Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/August 2018

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

(Closed) RD: Amanda Kyle Williams

 * Support - A short article, but the sourcing looks good to me. Kurtis (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carole Shelley

 * Support Looks fine to me. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Good to go. BabbaQ (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD:Susan Brown (American actress)

 * Support Looks OK to me. There's one sentence in the Career section unsourced, though that's not a show-stopper. Black Kite (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support what Black Kite said. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted blurb) RD: Alexander Zakharchenko

 * Support RD & support blurb - No immediately obvious issues with the article. It's very notable that the president of a major proto-state was assassinated. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 18:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The assassination seems to be the main story here, and he was the sitting president of a self-proclaimed state. EternalNomad (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not against an ITN news blurb either because he was the most powerful figure leading the anti-Ukraine side of the Crisis in Ukraine and War in Donbass (other than Putin of course). I don't know if ITN treats states with limited recognition differently (which Donetsk is technically not listed as because we can't find its declaration of independence), but for the top ranking official of the insurgency to be assassinated is not insignificant. I've edited my comment to note that I'd support one if one was proposed. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 18:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb not because of his importance but as an event (fingers are already being pointed to Russia). I think many already are calling this an assassination, and that's clearly news. To that end, I don't know if we have enough to support a separate article on the assignation as there's certainly going to be an investigation of this.  --M asem  (t) 19:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Very important person in the Ukrainian crisis. --Bruzaholm (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – I'm inclined to say RD only due to Zakharchenko's limited notability in the Eng.-lang. world, but since it's an assassination I won't oppose a blurb if one garners a consensus. (AP, BBC, Reuters, dpa added as sources above.) Sca (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment on proposal The proposed blurb is sufficient. In response to "should the DPR's support from Russia be noted?" I don't feel that this would be necessary as the users can read about that in the linked article; as someone who has frequented articles on entities with limited recognition, it seems excessive to describe in detail the belligerents of a territorial dispute if the subject isn't the territory or its dispute (for example, not every Abkhazia article needs to mention how it's recognized by some countries but not most of the UN and was supported by Russia in the war unless the article is about the history of the dispute). In this case, the news story is about how an explosion killed the president of a self-proclaimed republic. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 21:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per above. Very notable death (possible assassination, and head-of-state of an un-recognized state). Davey2116 (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * support not because of the main nature of an unrecognized state but because of the potential for an uptick in war where its been somewhat frozen lately. Also don't need self-proclaimed as that should be on the DPR link.Lihaas (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. Notable event in Eastern European history. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Zakharchenko is easily one of the most recognizable names from the Ukrainian crisis since 2014. Nice4What (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Death of a sitting head of state, the negative of "self-proclaimed" is countered by "likely assassinated". Kingsif (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not ready while the "early life" section is missing refs --LaserLegs (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Updated source for birth date, remove the market salesman info as cannot find any source. Kingsif (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ready The problems identified in the edits by LaserLegs have been fixed. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 22:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose there I go again, "obstructing" the speedy post of a sub par article about a "very important" subject by actually checking the refs in the article. I don't have time to check the whole thing, first paragraph in "political career" was sub-par enough for me. As for "importance" I'm seeing today Syria, Yemen, a stabbing in Amsterdam, but I don't see the assassination of the self-appointed leader of an unrecognized state. I'm clearly outnumbered there, but please, check the refs and don't post a puff piece. Thanks! --LaserLegs (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Concerns regarding quality can be addressed (and it appears that they already have been addressed), but I wouldn't agree with the rationale for lack of importance. I found no shortage of mainstream international coverage about this death. Zakharchenko was not self-appointed, and if you're finding no coverage then I'm not sure what sources you're using because we already have quite a few in the sources section of this nomination. I also don't see how it's a "puff piece." With all due respect, the way you worded that leads me to believe that the War in Donbass isn't an event that you personally follow, but that doesn't make it any less important internationally. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 22:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I picked one paragraph and poked it full of holes, dunno or care about the rest, don't really care that much about the subject, just trying to keep BLP vios off the main page (WTF does an arrested "freelance journalist" have to do with human rights abuses in general or specifically with Zakharchenko?). $0.02 anyway this'll be posted in no time. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable, though my !vote remains support. ITN nominations tend to shine a spotlight on problems that not many would notice had they not been in the news, so it would be beneficial for editors to see what they can do to improve it whether it gets posted or not, but I don't see any major concerns as I go through the article, only minor tweaks that anyone could quickly fix. (by the way, I've removed the part about the freelance journalist, you're right that it didn't relate to Zakharchenko) Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ReadyI've now done some more fixing on the page, for style and grammar. The sources seem reasonable enough, especially for a small barely-recognised Eastern European state. Kingsif (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted blurb. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ray (wrestler)

 * That's a feature, not a bug. 159.53.174.142 (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * While true, we have had relatively recent problems discovering that various editors that are regularly involved in writing about wrestling and/or MMA tend to go into far too much detail (and I would argue this one does as well, and appearing to rely a lot on primary sources for that purpose). Couple that with 90% of the sources being Japanese (which is not a problem for sources, but is for translation accuracy concerns). For example, the source reporting the death doesn't seem to be a usual RS for us but it is in Japanese so I can't be sure about that. Lots of questions here on "quality" that is different from the normal sourcing issues for RDs we have. --M asem (t) 17:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - let's not lament what we have (like this article) and not what we don't have.  MPJ  -DK 01:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - As much as I agree with the nominator that it would be great if more articles were substantive like this one, this is the one being nominated, and it's very detailed. The hundreds of citations prove that she's easily notable enough. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 08:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Good quality article.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. Not sure why this isn't at the very least a WP:GA. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And nearly 24 hours later, there's no good reason this hasn't been posted, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gary Friedrich

