---

Tone 06:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Nominator's comments: Surprised its not been nominated. Was going to be pretty big regardless of outcome and while it has overwhelmingly passed the threshold is below 50% and not legal binding as a result. I believe we posted flag changes in Myanmar and Burundi (or Malawi, forget which one), so this is probably even more important. Its certainly more in the news.
Also opento other altblurbs that would probs be better. Lihaas (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait. It still needs to be approved by 2/3 of the parliament. If this happens, it should probably be posted then. Black Kite (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2018 Lihaas (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]
• I do think it is best to wait until an actual "final" decision is made. I recognize that it might be difficult to find a perfect time to post anything if Macedonia continues to hold on to its current name, but I do think this referendum is technically only a stepping-stone in this process and that there will be more "final" decision moments. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy towards the name change beging now.

There shall be some controversy regarding Macedonia's name for as long as I'm alive, I'm sure. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The low turnout means that the vote is not valid, so the blurb doesn't illustrate reality (please see the alternative blurb for better description of the outcome). Importantly, the referendum was non-binding and the government may avoid the result to take the matter to the parliament in the hope of providing two-thirds support for approval. The other possibility, already mentioned by prime minister Zoran Zaev immediately after the results came in, is to have an early parliamentary election at which the ruling coalition would reckon on the results from the referendum to increase the number of members in the parliament above the required threshold. The expectations are that things will get more complicated from now on and the result from the referendum is nowhere close to conclusion of the whole issue.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - There's no story without a 50% turnout. Mjroots (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - as per Mjroots. There's half a story in the incredibly low 36.91% turnout. But not enough for Main page, I feel. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at this point. If there is a final decision made to change the name, it should be posted at that point. If there is a final decision not to, then that might be worth posting (depending how final it is) but whichever, now isn't the time for an ITN posting. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Low turn-out means this is not final.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait We should wait until the issue is actually resolved before we mention it in In the news. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 06:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

 McKay (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose 1) State-level, not even national level (yet), 2) Justice Department has already announced they will be suing CA over this bill, and 3) what is really important is that this case will likely end up at SCOTUS and make a determine how US broadband should be treated to put an end to the net neutrality fight. This is far too small and premature. --Masem (t) 05:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Some perspective is needed here. I doubt we'd post an item about state-based legislation about net neutrality for a state in any other country in the world, so I don't see why this should be any different, simply because it relates to the USA. Chrisclear (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – In fact, I doubt we would post this type of decision for most countries. It seems like a stepping-stone within the larger US net neutrality story to me, and I would like to avoid posting too many of those. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - What will be notable is if it wins the inevitable SCOTUS decision, which it won't, because it's California and there's 4 (soon to be 5) conservative Justices on the bench.--WaltCip (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: PM of eSwatini (aka Swaziland) who stepped down earlier this month. May need a bit of expansion, but what's there looks good. EternalNomad (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Article looks acceptable but date of death needs mentioning in the article body and referencing - Dumelow (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything in the source cited in the article to support a death date of 28 September? - Dumelow (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weakest support poor article but just about ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, good point, is it actually in the news?? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Just about ok. But good enough for inclusion. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 08:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks ok to me.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: There have been some previous nominations of this article for blurbs, but all were rejected because the story moves slowly. However, in the last nom, there was some indication of support for an ongoing post. Danski454 (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose it's a media circus but certainly not an "ongoing" story for the main page of an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn didn't notice the recent ongoing nom --Danski454 (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

 Masem (t) 13:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict × 2) Support. It's certainly in the news in my country, and major international news media have started covering this. There's also a tsunami warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angga (talk • contribs)
