Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/April 2018

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form; any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

(Closed) RD: John Treacher

 * Comment This is already stale; the oldest RD entry on ITN is May 1.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The obituary only appeared yesterday? BubbleEngineer (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Jhoon Goo Rhee

 * Weak Support - Just above the threshold for RD inclusion. BabbaQ (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Well referenced short article is better, than huge mis-referenced articles that most of our bios are. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Per nom I would like to see a little more expansion. There's a CN tag too.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jan Cameron

 * Support Good enough.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Brief but solid. Referencing looks good. Challenger l (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's a reference needed for opinion in her swimming career. I'd also prefer a live link for ref 10 to cover the quotations after her resignation, though as the full citation is given it's not essential. The bio section could do with breaking up and reorganising; I've put in some subheads but more is needed; I'll try to get to it later. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support short but sufficient.BabbaQ (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Well-referenced career from medallist Tokyo 1964 through to coach at last month's Comm Games JennyOz (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Project Amad

 * Oppose Beyond the stub nature of the article, which does not include the other side of the argument for balance, this piece suggests that Netanyahu is talking about programs from the past, not the present. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting accusations. It's no secret that Netanyahu is not a fan of Iran. If Trump ends the Iran deal, that may merit posting. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose full stop. There's no difference between Netanyahu and Trump here, nothing.  This is a new version of sabre-rattling, just because North Korea has gone cold.  Time to find a new enemy to justify everything else.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don’t think an accusation rises to the level of ITN significance. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I took it to AFD, a random accusation from the Israeli PM doesn't need a standalone article. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Did we post this at the time? Count Iblis (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Only if we posted this. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My AFD is doomed. Ironically North Korea gets peace, meanwhile Iran gets the " Iraq Iran has weapons of mass destruction" treatment. Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Friendly advise Do not take any article about "current event" to AfD except when you are 110% sure it is not notabe.  –Ammarpad (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Diplomatic pissing in the wind.--WaltCip (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Luis García Meza

 * Oppose pending that needed work. Orange tagged for six years. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Referencing is way short. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose because non-trivial work is needed in getting this ready. And there are few people that can do that due to apparent scarcity of  English sources. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I have too, most of the article can not be considered acceptable for inclusion right now.BabbaQ (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Avengers: Infinity War box office record

 * Comment: I haven't actually read the article here, 'cos, y'know, spoilers :P --LukeSurlt c 08:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Past similar discussions(such as for Star Wars:The Force Awakens) have suggested that a movie would merit posting only if it breaks the all time earnings record, not just for an opening weekend. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a very useful way of doing things. This film is in the news (and the public consciousness) now, but will be far less so if/when it reaches ~$2bn takings. The opening weekend is an industry standard way of assessing a film's initial impact which is widely reported in the news, and we have a nice, quotable record which we can make into a blurb with a decent supporting article. --LukeSurlt c 09:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The discussion for TFA is here. Some comments from there: ""Biggest of all time" yes, if it reaches that, but opening weekend sales are more a piece of marketing than anything else"; "An event like this is a trivial figure in the grander scheme of the world, like being a presidential frontrunner or having a big lead in the middle of the sports season. If it becomes the highest grossing film of all time, definite support"; "Oppose as media generated uber hype, no surprises, and trivia. Please consider making this a DYK."; "Frequently broken record and hardly a surprise for the franchise" and so on. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above and the other reasons given for the TFA discussion back in December '15.--WaltCip (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Question Whats the deal on refs for a plot summary? The article is pretty good, but I dunno how you cite a plot summary other than "go watch it". --LaserLegs (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * IIRC, plot summaries do not require referencing for just that reason. Just referencing a critic's plot summary should handle any exceptions or excuses. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 13:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, its generally assumed that the work itself is fine for implicit sorting of a plot summary as long as no interpretation or analysis is included. --M asem (t) 13:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose – On lack of significance. Sca (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose These types of records meaning little more than verifying the inexorable economic principle of price inflation. Every year, things cost more money, so more money is made on movies.  It doesn't necessarily mean more people saw it, or more people bought tickets, just that this year's tickets cost more than last year's tickets.  -- Jayron 32 14:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It also broke the record if inflation or attendance is considered. Ticket price inflation across many countries is hard to work out and sources may avoid it but the opening weekend record is increasing much faster than inflation, except when the record is broken by a small amount. This was by a lot: List of highest-grossing openings for films. Records for total gross is another matter where inflation is crucial. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? Because that's not in the article and where there are inflation-adjusted numbers, they show TFA at first place. Regards SoWhy 15:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * TFA probably keeps the domestic (US + Canada) record adjusted for inflation. The nomination is for the global opening. Infinity War is certain to get the record there, but sources rarely talk about adjusted international numbers. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose. Although this is a lot more significant than your typical commercial jargon ("Number 1 Movie in America! Wow!"), this record gets broken pretty frequently. Looking at the link in the blurb it's happened 4 times now in just under three years (Jurassic World -> Force Awakens -> Fate and Furious -> Infinity War). It may well get broken again in under a year when the next Jurassic World, Star Wars, or Avengers movie is released, though I admit that's WP:CRYSTAL. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see how we can have ~60 sporting events every year but this is not notable because it happens too frequently. I know it's apples to oranges, but that's kind of the point: the standard for what's remarkable in sport (one of the two teams that could have won the Boat Frenzy did!!!) is so much lower than other disciplines because it's easier to articulate. ghost 15:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - given just how much it broke the record by - $100 million (a 20% increase on the previous holder), without opening in China or Russia - and that it secured the record domestically as well, it makes sense to recognise this achievement. The article is also decent, and there is no denying, per the nomination, that many people are coming to the website seeking this article as a result of its record-breaking exploits. Posting it would thereby fulfill the primary purpose of ITN. I understand the rationale against posting, but I think that the arguments above overwhelm this. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - considering the frequency of other items at ITN, I don't think that a record being broken thrice in a four year time span is too excessive, and agree that holding posting for later records, when readership is vastly diminished, would not be a great idea. I also don't think that the largest opening ever in one of the largest fields of entertainment is trivial or irrelevant, I don't think that the fact that this was somewhat expected diminishes it, nor do I think that it is solely media driven hype, as was thrown at TFA when it was nominated. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose, not significant. Kaldari (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I recognize why this is news, and why this specific record breaking is not just incremental compared to past. But, it is only a matter of time that the next big blockbuster will come along and break this record. Additionally, this is an area where we a bit too much Western bias. Yes, Hollywood >> Bollywood in terms of money, but this is really focusing too much on one specific nation's industry, even though it serves a worldwide audience. I'd like to try to see if we can better balance that with other nation's film industries as appropriate, and to that end, that should focus on things like the nation's indsutry awards (BAFTAs for one), rather than box office take which is just going to be large period because Hollywood has the money to make that happen. --M asem (t) 15:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment We posted the record sale of some painting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/November_2017#.5B_Posted.5D_Sale_of_Salvator_mundi in record time without any concern that the record may again be broken. Opposes based on that rationale are basically art snobbery. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose trivia, suitable for DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Come back if it beats the all-time record (or better yet the inflation-adjusted record), not just the raw opening weekend number. That metric is promoted by film studios merely to get more people to see the film; it's not of historical importance. Modest Genius talk 16:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are lots of different records for films, which are broken often. If it becomes the highest-grossing film of all time (currently held by Avatar), I would support posting that. Reach Out to the Truth 16:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Post when the movie breaks the all-time record, not the weekend record. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC))
 * Conditional Support Once the movie is released in China and Russia and a box office total is collected, then it should be posted (Awestruck1 (talk) 20:42 30 April 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) India says all villages have electricity

 * Comment - Even the BBC article suggests that this may not be true, as there are reports that some villages have not been given access to electricity, plus the definition of electrification (10% of all of its homes and public buildings being connected to the grid) is extremely loose.--WaltCip (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've not had time to go and tag them all, but there are numerous unreferenced claims in the target article. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on how electrical grids work, just having connections to some to remote villages is huge. Connecting other buildings is minor compared to getting power to the village. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 12:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Insignificant government pronouncement. Even the BBC is doubting it ans they cannot independently confirm so. But it may be suitable for DYK nomination. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on the unlikeliness of this being correct. Natureium (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the grounds that this is a dubious claim. Lepricavark (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Aaron Traywick

 * Oppose Stub containing virtually no biographical detail.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's just no article here. No biography, only a couple of sentences of information at all. Challenger l (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above users +possible notability issue. Newly created WP:BLP1E. And since he is dead, then we have Permanent stub. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Permastub remark is inaccurate ( article is 16k+ bytes and growing ). Subject's death occurred under highly unusual circumstances, which spurred on the recent article creation—but by no means is subject notability limited to one event. Traywick was a highly-vocal and prominent activist, featured in substantive independent coverage from sources including Vice, BBC News, MIT Technology Review, Popular Mechanics, The Atlantic, Gizmodo, The Verge, Futurism, IFLScience, BioEdge, Reddit, among others, including several live-streamed podcasts and documentaries. His self-experimentation with DIY gene editing in efforts to make widely accessible and inexpensive treatments available to the public for incurable conditions—bypassing any and all safeguards and regulations—elicited a stern warning in direct response from the FDA, completely shifting the tone of the field. Interviews from contemporaries just weeks prior to his death include such choice statements as: “Roberts told the livestream audience that they wanted to "eliminate" Traywick from the biohacking community before he 'hurts people.'” Without being conspiratorial, further press coverage is likely, and there's already no shortage of material from which to draw upon to create a well-balanced and well-referenced article. Traywick was the primary subject of a soon-to-be released feature film, latest working title: Transhuman: Biohackers and Immortalists, directed by Ford Fischer. ー「宜しく 」 クロノ  カム  19:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC), 07:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC) 06:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as outlined in previous comment. The article continues to grow; with five days remaining in the evaluation period there's time to resolve length concerns. ー「宜しく 」 クロノ  カム  08:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. Long enough now. --Tone 08:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

T-Mobile to Acquire Sprint

 * Oppose 1) One line update in both articles isn't enough; 2) Orange tags in both the Sprint article, lots of unreferenced content in T-Mobile; 3) Wait and reassess once the deal is confirmed. The fact that this particular merger was tried and failed before tells me it could fail again. Isa (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with your first two points, but the third is incorrect: Several years ago AT&T (#1 carrier) attempted to purchase T-Mobile (#4). This time it's T-Mo absorbing Sprint. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The New York Times source says "Sprint and T-Mobile have tried unsuccessfully to merge before. They were effectively blocked four years ago by regulators in the Obama administration who worried that shrinking the market for wireless providers would give consumers fewer choices and lead to higher prices." Isa (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We'll I'll be damned, thanks!


 * Oppose - Will support when the deal actually goes through. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above.--WaltCip (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment articles aren't ready, but for a lot of good reasons we've tended to post these on announcement. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose standard non-news "announces plans". Next business item, please, but make it a real one. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment As noted above by Laserlegs, agreements to mergers and acquisitions are usually posted upon announcement and not completion.
 * Comment The company involved is T-Mobile US and not T-Mobile. The correct article is T-Mobile US and not T-Mobile.
 * Comment The WSJ article provided is behind a paywall. Chrisclear (talk) 06:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Being behind a paywall is not an issue, see WP:PAYWALL. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * While it may be true that mergers and acquisitions are posted upon announcement, this is not the first time that T-Mobile has attempted to merge with Sprint. It was rejected in the past by regulators. In this case, it truly will be newsworthy if this merger is approved, as it would be a reversal of prior regulatory policy from only a few years ago.--WaltCip (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that is an accurate portrayal of what happened. T-Mobile US and Sprint Corporation discussed a possible merger, but I believe this is the first time they have agreed to specific terms. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-08-05/sprint-said-to-end-t-mobile-talks-plans-to-name-new-ceo Chrisclear (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) La Liga

 * Oppose missing refs in the shirt sponsors, managerial changes, most of the infobox, and "autonomous community" (I don't know or care what that is but if you're gonna drop it in, source it). Also it's yet another domestic soccer league. It's hard to write prose updates for these points based seasons .. you can't cram a game-by-game in the summary section but FFS it's just a wall of tables and a one liner about FC Barcelona sealing the title. For the worlds most popular sport, these articles are boring AF. Unrelated, I need to get a coin made with "Real Madrid" on one side and "FC Barcelona" on the other so I could predict the La Liga champion with 50/50 accuracy. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "FFS it's just a wall of tables and a one liner about FC Barcelona sealing the title" - that's odd because on my screen there's a five-paragraph summary section. Harambe Walks (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Harambe, I'm sorry, I genuinely didn't mean to disparage your efforts. All I'm saying is in a season with 340 matches there had to be more than five paragraphs worth of notability. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, that way we'll never be posting another MLB title ever again. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't bring MLB into this. 2017 Major League Baseball season seems to be a better article than 2017–18 La Liga. 2017 World Series is now GA thanks to yours truly. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume it adequately summarised all 33 million games played that season then. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that not every single game requires summarization. I am not sure exactly how much summary is needed for a "football" season; as this is out of my area of expertise, I'm not offering a support or oppose to this. How would I know if those five paragraphs are enough or not enough? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just noting how nonsensical it is. We have season articles for each club too, their quality varies, but honestly, not even Britannica would expect a summary of the 340 games (I made it 380 by the way).  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I was just confirming that I did in fact write "you can't cram a game-by-game in the summary section" -- which I did. Not sure what compelled you to bring up "MLB" -- especially since we posted the championship tournament and not the boring wall of tables season summary. Oh well. Thanks for participating TRM! --LaserLegs (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't care. The best news was that the story was posted, which was all that was required.  Cheers now! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This will undoubtedly be posted now because "OMG soccer", go ahead and nominate it again if FC Barcelona goes undefeated -- Soccer records are ITN/R anyway and it further cements La Liga as an utter joke of a competitive soccer league. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I know WP:NOTFORUM but there's academic study that suggests that competitiveness does not make a league less attractive and it may in fact be a lack of balance that fuels interest Harambe Walks (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is also 2017–18_FC_Barcelona_season, which has plenty of prose, unfortunately it's a pretty textbook example of proseline. --LukeSurlt c 10:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose, regional-interest story. Kaldari (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - La Liga is watched world-wide by a massive audience. To call it a regional-interest story is preposterous, and simply false. Moreover, opposing on these grounds makes no sense, or else we would not post half of the items currently on ITN/R. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt it is watched world-wide, however, at least where I'm at, it's not on Google News Sports page and not mentioned in sports news coverage. Perhaps as a European, your view is a bit different than mine. As to the proliferation of regional sports news on ITN, I think we could stand to cut back on it quite a bit. For example, most of the world doesn't even know what snooker is (believe it or not), but we always cover it at ITN as well as pretty much every U.S.-based championship of any sport. Kaldari (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait. There are two ongoing discussions at WT:ITNR on this exact topic. I won't repeat what has already been said there, but in summary I think La Liga should be one of the leagues we post once the season is completely over, not when one team gains an unassailable lead. Come back in a few weeks. Modest Genius talk 16:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also WP:ITNR explicitly states that posting should be at the conclusion of the competition, not now. Modest Genius talk 10:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. Soccer is not like other sports--the trophy is awarded and celebrations are held as soon as one team gains an unbeatable lead.  Barcelona is hosting the championship parade today, not at the end of the season. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC))
 * Comment Should also note that La Liga is considered the number one ranked soccer league in the Europe by UEFA, which implies that it's also the number one ranked domestic soccer league in the world. The Premier League may be number one in dollars, but La Liga is number one in terms of how competitive their teams are. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC))
 * Not always. Manchester City haven't been awarded the Premier League trophy yet. That will be done at their last home game of the season.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That last bit is actually not true--Manchester City will receive the trophy at their second-last home game of the season, against Huddersfield on May 6. It appears in this case that the club chose that date, which indicates that the club has the right to schedule their trophy presentation whenever they want, once they have an insurmountable lead. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC))


 * Weak support Article is a bit heavy on the tables, and light on the prose, but I won't hold it up for that. Congrats to Barça -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support and support posting now, when it's in the news. At the end of the season, it will not be "in the news".  Job done.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is so "ITN worthy" that you're cool with posting the article where none of the managers in the staffing table are referenced? This must be critically important to the readers of Wikipedia! --LaserLegs (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think WP:BLUE comes into that. The majority of the article is sourced, and in modern football most managers are new to the season, so they are sourced in the managerial changes box. If anyone has a serious doubt that Zinedine Zidane is the manager of Real Madrid or that Diego Simeone is the manager of Atlético Madrid I welcome them to put a cn tag and I can get round to that. Harambe Walks (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm applying the same standards which are used for a list of works for a deceased artist: in those cases WP:BLUE has not been applied, and the the article held to an exacting standard of referencing. Maybe it's because of BLP? But then, that'd apply to managers too... --LaserLegs (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted Neither oppose is convincing, indeed one of them is the definition of something that should not be used as an oppose. Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Surely this should read "Barcelona wins"? I'd also argue the blurb should explain what "La Liga" is, e.g.: "…Barcelona wins the La Liga football championship." — Hugh (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For general knowledge, British English uses a plural subject for teams/organizations. [They] win. Killiondude (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a way of writing these blurbs that avoids the ENG/US verb agreement, but I can't remember what it is ... Black Kite (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Our standard phrasing is 'Competition X concludes with Y as the champions defeating Z in the final'. Which of course only works if we follow WP:ITNR and post at the correct time - when the competition ends. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Still wouldn't solve the ENG/US issue - Americans would say, "the champion."--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops, my mistake. Corrected to the standard wording for sports items, but that doesn't fit a league with no final. Open to suggestions. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support This is all over the news in my corner of the world, and I'm not even in Europe... –FlyingAce✈hello 00:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment - Curious why this was posted now given that La Liga doesn't finish until 20th May when Manchester City winning the English Premier League was nixed partly as consensus was to post it at season's conclusion. yorkshiresky (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * while I'm not privy to that particular discussion, the summary of the season on the Premier League season article is not very well written or well sourced. For example, the last (unsourced paragraph) mentions an "Albion", which me having seen the game know was West Brom, but both them and Brighton are already named in the section (and are both better known by their town than as Albion). Harambe Walks (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose What is the long-term impact of this? Someone kicked a ball better than others did? Mike Peel (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael Martin

 * Comment - The title of nobility is not necessary to be posted as part of the RD.--WaltCip (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose two maintenance tags (a little overkill that) but several unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added various sources. I think current content is now all referenced appropriately. Drchriswilliams (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Some good work done to improve it. yorkshiresky (talk) 11:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Referencing looks adequate to me. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

RD: Larry Harvey

 * Oppose too much unreferenced at this point. And a little stubby... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on article quality; I declined to nominate this because it seemed too far from acceptable. The only sourced content about him is that he founded Burning Man, and that he died. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - similarly to, I thought about nominating this, and then looked at the article. Woeful referencing, and quite short. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

RD: Karl Toft

 * Support typically good nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Still some uncited material; for an article of this contentious nature everything must be covered by reliable sources with inline citations, especially as no doubt many of the other subjects involved are alive. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing is marked as need citation, unless it's all been resolved. If not, could you clarify in the article?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Large chunks of the article are still cited to articles in a local newspaper, The Daily Gleaner. I personally have no idea how reliable this is, but I would not consider the equivalent UK newspaper reliable for such matters. Perhaps someone knowledgeable about Canadian press could weigh in. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose I share the concern of to a great extant. Just because every sentence is marked with citation superscript that doesn't mean everything is right. This article is biased and heavily unduly slanted towards opinion of one paper/journalist. That paper is used almost 10 times as standard reference and reference-called 16 more times, that is over 85% of all the references. For an article that host such odd negative biography   multiple high-quality sources" are required. And that Daily Gleaner is not even notable, for us to asses how reliable it is (notwithstanding it has that next-to-nothing stub) and all the stories were written by one journalist; more cause for concern. I am not sympathetic to this subject or how he lived, but sympathetic about what Wikipedia should present.  –Ammarpad (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James H. Cone

 * Support Queried one statement with cn tag, but overall the article is in good shape and sufficient for RD. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Philip H. Hoff

 * Support Looks good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAINEiac4434 (talk • contribs)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. 331dot (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alfie Evans

 * Support subject to the unreferenced section being addressed. Otherwise - good to go. Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - I have referenced that section thoroughly, so the issue has been removed. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur, now has my full support. Mjroots (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - we posted Charlie Gard under similar circumstances. I see this one as a support also.Stormy clouds (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - sourcing much improved by User:Stormy clouds. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I was thinking of nominating this myself after seeing it appear in WaPost and WSJ. Only making note this was not an isolated story only to the UK (likely in part of the Pope's/Vatican's involvement) --M asem (t) 14:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for posting. This really ought to be a blurb, not because he was "very important" or whatever but because this story has been in and out of the news for a year, and the legal battle (also the title of the article) is the story here, not the individual. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - If the standard we're using for a blurb is that the individual should be a transformative world leader or someone whose death makes news for a significant length of time, I don't believe this subject passes the Thatcher-Mandela standard.--WaltCip (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Putting this as a blurb would be epitome of excessiveness and belittling to the death like this that we blurbed few weeks ago. By that standard we should just copy whatever is on the BBC front page and paste on the ITN template everyday. –Ammarpad (talk)
 * You're opposed to the "In the news" section featuring stories which are "in the news"? How odd. Hawking was an obit, the saga of the end of his life was not the central story of his life. Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Álvaro Arzú

 * Comment – I have fully referenced the article (except for one award), added some more information about his presidential term, and copyedited most of it. I would appreciate it if someone with better English skills could go over it, in case I missed something (there are a couple of paragraphs that could use a rewrite, but it's bedtime here). –FlyingAce✈hello 05:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose yes, good work, a couple of outstanding issues and it's there. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added the missing reference, tweaked some of the wording and added more information about his work as mayor. I believe we are set now, but if anything else needs work, let me know. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Still one subjective sentence without ref, the rest is good, nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * D'oh! I thought I had removed it earlier as I could not find a ref for it. –FlyingAce✈hello 21:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thanks, for the referencing work. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Neonicotinoid pesticides