 * There seems to be indecision on if Grand Comics Database is RS. I'm just spitballing here, but maybe we'd be okay with a some citations there, but not the quantity that's in this article. ghost 11:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - considering that it's sourcing totally uncontrovertial facts I don't think that it's a problem since there are plenty of other sources out there too, it's 2 out 37.  MPJ  -DK 01:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And nearly 24 hours later there's no actual reason why this also shouldn't be posted right? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Costa-Gavras

 * - apparently his death is fake news?  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, thanks. I hope I can be forgiven for not spotting it as fake news, since it was an Associated Press report which spread the news? But obviously this RD can be closed! Fram (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Paul Taylor

 * Oppose BLP sources maintenance tag needs to be addressed. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - click, sees warranted tag at the top, opposes.  MPJ  -DK 01:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marie Severin

 * Oppose. Lack of sourcing for Bibliography and a couple of citations needed tags. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the bibliography, all the comics work is assigned to specific numbered issues. The inherent citation here is to those issues, which will have credits. --LukeSurlt c 08:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. This book contains a complete bibliography. --LukeSurlt c 09:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Tags are dealt with. Looks good to post. --LukeSurlt c 09:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - bibliography is sourced to the biography of Severin, which lists all her writing etc credits. MurielMary (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron 32 11:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Stan Brock (philanthropist)

 * Needs some work with sourcing. --Tone 15:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Opposed - several unsourced sections.  MPJ  -DK 01:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Paul Spudis

 * Oppose poorly referenced for a BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Opposed - poor reference and a link to an external site in lieu of a full bibliography  MPJ  -DK 01:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) Ongoing: 2018 Asian Games

 * Question what is being updated here which benefits our readers? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The medal table, for starters? —Angga1061 19:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angga1061 (talk • contribs)
 * Ok, the completely unreferenced table of numbers? Not what I'd consider a substantive enough update for an Ongoing item at all, so I oppose.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support if the medals table is sourced. I personally wouldn't have supported posting this to ITN either based on the same grounds, but overall it's not too far from being ready for ongoing. Notability is of course not a problem, as it's in the interest of 45 participating nations, but the article just needs a few more citations for verification. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, just tweaking the medal table is not something for ongoing. Nonsense.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not only is it not nonsense, it's quite common here. We've posted ongoing multi-nation sporting events several times in the last year FIFA 18 last month and Winter Olympics 18 (which was just updating a medal table; Asian games is ran by olympic committees). If I were to oppose an all-Asia event because I'm not hearing about it over in the Anglosphere I'd be acting based on my blindspots. I'm not saying or even implying "american bias!!!!" (I criticize those comments on a regular basis), but it would be inaccurate to say that tweaking the medal table isn't something we post to ongoing, as we do that routinely. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 21:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's nonsense. Substantial updates are required.  Just tweaking a number here or there isn't substantial. (Your link to the Winter Olympics wasn't a link to a table being tweaked, more a chronological summary of the games in toto.  This is not that.)  Sorry about that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair point regarding the Olympics, but what of FIFA? If I'm not mistaken, the most substantial updates there were simply the advancement of teams game after game. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 21:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I think each game summary was updated, along with a link to each game's RS. It was certainly more than just tweaking a medal table.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * On that point alone I respectfully disagree because the most content for each game was simply listing the score and the date with a source, which is essentially just a table in a different format, but your overall point is fair. It is not too much to ask to have substantial updates, I just wouldn't say FIFA's was any more substantial than this. However, Black Kite is right in his comment below: the games are over in a few days, so we need not discuss any further. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 22:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The updates were more substantial than just tweaking numbers in an unreferenced table. That is all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * More to the point, there are only three days of competition left, so it hardly seems worth adding it now. Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That is true. Even if the article is sourced better, it won't be ongoing for much longer. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 22:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would contend that the World Cup and the Olympics are the only two sporting events that should appear in the Ongoing section. Lepricavark (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We would normally post Chronological summary of the 2018 Asian Games, but it doesn't exist. Stephen 23:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose only because the article is not receiving sufficient, quality updates. If the article was being improved daily with properly referenced, well written prose then I wouldn't have any problem with keeping this ongoing, but the quality does not provide value to readers as it has been maintained so far.  -- Jayron 32 10:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I withdraw this nomination. Black Kite is right; there are only a few days left before the Games close on Sunday, so it's ridiculous to nominate it as for Ongoing just now. —Angga1061 15:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC); edited 16:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Tatyana Kuznetsova

 * Support. Short, but otherwise in good shape. Vanamonde (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the woman is barely dead yet a fair use image is included here? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Image has been removed. Does that change TRM's opinion to support? MurielMary (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support since she never actually flew as a cosmonaut, her bio is a little weak, but what's there is ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David J. Sugarbaker