  • I've seen mixed reports about the tsunami warning, some saying that where the quake was, it was not possible to generate. Caution should be used on this point until we have more details. --Masem (t) 14:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well actually, the tsunami did happen, as BBC (and a WhatsApp broadcast video I got from a friend) confirmed. —Angga (formerly Angga1061) 14:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, now reports are definitely confirming it. Added altblurb about that. --Masem (t) 14:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added second alt to reflect that they had determined at least 3 major quakes >6.0 that all contributed to damage (6.1 first, then this 7.5, then a 6.5 later), so we don't have to worry about identifying when and where these deaths/injuries were occurred. Latest news seems to have a potentially higher death toll but I have not yet found a reliable number. --Masem (t) 18:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • A "reliable number" for events such as this can take weeks or months. That's the nature of major disasters. HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative support – Major tsunami confirmed in Palu; very early stages of the disaster so not much to work with on notability, but it's certainly ITN and the type of event that would inevitably be posted. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Article not ready yet. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the earthquake hit this afternoon, so for now, you can't expect it to be ready, what with the future updates and all. —Angga (formerly Angga1061) 17:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. - Major bews. Early days but posting seems appropriate.BabbaQ (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, significant earthquake that is widely reported internationally. Article looks fine. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An earthquake of this magnitude hitting almost any inhabited place should be notable enough for ITN. EternalNomad (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks ready to me. Obviously notable. Davey2116 (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Major news. The article will change as facts become clearer, but that's not a reason to not post. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Going into detail about why it's newsworthy would only be stating the obvious. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support For obvious reasons. Also, death toll has risen to 30 ([3]), expect it to rise further. Juxlos (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either Blurb 2 or 3 as the tsunami is worth noting. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for including tsunami information In most cases, tsunamis should not be mentioned (or rather, strategically de-emphasized) and should be treated with scrutiny (I think) as they are typically tiny and the public goes crazy because of what happened with the 2004 mega tsunami, but in this case, it would be appropriate to include the tsunami detail as it had ten foot waves and washed away houses. I'll let others decide on which blurb is best. (2 or 3) -TenorTwelve (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, must mention tsunami - the earthquake itself may not be ITN-worthy, but the tsunami certainly is, since catastrophic tsunamis are fairly rare (only 3rd this century after Boxing Day 2004 and Japan 2011?). Article is already in good enough shape to post. I probably prefer alt blurb 2 even though it's rather long. Adpete (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I've added alt #3; the tsunami also hit Donggala (also a near-coast regency) and 48 are confirmed dead, according to CNN. —Angga (formerly Angga1061) 05:04; edited 05:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Alt3. --Masem (t) 05:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting update: Can an admin please update the numbers of casualties? BBC and CNN have relayed the information from the Indonesian Disaster Management Agency that 384 have been confirmed dead and 540 injured. —Angga (formerly Angga1061) 08:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rush really. The final figure won't be known with any certainty for weeks. HiLo48 (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48: It wasn't a rush, figures are of course updated, once reliably sourced. Even now, it appears so. But @Angga: the more appropriate place to raise this issue is WP:ERRORS.–Ammarpad (talk)

From ABC News (the Australian one) right now - "The Head of the National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB), Willem Rampangilei, told reporters in Sulawesi late on Saturday that the death toll from Palu had reached 420 people, according to news website Kompas.... Indonesia's Vice President Jusuf Kalla warned it could rise into the thousands." (See http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-29/indonesian-tsunami-death-toll-expected-to-rise-dramatically/10321298). This is simply the reality with such events. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that's also the reality with Wikipedia. It's updated in real time. The example of new toll you're given was already on the template an hour before your post. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: This nomination was previously nominated and decided against, but since then has greatly developed (passed committee, FBI investigation announced) DannyS712 (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose based on the previous nomination. the point to consider this (and that's not a assurance to post) is when he is fully confirmed or when he withdraws his nomination. --Masem (t) 21:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per DannyS712 proposal, for proposed 2nd alternate blurb. Sagecandor (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Major development, in addition to the reasons I noted below. I would also support ongoing. Davey2116 (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strongly oppose blurb as this is a slow-moving, developing story where the individual events on their own are not notable. Weak support ongoing.--WaltCip (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose / wait per above or until he's cleared of charges or found guilty. At this stage this looks more like procedural work. Brandmeister^talk 22:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He won't be found "guilty" per se as the process is not a trial, but a job interview. They would reject his nomination based on findings, if need be. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose US-centric. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: In the "please do not" section above, it says "... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." It light of this, would you be willing to share your views on the nomination other than your opposition on the basis of its US focus?