 * Weak oppose Interesting, and important. However, 1) No evidence this is actually in the news (which is a shame but oh well) and 2) Article has missing refs and dead links. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There are news sources quoted above, and I can add a few more: BBC, Daily Mail (which doesn't usually like environmental stories), Independent, Bloomberg. Smurrayinchester 15:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * (have just run User:InternetArchiveBot to fix the dead links) Smurrayinchester 15:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To me, a few WP:RS covering a thing is not the same as that thing being "In the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , linked there to a host of different news outlets covering the story, I don't understand your objection. --LukeSurlt c 15:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * International coverage of SFOs scooter menace:    . Just because some WP:RS has covered a thing, does not mean that thing is "in the news". It's 2018, online publications spewing out rehashed wire stories about something in an effort to rise in search engine rankings and get more eyes on ads is not the same as featuring something. Come on. My benchmark is to use the aggregators Google and Bing. Widely reported stories trend on those. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The European Union is not a "online publication spewing out rehashed wire stories." When it bans something it is binding on 28 member states and gets widely reported, as is the case here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Literally everything the EU bans or approves affects 28 countries, not impressed. I look for news coverage, simple as that. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , you and I appear to have very different definitions of the word "in". --LukeSurlt c 16:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems so. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Let's use Google News as an example. There I get ~20 headlines each in "domestic" "international" "science" "health" etc. I can set my location to pretty much anywhere in the world, and while there is some overlap, the feed is effectively local. I just browsed through over 300 distinct headlines in a failed attempt to find this story. If I can't find it without typing "neonicotinoid" in a search box, it is not "in the news." ghost 16:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose for now. The article is in pretty good shape overall, however the update is far too minimal.  There's basically one line of text in body of the target article (repeated in the lead) describing the ban.  If this could be expanded to provide some more context, that would fix the problem.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but agree with Jayron that the article needs a slightly more meaty update. i'm confused by why other editors are not finding this is in the news; it is still on the science & environment index page of BBC, for example. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support pending update per Expresso Addict. Jusdafax (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I've provided what should be sufficient expansion, but I'm a little concerned about the rest of the article, which has a few CN tags and several instances of large sections being sourced to a single reference. Vanamonde (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 inter-Korean summit

 * Support. Article seems up to date, give or take some developments that might have happened minutes ago (the summit is still ongoing). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Far too short at the moment.  Sounder Bruce  05:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. The handshake between the leaders of the two Koreas symbolizes one of the biggest breakthrough in world's peace process of 2018 from the remaining of World War II. Chongkian (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait. For the article to get built up a bit. Also some articles mention that the results of first day talks would be announced in a few hours. Juxlos (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC) They just agreed to end the Korean War so Strong Support. Juxlos (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is definitely notable and in the news merely by its occurrence. I think we should wait till the summit ends, and hopefully the article will have more content then. There might be an outcome from the summit worth highlighting in the blurb. --LukeSurlt c 08:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Unlike a lot of similar summits, the mere occurrence of this one is highly notable.  I don't think we need to wait for the end to post it. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. It may be better to say that the main result of the summit has been an agreement to formally end the Korean War. Count Iblis (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd agree with, and have added an alt blurb. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Should the denuclearization be mentioned as well? Juxlos (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Does this declaration technically count as the elusive peace treaty to end the Korean War? It's a technicality, but so is the extended "state of war" that is often discussed. --LukeSurlt c 10:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell it doesn't. I'd prefer to go for the denuclearisation angle in the blurb, as this is more what news orgs are picking up on. --LukeSurlt c 10:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted and waiting for image protection before changing photo. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 10:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Picture changed. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 11:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The article doesn’t mention the end of the Korean War? Stephen 11:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we should go for a simple blurb and extend it after the article is expanded. --LukeSurlt c 11:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Shouldn't the blurb link to the ongoing Korean conflict, not the Korean War which ended in the 1950s? I think the current blurb will confuse readers. GWA88 (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * But it never formally ended - that's the point.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ironically, neither did WWII in Europe. Sca (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Similar to how the Empire of Japan and the Soviet Union never formally declared peace after the declaration of war in WWII, the Korean War never formally ended and has technically been active for the last 68 years. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 17:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Technically, or legally, there never was a peace treaty between the German Reich or its successor state(s) and its enemies, although one was alluded to at Potsdam. (However, the 1990 "Two Plus Four" treaty on German Reunification is considered by many observers to have formally ended the state of war.) – Sca (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Bill Cosby found guilty of sexual assault
*Weak Support Though I hesitate to support stories about individual crimes with few exceptions for things such as terrorism, we recently posted to ITN a high-profile conviction for murder demonstrating that such stories are ITN worthy as long as they show significant interest which this one clearly does. As others have mentioned, I would recommend making any changes to the article deemed necessary. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 18:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This is a major social news story. Natureium (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, but article quality issues... This is easily a ITN story, but we need clarity on the blurb. Cosby's article is nearly there but there's a few tagged areas and the -ography sections lack references. If we are talking the allegations articles, there's far too much proseline in that, even though it seems reasonably sourced. It's more quality less than sourcing here. --M asem (t) 18:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Significant story, but similar reservations as per above on surrounding quality. Doesn't look too hard to fix, though.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose for now; both potential targets have some cleanup issues, the Cosby article has some sourcing issues (esp. in Honors and Filmography/Discography sections) and the allegations article is a bit bloated, though that one is less of an issue for me.  I really wouldn't object to the allegations article being the bold highlight, but it'd be nice to tighten up both of them before they hit the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I didn't read the whole thing because I don't care, but referencing is an issue. I also worry when I see a full paragraph with a single ref. Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations is a zoo. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Don’t now if I’m going against the status quo or not but this story has been in the news off and on ever since it first broke several years ago, and it’s constantly blasted on the news whenever a major development like this happens. It’s not “just an individual crime” when it’s multiple charges of the same crime by at least 50 different alleged victims. 66.31.81.200 (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I typically don't call for posting criminal activity in general with exceptions for extreme cases such as terrorism (both international and domestic) and mass killings or shootings. However, I do recognize that this is story is demonstrably notable and highly publicized, meaning I have no real reason to oppose it, which is why I did support it (except the article really does need better sourcing to pass BLP concerns, in all cases this should be fixed before we post stories) Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 19:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - notable story, worthy of a blurb, but my lord the referencing issues are bad. BLP people - this cannot go up until it is impeccable sourced - there is no room for unsourced material in such a contentious BLP. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing weak support, changing !vote to oppose I just realized we should probably wait until the sentencing to post... Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 19:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the conviction is bigger news than the sentencing. There's an appeal process, though, right? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we (at ITN) weigh the conviction more than the sentence, barring an unusual sentence. We also generally ignore appeals in cases like this (and I believe I've read they're already planning to appeal this). --M asem (t) 20:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be shocked if he didn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - This is a major story. Historic verdict.BabbaQ (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support pending article improvement? Masem above cleared away my only reservations based on the notability of the event. Cosby's bio has 13 cn tags as of now, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And I'm going to add a few more. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose solely on article quality. Referencing needs work before this can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support the target should be Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations which has a couple of yellow tags but more than 350 references, and is pretty comprehensive. I'd say debold Cosby, bold the allegations article and we're good to go.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support: Per Masem and TRM. Main focus should be on the article discussing his assault and allegations. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Lots of people are talking about it. Bluecrab2 (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Suggested alt blurb with the sex assault article being the highlight, and also mentioning last year's mistrial for perspective and reference. 66.31.81.200 (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Prefer tarring and feathering to de-bolding, but that will have to do I guess. Article still has cn tags and could warrant a few more.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, but Cosby's article needs better sourcing. The other target article, about the allegations, is pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support with the bolding as per the alt-blurb. The article Bill Cosby has citation issues, however these do not relate to the news story so IMO it is not essential to have these sorted before posting if this is not a bold article. --LukeSurlt c 10:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per what TRM said, above.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment seems to me that there's a clear consensus for the alt blurb, so good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted alt-blurb. Dragons flight (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hans-Reinhard Koch

 * Weak Oppose I'm not sure if all of the relatively few sources are WP:RS. Also I am not sure how "in the news" this is. I am open to correction if the sources are in fact reliable and there are more than a couple of short obituaries in local news outlets. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support It looks fine to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Murder of Kim Wall

 * Support Subject is in the news, article is up to snuff. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. This seems an unusual case due to its circumstances. Article seems OK. 331dot (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support In the news, decent article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Very big case in the news. With a bit of improvement article could reach B-class. Linguist un Eins uno 00:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – As long as we don't call him an "inventor," as most of the big news sites do. Basic submarine-technology was invented a century-plus ago. The only thing Wall invented was a cockamamy tale about his voyage, if one may use the term, with Ms. Wall. Sca (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose. Since when did ITN post tabloid stories about a single murder? This is local crime news with no major encyclopaedic impact. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We have generally posted the conviction of people considered "high profile" on criminal charges, eg Oscar Pistorius back [Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/September 2014 here]. --M asem (t) 14:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A murder on board a personal submarine is also highly unusual. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose I agree with Modest Genius. A single murder has been to extremely noteworthy in order to reach ITN, and I don't believe Madsen is as (in)famous as Pistorius. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong about that. I agree that a murder on a personal submarine is rare, but rarity is not a sufficient reason to post this, in my opinion. Lepricavark (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support this has been in the news on and off for months, and was headline-breaking news where I reside and there's literally no connection between this news story and where I am, so it's clearly big news, and something our readers would be interested in. The conviction is in, we posted Pistorius, and rightly so, and this is simply a parallel to that.  Notable person kills notable person and then denies it.  Seems obviously an ITN item to me.  Plus article is okay too. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * One minor clarification: we don't have a standalone article on Wall, so I don't think she really qualifies as a notable person. Lepricavark (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia, perhaps, but then we don't have a standalone article on Myra Hindley but there's no doubt she was notable. Thanks though. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Were it not for the murder, I highly doubt either Madsen or Wall would have an article. Same with Hindley and her crimes for that matter. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. But that's water under the bridge really, although making that claim about Hindley indicates to me that you have a very different interpretation to news and crime from me, so it's probably best to can the conversation right now.  P.S. the Madsen article was created in 2011, so I'm unclear about your "were it not for the murder" comment.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Madsen article was barely there at the time of the murder. Neither of these people are remarkable in any sense. Rich guy kills journalist, chops her up - it's salacious. A sensational story doesn't become encyclopedic because the MSM picks it up. ghost 16:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That it was "barely" here is irrelevant. Featured for some time all over reliable sources, of interest to our readers, and of suitable quality.  Works for me.  Now I suggest you all go and do something more useful than simply argue the toss with me, after all it won't make any difference now.  Cheers!  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support – It's a seamy story all right, but it's long been featured intermittently on mainline news sites (including NYT), and not only English-language  ones. The sordid circumstances, and not least the underwater aspect, inevitably generate high reader interest. Sca (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Madeeha Gauhar

 * Support Short but adequate. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support agreed, good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Arrest made in the Golden State Killer case

 * Oppose I can see the interest in a cold case suddenly have been solved, but they have only arrested and charged him. The person will have a trial. Per BLP and per past ITN approaches, we post these if the trial determines sentences him. --M asem (t) 18:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose it's actually in the news (ZOMG!) but the referencing, while not bad, has some gaps. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Yeah, at minimum the person's name shouldn't be in the blurb per BLP; and when he is convicted seems a better time to post it (and it should be news then too) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose convict him and maybe we can think about a DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Masem is right on the money. --LukeSurlt c 18:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, if it's too soon, I can retract my ITN nomination.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - WP:BLP reigns supreme.--WaltCip (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This person was not a known fugitive like El Chapo, who had also escaped from prison, or even someone famous like a head of state. They only suspect this person is the killer. WP:BLP is controlling. 331dot (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: 2018 Gaza border protests

 * Support It has been getting quality updates on daily basis, since the removal from the ITN. -- M h hossein   talk 04:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that there will be more developments, tomorrow. -- M h hossein   talk 05:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Maybe hold the nomination until Saturday, then? Support, but prefer a standalone blurb. I'm wary of using ongoing for too long (surely an editor committed enough could update Syrian Civil War every day with new RS). But I think the five executions (Hey, they know where every bullet landed) this week warrant mention. ghost 11:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's been out of the news for a few weeks and the article hasn't been significantly updated with new developments for a while. There have been a few edits, but it looks mostly like cleanup of the organization. Most of the things going on now are minor and restricted to local news. And, lets try not to anticipate events before they happen. OtterAM (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Recent edits, which include substantial new information, are visible here: .--Carwil (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Updated to reflect 27 April events. --Carwil (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 10,000 people is not a high number. Stephen 22:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Stepen: Maybe "10,000 people is not a high number," but "it was the first breach of the security fence in five consecutive weeks of Palestinian protests," and Israeli army spokesman called it an "audacious" and "severe" attack.(LATimes)-- M h hossein   talk 18:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait. I think the recent events need to be going on for more than 1 day (referring to the April 27 update; there's nothing since Apr 20 before then), so if there's something for 2 or more days, I would consider supporting.  Spencer T• C 00:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not ongoing anymore.There are low profile clashes but I don't think its enough to include it.--Shrike (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rick Dickinson

 * Oppose too many unreferenced claims at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support looks like everything's been cited now. yorkshiresky (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nearly... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Found a reference for the CN tag. Whizz40 (talk) 05:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good to go now? Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support made a few tweaks myself but overall looks ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support article looks ready, in the news in multiple languages according to Google news search. Whizz40 (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Haddon Donald

 * Support - per nom. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as the article is in good shape. I'd action this soon as we have Anzac Day in New Zealand (and Australia) and given that he was the highest-ranked WWII veteran, this will go through the news media quite quickly.  Schwede 66  23:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sachio Kinugasa

 * support - perhaps the Awards and accolades section needs some extra source but other than that it is ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Though not that great article for his prominence, this is sufficient and adequately referenced. This 1987 NYT piece shows he has been a star for a long time.–Ammarpad (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Vanamonde (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted to Ongoing) Nicaraguan protests

 * Support blurb Has been in the news and events have been escalating. I think posting a blurb would be fitting, which then goes down to ongoing if events continue and the article stays updated.  Spencer T• C 17:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing The article is showing updates basically daily for a week, that seems to be ongoing, especially since no one has produced a blurb which would be more detailed than "There are protests in Nicaragua". Seems like a perfect target for ongoing.  Would consider a blurb if it were properly worded, but one has not yet been produced.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing as nominated. This has started almost a week ago and the news has been virtually the same everyday since then and even today no major difference from the previous days. It may be renominated for blurb when it culminated in some serious changes or political moves–Ammarpad (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I would suggest renominating if the protests end and/or if, for example, Ortega resigns as president. For now, the social security reforms were pulled back due to the protests. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support ongoing - per above mentioned reasons.BabbaQ (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing and would consider a blurb if there was one to consider. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing - The article is decent, the situation evolving. Jusdafax (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As there seems to be consensus for Ongoing, I have posted it there. Discussion of a blurb can continue. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll suggest some blurbs for the time being, but I recommend reconsidering it since English is not my mother tongue. I should also note that the Nicaraguan Red Cross estimate is of 9 deaths and that Ortega cancelled the social reforms, but protesters now ask for his resignation.--Jamez42 (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Great Mosque of al-Nuri (Mosul)

 * opposenothing notable about political posturing. Good faith, nonetheless.Lihaas (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Good news, but small change in terms of reconstruction funding. Also, the update is shorter than the blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Significant gesture, insignificant story. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per - there's currently only a sentence on this action in the article, and that's probably the correct level of detail for this at the current time. In terms of international aid, $50m isn't that much, and promises of aid don't always result in actual action. I think the re-opening of the mosque after reconstruction is complete would be a reasonable ITNC nomination. --LukeSurlt c 13:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose does not rise to ITN level. Lepricavark (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as TOOSOON. Once the Mosque is finished I might support a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Conditional support the update to the pledge of rebuiling is too short and should be placed into it own tab on the page. Must be updated and added to be posted. --Awestruck1 (talk) 20:44 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Good faith, but the pledging of money alone isn't highly significant. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 14:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Hajjah Governorate airstrike

 * Weak Support Article is less than an hour old, needs more added to it, wait a bit. 06:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do feel free to help in expanding the article. Andise1 (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * When quoting casualty ranges, blurbs should be in the form "at least " rather than "as many as " (see alt blurb). I think this is notable, though the article will need some more expansion before it is ready. I'm also cautious about leaning too much on the RT reporting, as this is not a particularly reliable/neutral source. --LukeSurlt c 10:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I expanded the article as best I could, feel free to take a look. Andise1 (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there any source for The planes repeatedly flew over the area where the strike was being conducted, thus preventing medical personnel from being able to help the victims other than RT? It's a very accusatory statement, and RT is allied with the opposite side of this conflict to the Saudis. --LukeSurlt c 08:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the Press TV source effectively Iranian state media, which I would not trust to be neutral on this. --LukeSurlt c 10:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * weak support per above.Lihaas (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support once article is ready. Very significant event. Lepricavark (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 *  Weak Oppose It's been labeled as a "start" but it's too close to a stub for me. Needs some meat on those bones. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I expanded the article as best I could, feel free to take a look. Andise1 (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Civilian deaths for this conflict far outpace belligerents. Back of the envelope says about 10/day. Unfortunate and tragic, but not news. ghost 14:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Meaningful text in the article describing the actual event is basically no longer than the blurb would be; other than the blurb text there are two quotes. Nothing else meaningful is in the article, so it is too short to provide any real useful information to the reader.  If someone were to greatly expand the article, I would re-read it and reconsider.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support It's better than it was; it would be nice to see more here, but I won't hold it up with an oppose vote. It's tolerable for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I expanded the article a bit (as much as I could), feel free to take a look. I will continue to update it as more information is released. Andise1 (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I've added three tags to some strong statements that are currently sourced only to RT and Press TV. Given that these organisations are effectively state broadcasters of Saudi opponents in this conflict they cannot be the sole source in what amount to accusations of war crimes. --LukeSurlt c 10:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * LukeSurl: I tried to address some of your concerns. -- M h hossein   talk 14:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support this significant event. I edited the article and added more sources. The article does not seem to be a stub now. -- M h hossein   talk 13:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Nice job on the expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Expanded and more sources added. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I think it's ready to go now. I've edited a bit to qualify some statements ("X said Y happened", rather than "Y happened") where necessary and avoid leaning anything too strong on questionable sources. In particular, I've changed "targeted" to "hit", so as to not necessarily imply intention. Going forward, we should be aware that in international politics and war, both sides can produce professional news copy which suits their purposes, and we need to be careful about accepting these verbatim. --LukeSurlt c 15:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted a modified blurb combining what I find best of the two proposed blurbs. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support The expansion of content and sources cleared up any concerns regarding sourcing & a tragic event with several dozen casualties is inherently significant, especially one this careless and hostile. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 19:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Saleh Ali al-Sammad
Support RD, oppose blurb — Well referenced, but not notable enough for a blurb. 06:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Undecided Might merit a blurb. Changes of heads of state are usually blurb worthy. However, his office is largely unrecognized, but on the other side the circumstance is highly unusually (death by airstrike), which usually increases the blurbworthiness. HaEr48 (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Stub. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Too short to warrant posting at this time. Also opposed to a blurb - not a Thatcher or Mandela.--WaltCip (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose both blurb and RD. Subject not prominent enough for blurb, article not ready for RD. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Penis and scrotum transplant

 * Oppose DYK is the way ahead here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. Neither has been updated adequately and the human penis article is very poorly referenced. I am Neutral on the merits of the nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you know of a more suitable article than penis (or scrotum)? Those were just the two that first came to my mind, but open to others if more suitable ones exist. Andise1 (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to say that this is well outside of my field of knowledge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak support with different target article (Penis transplantation). However the human penis article also has this section which makes it seem like this transplant is an incremental advance. Open to changing my mind, but will need some indication of why this is so different from previously-performed penis transplants. Banedon (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I just don't think this is at the level of importance we expect from ITN. — 🦊 23:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * support If the first heart transplant was notable (and WP was not there then) then this is. Although might have to watch the wording. "Male secual organ"/"urinary gland", I do not know.Lihaas (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that's a stretch. Most people would probably agree that heart transplants are far more important. Lepricavark (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Most people are stupid. The heart is just a pump; that's why it was the first organ to be transplanted. People only think its special because of the mythical association as the seat of emotion, which is WP:FRINGE.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ...what? Killiondude (talk) 05:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Neutral / mixed It's interesting and certainly notable, but DYK does seem more fitting. I'm willing to switch to either support or oppose based on other editors' comments. I agree with Banedon that there should be indication of what makes transplant in particular unique compared to past transplants. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose not only is this more DYK material, this is also very inappropriate in terms of decency. SamaranEmerald (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Show me the policy that applies. HiLo48 (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the one you're looking for is WP:NOTCENSORED.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per all of the above, this is the kind of nomination that will garner controversy should it be posted...it’s just plain out obscene. Kirliator (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Show me the policy that applies. HiLo48 (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is better suited for DYK. I also sympathize with concerns that this is obscene and potentially stale as well. Lepricavark (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Technically, this was completed in March, they're likely only reporting it now to make sure the man was recovering. This might be stale for that reason. --M asem (t) 04:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Do we not post things when the news reports about them? This is technically "in the news" now, whereas in March it was not. Andise1 (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Because several editors have opposed this on the basis on obscenity, I just checked WP:Obscenity. There is absolutely nothing there that would allow this news item to be ruled obscene. Those objections would appear to fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and therefore count for nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Significant medical advance, probably in an area many thought unlikely. HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Lepricavark, better suited for DYK, not ITN. In addition, this nomination is starting to become the source of bias from both sides of the issue (e.g. one side claiming it is obscene, and the other claiming it isn’t and that the the former is posting just because they don’t like it. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The simple point is that there is absolutely no basis for any claims of obscenity. Do please read what's behind that link. HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support This has the prospect of improving the quality of life of many people.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Hopefully an admin (or two) will help pull this off.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose both articles have many unreferenced paragraphs. WP:UNCENSORED doesn't mean that "containing obscenity" adds merit to the article somehow. HaEr48 (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll try once more. What in this item is obscene according to Wikipedia policy? I have asked this of several people who have already suggested it. None has responded. It looks an awful lot like "I don't like it" to me. HiLo48 (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I seriously doubt that there is any encyclopedic benefit that can be gained by putting this front and center on the main page. I also don't appreciate Hilo's bludgeoning of voters. That puts me off even more. WaltCip (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And do you really think the Wikipedia community should appreciate a bunch of conservatives trying to control what gets published in direct contravention of policy? I am the one defending Wikipedia policy here. The conservatives are ignoring and confronting it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If the reasons aren't backed up in policy, then the posting admin that oversees this nom will take that into account. You do not need to harangue, harass, bully, bludgeon, etc. every single oppose vote that even hints the slightest discomfort with this blurb. Doing so only imperils your own position. Of course, none of this is notwithstanding the fact that this may not even be news, per Modest Genius. In which case, DYK is an ideal forum to bring this up at, not ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see the utility on going for a double-bold blurb for this. In which article is the reader going to find info on the transplant? Currently the answer is neither. Human_penis makes no mention of this 2018 transplant and says the first successful transplant was 2005. I find no mention of transplants in the Scrotum article. Oppose unless there is a meaningful addition to article space regarding this event. --LukeSurlt c 09:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * below suggests a much better target article: Penis transplantation. But even then, this reads like an incremental change (as per ) rather than something groundbreaking, so I'm sticking to the oppose side for this. --LukeSurlt c 11:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There's nothing obscene about this, but the sources indicate that it is an incremental advance over previous transplants. The BBC are crediting the breakthrough as having happened in 2016. Also, for scientific stories we wait for the publication of a paper in a peer-reviewed journal; it's unclear to me whether that standard applies to medicine as well (for a new drug we should certainly wait for a published clinical trial). DYK might be suitable if penis transplant has been suitably expanded. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support with different target article (Penis transplantation). -- The Anome (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - a novel breakthrough, but novel breakthroughs like this are better suited for DYK. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Toronto van incident

