Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/August 2016

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.

[Posted] Gabonese presidential election
suppory with controversy mentionLihaas (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I would support the alt blurb, but the article has not been sufficiently updated with information on said protests. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted alt blurb.  Spencer T♦ C 05:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Fossils suggest life on Earth appeared 4 billion years ago

 * Support in principle  but the Nature article (and, actually the BBC one linked above) say that the stromatalites are 3.7bn years old (still 200m years older than the previous record). It does suggest that life may be more than 4bn years old, but a better blurb would simply be to state that this is a record.  Edit: Alt2 is fine. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: I'm working to improve coverage (see Isua Greenstone Belt) and think this is a very important find. It has long been known that life was older than 3.4-3.5 billion years old (age of previous oldest stromatolite fossils), but their discovery at 3.7 billion years ago, as authors write, strongly suggests life formed far earlier. -Darouet (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - that's a pretty big extension to the earliest life on Earth. Banedon (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Current blurb is too long and awkward. Change it to Oldest fossils, x mil yrs old, are found in Y, Greenland.
 * Yes, it's so much shorter when you use X and Y. PS. The fossils weren't discovered today. Stephen 08:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the current blurb is a bit awkward and the prefacing bit "Scientists announce that" doesn't really add anything. I would suggest: "Fossils from the Isua Greenstone Belt, Greenland, are found to be world's oldest, having formed about 3.7 billion years ago."  Dragons flight (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good change, go for it. Stephen 09:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Black Kite (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Citing Nature and Astrobilogy, Life says the oldest physical traces of life from 3.7 billion years were already known back in 2013. So possibly this could be stale. Brandmeistertalk  11:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * A trace of life such as ^13C depleted graphite at 3.7b years is different to fully formed fossils at 3.7b years which would put the corresponding traces of life back to ~4b years. Stephen 11:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The current blurb does not explain the importance of the discovery. It is an evidence of oldest LIFE on earth. A common reader does not get fosil=life. I say add something ilke "fossil x yr old, evidence for first time life appeared on Earth. Nergaal (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Suggestion Change the middle part to "are found to be the oldest traces of life on earth"? Black Kite (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's problematic. These are the oldest recognized fossils, but there controversial claims that various chemical signatures in older rocks provide traces from even earlier life, e.g.  at 4.1 Ga.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - there should be a standalone article for that though. Someone should probably create it with the content from the #Discovery of early life section. --Fixuture (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Dilma Rousseff removed as President of Brazil

 * Oppose - We already posted this in May.--WaltCip (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Then in May, President Dilma was suspended, now in August she has been impeached . Rousseff is no longer President of Brazil and she is unable to receive an expresident pension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.101.57.231 (talk) 18:11, August 31, 2016‎
 * Support. The prior posting was her mere suspension from office; this is the final decision to remove her from office.  I think the blurb should indicate that the Acting President/Vice President will finish her term.  This is ITNR as a change in head of state. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, this is a big decision affecting a head of state. --Tone 18:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, the difference is between an indictment, WalCip and a conviction. We maybe shouldent have posted the impeachment, But Brazil is a major world country.  The removal from office and stripping of rights and pension are the more important story. The Rousseff article is in good shape, I haven't looked at the impeachment article. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * According to WP:ITNR, it is the succession of a head of state that qualifies for ITNR, not simply a change. As such, the blurb should focus on Michel Temer becoming the new president. Added this as an alt-blurb. Mamyles (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There has been a succession in head of state; I used 'change' in place of succession. In practice we generally post changes in head of state as such. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela severed diplomatic relations with Brazil after the impeachment of Rousseff. 148.101.57.231 (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Diplomatic relations have not been "severed". Ecuador, Venezuela and El Salvador have recalled their ambassadors, with Bolivia threatening to do likewise..  This represents a strong diplomatic protest but falls well short of complete cessation of diplomatic relations. --Allen3 talk 21:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Support alt 2 once the Temer article is updated sufficiently and referenced appropriately.  However, we cannot target Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff as it's sitting with a three-fold orange maintenance tag plastered across the top of it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Suggest that we follow Mamyles' suggestion, and go with a blurb like Michel Temer (pictured) becomes president of Brazil after Dilma Rouseff is removed from office. Frankly, I don't see the horribly written impeachment process article being up to snuff before this is stale. μηδείς (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support & prefer alt 2. No comment on article quality. -- KTC (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support but oppose any blurb that links to the appalling Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff. Black Kite (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 per Mamyles. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong support on principle; she's been the president of one of the world's largest countries, and I don't see any major problems with her article that would disqualify it from appearing here. No opinion on which hook is best, and no comment on the article about the impeachment.  Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support alt 2. Very major event. The blurb should indicate the succession, although it doesn't have to be focused on the Temer. Alt 3 is, as far as I know, not true yet. Banedon (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff is not of the required standard. Unfortunately, neither is Michel Temer, which lacks numerous citations for quotations and similar. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela are all ruled by populist regimes, and none of them are world powers, not even regional powers. Their petty reactions have very little significance in the grand scheme of things of international diplomacy. Cambalachero (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted a version of the altblurb that doesn't link the impeachment article nor that of Temer. If either are sufficiently improved I'd expect a blurb update. Stephen 06:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I protest - If we post this then we need to mention the succession, as a new head-of-state taking office is part of ITNR.--WaltCip (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As already noted above, the Temer article is insufficiently referenced. Your protest means nothing unless you were to improve the article to be appropriate for the main page.  You'll notice that IMMEDIATELY before you posted you protest, Stephen stated EXACTLY that.  -- Jayron 32 15:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's just that in my opinion, we either post both stories or not post any at all, if there's a quality issue. Only posting the impeachment gives the implication that there currently is no successor, and that's not true.--WaltCip (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Věra Čáslavská

 * Support Comment . Fascinating article, but it does still need some improvement to the referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Referencing has been improved now and there are no citation tags. Brandmeistertalk  19:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Agree with The Rambling Man that a reference for the perfect scores would be preferable, but I don't think it should hold up posting. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support just one cn I added regarding the two perfect scores which could use an inline reference as it's such an achievement. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted after citing that last fact. Stephen 06:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Radio signal from 95-ly away

 * Wait until we know what exactly this is. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on a blog post of Russian results with no independent signal confirmation or peer reviewed published analysis. SETI have said they've seen hundreds of such signals, but the press seem to have jumped aboard this one. Stephen 10:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on Stephen's evidence. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as premature. The scientists cited in the references say as much that they need more data before declaring something special is happening. Banedon (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This could just as easily be a computer fluke.--WaltCip (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely to be a computer fluke to be honest, much more likely is that it's a fake signal (i.e. some natural process not yet accounted for gave rise to the signal, or the resolution of the instrument wasn't high enough, etc). Banedon (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Still several steps removed from being actually important for anyone who doesn't specialize in such things.  Dragons flight (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Uzbek president dead

 * Of course, wait for better confirmations, and would tend suppporting the posting once more details are posted. MikeLynch (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. There are lots of unreferenced paragraphs, fully justifying the orange tag. The language in places also needs tightening up - for example I had to read the sentence "Uzbekistan under the Karimov government classifies as a hard authoritarian regime with little to no civil society promotion." three times before I parsed it correctly. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait for better confirmation and quality update, but support on the merits as the death of a sitting head of state. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait / Support - agree with 331dot. Banedon (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Dead? CNN is disputing earlier reports that he died and saying that he has been hospitalized with a brain hemorrhage but is still alive.  At the very least, let's make sure he is actually dead before posting anything here.  Dragons flight (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - the BBC are taking this line. Clearly it will be a while before anything is known for certain. See also here. This section should be closed until there is definite confirmation either way from absolutely reliable sources. Carcharoth (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * reopen and support with update  today's newsLihaas (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait As this BBC article shows, the situation has not changed. People without direct knowledge of the situation are reporting Karimov has died while the Uzbek government indicates he is only "critically ill".  As long as the situation remains confused this nomination should be kept on hold. --Allen3 talk 11:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support first mayor change in Uzbek government since independence in 1991. Also quality of article is good.--Jenda H. (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify, his being dead seems to be a matter of dispute, with the government stating that he is still alive. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, after this I propose wait.--Jenda H. (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support RD blurb He's dead per multiple reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If he really is dead, support blurb. It's the changing of a head of state. Banedon (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) It only is if we already know who his successor is. Generally temporary/interim successors don't count, from my experience here. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The death of a head of state/government while in office usually gets a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * BBC (and numerous other sources) have confirmed the death Islam Karimov: Uzbekistan president's death confirmed. If the exact date of death is uncertain, I suggest just leaving the submission date here at ITN/C as August 29 rather than changing to put this item under the date that is currently reported in the article (2 September). Carcharoth (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: we also went with an ITN piece when Huge Chavez died. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted RD] RD: Gene Wilder

 * Beaten to the nom support. Mjroots (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Likwise! Support for RD, but not blurb. Article is GA so fine for RD. --Bcp67 (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, obviously. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Support, per nom. Erick (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom Palmtree5551 (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Straight forward one. Miyagawa (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong support RD, neutral blurb Article is good quality, he was a very iconic actor but I'm not sure if he reached Bowie's level. EternalNomad (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted RD; blurb discussion can continue, but no reason to keep it off RD while that discussion happens (if needed; no one seems to strongly favor a blurb). Yes, I know there wasn't much time between nom and posting, and GA doesn't automatically mean good enough to post. But unanimous support, no cns, comprehensive sourcing, comprehensive article, and no reason I can see to wait. We don't always get to post things in a timely way due to quality issues; when there are no quality issues, it's nice to be able to post a highly informative article to the main page quickly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Post-posting preference of RD - Doesn't quite rise to the notability level of, say, Christopher Lee.--WaltCip (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Post-posting pref for RD one of my all-time most favouritist actors ever. Awesome with Pryor in just about every movie they ever made, and made Wonka so untouchable that Depp frankly looked an idiot trying to get close.  But still not blurb-worthy.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I do agree at this point that it shouldn't be a blurb. When I nominated this, I wasn't sure how it would play as I was only reading the breaking news. RD is fine. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * post-posting support for speed of posting - unanimous support from 7 editors to post a GA quality recent death where the death is reliably sourced. This is one of the occasions that justify not having a mandatory minimum time between nomination and posting. Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

[Removed] Louisiana floods

 * Yes, time to remove. --Tone 13:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Juan Gabriel
Juan Gabriel was prolific Mexican singer-songwriter whose death was confirmed by the LA coroner's office and the president of Mexico. Gabriel was honored an induction in the International Latin Music Hall of Fame, the Billboard Latin Music Hall of Fame, and named Latin Recording Academy Person of the Year in 2009. His album, Recuerdos, Vol. II is the bestselling album of all time in Mexico. In addition to singing, he also composed songs for other Latin artists such as Rocio Durcal, José José, and Isabel Pantoja. Erick (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - definitely notable. Article could use some work though.—Fundude99talk to me 22:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I want to improve on the article, but there's so many edits coming, it makes it hard. I'll see what I can do at the least. Erick (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia en Español's main page has added his death to recent deaths.—Fundude99talk to me 00:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per nom, when ready. I cannot help with this right now, but in a few hours I will. © Tb hotch  ™ (en-2.5). 23:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Support per nom. – jona  ✉ 23:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Strong relevance and article quality seems good enough. Cato censor (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Support and in fact I would push for a blurb given the artistic significance of this person in Mexico.--WaltCip (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought about that, but I wasn't sure how I would go doing it. Should I change the nomination or leave it as is? Erick (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Posting. At a quick glance, I see no major issues with the article. --Tone 14:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * mentioned something about pushing for a blurb and was wondering if there is a chance for that? Erick (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm, this is a clear RD case, so it was posted quickly. For a full blurb I'd have to see a broader discussion with a clear consensus. Let's see. --Tone 18:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Very well, is there anything I should do like update the template or is it fine the way it is? Erick (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Post RD comment, can we revisit if Juan Gabriel meets the blurb criteria? It was pointed above. I knew he was relevant for Hispanic American countries, but after multiple searches for the update I've been doing, I have found that many of his songs were translated to multiple languages and with over 100K records sold he can be one of the best-selling music artists (he is not listed there because strangely there is a criteria of inclussion). Anyway, here are some sources I have found . © Tb hotch  ™ (en-2.5). 22:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] FARC ceasefire

 * Support Significance is obvious. Perhaps the blurb should mention that this follows the peace agreement that has just been signed. Neljack (talk) 05:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The "final, full and definitive accord" was agreed to on August 24, per the article, there's no mention there of separate ceasefire date. Stephen 06:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Question: this was nominated (but not posted) in June 2016 . What has changed since then to make it worth posting now? Banedon (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. When this was last nominated, each side agreed with the concept of a ceasefire(where they could have later changed their minds).  Now, it seems the particulars have been negotiated and put into effect.  A final peace accord is being put to a vote by each side, which would be the next step, but this step is indeed notable. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Perhaps linking Colombian peace process would be better, since the currently linked article Colombian conflict contains a mere one-line update. MikeLynch (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Question. Is this the main milestone of the peace process, will it be the 2 October referendum, will it be later after the referendum results are put into force? Cato censor (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted a slightly longer blurb for the 24 August date of agreement. Stephen 01:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Bolivian Deputy Minister murdered

 * Support - definitely notable. article could need some work though before posting.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – That Mr. Illanes was a deputy minister lessens notability. Article (225 words) contains little to augment notability. Sca (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – Article is now essentially in shape. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support article is still a stub, has unreferenced claims, but the individual was certainly notable, more so than Jo Cox who we posted a few months back. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Third Bosphorus bridge

 * Comment If this is posted I think the blurb should note that it's the tallest and broadest suspension bridge in the world, as that is (imho) more newsworthy than simply being the third bridge across a particular bit of water. There is at least one cn tag that needs addressing though. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb. Brandmeistertalk  13:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * support - definitely notable. article needs some work before posting.BabbaQ (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, it makes sense to highlight that it is the tallest. Ready to post when the issues with the article are resolved. --Tone 16:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've commented out the uncited sentence. Brandmeistertalk  17:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted, the superlatives in the article simply refer to suspension bridge so I left the cable-stayed modifier out. Stephen 23:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Edited It appears that the bridge is not the widest suspension bridge, hook edited, see ERRORS. Black Kite (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it was sourced to the Washington Post. Stephen 01:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like it was a claim made by its architects that the WaPost repeated (about being the broadest). --M ASEM  (t) 01:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Dragonfly 44

 * Comment. The article is not remotely ready to be on the main page.  Not sure whether or not this would be worth posting if a more substantial article were available.  Dragons flight (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - article is not ready per Dragons flight, but the idea is potentially postable. A lot depends on the technicalities, however, and if it is posted it will have to be carefully explained why this matters. I'll take a look at it when I can. Banedon (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support if the Wiki-article is judged to be good enough. This observation is very interesting, it fits a lot better in the idea that dark matter doesn't primarily consist of subatomic particles but rather consists of massive black holes (20 to 100 times the solar mass). Such massive black holes can form in certain inflationary scenarios, see e.g. here, and they would then be able to act as the seeds for galaxies to form. In the usual particle dark matter theories, it's difficult to explain how galaxies with supermassive black holes formed very soon after the Big Bang. Also, the first detection of gravitational waves was due to a black hole merger that as pointed out here could well have been such primordial black holes. Count Iblis (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose primarily on article quality. It needs significant expansion with good sourcing. Will happily reconsider if this happens. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub, marked as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose for several reasons. First, this is not that significant to the general public as the Proxima Centauri b blurb (although from a fundamental standpoint it's likely to be more significant). Second, the reasons why it is important are relatively technical, which in turn means only a specialized group of people (i.e. scientists) are keen about this. Third, from what I gather the dark matter is inferred by the mass-to-luminosity ratio, which doesn't rule out baryonic dark matter in this case. It's still interesting alright, I just don't think it's at the level of ITN (yet). Banedon (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. The galaxy was discovered over a year ago. What is new is the hypothesis that its dimness is due to its being made of mostly dark matter. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to extreme brevity of stub article. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument

 * Comment. I'm pretty sure the phrasing should be "largest marine reserve" or maybe "largest protected area" (depending on whether or not one chooses to count Antarctica).  It's not a park, and marine reserves generally aren't described as such.  Also, I don't think the suggested image is clear enough at this size to be useful.  Dragons flight (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see the blurb referenced in the article, I do see "It is one of the largest marine protected areas (MPAs) in the world" and that's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Seems rather a bureaucratic move – something on his to-do list before leaving office. Sca (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support because why not? It's a major event involving the "best in class" for marine protected areas. I'm adding an alt blurb though, since the more accurate term appears to be "marine protected area". I removed the Barack Obama and Hawaii links as well, since they seem less relevant to the item. Banedon (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If posted, Obama should be left in the blurb, because he used his Antiquities Act authority to expand the monument on his own by executive order. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Late Support with a slightly modified altblurb. The blurb is now reflected in the lede of the article, and this is now the largest protected area in the world, marine or not, National Park or not.  It's the largest in it's (well-encompassing) class, and it's definitely in the news; a foreign, non-English speaking colleague mentioned it to me yesterday.  I don't think Obama or whatever bureaucratic instrument needs to be mentioned in the blurb.  The story is the park itself, and those other points can be found in the article for the interested reader.128.214.53.104 (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a very fine article here that fully meets the ITN criteria. It would be nice to see this on the front page before it goes stale.128.214.53.104 (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 07:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Pegasus cyber warfare