Opposing because the nomination is US-centric is not the same as opposing simply because it relates to a single country. It's because that single country is the United States AND because US-centrism is a part of Wikipedia's systemic bias. There are editors from every country unable to see things about their country with the global perspective necessary for this encyclopaedia, but simply because of the nature of the project, there are more of them from the US than from any other country. In an environment such as ITN, where vote counts do unfortunately matter, it's always worth being aware of this danger and drawing it to the attention of others. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's systemic bias is just an essay; it is NOT a policy or guideline. And many clearly think that ITN is systemically biased against the US (as in, for instance, WP:ITNCABAL, which is of course at least partly a joke, but then it's well-known that 'many a true word is spoken in jest'). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - the rationale below remains for me. Post if he withdraws or if he is rejected due to the accusations, nominate and discuss if he is confirmed. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Some perspective would be useful here. I doubt we'd post a story about a supreme court nomination from any other country in world, nor a law enforcement investigation of a supreme court nominee from other country in the world. I don't see why this particular nomination should be considered any different, simply because it relates to something happening in the US. Chrisclear (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The first blurb does not mention the country that this story relates to, and as such is lacking context. Chrisclear (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Unresolved, still up in the political air. Sca (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Close please Could some uninvolved admin please close this to avoid further pointless time-wasting - there's clearly no consensus to post at this time, and the same debate already reached the same conclusion about what was almost the same nom yesterday. Barring some extraordinary development, future such noms should probably be snow-closed until Kavanaugh either wins or loses/withdraws. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: Is an ITNR topic and will likely only pop up in 2024 again, but is hot on the news these days. Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The only host city/country selection that is presently ITNR is for Olympics. We just had a discussion on the host selection for FIFA that failed to gain consensus to add. --Masem (t) 14:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think we need one of these: a. the selection process is controversial or otherwise interesting, b. the choice is shocking (cough...Qatar), c. There are significant infrastructure impacts. ghost 15:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Choosing a venue for the Euros is not on the scale of a worldwide competition like the Olympics.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I love the Euros, but we should only post the announcement of the host when it is surprising or controversial. This is especially ture when the selected hosts of the preceding tournament were a shock. Germany is not, and so likely does not require an ITN blurb. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this is not on the same scale as the Olympics or the World Cup. Lepricavark (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose even as one of the biggest football anoraks on this site, I don't see the global impact of this as compared to the awarding of the Olympics and World Cup, which are global events and have bidding processes awash with scandal and controversy. Let's wait eight years and post the winner of the event, which will be a story of greater interest Harambe Walks (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not significant outside European football, and arguably not really that significant within it either. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: It's all over the news, everywhere, and the article is being continually updated. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose Regardless of how this is affecting the nomination process, we do not post mere allegations not proven out in a court of law towards a BLP. --Masem (t) 16:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is designed to protect lower-profile individuals from harm. We are not posting anything that you can miss, unless you are on Mars. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that we can't talk about the accusations on the nomationation page, but that is 100% not a reason to post at ITN. It would be different if he were on the bench already and was forced to step down if allegations were made. These judicial nomination processes bring out every skeleton in the closet, this is nothing different. --Masem (t) 16:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Even if suggested with the blurb without the allegations, I will oppose this based on the same rationale consensus came to when Kennedy announced his retirement (which was nominated but not posted, see [4]). The only point that may make sense to post anything is when a candidate is actually confirmed by the Senate, and even then, by the Kennedy nom above, that's even questionable if we'd post. --Masem (t) 16:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understand your sentiment, but my main motivation for this is that BBC News lit up with a rolling feed, with reports of "People are saying where were you when the Kavanaugh hearing took place", and I thought "that's a bit odd". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is news sensationalism which we strongly avoid across the encyclopedia and especially at ITN. It's basically this generation's Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill situation all over again. A media circus but of little substance. --Masem (t) 17:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill situation" was a huge newsworthy event in 1991 that led to 1992 being called by some the "Year of the Woman". If Wikipedia existed in 1991, it should've been posted then. The "substance" is a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS and the fallout of it (Roe v. Wade). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had made the argument at Kennedy's retirement nomination that simply his departure with Trump controlling who gets nominated would impact past cases, like RvW - that didn't change consensus there. We're in the middle of a sensationalist story (the allegations causing the nomination process to rise to the top of the news), but WP is not a news ticker and we try avoid focusing on recentism. (not to mention how US-centric this story is at the moment). --Masem (t) 18:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(a) From above: "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. (b) WP:NOTNEWS is a policy about news stories as articles, that this passes. ITN absolutely is a news ticker, that's the whole purpose of it. That's why we post news stories to the main page, subject to article quality and consensus to post (which I'm sure this won't get). – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has been said many times, ITN is not a news ticker. In that we are not simply repeating what the top stories are in the world. We have very selective control on what gets posted, so it rarely reflects what a news ticker actually points out. Part of that selection is related to NOT#NEWS - we don't jump on every sensationalist story that might be top headlines. --Masem (t) 18:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of ITN is to highlight articles of sufficient quality that are in the news, and we fail at that so often because of the personal biases of the people who come here to vote on them. It's a shame. "Sensationalism" is defined (at least by me typing it into Google) as "the use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest or excitement." Today's hearing is about searching for truth, so I could not disagree more with that label being used to describe this process. Having someone who may have committed sexual assault on SCOTUS is a huge deal. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd clarify that a bit and say that having someone who may have committed sexual assault on SCOTUS and which is documented in multiple, respected, reliable broadsheet news sources is a huge deal. I always thought the "sensationalist" bit meant you don't stick a blurb up based on the front page of The Sun or the National Enquirer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, a burst of news coverage is sensationalism. It may not be tabloid-type sensationalism, but this is still basically elevating the relative importance of a story because there's little else to report on, the result of our 24/7 news media culture. WP doesn't follow that, we're looking for what comes out in the long-term. And since we have no idea if he will be confirmed or the accusations proven out, this is very much CRYSTAL-balling on importance. --Masem (t) 18:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This "burst of news coverage" exists because much of the rest of the world likes to see what they see as the mess Donald Trump repeatedly seems to get himself into in areas where it's obvious he has no skills. This was the reason we in Australia also learnt this week that UN delegates laughed at him. Should we post that too? HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As it turns out, there is no article entitled 2018 United Nations burst of laughter at Donald Trump, so no, we would not post that. There is an article entitled Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination, so it's a story with a WP page that is attaining significant coverage. So yes, we should post it. Davey2116 (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Post when Kavanaugh is confirmed or withdraws candidacy. Sca (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per article quality, per world wide attention. But I am also on the verge of thinking that this is a local story or at best national story. So I let others decide.BabbaQ (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not supposed to oppose based on it being a "local story or at best national story". That is most of the content we post. It's in the "Please do not's" above. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Masem, ITN is not for unproven allegations.SamaranEmerald (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ongoing per nom. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've put an alternative blurb which leaves out the "allegations" bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @User:Ritchie333 I suggest you nominate this as an ongoing event rather than as a blurb as the above user mentions, it will be more fitting. SamaranEmerald (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The article appears to be of sufficient quality, but I don't believe the nomination of a Supreme Court judge would be considered globally newsworthy if it came from any nation other than America. Maybe if Kavanaugh was notable for something other than his nomination, but that is not the case. At best, the only globally significant portion of his nomination will be his confirmation or rejection, and even then I'd disagree. Therefore, I oppose. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
  • No requirement that it be "globally" newsworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - There's no there there.--WaltCip (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm watching the hearing right now. It's there, on my teevee. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's in the news in a big way, highly reminiscent of the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination which remains highly significant 27 years later. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait. I would support if something really spectacular (like Kavanaugh withdrawing his candidacy) occurred. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait per Black Kite. We almost never post stuff involving the internal politics of any given country unless it involves a change in head of state or government. However if Kavanaugh were to actually withdraw or be voted down by the Senate I might support a blurb given the remarkable level of global news coverage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - this maybe (likely not, given that it is a strictly domestic affair) merits posting if he takes the position. It probably merits posting if the allegations cause him to step down and withdraw, or are cited in a Senate vote which he loses. The existence of allegations is not worth posting on ITN, per Masem, and is shaky in terms of WP:BLP. Awarding this gravitas because of decisions Kavanaugh might make if successfully confirmed by the Senate is clear crystal-balling, as is the converse (Kavanaugh withdrawing doesn't somehow enshrine Roe v. Wade). As such, there is no story on an ITN scale here unless the allegations are cited as a cause of Kavanaugh's failure to take the position. If they merely slow the process, then there is no story - just routine domestic politics. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is heavily in the news around the world, just look at media coverage from Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Mexico and Australia reporting on everything that happens in that process. This might only be for a job on a court but it stands for so much more that the whole world is watching. Regards SoWhy 18:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also Times of India. As a general crude rule of thumb, anything getting headlines in the US, the UK and India (which, unless I'm mistaken - which I probably am - are the three nations that contribute most to the English Wikipedia) is worth considering as "worldwide". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This is not an elected position so it's not really "in the news" in the same sense that elections are. Furthermore, even Trump hasn't tweeted anything yet. wumbolo ^^^ 19:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surely "In The News" is anything that a) the news is reporting a lot of b) is in an article being updated a lot and c) the article is in good shape. So if there was blanket coverage of the Macadamia nuts controversy making a comeback, and featured on worldwide news for three days continuously, it would be a suitable nomination. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: the news are reporting on the score of sport matches a lot, but we don't post matches before they are finished. wumbolo ^^^ 20:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - In the news worldwide, notable, and the article is in good shape. Opposers fail to convince me this should not be a blurb on ITN. Jusdafax (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Blurb supporters fail to understand that posting ongoing items as blurbs when there is next to no breakthroughs is not how ITN works. Kirliator (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as ongoing . Will be worth posting a story if he is nominated or if the nomination is withdrawn. Until then it is all play by play coverage. However, there may be little chance of obtaining a concensus. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Post only if Kavanaugh is confirmed or withdraws candidacy. These hearings are about the Supreme Court, not about what he did or didn't do in the past. Wikipedia is neither jury nor judge. Sca (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • These hearings have become about far more than just SCOTUS. USA Today: "The historic clash before the Judiciary Committee represented a signature moment for the year-old #MeToo movement against sexual misconduct". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Muboshgu: did any of the accusers use the hashtag? wumbolo ^^^ 20:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does that matter? Is that a requirement? Lindsey Graham just referenced Bill Cosby. The context cannot be denied. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Maybe for an approved nomination but not the drama beforehand or if he is not approved. Spencer^T•C 20:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of my opposition, if his nomination were not approved, that would arguably be more notable, as this nomination was originally thought to be a shoo-in due to a Republican majority in both the House and Senate.--WaltCip (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Some perspective would be useful here. I doubt we'd post a story about a court case about a supreme court nominee for any other country in the world, so I don't see why this should be any different. Chrisclear (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't see why this line of reasoning is valid. I'm strongly in favor of posting different countries' stories to ITN, but this should not come at the expense of a U.S. story that is clearly getting lots of international coverage. Our primary job here is to bring things that are "in the news" to the front page, and many readers would appreciate a link to this story. Davey2116 (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply That's precisely the problem - the story is only getting "lots of international coverage" because it's about a US supreme court nominee. If there was a similar issue with a supreme court nominee in most other countries, there wouldn't be the same international coverage. It's likely (almost certain) that the story would not be supported for an ITN item due to lack of significance. This story shouldn't be considered any more significant simply because of the country involved. Publishing this story in ITN is the type of bias that ITN should be looking to avoid. Chrisclear (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose ...for precisely the same reasons as Chrisclear above. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is non-news blown up by MSM. Mikus (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Looking through the revision history, Gorsuch's confirmation was not posted. That was a confirmation. This is a hearing, with the added element of further amplifying allegations. But I probably would support a blurb if it leads to the withdrawal of the nomination. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Lots of international coverage, obviously an ongoing story, and article is in good shape and is regularly updated. Isn't that the point of ITN? Regardless, it looks like this nomination is not going anywhere; hopefully we can all agree that the result of the nomination should definitely be posted. Davey2116 (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? When did we last post a judicial appointment or rejection of a candidate for any other country? HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What was the last judicial nomination to demonstrate this much coverage in the source texts?--Jayron32 03:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. I usually tend to ignore what seems a particularly silly part of the American political and legal processes. I just note the final score, i.e. how the balance of the court is at any given time. That's all that really matters in the end, isn't it? HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not when the nominee is an alleged sex criminal. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to ignore unproven allegations too. Let's get real. Every one of these nominations seems to involve the digging of (or inventing) dirt on candidates nominated by political foes. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The news isn't ignoring it. And nobody "dug this up". Women who are assaulted have a lot of reasons not to come forward. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are many things the news covers that we don't. And while I would probably agree with you about it, making judgements on guilt, and the motivations or otherwise of alleged victims is certainly not our job here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose per Masem. Lepricavark (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait and post the outcome, whether confirmed or withdrawn. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this nom The appointment of a US Supreme Court justice is important, more so than some other countries. That's not bias, it's reality. If the media is rabidly covering something irrelevant, that's tabloid. The media rabidly covering something important is not. It's not important enough per se (IMO) to post to ITN. But the circumstances here elevate, and I think we should post a withdrawal/rejection. I'd oppose a confirmation. ghost 11:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: The sentence just got announced so the article is not yet up to date with today's news, but no question it is well-sourced. Yes, an appeal is planned, but this still has been a long-term story with a point of conclusion here. Masem (t) 18:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral When he was found guilty, I !voted oppose on the grounds that the sentencing is more significant than the verdict, but the response (and consensus) was that most people believed the other way around. The verdict was ultimately posted, and I don't know if ITN would support posting both. Personally, I maintain my belief that the sentence is significant, but I'm ready to be swayed one way or the other. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Not an unusual sentence, and not particularly notable in its own right. This story is hitting during a busy news cycle.--WaltCip (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Mainly because this is the end (or at least the beginning of the end) of a very long-running, high-profile case – this, in the context of heightened global interest in charges of sexual harassment and/or assault. Likely to be the No. 1 story on most mainstream Eng.-lang. news sites. Sca (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support – One of the most powerful men in entertainment is going to prison and the first to be criminally punished in the #MeToo era.--The lorax (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support I'm generally not a fan of celebrity true crime stories but this one has been getting global front page news coverage for a long time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose already been posted once, no long-term significance. At 3-10 years, the sentence isn't even that long. Banedon (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10 years was the maximum sentence that could be given for this crime. The sentence is for 10 years, with a minimum of 3. His lawyers argued for house arrest because they think he'll die during any lengthy prison sentence. --Masem (t) 21:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That the maximum sentence isn't that long just means the crime shouldn't have been posted in the first place, though. Banedon (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – per fact that the trial has been covered by world media. Cosby is an actor at the top field of his profession and the article is in shape for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on principle because I feel this is a very slippery slope to go down with ITN. Cosby is the first "big name" to be sentenced in the #MeToo era, but I doubt he'll be the last. If we post this one and set a precedent for posting these convictions, I feel that that may take us into WP:TABLOID territory. Strikerforce^Talk 21:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose already been posted once in April, no long-term significance. It is true that he was a iconic personality who has fallen a long way. But there is lots of other good stuff to put on the front page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I feel the broader story here is significant, but not significant enough for two stories; we've posted the verdict, and so I don't know if I could justify posting this too. Vanamonde (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Actually, the most captivating part of the sentencing is that Bail was denied. So he did not just get to go home. He was also characterized as a "sexually violent predator sex offender" by the court. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We don't even routinely post presidential inaugurations of major countries because we already post the elections. The result is not out of the ordinary, so it does not deserve to be posted twice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Given that we posted the fact that he was convicted, the sentencing does not merit another separate blurb. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No need to do this twice. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: Producer of American Graffiti, Star Wars/Empire Strikes Back, and Dark Crystal. While article top is updated, there's no prose on his death. Article also need of much better sourcing throughout including awards. Masem (t) 19:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose mostly unreferenced, including a huge awards section, a BLP violation in extremis. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This article simply does not have enough citations. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I thought of nominating this when I read of his death, but the article quality is too poor and unlikely to be sufficiently improved before the death becomes stale. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality, support on merit A quick scroll-through of the article shows that there's quite a few paragraphs that could benefit from additional sources. If this is resolved in the next couple of days, please ping me and I'll switch my !vote to support. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no such thing as "support on merit" for RDs. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That is why I led with oppose. It was added to clarify that I'd gladly flip if and when the involved editors improve the article. Unnecessary to point that out, as it should be self explanatory. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No, what was unnecessary was to say "support on merit". All RDs are supported "on merit". Read the template. That should be self explanatory. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I maintain that it really isn't necessary to make this a sub-discussion deviating from the actual discussion. Relax. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Maintain away, but next time there's no need to "support on merit", it's taken as read. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -basically per above mentioned reasons.BabbaQ (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality, support on merit per Brendon the Wizard. Lepricavark (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Please note, there is no purpose to supporting "on merit". Per established ITNC policy, every living entity with a name with a quality Wikipedia article who dies gets on the RD feed. All that matters is the "quality" part. The "merit" is "was once alive, has recently died, and has a Wikipedia article". (also note, human is not even required. Just "died and has an article" is all the merit necessary). --Jayron32 02:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I am well aware of how we handle RDs. Lepricavark (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Then you would know that "on merit" is redundant.--WaltCip (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  They're something in the air... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No doubt. We don't know what it is, but it gives TRM the irresistible urge to constantly play hall monitor. Lepricavark (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Just trying to remind some of you that you're wasting time with such remarks as they are guaranteed to draw comment from multiple editors. So well played! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe that's known as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Lepricavark (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe that's known as a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Good thinking. Why craft your own comment when mine was so perfect? Lepricavark (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It was convenient as I was spending a lot of my time improving Wikipedia for our readers' benefit, wink wink! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, in fairness to TRM, the word 'multiple' meant the prophecy was not guaranteed to be self-fulfilling, even if I'm being an unforgiveable pedant by saying so - and I'm also seemingly saying something in defense of TRM, which is presumably seemingly even more unforgiveable (even tho I'm actually pointing out that his above guarantee is distinctly unimpressive) .Tlhslobus (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to clarify, you are aware of the policy, but posted the comment anyway. Why? Are we just trying to trigger TRM's OCD now? I mean, we all know The Boat Race is irrelevant, but it would be off topic to bring it up in every discussion. ghost 11:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a textbook WP:POINT edit. But it's fine because it tells us everything we need to know. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  You call it POINTiness, I call it pushback against your unwarranted rudeness to another editor in this thread. Lepricavark (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, whether you like it or not. And stating an absolute fact is not equivalent to "unwarranted rudeness" so please don't use hyperbolic argument in an attempt to your disruptive behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  You complain about the disruption while continuing to prolong the conversation. Take a look in the mirror. Lepricavark (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  You should have admitted fault and retracted your pointed edit to start with. The fault resides 100% with you. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions If in future I wanted to say what Brendon the Wizard seems to have been trying to say above, what brief expression(s) might best achieve this in a way that avoids disruption of the kind seen above? And might such an expression usefully be added to our above RD instructions? (Note: Please keep any answers here very brief, as, at least in theory, this isn't really the right forum for this, and any lengthy discussion would presumably have to be moved somewhere else and quite likely would be more hassle than it's worth). Tlhslobus (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My own suggestion would be Oppose on quality, but well worth fixing (but far too soon to add it to RD instructions) - but has anybody got any better suggestion(s)?Tlhslobus (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is this: "Oppose on quality". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

 Count Iblis (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Any proposed solution to problems like this is going to be thoroughly reviewed by the math community to verify if it is true or not. On that confirmation, we should post. --Masem (t) 23:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I've struck my remarks on crack-pottery; more reliable sources [5] confirm that Sir Atiyah is giving a talk on this topic tomorrow. It's absolutely premature to post anything until after the talk. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait per Masem. Banedon (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose He has not yet delivered the presentation, let alone had the claim accepted by the mathematics community. A claim of this kind on its own should not be posted. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

 Imzadi 1979 → 17:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Levittown Now confirms that the ramps opened this earlier this morning. Other sources such as The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Bucks County Courier Times, WPVI-TV and KYW (AM) reported the project completion's significance earlier this week in announcing the scheduled opening. FHWA confirms that this is the last project to be completed under the auspices of the 1956 legislation. Imzadi 1979 → 18:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment for those wondering why this is significant, I-95 facilitates 40% of the United States' GDP and serves 110 million people. [6] Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this isn't just any highway opening, but arguably the most significant one in the US. --Rschen7754 18:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nice bit of road trivia but not much more. See DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most important motorway in the US and one of the most important in the world, serving (as mentioned before) 110 million people, Canada's most important highway, Harvard, the UN and New York (the only city that rivals London in importance), the capital of the world's most powerful country, 15 states and the so called Capital of Latin America (Miami, 71% Latin Americans, metro population 6 or 7 million). It has the busiest motor bridge in the world, most lanes on a bridge in the world (14 non-shoulder lanes on 2 floors) and approaching New York from the south it reaches 14 lanes and 8 shoulders with quadruple carriageways (and 2 jumbo jet runways hug the 22 lanes for awhile which is pretty cool). Also nearby are Yale, Princeton, Columbia University, 6 of 8 Ivy League unis, site of declaring independence from you (no hard feelings), the capital of the slave country..