 * Support BBC now reporting 9 killed. Very rare (and tragic) event for Canada. EternalNomad (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support ah, so not just Europe then. Unstoppable tragedy strikes North America and horribly so. Support because it's notable that it's in Canada, it's notable that it has a reasonably high casualty count, the article is already good enough to post, it's in the news globally, this is ready already. Blurb sucks, but otherwise post now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support although I'm not certain we should call it a "vehicular attack". The BBC news are currently reporting the local police as calling it an "apparent attack" so I've proposed an alt-blurb but that could do with being more succint. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Very proud how the article turned out to be. Not sure if I can support since I created the article and is the updater. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I debate waiting for you to nom it as your own work, but decided to move ahead. Hope you don't mind. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure I'd be INT worthy as I though there were no fatalities, but I am certainly very glad you nominated it while the article is being updated! Good work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. This is undoubtedly either a terrorist attack or a lone wolf copycat of a terrorist attack. Suggested second alt blurb. Also CNN is reporting “at least 9 dead” and “at least 16 injured”, so I’ve added those stats to my blurb. 66.31.81.200 (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - solid article, clear notability. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted wtih modification of blurb2 ("16" is not "dozens"). --M asem (t) 21:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No longer "at least" Dust has settled and casualties are counted. Can someone correct the blurb in certain terms? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Updated to 10 and 15. --M asem (t) 00:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That ten was a nine when I asked, but simply updating is the way to go. Saying "at least" kind of implies (at least some) of the injured are expected to die, rather than might. Not the most positive (or neutral) thinking. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Per above; unusual event, I don't think this has happened outside of Europe before; added alt-blurb 3.  Nixinova   T   C   03:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, where on earth are you getting I don't think this has happened outside of Europe before from? Indiscriminate ramming attacks are fairly routine in Israel, and there were three high-profile ramming attacks in North America last year alone (Charlottesville, Edmonton and NYC). &#8209; Iridescent 2 08:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support – Significant and prominently featured in Englang media (and also, quite frankly, because it's not in the U.S.) – Sca (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's futile, but as a Canadian citizen living in the USA I can't decide what's more pathetic and insulting here: the flippant disregard for stories about tragedies in the USA or that this (not terrorist) attack in Canada is "ITN worthy" "because it's not in the U.S.)" --LaserLegs (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) WASP-104b

 * I'd prefer seeing this as dyk, if it gets expanded first. --Tone 16:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - better as a DYK. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, good faith nom, but this is better off in DYK, not ITN. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Moral support - Factually interesting, but better off in DYK.--WaltCip (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for ITNC - definitely a DYK candidate. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dave Nelson

 * Support Looks good. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support No issues. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Resignation of Armenian PM

 * Support as per what I've posted below in the discussion about including Armenian protests in the ITN. Randomnickname567 (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose orange tags, missing refs. It's in the news though. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The discussion should be in one place. Either this or the older one needs to be closed.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Notable. Regarding the orange tags, Serzh_Sargsyan does need citations, but the orange tag at the top of Serzh_Sargsyan is too non-specific to be actionable. --LukeSurlt c 15:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Additionally, 2018 Armenian protests needs updating to reference the protests' successful outcome. FWIW I think this should be a "two bold article" blurb.--LukeSurlt c 15:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support in principle, oppose on quality. Not only is there that orange tag, that proseline in the "early career" section is a problem. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support this resignation will have a lasting effect on the socio-political dynamic in the country. The resignation came after lots of protests which are in itself notable. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That';s CRYSTALBALL. iT IS more the ongoing-ness of this.Lihaas (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support but please see the Armenian Protests discussion below instead; the protests that led to this should absolutely be mentioned in the blurb + the protests article is more ready for ITN. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Very notable news from a corner of the world that almost never appears in the In The News box.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's maintenance tagged for the love of anything that's good. We can't post it, regardless of its notability worthiness in this state.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Very notable news--Panam2014 (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment What exactly do we need to do to fix that maintenance tag? I have no idea how to attack that at the moment.(NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC))
 * Comment What maintenance tag? I checked all three articles in the blurb and I haven't come across one. Is everyone talking about the expand suggestion tag? Is that even a maintenance tag? Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment "What maintenance tag?" is right. This article has a tag saying that someone who speaks Armenian (!!) should help translate and migrate content from the Armenian page to the English. Instead of posting this we're posting the names of professional athletes, one of whom set a record times at the London Marathon and the other (whose photo is now on the home page) hasn't even had their Wikipedia page updated with information about the London event. This article is ready to be posted.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is still a maintenance tag in the "Presidency (2008–2018)" section. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but there's still an orange-level tag in one section. I lack the expertise to know if it still applies or has already been dealt with. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Seems highly newsworthy to me. -- The Anome (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed the orange tag from Serzh_Sargsyan, as it was too non-specific to determine if its issues had been solved. --LukeSurlt c 11:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Yes, has been ITN. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I added my support below to the closure/merger with this one.Lihaas (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted Objections from early oppose votes seem to have been all fixed. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posing minor request I would recommend having both Serzh Sargsyan and the large-scale protests that led to it in bold Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 14:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:ERRORS is generally better for anything currently on the main page Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I wasn't sure whether or not this constituted an error but I'll post it there. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 14:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

 * Provisional Support - once there is an article and it is properly suitable and referenced for the main page. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Very much a stub as of time of writing this.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Changing to neutral, as we didn't post one for Charlotte. Yet another example of how ITN is IMHO dysfunctional because it serves as a vassal for editor prejudice and original research rather than reader convenience and the posting of things that are actually *in the news*. But hey ho, there's nothing I can do about that I guess... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What "prejudice" is involved here? No prejudice was involved in forming my opinion.  ITN is not a news ticker and has never been based solely on what is in the news(if it were, we would post Donald Trump's tweets almost daily); we use factors like editorial judgement and article quality to evaluate what merits posting.  As I stated, we did not post Charlotte because her birth is of little consequence as she is not directly in line for the throne, once George has kids she will be bumped down.  The same goes for this child. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * you say it's down to editorial judgement, yet the judgement of those who !vote here seems to differ from the judgement of all the most of the major news outlets of the world, including the serious outlets not just tabloids. I get that WP:OR and WP:SYNTH don't apply to main page content selection, but we should still be presenting the world as it is, not how we think it should be, and it should still be reader-focused. Perhaps you and I have a different view of what ITN should be about, but I think one of its main purposes, especially given its prominent position on the main page, should be to navigate editors to the articles they want to see at the moment. Kate Middleton's article has seen a big spike in views in the past couple of days, because readers want to read it, and "she is not directly in line for the throne" is not a reason why we shouldn't provide a link to the article for people. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Readers want to read about Kim Kardashian's hairstyle, should that be a permanent link in the ITN box? We need to reflect what readers are interested in, but this is also an encyclopedia, and what readers are interested in also needs to be viewed through that lens. ITN is not a news ticker or tabloid.  What you think is important for readers is not necessarily what I think is important for readers, or what other editors think, and so on.  Hence the need for discussion and consensus.  "She/he is not in line for the throne" is absolutely a reason not to post this, as if it was not a royal birth, it would not be in the news at all. It has no consequence to who the head of state of the UK/other nations is(which is why George was posted). If consensus turns and decides this merits posting, I would post it despite my personal views, but I don't expect that to happen. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We posted George because he is directly in line for the throne, we didn't post Charlotte because she isn't, the same should go for this son.  Once George has children, his new brother will be bumped down the line. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 331dot. Mjroots (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Children are born all the time. What 331dot said. talk to ! dave 12:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. George was maybe justified (just about) as he will probably become king some day. Other more minor royal births are not. It would be huge systemic bias if we posted this sort of story about the British royal family but not those of other countries. Just being in the news is not sufficient for ITN; we are not a tabloid newspaper. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Along the lines of Extra, Extra: Woman Has Baby; Bear Defecates In Woods.   —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 12:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Modest Genius; the number of "ifs" for this child to become king are too many to count. --M asem (t) 13:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - by the logic above how did the winner of a horse race get to be in the news then? It is still just a horse race and hundreds take place each day. What is being missed here is this is not What is notable but what is in the news. Articles are for what is notable. ITN is well for what is in the news that is connected to articles. This event will have more coverage than it deseerves, but it will get massive amounts of coverage. How this does not meet the ITN standards is beyond me. All I see from the opposers is I don't like this being given news coverage so lets not include it. That is not hwo ITN works AFAIK. WTKitty (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also since when did the need to sit ones arse on the British throne become criteria for what is and is not in the news? I assume from the comments here the Wedding of Prince Harry is an automatic no because his arse isn't going to be sat on the throne of England because he is behind this boy. These decisions must be consistent or they are simply arbitrary. WTKitty (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In this particular horse race, the horse you want us to promote on the main page came in third. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The above is nothing to do with this nomination it is distraction, there is zero criteria ere regarding ITN it is all just simple opinion and Like/dislike of nominations. WTKitty (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We judge significance of news, not just number of articles written about a subject. Otherwise ITN would be all Kardashian all the time. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm a monarchist and this doesn't belong on the main page. While I am very happy for the couple, the birth of princes that have no realistic chance of succeeding to the throne is just not that important. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Add We don't really have a lot of precedent for this sort of thing as monarchies have gone out of style in much of the world and the British Royal Family is typically the only one that gets a lot of global press. But FWIW my feeling is that the birth or death of heirs apparent, that is to say those who in the normal course of events are expected to succeed to a throne, probably should get a blurb. Others who are not expected to succeed usually will not merit any notice here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose A baby is born into a rich family. What number in line is he for the throne? The throne that has barely any power? This is insignificant and an example of systemic bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment It's in the news, I'd like to support, but the article is too short --LaserLegs (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How much content can there be for a newborn infant? – Muboshgu (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per 331. – Sca (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Bob Dorough

 * Oppose Significant gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per AO. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Hoyt Patrick Taylor Jr.

 * Support I added one CN tag but not for anything critical and main page stopping. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 London Marathon

 * Weak Support Just about enough there.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support ITN/R, sufficiently referenced. Informative. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - will do. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. It's not exactly on a par with Boat Race articles, but it's okay.  Plus there's an image we can use for the winner.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Also recommend possible images here of the winners. --M asem (t) 21:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * File:Berlin-Marathon 2015 Runners 0.jpg is fine, but could use (pictured in 2015) added to any caption, just in case. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Kyrgyzstan PM

 * Not Worthy He's not even the leader of the country (Kyrgyzstan is a presidential republic), and I doubt we'd even post news about a new president here. Sorry, just an impoverished minor and in general unimportant country of a few million people. Randomnickname567 (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No evidence of widespread news coverage.  I will note for  that Kyrgyszstan has transitioned to a parliamentary system according to Prime Minister of Kyrgyzstan.331dot (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OH well. Still, a country with population of 6 million and gdp the size of Guam's is not worthy an ITN mention, imho. Randomnickname567 (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Size and population are irrelevant. Per longstanding consensus, we post most if not all changes in head-of-state. Also, please leave your jingoistic sentiments at the door; your comments about the country being "unimportant" and "not worthy" are frankly insulting.--WaltCip (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's a three sentence micro-stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support but please do consider changing the bolded article to the Prime Minister of Kyrgyzstan article, not the article about the individual as it is a stub. I agree with WaltCip's arguments: changes of heads of state are inherently significant per longstanding consensus, and arguments that essentially boil down to "that country doesn't matter" hold no validity here. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree w/ WaltClip about the jingoistic nonsense. Just want to add it was not head of state, hence I did not tag it as ITNR.Lihaas (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: there's so little information in either Muhammetkaliy Abulgaziyev or Prime Minister of Kyrgyzstan that I cannot assess the significance of this. Unless and until there's some actual on-wiki content, this nomination isn't going anywhere. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Kabul suicide bombing

 * Why does this terrorist attack in an area of frequent terrorist attacks merit posting? 331dot (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We posted last months... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/March_2018#(Posted)_Kabul_suicide_bombing --LaserLegs (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * .....which I wasn't too keen on either, and kinda goes to my point that these attacks are frequent. Are we going to post one of these a month? 331dot (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. It's a stub and will require significant expansion before it could be posted. As for the merits, I see 331dot's point. These events have become common place over there. Assuming the article is sufficiently improved, I would likely give it a weak support only due to the high death toll. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose tragic but commonplace event that probably doesn't require an article, and should be subsumed into a list of attacks in that region. Stephen 02:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose and share the sentiment that this shouldn't even deserve a standalone page. It is pure WP:RECENTISM in action. Before even this is developed above mere news pieces paraphrasing; another bomb will explode and all attention will be to the new stub. In the next few years we will be left with thousands of permanent stubs on everyday's bombing. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * support IFF the article is up to scratch. this is a high death toll even for Afghan standards.Lihaas (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality / support when improved - Feel free to contact me when the article is improved and I will support this, but all ITN listings should meet the quality thresholds necessary. We posted last month's Kabul bombing because it demonstrated clear significance. I believe 331dot's argument that we shouldn't post this because they seem to happen frequently is a blatantly obvious WP:CRYSTAL argument. Unlike annually scheduled events, you can't just declare that a mass killing in Kabul will happen every month, or that it's just Afghanistan being Afghanistan. I'd even say that asking "Are we going to post one of these a month?" is subtly jingoistic of you, even though I wouldn't go as far as to say you made the argument in bad faith. The significance of this event is beyond question based on our precedents; it's the quality of the article that should be addressed instead. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not WP:CRYSTAL to state that Afghanistan has a history of terrorist attacks and that it seems unlikely to change in the near future.(if any expert or politician foresees a quick end to the terrorism there, I'd love to read that piece.) The War in Afghanistan template in the nominated article shows 4 attacks(not including this one) this year, 14 last year, 19 in 2016, and 11 in 2015. That's just about one a month, and that is just the ones that merit articles. I am just asking if we are going to have a permanent Afghanistan War link in the ITN box, maybe in Ongoing. No more, no less. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, asserting that it's going to happen again, regardless of whether or not you have reasons x y and z to assert that it's likely, is literally a WP:CRYSTAL argument. ITN occurs on a case-by-case instance and this case meets every notability threshold that we have. You're literally opposing because you assert it's probably going to happen again in the near future, that's more or less Wikipedia's textbook definition of a WP:CRYSTAL argument. Don't pretend that it's not. We both oppose this nomination, but the valid reason is that the article needs a lot of work. TheRamblingMan makes an excellent point. Every time there is a mass shooting in the US that kills 4-5 people, the nominations get slapped down because many Americans concerned with Americentrism unintentionally and ironically make the Americentric argument that it's local news, not global news -- then when a mass tragedy in a country facing crisis occurs, we see godawful arguments that assert that it's just the Middle East and/or -stan countries having terrorists as usual, therefore it's unimportant and not notable because it's just Afghanistan being a broken county or something. In both instances, these are highly problematic arguments yet despite contradicting each other we tend to see the two endlessly in ITN. In summary, I hope to see the article improved and would support allowing more time to pass for necessary changes to be made before closing as a SNOW oppose as many of us only take issue with the article's current state, not the subject it covers. Cheers. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Additional comment: I would like to add that I do see where you are coming from; questions along the lines of at what point do terrorist attacks become normalized and insignificant? are certainly worth considering, but I'm unconvinced that this event in particular is unimportant and I still maintain my problems with the argument that this event is not ITN worthy because there might be another one next month. I felt that I may have been too harsh and I wanted to clarify this. Cheers. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose but with dramatic regret this is hilarious. Every time a US shooter gets nominated for glory here, we get the usual "well, if you don't like it, nominate some of the mass killings in the war-torn areas of the world".  Then, once a "mass killing in a worn-torn area of the world" is nominated, it's all about "nah, it's just life there".  Pathetic and insulting.  In other news, article is a stub so unsuitable.   The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Take a look in a mirror TRM, "Pathetic and insulting" applies the other way too. Cheers bro. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh really? What's pathetic and insulting here is precisely what I've written.  There is no application "in the mirror".  People who complain about repeated US gun crime noms are told to nominate other such tragic events (which are 20 times+ more tragic) and when someone does, it's all about the "war zone, forget it, not notable" bullshit.  Cheers bro.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support LaserLegs...there is a two way street. acting like SOnya and Hadil on MKR does not change things.Lihaas (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support upon improvement Even though it is a war zone, this was a mass-casualty attack against civilians, so it is definitely notable. Article is regrettably not in shape though.  EternalNomad (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Fadi Mohammad al-Batsh

 * Newly created. After further review I may nominate it for AfD, unless why he is notable (apart from death news) is added. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is clearly a BLP1E, and should be at "Assassination of Fadi Mohammad al-Batsh" (the reactions are more notable then the person). And right now, as a non-RD blurb news item, I don't see this yet significant to merit posting. --M asem (t) 13:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as RD I'm finding little significant news coverage prior to his death, suggesting that, at best, the death might be notable, but not the person.—Bagumba (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose if nothing else, double-tagged. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nabi Tajima
Nominator's comments: World's oldest person, longest-lived person thus far in the 21st century, and third-oldest of all time
 * Support -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 03:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Shortish but reasonably referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Agree with Capitalistroadster. Jusdafax (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support She's the last person born in the nineteenth century to die, does that deserve a blurb? Davey2116 (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Possibly. We gave a blurb to the last person born in the 1800s, Emma Morano.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * DOB says August 4, 1900 ... which would be the start of the 20th century. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the 20th century began on January 1st, 1901. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah? Ok, I stand corrected. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I had to add a CN tag. Given this is the last person born in the 19th century, I'd support a blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Verne Troyer

 * Weak oppose: Filmography and television section unreferenced. Plus, I just realized how odd this article does not have a career section highlighting his life in his acting life. Main issue is unreferenced filmography section. Support All issues fixed. Great work! Ready for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as mentioned above, no career section. It jumps from his childhood to his personal life and death. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to lack of referenced filmography. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose until a sourced career section is added and the filmography is sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, we have one now and it looks good. Support. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is so far from acceptable I doubt it can be improved in time. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably good enough now. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support filmography referenced thanks to work by and career section added by, good job by both, now ready Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Quality concerns appear to have been addressed. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * has added a detailed career section and I have sourced the entire filmography section; both film and TV roles. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. Article looks brief but passable, all sourced. Challenger l (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Its sourced and all, but I find it rather lacking beyond just documenting his career. It's very bland. I realize his career path into films is not a deep and motivational journey compared to people like Brad Pitt, and we're not going to have a superlong article, but we should be able to get past how bland this currently reads. Unfortunately, those are likely concerns past ITN's role. --M asem (t) 13:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine. Aiken D 13:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support All sections of the article look complete and are correctly sourced. OtterAM (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - all sections sourced. Other concerns such as expansion of life and career section is something to be taken care of after or during ITN. We review article quality and it is sufficient for ITN inclusion. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - It’s ready, I agree. Jusdafax (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] India death penalty for child rapists

 * Oppose Domestic legislation change. Capital punishment in India for other crimes has been in existence before. Brandmeistertalk  17:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The death penalty already existed in India.  They can apply it (or not apply it) to whatever crimes they wish. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment it's in the news, I'm inclined to support, but the target needs to be changed to Capital punishment in India and updated accordingly. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose It's not insignificant but we have historically avoided this kind of internal legislative news. In the unlikely event that this does get posted I agree with the above comments that we need to change the target article which I have not looked at for quality purposes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Concur with 331dot. This is insignificant pronouncement. Combined with poor article target. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this is essentially domestic legislation, and captla punishment is certainly not unprecedented in India. EternalNomad (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - the point is that these cases (especially the latter) have been dominating Indian news. Check the aftermath section of the Kathua rape case article for example. The blurb does make it seem like domestic legislation, but I can't think of a better one. Banedon (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * oppose considering the executive asks the final KANGAROO court to review its decision...this is nothing more than vote grabbing.Lihaas (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Brandmeister MAINEiac4434 (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shane Yarran