 * Support looks fine to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 11:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Hurricane Maria death toll
– HonorTheKing (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the hurricane (and deaths) happened last year, this is just political bullshit. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Updated death toll is the result of an 8-month long study by George Washington University. The primary goal was to properly assess the scale of fatalities and to assist in mitigating future disasters. The study harshly criticizes the government for numerous failures with preparation and recovery. Acknowledgement of the substantially higher death toll is validation for the suffering Puerto Ricans have been through. Deaths are also still believed to be occurring due to lingering effects of the hurricane; the university will be conducting a follow-up study to cover the months beyond February 2018. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The original number was obviously too low because of political bullshit, this one is probably too high, and if the study is going to continue to evaluate deaths caused by the hurricane more than 6 months after it happened this is a "provisional" result anyhow. Less in-the-news than John McCain's death, California's changes on bail, the Catholic Church sex abuse controversies, or several other stories we haven't posted. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Study found the lower death toll was not "political bullshit", it was the result of inadequate training over CDC protocols and communication failures in the wake of the hurricane. Lack of understanding of how to tabulate hurricane-related deaths was the cause, not political suppression. The followup study would be an addendum to this study, but this is considered the most accurate account of the loss of life in Puerto Rico and accepted as accurate. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A death toll doesn't increase from 70 to 3000, 12 months after the fact, without some political bullshit being involved. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * They've been very clear that the death toll would not be updated until the GWU study was published and they followed through on that. They wanted an in-depth and accurate analysis of what happened rather than bouncing off everything journalists were saying. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Power~enwiki, with all due respect, if this really was a matter of "political bullshit" as you say (which isn't quite accurate, but I'm humoring it), would that not make this story even more consequential? After all, all details of the story would remain the same, but with the additional layer of "political bullshit" making this extraordinarily high death toll into something scandalous. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 17:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * comment: without saying its Puerto Rico death toll only is abit misleading, its total is above 3,000 which includes other countries--
 * Weak Oppose while this is an interesting change in numbers for the disaster drastically, the problem is that this is still an approximation, according to the CNN source.  I think this controversy would be more fitting for DYK rather than ITN. SamaranEmerald (talk) 04:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose One-year old event, not really in the news and at the most bottom level in significance level for items considered for ITN. World over, governments are known to massively downplay casualty figures, only to revise them after tensions has been doused. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Again, the hurricane was a year ago, this event is current and widely ITN now. As an encyclopedia, it would have been inappropriate for us to promote a high death toll prior to it being verified. Now that it has, WP should take note of a storm that killed this many people. ghost 11:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. This is in the news in the UK (it's not top story, but so what?) and is a significant update to a significant story, and we have a good quality article about the controversy that is updated with the results of the study and today's other news. Cyclonebiskit explains well why this is not just "political bullshit". Thryduulf (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – A good looking, interesting article on a topic that is in the news right now and that may have large repurcusions over time, not to mention the impact that this might have on the families of the over 2,000 people that died. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The "impact" has been felt by the victims' families since last year, that made this story stale. Or do you mean they were all waiting all this while for official report before they start feeling the "impact" of losing their loved ones? –Ammarpad (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I meant the political impact of this specific official death toll change. Surely, this affects the way various US and Puero Rican politicians are viewed? I also assume this impacts future emergency relief situations. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * the study also included recommendations to the Puerto Rican government on how to alleviate problems highlighted during the disaster—including the disaster protocol being horrendously outdated and only viable up to a Categoty 1 hurricane. Rosselló signed an executive order yesterday to create a committee that will work to implement these recommendations. Emergency management impacts are immediate. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per SamaranEmerald, this is more fitting for DYK rather than ITN. Python Dan (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Extremely interesting and a fascinating follow-up on what just might be this administration's Katrina.--WaltCip (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Since it is "extremely interesting and ... fascinating" that made it ideal candidate for DYK. 'Interesting' is essentially meaningless in assessing ITN material.–Ammarpad (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it emphasizes Wikipedia as a "dynamic resource" and it might be a topic that "nontheless interests" readers even if they have not seen it in their local news. I think calling a news item "interesting" touches upon two of the four items listed in In the news. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "This should be a DYK" is such a dog whistle. Fact: both ITN and DYK exist to highlight new or updated content. They only differ in that ITN is (duh) in the news while DYK has that "hook" thing. The ONLY reason an ITN nom should be cast down to DYK is if is, in fact, not in the news. ghost 12:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose George Washington University, while reliable, is notably tabloid when it comes to meteorology. If this were the National Hurricane Center giving this, I would support this, but this is not the case. Kirliator (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The National Hurricane Center does not overrule the Government of Puerto Rico on the number of deaths a system caused. It is the Government of Puerto Rico who has decided to increase the death toll based on a report from the George Washington University which it commissioned.Jason Rees (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This is a significant update to the death toll that you virtually never see in tropical cyclone disasters.Jason Rees (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support while the exact death toll may never be known, considering that this study increases the amount by 46x according to the provided sources is not going unnoticed. This maybe the last and closest major update in the death toll we may ever have with this hurricane before research of it abruptly stops. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, this has been picked up by some significant news outlets and the article is well-referenced and surprisingly detailed. -- Tavix ( talk ) 13:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a better blurb is needed here. As pointed out above, this was not a small correction, this was a double-digit-times increase from what PR had publicly reported after Maria. The fact that this is not a small correction, and thus making Maria one of the deadly Atlantic hurricanes, should be in the blurb, to make this more than just seemingly like someone mis-dotted their 't' and crossed their 'i'. --M asem (t) 13:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support while it is true that the hurricane itself is old news, this death toll update is in the news right now. Lepricavark (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in reading the above arguments, I am finding that while the hurricane was an event from a year ago, the death toll and the disparity between the reality and the original official number is current news. 74.93.182.21 (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The person behind this IP has only used it to vote in the ITN nominations. Openlydialectic (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's factually incorrect, so I suggest you redact it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - Fake news. IP doesn't seem to be a spa to me. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support the alt blurb. Striker force Talk 15:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support In the news and good quality article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This is a significant news story receiving a lot of coverage. The death toll of Hurricane Maria has been a subject of controversy for a long time. This is making headlines in every major and minor outlet I can find, but more importantly, this is international news. It didn't take long to find that it's making headlines on French news as well.  Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 16:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I prefer the alt blurb. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I don't think this is "political bullshit", and it may be political and it may be that it was bullshit to fabricate such a low death toll, but we have two really decent articles, a high level of support here, and global news coverage. "Political bullshit" could include Brexit and Trump's election and we posted both of those... This is good to go.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose questionable importance Openlydialectic (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You know what's questionable? Making stuff up in an effort to discredit someone with a differing viewpoint. Lepricavark (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support the alt blurb, per above. Disasters with nearly 3,000 deaths should obviously be posted, even retroactively. The articles are very good and well-sourced. Davey2116 (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - absolutely in the news, clearing of merit as an ITN item. Such an upward revision, from deaths of less than a hundred to more than 2,900, is massive, and the well-written target articles demonstrates this. The revision lifts Maria from a destructive hurricane to a catastrophic one, and is worth retroactively posting as such. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - heard it on NPR. This is the third deadliest US hurricane on record, rather notable that only 16 deaths were reported at first. The study confirms this fact. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted altblurb. Articles seems in good shape, posted. 331dot (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - John McCain's death was (officially) rejected for a blurb because it was not noteworthy/newsworthy/significant enough. Here we have another American event, and it is posted quickly, despite some opposition. I would guess that, if you polled people from anywhere in the world (including Puerto Ricans) about whether they were aware of John McCain's death and the revision of statistics for Hurricane Maria, an overwhelming majority would have far, far more knowledge of McCain's death. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this about "knowledge of McCain's death". Indeed, if "an overwhelming majority" did indeed have "far, far more knowledge" then it's probably better that we focus on providing information about things less known to people who have "far, far less knowledge" about such things.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So you're saying you think ITN should focus on news stories with limited coverage? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * !vote count was 16 support, 6 oppose. Some opposition didn't respond to counter-points either. Those commenting are not all from the United States. Even though I have some bias here, I'd say it's safe this gained the necessary consensus to post. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Post-posting oppose - barely sees coverage outside of the US, deals with a year-old event, and changing the death toll has no practical impact except for historians. There're more current things to post. Banedon (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The death toll might be from a year old event, but it is the revision of the death toll that is the event itself. This doesn't usually happen on such a massive scale(from a relatively average death toll to one of the highest on record for a highly developed country) It certainly has a practical impact for the families of the dead, as well as the millions in Puerto Rico who have a reason to have much less faith in their government. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Was headline news in the UK when the story broke. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rohan Daluwatte