 * Support More of this. security vulnerabilities of this caliber has big real-world significance. Thue (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - per user Thue.BabbaQ (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Article is a bit short.  Would support with appropriate expansion.  -- Jayron 32 15:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is the story here about an American company fixing a flaw, an Israeli company accused of creating the software or the Emirati activist who clicked on a link? I can't tell from the blurbs or the article. Fuebaey (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, the blurbs need clarification, at least what sort of vulnerability it is. Brandmeistertalk  17:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Technically, there are three vulnerabilities - too much detail for a blurb. Samsara 18:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I ask because a link to the article is not included in the blurbs, and without a point of focus I am unsure where to suggest adding it. The Israeli company, NSO Group actually has a better update and might be worth considering here. Fuebaey (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support.--WaltCip (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose what's the blurb linking to what article? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: These three particular flaws in iOS had the same caliber as the one reported just a few days earlier used by Pangu Team to jailbreak iOS 9.3.3 and earlier. And they have yet another one for the latest iOS 9.3.5. In other words, zero-days leak these will be uncovered every other week. Also, keep in mind that the Pegasus spyware was used against probably only a handful of people, so it's of relatively small "geopolitical" impact as the nominator put it. --bender235 (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Added alt blurb to summarize the issue. Still don't think it's ITN material though. --bender235 (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose - I don't know if there are 900 million active devices, but still: Apple's market share of the smartphone market is not more than 20%. If we post this, things like the upcoming iPhone 7 release should also be posted; however I remember nominating the Windows 10 release (which does impact 900 million active devices) and it was quickly rejected. In the end it's up to consensus and I'm OK with posting this, just that the implications are obvious and they contradict what we have decided in the past. Banedon (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the reach of an event like this is completely different from a scheduled model refresh. We're basically talking about the revelation of a global market for security vulnerabilities that a major company like Apple in spite of its insistence that it can provide a secure user experience, has not been able to stop. Basically, this is saying that if you stick your neck out too far, your device could be targeted next, and all you'd have to do is unwittingly click on a link that someone sends you (yes, it could be from someone you think you know) that is tailored to your interests. In the current case, your browser would quit, and in all likelihood, you might think little of it. The next similar software they come up with, your browser might not crash and you'll actually have no idea that anything unusual happened. In terms of motivating journalists to expose the inner workings of the exploit trade, the only other similar event we've had so far was Stuxnet, and I'm sure anyone will recall how big that was. Samsara 19:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced I'm afraid. Zero-day bugs exist in practically any software, so the fact that such vulnerabilities exist in Apple's software is nothing new. That clicking on links can trigger attacks is also well-known, as is the fact that malicious hackers are likely to disguise their attacks as legitimate software. If this item is news at all, it should be because it affects a large number of devices. Stuxnet is different: it was a cyberweapon between nations, and effectively an act of war. Banedon (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Dame Margaret Anstee

 * Support decent article. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. One tag in the article but that's not a barrier and it's otherwise in good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support decent article. BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

RD: Rudy Van Gelder

 * Oppose too many citations needed. Picture irrelevant, not going in as a blurb.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Sonia Rykiel

 * Oppose I had a bit of a crack at this earlier, but it's nowhere near ready, poor grammar, bad English, mainly unreferenced, some updates needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I also had a look earlier, needs a lot of work to bring it up to main page standard. MurielMary (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Change to support. Great work on improvements, nice to have an image of her work as well. Agree it's "ready". MurielMary (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten and sourced everything, but the honors section. I could use some help with that, if anyone has a bit of spare time. - JuneGloom07  Talk  21:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Great work, JuneGloom, much improved. Almost ready! MurielMary (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * With the exception of two honours, everything is now sourced. User:Fuebaey did a great job helping out with that section. - JuneGloom07  Talk  20:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * support after improvements. Great.BabbaQ (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment vastly improved, good work, ready to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

[Pulled] Fall of Qayyarah

 * For starters, we should have kept the ISIL conflict in Iraq posted in ongoing. Apart from that, if this can be confirmed, support as a significant occurrence in the war.--WaltCip (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have an appropriately updated article I can post in ongoing for you?-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Were you asking me? Newsboy39 (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - looks pretty obvious to me. Banedon (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose/Wait - not convinced by the importance. Is there any objective measure of the town's importance? e.g. population or oil production numbers? HaEr48 (talk) 04:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: The oil fields of Qayyarah produces 8,000 barrels of oil per day according to Oil production and smuggling in ISIL and the region contains over 800 million barrels of oil reserves according to Qayyarah subdistrict. Newsboy39 (talk) 09:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted No substantive objections on quality, and I checked myself and it looks fine. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose. The town is very small, and the article on it was created in May 2016. I question the strategic importance of this move and note that it is mostly Iraqi goverment officials crowing about it. (Primary sources, in other words). Furthermore, the entry of Turkish forces into the major town of Jarabulus seems to me to be more worthy of inclusion on ITN. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is the 3rd capture posted on ITNR in the past few months. Nergaal (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose and pull. Abductive has it spot on.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as well. I don't see major western media reporting it (at the risk of being west-centric), and even Al Jazeera has a rather small article about it. I am not sure if it is of great importance to be on ITN. MikeLynch (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose and pull only a strategic step on the way to Mosul. Stephen 09:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose and pull Not of major relevance nor widely covered in the media. As Abductive said, the capture of Jarabulus (see below) is the recent major event to be promoted ITN. --PanchoS (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Pulled. Clearly a consensus against this being on the main page. Black Kite (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Posting - OTHERSTUFFEXIST is irrelevant really. BabbaQ (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody argued WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, they argued "not relevant", "not covered in the news", "not significant". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Iraqi Defence Minister impeached

 * Oppose. We don't often post articles about government officials below the head-of-state level, and I don't see this case as being significant enough to warrant an exception.  Also, the article leaves a lot to be desired.  At present, it does not explain what he has done as Defense Minister or what led him to be sacked.  Dragons flight (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pretty much per Dragons flight. Article is a stub and would need expanding. The article update on this story literally is "became minister in 2014 and 22 months later was voted out". Firstly, what did he [not] do during that time that made him significant? I'm guessing that shouldn't be in short supply given the amount of violence currently occurring in Iraq. Secondly, what led up to his removal? There's a brief mention of corruption, but there's no context to it. Fuebaey (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Withdrawal of submission by author: I agree with some of the objections raised by others. I'll try to improve the artice though I'm not sure if I will be able to. Therefore I think it is better to withdraw this. I request the administrators to please close this request. Newsboy39 (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Michel Butor

 * Oppose on several grounds. Article is brief (only 4-ish paragraphs); not well organized (first paragraph about early life mentions his awards); not updated for tenses on his death; has irrelevant minor details e.g. someone said he would like to sit next to Butor at dinner; lacks citations for awards. MurielMary (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MurielMary. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Proxima Centauri b

 * Oppose The article suffers from some referencing problems, which is a quality issue.  Would need to remove those cn issues.  A high proportion of factual information, which should be referencable, lacks cites.  Fix that and I'd support. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like the sourcing has now been substantially improved. Also currently on the front page of most mainstream media websites.  Sandstein   20:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Change to Support per recent growth and improvements in citations. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support This is a prominent discovery, since the planet orbits not only the nearest star to the solar system, but has properties similar to Earth, and orbits within the habitable zone. The quality of the article is sufficient now. Facts are sourced either in the prose or in the infobox, usually not both. Gap9551 (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Now. I don't know if this is bigger than Sputnik, but it's probably the biggest news you've had a chance to feature.  And the editors have even put in the work to build the article already!  That's a bonus, not a requirement, when it's something like this.  Knock off something from your lugubrious litany of pointless deaths and put this up now. Wnt (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: The nature of the discovery is very important (and probably historic). The article contains sufficient info about the topic and well sourced. HaEr48 (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: This is a major discovery. I think the article is sufficiently developed and will continue to improve. -Darouet (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: This is like the mythical cure for cancer alluded to in the guidelines, and should be posted now regardless of article quality. Banedon (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I could write some bullshit in an article about a cure for cancer; if it isn't properly cited, how do you know the information is trustworthy? Should we post hoaxes merely because they are interesting hoaxes?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I've seen the non-Wikipedia RS. Unless you are alleging a multiple-RS conspiracy to fool Wikipedia, the basic idea that there is a planet around our closest star is trustworthy. If you think the "cure for cancer" line should not be in the guidelines, feel free to remove it. Banedon (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good for you. How does it serve the readers if you've seen the sources, and refuse to add them to the article?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And how does it serve our readers that you spend time trashtalking me instead of improving the article yourself? Sheesh. Banedon (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You said you had access to sources and stated you wanted others to post this article though you didn't want to put them in the article. I have no particular interest one way or the other.  You care, and you have the ability to fix the problem.  That's why you should fix it. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 08:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not particularly interested in talking to you about this topic anymore. As of time of writing, I have 9 edits to that article. You have zero. The end. Banedon (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The discovery of the planet itself was properly sourced from the start, but some factual details were not, and some were later shown to be incorrect and fixed. Gap9551 (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * (e/c) You are totally right, and your initial oppose was fully appropriate. We should never showcase insufficiently sourced articles. If the topic is very important, it will attract editors, and the article quality will improve soon enough anyway. Gap9551 (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. I haven't used the image as it is only an artists' impression; but if someone else thinks the existing image should be replaced with this one feel free to do it. Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I applaud the restraint of our editors in not giving into the sensationalism that the media usually suffers from with regards to space news. It's enough to say that this planet is in the "habitable zone" and not use buzzterms like "earth-like" or "might sustain intelligent life".--WaltCip (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Walter Scheel

 * Oppose Article quality (mostly referencing) is substandard. Needs a lot more references to be sufficient.  Some expansion wouldn't hurt either.  I would expect a head-of-state of a major world power to have more than a screen's worth of text about their life story.  I wouldn't hold it up over the length, however, if the referencing were better.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagged it. Touching on what Jayron32 said - although the president is mainly ceremonial, I'd expect a brief paragraph on his 5-year role. As is, it looks as if the office was a footnote in his political career. Surely there are sources on the politicking after Brandt's resignation and Scheel being manoeuvred into office; the FDP alone wouldn't have had the numbers to get him there. Were there any significant events during his presidency? Fuebaey (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Per RFC, we needn't argue notability. However, my impression is, Scheel as foreign minister was a figure of medium importance in the Ostpolitik of Brandt & Co. (He was succeeded by Genscher, a figure of major importance.) Sca (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was trying to give a scope for expansion. It is still unlikely to be posted with referencing unaddressed. Fuebaey (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In any case, his notability seems associated with the post of foreign minister, not with that of president, which in Ger. is essentially ceremonial. Sca (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose in current state as too many unreferenced statements. MurielMary (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not particularly relevant, but I was surprised to learn that Scheel was also a singer ... of sorts. (Not my sort!) Sca (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Earthquake in central Italy

 * Support once we've expanded beyond the decent stub. One more para should do as we get more information. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support without expansion. The article looks good. - 2A02:2F0B:B0B6:C600:7D8C:124E:8321:15DA (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - The confirmed death toll has now risen to 37. (BBC) AlexTiefling (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Expansion would be good (obviously) but I don't think it's required. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think the blurb should be modified to: At least 37 people are killed as an earthquake of magnitude 6.2 strikes central Italy. MikeLynch (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. MikeLynch (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Fall of Jarabulus

 * Merge with the other nomination into one blurb. Banedon (talk) 05:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. The incursion of Turkey, backed by the U.S. and largely tolerated by Russia and the Assad regime, has been widely considered a major turning point in the balance of powers in Northern Syria. Though anticipated for months, Turkish tanks in Syria mark a new chapter of Turkish involvement. --PanchoS (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, ongoing is enough. Nergaal (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note that we don't have the Syrian Civil War listed as an ongoing event anymore. Anyway, this would stand out as a major game-changing event, rather than the usual routine news. --PanchoS (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support this or put something in ongoing. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Turkey sent massive forces into another (de iure) sovereign country. This needs to be on ITN. --bender235 (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support- major event.BabbaQ (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Significant event for foreign involvement in Syria, similar to when Russia started conducting bombings. HaEr48 (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted, while changing the attackers, given the mass tags at the top of Syrian opposition Stephen 23:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

RD: Morihiko Hiramatsu

 * Oppose - very brief, not well organised (the information about other country's programmes isn't together with his project in Japan which they are supposedly modelled on), some unclear statements (what is the relevance of the statement about the Asia Pacific University??) And why did he get an award for being a friend of China - there's nothing in the article to suggest he did anything with China? MurielMary (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Resolved them now. Please check. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Sea Shepherd

 * Oppose because BBC story states that this settlement is only with Sea Shepherd's US organization; their Australian organization, which primarily is the one who fights the whalers, has said this does not affect them and that they will continue. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose seems pretty minor. 331dot raises a good point. Aside from that, Sea Shepherd is only one private institution contesting the whaling activities. The whaling in Japan article also deals with broad swathes of issues not related to this case, and so it is at most only tangentially related. In fact as of time of writing I can't find mention of this case anywhere. Banedon (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Esther Jungreis

 * Oppose. The "writings" section is completely unsourced, and the "Awards, recognition" section is sourced almost entirely to a dead link. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Second of those fixed thanks to the Wayback Machine. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Added citations to the "writings" section. MurielMary (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagging "attention needed" for further assessment/comment. MurielMary (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support article is okay, improved from first viewing, nothing special but no major omissions. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted, on the short side but reasonably referenced. Stephen 23:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

RD: Steven Hill

 * Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - there are a few sentences without inline citations but I am confident these can be cleaned up in due course. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on improvements - there are a couple of places where more citations are needed, once that is done, it looks solid. Challenger l (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose too many outstanding citations. I've tagged several places, but there are a few more long sentences/sequences of sentences with a single source that I would need to check whether are fully supported but I don't have time currently. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose too many citations needed right now, and a whole heap of appearances which don't have references or even a Wikipedia article to back them up. Please also note I've removed a fair use image which had no rationale for inclusion in this article. Watch out for those... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: S. R. Nathan

 * I saw this earlier on Deaths in 2016. Glanced over it and saw several cn tags. I'll probably review it properly later. Fuebaey (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Went over it earlier, seems okay now. Fuebaey (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. The referencing is not yet at the required standard. It doesn't seem to have improved since I last looked at it; is anyone working on it? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * - looks improved to me, is it okay now? starship.paint ~  <font style="color:white;background:black;">KO  02:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There are still whole unreferenced paragraphs. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose I'm still seeing a handful of unreferenced sentences. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * - I've referenced what I could... starship.paint ~  <font style="color:white;background:black;">KO  13:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to check this fully (wrong end of day), but the citation lacks I spotted earlier now seem covered. Good work. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted, sufficiently improved. Stephen 23:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

[Removed] 2016 Turkish purges

 * Support It's fallen off the radar for most of the world's press/media. We can revisit the topic if something significant happens. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support removal it's all gone quiet over there, at least as far as global news goes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed Stephen 23:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually is not uquiet with the new war on PKK and continued purges pLihaas (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but the requirement to be posted on Ongoing is frequent updates to the article (generally often enough as to outpace postings on ITN). The fact that the article history shows no major updates in well over a week, excepting a few incidental "politician makes statement" type updates, is why this was removed.  If you'd like to see it remain in "ongoing" you'd need to keep updating the article with substantive information over several days, and demonstrate that it is continuously changing and the article is continuously updated.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Toots Thielemans

 * Oppose several whole paragraphs completely unreferenced. MurielMary (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Few references - most of the article is a bullet list - it feels very lacking in substance. Everything in order now. Kudos to the anon that cleaned it up - great work! Challenger l (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support Strong Support – the article is improving, now having references throughout and a new section. Looks more substantial now. The person in question also seems highly notable, though I may be biased as I'm currently living in the Netherlands. I don't know how much international interest this person has. ~ Mable ( chat ) 20:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite a bit in the jazz arena, ie. "Toots Thielemans - Live At The Hague Jazz Festival (2010)" --Light show (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Article definitely meets standards now. ~ Mable ( chat ) 22:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Updated and improved. --Light show (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work, Light show! ---Sluzzelin talk  03:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There isn't a single reference for his body of work, including all his appearances as a side man. Stephen 04:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I added many to the Discography section. The Side man section has links going to their own articles, most of which seem to have his name included. --Light show (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. After the recent improvements. The harmonica player for the Sesame Street theme should be recognised. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment still at least two explicit citation needed tags. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted improved sufficiently, and I added a couple of bare URLs for those cites that I'll fix up. Stephen 10:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Remove: Summer Olympics

 * Support removal no-brainer. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Switch to a blurb about the closing ceremony(once updated), which is ITNR. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed from ongoing, added blurb. Feel free to improve it, this one is not particularly inspirational ... --Tone 11:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment while the closing ceremony is ITNR, I didn't see a clear consensus here that it was in a fit state to post. I'm not getting to prissy about it, but when some admins make such decisions, they're scrutinised and criticised.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree the closing ceremonies article is in rather poor shape. The Olympics Ongoing going have been removed without having a replacement blurb in place and once this was up to spec as ITNR then we could have posted. --M ASEM (t) 20:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD:Donald Henderson