 * Support Short but adequate and decently referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article has undue weight on his legal problems.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't undue weight because he really did have a very short professional career and a lot of legal problems. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This still a BLP, and I’m uncomfortable that an article with so much negative information would be put on the Main Page when he has just taken his own life. Ultimately the admins will decide if my concerns have validity. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Well referenced. Noting that, it is also undue to try to balance what is not balanced in reliable sources. –Ammarpad (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 17:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD : Rajinder Sachar

 * Very weak oppose in good condition but since it's BLP those [citation needed] really should be addressed before we feature this on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man, article has been updated and sources added wherever required. --Skr15081997 (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) North Korea nuclear site

 * Oppose quite the surprise, however the target article is a stub class with no mention of the shut down. In addition, the article provided is very vague in terms of content, as it does not mention why North Korea shut down the facility; most of the content in the source is also just a repeat of past events. SamaranEmerald (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a bit more to this story than just shutting down the test site; I've added a different target and blurb, though the target is not yet updated with this news. --M asem (t) 00:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Conditional Oppose if it wasn’t for the fact that the summit between Kim and Moon are next week, I would undoubtedly support this nomination. However the summit itself will be the dominating news next week, which will largely make this nomination, should it be posted, obsolete. Kirliator (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait – This whole situation remains in flux. Suggest we wait to see whether the proclaimed sea change in DPRK policies actually comes to pass – in some tangible way. Sca (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the reality strikes. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Avicii

 * Weak support blurb Given his influence on pop music in general (indeed, he appeared on many lists of influential young musicians), I feel he is on the borderline of blurb/RD listing. Sceptre (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * support blurb - He is a major figure within music. His death is reported world wide.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose for RD. Article is in fairly good shape source-wise, although the writing leaves a lot to be desired - it's basically all WP:PROSELINE. There are a couple of CN tags to fix and the discography needs referencing, which shouldn't take too long. Don't think he's blurb worthy.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb No, obviously no blurb. Being among a influental young musician is very very far from being top of one's field. Needs a few references here and there but overall looks pretty near ready Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - According to WP:ITNRD, "In rare cases, the death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb". While Avicii has been quite famous in the past few years, he was hardly "transformative" or "leader" in his field. Is there any award or other recognition that named him as the top in world music? HaEr48 (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD, wait on blurb. If the death itself becomes newsworthy for the manner of death, then we can revisit the blurb.  So far, all we know is that he died.  If we can't say more than that, RD is sufficient.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD, no opinion on blurb as per above. Nice4What (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD Unexpected, tragic, article looks good enough, but not that big for a blurb. talk to ! dave 18:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD - As with others, I think we should wait on blurb until the circumstances behind the death become apparent. Jayden (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD (once a few unsourced paras are dealt with) but Oppose blurb - Barbara Bush was certainly more influential than him, and is only in RD. -Zanhe (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD as an unexpected passing of a big name in his field, but Oppose blurb on general notability. Radagast (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Support blurb on principle, wikipedia's editor base is normally not into modern EDM music, but it's one of the biggest music genres in todays market and he is one of it's biggest names, the unexpected young death of a supremely popular (his biggest single has 1.4 billion views on youtube) musician should be exactly what the blurb feature is made for. There's no precedent for such a big EDM musician to have died so obviously there's noone to compare it too, Frankie Knuckles never had mainstream popularity. This is the first death of a worldwide EDM figure. The Barbara Bush comparison is odd, she is not even close to being one of the most notable first ladies, unlike Avicii in EDM. Certainly meets the Paul Walker and Carrie Fisher standard, the difference here is that Star Wars and action movies appeal to an older white male base that edits Wikipedia. GuzzyG (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb Definitely not making the same kind of impact of Paul Walker or Carrie Fisher's deaths, nor anywhere close to Mandela/Thatcher/Prince/Bowie. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * this was first reported two hours ago, how can you be so sure? GuzzyG (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure Fisher and Walker news was louder two hours after their deaths were reported. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously a cardiac arrest on a public flight and a car crash are more tabloid worthy then an undisclosed cause of death in Oman but we're an encyclopedia and what is more important, first death of a international (1.4 billion views on ONE song) EDM performer, or two character actors, i don't even listen to this kind of rubbish but a point has to be made if 1.4 billion people (more would be unaccounted) have listened to your song and you have died young and unexpected like this and not to mention the FIRST major performer in your field then by principle you should be blurb worthy. When historians track specific 21st century entertainment who will show up more, Avicii or Paul Walker? GuzzyG (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD. — xaosflux  Talk 19:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * oppose blurb not Thatcher or Mandela --LaserLegs (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I can't see his DJ sets being that riveting if he was either of those two. Oh, and obviously RD only. Black Kite (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Final comment, i'm in shock, honestly - this Thatcher/Mandela saying has to go if we posted people like Walker and Fisher. IF you're expecting Thatcher/Mandela types then that's like 10 people a century. I think it's a straight up disgrace that a 10 day old aircrash is still on our main page but a leader in their genre dying at an unexpected young age and the number one story on the front page of BBC cannot be posted. 11 billion streams on spotify and you're not of "sufficient worldwide notability". A joke. I dislike this kind of music and am generally a luddite but i call it for what it is. GuzzyG (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I consider Walker/Fisher/Prince to be mistakes, and I don't believe compounding errors undoes those which are past. 10 people in a century? Sure, sounds good to me. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb: Just my opinion as it's not going to happen. This Thatcher/Mandela yardstick would be honourable but it hasn't been fully uniform. I would honestly not put Debbie Reynolds, Carrie Fisher and Paul Walker in that category of people who changed the course of human history. However there have been people from the world of popular culture whose premature deaths have been news stories in an of themselves. I'm not talking cult figures like Lil Peep, but when someone measurably famous like Avicii or Chester Bennington dies prematurely that falls in the same bracket as Fisher and Walker: well-known, contributed to multi-million dollar works, death is big news but not world changer. Just my two cents. Harambe Walks (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Who are Reynolds, Fisher or Walker? I would have oppose their blurbs as well. Also, if we post blurb for Avicii then in the future someone might cite it as precedent to allow even more "famous people" blurbs. IMO, we should stick with the bar set formally by WP:ITNRD, "the death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb", and not by previous example which might have been a mistake. HaEr48 (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Post Posting Oppose Significant gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Significant? The article overall is mostly well referenced, you only added about 3 or 4 CN tags. Does an article really need to be perfect to be listed as in the news? – numbermaniac  01:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * BLPs usually need to be correctly and comprehensively referenced, if that's what you mean by "perfect"? The Rambling Man (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * True. It's not really a BLP anymore though, but I get your point. – numbermaniac  08:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, we consider articles related to the recently deceased to still be covered by BLP (generally for 6 mo to 2 years from their death, depending). --M asem (t) 13:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting

 * Oppose "Commonwealth leaders meet"... so what? What makes this meeting more notable than any other? It's not Prince Charles. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support decent article, in the news. Blurb should mention Charles even if it's not the bold article. A table of attendees would be nice, but not required. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Over the last few years ITN has shifted to posting summits only when they have major outcomes. The only concrete result from this CHOGM seems to be agreeing how the succession will work when Elizabeth II finally dies, which hasn't happened yet. Otherwise it's just the usual chat between politicians. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't really think there's anything too significant about this. Jayden (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - hard to find articles about it from outside the Commonwealth, but then again the Commonwealth covers a lot so I guess it's newsworthy. Juxlos (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per LaserLegs and Jayden, the Commonwealth spans some 50+ nations, so this not a small diplomatic meeting. Even if it only reaffirms Prince Charles as Elizabeth II’ successor to the throne, it’s still newsworthy in my opinion. Kirliator (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Concur that meeting of 50-or thereabout of heads of state is non trivial diplomatic meeting and it doesn't happen always. This is really also in the news. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose We recently removed the G20 as an ITNR _Remove:_G20_summits], but would still allow a G20 to be posted if something of significant note occurred. I see that that same principle should apply here. The fact the Commonwealth leaders are meeting is not news itself, it is whatever resolves come out of it. --M asem (t) 05:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It was removed because the target article was not up to scratch -- not because "not soccer and no deaths". --LaserLegs (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose really not significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Really not a reason just an opinion.WTKitty (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, just truth. It matters not a jot who is the head of the Commonwealth, especially when they are the next in line to the throne.  If it had been decided that Robert Mugabe or Beyonce was to be the next head, then that's significant.  Noting that the natural succession will occur is not significant.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now What happened in the meeting? This is a reoccurring event, but if something unique happened at it then we can post this. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walter Moody

 * Support Sourcing is fine. (However, I do think this fails BLPCRIME, he's only notable for the bombing and trial, and so really should be covered at something like Death of Robert Smith Vance. However, that issue can wait until after the RD is off the page. --M asem (t) 06:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - referenced. Notable. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Good referencing throughout the article, seems fine to post. – numbermaniac  13:37, 20 April 2018 (
 * Support Bombing AND trial? that sounds like two events to me ;). Not to mention the execution (the oldest), counting three events to me. GuzzyG (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Agnès-Marie Valois

 * Support Article well developed and well sourced for a newborn article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment needs a one line prose update stating date and place of death, then GTG. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Iselilja (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

(Closed in lieu of newer item) Armenia protests

 * Oppose article is out of date, no blurb is suggested, bad nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems premature. The article mentions only 100 protesters, so as yet is not anywhre near the scale for an ITN posting.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now but conditional support if there's even a blurb to support (that's kind of important) and the article is improved. I'm interested, but the article has very poor translations in it such as "Oppositional signals spark the flag of Armenia, clamoring for the motto of the movement" which even with context does't make sense. The article needs a lot of work and the nom didn't even offer a blurb for me to support, so oppose by default, but if improvements are made before this closes as oppose I'll reconsider my vote. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all of the above. Kirliator (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - In the news now. And article looks good. Added blurb as well. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Changing !vote to Support - The new blurb looks good and there has been significant progress made on the article. Now that 's concern has been dealt with & 's concern that there were only 100 protesters is obsolete (now there's reportedly well over 50,000 participating and hundreds of arrests) I no longer have reasons to oppose this blurb. The latest developments in this event seem to be warning signs of a government in crisis, meaning this story demonstrates long-term significance regardless of whether the protests succeed or fail. Update: I reinforce my support now that this article has been significantly improved since my last comment. I am impressed with the the sourcing and the subject has become more notable with the resignation of high-level politicians as a direct response to the protests. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC) BrendonTheWizard (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability, really a minor protest. The article claims that 115k people participated in it (some 5 times the size of the largest rally during the 2014 revolution in the Ukraine), but it's sourced by twitter of all places. Which brings me to the quality threshold, which I think the article does not pass. Many statements are very poorly sourced by twitter/facebook posts, many are not sourced at all. IF someone fixes them then maybe I can tentatively support it, but then the blurb should mention the actual number of people on the square since the current one may be misleading, not to mention that arresting an mp in itself for organising a rally is not in itself ITN-worthy Randomnickname567 (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to Support now that Sargsyan has resigned, which makes the protests a notable event. The article was improved too, most statements were sources, and notable unsourced ones I removed. Randomnickname567 (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Just to add as NOM, I concur (although there was a warning sign).Lihaas (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

(Pulled) Kingdom of eSwatini

 * Support. Unusual.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Unusal and interesting. But Oppose for now based on article quality. Needs to be fully referenced and updated.BabbaQ (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The nominator's comments say more than the article does. If it's to mark the 50th anniversary of independence then the article needs to be updated to say that. But even if it's updated and referenced, I still don't think it's that notable. It's the whim of an absolute monarch. Has it been recognized by any other government?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. How is this ITNR? 331dot (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It quite clearly isn't, so I've modified the template.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hasn't this been done before? Sca (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support in principle an interesting and non-death related story. However, there needs to be a good update... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also support in principle, but that update isn't good enough. One sentence that explains it less than the nomination comment above. I want to know why "eSwatini". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * weak wait until UN or AU recognize it.Lihaas (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * UN or AU don't need to recognise it. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t think either organisation has any mechanism for or interest in objecting to a name change. If a recognised member turns up and says “this is my new name now” that’s it. —LukeSurlt c 08:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support seems very obvious. So what if it's the whim of an absolute monarch - it's still something that affects the entire country fundamentally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banedon (talk • contribs) 03:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per the above. The update is a tad thin but adequate. Davey2116 (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support And one of my 75 wives to the admin who posts this.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 09:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose and pull? Seriously, from a quality standpoint the article is not even close. Did any of the supporters actually bother to read it? Whole huge unreferenced sections. We demand better from an RD posting of some TV actress. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You obviously didn't bother to read my above comment or TRM's, or BabbaQ's. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You and TRM mentioned the update, not the referencing issues. Oh well, I'm just a terrible human being I suppose. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Pull Referencing is dreadful with huge gaps. How did this get posted? -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Pulled The referencing is indeed awful - even a few of the Support comments noted that it wasn't currently fit to post, and they're right. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This definitely needs more work.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * General aside The Government of the Kingdom of Swaziland appears to be completely unaware of this, and their current press releases—example—are still using "Swaziland" exclusively in their English-language text. &#8209; Iridescent 16:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – This story seemed intriguing and slightly humorous, but in retrospect the play accorded it on major news sites (BBC, Guardian, Reuters, NYT) seems to have been excessive, even hypey. Sca (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-pulling support in principle - once the sourcing concerns are fixed, I'd support re-adding it. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment if you ask me, this was the King’s decision, I’m not sure if he took into account of the world accepting the name change immediately. It will probably be called Swaziland in general for ages to come. Python Dan (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) New president of Cuba

 * I think the article is in a good shape. Ready to post when the handover takes place (ping me). --Tone 13:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Tone 14:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is entirely inadequate for a head of state. It is only barely past a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of a 'Head of state' article guideline, perhaps you could link to it? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As he is described as "a party technocrat who is little-known to the public" there's probably not much more out there to add to the article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am basing my oppose on past precedent at ITN. We generally have a higher standard for presidents prime ministers etc. But in all honesty I think I would oppose posting this in its current state even if it wasn't a head of state. It is not up to scratch for the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As Cuba is a sovereign state its covered under ITN/R and so postable as long as the quality is of a sufficient level. The article is shorter than some (given the new President is a relatively unknown technocrat in a single-party communist regime that is not exactly unusual) however it is sourced, contains the relevant biographical info and no glaring errors. Most heads of state have long careers in the public eye before they reach the top spot. Cuba has been about the Castro's and only the Castro's for the last 50 years+. Coupled with the wide variety of sanctions on the country, the lack of information in the western media on other public figures there is also not unusual. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. IMHO an article that can be summed up as "X exists, was born on... was a party technocrat... and is now the dictator err... President of country Y" no matter how well sourced, is not the kind of quality article we promote on the front page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * ITNA is fairly clear about the need for consensus before posting. I fail to see why this had to be posted so quickly before discussion could take place. ghost 15:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm all for speedy admin actions on ITN/R items. --LukeSurlt c 15:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The quality of ITNR items must be discussed at ITNC, as you well know. If it was a GA, sure, but the article is short and lean. Some people may have raised legitimate objection if given time. ghost 16:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Post-posting Support It's ITN/R and although the target article is short I see no major deficiencies.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment switch the image please! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the boring golf club photo has been on the main page way too long! -Zanhe (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Image switched. Courcelles (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Post-posting weak oppose - This should not have been posted while the article President of Cuba was in such bad shape. Not only is that article lacking in sources (with a tag almost a year old), but it doesn't make clear that the real leader of Cuba is First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba (and that is still Raúl Castro). Adpete (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Further comment: perhaps the blurb could also say, while Castro remains First Secretary. Adpete (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that any other articles linked in ITN blurbs should be subject to the same level of quality scrutiny as the main target? The Rambling Man (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually thought that was the case. If it isn't, there should at least be some scrutiny of them. Now, backtracking slightly on my "real leader" comment, I've seen another source (BBC) that says Díaz-Canel will in fact become the "real leader"; while the The Guardian link says it's more of a transition. I don't know, but I think the additional link to First Secretary might help. Adpete (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that's not nor as I believe to be true, has ever been the case. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What, zero scrutiny on an article linked from the ITN blurb? Surely that's a policy that needs fixing. Anyway, on this blurb and link, I argue that something needs to change because it's not a simple succession but more like a transition arrangement. See e.g. NY Times ("Castros still hold sway" ); ABC ("Castro is almost certain to remain the most powerful person in Cuba for the time being" ). Adpete (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have an opinion on my proposed amendment to the blurb? Adpete (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The posted blurb is just fine and reflects reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

(Removed) Remove from ongoing: Gaza border protests

 * Pull At this point, this news is over a month old. In the wiki page, there is no event in May. It should be removed.
 * Pull per OP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support removal - done and dusted for the time being. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support removal good to get rid of. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed Stephen 04:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Stephen: Are you sure that it's no longer an ongoing event? So, what are these sources saying:
 * Israeli fire in new Gaza border protest kills 2 Palestinians, by AP published in Washington Post, April 20 at 8:50 AM. (See also Israeli Fire in New Gaza Border Protest Kills 2 Palestinians, by US News)
 * The Insanity at the Gaza Fence, by the NY Times April 20, 2018.
 * Israel drops leaflets warning Gaza protesters to keep away from fence, by Times of Israel Today, 8:32 am.
 * FEATURE/ISRAEL The Palestinian women at the forefront of Gaza's protests, by Aljazeera 5 hours ago.
 * Two Palestinians shot dead as Gaza protests resume, by i24NEWS 04/20/2018 (updated at 5:33:12 PM)
 * ...and the article is getting updates. The removal was an immature decision. -- M h hossein   talk 13:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The only substantive new information to the article, made after it was pulled, was a single sentence about a Woman's protest. It may or may not still be in the news, that's of minimal importance given that if no one can be bothered to expand the article with that information, there's no need to keep it in ongoing.  It may be the biggest story in the world right now; that doesn't matter if the article is not receiving quality updates.  If you can provide enough information to make it clear that this article needs, and is getting, daily updates then sure, maybe we can add it to ongoing.  At the state it was in when it was removed, that was not evident from the article text.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You are amazingly closing your eyes on those sources. -- M h hossein   talk 18:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What Jayron32 is telling you—correctly—is that we don't care about the sources for the purposes of ITN. The purpose of the Main Page is to highlight quality Wikipedia articles, not to highlight articles for which sources exist but which haven't been written. &#8209; Iridescent 18:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What I find amazing is that the amount of effort you just wasted complaining about this could have been better applied to fixing the article text. Had you, days ago, added that information to the article then it, very likely, would never have come up in discussion to be removed from ongoing.  As usual, it's much easier to assume some mysterious "others" will do necessary work, and then complain when it isn't done.  Go fix the article, because posting sources here is of no use to the encyclopedia.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's right, the article needs to get updates. Thank you. -- M h hossein   talk 16:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Updated — This protest is running on a largely weekly cycle of larger protests on Fridays. Extensive coverage continues, including profile pieces in places like The New York Times of individuals killed. I don't object to the pressure to keep the article up to date but now it is. Maybe we can avoid nominating it for removal on a Wednesday or Thursday, only to have to debate re-adding it later in the week.--Carwil (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dale Winton

 * Oppose - Referencing not up to scratch. Mjroots (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  for now, due to referencing especially of stuff that could be contentious. Aiken D 06:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC) Now support. Aiken D 21:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I've just trimmed the uncited contentious stuff that I couldn't find cites for that were guaranteed not to be a circular citation and referenced everything else. Miyagawa (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - now seems perfectly well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficiently improved.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - improved.BabbaQ (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Trial against president Nicolás Maduro

 * Comment - for fairly obvious reasons we cannot have the target article be in Spanish, or not on en.wikipedia.org. No comment on the nomination thus far however, but without a suitable target article, any further discussion is moot. - Stormy clouds (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose no target article, even the Maduro article doesn't seem to cover this in any detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose As noted by the ABC News article, this trial is mostly symbolic, as those involved have no recognized authority by the current ruling gov't (which I'm aware its the call towards corruption in the gov't that is at issue here). And as this only is a start of the trial, it would be better to recognize when it is over; even if it has no recognized authority, various world leaders may speak towards it and support it. --M asem (t) 17:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Conditional oppose - The news section for en.wikipedia.org should link to another article on en.wikipedia.org. If there was an English Wikipedia article that covers the subject, then I may reconsider, but oppose for now. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Close per WP:SNOW. We will not link an article from another wiki at the main page. And the news is not newsworthy anyway: even if this was a regular trial, we would include it as news when there is a sentence, not when the trial has just started. Cambalachero (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above user. Python Dan (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Retiring nomination after a week and the opening of a discussion. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Bruno Sammartino

 * Oppose far too much of it is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I added an article from the NYT, which covers his death in a lot more detail than the ESPN one (Sammartino was the guy in New York City for a while). Vilhjalmsson (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not just the death that needs referencing, it's all the rest of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. Unreferenced, but there's no question about his importance to professional wrestling. Hopefully someone can whip the article into shape. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 23:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support this article pretty much needs to be fixed up for this. He's one of the most significant figures in pro wrestling ever.★Trekker (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I feel like the RD boilerplate is not working. Perhaps we need less flowery language? ghost 13:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - a few people are working to source this article, myself included. <b style="color: Teal;">Nikki</b><b style="color: Salmon;">♥</b><b style="color: Purple;">311</b> 18:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article fixed up to postable shape.LM2000 (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article still has a very few sections that could use CNs but the article has been very well fixed up. Good job! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Multiple paragraphs that lack a single reference. Stephen 10:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Paul Jones

 * Support Much like with Samartino I think the pro wrestling project needs to come together here and try to fix up anything that needs fixing.★Trekker (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Fixed up enough to post.LM2000 (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Multiple paragraphs that lack a single reference. Stephen 10:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Southwest Airlines Flight 1380