 * Comment The sources in the controversy section need a critical look without recenticism. I am unfamiliar with the subject but I suspect UNDUE. The Hindu only says, "the chief of the defence staff, General Rohan Daluwatte, had offered to resign at a meeting of the National Security Council where the failure of the first offensive was debated." The other two citations are to the same source (reprinted). Is The Sunday Leader a reliable source? I would venture a guess as yes. But does this deserve a WP:CSECTION? I would say no. --- Coffee  and crumbs  23:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the Controversy section is addressed per comments above. We can't just have "it was alleged" here without some kind of balance. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I didn't write that bit but thought it might be a bit WP:UNDUE. I have deleted it as a section and added some more detail on the allegations - Dumelow (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Well done!!! --- Coffee  and crumbs  10:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Well done indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Joseph2302 (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mirka Mora

 * Weak oppose what's there is just dandy but for someone with such a lengthy career, I'm disappointed to see so little about her works in the article, I think it's too glaring a gap for support right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I am inclined to support as a start. The state of the article in my view warrants a start classification. However, as the Rambling Man notes, the section about her art career needs to be expanded past the current paragraph. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Until someone can address this page properly. The majority of the content is about her family and personal life. I get it, she was central to subculture, but the extraordinary claim as one of the matriarchs of "contemporary art in Australia" needs more verification. We have no proof of the claim in the lede: "cultural figure who contributed significantly to the development". Notability by association is not enough.--- Coffee  and crumbs  11:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support I have added significantly to the article including some critical assessments of Mora's art and a number of exhibitions and work in collections - still needs work, but time is slipping away for this to be relevant 'In the News', so please, support. Thank you Jamesmcardle(talk) 02:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * support - per improvements.BabbaQ (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks very good. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Great work with the article, but I'd like to see some proper sources for the exhibition section. At the moment, only some of the items are sourced. A general reference would solve this easily, otherwise, each item should have a source. --Tone 07:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - have just added a dozen refs for exhibitions. JennyOz (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well done, posting. --Tone 14:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Inge Borkh

 * Needs more sources - much of the second paragraph and the whole of the third in the "Career" section are unsourced. Black Kite (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Started on the tidy up and haven't got through the whole article yet! Not quite ready for ITN yet but feel free to get onto the sourcing Gerda. MurielMary (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Career is sourced now, - there would be more interesting details, but let's first consolidate. Recordings need sources which should be rather easy (Discogs is there), - only: I need sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think every fact/recording has a source now. Note about ways to still improve on the talk. Need a break. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Great work in a short time Gerda!! MurielMary (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Zimbabwean general election, 2018

 * We don't usually post inaugurations or swearings-in. They usually get less attention than the election itself. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Concur with 331dot and suggest this be closed. Being in ITN/R list means that an event is determined as worthy of posting ceteris paribus. So it may, or may not be posted at the time it is due depending on consensus reached. The crux here, is that, it doesn't mean that the event must be posted. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The user isn't claiming this is ITNR(the election was, but this isn't). 331dot (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim he said that also. But he is basing this nomination in lieu of the election (which is ITN/R and wasn't posted). –Ammarpad (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support This is ITNR. The results were not officially recognized until August 24:
 * On 10 August, it was announced that Mnangagwa's inauguration, which had been scheduled for 12 August, would be delayed after Chamisa petitioned to challenge the election results in court, with a ruling due by the end of the month. On 24 August 2018, the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe dismissed Chamisa's challenge and officially declared Mnangagwa the winner in a unanimous ruling.    The Chief Justice Luke Malaba noted that Chamisa refused both a recount and access to the ballot boxes. Mnangagwa's inauguration and official swearing-in was then held on 26 August.
 * If we don't allow this to be posted, we create a Catch-22 situation. We can't first decline posting because the results are not conclusive and then when they do become conclusive, and the election is renominated, say the election is now stale. I have supplied an altblurb. Forget the actual swear-in and move this nomination to August 24.--- Coffee  and crumbs  09:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I believe we usually post inauguration if the results are contested or inconclusive at first. --Tone 10:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The previous nom was rejected because article was not up to the mark. Still the quality has not improved. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I went back and checked. Right. Stalled nominations are not a reason for re-posting later. --Tone 11:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose right now If the article becomes better and a better blurb is supplied (Mnangagwa was already President, he just got re-elected) Kingsif (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, the last election was Mugabe's re-election. It's true that Mnangagwa was already President, but he was serving out the remainder of Mugabe's term. This was his first election, but he was also the incumbent. I provided a second alternate blurb which should clarify this. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 14:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on merit and when quality concerns are dealt with. I agree with Coffeeandcrumbs; I disagree with the rationale of opposing because the election was more newsworthy when the election wasn't posted. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 14:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Caveated support for posting as a 24 August nom with a blurb which explains why. Right now we'd look daft to post any of the suggestions as, like it or not, all other news outlets have been there, done that, some time ago.  We ought to simply justify the late addition with some carefully crafted words along the lines of "following an unsuccessful challenge to the results".  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Elections are often disputed, and if we gave credence to the dispute by holding off on the posting, that would justify posting when the outcome was decided. That did not happen here. This is an everyday occurrence of going stale for want of quality. ghost 13:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ghost, Sherenk1, and Tone.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Jacksonville landing shooting