 * A hugely important figure, I think actually a blurb is justified. This man saved more lives than possibly any other single doctor of our age. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD and certainly tempted by a blurb. Per the nom, the individual was a legend of vaccinations, and has made a proper, long-term global impact, probably more so than Thatcher and Bowie.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD an exemplary life deserves a quality Wikipedia page, and quality would seem to be the case here. I would not oppose a blurb either if it comes to that. And if it does, then obviously we'd have to make sure any of the other targeted articles in the blurb pass muster, too. Christian Roess (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD. There are a couple of uncited awards but the article generally looks in good shape for posting. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb Article is good shape for RD posting but it lacks the quality of an FA that I would expect to elevate an unsurprising death by old age to a blurb. --M ASEM (t) 23:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This person is notable for his life, not his death; Death of Donald Henderson isn't even a redirect. Proposing blurbs for people that would have passed muster under the previous Recent Deaths criteria because Recent Deaths isn't special enough for them anymore defeats the entire purpose of Recent Deaths. —Cryptic 03:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD Article in good shape - though a sad tragedy, the circumstances of his death do not seem particularly unusual or noteworthy. Challenger l (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD - good shape article..BabbaQ (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. There is one outstanding citation needed, but as this is just for one of many awards (and not a massively major one) I don't believe it should stand in the way of the clear consensus above. Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Brian Rix

 * Oppose vast article, vast unreferenced sections... Wrong date. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose in curent state, whole paragraphs without citations. MurielMary (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree the quality needs some improvement, such as citations as MurielMary states. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. Large sections of text completely unsourced Palmtree5551 (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This really needs a lot of referencing work and proper citations before it's of the proper quality. Challenger l (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] August 2016 Gaziantep bombing

 * Oppose for now as the article is only a stub. Will support if/when article is long enough. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> 07:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support after expansion Right now it is a stub. -- '''yousaf465'  08:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Only after expansion. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - unfortunately. I was going to celebrate the recent spate of science and technology articles, and relative dearth of disasters and attacks. Will have to hold off for now. (longtime editor; most of the recent !votes from China-based IPs are me.) 124.128.114.215 (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Updated  Recheck and Post.-- '''yousaf465'  13:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The article's prose should be improved, and while International Reaction sections are discouraged, all elements must be sourced and there are several that are not. There is no rush to post if the quality is not there. --M ASEM (t) 13:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * All reaction are from 2-3 sources. Those have been fixed. -- '''yousaf465'  14:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support in principle, pending more info, but half the current article is flag salad. Sca (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - It is a big accident in which marriage function is targeted. Nannadeem (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support Just about long enough now, and very notable event. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> 21:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - as far as terrorist attacks go, this looks quite major. Banedon (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Lilia Cuntapay

 * Weak support - after I checked all the references and fixed one that had link rot. I support because most of the article (but not all of the article) can be verified from these references. So therefore the article is on its way to reaching minimal quality standard. My support is "weak" for two reasons: (1) because some of the citations utilize sources that are in tagalog or some other Filipino dialect that I'm unfamiliar with (that's why I say "most"--but not all--of the statements in this article can be verified). For example, can it be verified that Cuntapay was in that first batch of actor workshops with those two other actors mentioned? One can't be sure, as the reference would have to be in somewhere in an interview conducted in, presumably, "tagalog". The other reason my support is tentative is because (2) I need to finish cleaning up some of the grammar and flow. Obviously the article has been edited by folks whose formal education was not in so-called "standardized" English, ie.., BBC or some other form of "acceptable" grammar approved by Wikipedia. Meanwhile let me see if there is some kind of translate engine on the web. Christian Roess (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * support - definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that the article quality is acceptable? Given the new RD criteria that's the only thing being discussed here; every RD nomination is technically "for ITN" now, if the quality is fine.  We no longer debate the merits for RD nominations. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Some people don't understand how RD works. This is good example.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no need to assume bad faith here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I could give you a dozen examples from the past couple of months where this user supports an article which is clearly not ready for the main page. It's not bad faith, it's experience and knowledge.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose several unreferenced sentences, BLP applies. Weak article overall.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment before this nomination goes stale. I believe this article is now of minimum quality standard b/c concerns I addressed above, along with the other two editors' concerns, have been fixed. So I marked it "Ready." Most of the references are from Filipino (English language) news sources. However, a few of the latter do contain sentences in tagalog, specifically when quoting Cuntapay directly in interviews. Keep in mind that I found only one "western" mainstream media (MM) source on Cuntapay and that's here: Yahoo!. Yesterday, I spent a good 30 minutes on the web looking for more MM sources in English, even using various MM outlet's own internal web searches. Nothing. So everything that is known about Cuntapay's life and work (so far) is cited on her Wikipedia page. Her article at the Tagalog Wikipedia site (here: Lilia Cuntapay) is a stub, and of no real help. One point of contention during recent edits has been her date of birth, that's why those two citation follow her birth day & year in the lead section, and this seems to be ok according to MOS:LEADCITE. So although The Rambling Man is of course correct that it is a weak article overall (and still is), ironically her Wikipedia page is now (in my opinion) the best single resource (one-stop-shop) available on the web for anyone looking for information, particularly in English, on the life and work of Cuntapay. And there's not a whole lot, and what's there just repeats the same basic information. Christian Roess (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately her entire body of work is unreferenced, and clicking though a few she is not mentioned in many (although some unreferenced TV guest appearances are listed). Our systemic western bias, and lack of local coverage is hurting this one. Stephen 23:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * yeah, well that's too bad really. As you say, systemic bias is in play. But as I pointed out in my comments (above) regarding exposure in western media, even using the word "lack", is an understatement. There's not only a lack of "local" coverage...how about none, like nothing, no coverage in western media sources at all to speak of: the single Yahoo! reference is a squib, barely mentioning her death.
 * To touch on the issue at hand regarding the un-referenced body of work:
 * Cuntapay's wiki-page lists 64 credits in films and TV combined. Meanwhile, The Internet Movie Data Base (imdb) lists 57 credits. So I will go through this list and determine what's viable. I made an appeal to the (still active) user who created this chart of Cuntapay's filmography back in 2009, to see what that editor's sources were and if I could get some help. Also, I'm not sure if imdb is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia?
 * the other option is to remove the entire filmography, and just list a few of her roles. But that's not an option, and is a disservice to any readers who will utilize this page in the future, and a disservice to the editors and users who assembled this filmography chart.
 * It would seem that without assistance, I will not get this done in time to post to RD, but it's on my To Do list. (Alas, like for most of you, this is not my full time job). Once again, like for my (heavy) recent editing of the Yves Bonnefoy and Thomas Steinbeck nominations, this ain't happening either folks. The new RD criteria is an outstanding success, but a little more life blood, and some more of that eclectic mix could've been injected here. As I said above, it seems pretty clear that this page is the best single resource (in English) on Lilia Cuntapay on the Web. That fact would've been something to highlight, too. And could've been if this RD was posted. Damn shame really - Christian Roess (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * IMDb is generally not considered a reliable source, as it partly works as a wiki with limited editorial oversight. Getting hold of the original editor(s) seems the best move, as they might well have used reputable book sources which are not available online. The way the new RD criteria are panning out is quite odd, imo -- there's an increase in nominations to assess/work on, and also a much faster turnover on the main page, giving less time to address problems. It's also been my perception that the less obvious RDs are being nominated much more slowly, possibly because they are much less prominent in news sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's that odd, if people want to nominate a less obvious RD (of which we have now substantially more than we did a few months ago), they should be prepared to work on them as, of course, they'll be niche and will need people interested in updating the article and with the subject knowledge. Foreign language sources are perfectly permissible; if RDs are failing because people aren't prominent enough for the news when they die, perhaps their articles need to be considered for deletion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I did look at this but I honestly don't think it'll be ready before it goes stale. If I had time to overhaul: delete the filmography section (a. as mostly unsourced and b. being primarily an extra, listing 50+ minor roles is overkill - we're not IMDB) and merge significant roles into the body. Subsection her career into decades (1980-2010s), then source individual statements from there.
 * Just because one person cannot find sources doesn't necessarily mean there are no sources. Enlist someone familiar with the language like at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines, which looks somewhat active. WikiProject Women is also pretty active and someone there might be interested in helping out. Fuebaey (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * yeah, quite perspicacious of you suggesting those groups! it hadn't crossed my mind. Christian Roess (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Stay tuned - thanks for all the input and great suggestions and insights. I say "Stay tuned" because the user who created this page back in 2009 did respond to my inquiry and has substantially updated the filmography with citations. May get this done sooner then expected, and hopefully before the nomination goes state. It shows me that when it comes to ITN, it's crucial to reach out to the vital resource which is the Wikipedia community. There's a lot of help out there. Christian Roess (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Ignacio Padilla

 * Oppose the entire "Education" and "Books translated into English" sections and half the "Early career", "The Crack Generation" and "21st Century" sections are unreferenced. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose yes, somewhat opposite to the nominator comment, absolutely not well sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Lou Pearlman

 * Support Article appears to be well sourced and of sufficient quality. Palmtree5551 (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Too many unsourced statements for a contentious BLP. Stephen 03:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't feel comfortable posting something that recently had "molestation allegations" (section 5) added - sourced to two entertainment magazines. It reads like a tabloid story. No reputable obit mentions it, even when they discuss his boy band management career and convictions. The second section could also do with a more NPOV title. Fuebaey (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose until we have a consensus over the molestation section. It's sourced to Vanity Fair (who make accusations) and The Hollywood Reporter.  Are these really reliable in this context?  Plus some quotes from an oh-so-reliable Howard Stern interview.  This section needs proper RS sourcing or excising before we can consider posting it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Duterte threatens to pull out of UN

 * Oppose unless a substantive step is taken towards the Phillipines leaving the UN. I'm sure many notable figures around the world advocate leaving or threaten to leave the UN. Duterte's statement seems more like bluster than anything. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose support if they do leave the UN. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 331dot. Palmtree5551 (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, at this point this is just a political statement. --Soman (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. This is political posturing. If/when this actually happens I will support a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jack Riley

 * Oppose in current state. Article is a list of one-sentence statements. Not cohesive or easy to read. Also some odd statements like the last line of the first section "this radio show" - what does this refer to? And some tense issues to tidy up. MurielMary (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  per MurielMary. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support looks good now, much better than when I saw it last night. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment still not brilliant, but not opposing, article much improved since I reviewed this morning. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as a standard short sourced bio and marked as ready. Pinging as a courtesy, if they have any other objections or feel like changing their !vote. Fuebaey (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the "ping"; yes happy to support now, much improved. MurielMary (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Zika spreads from American to American for the first time

 * Oppose is this quantified somehow? About 20 years ago, the UK was going to be blighted by Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease from consuming dodgy cows, because one or two people had it.  That never amounted to much.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose This feels too late - FL has been spraying the blocks where the Zika-carrying mosquitoes have been spotted for a few weeks now. --M ASEM (t) 22:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't prove that failed till someone who didn't travel abroad gets symptoms (I think) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I don't see why the US should be treated as a specially important case when so many countries are affected. Also, as I recall, the first local transmission in the US happened several weeks ago. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Florida is the first territory of a developed country that's not like a tropical colony (i.e. Puerto Rico, French Guiana, Virgin Islands, American Samoa) to get it. Mosquito-borne diseases aren't surprising there, there's even a field of medicine called tropical medicine.
 * This might be where Zika becomes a non-tropical first world problem (then they might start trying hard to stop it, typical humans). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * NBC acts like US mosquitos giving Zika to Americans who haven't traveled is new. Maybe that's been going on for weeks? I'm not sure on the timeline. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's been going on since end of July. See for example, . Espresso Addict (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, that? I knew about that. Maybe the few weeks is explained by the virus' symptomless period. Logically you can't prove you didn't stop the contagiousness till 1 infection generation time from US patient zero in July. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Uncomfortable with the idea of just posting "It's spreading".  If we had something stronger to hang our hat on, such as large numbers of people being infected, large numbers of newborns affected, maybe(emphasis on maybe), but not as currently worded.  I'd also prefer that the nominator of a subject/article at least be semi-interested or supportive of its notability. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm supportive of its notability but I'm American so I might be biased. Buy if the rest of the world wants to wait till it gets worse (if it does) I'm not going to push hard or be unhappy. That's what I meant. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I suspect if this gets worst (reports of infection and transmission into other states particularly those not bordering FL) that this story would become an Ongoing from the start. Right now, while there are serious concerns, it does appear reasonable contained to a limited geographic area. --M ASEM (t) 23:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per 331dot. Also not to mention that this nom seems like something I'd expect to see in Plague Inc. Palmtree5551 (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly posting will be appropriate once the President of Madagascar shuts down their airports...:) --M ASEM (t) 02:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Gawker.com shuts down
--The lorax (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Does that picture add anything at all? If there should be a picture linked to this whole issue, Hulk Hogan is at least instantly recognisable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good call.--The lorax (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Damn, I was hoping for one of him doing his trademarked shirt-ripping routine, possibly with 'gawker' photoshopped onto it. ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * For reference also on BBC too. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - with an Alexa rank of 987, it's hard to see this as sufficiently significant for ITN. If some element of this lawsuit has wider implications, possibly, but that doesn't look like the case. Banedon (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Question Why is this proposed as ongoing not a blurb? Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--The lorax (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess you need a blurb now. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose If there was an ITN point on this cycle it would have been the decision of the case, and even then, that's barely ITN-worthy given the scope of what is affected. --M ASEM (t) 13:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Respectfully Oppose To the extent that Gawker might have merited mention on ITN it was for the lawsuit, which at least in the United States was extremely important due to its implications in privacy law. That however is obviously stale. This is just a blurb about a minor business shutting down and does not merit attention on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a business shutting down and it doesn't seem to be significant enough for posting Palmtree5551 (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

[Moved to ongoing] 2016 Louisiana floods to ongoing

 * Posted I went and moved it to ongoing; it's clearly still in the news, there are still developments, and new substantive information is being added every few hours. Ticks all the boxes for me.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I assumed the reason these things get posted here was to debate their merits? Maybe I was wrong, given that you've just gone ahead and posted before anybody has said anything about it? 131.251.254.154 (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD. WP:BURO. If you have a substantive reason this should be removed from ongoing, please let us know.  I, or another admin, can always remove it.  What is your substantive objection to the content of the article or the presence in news sources why this should not be on the main page?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly bothered about having it on Ongoing or not. Probably edging towards not. Just pointing out posted (very) prematurely, before any discussion took place. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I had moved this to ongoing before adding my comment here. I was not, at the time, aware of the discussion, and typically since the article had already been approved for main page inclusion, admins will usually just add it themselves to Ongoing.  Discussion is only needed if the article had not yet been approved for main page use, OR to raise awareness to admins who may not be aware that it is appropriate to ongoing.  I wasn't weighing in with an opinion, I was notifying the people reading this thread that the issue had already been resolved; probably almost simultaneously with the thread getting started.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support ongoing as it is (1) still in the news, (2) still being actively revised, and (3) older than 7 days. What Ongoing: is for. Also, IP 131.*, it is pretty common for admins to move things to ongoing in this situation, and then use a thread here at ITN/C to decide when it's time to take it off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing I think the IP may have missed the point that the floods were posted as a blurb following a lengthy discussion and that it is perfectly acceptable for an admin to move an event which is still ongoing to the Ongoing section once its blurb drops off ITN. No problem here. The Rambling Man (talk)|
 * Seems odd to post it here as a proposal then, but consider my objections retracted. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Think it was posted here for ongoing because it dropped from blurbs but is still an ongoing event (not to restate nom too much) Palmtree5551 (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support ongoing per Floquenbeam. Clearly still an ongoing event Palmtree5551 (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing per Floquenbeam.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Machali (tigress)