 * Support Rare freak accident that's in the news and has a decent start of an article. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support If this was competing for space among several other concurrent blurbs, the accident is not as bad as it could have been and I would not think it appropriate to post it. However, blurbs are slow right now, so this seems like a good story to keep ITN looking fresh, and it is an unusual accident. --M asem (t) 05:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment correct me if I’m wrong, but if I recall, wasn’t there a similar incident some time back about a year or two ago involving an aircraft in an accident with a single fatality that was posted to ITN? Kirliator (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Agree with above reasoning. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - one person died. Not notable as a result. To say "highly unusual, hence notable" isn't really a tenable argument, viz Man Dies After Getting Head Stuck in Movie Theater Seat. I doubt anyone would say that's worthy of a blurb. Banedon (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. A minor accident with few casualties and no broader implications. Weak opposition only because we could do with some turnover in blurbs. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support excellent article a shining example of what recent disaster articles should look like, certainly actually in the news, since WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is a totally made up nonsense number that doesn't actually exist no problem there ... in terms of the made up "broader implications" requirement, second uncontained engine failure on Southwest 737 in 2 years .... interesting. Weak because I still think we over-post disaster stories. --76.122.98.253 (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC) --LaserLegs (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. An unfortunate accident, but a minor one. No foul play appears to be involved, just a random mechanical failure due in part to worn parts. I don't think the slow news cycle is a sufficient reason to make an exception. ZettaComposer (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Things like this happen.--WaltCip (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems like a very odd reason for opposing. Do you have any idea how infrequently, in terms of annual passenger journeys? Because I'm sure we'll soon get some activity over at The Twilight Zone. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Minor mechanical failure, little impact and virtually no fatality. Not really In the news . –Ammarpad (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Try virtually telling Jennifer Riordan. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support First fatality on a US airline since 2009 - these things are fairly rare.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose similar to the nomination made regarding the Youtube Headquarters Shooting earlier this month, this nomination has all ready attracted a number of bias from both sides of the argument, with one side stating this is “unusual” and “major”, while the other arguing that this is “minor” and “short-term”; this is the kind of nomination that spells trouble, especially if it concerns only a single fatality. Python Dan (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not "unusual", it's extremely unusual. And that's not bias, it's just statistics. But as Pawnkingthree, "First fatality on a US airline since 2009" - compare that with.... oh, I don't know, deaths from US gun crime since 2009? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Python Dan, this is an example of when systematic bias put an event at a dangerous level. Besides, as unusual as this accident is in nature, this is nothing more than another aircraft accident. Kirliator (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose minor event, if it led to anything changing in the world of aviation it might be of interest, but I can't see that happening, a one-off catastrophic engine failure is just as Martinevans123 notes really, a chance in a million, and with the number of flights per day, there was always going to be a chance it'd happen some time. And it did.  This would be a far better candidate for DYK as how well the pilot did getting such a broken aircraft down without further fatalities.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kirliator and TRM, a minor aircraft accident at best with almost no chance of long-term impact. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 *  Support - Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 is a major news story at this time, the first death causing American flight in close to one decade, and should be featured in ITN. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't help feeling it's a major story because of where it happened. But that's true of so much news. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, if this happened anywhere else on planet earth it wouldn't get a sniff, but because it happened in the US (as noted by several supporters) it's more notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Right?? We'd never post a rickety Soviet military plane crashing immediately after take-off! --LaserLegs (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, we wouldn't, would we? Mjroots (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Apple and pears. That crash killed 92, not one, and was one of the worst disasters of the year.  This is just a minor accident.  So no, we wouldn't post a rickety Soviet military plane which had an engine failure and only killed one person, definitely not.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If it was a military plane and the person killed on duty, no we likely wouldn't. If it were a commercial plane and it was a passenger, we'd probably would. Unfortunately, I can't think of any close examples to pull from here and searching ITNC isn't immediately providing any results. --M asem (t) 14:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No we would not. A Russian aircraft lands after an incident with one fatality?  We'd never post it, never.  It would be laughed out of ITNC.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok then trm just let me know what the minimum deaths are and we're all set. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you missed the point again, you're attempting to compare a hull loss with 92 deaths to a minor incident in which one person died. There is no comparison here, and just because it involved Americans and was in America, it doesn't make it more notable, despite what some supporters have said. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed just because something is not in America does not make it more notable. So just let me know the minimum number of deaths and we're all set. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Time to hat this meaningless and illogical repetition I think! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think we should avoid posting aircraft disasters with low death tolls, otherwise, ITN would be flooded with such nominations. SamaranEmerald (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Freak accident. Although one passenger died, it's of scant broader significance. Sca (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of low death toll aircraft disasters don't get posted. However, a lack of deaths does not necessarily mean a lack of notability. IMvHO, the unusual circumstances in this case merited a nomination. Mjroots (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also we generally only post commercial aviation incidents or where a larger number of civilians were involved. Incidents involving cargo planes, military planes, and private aircraft typically are not considered ITN with common sense exceptions. --M asem (t) 13:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support mostly due to the exceptionally-good article. It is in the news, so it does fit the criteria. Davey2116 (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - minor incident in terms of fatalities. Any lasting notability or impact will arise due to potential changes in airline policy, but to post on these grounds would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. If the crash is truly so intriguing, take the (admittedly excellent) article to DYK. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose At the risk of sounding callous, things break and people die. In the grand scheme of things this is a really minor accident. (Thank God.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as noted above, a minor incident with probably very little lasting impact. Lepricavark (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Airplane accidents are not uncommon, even in the US, and often result in more deaths than this. Though airline accidents are rare in the US, in my opinion that distinction does not increase significant enough for a blurb. Mamyles (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted RD) RD: Barbara Bush

 * Strong support. Just confirmed that she has indeed died at the age of 92. I would also weakly support a complete blurb as this is a very significant death given the impact that Mrs. Bush had on many issues and topics. 66.31.81.200 (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sadly oppose Such a beautiful and very heartfelt passing, but the article needs source work. I'll wait til the obits come in so fix the article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Support RD: Article is in okay enough shape for RD posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So 63 standard citations and 5 additional references is still considered “needing source work”? 66.31.81.200 (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * When there are unsourced statements, yeah. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb Not important enough for a blurb. She was a First Lady. She's no Mandela. She's not even a Winnie Mandela. It's almost ready for RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, Oppose RD, not ready yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too many gaps in referencing. I expect this will likely be cleaned up in short order, but we can't post it until it is solidly sourced. FTR I also agree that although very sad, this is not blurb worthy. RD is fine once it is ready. Memory eternal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Was famous. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 00:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - an important American but not significant enough for her death to be in other than RD. Nancy Reagan was first lady for twice as long and was a little more politically active, and was only in RD, though I think the process was little different then (March 2016). Adpete (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Well... truly legendary and powerful first lady, who called the shots of TWO U.S. Presidents. --Bruzaholm (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Article is in reasonable shape. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb fails the Thatcher/Mandela test. Oppose RD for now, still some unreferenced content. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb fails the Thatcher/Graham/Mandela test. Support for RD once sourcing issues are resolved. Lepricavark (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD but unsure about blurb. It's very sad, and it's certainly significant as she was the only first lady to watch her son become president, but her influence was limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendonTheWizard (talk • contribs) 22:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * She was not the only First Lady whose son became POTUS. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair, he did specify that Bush watch[ed] her son become president; Adams died before her son ascended to the office. Of course, that's a minor distinction and doesn't really mean much as far as blurb worthiness (blurbiness?) is concerned. Lepricavark (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was referring specifically to witnessing it, but as I specified in my original post I still don't support a blurb. She lacked real influence outside of the US as I said, unlike figures such as Nelson Mandela or more recently Stephen Hawking which absolutely deserved blurbs. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted RD but discussion of a blurb can continue (though I don't think I see consensus). FWIW, to TRM and Muboshgu, I checked the state of the article when you !voted, and I believe gaps in sourcing have been sufficiently covered, hence posting. --M asem (t) 03:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the article was improved by the time you posted it. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support, and also weak support blurb. I kind of wish that RD allowed a five-word description of the deceased individual; in that case I wouldn't support a blurb at all. Davey2116 (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * RD is fine, no reason to make this a blurb. Indeed, I don't see any nomination of one. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb I don’t think her impact is notable enough to Warren a blurb, we don’t want to be US-centric. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb former first lady of Tanzania probably wouldn't be posted. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  18:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - the wife of the most influential figure in the history of South Africa, who had actual separate political impact, did not merit a blurb. Bush certainly doesn't. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carl Kasell

 * Support One unsourced statement of questionable encyclopedic importance (a mistaken death report in 2014) that I removed, and everything else is good to good here. --M asem (t) 03:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready to me.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Matthew Mellon

 * Support - sufficiently referenced. There's one tagged sentence, but it can be deleted if a citation can't be found. -Zanhe (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support - Short, but very well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - referenced and ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I've dealt with that CN tag, should be good to go now.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 13:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Big Tom

 * Oppose not just reference issues, but the article is a complete mess. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Awful article. Zero biographical information on his life before the year 2000, and the rest is just a bunch of tables.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sadly, article would need an almost complete rewrite before being main page ready. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Choi Eun-hee

 * Oppose as noted in the nom, films and awards completely unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good work by . The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I have made numerous edits to the article since yesterday and added references for films and awards. Lenoresm (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - good work by for fixing the issues. Ready for ITN. -Zanhe (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harry Anderson

 * Support I fixed the sourcing issue. Now it is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Confirming that the sourcing has been significantly improved since I nominated it. --M asem (t) 03:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support : I see that. And that is a good work. TDKR Chicago. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

(Removed) Remove from ongoing: Rif Dimashq offensive (February–April 2018)

 * Support removal per nominator. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support –No longer "ongoing". Do the needful. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed Stephen 22:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Boston Marathon

 * Comment Not to change too much from Cellodont's submission, but as the Boston Marathon is an ITNR, I've refactors this to be more to this point. I would comment that we generally do not focus to much on the first X of a nation to win this type of event (We're a global work), but we certainly can ID the winners, and if either article is in good shape, can make them secondary targets. I will note the Marathon article needs prose before this can be posted. --M asem  (t) 19:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * comment I totally agree with the new blurb, go for it.  Hope someone gets this done soon, it's relevant/great news for Japan, for the USA, and everybody, really.Cellodont (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)cellodont
 * Oppose Classic example of stub. Mere rephrasing of news piece. This needs non trivial work and lot of actual encylopeic prose before even considering judging its quality. At present, this is unpresentable in every respect. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * comment good point. The 2018 boston marathon article has all the salient info on the race that anyone in the future is likely to be looking for, but it's not exactly a good read as a redirect from the front page.  this is big news, though....maybe the blurb should point primarily to Kawauchi's and Linden's Wikipedia articles, and secondarily to the little stub?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cellodont (talk • contribs) 20:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a stub. A sporting event needs to do better than that. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose nowhere near ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality and unsure about significance. I'm typically opposed to annual events unless there's something unique that occurred during them, and if the winner was the first woman period to win the even then I'd consider that more interesting, but I'm debating whether or not the first woman in a few decades is enough to make the 2018 Boston Marathon worthy of ITN. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hadassa Ben-Itto

 * Support - well referenced article, although the source spells her name as Ben-Ato. -Zanhe (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support looks adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: R. Lee Ermey
Unfortunately, there are gaps in sourcing here. --M asem (t) 23:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Indeed. Huge swathes of unreferenced text and the filmography will need sourcing too. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for Referencing - I support on principle as he is an extremely well known actor, but have to oppose due to large amounts of unsourced information. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Subject to improvement.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A reminder that supports on principle are not useful as quality is the only thing that matters for a recent death posting Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose maintenance tag needs to be addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Sourcing problems appear to be corrected. KVWS 18:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's not there yet. Personal life section tagged, still lots of citations needed in the acting career.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Judy Kennedy

 * Oppose based on notability concerns. A mayor of a population 28k town, the article was created today, and the refs are entirely local and largely obits. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We've had articles that were created on the day of or before being nominated (David Buckel for example) yet they are in sufficient length and well sourced. As for the sourcing, local or obits, they are still reliable and serve as reliable citations for the article. Nobility is not a reason to oppose an article, I thought it was if the article was well sourced and in sufficient length. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Being notable is generally a necessary requirement to have a standalone article. If there are doubts about notability due to only local sources, that's a problem. --M asem (t) 01:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't the forum for determining notability., either you could nominate it for deletion, or you should not object based on that. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This is not really the place for a notability discussion but she would appear to meet criteria 2 of WP:POLITICIAN as a “major local political figure who has received significant press coverage.” The article is sufficiently detailed and the referencing looks fine. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support the article won't win any awards, but it's sufficiently referenced and meets our minimum requirements. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability. We've established that new articles do not receive the benefit of assumed notability because there has been no time for editors to consider it. WP:POLITICIAN says that statewide office holders have notability, but local officials only qualify if they are "major" and have "received significant press coverage." There is zero evidence provided here to this end. ghost 16:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per established precedence regarding notability on RD. Recently created articles formed as a result of an obit tend to be of questionable standard.--WaltCip (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If there is "established precedence" for this then it needs to be added to WP:ITNRD in my opinion. I see there was a discussion about this a couple of months ago, but it's still not entirely clear where we stand now. Are we saying an article created recently must undergo a notability discussion before it gets posted to RD?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See the nom for Yang Gui down the page, a posthumously created article that we just posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yang Gui wasn't deleted. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yang Gui wasn't nominated for deletion. Neither has this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose newly created article has not been touched enough to know whether it can withstand notability test, as they are essential orbits synthesis. Wikipedia should not be solely memorialising people on mainpage and  later delete the article because of notability. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - if anyone questions the person's notability, they should just go ahead and nominate it for AfD. Otherwise it should be presumed notable and judged on quality alone, which is certainly good enough. -Zanhe (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support meets all of our criteria, especially as there is no "posthumous creation" exclusion for RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have no idea whether she's notable or not, especially as our editors can't decide on how big a town has to be for it's mayor to be notable (honestly, the AfDs are all over the place), but I'm working on the basis that anyone from the Western world who didn't have an article prior to dying probably wasn't notable, and I don't see any coverage that isn't local anyway. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment the only existing reason this individual wouldn't be a candidate for RD is that she has no article. So the opposers need to AFD it, or cancel.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Muboshgu. Not sure why this hasn't been posted yet, it fits all the RD criteria. (And isn't holding elective office generally notable enough to have an article?) The oppose !voters should bring it to talk instead of here. Davey2116 (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Retroactive strong Oppose The idea that a less than 1-term mayor of a municipality of less than 28,000 people is sufficiently notable for inclusion on RD is patently absurd. I have seen former heads of state passed over for RD for less. The entry should be taken down posthaste, right now this appears to be nothing short of a gross violation of WP:BIAS. --Varavour (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We post all RDs whose quality is sufficient. Perhaps the "former heads of state" you saw "passed over" had poor quality articles.  If you believe that this individual isn't worthy of an article, that's a different discussion, and you can start that at WP:AFD.   The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank Skartados
Support Per above; good article, well referenced.  Nixinova   T   C  03:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support not brilliant but good enough, referenced enough, ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready to me -- BobTheIP editing as 92.29.28.146 (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support; as noted on the article talk page I was acquainted with him (and, indeed, I took the picture). Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

English Premier League

 * Oppose needs a prose summary. Right now the only prose is about sleeve sponsorship and who was promoted and relegated last season Harambe Walks (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment do we have an EPL article which has a suitable summary? I would find it quite a challenge to summarise hundreds and hundreds of matches adequately... We don't demand that of Superbowl or MLB articles because they have playoffs and finals, so applying it to a nine-month long season with hundreds of matches seems odd, particularly as, by the nature of this ITN nom, any summary will focus on Man City and ignore the rest of the division.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2017–18 Manchester City F.C. season is a possibility —LukeSurlt c 20:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support a few missing refs about arm band sponsors but I don't care. Going forward, it might be nice to bold the winning teams season article. is a good example -- minus the referencing issues. 2015–16 Premier League has a summary, but generally agree with TRM above. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Question I honestly do not know, is this "in the news" now that Man City has clinched it or in May when all the games have been played? What matters more to fans, the "winner" or the conclusion of the season? --LaserLegs (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's news now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs at least a basic prose summary of the season. Doesn't need much, a paragraph or two summing up the season would suffice. It doesn't even need to be cited. If this is met you can consider this a support. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Added a very basic prose summary. It is hard to cover all possibilities as every other position could still change before the end of the season. It would also be a pretty boring read if we did. However it is just enough and comparable to other sports articles that have been featured. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Very list-y.  Nixinova   T   C  03:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought we established that league champions are posted at the end of the competition, not at the point of clinching (see Six Nations last month)? I actually prefer the latter, but we should be consistent. ghost 12:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: ITNR explicitly states that events are posted at the conclusion of the tournament, not when leads become unassailable. Given that the Premier League is the only domestic competition on there, we shouldn't have a problem of them all finishing at once. It's unclear to me whether it's better to wait or to post now, but the rules as written are to wait until the final game has been played and all positions are resolved. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI: I've enter a nomination to change the rule over at ITNR. ghost 16:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Yes, City are champions, but let's post it when the season is over, because at the moment the article isn't complete. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The EPL is generally posted when the champions are known (see 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 postings), provided a season summary is given (see 2017 nomination) - like in motorsport articles. Of course, consensus can change in this or following cases. Fuebaey (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Kenneth Matiba

 * Oppose as very poorly referenced BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs work on sourcing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Vittorio Taviani

 * Oppose I'm going to say right off the bat that I don't mind him only being half an article, but I do mind most of it being unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Barely any references at all. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walter Fink

 * Support, well-sourced article. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Grand National

 * Weak support ITN/R, C-class article, looks okay.  Nixinova   T   C  07:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Needs references for summary and all tables. Stephen 07:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Stephen plus no actual prose about the race itself. Nowhere near close.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose . Sports are not news of any significance, particularly obscure ones such as horse racing.  Sandstein   16:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Another pointed and irrelevant comment; this is ITNR, so if you object to its inclusion on notability grounds, do something about it there rather than make such unhelpful comments here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) OK, to my surprise, WP:ITNSPORTS does seem to assume that sports and this horse race are relevant news stories, but on the other hand this is just silly, so I'm abstaining from sports ITNs from now on.  Sandstein   16:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good to know. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The horse races at ITNR are very arbitrary. Nothing egregious, but many more prestigious races (Ascot, Preakness, Dubai WC) missing. Oppose this on the lack of refs. 75.188.224.208 (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know about this race but 150,000 people gather to watch the Kentucky Derby, a two minute race, live every year. hardly "obscure". One man's "obscure" event is another's most important. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, given this horse race is held in "little old England" with a population of around a sixth or less of the United States, and according to the Financial Times, the 2016 race (for instance) had " 70,000 spectators and a global television audience of 600m". So anyone trying to make any point about this being obscure, or not amongst the most viewed or most relevant to our readers is clearly not in touch with the reality of the situation, assuming we believe what at least one reliable source is telling us. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment had to orange tag race overview section. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't the horse have a standalone article?--WaltCip (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone created a stub. I've added altblurb2. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The orange tag seems to have been addressed. Marking ready. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know who removed the Ready, but just taking a look, where is the prize money breakdown referenced? I can find plenty of sources to back up the finishing order etc, but not the prizes.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact, this primary source seems to contradict the information currently in the table, so that's a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The prize quoted there look like the 2017 figures and I'm not sure that's a primary source - this one is the race's official website . I've added a citation to the Racing Post result which confirms the finishing order and prize money. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Are we really holding this up for a minor disagreement regarding the source for a trivial part of the article? Just delete that column if it's problematic; the article hardly needs it. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Still no comments almost two days since the problem seems to have been fixed. Last time I marked this ready it was removed, so I'm marking it [needs attention]. As far as I can tell the issues have been fixed (I don't have access to the Racing Post article but will assume good faith). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've addressed the one CN tag. Looks good to go for me. --LukeSurlt c 10:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 11:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Hal Greer

 * Oppose referencing issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: David Buckel

 * Weak support article is okay, notability does seem mostly about the death, but there's probably just enough there otherwise to allow it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced article with sufficient length for a newly created one. Well done. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I wish new noms would get consistently added at the top. Would make life much easier. -- BobTheIP editing as 92.29.28.146 (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: Reactions to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal

 * Oppose Only a few edits since the first few days of April, and no new diplomatic expulsions have occurred this month. Teemu08 (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose not really "ongoing". And this has been posted over and over to the extent it is now banal story. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongest oppose These cruft filled "reactions to" articles are a blight on Wikipedia. And there aren't significant updates meriting ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose This was ages ago and is mostly finished.  Nixinova   T   C  20:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose and would suggest merging/deletion of that article back to the main topic. "Reaction" articles should be more than just quote farms which that one is. Reactions should only be included if there's actual "actions" tied to it, just not strong words. --M asem (t) 20:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Miloš Forman

 * Support very good article -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.227 (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Very well done on fixing up the article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 18:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] 2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs

 * Comment- Major fact, but the article is a stub. If improved I'll strong support it.--SirEdimon (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment- Alternative article titled 2018 American-led missile strikes in Syria can be used, hopefully the speedy deletion nomination will be shaved off. Nice4What (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The existing title is marginally better ("American-led" is of questionable accuracy, though "coalition" is vague) and that article was created first; if you don't want to move your contributions to the other article, hopefully an admin can hist-merge and move them for you. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 01:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Coalition is of questionable accuracy, no news source has stated that CJTF-OIR is involved. News stories throughout the week has shown that the US reached out to UK and France. Nice4What (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Coalition refers to the obvious fact that more than one country is involved. To be perfectly clear, it would be irrational to argue about this much longer; do not disrupt editing by insisting on a content fork.  Regardless of whether you are right or wrong about the title, there should be one article. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment- Support the first article (2018 coalition military action against Syria) created on the subject as an alternative, as it was created first and has been edited by multiple editors. A merge is also a possibility.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Given this is in response to the suspected chemical attack, it might make sense to combine said blurbs. No comment yet on the article. --M asem (t) 02:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If there is wording for a blurb mentioning Douma chemical attack, I'll support that. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Big news.  Nixinova   T   C  02:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment the article is now move-protected at 2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs, and I believe everything discussed above redirects there. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The proxy war escalates. 99.253.147.101 (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb II only. We need to name the three countries if we post this.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I oppose all the other blurbs.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Leaning Support The article is in reasonable shape right now. But might need some update on impact and casualties as detail will emerge. I searched the news sources, there isn't a lot yet. HaEr48 (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. Can we have some actual world news on the front page for once, as opposed to the usual fare of obscure sports trophies and vehicle crashes?  Sandstein   05:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Again, reaction sections broken out by country with just statements are not approprate. It can be a lot cleaner and terser here. --M asem (t) 05:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb II only The coalition of countries directly attacking the Syrian government is unfathomably important. Russia has already threatened retaliation, which if possible should also be mentioned. Continue to update this blurb as events unfold; reactions from other major countries in the region could rapidly escalate the situation. I would also like to add that we should not simply refer to the United Kingdom and France as "its [the United States] allies" in the blurb. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Çomment Updated altblurb III <abbr title="The United States, along with the UK and France, bomb multiple government targets in Syria in response to a chemical attack.">? .  Nixinova   T   C  07:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Alt 3. It has both articles so we can display on ITN and remove the single chemical attack. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment President Trump mentioned France before the UK in his address. Should we do the same?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For what reason should we order our blurb or write the article based on what Trump said/how he said it? 331dot (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Did Macron support this before May?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is that why Trump ordered the other countries as he did? Genuine question. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The report I read said that Trump noted it as "Britain, France and the United States", presumably to shift some of blame for the now inevitable slew of terror attacks towards Europe and away from the US. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. "A combined operation with the armed forces of France and the United Kingdom".Zigzig20s (talk) 09:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * NOPE, "The nations of Britain, France, and the United States of America have marshalled their righteous power against barbarism and brutality," President Trump said in an address to the nation from the White House at about 21:00 local time (02:00 BST). BBC. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Either way, see User:AusLondonder's comment below.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've given up caring already. If we're unable to post this because we can't work out what order to put the UK and France after the United States, I give up. §|The Rambling Man]] (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:The Rambling Man: "The French president playing a leading role in pushing for these strikes", circa 3:20-3:25.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Would be highly ironic if the possible starting point of a possible nuclear WW3 weren't mentioned in the In the news category.--Adûnâi (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - with the proviso we use the second blurb. Oppose otherwise. Also wonder if it would be better to mention France second after the U.S. It makes sense alphabetically and France appears to have made a more substantial contribution to the attack than the UK. Weak support because this is just the latest minor instalment in a very long-running war. AusLondonder (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support article is okay, but by no means should we use the term "coalition", it's really just the US, France and the UK. Or maybe don't even mention that, the BBC are calling them "western powers"... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely not "western powers"--too vague. It's the US, France and the UK.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read and then edit the target article then, and email the BBC!! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment if posted, it probably needs to draw in the currently posted chemical attack, i.e. "... in response to the suspected chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria."... We don't need to blurbs about essentially the same news item. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - But I do support TRMs suggestion. No need for two blurbs.BabbaQ (talk) 09:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted using alt blurb 3 as a basis, and combining with previous blurb about the suspected chemical attack. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 11:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] April 14th Budapest protests
I'm not much of a Wikipedia editor, so I don't know the proper procedure for getting things into current events, but I think tens of thousands of people protesting against election results is notable, but I'm also admittedly biased because I think the goings-on of countries that silence their media are important to note in global news. Would appreciate input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:33C0:6A80:5D:8F16:47D9:4ED1 (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Courtesy templetization. Isa (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Not even it's own article.  Nixinova   T   C  07:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose if this was significant enough, per Nixinova, I'd expect to see an article about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Art Bell

 * Oppose Unfortunately it’s a very long article with many unsourced statements that will need to be referenced before posting. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per P2K3. Referencing is dreadful. I hope this gets cleaned up so we can post it. Art Bell was a truly iconic figure in the world of weird and fringe. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose tagged. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – If you haven't paid much or any attention to this article aside from now, most of the "dreadful parts" appear to have been POV-forked onto this article from the Coast article as part of an ongoing effort to rid the latter of anything not pertaining to the program's current agenda. Your first clue should have been the fact that the program has been in wide syndication for approximately a quarter century, yet the article lacks a history section.  Merely mentioning "East of the Rockies" and "West of the Rockies" without bothering to explain its purpose, namely the fact that the callers in the program's early days under Bell were heavily weighted towards the West Coast (specifically California and Nevada), with Bell deciding to give the eastern two-thirds of the U.S. equal footing with the western third for access to the call-in lines, should be viewed as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE violation.  Evidently, judging from how long this has been going on, the community is just fine with a social media site for the program's producers masquerading as an encyclopedia entry. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  07:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that this article is unfit to be posted on the main page. I think that's been established.--WaltCip (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Kathua rape case of 8 year old

 * Oppose blurb in its current state. Sensationalized language.--WaltCip (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not an opinion, an actual question: We seem to keep seeing lurid crime stories popping up out of India, and I'm starting to fear the creation a stereotype. I would imagine this sort of thing does happen with some regularity worldwide. In some places it's local news, in others the story is censored to avoid bad press. Might this be a case of selective journalism? Likewise with the public response, which can be both fed by sensationalism and ignored or inflated to serve tabloid purposes. GCG (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I partially concur with GCG's assessment. The selection of ITN stories from India has not been flattering lately. However, I think this is symptomatic of ITN as a whole, as ITN has a very strong bias towards disaster or crime stories.--WaltCip (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose This nomination appears to be a case of trying to right great wrongs. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Subject is undoubtedly a vicious crime. But vicious crimes occur daily all over the world. We generally try to steer clear of these kinds of hyper sensationalized tabloid press stories.  -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Commment The original BBC story has more detail and reporting. Its in Kashmir rather than just 'India' and involves land politics, corruption of officials etc etc. Its not just 'local news'. Rape as a nasty crime is bad enough. Rape used as a terror tactic to ethnically cleanse a region is very different. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Reading through, I understand the severity of the situation in that Kashmir region. But, however, I'm having difficulty trying to determine how extensive these protests are (which is the only reason this should be posted as a blurb per both the news stories and this nom). it's difficult to tell if is tens, hundreds, or thousands of people, and the lack of specificity generally suggests these are small-scale protests, which we generally do not post. --M asem  (t) 14:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose While indisputably a gruesome crime, isolated incidents such as this are usually not appropriate for ITN. If the protests became highly violent, or if the crime itself were politically motivated that would be another story, but as far as I can tell neither is the case.  EternalNomad (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. We can't go posting every rape or murder conviction, let alone every trial. Horrible for those affected, but sensationalist reporting is not for ITN. This is local tabloid news. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose everything that needs to be said has already been said. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 21:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Zoran Krasić

 * Weak support The article looks good but it's impossible to double-check the references. They're either in a foreign language I can't read, or offline.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per above. The problem here is that unless we have someone who can verify sources, we have a hell of a lot of good faith to assume that those references aren't just completely unsuitable.  I'd like someone conversant in the language and who is a trusted Wikipedian to let us know that we're not about to post something horrifically abusive to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - there's no need to fear foreign language sources. Google translate now works quite well and I could easily verify his death and other biographical information from this link. -Zanhe (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't trust Google Translate at all. That's just me.  If you found English language information on this individual, hopefully you added it to the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Google Translate is not good enough for publishing, but for verifying information, it is quite useful. -Zanhe (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John Melcher

 * Delay posting until Yang Gui gets on the main page in the RD ticker.--WaltCip (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 23:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No more need to delay. Yang Gui was already posted (for a short period of time). -Zanhe (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - important politician. Article is fine. Nomination is under the wrong date, but no big deal. -Zanhe (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * moved to April 12 power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 01:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support although there is an [according to whom] tag in there which, ideally (especially for a BLP) should be resolved before posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue has been resolved. Marked as ready. -Zanhe (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Trinidad and Tobago legalizes gay sex

 * Comment The link to the Sexual Offenses act sections doesn't align with the article. I've tagged it as such and left a comment on the talk page. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose The latest in the endless stream of nominations all on the same topic. This or that country legalized SSM of homosexual sex. This has long since ceased to be major news. If Russia or Saudi Arabia legalize SSM someone drop me a line as I'd probably support that nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So unlike European countries or Australia where it was ambiguous, T&T has an explicit law on the books. They're actually closer to Russia or SA. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is 0.1% of the number of people affected when comparing T&T to Russia. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I know. Just pointing out how the process is different than any of the other SSM changes lately. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Ad Orientem. Brandmeistertalk  08:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem. Lepricavark (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Robert Matthews (athlete)

 * Supportagreed, article is ready to post. -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.227 (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted to RD]: Mitzi Shore

 * Support Looks OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Nice work on the updates, TDKR. GCG (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Gillian Ayres

 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Referenced start.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] 2018 Algerian Air Force crash

 * Wait until we get some details to put in a blurb. We usually have a higher bar for casualties in military related crashes, but if the initial reports are accurate, this may meet it. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Article has no useful information beyond the date and time when the crash happened.  Less than a stub.  When the article has expanded to a reasonable state, it can be reassessed. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Change to weak support Article is at the BARE minimum of length; I would prefer to see more information actually put in it, but begrudgingly this probably just barely crosses the line to acceptable. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No it's not. Current revision says 1044 characters of prose and 167 words. I agree with the below that it's a better stub than many other stubs I've seen, but it's still a stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment updated blurb to reflect the recent update to at least 247 deaths. This is a serious incident.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support once the article gets a bit more meat on it. This is a major crash. Brycehughes (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support We should wait, but this should definitely get on the main page after more info is available. This is the first 200 fatality- plane crash in 3 years, I believe. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 12:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article expanded; blurb updated with latest stats. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - article bashed into something resembling a shape. Bit sketchy on details but we can only work with what is published. Mjroots (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support although we don't usually post military aircraft crashes this one involved family members, and the number of casualties is horrifying. EternalNomad (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Though we generally don't post military crashes, this had family members aboard; even if that wasn't the case, a 200+ casualty crash of any type is significant. --M asem (t) 13:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article does not meet the minimum length defined in ITN guidelines of "three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs". Mamyles (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw this as an issue, but reviewing the most current sources, there's literally not much more that can be said that isn't filler that would be inappropriate for us. Until they have some idea of the cause of the crash, I can't see a reasonable expansion possible here. --M asem (t) 13:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If there's nothing more to say about it, then why should we post it? Because it meets the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS threshold? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There will be clearly more to be said once they evaluate why the crash happened. That could hours, days, or weeks from that info coming due, and while we're not talking a third-world country here, I'd not expect rapid assessment of this from Algeria as one would have in the US or Europe. Because we have no idea when that will come, and could be days from now, we're at a point where the article does cover every known detail as comprehensively as possible. --M asem (t) 14:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll reconsider my opposition once that detail becomes available. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mamyles is right. This is a stub. We shouldn't post a stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, now it's no longer a stub. Support. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Comment – Stub. Sca (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Invalid oppose by . The article has an infobox, image, and structure and four paragraphs of text. It is not, by any means of the definition, a WP:STUB. Mjroots (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Currently has 957 characters of prose. DYK requires 1500 to get on the main page. WP:STUB gives a cutoff of 250 words, and this has 154. It's a stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For a stub it's informative, but the last 50 words are (unreferenced) background, and it still seems too thin for Main Page exposure. Sca (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I asked the editor who added that text for a source, but none was provided. Therefore I've removed it as such and bordering on WP:OR. Mjroots (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: further to my "support", above; this is well beyond the requirements for inclusion, and - despite the irrelevant comments above about DYK and stubs, etc - seems to be good to go. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Masem. Article is in good shape despite its size. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ⇒ As an aside, German Wiki has it on their ITN, but it links to a stub of just 69 words, which seems an obvious bid to get it out there pronto due to the high death toll. I don't think we want to go down that road. Sca (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose stub. It contains every published scrap of information and it's a stub. It's a stub because other than it happening, nothing is known about the event. We're only talking about this because of WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. When details about the aircraft (like date of delivery) are known, and a preliminary cause are known, and the article updated, then lets talk. There is absolutely no reason what so ever to rush this to the main page of Wikipedia. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any requirement to wait for a cause to be known, even a "preliminary cause", is there? Again date of aircraft delivery might be informative, but is it an actual requirement for posting? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC) p.s. count: says Characters = 1,045 and Words = 167
 * The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective. In my subjective opinion, it's not updated enough. Admins determining consensus will decide of my !vote matters. Deal with it. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So we just have subjective views on this, then. Yes, I think I can just about deal with that, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC) I can offer to add "in your face, dude", if you feel that would help.


 * Support - looking at the article it appears to be adequate for posting in its current state. —LukeSurlt c 16:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A stub is a stub is a stub.--WaltCip (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * What's needed is some info about why the military personnel (and their families) were being transported from Algiers to Béchar, near the Moroccan border. Was it a routine flight or something else? Also, a bit of background might be relevant regarding the Il-76, a Soviet-era plane. As this one crashed just after takeoff a technical fault seems likely. How old was it? Sca (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - Agree it is well beyond the requirements for inclusion. By the time all the shoutin' is over here, the article will be in decent shape anyway. Darkest Tree   Talk  16:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. According to count, no longer a stub. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - having assisted in expansion, I will support per . Stormy clouds (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * BBC says "witnesses say they saw a wing catch fire as the plane took off," i.e. a technical fault. Could be added. Sca (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Witnesses to the incident have reported that the wing of the plane had caught fire prior to the crash. Step ahead of you. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ⇒ Withdraw my opposition. It's the best that can by done for now. Sca (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support good to go, come on admins, let's DO THIS THING. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted. Courcelles (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Yang Gui

 * This won't be posted with 2 of the 3 references in Chinese, and the 3rd a Google book search. Stephen 23:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a new rule against non-English references? And what's the problem with Google books? Books published by academic presses are considered the gold standard of reliable sources, far more so than news articles. -Zanhe (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NONENG: Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. And the book source is a perfectly formatted reference, it is good to include a google books link where possible. The referencing here is fully adequate for posting. —LukeSurlt c 08:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And the apparent consensus here not to post articles created posthumously. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the first time I've heard of this "consensus". Could you point me to the relevant discussion? -Zanhe (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Some people have raised this objection on occasion but it has absolutely not reached “consensus”. It is clear that this individual is notable and any editor who things otherwise should go to AfD rather than object here. —LukeSurlt c 08:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I said "apparent consensus". I created Tyler Hilinski posthumously and it was opposed here (though still never nominated for deletion). Another athlete got a posthumous article rejected here, and was either kept or no consensus at AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support and people wonder why Wikipedia still has a systemic bias problem. The sources are fine; the article is looking good and should be posted. As for the concept article creation time is relevant, the template itself says anybody with an article is notable. -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.227 (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support A well-referenced article on a recently deceased person. The technical objections raised above do not aid the encyclopaedia and are not even valid technicalies as they have no basis in policy. —LukeSurlt c 08:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Close as stale. This now predates the oldest entry on the RD ticker.--WaltCip (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not yet, John Lambie (the nomination below) is still on the main page. -Zanhe (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Since there are now more than three sources. You people were wrong to object to Tyler Hilinski, and it would be wrong to object to this. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support foreign language citation are acceptable.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted, though acknowledging it won't stay long. Courcelles (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the support, interesting how many strange reasons of objection this nomination has received. -Zanhe (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John Lambie

 * Support Referencing appears fine. Looks good enough.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - looks fine. -Zanhe (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal

 * Oppose It's just testimony, though. There's no legislation likely to come out of the U.S. Congress, and as far as I'm aware nothing major came out of this hearing. The "data scandal" article is also pretty rough. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is literally all over the news (it hits the perfect combo of high tech celebrity, social media, and politics), but it's just testimony. From what I've read, there's nothing that seals the deal on the Russian interference (if it did or did not happen), and no other major revelations came out of this. It's a lot of noise that has very little end results at this point. --M asem (t) 22:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As Masem wrote, this is celebrity drama with zero long-term significance yet. Facebook had similar controversies before and nothing illegal had been done in those controversies so they died down. Speaking of Russian interference, there are far more notable events that happened but were not promoted at ITN. w umbolo   ^^^  22:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is nothing remarkable about this yet. Maybe there will be later, but we can reconsider if it comes to that. Natureium (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Orange tagged article. It's dominating the news, and would be a welcome break from our usual fare of cricket scandals and soccer scores. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A remarkable nothingburger of a non-story.--WaltCip (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Felix Chen

 * Comment. Very short. There's a quotation in the lead 'he resigned in 2003 under "extremely controversial circumstances."' which isn't cited there or elsewhere. In view of the BLP concerns I'd like to see more referencing on this issue. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Article has been expanded with info of his firing and controversy along with lead expansion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the article is still far from the quality I'd be prepared to support. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, The article now looks fairly OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Meets RD standards.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support article seems ready now -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.227 (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. 331dot (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Russia threatens nuclear attack against Western targets over possible intervention in Syria

 * Oppose Bloviators gonna bloviate. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose based purely on "last month". If they repeat the warning now, I will likely support. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 22:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Complete non-starter. The proposed blurb bears no relation to any content in either article mentioned, and the Douma attack is already being discussed in a separate nomination below. This should be closed. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose too soon. If the threat keeps up and draws more media attention, then we can consider this. Analogously, the Cuban Missile Crisis would've been worth posting if ITN existed back then, and we should not wait until one side fired missiles; however that episode also stayed in mainstream news for a long time. Banedon (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There’s a vague mention of “grave repercussions” – that hardly equates to “threatens nuclear attack against Western targets.” Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, hence this nomination is too soon. Banedon (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] 2018 Masters Tournament

 * Weak support The lead is a bit light on text, per WP:LEAD, however there is a prose summary of each round, which is well referenced. Meets minimum standards.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support -The article is overall sufficient and referenced. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - ITN/R. We are good to go with this one. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 19:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Senator Tammy Duckworth

 * Oppose see DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - well for her, and congratulations, but this is not a story of lasting international significance, and is not worthy of ITN in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Two men oppose the nom, so it's a snow close. Good for them, & congratulations. -- llywrch (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Michael Goolaerts

 * Support I ref'd everything in the body of the article needing a source.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support -Looks OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * SupportIt was in a sorry state before, but now looks like it can be added. Good work! -- BobTheIP editing as 88.111.223.24 (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 13:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Hungarian parliamentary election, 2018

 * Comment will election results come in in the next few days? If so, wait until the result, which will certainly be worthy. -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.227 (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is ITNR, but we only post the results, not the mere occurrence of the election. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The results will probably come in within hours (the election was supposed to end at 7 pm, but some people have been standing in line for hours and are still waiting to get in, due to the usual bureaucratic SNAFU our election office is well known for...) – Alensha   talk  20:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – AP cites preliminary returns to say Orban "easily won a third consecutive term." Sca (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's really no point in us all going round on this until someone updates the article. Then we need a sourced paragraph on reactions, which is what sinks most of these ITN-R election articles. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: I added an alternative blurb, since we now know the results and the article has been updated. This is definitely newsworthy enough to add. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Getting old fast. Sca (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's why we need to add it fast. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support the target article isn't perfect, but it's good enough. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 00:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: Article looks good, and this is a newsworthy election. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd like to see some mention of the electoral conduct; for example The Guardian is quoting the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe criticising the electoral conduct. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted a modified blurb, substituting "a coalition" for "Fidesz". The article makes it clear that it was an alliance of Fidesz and the KDNP which won the election, and I am not comfortable highlighting only one of those parties, even if it is the major partner in the coalition. If folks wish to change this, further discussion is welcome, here or at WP:ERRORS. Vanamonde (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Douma chemical attack