 * Comment shootings in the United States almost never get consensus, I don't see how this one will. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * We'll see, I suppose. Kirbanzo (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This should be eligible for WP:DYK if there's a "hook" other than people dying to use. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's not ITN worthy, we could try that, although it's likely to be rejected there too as it's relating to current events. Kirbanzo (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose and suggest rapid close. 100% domestic crime. --M asem (t) 03:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's "100% domestic crime" doesn't immediately disqualify it. See the "Please do not..." section above - it says that the fact that it only relates to a single country is not a valid reason for ITN denial. Kirbanzo (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm meaning it is a domestic crime rather than an act of terrorism. --M asem (t) 03:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Does a mass shooting have to be terrorism-related in order to be ITN-worthy? Common sense (at least to me) says no. This shooting has plenty of news coverage despite happening only yesterday, so even if no terrorist organization had a hand in it, it's still notable to be, at least, considered for ITN. Let me end on this rhetorical question: if Wikipedia existed in 1999 at the time of the Columbine shootings, would you have done the same thing you're doing here, not knowing how influential it would be? Kirbanzo (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it should be more than domestic crime. It's in the news because it is shocking and thus getting coverage, but it isn't anything that can be done until lawmakers step on on gun control. We're also toying on the hypothetic MINIMUMDEATHS here with only 3 (+ shooter) killed. --M asem (t) 04:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay then so we bury our heads in the sand? That's no way to handle newsworthy tragedies. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, we recognize that ITN would be flooded if we covered all domestic crimes of this scale. We did not post the Fredericton shootings with the same death toll a few weeks ago for that reason. This is getting attention only because it happened in a public place, but the rational has already been determine: a guy lost, went home, got a gun, and came back to shoot his competitors. Stupid reason for people to die, not disagreeing it was a tragedy, but it's not likely to have any larger effect on the world being a domestic crime. --M asem (t) 06:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support because it's "in the news" and the article is solid. But, the Europeans will lose their shit with this nomination and it will never get posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just doesn't reach the level of newsworthiness required for ITN. A shooting with only two victims in a country where this happens literally every single day. In fact, this is the third shooting just this month with at least two victims. This isn't even the deadliest; a shooting on 12 August in Clearlake, California resulted in four deaths. AusLondonder (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This got news coverage. The shooting in Clearlake didn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I've got to agree with Muboshgu: this story is the feature on the BBC, displacing John McCain, Neil Simon, and even a British woman being jailed in Iran on the same day. It's definitely in the news. Kingsif (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am widely speculating here, but the reason it is probably featured is because the media is latching onto this being connected to video games (even though this wasn't a violent video game). Video games still hold that stigma and there have been attempts to sway that language despite evidence disproving that link. Regardless of that speculation, ITN does not consider the relative weight (location or frequency of articles) in determining what is posted, we are not a news ticker. --M asem (t) 06:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent point, . Sensationalism is the game of the media, it does not mean we are obliged to follow. AusLondonder (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per my comment above Kingsif (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Shootings with only two fatalities are not ITN material. And FTR I am an American and would oppose posting such an event from pretty much anywhere other than maybe the Vatican. The sensational press coverage notwithstanding, this probably occurs daily all over the world. And the long term significance of this event is likely around zero. [Prayers for those affected.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support It's seen widespread coverage, even in international outlets. The article is pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose a mass killing with just two victims in the United States is an everyday occurrence, literally. This one made the news because no-one knew how many victims there were for some hours, and mis-reports inflated the toll.  This should just be a line on the List of mass shootings in the United States (although what's happened to that list?!!) as it is just another trivial crime which will have absolutely no lasting impact and is of extraordinarily limited encyclopedic value.  It's hardly a weekend in Chicago is it?  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A US city once averaged 6.15 murders per day for a whole year, most by gun of course. That's the record I think. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose I will once again repeat that all these shootings in the United States are simply a consequence of the extremely loose policies on acquiring guns, and the right news that merits inclusion would be any policy change against the notoriously profit-seeking arms industry that would limit easy access to guns instead of just counting victims of instances that no-one cares to prevent.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose yet another shooting in America, this time with an even lower death toll than the Capital Gazette Shooting or the Santa Fe School Shooting. You people need to get it in your head that shootings in the U.S. are common and often times have death tolls within the single digits. SamaranEmerald (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I concur with all of the above opposers, especially power wiki and Kiril. This shooting is tragic, but otherwise short-term and minor despite the Nominator’s comment.  Simply put, this nomination is doomed from the beginning. –Kirliator (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unfortunate, yes, but as pointed out above, those happen so often that we could have ITN filled every day with such shootings. I disagree with Ad Orientem's assessment though: This might very well be ITN material if it happened in other (developed) countries because then it would be something that rarely happens. If the shooting had taken place at this year's Gamescom for example, I'd probably have supported posting to ITN because mass shootings are - thankfully - extremely rare in Germany and thus generate far more coverage when one happens. Regards SoWhy 09:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Neil Simon