 * I think the last time an animal was nominated was back during the RD trial. Maybe a horse and it might've been a stub. Prior to that commentators used to argue that animals could not fall under the old RD criteria (significant to their field/high ranked at time of death/etc). Since that no longer applies, and that this is a seemingly okay article, I see no reason to oppose. For what it is worth, news reports also state that the animal was iconic in India. Fuebaey (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment when a horse was nominated during the trial period for the current criteria it was closed by Floquenbeam with the comment "We aren't going to put a horse in RD. And please don't ask me what specific policy says "no horses in RD", because it will cause me to beat my head against a brick wall for several minutes." Before the close the nomination had three comments, two opposes commenting on the state of the article and one oppose starting "Wasn't there a decision some time ago that RD is limited to humans?". I haven't looked for that decision. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – it's a bit of a complex question whether animals should fall under RD, though I don't see why they shouldn't per se. This tigress' article is of decent quality and her notably is without question. It's a notable death. ~ Mable ( chat ) 17:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should ask ourselves "what is the purpose of the RD section?" and go from there. ~ Mable ( chat ) 09:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment As an article, it's of a good enough standard to meet the Recent Deaths criteria for inclusion. However, I'm unconvinced that animals should be eligible for RD, as most of the criteria on Recent Deaths refers to people, the implication of which is that only people should be listed on RD. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> 23:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. As I understand it, the last few times an animal was nominated for RD consensus seemed to indicate that animals were not eligible.  I would submit that this should be a regular nomination. 331dot (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support why artificially limit ourselves? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment has there ever been an instance in which a non-person's death was posted to RD? Palmtree5551 (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, but Knut (polar bear) got a full blurb during a period when we didn't have RD at all. —Cryptic 06:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Knut was a global news phenomenon though... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Asking for admin input on this nom as it's 3 days since the death now and at risk of getting stale. TIA. MurielMary (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see a consensus at the moment, but I don't think consensus is impossible so I'm not going to close the discussion. I have started a section on the talk page to determine what the consensus is for the general case, and I suggest that this discussion proceed on the basis that there is no general consensus either way about whether animals are eligible or not. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't see a good reason not to include a (notable) tiger or any other (notable) animal at RD. --Hegvald (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: The "Phylogeny" section fails verification. Two references in the article 2 and 6 currently give info about her cubs but none add to 11. All references which mention that she had given birth to 11 cubs are current ones which probably are taking info from Wikipedia itself. Btw, I have no objection on posting any animal on RD. Am sure if it was not speculated well in advance and had it been a complete surprise we would have ran a blurb on Voldemort's death also; only debating whether he should be named or not. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted consensus here and even more strongly on the talk page discussion is for posting notable animal deaths. Stephen 23:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] First US offshore wind farm completed

 * Hey, I know of Block Island. Are there any other offshore wind farms between Panama and Greenland? If not the blurb can say first in North America without qualification. Are there any others in the Western Hemisphere? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm pretty sure (~96%) this is the first offshore wind farm in North America or South America. China and Europe have tons of offshore wind farms. Brian Everlasting (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Offshore wind farms are very old news in Europe. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not in this hemisphere they aren't. (👍 Europe) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose So what if it's the first in North America? All that indicates is that the Americans have been a bit slow to get on the game. Do we usually post the first of these sort of things in each continent? Not in my experience. Neljack (talk) 05:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - In today's new, the US is miles behind Europe in adopting offshore windfarms. News? 86.28.195.109 (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose covered by the comments above, this is a nice parochial story but nothing truly significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sounds like a lot of hot air to me.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Asymptomatic Zika infection in adults may cause dementia down the line

 * Oppose News report based on one peer-reviewed journal article. The word "may" in your blurb says it all, it's inconclusive. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose clearly speculative and not what ITN should be publishing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose or it may not. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above ... also, even if it does cause dementia down the line, so what? It's still only one of many different diseases, and many other diseases do worse things than cause dementia. Banedon (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Speculation doesn't really belong on the front page IMO Palmtree5551 (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. New Zika findings are being published on a daily basis. The actual paper that resulted in these headlines is showing infection of neural stem cells in immunodeficient mice, and everything else is sheer speculation. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Ending private prisons

 * Sadly, while it would be a step in the right direction (and newsworthy in its own right), it has to actually happen first. Considering the stonewalling that has been going on in this administration...--WaltCip (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm sure clowngress will find a way to call it tyranny and obstruct it. --50.160.204.213 (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Parochial. Also, just a recommendation. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Conditional support provided that material about this development is added to the appropriate article. This is a major development, and it has been covered by The Washington Post, CNBC, ABC, Forbes, and Vox. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose a recommendation should not be in the news. If it is implemented, we can reconsider.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - according to the source linked it's not a "recommendation". Regardless, it looks like an internal policy of one country, so I don't see the international significance. Banedon (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is just a recommendation in a single country. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Jim Bennett

 * Comment. The article gives little feel for what the subject contributed, other than holding a series of positions. The references mainly seem to be to local newspapers, local/university websites and the like. There is also a potential problem with staleness. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I don't think there's an issue with the references, unless you consider them to be unreliable? While I can agree that it could do with some expansion, I'm not familiar with his work and I don't think I'll have enough time to research this. Fuebaey (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV 304 Airlander 10

 * Support good article, sufficiently notable maiden flight. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Hmm... this isn't really its maiden flight. The image here is from its flight in 2012, when it was a US Army project. It was cancelled, the prototype was bought back by its inventors, and it's now flying again in a civilian configuration. But it is getting a lot of press coverage, so it would be nice to mention on the main page somehow. Smurrayinchester 08:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, even the BBC which mentions maiden flight a few times then goes on to say "British firm Hybrid Air Vehicles (HAV) launched a campaign to return the Airlander 10 to the skies in May 2015" implying it'd already been in the skies. Some RS that BBC..... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support alt-blurb. Smurrayinchester 10:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support came to nominate. I think the article needs to clarify the "largest" part more. Hindemburg was 245m long while this one is only 91m. Nergaal (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It must mean the longest (possibly most voluminous) heavier-than-air craft, maybe barely heavier (it will sink without the propellers running). I believe modern blimps and possibly Zeppelins are run heavier after takeoff or always - needing the propellers to point some degrees downwards to maintain altitude. Either they're all smaller than this one or "aircraft" is defined even more strictly. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The longest airplane might still be the Spruce Goose, though it never flew high enough to prove that it could fly without ground effect boost, which might arguably make it unable to fly. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nergaal, per LZ 129 Hindenburg Airlander isn't the longest aircraft ever, so added clarification to the original blurb. Brandmeistertalk  13:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - the blurb can be tweaked to say longest current aircraft and maiden civilian flight (the latter may intrigue readers and encourage them to read the article). Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Alt blurb added. Mjroots (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. Interesting, generally well written article and it is in the news. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment alt blurb looks good to go and the image is already protected should an admin wish to update that too. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support but don't use the word "currently" (that should be obvious and so unnecessary) and also use "civilian" instead of "civil". Alternatively, "maiden flight as a civilian vessel" might be more appropriate. Banedon (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – but definitely without either modern or currently. Sugest:
 * The Airlander 10 hybrid airship, the world's longest aircraft, makes its maiden civil flight in Bedfordshire, England.
 * Sca (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * So the "largest" ever means most buoyancy, i.e. largest volume? I remember Hindemburg looking less fat than this one. Nergaal (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Were you there at Lakehurst in 1937? Wow! Sca (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The Hindenburg could lift 230 tons plus itself. This can lift 10 tons plus itself (20 more). The Hindenburg was huge by aerospace standards, almost the length of the Titanic. This is only 91 meters (less than this plane's wingspan ((which is actually it's length under geometry's "longest dimension" definition)). So being fatter cannot possibly give it enough volume to counter it's almost 3:1 disadvantage in length. For reference the Goodyear Blimps are 59 meters. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Removing ready. I'm not seeing a factually accurate agreed blurb here. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Alt blurb 2 should resolve that. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How about stating the length? Suggestion in Alt 3.Espresso Addict (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to go with length, but we don't all work in metres. Have added conversion. Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready for ALT 3. Mjroots (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Alt 3. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ugliest ITN post of the year, other than the one that took two sentences. Honestly, "which is X m long"?  Terrible and not ITN-worthy.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a suggestion, ? Longest appears inaccurate, modern/current isn't supported, the bald fact of the maiden flight gives no sense of why it's interesting, and no concise way of defining the craft so as to exclude larger examples has been proposed. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a real challenge. It's been in the news, for real, and news outlets have the latitude to express subjective forms such as "largest" or "maiden" etc, without being constrained by our WP:V and so on.  I guess the fact that it's been posted is enough, but that jarring clause telling me how long it is, without any context at all, is why it's contender for worst hook of the year.  I'm sorry I can't come up with anything better right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Post posting comment. The airshio has already crashed.  Should the blurb be updated? Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Arthur Hiller

 * Support Well-referenced and well-written. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose it's a bit of a quote carnival, I'd prefer to see more analysis of his life and career, not bloated quotes that inflate the article to twice its actual usable size. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As a former graduate of QA (Quotaholics Anonymous), I can try tightening some of those, but can't work on it till later. --Light show (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support articles don't have to be good or featured to appear in RD. Ed [talk] [majestic titan]`
 * No, TRM didn't ask this to reach "good" or "featured" level. Just "marginally less shitty".  You could, you know, fix it instead of making an underhanded dig against someone else's valid objection.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It might be useful to not read into things too much. Neither of them mentioned the other in this thread and people have differing opinions. Fuebaey (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But there is a general knee-jerk objection to my demands for quality articles only to be posted to the main page. I know many users think differently and are content to post sub-par articles to the detriment of Wikipedia.  I'm not one of those, and I won't ever apologise for it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Tagged a few paragraphs that need citations. Fuebaey (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * None remain. And quotes curtailed, as such I move to support this nomination which is good to go! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Blue Cut Fire

 * Support once the blurb is fixed because the fire is huge and devastating. Brian Everlasting (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources needed indicating this is in the news. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources: 1 and 2 Palmtree5551 (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support — this is a major event, though I prefer the alternative blurb. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support the alt blurb. I doubt that most readers could name Summit Inn, let alone recognize the significance of its destruction more so than the fire itself.--WaltCip (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support This needs expansion and improved sourcing. The subject might be ITN worthy but the article is not up to standards for being linked on the main page. It is little more than a stub, is inadequately sourced and has a maintenance tag. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment as the nominator of the article I just want to say 2 things. First, I'm totally in agreement that the blurb can be better written! This is my first time nominating something for "In the news" so I wasn't too sure how best to do it. I would greatly appreciate any help with improving the blurb. Second, thanks for your comments. I think at this point (see changes I JUST made) the article is at least a "Start", no longer a stub. There is absolutely more information that can, should and will be added! There are a few IP Address editors that are adding commentary and unsourced material. I will do my best to clean that up as it happens. -- Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think that there needs to be be some larger geographical context in the blurb, perhaps starting it "In California..." or "In the United States..." but that seems slightly clumsy. I haven't looked at the article yet so no opinion on whether this should be posted or not. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment as mentioned above this is my first nomination so I didn't really realize that the blurb I was proposing was the exact text that would appear on the main page. My thinking was more "Here is why this should be featured", not "Here is exactly what should be said". Take a look at Alternative blurb II and let me know what you think? The one think I might add to it is to say "As of <date when blurb is posted>, over 30,000 acres....". Thanks to everyone for giving feedback and for helping me learn about this process! -- Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – Just to put things in perspective sizewise: The "huge" Bluecut fire in SoCal is approximately one-third the size of the Pioneer fire in Idaho. The difference of course is, SoCal is densely populated, while the Idaho fire threatens only one town, Lowman, which has a year-round population of 52. (Some 1,800 firefighters are battling the Pioneer fire, compared to 1,300 on the Bluecut fire.) No fatalities reported so far from either. Sca (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * not sure what your point is? No one actually said the fire was huge... Not even the top 3 in california this year. The significance here is the number of evacuations as well as its location. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , please note first 'support' comment above. Sca (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support and adding altblurb 3. Banedon (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Whatever blurb is used, the name of the country should be specified. Isa (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support a version of the first alt blurb which doesn't use "30,000+". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – Basically favor Alt3, though suggest changes as follows:
 * The Blue Cut Fire in Southern California displaces more than 80,000 people, burns over 30,000 acres (47 sq. mi; 120 sq. km.) of land, and threatens an estimated 34,500 structures.
 * (Since the event is in the U.S., parenthetical area conversion logically should include sq. mi.) Sca (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Mauril Bélanger

 * Support. Article looks comprehensive and well referenced. It is in Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL, which could do with fixing but I don't have time to find which citation(s) are at fault. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out. Fixed the final newspaper reference. Fuebaey (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support no glaring issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support This is the kind of content we should be highlighting. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John McLaughlin

 * Comment.  Just FYI given the new criteria you no longer need to justify the merits of this person being posted, as if they merit an article, they merit posting.  Only article quality needs to be assessed. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks ... I hadn't taken part in those discussions. A good change to make, actually. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to say you shouldn't explain who the person is- but you don't need to 'sell' it. :) 331dot (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose for now. Depth is sufficient, but needs to be more fully referenced.  When I heard the news I thought it was Mahavishnu John, but I don't think the American talk show host had those kind of chops on guitar.  Still, a decent article which is almost, but not quite, ready for prime time.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose purely on article quality which I believe is fixable. The subject is actually one that I would support for RD even under the old guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose too many missing references, and at least one category (spouse of a US cabinet member) that is not explained in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the category is directly explained in the first line of the "personal life" section. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, explained but not referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to lack of referencing. I count 6 paragraphs which lack any kind of citation, including the second paragraph in "education" which definitely needs sources to be named (mentions disagreements with an editor etc). MurielMary (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I have made sure that at least every graf ends with a cite. Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted on improvements, Stephen 03:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Gurdial Singh

 * Support pending some minor housekeeping like referencing one or two statements that are missing them.--WaltCip (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Have recalled some refs for sentences which were missing. Please feel free to add cn tags so we can fix them. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 15:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per WaltCip. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support the quality is on par and the sourcing is adequate. Christian Roess (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] QUESS / Micius (the "unhackable" satellite)

 * BBC indicates Micius is the name of the satelite, and QUESS is the name of the project. It also has a reasonably well written explanation. The final section of the lead in the QUESS article also states 'further Micius' satelites. So I guess the blurb should say Micius but link to QUESS? (As an aside, I doubt the satelite itself would be unhackable, as I cannot think of a situation where they would have the only communication with the satelite be by quantum, given its limitations) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The Austrian Academy of Sciences (one of the refs in the article) also makes the distinction between the satelite 'Micius' and the project/experiment as 'QUESS' so I think the article needs to be reworded in parts (where it refers specifically to the satelite) - Other than that I support this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, but the New York Times, Xinhua and Space.com say it's QUESS, "nicknamed Micius", Physics World says it's QUESS "also named Micius", New Scientist says it was called QUESS but was "renamed Mozi" (an alternative form of Micius). No-one seems very clear, but I'd defer to Chinese sources such as the Chinese National Space Administration - who say the satellite is called QUESS and Micius/Mozi is a nickname. Smurrayinchester 12:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support because highly notable important issue for modern times. Brian Everlasting (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support article quality is sufficient. The blurb seems a little sensationalist; I'd prefer it to end at "...quantum key distribution."  But the article is sufficient for the main page, so I won't object to posting it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support but the language should be simplified a bit for common readers imo. E.g. technical terms can be shortly explained in the context of the experiments even if they are also (in length) explained at the linked page. --Fixuture (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support we do need a better blurb but article is sufficient quality and the subject is newsworthy and interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. I expanded Quess & removed the unhackable note per Jayron32. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Per Fixuture, I think the blurb needs something in lay person terms to explain why this is interesting (which is why I tacked the last clause onto the end). "Quantum key distribution" isn't going to mean much to the average reader - there needs to be some reference to the fact that this is an encryption technology. Smurrayinchester 07:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the article's content as I found the blurb proposal good enough as it was. However the blurb apparently got changed whn it was posted - so I very much agree. E.g. one should readd "which allows unbreakable encryption" at the end of it. --Fixuture (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As the poster, obviously I disagree. I can't pretend to understand quantum entanglement but this satellite is not going to itself "allow unbreakable encryption", afaik? I'm active for another hour or two if anyone cares to suggest a more-conservative, concise wording that might be clearer. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Louisiana floods

 * Support, though perhaps we should re-phrase the blurb to say that 20,000 people have been forced to evacuate (see this article from the NewsHour) instead of "20,000 rescues?" -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support if the alternate blurb I just added is used, (or unless something similar to the alt. blurb is proposed by another editor). "Notecardforfree" is entirely correct in his evaluation because, IMO, "rescue" overstates the situation, to say the least. (Who precisely is responsible for rescuing 20,000 people, and how did they do it? None of the cited sources goes into the details).† Yes, The Washington Post (cited above) states it as "rescued", but The New York Times (again, cited above) clearly says 20,000 evacuated, and the latter term is also used in the "Newshour" article that Notecardforfree cites. So from my vantage point, it's evacuated, and not "rescued". Meanwhile, the target article has been updated and sourced, and is of sufficient quality. Christian Roess (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * comment in case it seems like I am overstating my case.† The New York Times states that, along with volunteers, "Firefighters, the National Guard and the Coast Guard, using helicopters and small flat-bottomed boats, were among those who have also joined the effort." So, I suppose it is possible to "rescue" 20,000 people, but if it did happen in precisely that way, then it's an extraordinary logistical accomplishment. But we need additional sources in the target article showing how it happened. Also, I'm removing the death toll from the blurb. The updated number stands at eight deaths according to The New York Times, but the target article, as it currently stands, does not even mention the number of deaths Christian Roess (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Huge Support - this is an under-reported story overshadowed by Olympics, Trump etc. According to the Red Cross it is the worst flood in the US since Hurricane Sandy. As of Tuesday 11 people have died (same source). The flooding continues it is still ongoing. 40,000+ properties have been flooded but only 20% have flood insurance. --  Green  C  13:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – Getting stale; loss of life isn't huge. (Meanwhile, 80,000 being evacuated from wildfire in SoCal.) Sca (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support alt2. Most definitely not stale compared one or two of the items currently in the ITN template. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support alt2. ...Sca, you should nominate an article & blurb with that item. Indeed, if what you say is valid, then your nomination would almost certainly take precedence over any stale items. And would help to move them off the list. That's the way to work it around here, as I'm sure you know. Christian Roess (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted Based on reading the article, I hidden dated the post (and chronologized it) as August 13. I went with Alt2 with a slight tweak in the wording.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Two weeks back we posted 2016 Assam floods with blurb "Flooding in Assam, India, kills 28 people, affects 1.6 million others and submerges the Kaziranga National Park, a World Heritage Site." Calling this calamity as "Record flooding" is a bit hyperbole even with simple statistical comparison. Can the blurb be neutralized? §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it a record in part of Louisiana? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Reduced to just "Flooding in...." The Rambling Man (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds better now. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - it's good to see that our very own ITN editors recognized this as a newsworthy item & quickly got it posted to the main page once it was nominated and checked for quality. Meanwhile, unlike here at ITN, The New York Times is offering an Apologia for their dilatory behavior (On Gulf Coast Flooding, The Times Is Late to the Scene). They are admitting, rather disingenuously, that by obsessing over Trump and the Olympics it completely dropped the ball on one of the worst US weather related disasters since Hurricane Sandy. The excuse? Well, it's been a "busy" news cycle and reporters go on vacation in August and it's a long way to Louisiana and, ya know, real journalism is just so hard. Christian Roess (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: João Havelange