 * Wait - there's fairly little detail about the attack itself (where exactly, with what, when, etc.) and this might have to wait. Once fixed Strong support - even by Syrian Civil War standards this is highly abnormal. Juxlos (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it stands. This is never going to fly folks, every genuine reliable source is adding "alleged" or "purported" or "apparent" as a caveat to the event itself.  What might swing it is simply that at least 70 people were killed (although I heard on the radio [BBC] that this was a very low estimate) in this attack.  It's indisputably in the news, and indisputably a significant act, we just need to get the blurb right without wandering into POV or speculation.  Article is sufficient in any case.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. "Alleged" or "apparent" or even "suspected" can easily be added to the blurb. Can we be less precise about the number of deaths? BBC is hedging on 70 vs 48 by calling it "dozens". Espresso Addict (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that's where you're plain wrong. If we add "alleged" or "apparent" or "suspected", no-one will support this nomination.  That's very much how ITN works.  With all the experience I have here, I should know...... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because absurd decisions have been made in the past... I'd support with that sort of wording if the article can be got into posting quality. We make ITN a laughing stock when we apparently ignore important encyclopedic news in favour of posting sports/election results & transport accidents. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's not really about "absurd" decisions, it's really about the uncertainty and then the liability. We don't tend to post "it may be this" kind of stories, and we certainly wouldn't post this as a de facto "chemical attack", so all we have now to get this onto the main page is an single attack which has killed dozens in Syria.  And that's considered "plus ca change".  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think User:The Rambling Man continues to make excellent arguments. I would argue that the evidence is overwhelming that "A chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria kills at least 70 people." is unquestionably true. However, there may also be good reasons not to post this particular blurb. For example, a pacifist may want to avoid drawing attention to an event that may lead the United States into world war 3. Brian Everlasting (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the president of that country might have noticed already. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose minus "background" and "reactions" it's a stub. Personally I'm tired of the phrase "anti government activists" in the Syrian civil war articles. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support: Al Jazeera did not used the "alleged" tone when discussing the incident and some other more recent articles have followed suit, though older stories are still more popular in searches. As further news breaks, some wording may change. United Nations emergency meeting is to be held regarding the situation.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 00:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in principle It's not a stub. The article has 2500 characters of prose, which is a start class. It'll be expanded and it's minimally long enough now. The "background" section does and should count to the total, since obviously the background matters to why a chemical attack would happen here. The "reactions" are bulleted so they don't count to the character count. Obviously that POV tag needs to be dealt with first. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this is part of a larger event that is already listed as ongoing. or rather, we could just remove the other if we choose to post this. GCG (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. If you take out the BG and the reactions section, there's hardly anything about the actual "event" (attack or whatever it will be considered). I agree the BG section is needed, but it should not dominate, and reaction sections like the one here are highly discouraged, it should not be a quotefarm but actual reactions, such as medical or military aid being offered, etc. As such, it is far too stubby to post. --M asem (t) 14:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support this is seeing more than enough coverage to warrant posting, especially given the threats of escalation. Banedon (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * With UN resolutions being discussed and a veto being used, I think this is at a point where it should be posted quickly. Banedon (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – As the facts remain contested, along with the death toll, this might be better posted under 'ungoing' IMO. Sca (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in principle Donald Trump announced he would skip the eighth Summit of the Americas to oversee the United States response to the attack, so I also support the possibility of posting as 'ongoing'. If it helps with NPOV, I suggest using the White Helmets' estimate and changing the blurb to at least 43 people. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. It is a significant event, but the article is not good enough. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per The Rambling Man and Masem. -- M h hossein   talk 18:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Muboshgu and Banedon. Jusdafax (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Though the article is weak, this is the news story of the week 155.225.2.100 (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - In the news for the past couple of days. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - per political significance. Article is in good enough shape for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As this is now trending toward posting, can I ask again if it is appropriate to post a sub-event of an item already posted as ongoing? GCG (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The posting admin should probably remove the ongoing when the blurb is posted, until it ages off, when the ongoing can be restored. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've left it up as I think there's value in keeping the wider article there, but I don't feel strongly about it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per Banedon, still in the news, thus it's very notable. Davey2116 (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Admin Comment Removed Attention Needed- there is no discernible consensus to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted - Per what I see as a rough consensus, though I didn't see Ad's comment beforehand. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Bundesliga

 * Oppose What archive are you looking at? It was nominated, but not posted last year. I think that was the only time it was even nominated. It has been mentioned in a few football nomination threads, but mostly dismissively – Muboshgu (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I am opposing because this is a lower tiered league than the Premier League, soccer is already sufficiently represented at ITN/R, such as with the Champions League, as mentioned by GCG, and the article isn't that great. It's one short section of prose followed by a ton of tables. One specific issue is "clean sheets". The term is used once, in a section header, and never defined. Not everyone knows what one of those is. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not "lower tiered league"; it's the top league in Germany just as the EPL is the top league in England. It may not have as high a profile or as many TV viewers worldwide, but that's a different thing. And it should be fairly trivial to wikilink Shutout somewhere.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * American football and baseball have no such terms, everything from safety to RBI is clearly obvious. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Whenever I write about RBIs, I link to run batted in to provide the necessary context to our readers. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, so you actually already know that this "specific reason" is really nothing to even be noted here, and something that the addition of, what, 14 extra bytes would solve in a jiffy? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a bit ironic to see someone who argued for the inclusion of the NCAA football national champion on grounds like cultural significance dismiss this so easily. This is a top tier domestic league. Bayern is among the best club teams on earth(really hate to say that, cannot stand them lol), unlike the NCAA national champion which is worlds apart from the top of the game. The german league is among the strongest in europe, probably world wide, as well. It is culturally significant, it is domestic top tier, has high attendance, the winner of the league is among the best teams on earth and the quality of the league is easily in the top 5 world wide i would say, probably top 3 even. So if you oppose this Muboshgu, will you oppose next years college football final as well? 91.248.254.186 (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Article appears to be reasonably well referenced and the Bundesliga is a significant competition. It has the highest average attendance of any league in the world and UEFA rates it as the second best in Europe based on Champions League performance. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Domestic football is a big deal. The point at which a league is sufficiently notable for ITN posting is arbitrary, but for me La Liga, the English Premiership and the Bundesliga (in that order) are the three that are above that line. 2017–18_Bundesliga appears to be adequate prose in the article. --LukeSurlt c 14:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose My concern isn't that this is a domestic league; it's that the Champions League, which is the premier event for these clubs, is ITNR already. GCG (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I'm just seeing "I don't like it", the Bundesliga is probably in the top three football leagues in the world, and football has a global audience of billions, so this will be of interest to a vast number of our readers across the continents of our planet. Probably more so than college basketball I would guess.......  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I expanded on my opposition. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Question is this the "top of the sport"? I thought the UEFA Champions League was that -- if that's the case, this is a simple qualifier. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Why does it need to be "top of the sport" to feature as a normal ITN? Is "top of the sport" a new ITN criterion I've missed?? I've never heard anything so preposterous in my highly experienced life.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Champions League is, despite its name, actually a knock-out competition, not directly comparable to individual countries' leagues.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So the "top tier" of European football is the UEFA? Or are those just demonstration games? Im honestly trying to understand -- because I don't know. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Teams compete in domestic leagues, such as the Premier League in England, or the Bundesliga in Germany. These events are organised on a domestic scale, not by UEFA. Then, based on how well they performed in the preceding season, teams enter the UEFA Champions League, where they play against other European clubs initially in a league, and subsequently (i.e. now) in knockout football. However, clubs spend the vast majority of their time playing in the domestic league - 38 games as opposed to about a dozen in the Champions League, so they should not be ignored. Winning the domestic league is a big deal, however, suffice it to say, and warrants attention at ITN. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So there are 55 member countries in the UEFA .. subject to article quality are all of their championships a big deal suitable for posting to ITN? --LaserLegs (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously not. It is our job to determine which ones do, and I would not consider the answer to be "one of them". Stormy clouds (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - prominent European league, of significant interest to our readership. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose With association football being as big as it is, we purposes have whats at ITNR to limit how many stories in this area that would come up at ITNR. As there are more significant tourneys in that region that include Germany, we should focus on that, rather than the nationals. --M asem (t) 17:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is one of the stranger arguments I've seen here. We don't limit our number of American gun crime stories, the consensus to post or otherwise makes that self-limiting.  We don't have ITNR to limit stories, we have it to accept stories which have been endlessly debated.  That we post the Premier League knocks this other "significant tourneys" debate into the long grass.  According to that, we'd only ever post the winner of the Champions League, which we don't.  And since football truly global and watched by literally billions, I think we're all able to accept that a few extra stories about it here will do Wikipedia no harm at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * False. Stories about gun violence in America are routinely opposed as being routine. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What? "the consensus to post or otherwise makes that self-limiting." completely 100% true.  How odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. Nothing odd about it. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between what we can plan and what we can't. We're not going to cap, say, hurricane disasters if there's 10 that strike and made deadly landfall, but we're still discrimating towards hurricanes with minimal damage or impact and certainly not posting every hurricane that forms. But when we have events we can plan on, one of the considerations at ITNR is how many stories in that topic area are generated per year. We try to avoid over-saturation where we can in any one specific topic area, and in a case where we have a tiered sport like these European leagues, we have to make a concerted effort of drawing a line to avoid excessive coverage of incremental elements. And while I do see the ITNR suggests only adding three specific national events in addition to the Premiere League on the bases those four have assured slots, I still think it becomes a bias issue if we're not including the other 30-some national results, but at the same time ITN can't handle those 30-some blurbs. --M asem (t) 19:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Who said 30-some? I think the absolute most ever proposed was three or four?  Wild extrapolation doesn't help anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with . It's not bias to only choose the leagues which are ranked the highest, and have other visible advantages over the others (attendance, TV audience, global column inches, commercial investments). I don't think any Welshman, Irishman, Gibraltarian, Andorran, Sammarinese, Luxembourger etc would legitimately question Wikipedia neutrality if their national league was excluded. Harambe Walks (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - please see ITN/R proposal, so that we can solve the significance argument now and put the perennial debate to bed for a while. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Soccer is the most important thing in the world. The article has a well referenced wall of tables, a brief prose summary which is also sourced. Open wide for some soccer! --LaserLegs (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Masem's arguments on WT:ITNR. Banedon (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Lula imprisoned

 * Support - Former head of state of Brazil. Jusdafax (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose solely on article quality. Referencing is quite poor on the BLP and has gaps on the other article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose We already posted when he was convicted (last July). While the circumstances here are a bit odd - he missed a court date to turn himself in and spend two days hiding before he turned himself in - we don't usually cover when sentences of established convinctions start. --M asem (t) 01:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: As said, we have already covered this when he was sentenced. The sentence turning into actual prison is just a trivial consequence; Lula was not detained back then because the lawyers were delaying it with their tricks. This may had been newsworthy if the PT insisted to "resist" the arrest and the whole thing turned into an open conflict for some days, or something like that (and then justifying a specific article), but that was not the case. He resisted the arrest for just some hours, and then gave up without major incidents. Cambalachero (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Has been previously included ITN.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 23:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Yaser Murtaja

 * Comment did he die yesterday or today? The article's not clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Respond This article says Friday. Could you add that? (IPs aren't allowed to directly edit articles on this topic.) Thanks. -- BobTheIP editing as 88.111.218.152 (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's unclear to me from the article whether or not this journalist was notable prior to his death. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Most of the article is about his death. Aiken D 23:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Another RD where the article was only created after the subject's death. Whilst his death was certainly part of a notable event, it doesn't appear that he was notable himself beforehand.  Every source in the article is dated today.  I suspect if this was to be AfD'd, it would not survive via WP:BLP1E. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] 2018 Münster vehicle ramming

 * Oppose Doesn't appear to be a terrorist attack, probably doesn't rise to the importance of an ITN item. Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose No indication this is terrorism – appears to be an individual with mental health problems. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose doesn't seem to be terror-related; casualties are (thankfully) very low. EternalNomad (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Humboldt Broncos bus crash

 * Oppose I have serious doubts about the notability of this topic. While it is undoubtedly getting a lot of immediate attention, I suspect that this is not going to pass SUSTAINED and I'm not seeing the long term significance of this, admittedly tragic event. Once again we have people rushing to create articles about whatever is in the news w/o consideration for whether the subject is likely to meet our guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have opened a discussion on the article's talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral I am withdrawing my oppose. After spending some time looking at traffic safety (and death) statistics for developed countries I now believe that the number of fatalities in this case is so far outside the norm as to establish notability. That said I do think we should have a discussion about setting some kind of rough guidelines about disaster related nominations. But that is a separate issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Top of my news feed this morning. It's in the news. So was a prison fire in Venezuela, a mall fire in Russia, a shooting in France, a suicide bombing in Afghanistan, a package bomber in the USA (very briefly, as we know, the USA sucks), a plane crash in Nepal, a fire in Azerbaijan, and a terrorist attack in Burkina Faso. A bridge collapse in Miami was not posted. That's just for March. Yes WP:OSE but in the absence of WP:MINIMUMDEATHS Opposes should explain what (other than happening in Canada) makes this tragedy any different from the endless parade of utterly irrelevant barely above stub disaster stories pushed to ITN on a weekly basis. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * With the likely exception of the terrorist bombing, I think I can see arguments for the long term significance of most of the events you cited. This looks like a really awful traffic accident to me. But that's pretty much all I'm seeing right now. Maybe some new highway safety regulations will emerge from this, but at the moment I'm not seeing that as likely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Long term significance of a prison fire in Venezuela? Really? Five years from now that article will be within 50 words of what it is today. I think these disaster stories are totally over-represented at ITN, but rather than editorialize, I rely simply on them being "in the news". Wanna stop it? (I DO!) start an RFC. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A bad fire in a prison almost always has long term significance. Even if there is no call for safety reform, which given the current political situation in the workers paradise that is Venezuela, does seem unlikely; it has already become part of the broader story about that country's slide into far left authoritarian dictatorship. I have no real doubts about its notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support given that this is the kind of stuff that gets usually posted (+ various sports events), this one should be posted, too. In the meantime, we keep ignoring the really important developments (Saudi-Arabia, Ethiopia etc. etc.). Daily Mail, not an encyclopedia. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B40E:B531:60CB:8185 (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Cpmment I have no real opinion on posting this or not, but as a general note regarding notability or otherwise I recommend examining the public domain highways accident reports over many decades from the US National Transportation Safety Board. The bottom line being when you get a very large mass casualty vehicle accident in a developed nation you can usually expect lasting significance because there tend to be regulatory proposals and the like come out of them, many of which go on to become actual laws. Not that it's guaranteed to be the case by any means but it's worth having at the back of one's mind. -- BobTheIP editing as 88.111.218.152 (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I fail to see the long-term impact. Who cares?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the worst sports-related disaster in Canada's history. Argument with no basis is also sociopathically disrespectful. Shocking! 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:A4 (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Large death toll for a vehicular accident; comparable to the 2018 Hong Kong bus accident, which we posted without question. Notability is boosted by the fact that it involved a notable sports team. EternalNomad (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per EternalNomad. Article quality is sufficient. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support although I admit I am slightly biased as I'm one of the editors working on the article. The article is currently sufficient and will be expanded once more information is released (the victims names are slowly being released, for example, but they won't be added until confirmed by a better source than Twitter). With regards to the argument about this event's notability, I don't believe it has merit. This event meets the WP:GNG and will almost certainly have longstanding repercussions for the community, province, team and hockey league. Perhaps not world-changing effects, but effects nevertheless. It is also well in-line with other minor events that have received articles and been posted to ITN. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 19:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape and is certainly in the news. GrossesWasser (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support the juxtaposition of a large road traffic accident in somewhere like Canada, combined with the drastic loss of a large proportion of a single sporting team, makes this notable enough for me. The article is sufficient, the blurb, however, is not.  It needs to link in bold text the target article, and the most recent update is that 15 people have sadly died.  Other than that, it's good to go.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I see consensus for this but there needs to be a reference for the updated death toll. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ I added one. --BobTheIP editing as 88.111.218.152 (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Black Kite and I tried to post it at the same time. :) 331dot (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Me too! Espresso Addict (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted to Ongoing] Ongoing: 2018 Gaza border protests

 * Support - Being updated all along. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - It's receiving edits every some minutes. -- M h hossein   talk 13:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose already posted as a blurb when this was truly in the news. Now little is happening, by the standards of this region of the world. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B40E:B531:60CB:8185 (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. No opinion on ongoing worthiness, but the wording needs considerable care. The blurb had ongoing arguments at Errors almost its entire tenure. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Still showing up in Current events; good article.  Nixinova   T   C  06:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Since the only oppose is by somebody with some rather sarcastic things to say about current events/ITN, I'm marking as ready. -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.227 (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support — Active story that is developing daily.--Carwil (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Daniel Akaka

 * Comment there are a lot of problems right now, and unfortunately I won't be able to do any work to fix it. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Should be better now, but not good enough yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm troubled by the fact that the detail of his wife's name (Millie Akaka in the legend, Mary Chong in the infobox) is unclear and his marriage isn't mentioned in the text. Not itself necessarily a huge problem but I think it's indicative of a patchy article with big gaps in coverage. Many achievements mentioned in obits are not in the article, giving undue weight to the Time article assessment. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD:Cecil Taylor

 * Support. Agree, do not seem to be any sourcing issues. Discography is at a separate article. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Former S. Korean President sentenced to 24 years for corruption

 * Support A news on sentencing a former head of state to 24 years in prison for corruption is a big deal that merits inclusion and it even deserves an update in a separate (sub)section of the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on principle, oppose on quality - Noted that there was a nomination for her arrest which was not posted (appropriately), this is the right point to post. However, I feel the article's organization (why she was on trial comes before anything that discusses her impeachment and why she was arrested) and the major block of text of CNs require improvement here before posting. --M asem (t) 14:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * per Masem, in principle yes, but not of sufficient quality to support yet. Only the lede appears to have been updated so far, not the appropriate section of the article itself.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose has been maintenance-tagged since late-2016. Not good enough for a BLP, let alone for one being targeted on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality – 25 cn tags!  Nixinova   T   C  19:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah it needs work. FTR I added most of those CN tags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Frederick D. Reese

 * Support looks fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Isao Takahata
*Oppose. It is in a terrible state, orange tags on every section aside from the lead itself for over two years. It's going to need just about a complete re-write to even begin to approach front page standards. It's a depressing sight. Challenger l (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is a disaster. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Incredibly saddening, but not going to be featured at the current state. I'll see if I can work on it. Alex Shih (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What a truly horrific article.--WaltCip (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Update I have rewritten and sourced the prose at least to a respectable degree (nothing close to Miyazaki's but enough to pass quality). I'm going to try to source the TV/Film sections now, but I did want to highlight the biggest problems have been fixed. --M asem (t) 20:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And now except for a few early non-notable flms, have those all sourced. --M asem (t) 21:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Any comments on the revised version? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article has been well fixed up and the article is overall well sourced for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thanks, Masem. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support article has been cleaned up to an acceptable standard.  Nixinova   T   C  07:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Masem and others, you've done great work here! Challenger l (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Eric Bristow

 * Comment. It's going to need a fair amount of sourcing work. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is like trying to hit 101 or more with 6 darts. Hardly anything is sourced, and it seems a whole "Early life" section (ie: where was he born, where did he grow up, how did he get into darts) is missing. Still, if anyone does it, they can have a speedboat. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's a challenge, and a terrible one to consider that Bristow, before Taylor, was simply unparalleled.  And yet his article is a junkyard.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I started trying to source the first sentence in the body (winning the 1980 Championship against Bobby George) and got bogged down really quickly. If I can't plug in sources like I'm felling trees on this one, it's not going to happen unless everyone pitches in. At the moment, people seem to be fiddling around the wording (and in some instances adding even more unsourced content!), that's great, but for a BLP (which technically this is of course), it's the referencing that's the priority. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a pre-dawn start, but perhaps I can join back in on my own nom (cue cheers from the maniacal peanut tossers) tomorrow. Buenos noches. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose at the moment due to poor referencing. Will support if article cleaned up.Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Terrible article. Normally I don't mind pitching in with referencing, but what are we to do with stuff like " Bristow had not only supreme talent for one so young but an imposing personality and uncontained self belief."? Needs a major re-write.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * True, but it's difficult to just let go, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

[Removed] Remove Ongoing: Turkish military operation in Afrin

 * Support per nomination. --Joseph (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I'm looking for something that's in there that happened in April..... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * just to clarify-- are you opposing removal? Or opposing it staying on ITN?  Spencer T♦ C 00:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Gah, adjusted. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support removal. Per nom.  Spencer T♦ C 00:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed Stephen 05:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment No updated info after 25 March. The operation look like it is in low activity now.--Nizil (talk) 05:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

RD: Johnny Valiant

 * Meh Sourcing isn't so good and there are POV problems. But as a guy who likes to inform people about wrestling history and was pinged here, I feel compelled to say go for it. Nothing jumps out as blatantly false (though I'm no Johnny V expert). InedibleHulk (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The career section needs a lot more referencing work.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ray Wilkins

 * Oppose for now a fine gent but this article is not in a state to be posted. The removal of unsourced content (a huge problem for players who played before the Internet age) has reduced this entry into bare bones, his whole career after Chelsea (which included Manchester United, Milan and PSG) is one sentence. 84 international caps are described in one sentence and I've only just doubled the international section by adding his World Cup red card. Harambe Walks (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Changing to Support based on sufficient sourcing for a post Harambe Walks (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support What is there seems sufficient and well-sourced. Aiken D 19:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article well sourced. G2g. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - and we are ready to go. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment good work from, , , and  on this.  It's been a while since one of these RDs got to me, but this one really did.  Thanks again.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, time to post please. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: 2018 Commonwealth Games

 * Comment target article has some referencing issues, and isn't suitable for ongoing because it's not getting regular updates. If there is a medals article or something then nominate that. Or if you want, nom the opening for a blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not getting regular updates because all that's happened so far is the opening ceremony. That was last night. It's 8:20 am on the first day of competition right now. Not many medals awarded so far. Please give it time. HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There will obviously be continuous updates so it's a no-brainer for ongoing but no obejctions to posting it as a blurb first. Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a blurb "The Commonwealth Games opens in Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia." would be better, then we can move to ongoing once this drops off the template if there are continuous updates. --LukeSurlt c 15:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. The ongoing target of Chronological summary of the 2018 Commonwealth Games is orange-level tagged for lack of references. ETA: Don't we usually bold opening ceremony for blurbs? 2018 Commonwealth Games opening ceremony is barely a stub. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as I did four years ago. Except for the Olympics I don't feel sports events are what Ongoing was intended for, especially regional/otherwise limited entry criteria ones like this. When did we take out this event from ITNR?  I would be more comfortable posting a blurb. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 331dot.--WaltCip (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I concur with 331dot that the Olympics (and probably the World Cup) are more suited for Ongoing. This event does not rise to that level. Lepricavark (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] 2018 Commonwealth Games

 * Blurb is definitely better than ongoing in this case. However, the article does not appear updated, nothing about the opening ceremony, for example (I know there is a separate article, but even that one is very short). --Tone 13:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've copied across the information and links from the sub-articles, this should be sufficient - we don't want to make the main article too long. Black Kite (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. Yes, better than an ongoing, now I've thought about it a while. Biggest multi-sport event outside the Olympics. Black Kite (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Black Kite. Article looks sufficiently updated now.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted, with the top-level article; neither the chronological summary nor the opening ceremony is of sufficient quality yet. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] YouTube headquarters shooting