 * Oppose for now Sourcing is not that good. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The list of awards (esp. those without bluelinks) need sourcing, as well as a few paras in the playwright section. --M asem (t) 16:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose pending sourcing improvements. -A la d insane  (Channel 2)  19:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - why Neil Simon, one of the greatest American playwrights of all time, gets only an RD, and Aretha Franklin a blurb? Simon was certainly top of his field, unrivaled in his era. What makes him less notable than someone of the ilk of Lauren Bacall or Christopher Lee? Is it because he is less "popular"?? The blurb vs RD paradigm is unsustainable, and a re-writing of guidelines is overdue. Colipon+ (Talk) 20:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed to a blurb either. Davey2116 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * He won't be getting either at this rate. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Left his field in 2003, riding the momentum of a noted flop, so no longer a transformative figure in it. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Arguably, once they've been a transformative figure they always remain a transformative figure (But their relative level of that can be surpassed) --M asem (t) 13:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, but those arguments are about as solid as living figures never dying, child actors never aging or retired basketball players playing basketball forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The news coverage for Simon is less than for McCain or Franklin. Don't remember Bacall's or Lee's. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose The awards section does not have any sources. ― Susmuffin Talk 21:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Influential individual. p  b  p  22:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Per the instructions "Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. " The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose maintenance tagged and inadequate BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. More work is required on referencing especially on awards and works. If it was cleaned up, I would support a blurb given it is a Level 5 Vital article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Level 5 seems to be the lowest level of vitality, not the highest. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Vital articles" are selected by a handful of people in pages which receive fewer views than my user page. Not worth consideration.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll bite...|User:The_Rambling_Man WHAAAA!? Also, blurb talk before refs are fixed is a distraction. ghost 17:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * |User_talk:The_Rambling_Man Indeed. This sudden emergence of "Vital article" claims is troubling and should be dismissed out of hand.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So far it seems to have been used as an attempt to boost ITN postings for U.S.-centric subjects. Whether or not this is the actual intent is up for debate.--WaltCip (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The level 4 VAs actually represent a pretty good standard for blurb-worthy. The level 5s are laughable. Like, George Carlin (lvl 4) laughable, not Pauly Shore (lvl 5) laughable. ghost 12:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think as a rule of thumb, "vital article rating can be ignored". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * While I participate in the WP:VA project, my feeling is that living persons are included simply because it's a waste of time to argue against including them. Brittanica made due for centuries without entries on WP:BLPs.  And level-5 is a free-for-all; I very much doubt we'd include this guy or that one or Dog the Bounty Hunter as blurbs. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. So in summary, ignore all vital article claims. They are useless and have no impact or meaning here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Colombian referendum 2018
Colombian referendum, 2018 : A seven-part referendum is being held in Colombia on seven proposals aimed at reducing corruption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aréat (talk • contribs) 09:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Close The election results have not come in. This referendum is occurring on 26 August 2018. Actually, right now as I write this. Please close as too soon. It can be renominated properly tomorrow or whenever results are announced.--- Coffee  and crumbs  14:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * close per above. When the results are known and there is some information in the article about the significance of them, it can be reconsidered. I'd also like there to be more background - are the proposals controversial at all for example. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 15:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Dieter Thomas Heck

 * Biography looks good, the filmography and awards sections need some references. This should probably be under 25 August, if this was the day it was reported. --Tone 18:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per lack of sources as noted by Tone. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The lists are in the article since 2012, and the same as in German. But I will work on it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * All awards are now referenced, and all shows. Need sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Harbin hotel fire

 * Support Short but sourced well, and don't expect much more in terms of details to emerge otherwise (all in the safety inspectors' hands) --M asem (t) 14:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support based on sources and article quality. 207.228.77.236 (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support needed plenty of copyediting and not really in the news as much as many of the other stories here, but just good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely deserves to be covered as other major fires in other areas of the world have been. The article is brief but sufficiently referenced and could be expanded if/as more details emerge. Flipand <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 22:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lindsay Kemp

 * Support Looks okay. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Short and well sourced. –Ammarpad (talk)
 * Support Ready. --- Coffee  and crumbs  02:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) John McCain