 * Support blurb Probably the most influential (albeit corrupt) president of FIFA, made it a truly global organization. News is covered globally.EternalNomad (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A blurb shouldn't even be under consideration unless someone can write a Death of João Havelange article with a straight face. Blurbs are not "death of person who would have made RD under the previous criteria". —Cryptic 21:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, agree with that. I think  said that a while ago, and it's a great yardstick to measure such nominations against.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Cambalachero (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 *  'Oppose ' until all POV claims are removed or neutralised and referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is 2,321 words long. Assuming the overall purpose is to improve articles, please be more specific in your review and not just point to policy. Fuebaey (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I'll just accused of drive-by tagging, so please, it's your nomination, feel free to read it over at least once before nominating and fix the POV sentences and unreferenced claims. You're experienced enough to do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * At what point did I accuse you of that? We worked on an article fine yesterday, but I didn't randomly accuse you of nominating an article I was working on or you accuse me of randomly tagging. Why the hostility on making article improvements today? Fuebaey (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you would. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Then if it doesn't refer to me, how is it relevant to my request? I'd appreciate it if you would take the time to respond to my other question as well. Fuebaey (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Rambling Man, the article does not have any POV tags (either banners or inline). You have to point the issues that you found somewhere (tag the article, or detail it here, or in the article's talk page); otherwise the argument is not actionable, as someone willing to see the article in the main page does not know what needs fixing. Cambalachero (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's been removed now, but I can't believe that no-one would read an unreferenced sentence such as The triumvirate of João Havelange, Horst Dassler and Patrick Nally would have profound effects on the future of world sport. without raising an eyebrow. Come on, if you're going to participate in this process, do it properly, everyone.  Read the article, don't just skip past the majority of the text.  Right now, article quality is the threshold for RDs, so there's only one job to be done, and if people can't be bothered to do that properly, I'd suggest, they don't comment here, as blind "supports" are completely unhelpful for RD.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop assuming there is some set ITN criteria for quality and that everyone shares your interpretation of it. That is not how consensus works. You have enunciated one issue to this article yet originally cite "claims", as in plural, in your opposition to this nomination. If you can't be bothered to point out your concerns in a timely fashion so that others can address them, perhaps you should reconsider who actually is being unhelpful. Fuebaey (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia quality standards for a BLP I'm referring to. You should know that by now. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready then since no one here agrees with you and you're still refusing to point out those "BLP violations". Fuebaey (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, you do realise the comments I made were more than two days ago? Things change and those who have actually given a damn about the article seem to have made a positive difference with BLP in mind.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good news, I've had time to re-review, there's a section without references and a couple of other citations missing, so it's not quite ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking more than two days and five responses to a simple question. I'd appreciate it if you were less passive-aggressive in the future. I have added a ref and removed the unsourced section per WP:V. Fuebaey (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't work to your timetable I'm afraid. Per WP:V, I've restored the section and demonstrated that it's possible to cite at least one of the awards.  I suggest you finish the job.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:V, the burden is upon the editor who restored the unsourced material. For a person who is so intent on quality, why are you readding unsourced material? Fuebaey (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you really want this posted, you'd do some reasearch, this source should help, it lists a few more honours that aren't mentioned here. Or are you trying to push an article to the main page that you know is missing information that you can source if you want to?  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ you're both exhausting. I've sourced the remaining unsourced awards, and if anyone wants to add other awards with sources, they can later.  Is it ready to post now? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, thanks for doing something about it rather than just relying on others. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Long and good enough. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> 20:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Long-time president of an important global organization, also good enough. --Clibenfoart (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Zambian presidential election

 * Support No comments at all? ITN/R, article seems to be in decent postable shape. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per Muboshgu. It's a quality article that's now ITN/R ready. I like the layout of the article, and the sourcing is impressive. Christian Roess (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support a decent article, comprehensive and ITNR, what's not to like? Good to go.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Bobby Hutcherson

 * Support Solid article - good to go. Challenger l (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good enough. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> 20:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Dalian Atkinson

 * Yet there's nothing in the article about how he died; I imagine that would be a particularly salient point for this story considering how unusual it is.--WaltCip (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's changed already. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Then support as a shocking and tragic death. Article appears well-referenced.--WaltCip (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Was about to nominate myself. Smurrayinchester 13:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Quality looks good enough, though I'd like to see (without clicking on the ref) why the cops tasered him . – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, when it's known why. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good enough. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> 22:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Beni massacre

 * Support The article appears to be sound, the issue is in the news, though perhaps not receiving the coverage that it should, because Africa. I think it should be posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per Muboshgu's comments. I suggest using something like altblurb3 that I just added. Christian Roess (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The key paragraphs of the background and attack are a little light on references. Stephen

[Closed] RD: Marion Christopher Barry
Oppose in current state. There is material in the section "Assaults" which is unrelated to assaults. Also there seems to be unnecessary amounts of detail in both that section and the previous one on drug charges. Is it useful to know exactly what words were said etc etc? MurielMary (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose His main claim to fame seems to be that he is the son of former mayor Marion Barry. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Per a change in the Deaths criteria, we no longer judge importance; if the deceased merits an article, they merit posting to RD. If you feel the person does not merit an article, please propose its deletion. 331dot (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a perfect example how this new RD does not work. Are we seriously going to post this random person Main Page? As was predicted in the RFC, RD has now become a crowded ticker for people nobody knows. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, if you don't think this person should be featured by Wikpiedia, you are welcome to log in and take it to WP:AFD. RD has gone down to as few as one individual since the new criteria were implemented.  So, sorry if that disappoints you, but it's working just fine! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The lack of international sources alone tells you enough about his lack of notibility. I would start a AfD, but that would just get shot down by the joined forces who seem to be intent on ruining wiki, inclusionists and Americans, so would be futile. As few as one individual he says.... A properly used RD would be empty most of the time! 131.251.254.154 (talk) 10:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "A properly used RD would be empty most of the time" is actually absurd. Items which are notable enough for Wikipedia should be notable enough for the main page, as long as the quality is there.  That was the found consensus.  Either take this to AFD, start an RFC to reverse the criteria change, or move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - because of BLP issues. Yes, the article's quality certainly approaches the minimal standard, I get that. But there are potential BLP issues due to the numerous controversial statements in this article, which are edgy and border on the salacious, and must be adequately sourced (and by all rights should prompt various BLP warning flags to go up). Now on the surface, these "claims" (excessive drug use and at least one highly publicized assault charge) are sufficiently sourced. But if you dig a little deeper and look at the "Reference" section, there are currently a total of 35 unique individual sources. But out of those 35, I count at least 23 that use three local sources: either The Washington Post (at least 13 references) or the The Washington Times, or The Washington City Paper. Just those three news sources, based in Washington, DC; and where Barry spent his entire life, born and died there. And that indicates to me, therefore, that most news stories related to Marion Christopher Barry over the years had a localized appeal only, specific to the Washington, DC area. (And no this is not a notability issue--that's not an issue for RD nominations anymore--and besides that's being argued elsewhere, as the article is proposed for deletion). My point is that, because this current Wikipedia article is almost entirely a litany of legal issues that make damaging character references while citing mostly three sources, we should be wary of posting this on the Main page without additional, and sufficient, peer review. Again, nearly 65% of the citations used in this article are local news items, about the son of an (in)famous mayor, whether or not you want to argue that The Washington Post  has international reliability and credibility. Christian Roess (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * IAR oppose. I'm not sure Christian Roess's comments are sufficient to oppose based on current policy, but they strike a chord with me, and I just don't feel comfortable posting this on the main page, when he's basically notable for being (a) a troubled man's son, and (b) troubled and miserable himself his whole life, and all the article does is describe this misery in relentless accurately-cited detail. I don't think there are necessarily BLP issues with the article, because it looks like there are not a lot of unmentioned less-depressing things to balance this with, and he seems to meet WP:GNG. So posting this would probably meet the current RD criteria.  I don't want to change the criteria, but I think it's a good time to recognize that posting this would damage our collective karma, and ignore them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - thanks for your input Floquenbeam. Your critique registered with solid comments. I just saw that the result of the deletion request for this page was to Keep. I continue to be on the fence about this particular RD nomination. Mine was a "weak oppose," and so I could, perhaps, be persuaded to change my vote if there were some conscientious (solid) reviews among my peers that this article was a fair and equitable presentation of the (sometimes sordid) details surrounding Marion Christopher Barry's unfortunate biography. Christian Roess (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] 400 m World Record

 * Oppose adequately covered by the ongoing listing of Olympics. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We are not posting any more records.--WaltCip (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Where has that been decided? The Harrison 100-metre hurdles WR had clear consensus just a couple of days ago. --bender235 (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * IT's because we have an Olympics ongoing, and by its very nature, world records are broken all the time during the Olympic events. The Harrison event happened outside of the Olympics at an event not normally covered by ITNR, so it stood out there. --M ASEM (t) 14:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] 100m finals

 * Oppose no need to single out this event above all the other gold-medal events. Summer Olympics is already on Ongoing by the way.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose the 100m is not objectively more important than any other event. Thryduulf (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support the 100m is objectively the most watched event at the entire Olympics. Nergaal (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Thryduulf. There are so many events at the Olympics, why single out this one? Sure it's the most watched athletics event, but it isn't an athletics championship. Banedon (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As the nominator has decided to reopen this discussion, it must be time for the pile-on votes.  There is nothing that makes this event objectively more important than any other event in the Olympic games. --Allen3 talk 01:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Pile-on oppose per all the other opposes. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] The International 2016 winners

 * No explanation f its import?Lihaas (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

just added one 174.91.85.101 (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support if only for the fact that the winning team won a mind-boggling $9m for playing video games.... Wowzers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support pending more text being added to the article. Nergaal (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - the prize pool is comparable to that of Wimbledon. Adding more prose to the article is a difficult thing however. Naming the individual heroes used would not be something non-players of the game can understand, but any other kind of text would be trivial and unhelpful. Banedon (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really, see 2015 League of Legends World Championship. Nergaal (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean a description of the games, e.g. "Team A picked ____ hero, team B countered with ____, team A sent ___ mid but team B had sent ___ mid and that is a bad matchup" etc. Banedon (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean something like: The group stage started on October 1 in Le Dock Pullman, Paris and concluded on October 11.[4] In Group B, ahq e-Sports Club and Cloud9 both ended in a 3-3 tie, resulting in a tiebreaker won by ahq e-Sports Club to win second place in the group. Nergaal (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that's unnecessary because if desired all that information is available in the tables. Banedon (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, if anybody is curious as to which heroes were picked per game, and who won game 1 of any given series, there is always this. I tried to keep it accessible for the new people reading on this due to the coverage it was getting, and LoL articles are not a good example of what to copy. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 20:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone who is unfamiliar with a subject will find a lot of detail trivial. Polygon above outlines a decent summary - would summarising that into the article be a disservice to our readers? Fuebaey (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I guess that makes sense - although I find Polygon's coverage rather boring. I guess that itself is a symptom of having to balance coverage for people who do play the game, and people who don't. Banedon (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, some more text additions would be really welcome. MikeLynch (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support esport world championship with the largest prize pool. Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Although this will probably annoy some of the cultural purists in our audience, we have never had a chance to post an E-sports ITN event.--WaltCip (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose We showcase articles here, not news headlines. That the blurb is twice the size of the prose update is telling. I know nothing about the game and come off not knowing any better after reading the article (is it a MMORPG/FPS/etc?). Please write a summary of the final (how they won) or their progression through the tournament (who were the favourites/were there any upsets?). Fuebaey (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Arguably, the whole article summing up the events of the last two weeks, is the whole update. That said, like any other sporting event article, we would expect an update of a final round/match to include a summary of that event, and not just stat tables. And for this event, I don't know if that's possible given how eSports are typically covered. --M ASEM (t) 21:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't buy the argument of not enough detailed coverage. If that is the case, that's more of a reason not to post in my book. However, Dissident93 has since added a legacy section, which just about satisfies my prose update concerns. Fuebaey (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The Article on Super Bowl 50 and 2015 World Series do not really explain the sports played for those who are new to it either, so is that really a valid argument? ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 20:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The match summaries in those articles would make me want to know more about the sport by clicking on the links to say American football (NFL) or baseball (MLB). A bunch of tournament brackets, with the majority of teams either red links or stubs, and a lack of match detail here wasn't much interest to me. It would make more sense for me to look outside Wikipedia for information, which sort of defeats the purpose of featuring the article on ITN. Fuebaey (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per Fuebaey – and because we failed to post results of the English Tiddlywinks Association National Singles on May 1. Sca (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would love to see a statistical comparison regarding the popularity of E-sports vs. tiddlywinks.--WaltCip (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't recall the tiddlywinks being nominated so it's hardly fair to use its absence from the main page as a reason to oppose any other nomination. If a minor expansion of the article is all that's required, let's just say that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The tiddly part was a joke. Sca (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose because of the topic and strong oppose on the article basis. There is no content whatsoever apart from the charts. We would never post a serious ITNR sport article in such shape. --Tone 21:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the article has been expanded but there's still room for improvement ;) --Tone 07:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose mostly on article content. I'd be fine with posting the blurb if we had some prose to read about.  Generally, for competitions of any sort (including things such as sporting events, awards ceremonies, major honors) we generally expect a few paragraphs of prose describing the important aspects of the event we're posting about.  For an event such as this, I would at minimum expect a synopsis of the final event itself, and even better would be an overview of all events and rounds of the competition.  This is basically a little background text with some massive tables, and very little prose about the actual events that happened during the competition.  We need better articles than this to highlight on the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support because I'm a huge DOTA 2 fan, and because this esports event had $20M+ prize pool, largest in history. Brian Everlasting (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems good enough and well referenced, although I do agree with Jayron32 that it really needs a synopsis of the final event. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I'm not sure the best way to do an ITN blurb, but this is certainly a notable event in sports/eSports. For anybody saying the article needs more summaries of games, ESPN, Polygon, and PC Gamer all have day by day recaps of each series played (in the main stage at least). I just omitted that because most of it wouldn't make sense to a new reader who is coming to the article simply because of the coverage it was receiving. As you can see with the history tab, I'm the only user who really added info, so if somebody wants to pick up where I left off, feel free to do so. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 19:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Any summary is better than no summary. At least some people willg et something out of it, as opposed to now, nobody get anything out. Nergaal (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted, the prose is just about enough. Stephen 05:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose keeping this on the main page. Very little coverage in the mainstream media, and therefore fails WP:ITN's "depth of coverage" criterion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We used to give preference to minority topics since the mainstream news by nature is not likely to focus on these sorts of topics (think "Kardashian effect").--WaltCip (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Michael Phelps wins 23rd gold medal

 * Comment. As the next record is 9, Phelps did not surpass the record at this Olympics. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Espresso Addict. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Stale, you're about 8 years late. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Kenny Baker

 * Beep-be-beep-bo  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Portrayed major character, R2-D2, in 6 of the top grossing films of all time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Even though he wasn't credited by name in the Star Wars Holiday Special.LM2000 (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs more citations. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support He is definitely a notable death, even if the article needs some love. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose in current state as many statements are uncited. The three commenters above are perhaps unaware that RD noms are now judged only on quality of article, not on notability of the subject, therefore votes based on notability/newsworthiness are no longer relevant. MurielMary (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Needs improvement. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Sourcing needs improvement. Challenger l (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Very famous actor who has died. Beejsterb (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Record for individual Olympic titles

