turn out to be something more, but right now, it's basically <10,000 ppl, which is a rather small protest and the type that tends to happen all the time, failing NOT#NEWS. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We almost never post domestic political stuff like this. If the protests become massive (millions of people) or reach the point where they are credibly threatening the government we can revisit this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  We do post domestic political stuff like this - [6] [7] [8]. Still, this looks pretty small-scale in comparison and the article is very poor. Banedon (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of those resemble the protests going on in Russia. As I noted, if the protests become massive, or threaten the government we can revisit this. We don't do run of the mill domestic political stuff like this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, they are massive. Although I see what you did there - you pulled this ridiculous threshold "millions" out of your thin air, just to make sure that these protest could never pass that kind of silly test. Per sources [9]: "the marches appear to be the biggest since anti-government demonstrations in 2011 and 2012.". Add the arrest of THE main opposition figure in Russia, and yeah, it's very newsworthy and notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now per reasons above "this looks pretty small-scale in comparison and the article is very poor". Banedon (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Striking opposition given the developments. I'm neutral now, leaning support, per LukeSurl. Banedon (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - major protests. Above the usual. I would support this for inclusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (on notability, article is currently a stub) - the main story here is the arrest of Alexei Navalny, the main opposition leader in Russia. This takes precedence over the protests themselves. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going just on the arrest, that doesn't assume any crime has been committed yet. I'm fully aware of the political issues in Russia that this definitely could mean something else, but we shouldn't lower the bar just because an arrest was made. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I understand that the protests are nationwide, that hundreds were arrested including the Opposition leader and the protests are about alleged corrupt practices by the Prime Minister of Russia Dmitry Medvedev. [10] Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. For one, Denis Voronenkov should not be posted as a blurb (see below). Now this one is just a stub with one reference about a one-day protest. This is Wikipedia, not Russophobiapedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but calling this "Russophobic" is frankly ridiculous. "Russophobia" is a form of bigotry against ethnic Russians. How in the world does including the fact that there are large scale protests in over 80 Russian cities constitute a form of bigotry? These are Russian protesting, no? Please stop ... well, at least being blatantly obvious in your POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lede of Russophobia says, "Anti-Russian sentiment or Russophobia is a diverse spectrum of negative feelings, dislikes, fears, aversion, derision and/or prejudice of Russia, Russians and/or Russian culture.". It does not talk about "ethnic" anything. I for one do not believe in ethnicity.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I might as well add that by making such a charge you are insulting your fellow editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please assume good faith. We are talking about the nomination here, not editors. I am not interested in Wikidrama, so please stop.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Not interested in Wiki-drama" after essentially repeating the same oppose screed to the ITN talk page. OK.--WaltCip (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator provided one reference, but that doesn't mean there aren't more. E.g. I put "Russia protest" into Bing and there are results from CNN, CBC, CBS, and Reuters. Banedon (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support tons of sources, seeing as how these are the biggest protests in years. I thought I'd list sources, but... there's so many it doesn't make sense to do it that way. So how about this - you name a major news source and I will provide you the link? I mean, pretty much EVERY major news source is reporting on this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support definitely newsworthy, and very much still happening. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• strongly Support definitely newsworthy. --Panam2014 (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Significant, given the restrictions on protests and free speech in Russia. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support not sure about the blurb, but two things are noteworthy, the fact that the prime minister of a country is accussed of having embezzled more than a billion USD is noteworthy. And the demonstrations itself, in particular given the heavy-handed crackdown by police. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:3D10:EE4B:CB0F:30BA (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now on article quality. The "events" section of the bolded article is sparse, has an empty subsection, and has zero references. If this were expanded and fully fleshed out, I'd support this. The article quality just isn't good enough yet to put on the main page. People who have supported posting this don't seem to have assessed article quality. Any admin who decides to post this should please double check to see that the article quality honors Wikipedia. --Jayron32 17:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Don't see this as main page material. At least not for now. The number of protesters also appears low. If it grows and intensifies, maybe we can add it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with Étienne. Still not very large-scale. Also, not the first time Navalny is arrested. --Երևանցի ^talk 11:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 2017 Cincinnati nightclub shooting

[Withdrawn] Yemeni President sentenced to death

[Closed] Hosni Mubarak freed

[Closed] American Health Care Act of 2017

[Posted] RD: William H. Keeler

 —MBlaze Lightning ^T 11:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD, refs seem more than adequate. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All sourcing seems to be in order and sufficient for front page. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support refs could use a serious overhaul, but nothing overtly problematic. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sourcing looks good, and no other obvious issues. Reach Out to the Truth 22:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No reason given for nominating the subject. μηδείς (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Per the template: "Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD." The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 11:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted as blurb] Denis Voronenkov