 * Support Given this was well known that he was close to dying (and that he went off his treatment a few days ago), the article appears to be in good shape save for the citation format tag on the references, which is not a showstopper for posting for me. --M asem (t) 00:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support for blurb I've been waffling myself on if this should be a blurb (any other senior-level congressperson or the equivalent would be RD only, and even when the person has something else going for them, specificly John Glenn we'd only post as a RD), but there are at least three things that put this over the edge for me: 1) The article is an FA and was in good quality at nomination time, and ITN is meant to showcase quality content on the main page - this doesn't mean FA is an automatic blurb but it should weigh some; 2) he's known as a POW; and 3) he has done a reasonable amount of accomplishments that represent the highest an individual congressperson can do without being president, he for all purposes does meet "top of their field" when it comes to American policities. This should be seen as the extreme exception and not the rule. --M asem (t) 06:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't judge McCain on his influence within "American politics", but within politics in general. There are a very large number of individuals who had large domestic influence (larger, within their countries, than McCain had) for whom we've not posted blurbs; Manuel Noriega comes to mind. His impact doesn't have to have been global; but it does have to be comparable to global figures; and McCain's influence simply isn't at that level. Very few politicians who didn't hold nation-wide elected office have anywhere close to the impact of those deaths we usually post (Franklin, Prince, Vajpayee, Hawking, Mandela, Castro...). Vanamonde (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Not a big fan of posting RDs as blurbs, but I'll go with this one, plus it's a featured article, which makes a change on quality. Black Kite (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - definitely deserved. Thechased (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * RD only, no comment on article quality. -- KTC (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, article is an FA, and I think he deserves a blurb. Daniel Case (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My argument for a blurb would be that a) unlike most dead pols that age he was most politically prominent in the last decade of his life, due to his 2008 presidential bid and his recent sorta opposition to Trump and b) his war record. Daniel Case (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * RD only for now Blurbs should be based on coverage and it's too soon to judge that. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD only as this is a FA (and looked good when I checked it the other day) there should be no hesitation in posting that. I don't support a blurb now, but may change my mind. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a slow news month; this may be front-page news in the US the entire week, especially as Trump's (lack of) reaction will be covered excessively. If the BBC, the Times of India, the Sydney Morning Herald are also giving it front-page/multi-day treatment, it will need to be a blurb. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. Certainly warrants an RD and happy to go with a blurb. Classified as a level 5 vital article so blurb is probably warranted although some may dispute this. Former featured article so quality is there. News is already receiving widespread coverage. Sitting US Senator so is newsworthy especially in US. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb After Ted Kennedy probably the most consequential modern American political figure who was never elected president. His influence extended far beyond the borders of this country. Article is FA so no quality issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose blurb As much as I am saddened to hear about his death, and I don't doubt his death will get global coverage (hence the "weak"), he wasn't a head of state and I'm not entirely convinced his career in military or politics had a world-transforming impact. EternalNomad (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per Ad Orientem. Spengouli (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Longstanding political figure, US Presidential candidate, with featured article. Already has obituaries out, despite it being night in half the world. Kingsif (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be expected that media organisations have obituaries ready to go for famous figures who are over 80 years old, especially if they have cancer, and especially if they choose to stop treatment. They've had the obituaries ready for days, if not weeks and months, and just pressed the publish button when he died. It's not a measure of the newsworthiness of his death. Chrisclear (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * How many of those obituaries are from outside the U.S.? Surely the American media wrote their obituaries for McCain before he died. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Very good question. Just searching for "john mccain obituary uk" brings up many — both the BBC and The Guardian already have at least 2 each. (Looks like the BBC just went to 3). Kingsif (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Even for those published outside the US, they would have written them in recent days/weeks/months. His death was hardly unexpected.Chrisclear (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - 100% deserved. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Edit: I'd say the second alt blurb sounds best. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 01:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb: His article has FA status and McCain was a major political figure in the United States for decades. While I don't think ITN should turn into RD, there have been a string of rather notable deaths, as seen by Aretha Franklin, Kofi Annan, and PM Vajpayee, and McCain certainly fits the criteria for notability and article quality. He warrants a blurb. --PootisHeavy (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The death appears to be receiving a very large amount of coverage. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support both RD and Blurb John McCain's article is both very high in quality (featured) and a level 5 vital article in politicians (not just US politicians), so notability is not in question. McCain was a well-known POW and prominent US politician, having served a long career as a senator in addition to being a presidential candidate. I have no personal leanings on this one as I neither love nor hate McCain, but he's without question notable. I understand that we may need to wait for more coverage to emerge in order to post a blurb, though. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 00:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Although I’m aware that most of us commenting thus far are probably US based so we should wait a few hours to get more opinions. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose blurb, support RD. Some perspective is needed here. Although he had a lengthy political career, he was only a member of the house of representatives and senator. If this is posted as a blurb, then in addition to validating concerns about systemic bias, it also creates a poor precedent for the future deaths of many hundreds / thousands of politicians who are never elected as the head of their government or head of state. Chrisclear (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * While you have a fair point, McCain is a level 5 vital article on politicians in general, not just in the United States. This wouldn't set a precedent that any member of a legislature should have a blurb.  Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 01:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "level 5 vital article" means almost nothing here. That said, he was possibly the most prominent living politician in the United States never elected president. (Bernie, Hillary, and Newt Gingrich might have argued at various times) power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of those figures were as influential, especially in foreign affairs as McCain. Hillary was Secretary of State but I can't think of anything she did of really lasting significance. McCain is probably the man most responsible for normalizing relations with Vietnam. among many other accomplishments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Does this "most prominent (living) politician who was never elected head of government" criterion apply to politicians outside the United States? Or does it apply to US politicians only? Chrisclear (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at the other RD's with blurbs recently including people from India and Africa, it's clear that the influence of politicians is considered worldwide. Also, it's outside of reason to accuse people of US-centric bias when we're in a discussion about a US politician. Kingsif (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It applies outside of the US. If Jeremy Corbyn were to die right now, that would be highly notable. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 01:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * McCain's is a level 5 vital article BECAUSE of Wikipedia's systemic bias. The number of comments in this thread is further evidence of it, as is the five Edit conflicts I experienced while trying to post this. (Sorry I had to make a post to make that point.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Our "Vital article" categorization means very very little, particularly with respect to individuals from recent times. There's no systematic criteria at all; for instance, level 5 VAs include John Compton, prime minister of a country of 200,000 (would you support a blurb for his death?) but not Sirimavo Bandaranaike, who despite being the first elected female head of state in the world, isn't a VA at all. Vanamonde (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Vital articles" are cherry-picked by very few individuals in a project which gets fewer daily pageviews than my user page. It's completely inappropriate to starting waving "vital article" around as some kind of free pass here.  