 * Somewhat oppose. While this is a fun story, it's difficult to compare ancient and modern Olympics. Would support featuring Phelps's final medal count, since he beat his record from 4 years ago. --Tone 11:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - fun and interesting record. And very historic and significant if you ask me.BabbaQ (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's be careful now... We're slated to not post Almaz Ayana's breaking the 10,000 metres world record below. I feel a need for consistency is vital if we're going to be posting record-breakings of any sorts from the Olympics.--WaltCip (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between a record that is 2000 years old and yet another world record. Several world records has been made already at the 2016 olympics, Wikipedia is supposed to post significant and special world records. How is it biased to post this one, its like comparing apples and oranges.BabbaQ (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong support actually interesting perspective and also a good way to emphasize such a feat among all the others happening these days in Rio. Nergaal (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible oppose - You can't 'break a record' that is 2000 years old. The events are incomparable. It is indeed comparing apples and oranges. How sure are we even on the accuracy of Leonidas' medal tally? It's a nonsense story, far more significant records have already been broken these games, and we didn't post them. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not? The Great Pyramid's record for tallest manmade object wasn't broken for 4,000 years. Lucius Flavius Philostratus wrote about the feat shaking up Ancient Greek athletic theory. There were 115 Olympic Games after his fourpeat triple victory but before Christianity was even legal (4 times the number of Modern Games) so it wasn't just a few Games at the end with enough events for dodecuple champions to be plausible. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Are there any RS sources backing this "you can't 'break a record' that is 2000 years old" argument? If not then this sounds like a private opinion that is contradicted by multiple sources. On Wikipedia we don't do private opinions. We repeat what is written in reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My point was that the games then were not the games now. Therefore the record is not the same. There are far more events now, so the records can't be compared. This is the same as saying the 10k world record has been broken in the 5k. Therefore this is a non-story. I suspect supports are for nationalistic reasons. As mentioned above, Systemic bias 86.28.195.109 (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But the Ancient Olympics only had a talent pool of about 50 million at most while modern Games have one of 7.5 billion. This makes it harder for today's athletes to dominate (can you imagine how many ties we'd have if who won the 200 meter race was judge by eye like the Ancient Olympics?) Also the 3 events that Leonidas won were contested hundreds of times compared to only 28 editions of the Modern Games. I don't know if these two things are enough to even things out but it certainly makes it less of a gulf. The 13 individual gold medals are actually in only 5 events and only 4 were won more than once. This might be less than one might expect given the huge number of swimming events (there likely weren't team events in the Ancient Games: so to be fair we're not adding team golds to lone golds or Michael Phelps would've beaten Leonidas a long time ago. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. - <font face="Century Gothic"> Eugεn S¡m¡on  16:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I am pretty reluctant to post Olympic related news and records since it is covered in ongoing, but this is highly unusual and I think merits an ITN blurb. With respect to the Oppose argument, multiple reliable sources are saying it is in fact possible to break ancient records. If there are RS sources refuting the claim then we may have to reconsider this. But we go with what the sources say, not personal opinions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support One man held the record of 15 lifetimes of continuous Olympic competition just by being badass at the hoplitodromos. That is amazing. The 2,791 years since the first known Olympic champion is most of human history. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with the "apples and oranges" comment from above. The modern Olympics are not comparable to the ancient games making this "record" trivial at best. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 20:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose the comparison is laughable. Slow "real news" day for those carrying this "story".  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - really? comparing an athlete who was a "true " athlete to Phelps? That guy competed in "foot races", let me see Phelps achieve the same on LAND...I find swimming holds a big disadvantage to real athletes as swimmers can collect a lot more medals than those that are lucky to manage one...Until Usain Bolt collects 13 golds, Phelps achievement does not matter..-- Stemoc 22:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * He doesn't have the body shape to be a runner. He has the body shape to be a swimmer. How are you going to expect a person to run fast when they have the worst possible leg-to-torso and leg-to-arm length ratio for it? He beats the rest of the world in popular human muscle-powered solo races so he must be an athlete. Usain Bolt seems to win every 100m, 200m and 4x100m dash he enters. He would have to win 3 in 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, and 1 out of 3 in 2024 when he's 38 to do that. That's a tall order. I think the readers would know it's only a nominal record because there's so many swimming strokes. Therefore it can go up (because 2,200 years!) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose ultimately. With respect to Phelps, it's just very difficult to post record-breaking stories on ITN for the reasons outlined above.--WaltCip (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Apples and oranges indeed. You cannot compare the modern and ancient olympics in this manner as they're just too different, and we don't know enough detail about the potential medals Leonidas could have won. Swimmers at modern Olympics compete in far more events, and thus have the potential to win far more medals, than competitors in any other sport so that's another reason the two are not comparable (Phelps competed in at least 5 individual events this games, plus several team events, competitors in most sports have only a single event they can enter). Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support If the record wasn't broken in 2k years, it wasn't broken in 130 years either which means it's still a record. Maybe if it was some German in Brazil breaking a niche record instead of an American beating a less niche record we would post it?. Gotta keep curbing that bias huh? --50.160.204.213 (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * PS USA USA USA USA USA USA USA !! --50.160.204.213 (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support the concept in general, but not the comparison. The two athletes are obviously not comparable. On the other hand Phelps' record haul is still something noteworthy in itself. I can get behind a blurb with something like "Michael Phelps wins a record-breaking 22nd gold medal". Support alt blurb 2. Banedon (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 23. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree that there is no reason why you can't break a 2000 year-old record, but there is another question: are the ancient and moderns Olympics the same competition? They certainly don't seem to be regarded as such for record purposes, which is why you don't see Leonidas on lists of top medal winners. Just because they are both called Olympic Games doesn't mean they are the same competition. In any case, since we don't have full records of winners at the ancient Olympics, I don't see how we can say what the record for most titles was there. Neljack (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I get why this was nominated, but this seems like more of a fun fact than a news item.   It is difficult to compare this to the ancient olympics.  Like Bandeon, I don't oppose posting a blurb relating to Phelps in general; he does sound like he might be done after this year(knock on wood). 331dot (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Phelps is the most successful Olympian ever as we understand the term today and he's coming to the end of an incredible career. That's worth posting. The comparison to the ancient record isn't the story and, as others have noted, the two aren't really comparable. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  10:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support the "alternate blurb II" that I just added, following the suggestion of Banedon and 331dot, the latter suggesting a kind of qualified support for "a blurb relating to Phelps in general." Similarly, I would support a blurb relating to Phelps in general. I currently oppose the other 2 blurb suggestions. Christian Roess (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose The significance of the 'record' is overstated, because Phelps is a swimmer, and as a result he wins a lot of medals because there are a lot of swimming events. I doubt a discus thrower would ever be able to win 23 gold medals. Also there is already the ongoing Olympics blurb - do we really need another "news story" for a guy who wins a lot of medals because there are a lot of swimming events? Gfcvoice (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Fall of Manbij

 * Support, looks like a major development. The blurb should mention that they captured it from ISIS, since there are many parties fighting in Syria. --Tone 11:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I added in two alternative blurbs. ISIL seems to be what our pages call them (and describes them as jihadists as ideology). Narayanese (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Time for more good news already. Brandmeistertalk  19:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support very nice article too. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, prefer altblurb2. Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per Tone. Either altblurb is fine with me. Banedon (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  10:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ruby Wilson

 *  Oppose  lead too short, dab link, otherwise good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes agree about the lead, have fixed it. MurielMary (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool, support. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. I fixed the dab link (once I found it, it took me less time to fix it than to write this comment, so I see no reason that TRM couldn't have just fixed it). The lead isn't an essential part of the article, especially for a relatively concise article like this one. No reason this can't be posted. Unless we'd rather waste time arguing about the quality of the encyclopaedia than improving the encyclopaedia.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a script which helps me identify these things. I don't have time to edit much in article space (I don't want to fuck things up, unlike some) so thanks for your bad faith. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Alison Piepmeier

 * Weak Support. Article is brief but solid. It could use some filling-out for her career - since there's years between her degree and the top date mentioned. Challenger l (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support not spectacular but good enough just. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Almaz Ayana 23yr-old 10K world record

 * Oppose a number of world records have already been set in this particular "edition" of the Olympics, especially in swimming. If this could be demonstrated as something miles beyond those other records, I might re-consider, but otherwise, this is what happens at the Olympics, and we have that on Ongoing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per RTM . -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * RTM? I do that all the time.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Damn my dyslexic keyboard. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but not this kind of athletics record every edition. Here is our page about the event. Here's another piece of coverage: I added an alt page and alt blurb. Suggested picture in nomination is not necessary — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 00:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding how long the oringal record stood would be a good way to establish context. It was added for the hurldle record.--67.68.161.51 (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support This was a phenomenonly fast run in an extremely fast race that had 4 of the fastest 5 10,000 metres times ever run. The previous record was set in 1993 by someone that it seems fairly certain was doping and was regarded as still an extremely fast time. This run easily beat that previous record. Distance running doesn't normally have chunks taken out of the world records every year, unlike some other olympic sports. Some more coverage.    JMiall  ₰  23:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support this record stood for almost 23 years so its not something that gets broken every other year or even every other Olympics. Also, a previous record World Record performance for hurdles was recently accepted mainly due to how long the original stood. Granted the 28 years gap in this instance is a biit longer than this one of close to 23 but I still think it is rare enough to warrant inclusion.--67.68.161.51 (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree that it was an extraordinary performance, but then so was Katie Ledecky's world record in the 800m and a number of other swimming records at the Olympics. I don't see any justification for singling this out. Neljack (talk) 08:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: We've posted significant individual records before during the Olympics (for a long time since last world record). That said, I would like to see Athletics_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics_–_Women%27s_10,000_metres expanded with some kind of prose explanation to why this is more significant. Otherwise it's hard for me to say at this time whether or not I support or oppose the nom.  Spencer T♦ C 09:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe this section essentially covers the significance. The records subsection seems generally to be reserved for tabular data (as far as I can tell). I've also updated the alt blurb slightly — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 16:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Covered by the Ongoing listing.  Katie Ledecky has smashed two world records in the pool as well; we can't post every one.  Maybe if this had happened outside the Olympics it would make posting, but it didn't. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support the blurb would need to specify that this is a 23-yr old record. The age of the record is the most interesting part. We usually post records this old, but I just saw that the 110 hurdle broken a few weeks ago was 28yr old. Nergaal (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong suport per nom. That's a big deal. - <font face="Century Gothic"> Eugεn S¡m¡on  15:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've just watched yet another world record fall in the Olympics, this time at the velodrome. Yesterday an American swimmer beat her own record by a country mile, smashed it.  We can't keep posting some of these (as I warned) because it's unfair to subjectively apply dubious criteria as to what make a world record more world-recordy than another world record.  Olympics is Ongoing, by the way.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't we have a rule that if a world record is one of the x% oldest in athletics or swimming then it's breaking gets posted? With x chosen such that it's not too common. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course we could have something like that. But getting some consensus on that may take longer than we all have left on this rotating disk.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like a consensus formed at the entery for Kendra Harrison breaking 100m hurdles due to how long the previous record stood. So far several of the.opposers here have forced only on how fast the new time was, using Kate Ledecky who broke her own record set this January as a counterpoint, overlooking the obvious fact that this broken record stood much longer than in the case of Ledecky.--67.68.161.51 (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you've perfectly exemplified the point that this is entirely subjective and covered by the Olympics ongoing item in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * More like simple math in this case.--67.68.161.51 (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So what, it's how long it's been since the record was broken only? Or the margin by which the record was broken?  Both?  A combination?  What if someone ran the 100 m in 9.3 s?  Would that count?  Or a 28-year record was beaten (say, in the 1,500 m) by 0.01 seconds?  Would that count?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look at the WR list in athletics you will notice that a pretty big chunk of the female ones are from the 80s (i.e. likely steroid-enhanced ones). I am pretty sure that any record from that era should be posted. But this one was from '92 therefore my weak support. Nergaal (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I would consider the rarely as being more important and personally would not care how small the gap was. Kendra Harrison did not smash the 100 metre hurdles record (it was 0.01 faster) but was still put on the main page mainly due to how long the old record stood with no one opposing on the grounds that she did not smash it.--67.68.161.51 (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - if the Olympics weren't ongoing right now, I would support this. But when the Olympics is ongoing, we expect world records to be broken. What makes this world record more notable than the others that are being broken? 23 years is a long time, but not that long. Banedon (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment the best "hard-and-fast" starting point I can think of is if the record is older than the person breaking it. Which was nearly but not quite the case here. Another justification would be a race so hot that multiple people broke it. Which was nearly but not quite the case here. Another would be breaking an arbitrary-but-widely-recognised glass ceiling (historical examples include 4 minute mile, 10 second 100m, 100 average in test cricket), which doesn't seem to apply here. Or breaking the record by an unprecidented increment, which isn't the case. I'm going to stay on the fence this time – but would oppose a future nomination which seemed less worthy than this one on the criteria I outline above. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] 2016 Delta Air Lines power outage
--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not really important, similar incidents have occurred at airports around the world which we have never posted. Peoples flights were delayed or canceled, nothing really that important or unique. Andise1 (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Per this article, "This should actually sound familiar, because it’s the third major computer malfunction of a U.S. airline in the past year." 


 * Strong Oppose - Not news, perhaps even a failure of WP:NEVENT. (Though the larger issue of how a small failure cripples an entire airline can probably be a topic of its own article if we don't have one already). --M ASEM (t) 16:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose should be a paragraph in the Delta Airlines article and nothing more. Certainly not of newsworthy interest to the English-speaking population of the globe.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * SNOW Oppose - Didn't something like this happen a few days ago? Maybe we can post this if a multi-billion class action lawsuit arises from this.--WaltCip (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] A-Rod retires from all forms of baseball

 * Oppose - No rationale given and we don't post sports (or any, bar heads of state) retirements. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 08:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * He is the Sachin Tendulkar of baseball (okay he was) and Sachin Tendulkar was posted. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - We do post them, but very infrequently. I'm trying hard not to dismiss this outright because A-Rod was an excellent player, but this seems pretty similar to the Kobe Bryant retirement a few months ago (spoiler alert: we didn't post it). No offense, but this comes off as a pretty lazy nomination. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Who did the what now?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In the States Alex Rodriguez is often called A-Rod. His last game is today. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose not significant enough news story. MurielMary (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But this was posted and MLB is the top level of baseball in the world with players from Japan, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Panama, Venezuela, Colombia, Taiwan, Korea, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Nicaragua, the US.. which is more than the number of Test playing cricket countries. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that MLB players come from a range of countries. Still doesn't make the retirement of one player a significant story. As noted below by an IP editor, test cricket is played in a larger proportion of the world than baseball, making the comparison with Tenkdulkar rather moot. You're comparing apples with oranges. MurielMary (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. His 'greatest player' status is tainted by his drug issues.  The article states that he is considered "one of the greatest", not "the greatest"; Tendulkar was considered 'the greatest'. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose (and corrected indentation) - Sports retirement postings are very rare (and I would argue none should be posted). The comparison to cricket is of course flawed, as the 'fewer' countries that play test cricket include India and Pakistan, they alone are 20% of the worlds population. A quick adding up shows the countries mentioned as playing baseball add up to about 11%. Not that it matters for this nom, but needed to correct the incorrect statement. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Greenland Shark

 * Support. Looks like a notable discovery. 27.115.113.102 (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely notable. This is a remarkable discovery. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not all that remarkable. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Good to have some science news by now. Brandmeistertalk  07:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I suggest adding the age estimate of that individual to the blurb, 392 ± 120 years.--Tone 07:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support and marking ready. I would have posted it if there were any comment on Tone's blurb suggestion - I weakly support it but am not overly fussed. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom, link to list not necessary IMO. Edmund Patrick – confer 12:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Giant sharks are popular topics and we should get a piece of the action (cue the Jaws theme). The article has lots of interesting aspects such as "corkscrew seal-ripping"... Andrew D. (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder what the Greenland sharks think of human, er ... development? ... in the last 400 years. Sca (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There are whales alive now who remember being hunted in the 1800s. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And there is used to be a tortoise remembering the last of his own species being alive. Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Dr. Bob wrote a song about a situation sort of like that. Sca (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support. Although not particularly important, it has the benefit of being true and concise, and it is nice to have a science item. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Hanif Mohammad

 * Oppose for now. Article quality has a long way to go.  Very little is referenced, there's no mention in the article text about the manner or circumstances of his death, it's got a weird organization problem (why are batting statistics listed under family members?!?)  Really needs some work before we invite others to read this article through a main page link.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Short article, minimal referencing - and the man's entire career is represented by a single graph. This needs a ton of work before it's front-page quality. Challenger l (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose in current state. Graph is insufficient to describe a career, although some of the prose earlier in the article is related to his career - needs re-organisation and improved citations. MurielMary (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Thomas Steinbeck

 * Comment - added the "Attention Needed" marker to the nomination. My justification for doing so is that it has received no input since I posted this 36 hours ago. Christian Roess (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Support when expanded per the nomination. What's there is good, but incomplete. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I agree. I hope your input will draw some attention so that another editor can jump in here and help with expanding the the article. Meanwhile, I'll jump in here again later, hopefully before the seven days run out on getting this posted. For now, I've got other non-Wikipedia commitments to take care of. Christian Roess (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't see any point in posting my opposition as the nominator states him/herself that the article is incomplete. MurielMary (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * True, point well-taken. So I removed the "Attention Needed" designation. And, as of now, I've gotten some input which is what I was looking for. And again, I appreciate the assistance from any editor reading this and is so inclined to jump in to help expand. FYI, I posted three links on the Thomas Steinbeck talk page, section "Needs expansion">here<. These 3 reference should be a useful starting point for those interested in helping. Christian Roess (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: John Saunders