 * Oppose no impact, nothing will change, only the perp died. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And her videos were taken down. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Snow close.--WaltCip (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support I know we don't usually post items with a low number of casualties, but there are unusual circumstances here - a female shooter and a high-profile company targeted.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Snow close 100% domestic non-terrorism related incident, fails basic ITN for such events. --M asem (t) 14:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support News sources are covering the story in detail, article is of sufficient depth and quality and referencing looks good. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Nowhere in ITN criteria does it say we reject news for having too low a death toll, or being domestic terrorism, or what have you. This is in the news and it's a quality article. Opposers are forgetting the purpose of ITN is to promote good, updated content on items that are in the news. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We have to be fully aware of the media affect here, and remember that Youtube is part of the media community. They are of course going to highlight this big time, but this is nothing at all close to the Charlie Hebdo shooting from a few years back. There's a huge media bias in why this story is being covered as deeply as it is, is that it affected one of the media's "own". If this was any other random workplace without the name "YouTube", the coverage would be non-existent. --M asem (t) 14:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not importance perceived of event x. The criteria is set out for ITN, and that is is there reliable, in-depth news coverage of an event. Comparison to other similar events has zero bearing on this nomination. All nominations are held on their own merits not on a scale of comparison. WTKitty (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ITN is not a news ticker. We do curate to avoid bias created by media . --M asem (t) 14:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's right. Which is why we evaluate article quality and merely use the news to decide if people are likely to be hearing about this story outside of Wikipedia.  By trying to "curate" the list based on your own views of what should, and should not, be important, you are treating this as a news ticker.  You are merely trying to curate your own news ticker and control what stories people do and don't see based on your own editorial opinion of what we should and should not find important.  That's a news ticker.  If instead we just put up good articles about current events that's what we should be doing.  "I don't think the news should cover this" is not a criteria for ITN.  Bias is not avoided by refusing to acknowledge work created by Wikipedia editors just because you don't like where those editors live.  Two biases are not a correction.  Instead, just write articles yourself from underrepresented areas.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, the point here is that gun crime occurs all the time in the US, and in this case only one person died, the perp. That it happened at YouTube is trivia.  The event is borderline trivia, probably better covered in a long list of this year's shootings.  Posting this would actively open floodgates for every single trivial gun event in the US that receives a day's news coverage.  Which would be junk.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If we strictly only went by media coverage and a sufficient update to an article for quality, then ITN would be flooded by Trump-related stories. We have to recognize that the media has its own focus that is different from the goals of an encyclopedia. We do need to curate, and understand that even if a story is the leading headline for all major papers, it may not be appropriate for Wikipedia (NOT#NEWS still exists and is still consider valid) nor ITN's front page, even if the update and quality to the article are there. We try to avoid geographical biases, but we also need to try to avoid topic-area biases too that are generated by the media. This is one of those cases. --M asem  (t) 14:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is larger than just "gun crime in the U.S.", as it is a female shooter (you have to acknowledge how rare that is) and that it's (apparently) over the issue of the monetization of her videos. So many U.S. shootings don't get articles, let alone nominated here at ITN. Sometimes, they're worth posting. Like Parkland, Newtown, Sutherland Springs, and I think this too. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How does the shooter being female impact the newsworthiness of the story, other than that it's a statistical anomaly? Answer: It doesn't. The conclusion is still the same - guns are ridiculously easy to get a hold of in the U.S., and mass shootings are pervasively frequent as a result.--WaltCip (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And that right there brings us back to the crux of the matter: U.S.-related stories are being rejected by editors not on their merits, but on the idea that mass shootings are "pervasively frequent". Not all of them are nominated, but somehow, their frequency means they all need to be rejected? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And right there you hit the nail on the head again, we have lists and lists of mass shootings, this one is not unique, is not interesting, is not important, is not going to change anything, and will be forgotten in moments. We don't reject them all by any means, that's an absurd accusation.  Promoting this is the quickest way to junk ITN with a proliferation of totally meaningless shoot-em-up's in the United States on the main page.  Perhaps start an American Wikipedia where you could have a mass shooting ticker instead?  It would be frequently updated, like another RD line?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I may support the nomination, but the reasons of this incident are not elaborated. The article says that she claims that Youtube "demonetized most of her videos", and that can be easily understood as an action over an individual user. Actually, the requirements of AdSense have changed: before, you needed to have a channel with at least 10,000 views in total, now you need 4,000 hours of watch time in the last year and at least 1,000 subscribers. A significant number of Youtube video creators do not meet those draconian requirements and ceased to receive monetization; this woman was just one of them. Of course, it does not justify her, but it gives context. See here: How YouTube creators get paid for ads and why some have been angry. Cambalachero (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No offense, but YouTube stiffing a few of its less productive users a few bucks is not the same thing as the U.S. declaring Israel a sovereign state.--WaltCip (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Snow Close no long term impact. SamaranEmerald (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Can people please stop saying "snow close"? That's not going to happen when there are four supports so far.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. And no need to leave out "Iranian-born" in the lede.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose we can’t post EVERY mass shooting that occurs in the U.S, Wikipedia is not U.S-centric even if it gets widespread coverage. Kirliator (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose while Pawnkingthree is absolutely right that this does not qualify for a snow close, I don't think it qualifies for an ITN posting either. This is a relatively minor incident with minimal impact. Lepricavark (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above opposers, a minor shooting at best. In addition, I don’t recall a previous posting where the shooting had no fatalities other than the perpetrator, though correct me if I’m wrong. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The thing is it happened at Youtube. Millions (maybe hundreds of millions?) of people use youtube every day. That makes it more ITN-worthy in my opinion. The only real argument for not posting it may be that we obviously don't want to encourage copycats. We may need to have a real conversation about this--what does law enforcement think--should we avoid "promoting" these stories? But they are all over the newspapers.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Widespread news coverage does not automatically mean this event warrants an ITN post, as there is no formal criteria. I have seen posts make it to ITN with barely any coverage, and get posted.  Likewise, there have been countless times where events on the ITN nominations received international coverage, yet failed to get posted on the bulletin. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not the point I'm making at all. I'm saying Youtube makes it ITN-worthy IMO.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose This would set a very dangerous precedent into posting any shooting that happens around the world. We generally only post shootings/attacks with significant casualties or large ramifications (such as the Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, or the assassination of a major political figure), and I don't think this meets either.  EternalNomad (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, minor shooting, no long-term impact. Kaldari (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I was pleasantly surprised when I saw soon after the shooting that no one had tried to ITN it. I guess my surprise was too soon. This is a minor incident. Things like this happen all the time. The only person dead was the shooter. Natureium (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and the absolutely incredible (and by that I mean it in its literal sense) thing is that we have two admins voting in favour of posting it. Seriously.  Who's watching the watchmen these days?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, and for the record, contrary to what one of these admins has claimed (Opposers are forgetting the purpose of ITN is to promote good, updated content on items that are in the news), some of us are all too aware of what should and should not go onto ITN, and while this article might be of decent quality, the news item it relates to is trivial and of limited interest to a handful of individuals in a small region on the planet who can't control themselves and their guns. Instantly forgettable fodder.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support it's a rather unusual shooting, and in the news, internationally. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:D50F:2978:62F9:C48D (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's unusual because the shooter only managed to kill herself? No big deal.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the only real reason why this event is getting widespread coverage is because YouTube is mentioned, if this wasn't YouTube or any other major business or corporation, this would not be on the board. Python Dan (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Much hype, not so much significance, zero deaths (the perp doesn't count). This is a blip, nothing more. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] April 2018 North American storm complex
--Jax 0677 (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What storm complex? Where? What has been the damage? Have there been any casualties?--WaltCip (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose weather impacting a few, mildly, and non-notable weather at that. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub. Story is in the news, event is relatively rare, advanced building codes, enforcement, communications and emergency management in the United States means death toll and damage are relatively low (and WP:MINIMUMDEATHS isn't a thing). But ... it's barely a stub. --22:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaserLegs (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose, don't we have a Wikiweather or Wikimeteo or something? LjL (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this is the kind of ITN post that's literally destined to snow. SamaranEmerald (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, people in a first-world country are inconvenienced due to unusual weather, news at 11. This is not at all appropriate for an ITN. --M asem (t) 23:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * People in a developing nation are killed due to usual weather? OMG deaths? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Lill-Babs

 * Question Why is there no list of works? Surely she released something in her career? "she acted in several films"? Nice job on the cleanup BabbaQ. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added Filmography and Discography. Thanks.BabbaQ (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice work.


 * Support GTG. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 16:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] April 2018 caste protests in India

 * Support as a updater. I would prefer it in ongoing events instead of blurb. I have also proposed alternative blurb which does not focus on number of deaths. ALT2 uses SC/ST caste groups instead of term Dalit because it is unrecognized term by the government and definition of Dalit sometimes do not include ST caste groups. The protests are against the court order on the SC/ST atrocities act, not government. So I had proposed ALT1.--Nizil (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose remove the "Background" section and you have a sub-stub sized article. Needs expansion about the actual event.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The article has expanded significantly since Tuesday. Kaldari (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as a updater. It received global news coverage. --Uncle Sargam (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Connie Lawn

 * Weak oppose It's basically a stub. For someone with a 50-year career I would expect there to be enough out there for a little expansion. If this could be done I will switch to support.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Switching to Support as Dumelow has added some more career details as I requested - thanks.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support article seems sufficient and well-sourced. Aiken D 19:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support It's good enough and long enough for the main page. It's 3,000 characters of prose, which is a Start-class article. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair to Pawnkingthree it was shorter when I nominated it, I have since expanded the article - Dumelow (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Very good then. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support good to go, definitely not a stub, that template removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] 2018 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament

 * Support –Article in decent shape and updated. Item is ITNR, this looks ready to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment as per other sport ITNRs we need a better /larger summary of the game; additionally, factors such as broadcaster, estimated audiance, etc. should also be included. --M asem (t) 03:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * References needed on many tables, heats, and broadcasts. Stephen 03:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The pages will do need some work and should be totally up to speed by some time tomorrow at the latest. Especially as more is written about the championship game and the winning team. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: the NCAA Women's Tournament should be included. It was last year. —  Wylie pedia  @ 06:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Last year's women's was significant because it halted Connecticut's 111-game winning streak. If this year's is not ready, especially since the women's is not in the ITNR either, it should not hold up the nomination.—Bagumba (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support posting the Men's Tournament once it is judged to be ready. I strongly oppose posting the Women's Tournament because it's just not that big of a deal even in America. It should not have been posted last year, either. Lepricavark (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I see no reason not to include the Woman's results (though that game also has need of updates). It is standard practice that if there are both men's and women's divisions of a sport finale happening effectively at the same time that we should post both. I know the Women's NCAA has nowhere close to the viewership of the Men's, but if we're posting the Men's, it's systematic bias to not post the Women's that ended the day before. --M asem (t) 14:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not systemic bias to refrain from posting something that is not receiving sufficient attention even in its own country. The reality is that the Women's Tournament does not receive nearly the same level of news coverage as the Men's Tournament. Most American sports fans don't care about the Women's Tournament and it would be an insult to our readers to pretend otherwise. Lepricavark (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I second this. The only reason to post the women's tournament is to right a great wrong. It's unfortunate it does not get the same attention as the men, but it just does not. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Game summary is too short and missing a ref. The tournament article is terrible, so you'll need to unbold it. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I don't know or care enough about sports to decide if the game summary is adequate, but it's refed well enough for me. Nice work. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LaserLegs. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The game summary is lengthened, should be long enough. I've added the broadcasters, crowd size at the Alamodome, and the overnight ratings. I'll debold the tourney article and remove it from the template, since I don't have the time to work on it today and it shouldn't hold up the game article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support now that improvements have been made.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support with the new expansion. --M asem (t) 18:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment meh, it's a naff expansion, but probably enough. What I am interested in is the wording on ITNR about these men/women events, which explicitly states Every entry applies to the conclusion of the men's and women's events (when simultaneous) in the tournament or series, unless otherwise specified. and as far as I can see, there's nothing specifying that the women's event should not be listed.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The tournaments started and ended on different days and occurred in different locations(The final games were in Columbus, Ohio for the women and San Antonio, Texas for the men) I usually take "simultaneous" to mean the same time in the same location. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand what "simultaneous" means, but I allowed it some latitude because clearly those who added it to ITNR meant, in spirit, "in the same timeframe", like the Boat Race (yeah, yeah) where the women's race takes place an hour before the men's, that's not simultaneous but it it was is meant. I very much doubt that any sporting contest holds a men's and women's final simultaneously per the dicdef, so we need to use our common sense here.  I'm not sure why the location is relevant in the slightest.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess my view is that the locations(in this case, not even the same state) suggest that we are talking about two different events. But I don't feel particularly strongly about it. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well clearly they're two different events (like the two different senior Boat Races), they just aren't collocated. If we need to change the wording at ITNR, then I suggest you make a proposal, because right now there's nothing really (barring the use of common sense) to exclude the women's final, apart from all the personal opinions above.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks 331dot (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Common sense should be a good enough reason to refrain from posting something that is not actually in the news. Lepricavark (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Marking ready since opposes are now supports, except for TRM who updated his oppose to a "meh". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Discovery of Icarus, farther detected star

 * Comment. Prepared to support in principle, based on sources in the article, but we really need a developed article to evaluate. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment this is the kind of thing which professional astronomers look at as a curio, but if the general public likes it, why not? Banedon (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support and could we get an image of this star on the main page too? That would be awesome! Brian Everlasting (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose at the moment, two paragraphs makes this a stub article. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment News indicate this is the most distant known star ever, not just the main sequence star, so I've adjusted the blurb. Brandmeistertalk  16:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Depends on whether you call a supernova a "star". Some people probably will, and others will not. Calling it a main sequence star is indisputably correct, but it's somewhat technical. Banedon (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per TRM, stub article. SamaranEmerald (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is now four paragraphs and offers a rather complete overview of the topic given available information, so it's closer to B-class than a stub. Mamyles (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Article quality issues seem to have since been addressed. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Comment I support this; however, it is kind of in geocentric language with the language of "the farthest-known star, 9 billion light-years away." I think it should specify that it is 9 billion light-years away *from earth* and make some indication that this is the farthest *detected* star as opposed to the farthest-known star. Is it farthest or furthest? Granted these are a bit nit-picky; I understand that basically every person who uses Wikipedia is from Earth, but the language used implies humans and earth is the center of the universe and "we" are the only place with so-far discovered life and therefore, find it reasonable to make a measurement without specifying that Earth is the starting point in our line of analysis.

So I likely confused you all. What I would propose for the wording is "Astronomers report the discovery of MACS J1149 Lensed Star 1, nicknamed Icarus (detection pictured), becoming the farthest-detected star by humans at 9 billion light-years away from Earth."

I also added "by humans" to indicate who it was detected by. Should we say something else like a telescope, a satellite, machinery, etc.? We could say "with the aid of technology" or something like that.

Note: I am working under the assumption (of the possibility) that life exists outside of Earth and that is why I am being particular in decentering earthly human experience. TenorTwelve (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

China retaliates to US tariffs

 * Comment Worth a nomination for ongoing? Black Kite (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't mind (feel free to change the nomination however you see fit; I don't own it) but I think it's better to make it a blurb and roll it into ongoing if it continues to make the news. Banedon (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - Absolutely make ongoing. The international economy is in for a real turbulent time.--WaltCip (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment No way is that a neutral article title. I see a few sources using it, but nowhere close to universal to comply with BLP, but that's a heck of a WP:NEO and should be avoided. --M asem (t) 03:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Taking no position on the name, but the reasons for it are explained at Talk:Trump_tariffs. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My concern is that those cases have a matter of decades of historical record to establish those names. This is neogolism that we have no idea if it will hold. It might, in the far future, but not now. --M asem (t) 06:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Referenced. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - decent article (I did add one fact tag), certainly in the news. Interesting when it was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/March_2018#[Closed]_Trump_announces_tariffs_on_China nominated previously not only was it "snow closed" but a nom was actually proposed to limit "Trump" related postings. The Chinese response is an incremental update to THE EXACT SAME THING. LOL. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think the blurb is wrong. The China response is Trump's specific tariffs on a number of Chinese products from last week; the steel/aluminium tariff applies worldwide and was announced back in March 1. --M asem (t) 14:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That, or the article is not updated properly; the China response in the article is in the section about the China-specific tariffs, but checking news articles, it seems China was already going after tariffs with the steel/aluminium ones. There's a disconnect that needs to be fixed here. --M asem (t) 14:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose tit-for-tat retaliation, small beans in financial terms, minor tremors on the financial markets but hardly ground-breaking at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Implementing and retaliating against tariffs happens every year. We've been hearing about tariffs against Chinese dumping for decades. Having a connection to an unpopular figure does not make this incident more notable than others. Mamyles (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per TRM, who has provided a succinct synopsis of this entire situation. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – It's definitely figured prominently in Eng-lang news for a couple days, but it might be more appropriate in 'Ongoing.' ( If a blurb were to be posted, I'd make it "retaliates against" stedda "to.") Sca (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support for ongoing only and the target should obviously be Trump tariffs. Brian Everlasting (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support for either blurb or ongoing per nom. The article is in good shape, and it's a notable development, in a story that we haven't posted yet. Davey2116 (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose None of these tariffs have taken effect. China specifically said they hope they can negotiate another outcome that prevents them from taking effect. We'll see how that goes. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What makes you say none of these tariffs have taken effect? To quote from the article, "China implemented their tariffs on April 2, 2018." Banedon (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is relatively minor in the grand scheme of the economies of these two nations. If the situation escalates, we should revisit. But for now, I don't think this is that important. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Bob Beattie

 * Support - Quite short but sufficient. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Winnie Mandela

 * Oppose You edit conflicted with me making the nomination, but the article is currently tagged for neutrality. I haven't got time to investigate how serious the problems are. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose until consensus is reached regarding the alleged NPOV issues. For the record, I don't think the article is all that bad, though there are some areas where UNDUE might be an issue. And the opening post on the talk page over this is simply a screed that should have been deleted per NOTFORUM. However there have been posts since then and so we are where we are. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait - until issues identified above are resolved. However, should this be a blurb discussion? She would pass the Thatcher-Mandela axis, after all, and is a significant figure in the history of South Africa, and the story has occupied ten-fifteen minutes on the main Irish news broadcast, so international significance is clear. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Tag removed now, so support. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I haven't read the entire article to see what has mentioned as being biased, whether that assumption is accurate and how to improve it. However,  this tag is too important to ignore. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Regretfully. The article has been tagged for neutrality. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support - I think this death is too notable to leave out. However, I do agree the article needs fixing up.  I would support posting once the article's issues have been fixed. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC))
 * Support - I've cleaned up the worst of the neutrality issues,especially in the lede, and removed the tag. I doubt the article would ever meet the standards of the neutrality tagger, since she was very controversial, and even sympathetic sources like sahistory.org.za struggle to be hagiographic. Overall, she's a highly significant figure, whose death should make the front page. Park3r (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Philippine vice presidential election poll recount

 * Wait. Recounts are not uncommon, though perhaps less so at the national level.  If this merits posting at all, it shouldn't be until the recount is completed and if the result is changed. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Conditional wait for either 3 months (according to Marcos) or 6 months or more (according to Robredo), and if Marcos wins the protest. – H T  D  10:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait. I will support this if Marcos wins the count. Morever, the article looks good and it is good to go. BSrap (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose sadly, since 1) it might not actually change the outcome of the election and 2) it's for the position of vice president, which is still subordinate to the president. Banedon (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Vice presidential election. If there are major protests or other notable reaction, I'm willing to reconsider.  Spencer T♦ C 16:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Costa Rica election

 * Support - Article appears to be well-written, sourced and updated. Jusdafax (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note - Infobox is not updated; still speaks of the election in the future tense. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Quality article, presidential elections are generally notable. Calm Omaha (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. We have in the past required elections to have at least a paragraph of sourced post-election reactions, which this lacks. ETA: The incoming president's article is also very short and orange-tagged for lack of sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Tiangong-1

 * Support Article overall is of decent quality and the relevant section (Tiangong-1) provides solid coverage of the topic.  Spencer T♦ C 02:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - no issues, article updated, good to go. Mjroots (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: Decent quality; well-referenced.  Nixinova   T   C  03:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Decent article and informative. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, no lasting impact. Also, will squat on the list for at least a week after everyone has stopped caring about it. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Interesting, updated, informative & in the news. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose no significance, it died already 2 years ago, and not interesting. zzz (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - article is good, event is significant and of interest to readers. Stormy clouds (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, "Deorbited" suggests a controlled descent, which this was not. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted slight modification of blurb, based on 331dot's suggestion. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment could we get some indication that this was planned? It reads like it was some freak accident. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 22:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It wasn't planned. China turned off most support for the station in early 2016 but had no plans for how to decommision it, then a few months later, they found it was dropping altitude and they had no control of the station from ground control. Since then, they've been running models after models about when and where it would land on Earth. --M asem (t) 00:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Masem, this was not a planned event. China basically abandoned it two years ago, and left it to do what it will.  It just happened to fall back to Earth this week.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps "expected" would have been a better word. My complaint still stands. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 23:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Steven Bochco

 * Support when updated, and he had a lasting impact on American television. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think this needs quite a lot of work - there are many unsourced statements.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose nowhere near ready for the main page, far too much of it is unreferenced, this is still a BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Referencing is really quite poor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Efraín Ríos Montt

 * Support Good article; has 6 cn tags tho.  Nixinova   T   C  21:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Orange tags and several sections almost completely unreferenced. Challenger l (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose has been tagged since 2013, needs serious work before it could even be realistically considered for main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Aman Tuleyev resigns as Governor of Kemerovo (Russia)

 * This seems like pure ITN, a fire and a relatively minor change in a political position combined Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on its own merits, but open to expanding existing blurb without bumping. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This longtime official falling on their sword (and who was apparently going to resign soon anyway due to health reasons) doesn't seem significant enough to be posted on its own.  Perhaps update the blurb as SC suggests. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, but not opposed to adding to existing blurb. --M asem (t) 14:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose local politics don't deserve ITN coverage. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Local politics.  Nixinova   T   C  21:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)