At over 3,000 kilometers it's so long it starts where -41°C and 1.8 meters of snow depth and 4.2 meters snow in a year happens and ends in the tropics south of some Bahamas. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the law of 1956 was to build 41,000 miles of motorway with minimum 2 lanes in each direction which ended up costing 500 billion today dollars. Even Canada and Australia are mostly 1 lane in each direction when you cross the country cause Interstate highway standards are expensive. (Germany has much better roads but they have 5.5 times higher population density) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagittarian Milky Way: New York is "the only city that rivals London in importance"? The U.S. is the "world's most powerful country"? Are you high? London is "only rivalled by New York"? What about Beijing? Moscow? Berlin? Paris? Given Britain is being absolutely screwed right this minute in negotiations with the EU, the "importance" of London is not apparent right now. You do realise we aren't in the Age of Discovery anymore and the British Empire has been dead for literally decades? When you have to talk such delusional anglocentric bullshit to support your argument you serve only to discredit them. AusLondonder (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not AusLondonder, back in 1970s, historians like Correlli Barnett wrote books on the decline of Britain. None imagined how much further it still had to go. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global city. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I see a lot of interesting trivia there, but nothing that sways me from oppose. Get it to GA or FA and go to the main page some other way. It's not "in the news" because it's not really that newsworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Britain is declining to barely match the global power of a nation like Italy. Suggesting that if it wasn't for New York City London would be the "unrivalled" capital of the world would make even the staunchest Eurosceptic Little Englander blush. AusLondonder (talk) 10:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Confusing prose like "yet its completion is still dependent on a project in Pennsylvania and New Jersey that was finished in September 22, 2018" (is it completed or isn't it?) and lots of unsourced sections. If the most significant source we've got is Levitton Now (as opposed to, say, the New York Times or the Washington Post) then I don't think it indicates worldwide significance. As TRM says, take it to DYK. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ritchie333: as noted above, Levittown Now is only confirming the actual opening this morning. The other press covered the dedication yesterday with the amorphous "will open tomorrow" style of wording, which as we should know, didn't guarantee that the barricades on the unopened ramps would actually come down as planned. I did find a few sentences that needed updating, and those have been changed. Other coverage came in major media outlets earlier this year in anticipation of today, such as The Atlantic back in January, Bloomberg (linked by The Ed17), [: https://www.fastcompany.com/90221669/interstate-95-is-finally-finished-and-so-is-our-era-of-ambitious-infrastructure-projects Fast Company] ("Interstate 95 is finally finished—and so is our era of ambitious infrastructure projects"), so this isn't not getting major press. More cites coming in the article for the RD sections totally unrelated to what happened today as well. Imzadi 1979 → 19:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if it was that big a deal, we'd see Trump gobbing off on Twitter about "Hey, we got I-95 completed, while Hillary and Obama couldn't even get started! SAD!" or something like that.... (or perhaps he does, I don't read his feed for my own sanity) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – On lack of general significance. Sca (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd support this in terms of significance, we've posted other rail line and freeway stories, I-95 is the big dog on the eastern seaboard -- the referencing is not up to scratch for MP feature, however. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - fairly interesting, but better suited to DYK then ITN in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – As the last section of the original Interstate Highway System, which has had a profound impact on the United States and influenced similar systems globally, interest can be drawn from beyond the niche of road scholars. (Support comes with the caveat that the referencing in I-95's article is improved) SounderBruce 01:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No demonstration of widespread coverage in non-U.S. sources. As to LaserLegs' WP:OSE remark, we posted the opening of the Wuhan–Guangzhou high-speed railway in December 2009 because it was both a new world record for commercial train service and a landmark in China Railway High-speed history itself, being the first cross-regional HSR line. The only thing "new" with the completion of I-95 is the relevant section in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose excessive coverage of local New Jersey road construction. "Completed" borders on puffery here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is a significant infrastructure project but is struggling to attract attention in the United States. Unfortunately not suitable for DYK as it is not a new article or been substantially increased in size. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Interstate 95 is ineligible for DYK because it was featured on DYK back in 2013, but you could take Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project to GA and then run it on DYK. That's what GA is for. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Throw Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads a bone. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No global significance. Roads serving enormous populations in India and China open practically every day. Barely actually "in the news", even in the U.S. AusLondonder (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]