Nominator's comments: Former Russian MP living in exile assassinated in Kiev. Article is a bit short but appears to be adequately sourced. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb - A political assassination, as this looks very much like, has a strong case for being a blurb. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC),[reply]
• Support, and have been expanding the article and providing sources. Yakikaki (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait, but Support - regardless if it was state-sponsored assassination or just a random shooter, the death warrants a blurb. CNN reports that they have the potential suspect in custody in a hospital, so I would assume that in a few hours we will have a clearer picture how "motivated" this attack was. The target article seems in good shape but obviously should be updated if new info becomes available. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: The attacker has now died in hospital and the police say they believe he was a hired killed with a Ukrainian passport. I've updated the article. My bet is that's all clarity we will ever get. The Ukrainians will keep blaming Russia and the Russians will keep claiming that's absurd. In perpetuity. Yakikaki (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds likely. The blurb I suggested avoids using the term "assassinated", but includes the political background that makes this story particularly notable. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll support leaving it as "murdered", with obvious consideration that if it is determined an assassination, that can be changed. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for blurb per above. 45.116.232.22 (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Quite a few Putin critics have been experiencing some bad fortune of late. For instance, Vladimir Vladimirovich Kara-Murza and Nikolai Gorokhov. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as written. Was he a Russian critic? Yes. Was he murdered on the orders of Moscow? Very possibly. But it is not the job of Wikipedia to insinuate things that have not been proved. RD only at the moment, please. We're not a tabloid newspaper. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that the blurb should not include the "critic" part to imply that's why he was murdered. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb - Former MP. Not current. And he's no Mandela or Thatcher.--WaltCip (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Justification for the blurb is not based particularly on the prominence of the individual, but on the violent, sudden and politically important nature of the event of his death. --LukeSurl ^{t c}

• Not the point - the blurb as written is suggesting something that is not proven. Is he worthy of an RD? Yes. If he had been run over by a bus would he be worthy of a blurb? No. If he had definitely been assassinated on the orders of Moscow would it be blurb-worthy? Possibly. Do we have that proof? No. Black Kite (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we proceed on the assumption that there are no objections to RD while we sort out the blurb? FTR I am not wild about a blurb for the reasons noted in the two previous comments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine to post an RD, the article is OK. Black Kite (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb, but weak. Since the man was not supper noticeable I do support the blurb more for refreshing Wikipedia's homepage. (A more interesting blurb can always take this blurb's place.) Support from me for RD obviously. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Altblurb offered above. There's no doubt he was shot to death. (If that's not murder, what is?) However, suggest more than one source. Sca (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Altblurb2, with different word order, above. Sca (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added two sources. Sca (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted to RD, may be escalated to a full blurb after further discussion. Stephen 01:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support blurb - timing is unfortunate since it's right after the London attack, which is still dominating news and is likely to keep doing so for a while longer, thereby keeping coverage of this down. Still, it is a political assassination which isn't a common thing. If the Kim Jong Nam assassination was anything to go by this might continue to be reported in the media for weeks to come. Weak support for now, and if it stays in the news (even against competition from the London attack) I'll switch to full support. Banedon (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree London aftermath will be a story for some time, but I'd like to see a Voronenkov blurb out there soon, as his death is likely to drop off the radar much more quickly. Sca (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reason to not post this as a blurb in my opinion. Banedon (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Time to close or post? I think this discussion has gone on long enough. Let's either post this or close the discussion and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment what makes that image fair use? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What image? -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Denis Voronenkov.jpg. We don't usually allow fair use images literally moments after the death. Six months is considered standard. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good question and I don't know. The article talk page is probably a better place for that question. But absent a good explanation it might well be nominated for deletion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's becoming more and more commonplace, without regard to the individual or the likelihood of obtaining a free image of the recently deceased. In most cases there's absolutely no excuse for not trying to get a free image, and in the meantime, non-free images should be discouraged. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The pic isn't essential to posting blurb. Sca (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've formally disputed the fair use rationale for the image. 08:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Preceding comment posted by Thryduulf.

• This really needs attention from an uninvolved admin. Either way is not a big deal to me, but let's post this or close the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted as a blurb. Spencer^T♦C 18:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I think you misspelled his name in the posted blurb, should be Denis not Denys. 45.116.232.21 (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose/Remove. Recent Death maybe, Blurb certainly not. This politician was certainly not known internationally, and a blurb is undeserved, unless Wikipedia wants to insinuate he was murdered by Russia, which is nothing but a rumour that they deny. Bear in mind that if American businessmen who disagree with Trump get murdered/killed, the Russian media could start spreading similarly absurd rumours. The bottom line is, he may have been murdered because of bad business deals. Hence we may have a blurb about an obscure Russian politician who was murdered over bad business deals. Who cares?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] International Cloud Atlas