 * Comment: John_Saunders_(journalist) could use some more fleshing out; a lot of unreferenced sections in the article.  Spencer T♦ C 16:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose in current state - too brief, particularly in key area of ESPN career. Also some uncited statements. MurielMary (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose effectively a part-cited stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A depressingly short article about someone that had a career spanning nearly 40 years - barely any citations and barely anything else. Challenger l (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. It does not currently meet the minimum standards to be linked on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster

 * Comment - it would be good to have this posted. At the moment we have on RD an Iranian-Kurdish nuclear scientist and a US politician. We could have an Egyptian Nobel laureate (see nomination here) if a kind passing admin could make a decision on that in the next hour or so (is it permitted to ask an admin to look at a nomination that might be ready?), and having an English Duke up there would be nice as well. There is also an Irish bishop. Do the articles need to be worked on to get them to the same standard, or does it depend on the standards of the people 'voting' in these nominations? Carcharoth (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC) Sorry, forgot the Indian minister. Carcharoth (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A proseline of his military career and a list of his children is not post-worthy. Material in the lede about his wealth is not represented in the body. Stephen 01:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose not the best written article I've ever seen, but more importantly several claims made there without references. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article has been sufficiently improved. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support While it could use a bit of polish the article appears to meet the basic criteria for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment most of the "Titles, styles, honours and arms" section is unreferenced still. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on lack of citations e.g. in the lead and other sections. MurielMary (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Kalikho Pul

 * Oppose - tidy up needed in: clarity of English e.g. the meaning of "Negi insisted the school's officials" isn't clear; organise facts into chronological order e.g. early life section is out of sequence (marriage in 1990s then health in 1980s). MurielMary (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Have copyedited that sentence. Please check; or better still hit the [edit] and help. Have also removed the marriage bit. He had three wives and dunno which marriage happened in 1996. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support now. MurielMary (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support looks reasonable. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - the article seems ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Thai Constitutional Referendum, 2016

 * Oppose marked as a stub, missing fundamental facts and contains pure speculation. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Sterile neutrino
Similar to the 750 GeV bump earlier this week, this null result is big for particle physics. It may well indicate the desert theory (Desert (particle physics) is true. Don't know which article is better to link to. Sterile neutrino is more directly relevant but it's also more technical. There's little hope to make it less technical as well: it's a difficult topic, not something even an undergraduate in physics can be expected to be familiar with. The Standard Model article is more accessible but still rather technical (although this time it's something a physics undergraduate should be expected to understand ... to some degree). IceCube Neutrino Observatory would link the instrument used, but not the theory. All articles need updating; should be done pretty soon though. Banedon (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support the latter blurb, as it's a relatively significant discovery, and this version is more comprehensive to the lay reader. 27.115.113.102 (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose all target articles lack references. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Similar to the 750 GeV bump, I don't see how this non-discovery is important enough to feature on ITN.  Dragons flight (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well a null result is still a result - think Michelson-Morley experiment. On a personal level I actually feel this result (and the lack of groundbreaking data from the LHC) is more interesting than the gravitational waves detection earlier this year, since GR is so well-established that gravitational waves not being detected would have been a much bigger story. Banedon (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Michelson-Morley is a classic result because it disproved something that most experts at the time thought to be true (i.e. luminiferous aether), and pointed towards an obvious problem with the then current theoretical understanding of light. By contrast, even before this result there was no consensus that sterile neutrinos must exist at all, and even if they do exist, there isn't a strong reason to assume their mass range is accessible to current experiments (GUT models often suggest sterile neutrino masses of 105 – 1012 GeV, far above the current result).  If sterile neutrinos exist, and if they have a relatively low mass, then they make more sense as a dark matter candidate, but they are far from the only dark matter candidate.  Altogether, this null result is interesting for particle physics, but it does little to challenge or improve our current understanding of the universe so it is not nearly as important as something like the Michelson-Morley experiment.  Dragons flight (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Although it narrows down the energy range for sterile neutrinos, it doesn't altogether disprove them. Fermilab's Short Baseline Neutrino project will search the rest of the plausible energy range. If nothing's found there, then it might be worth posting, but otherwise posting this would be like posting "Scientists fail to find the Higgs boson" when Tevatron didn't get anything. Smurrayinchester 15:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Edward Daly

 * Oppose in current state as many statements are not cited; also needs tidy up for paragraphing (so many one-line paragraphs make for difficult reading) and probably different sections/subsections would help with the organisation as well. MurielMary (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've done some work on it and I think it looks a lot better now but it could do with more. I've done the "death and legacy" section and everything up to his retirement as Bishop of Derry, but everything between the two is not much more than a collection of factoids. I don't have time for that right now and won't until tomorrow morning. Perhaps somebody else could tidy it up a bit? I've put a lot of the detailed obituaries and coverage of his death in the references section; there's enough there to write a passable article so you wouldn't have to do much research beyond reading those sources if someone was pressed for time. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose  a few unsourced statements and paragraphs... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been working on the article (not for ITN, but because I think he's an interesting man and the article needed work). As a happy side effect, I think it's now of a good enough quality that it can be posted. I'll continue working on it as I have the time, though any help would be appreciated—Catholic bishops aren't exactly my area of expertise. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  13:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support good work, just one [citation needed] to be resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted RD] RD or blurb: Shahram Amiri

 * Support Article is well-referenced with no banners or inline tags. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support and propose blurb. It seems that his execution is the news rather than simply his death. Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support good to go for RD, marked as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD well-referenced article. Would be good to have more information on his life before the spy saga, but not a barrier to posting. Oppose blurb on the recent precedent of Qandeel Baloch, victim of an "honour" killing in Pakistan, when ITN consensus was that RD was more appropriate than blurb even though the nature of her death was rather more newsworthy than her obit as a noteworthy person. MurielMary (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted RD so sue me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] 2016 Ethiopian protests

 * Comment The reports seem to vary how many (if any) are dead. Also, the "most violent protests" aspect of both blurbs seem to be synthesis. If we post this, we should leave it to the reasons why, and not try to express magnitude by this type of language. --M ASEM (t) 14:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait. There's potential for a clear-cut post here. The article needs a bit of work but that should happen naturally as details emerge. Of bigger concern is the blurb. I'm a bit hesitant to go with (the normally gold-standard) Reuters due to the way they seem to have arrived at that headline. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – Blurb definitely needs work to be more neutral. Should just be simple and state that people died/were arrested in protests in the country. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Stating the facts (number of people killed) and the reason why they were protesting is very neutral and NPOV. Just "state that peopled died"? Wikipedia states facts like the number of people killed all the time. Stories from Africa should be treated equally.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The third blurb added by is what I was looking for. The sensationalism of "shot and killed" and "most violent" was what needed to be avoided. Sorry for not conveying that properly. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Plus I noticed that the "most violent protest" is comparing to a Dec 2015 event, which is far too recent to be calling this out to make this much that more important. (I do not question the general importance of this, just the pleading-type of language to try to elevate it beyond what NPOV would require us). We can identify the cause of the protests because that is key context here. --M ASEM (t) 17:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support alt 2 as most neutral blurb. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 2 but suggest change to simple present tense: At least 90 people are killed.... Sca (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Why change the tense to definite past from pluperfect? The protests are ongoing.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That could change. Not a news ticker. Sca (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support alt 2 as per above.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support alt 2 article is brief but covers the essentials. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support alt 2 - Steam-cleaned wording.--WaltCip (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted okay, sick and tired of waiting for a trustworthy admin, you'll have to put up with me in this case. All complaints should be directed to ERRORS and Arbcom.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I do declare, TRM, being bold and ignoring the rules must clearly be a contravention of Wiki policy.--WaltCip (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll get the feathers. Isa (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support alt 2 - A very significant development for Ethiopia, and possibly the East Africa region as a whole. Kurtis (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Quetta bombing

 * Support pending details. AP says "at least 64" dead. Sca (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, article too short, lacks substance. Half of article is that worthless "Reactions" crap. Support only when these deficiencies are corrected. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree that more info should be added but not sure why reactions would be "crap" when we have quotefarms at Category:Reactions to terrorist attacks. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 16:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Quotefarms are considered a bad thing. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Where does any Wikipedia guideline or policy support that personal opinion? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – Notability is clear, and article is just long enough. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – High death toll, covered by many major news sources, article is okay Spiderone  17:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Approximately, a mobe of 200 (Mourners) targeted. Above 100 injured half of them are fatal. Nearly 100 (above 80) have lost their lives. Nannadeem (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: Significant, well sourced and enoughly expanded to be placed in In The News. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 23:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I am becoming increasingly reluctant to support the weekly (at least) terrorist attacks in places where such are extremely common, even with comparatively high death tolls. These kinds of mass casualty attacks in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq occur with a frequency rivaling mass shootings in the United States. I concede that some will need to be posted, but, the bar for my support is going to a bit higher than previously. Not sure exactly where that will be. But I think that this is probably on the low end of what I am likely to support in the future. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Pakistan is not Iraq nor Afghanistan where ISIS and American forces kill with impunity. -39.46.11.173 (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * History suggests that both the US and Al Qaeda do indeed kill with impunity in that country. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted Thue (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Blurb needs a full stop at the end of it. 70.50.214.180 (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Midget Farrelly

 * Comment Article can be improved by good editors with latest reliable sources. More news will come. --Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 05:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * News sources before his death. --Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now article is barely more than a stub. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> 07:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. There is just not enough there to justify promotion on the front page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose too brief. MurielMary (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Hurricane Earl

 * Support - per Cyclonebiskit's nominator comments. Banedon (talk) 05:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - natural disaster causing multiple deaths. &mdash; <span style="color:#666 !important;">TORTOISE  WRATH  05:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support high quality article, notable news event, but could or  fix that problem with ref 33?  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support notable event, good enough article. Please fix ref 33 though. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> 07:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posting. Someone please update the photo. --Tone 08:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] 2016 Macedonian floods

 * Support reasonable article, certainly newsworthy, tragic. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support the event is notable enough for ITN, and the article is probably just about long enough. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> 22:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support - agree with Joseph2302 above. Banedon (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – Deadly natural disaster in an area you don't see them terribly often. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support - article quality is slightly concerning, though there's no question of notability. &mdash; <span style="color:#666 !important;">TORTOISE  WRATH  05:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 08:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] 3,000th hit

 * Oppose – Baseball trivia; notable, but not ITN-worthy. According to the MLB list, there are 29 other players that have achieved this feat, most recently Alex Rodriguez just last year. That milestone was not even nominated for ITN ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No blurb to assess, trivial statistic, would go against precedent since we did not post other sports statistics such as the Golden State Warriors beating the record for the most wins in a season, and not that spectacular since the whole point of baseball is to hit the ball. Andise1 (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - gotta agree with Cyclonebiskit. Also people who don't play baseball are unlikely to know what an "MLB hit" is, and why it matters. Banedon (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose trivia. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose What even is a baseball hit? Not a significant, worldwide achievement. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> 07:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Helen Delich Bentley
Thanks :-) MurielMary (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per Nominator's comment: it is well-referenced. A concise article that keeps to an encyclopedic tone and style, while also managing to connect to the reader on other levels, too, in my opinion. Well-done and ready to post. Christian Roess (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with Christian Roess, this is one of the best articles I've seen nominated here in some time. Kudos to MurielMary who seems to have put a lot of work into the article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support and marked as ready, had a quick look earlier and it's in very good condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] 2016 Kokrajhar shooting

 * Support Significant attack, but like with all breaking news, I recommend waiting a few hours to get the details to stabilize out before posting. --M ASEM (t) 21:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait to see how much news coverage there is- currently looks like there may be enough. Also, the article is currently only a stub. <b style="color:#FFFF00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> 22:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable, article to be developed a bit more Sherenk1 (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – but agree re wait, details. Sca (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub quality at best, not seeing this "in the news" any longer. Quickly forgotten.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Two days Page-view statistics of the page (less than 3000) do not ask us to nominate it for ITN. Personally I noticed the dual standard of human nature. Nannadeem (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] The 750 GeV bump has evaporated

 * Comment. Is this about the "God particle"? Or does it have a different significance? 114.111.166.7 (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Different significance. --M ASEM (t) 20:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. So, some months ago scientists reported hints of a possible discovery that might have reshaped particle physics and guaranteed the discoverers a Nobel prize.  After gathering more data, they found that their potential earth-shattering discovery was simply not real.  A statistical fluke.  Look at enough data and even a 1 in 1000 fluctuation will occur sometimes.  Science is doing what science should do (except maybe they made too much of the early hints of a signal).  However, I don't see how any of this raises to the level of ITN.  The lack of a new particle just doesn't have the necessary notoriety.  Even if, as the submitter suggests, hundreds of speculative papers were written about the now debunked signal, I just don't see how this non-discovery has the necessary significance.  Dragons flight (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Interesting, but not newsworthy; if it was negating the findings that "proves" Higgs Boson, that might be something, but as best as I can tell, they let know they found something interesting at 750 GeV earlier, but didn't claim anything until they had time to properly analyze the data, and now with it analyzed, have found nothing they can state accurately. --M ASEM (t) 20:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose utterly inaccessible to 99.9% of our readers. If there was some context and some regular English, it might be worth consideration.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. I tagged 750 GeV diphoton excess with technical, because it is not accessible at all. I could reconsider if the article became comprehensible to the layman. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Even the blurb is not strictly accurate. From the start, it was always known & reported that it could be the hint of something new or it could be just a statistical fluke. More data analysed and confirmed was always needed before it came close to the required statistical significance. Now that they have the data, they drew the conclusion that there's nothing there. Lots of articles theorising what it could be if it had turned out to be real? Sure, but that's what theorists do, theorising, either theory first & then confirmation or unexpected result & then theory as to why. There needs to be both for there to be anything significant. -- KTC (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose As a mathematician, I find this interesting, but I guess most Wikipedia readers wouldn't. Also, limited coverage in newspapers, and 750 GeV diphoton excess is too technical, and needs more sources in places. <b style="color:#FFFF00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> 22:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] First reprogrammable quantum computer built

 * Tentative support as a nice milestone in quantum computing, but the quantum computing article might not be a good one to link to, given that most of it deals with the theory of quantum computers and nothing of that is changing with this programmable quantum computer. Timeline of quantum computing might be a better target, although that article will have to be updated (there is also an orange tag in that article). Banedon (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] 2016 Nevada wildfire
--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose pre-stub quality, seemingly nothing special about these fires, not newsworthy for Wikipedia. Borderline deletion candidate right now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Don't see anything that sets this apart from annual wildfires. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose One-sentence article and no particular outstanding cause for notability. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Partly because it's hard to stay on top of details, partly because, AFAIK, no casualties (yet). One here in Idaho has burned 50,000 acres (78 sq. mi.; 200 sq. km.) and is being fought by 1,500 firefighters. Sca (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I note we did post the wildfires in Washington State last year, but that was in part due to being the largest wildfire in the state. This seems to be about average for these areas on a seasonal basis, and lacking any major casualties, seems not really significant. --M ASEM (t) 21:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as I understand it (from my son who's with the USFS), the one in Idaho is sorta medium-sized. And as I recall, the fires in Wash. & Ore. last year prompted widespread evacuations. Sca (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose posting the mere existence of wildfires, without something to hang our hat on like large numbers of casualties, very large evacuations, etc. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose It's just the wildfire season, there are no major casualties and the article is in very poor shape.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Blurb and Ongoing: 2016 Summer Olympics

 * support - and post soon. The games has already started technically because of the football games.BabbaQ (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * support - Notable. Sherenk1 (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Subject is an obvious one for ITN. The article looks pretty solid with no major issues that I could see. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * comment – Would suggest including 2016 Summer Olympics opening ceremony in the blurb if the article is brought up to par. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, if we're blurbing it then the opening ceremony is actually the target article per ITNR, so the proposed blurb is incorrect. I'll add a correct alt, and advise supporters that they need to check the opening ceremony article rather than the main Olympics articles.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose actual target article (per ITNR) has a maintenance tag right across the top, please focus on that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That tag appears gone, but I still note that we should wait to post on the opening ceremony until its actually completed and a reasonably fair update (main recap highlights) are in place. --M ASEM (t) 18:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I took it down. After reviewing the article I concluded that whatever the situation was back in May when it was attached, the article is now decently sourced. If someone disagrees we can discuss it on the talk page of the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. I agree that we should not post this until after the opening ceremony is finished. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support If/when the article passes the mandatory drug test.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support and hopefully nobody gets Zika. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb and wait until tomorrow. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support ... in principle, but article needs work: Encyclopedic style, verb tenses (not a news story), grammar and of course ongoing details. Sca (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb per ITNR. 27.115.113.102 (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb but wait until the opening ceremony has finished and the target article has been updated with details of the ceremony. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Large numbers of people are already reading these articles - many times more than are reading stuff like 2016 Kashmir unrest. Putting an entry on the main page is just a formality. Andrew D. (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support posting the sticky now and the blurb once the opening ceremony begins. Kim Woo-jin has already broken a world record in the qualifying in archery, which is well mentioned in the summary.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support and I suggest that it can go live now given that the opening ceremony is underway.  Schwede 66  23:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Question Wikipedia -> WMF -> San Francisco, so are we waiting until the opening ceremony finished broadcasting by NBC in the US west coast? -- KTC (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. When its over at their local time, that's good to post, following the proper update to the opening ceremony article. WP:SPOILER policy applies here. --M ASEM (t) 23:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. The consensus was clearly to post once the opening ceremony was underway, it's underway now so posted the blurb and to ongoing. Thryduulf (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * move ongoing to the chronology page as that is more regularly updated. I did most of the updates in '12 and more so in '14.Lihaas (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. There's no point in linking the top-level page twice. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Chris Amon
*Strong oppose I understand that drivers who have never won an F1 championship might be somehow significant but "one of the best F1 drivers never to win a championship Grand Prix" is unquestionably far from any notability in the field.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to large number of unreferenced paragraphs. Mjroots (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Several sub-sections under Career are unsourced, as is the racing results tables further down. Could do with some work - F1 fans floating around ITN might be able to help. Fuebaey (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that would be a problem if we were still using notability as a criteria for RD. However, per the new RFC, RDs for people with articles are automatically judged to have fulfilled the notability criterion. We must therefore judge only on verifiability and proper referencing in the article.--WaltCip (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But it looks like you participated in said RFC, which leads me to believe you are blatantly ignoring its outcome.--WaltCip (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I participated with few comments while we were using the trial but the discussion was extremely extensive and I had to give up before making any decision. Anyway, I'm still puzzled why that change is not documented in the manual on the top of this page, thus giving me the impression that nothing has actually changed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * where are you referring to? There is a box at the top of the page noting the changed criteria, and a note attached to every RD nomination template that explains the new criteria. The manual at the top just notes what RD is and that some deaths get a blurb if there is consensus for that - it doesn't say anything about who qualifies and never has. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that the discussion has ended couple of weeks ago, which is over a month later after my last comment on the trial (I didn't even participate in the discussion on the changes that you've proposed). Fair enough, I'll take into consideration the changes from now on.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's been a while since my participation in that discussion and I wasn't even aware that it ended in such changes. Trust me, it's not ignorance, just lack of information.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Was about to nominate him myself. Andrew D. (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose due to lack of references. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose clearly not ready for the main page, multiple unreferenced claims. For the avoidance of doubt, in particular to supporters of this current state of the article, this is still subject to BLP.  Unverefiable claims need resolution. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I counted about thirty paragraphs that lack a single reference. Stephen 04:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Far too much unsourced content/original research. The sourced content is borderline long enough, but in my opinion not enough. <b style="color:#FFFF00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> 22:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Withdraw/close happy to close this nom as there hasn't been enough improvement to the citations to warrant publication on the main page. MurielMary (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Emirates Flight 521

 * oppose unless there is something earth shattering in the prelim investigation. Plus after flu Dubai all indication were emirates had a accident waiting to happen.Lihaas (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support we posted Asiana Airlines Flight 214 which was a hull loss with almost zero fatalities. It was in the United States, I suppose.  That no-one was killed in this crash appears, on the face of it, to be somewhat miraculous.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as a very significant aviation incident that likely could have been fatal if things had been slightly different. Emirates is a major airline with a good safety record and Dubai airport is hardly some third world dirt strip aerodrome. The article is fully cited at the this point, although one ref is tagged as a potentially unreliable source, this is just backing up an early witness statement so isn't crucial imo. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - blurb could be slightly more dramatic, to emphasise that the plane caught fire. A major accident, and the 100% survival rate increases the newsworthiness if anything. Smurrayinchester 12:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Blurb amended to include "and catches fire". Mjroots (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per Thryduulf and Smurrayinchester. This isn't something that happens often. Banedon (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Lihaas. I hate to be Mr. Macabre, but normally we only tend to post catastrophic accidents if there are high number of fatalities. Planes crash all the time.--WaltCip (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As I say, we posted Asiana Airlines Flight 214 with three fatalities, one of which was caused by an emergency vehicle on the ground. And planes with 300 people don't crash with complete hull loss without a single fatality very often at all, if ever.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * British Airways Flight 38 would have been similar, I suppose (also a 777 but with fewer passengers), no idea if we posted that or if ITN even existed in the same form then. Black Kite (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We did. Smurrayinchester 14:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, Support. Black Kite (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Despite the lack of casualties, the news is treating this as a major disaster, and reports suggest that it was moments from being a fatal one if they didn't evacuate the plane fast enough. (There's one questionable source tag in the article, but give this a few hours for reports to stablize out) --M ASEM (t) 14:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Major news event. Airport is almost shutdown. Worthy of posting. -The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 14:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Marked ready as there looks (to my non-neutral eye) to be a consensus in favour of posting this. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Would had posted it just now, but notice there's a couple of cn. So if someone wants to fix that. -- KTC (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've hidden the unreferenced stuff. Mjroots (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, only receiving news media attention because its a slow news day. Consensus is not vote counting, so removing ready. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Remarking as "ready", for even though I opposed this item, even I can see when a consensus has developed.--WaltCip (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'm not 100% convinced there's enough meat on the bones of this article to warrant posting it quite yet, but several people much more content-competent than I am seem to think there is, so who am I to argue quality/quantity with them? And none of the opposes seem to think the article is substandard, so I think I'm just misguided. As for newsworthiness, there's a clear consensus above to post. And the cn issues mentioned by KTC have been resolved by Mjroots.  So, posting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I didn't include the image because I'm not quite sure how to caption a picture of the aircraft taken in 2009. "Emirates aircraft in 2009"? (Seems unclear.)  "Emirates Flight 521"? (seems wrong, in that case people would expect a picture of crash) The image is already protected on commons, so as soon as someone smart can think of a caption that is accurate and not 3 lines long, it's well past time the Solar Impulse II image gets swapped out (and, in fact, the Solar Impulse II blurb is stale and should be removed from ITN as soon as there's a new image). --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and included the image, with a caption based on how we handled EgyptAir Flight 804. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - per heavy news media attention, article is decent enough.BabbaQ (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Post Posting Oppose This is a slow news day one (or maybe two) day wonder. It has already disappeared from the front page of many of the news venues I look at. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It was front and centre on every news report here in Toronto at 18:00 EST tonight, despite no Canadians being onboard. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  00:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * PP support, clearly a major incident. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

RD: Ahmed Zewail

 * Oppose until the referencing is sorted out. The article appears reasonably comprehensive. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support article has been improved. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support Barring the Research section, almost everything else is sourced. Article is long enough and just about good enough. <b style="color:#FFFF00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> 22:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not posted yet? The refs look okish but none of the controversial material is unreferenced. This Nobel Prize Laureate might not even get on ITN at this rate. Nergaal (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Then you should put your money where your mouth is and fix the issues highlighted by the orange maintenance tag since you seem to care about this nomination enough to complain about its lack of support and miss its weak quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd love to post this, but the "Research" section is still mostly unsourced, and worse is written in really poor English. Black Kite (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact I'm going to close this for the reason given. Please feel free to re-open it if the copyvio issues are solved. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC) (archive comment: "Much of the article is copied/close paraphrased from one or more sources. See talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)")
 * Comment - re-opening this nomination, have done some work on the article, hopefully it can go up now. Carcharoth (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Noting here that I've re-opened the Zewail nomniation below: see In_the_news/Candidates. Posting up here to hopefully get some action on this. He died on 2 August, and funeral (which I've noted in the article) was on Monday (8 August) Sunday (7 August). Carcharoth (talk) 08:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC) Fixed funeral date error. Carcharoth (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as to why we need two nominations for this? Why does this nomination get another six days?  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've moved this down here; it doesn't need more time than other noms. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for moving it. I am worried that the nomination will be automatically archived at midnight UTC tonight, as was done for 1 August here. That means the re-opened nomination gets 15 hours of discussion time. It doesn't help that the two people who have already looked at it (you and The Rambling Man) have not commented, though you found the time to move the nomination around and question the timing. Is there a reason you didn't both comment to support or oppose the re-opened nomination? I worked on the article in part because TRM said above "you should put your money where your mouth is and fix the issues highlighted by the orange maintenance tag since you seem to care about this nomination". I'm not the person he was responding to, but I care enough about this nomination to have worked on the article. I am disappointed (and that is putting it mildly) that he and you would do the same thing he was being critical of others for - i.e. make a drive-by comment without taking the time to comment or work on the actual nomination (for the first time in your case) or say whether the work done has changed your views (in the case of TRM). I worked on the article for several hours this morning, and made these changes. So will it be possible to come to a decision before the bot archives this nomination? Carcharoth (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * To be honest I have not yet reviewed the nomination to give an opinion; I only noticed the double posting. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I would hardly consider my comment to be "drive by". I have no interest in this article at all, so I don't want to work on it. But I am still capable of determining whether or not it is in a suitable condition for the main page. I've re-assessed the article. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose some irrelevant statements e.g mention of other Egyptians who have received Nobel Prizes, and the Research section seems skimpy (sparse) considering this is what he was notable for. Also lead paragraph has no references, and last sentence of "Political" section is not about politics. MurielMary (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I could work some more on it tonight if there was more time available - I ran out of time this morning. I have now had time to look at how much the news of the funeral has been reported in the news, and it is being widely reported: International Media picks up on Ahmed Zewail funeral. The obituary in the Telegraph only came out yesterday. Also The National (Abu Dhabi) and Africa News. Would that justify extending the nomination to allow more time to work on the article? Carcharoth (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nominations for the RD section are dated according to the date of the death (or occasionally the date of the death being reported in the media - which in this case is the same as the date of death, 2 August) and, as you have already noted, are archived 7 days after that date. This is because the section is for "recent" deaths and anything older than a week is not considered "recent". Nominations aren't extended past the 7-day limit. MurielMary (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that. But as I say, it is disappointing if such rules are rigidly adhered to. Maybe I should suggest a full blurb on the basis that the military funeral is being widely reported? Daily Sabah, Daily News Egypt, Aswat Masriya. I expect the coverage in Arabic sources is even more widespread. It was reported in China and in South America. The funeral was broadcast on Egyptian state television. Carcharoth (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The current oldest blurb is August 5, this is older than that. To be fair, six days have elapsed since this was initially nominated.  My comment was made half an hour after nomination, then it languished for some time.  We can't bend rules just because there's no interest in updating a particular article until it's stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The funeral took place on 7 August, and the news coverage ramped up again at that point. I know I came late to the party, but can you see how the attitude here is diminishing my motivation to work on the article? When someone shows an interest in working on a nomination, surely the attitude should be to encourage them? You can't on the one hand complain that people don't show an interest, and then when they do show an interest, start insisting on following rules. Well, you can, but do you see the impression that gives? Carcharoth (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what part of "support" you don't understand. I can't do anything more.  I would be surprised if the community would agree to a blurb, but you could try starting a new blurb nomination relating to the funeral if you really think it'd float. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your support. I was responding more to the idea that staleness of an item is an unbending rule that can't be mitigated in anyway by interest shown, or work done on an article, or even the accomplishments of the article subject. The other thing that irks me about this is the feeling that the article is being held to arbitrarily high standards. I noticed a throwaway comment above about Helen Delich Bentley (the entry currently in RD, though RD of course can have more than one entry) being "one of the best articles I've seen nominated here in some time". I shouldn't really draw comparisons (because MurielMary has commented on this nomination and quite rightly pointed out some things that still need doing), but it feels very similar. She improved the article from this to this over about an hour and half, nominated it, and it was supported and posted within 14 hours. I did something similar (three hours to go from this to this) with an article about someone who a lot more could be written about, and for which there is a lot more to be said. I did my best (tidying references, adding references, replacing references, removing uncited material, dealing with the close paraphrasing concern, adding more material, and updating to include the funeral). It was a lot of work, and I went through the article carefully, but not carefully enough it seems. Following the weak oppose, I offered to work on it some more, and was met with a "rules are the rules" response. Taking on the thankless task of doing something with a nearly-stale nomination was probably a mistake. I was quite hopeful that I had done what was needed to turn this around and get a Nobel laureate (however briefly) on the ITN RD area, but it seems not. Maybe I should just wait and see what the next eight hours or so brings. I realise I am going a bit over the top here - apologies for that! Carcharoth (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've given you my support, I've given you some advice, at the end of the day we have to question why this was given no attention for six days. It is in no way a special case, and there's no such thing as "the rules are the rules" response, just advice that we can't summarily move candidates forward six days just because you've managed to get the time to update the article to the standard required of the main page.  Your efforts are to be applauded (I think I said something like "good work"): working on a RD that's just about to drop off due to the seven-day limit will benefit Wikipedia immeasurably, but may not result in any main page exposure.  So at least the readers will benefit, regardless of any of these odd main page processes.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've calmed down a bit, but clearly there are problems with WP:ITN when someone can work on a nomination, when I've addressed the concerns of the one oppose (though time zones might make it difficult for a response in time there), there is support, and yet it is just going to be mostly ignored by others coming to the page (who are more interested in other parts of the page, which is understandable) and this nomination will just age off the page. I presumed that once it was on RD, that it would stay until bumped off, or have I misunderstood that? Is the RD bit of ITN cleared regularly even if no new items are arriving? If that is so, then yes, this nomination has now become pointless, though having now looked it up, I see: "In general, RDs should remain up for no more than 7 days after the death, except where there was a substantial delay in posting the item.". So maybe it might have stayed up for a few more days if it had got posted. Shall I check back at 00:00 UTC and see if anyone has made a decision on this before the bot arrives with the guillotine? Carcharoth (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Update - have made these changes that I believe address all of MurielMary's concerns (the quotation in the lead is cited, everything else is cited in the body of the article). Pinging User:MurielMary to see if that addresses her oppose? Carcharoth (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] 2016 Assam floods

 * Comment Perhaps this might be better ongoing since the event is still occurring. If it is posted to ITN as a blurb, focusing on the wildlife over the human fatalities seems very odd. --M ASEM (t) 04:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Alt blurb suggested to include human fatalities. Please ce blurbs if required; I think it's awkwardly phrased. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - Notable plus article looks good. - Sherenk1 (talk) 05:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Surely notable. -The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 14:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong support Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Wind power in Massachusetts

 * Oppose for a number of reasons: this is only a bill to require, and it's very very very easy for future legislation to build in delays; the bill only affects the state, and not a national thing (scope too limited), and while 1,600 MW is an impressive number, given that the largest wind farm in CA is about 1,500MW after expansion, this is not a major record-breaking system, and more likely will be built across several different farms. --M ASEM (t) 18:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We're proposing posting a blurb of a special interests organization saying "Good show, old chum" to a regional parliamentary body?--WaltCip (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The blurb is 'national wind energy organisation supports sub-national legislation to increase wind energy in 10 years', based on a press release by said organisation? I would like to request some mainstream news sources and a less backslapping altblurb before forming an opinion. Fuebaey (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Local news story. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nomination. Given the essentially regional nature of the story, this just doesn't rise to ITN level news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose No links to news source presented. The only source is not news, but the organization's own website.  No evidence this is In The News.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , Brian Everlasting (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, anything from a non-biased source?--WaltCip (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose if it was less parochial, and less insubstantial and less crystal ball then it might be worth a shot at DYK. 2027?  Massachusetts?  Really not worth main page of English-language Wikipedia in any form.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Queen Anne of Romania

 * Oppose most of "Early life" and all of "Family" section unreferenced. Haven't checked much of the rest.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose there are also plenty of tense errors, particularly in the later part of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Some tidy up done, but I'm guessing that the uncited details in the article come from the hard copy book listed in the bibliography. I can't find that information online. Borderline support from me for the lack of clear citations. MurielMary (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment "Queen Anne of Romania" may be a common English name but the Romanian monarchy had already been abolished when she married the former king in Greece. They couldn't even enter Romania for 44 years. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a "move" debate underway as to whether to move/rename the article to her title as Princess. MurielMary (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak support I would like to see improvement in citations (especially since the "Marriage" section seems to be pulled from one source), but I feel they are just enough to allow for ITN status. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed, removed from Ongoing] Yerevan (move from Ongoing to blurb)

 * Oppose damp squib. Wasn't really suitable for ongoing (nothing was actually happening) and certainly unsuitable for a blurb.   Obviously support removal from Ongoing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Blank from the ITN template per TRM. This news story went nowhere the long way.--128.227.142.245 (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment updated #Crisis ends section beyond minimum requirement.Lihaas (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support move to blurb, a significant-enough event especially in terms of injuries and arrests. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I really don't think so. A handful of arrests after a siege ends with the hostage-takers giving up?  It's had its main page time, there's nothing to see.  The Rambling Man (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support move to blurb - was going to nominate it myself. The item has captured national news for weeks. It's hard to see this as less significant than the 2016 Lockhart hot air balloon crash, given the lasting impact resulting from this. Banedon (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what the "lasting impact" of this event is please? The article certainly doesn't cover it at all.  As for the hot air balloon crash, that will certainly have a lasting impact with the investigation ongoing as to why the fire started in the basket, changes in flight regimes, etc.  The Rambling Man (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment as the siege is over, I have at least removed it from Ongoing. Discussions as to whether this should be a blurb should continue, unaffected by that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)