Articles: International Cloud Atlas (talk · history · tag) and World Meteorological Organization (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The World Meteorological Organization adds twelve new cloud types to the International Cloud Atlas, the first update to the official cloud classification scheme since 1986. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The World Meteorological Organization adds twelve new cloud types to the International Cloud Atlas (volutus pictured), the first update to the official cloud classification scheme since 1986.
News source(s): https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/cloud-atlas-leaps-into-21st-century-with-12-new-cloud-types/80685/
Credits:

• Nominated by 207.107.159.62 (talk · give credit)

Article updated

 207.107.159.62 (talk) 07:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Currently the only mention of this in International Cloud Atlas is "The 2017 edition of the atlas is available online" in the Later editions section. This is a type of ITNC item where the update to the article makes a stronger case than anything that can be written here. Please add a paragraph or two to International Cloud Atlas and then editors here can make a more informed assessment of whether an ITN posting would be justified. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done. [13] 207.107.159.62 (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm interested in supporting this, but I would like to see a tad more news coverage shown, especially in some more general media. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• BBC. Support - any chance of an image of one of the more interesting new ones? Not Contrails obvs, no need to get the lunatic fringe worrying ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That works for me. Support. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Great idea Only in death! Plenty of options for a good picture here. I've added a couple in this section of the article. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Sounds interesting and newsworthy from an encyclopedic point of view. News pertaining to scientific extensions (similarly to scientific discoveries) should find their place on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd support this but @Cyclonebiskit: for expert opinion first. Banedon (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd support this, but some of the info is contradictory. This cited source says there are 12 new cloud types, but the text of the article says 11 new "formations". The article also currently says "Its modifications comprised the following" and then lists only 7 cloud types. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've figured out what's going on here (and learnt a bit about meteorological classification, hooray!). I've edited the article accordingly, hopefully adding a bit of clarity, and am now happy to support posting to ITN. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This needs some sort of pictures for the update to be considered sufficient. Nergaal (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• International Cloud Atlas#2017 Edition has two pictures of the newly named clouds, and more could easily added but two is probably sensible for layout reasons. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify my point: without pictures, the update is meaningless to any non-specialist. Nergaal (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I read this item on the BBC the other day and thought then that it was excellent. We have plenty of pictures available. For example, the volutus (pictured) is now recognised by the WMO as a new species of cloud. "Truth is stranger than fiction". Andrew D. (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, I've suggested an alternative blurb with the picture of volutus, or we can also use Asperitas as it's a nice one. The article looks about ready. I don't like red links, so can someone help redirect International Meteorological Committee to International Meteorological Organization (i.e. WMO's precursor) in the main article? I think a redirect is better because there's not that much info about the IMC to mandate an article separate from the IMO; the connection is mentioned within IMO. If any of our auxiliary articles require more referencing, I'd be happy to help supply that (but I am quite busy with some thesis work; other than that, good references for arcus clouds are very abundant). If nobody objects, I'd like to mark this [Ready]. 207.107.159.62 (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 11:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Post Posting Comment That image is really outstanding. It might be a viable candidate for Featured Image if anyone were to nominate it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting comment. It does look great! I noticed the red links in the article. We already have articles on most of those, except for the -genitus type clouds. You can see them in my Special:Contributions. For example, Cauda is in Wall cloud#Associated features (here). We can create redirects from each of those red links (again, because I'm IP and I don't like red links). But all the other ones already have articles; it may make more sense to let those be moved around to new titles and developed from here, if Wikipedia community deems it beneficial. Thanks. 207.107.159.62 (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Dallas Green

Nominator's comments: It's not up to snuff yet, but I can get it there today. Now I think it's ready. Let me know. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks fine to me - nice work. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article quality is good. Lepricavark (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks. Marking ready then. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Maiduguri attack

 Gfcvoice (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. Article is currently (as of my writing) a stub which contains little more information than is already in the proposed blurb. When article is expanded, I will re-assess. --Jayron32 04:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - On quality - Article is stub but subject is more than notable. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose stub and lack of in depth coverage.Alexplaugh12 (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Alexplaugh12: - Please sign your comment next time using ~~~~. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, thanks.Alexplaugh12 (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose due to article quality and lack of demonstrated news coverage. I'm also concerned about the merits as Boko Haram attacks are not infrequent in Nigeria, but I wouldn't stand in the way of posting if the article quality and news coverage issues are resolved, since we aren't loaded down with such postings. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2017 World Baseball Classic – Championship

Nominator's comments: The championship game is starting as I post this. The article is up to date except for the game that hasn't happened yet. Any feedback on problems is appreciated. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Withholding assessment until a prose synopsis of championship game is available to be assessed. The current article has minimal summaries of other games, so I am hopeful, but I will not assess until article is in a state to be assessed. --Jayron32 01:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I plan on writing a similar summary for the championship game before I go to bed tonight. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you do, let us know. Asking us to assess something which does not yet exist seems a bit presumptuous... --Jayron32 02:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was asking you to assess what's already there. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • But what good would that do? The blurb isn't about the semi-final game results, is it? Just post the nomination when you're done with the article; it will save everyone the need from having to assess it twice. --Jayron32 03:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • It would tell me if anything in the article needed to be fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Game's over USA! USA! – Muboshgu (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm taking the liberty of marking this ready since it's ITN/R, I've made the updates, and nobody is objecting to anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Spencer^T♦C 16:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2017 Westminster attack

RD: Ronnie Moran

Nominator's comments: Liverpool F.C. legend. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now due to inadequate sourcing. There are no references at all for his playing career.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose woefully underreferenced, ironic given that the nominator is usually the one to note such things themselves. If TRM would get on that referencing, I would get on supporting this. --Jayron32 02:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not exclusively down to TRM to get on that referencing. I was surprised by the lack of interest in this given his stature at one the world's most significant football clubs. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Abel Prize

 The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now, only on the fact that while Meyer's article is sourced, it seems woefully absent any serious discussion of his academic contributions outside of the recognizition. I'm thinking a para or two to describe his research and why it is important. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Interesting and unusual. Wikipedia needs more math.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The blurb should say "French mathematician" since the Abel Prize is a mathematics prize. I don't understand why the article says "French scientist and mathematician" either, going to remove the word 'scientist' there. Banedon (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but suggest that bolded article be changed to Abel Prize. There seems to be a wealth of prose on the DE version of the article, but I can't reliably translate from this.128.214.163.201 (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Per ITNR, "Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article." and it isn't otherwise noted here. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Meyer's article is indeed sourced but very short. An alternative might be to add an update to Wavelet#History and use that as the bold link. Modest Genius ^talk 14:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The quality of the linked articles is quite poor but the key fact – that Meyer has won this prize – is indisputable and we should strike while the iron is hot. Andrew D. (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ITN does not value timeliness over quality for a front page item. Meyer's article needs more details about his research, period. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Westminster attack was posted about 90 minutes after it started and its article is still a work-in-progress. In this case, the wavelet article needs lots of work too - it has an orange cleanup tag, for example. It should get more attention now that it has been posted and that's a good thing. Andrew D. (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Definitely for ITN. Interesting.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 03:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Meyer's article is a pitiful stub with a mere footnote detailing the reason why he won this award. Most of his academic career and publications are unsourced. Is a bit sad this can pass muster at ITN but would be rejected DYK and pulled at OTD. Fuebaey (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Colin Dexter

Nominator's comments: Needs a bit of work.... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose: Needs more sourcing, once that gets out of the way then its a go for me. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too many "citation needed" tags.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zigzig20s, this has now been sorted, and the information is now either supported or removed. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a additional citations tag on top of the article. Once the problem with sourcing is cleared up, then I will support. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• As per Capitalistroadster - support once the sourcing is sorted. - The Bounder (talk) 09:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs now added where required and no tags remain on the article - The Bounder (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks good to be posted. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Marked ready. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Martin McGuinness

Nominator's comments: I see no maintenance tags and article is updated. Jolly Ω Janner 06:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with blurb Was edit conflicted in posting - The Bounder (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC) Added support for blurb. - The Bounder (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - a couple of minor cn's, but these shouldn't stop posting. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Better article than 99% at RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - I think this deserves a blurb. He was a major figure in both the IRA and the NI peace process. This is the top story in the UK (BBC, Guardian), and also on the main page of major worldwide online newspapers, that I've looked at:Frankfurter Allgemeine, Sydney Morning Herald, New York Times, Le Monde, CNN.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. Major figure in the region; I think he was influential enough to merit a blurb. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggested blurb added. - The Bounder (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. Has been headline news all day even outside of NI. GRAPPLE ^X 11:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• We should give a little thought to the blurb. "Northern Ireland politician" is a little underwhelming. "Former deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland" is descriptive (note that due to the bizarre nature of Northern Ireland politics, the deputy First Minister and the First Minister are effectively the co-leaders of the province). "Former IRA leader" would be informative, though it is only verifiable that McGuinness was a leader rather than the leader. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that we should mention IRA and deputy first minister roles in the hook. WJBscribe (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb From what I can tell, his highest political position was Deputy First Minister of NI and he has already left office (if he were incumbent I probably would support it). He was an IRA leader, but I don't see how that distinguishes him from the leader(s) of the other innumerable terrorist/separatist groups around the world. Maybe I am missing it, but the article doesn't convince me that he is a world leader on the scale of Castro or even Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. EternalNomad (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]