And as Vanamonde notes, it's completely flawed in any case.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Although I think the blurb could be better. Natureium (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The section of this page detailing how to voice an opinion on ITN says "please do not...oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." This is not to say that systemic bias isn't an issue, but this death is very obviously highly notable. We have systemic bias, sure, but that doesn't mean we should hesitate to discuss what is a very salient news item. This is the culmination of weeks of news coverage of a politician so notable that we rated it a level-5 vital article on people and politicians. I don't think this will set a precedent that any member of a legislature will get a blurb, McCain wasn't any member of a legislature and our own vital article rating scheme and the news coverage make that clear. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb and RD his figure as a US Presidential Candidate has some effect worldwide. Abequinn14 (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Specifically support blurb IV. Abequinn14 (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, how can someone has effect worldwide simply by being a US Presidential Candidate? Outside the US his popularity as a Presidential Candidate is being shadowed by Barack Obama I think. Hddty. (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment added alt blurb. Kingsif (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the addition of "twice presidential candidate" since it tells readers unfamiliar with McCain why the death is notable, but think "after a battle with brain cancer" is unnecessary since the cause can easily be learned from the article. Omitting would save copy and probably also help drive traffic. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Query Was McCain the Republican presidential candidate in 2008 only? Was his campaign for the Republican nomination in 2000 unsuccessful? If yes, then "twice presidential candidate" seems to be misleading, when compared to Gary Johnson, for example, who was his party's candidate for two presidential elections. Chrisclear (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * He sought the Republican nomination in 2000 but did not get it. So “twice presidential candidate” is a little misleading. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought so. If merely attempting to win a party's nomination counts as being a "presidential candidate", then there would probably be a large number of politicians to have made that faux "achievement". Whereas Gary Johnson fits the "twice presidential candidate" description much better. Chrisclear (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Very strongly oppose blurb - As a Senator, his death was neither unexpected nor does he rise to the level of standard set by our previous blurbs. WaltCip (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb McCain has been serving as a Senator for decades, and has continuously had a profound impact on American politics. His military service and time as a POW has also received intense attention. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. His Senate career was not unlike many other senators, being a US Senator should not be a ticket to a blurb, it wouldn't be for other legislative bodies. Presidential candidate shouldn't be a ticket to a blurb, either. 331dot (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support  Sen. McCain was a very vocal and inspirational politician whose decades-long career impacted not only upon US politics, but also the Western hemisphere. A well-deserved mention. Thevaluablediamond (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment 49 out of the last 50 edits to ITN were this nomination, (and a solid majority of the last 100) and most every time I try to post another edit I'm warned that it's an old revision. I'd say this demonstrably shows that it's of far more interest than any other nomination at the moment. I wouldn't believe that it's genuinely not of enough interest to get a blurb. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 01:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe the criteria for an ITN item goes beyond mere 'interest'. Otherwise Kim Kardashian and Donald Trump would both be ongoing items. Chrisclear (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The latest Trump-related nomination got <5 replies, so I respectfully disagree. In this context, interest is a reflection of newsworthiness. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 02:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb John McCain was definitely a highly influential and well regarded American Politician and war hero, and his death has been very widely reported in the news, it seems fitting that we should follow suit and add to our ITN. His article is also featured status, which makes it even easier to support a blurb. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb and RD It's a Lv 5 vital article and a featured article. Slam dunk.  p  b  p  02:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also note that most of the things trending on Twitter for the last couple of hours are McCain-related. p  b  p  02:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. I wonder what Europeans opinion on this, its still dawn there. Hddty. (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's on the front page of the online edition of the BBC, The Telegraph, and the German edition of Der Spiegel at the moment. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 02:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb, opposition politician, never held highest office in country. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "opposition politician" isn't really an applicable term in the US political system, especially in regards to such a powerful Senator. Kingsif (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As a citizen of the US, I took the time to explain this to my non-US fellow Wikipedians. Let me rephrase: McCain was not the President. He should not be posted as a blurb, it goes against consensus. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb Here in the Czech Republic already three obituaries in main media outlets and it is middle of the night. Even the news about the end of treatment was covered in all major media outlets, including tabloids.--Jklamo (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Blurb if this had been literally any other non-president level politician I would've opposed. But for this one, I'll let it pass. Juxlos (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The event is clearly encyclopedically notable enough to warrant one. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment 24 support, 7 oppose votes. Suitable consensus seems to have been reached. Kingsif (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of these "support" votes that you've counted were supporting an RD, not an ITN mention Openlydialectic (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: vote mobs tend to have a stranglehold on WP death blurb nominations and this one is likely going to get posted; what is likely going to be absent is the examination of the actual criteria listed at ITN/DC and potential effects of systemic bias. However, to me this is a case worth considering. McCain almost certainly is of a higher order on the 'blurbworthiness' compared to Franklin, George Michael, Christopher Lee, or Lauren Bacall, all of whom got their own blurbs. He is also perhaps Trump's biggest antagonist inside his own party, and his death has political consequences that is likely to lead to continual coverage. A quick-and-dirty examination of the Daily Yomiuri, El Pais, the French language version of France 24, BBC, O Globo (Brazil), and mainland Chinese newsportal Sina shows this as the top story or the top "international" story. Al Jazeera does not show it (yet), but barring some bizarre circumstance, will soon. When measured on global newsworthiness, his death is certainly receiving more attention than that of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, which we also posted as a blurb. Colipon+ (Talk) 02:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your last sentence is particularly interesting. At the heart of it, you have raised the issue of "news as entertainment", particularly in a world where clicks matter more than content. Does ITN consider the importance of the person who has died? Or merely how many clicks a person generates? It's plainly obvious that a US politician with white skin gets more clicks than a dark skinned Indian politician. But unlike McCain, who was only a senator, Vajpayee actually led his country's government. Surely that makes Vajpayee more notable than McCain, regardless of how many clicks McCain generates? Chrisclear (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , you keep bringing up accusations of US-centric bias, and have now moved onto racial bias. Please refrain from doing so and base your comments or criticisms on actual criteria. Kingsif (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You have a vivid imagination! I was merely posing the questions - to which I am genuinely interested in an answer: Does ITN consider the importance of the person who has died? Or merely how many clicks a person generates? Chrisclear (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Politicians generally are encyclopedic in nature because they make major policy decisions that affect vast swathes of humankind. Vajpayee did so, but his influence was limited to South Asia. If Mohatma Gandhi or Indira Gandhi died today, I have no doubt they would have achieved consensus for a blurb; indeed, Mandela did so as well, justifiably. So race is a non-issue. The newsworthiness of the event has nothing to do with clicks, but more to do with the fact that this man is globally known and globally influential - whereas Vajpeyee, while he did serve political office on a country of one billion, was not. I did not even support the blurb, by the way; I am just wanting to inject a voice of reason into this discussion.Colipon+ (Talk) 03:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Chrisclear. My understanding is that sites that rely on clicks are doing so because clicks correlate or translate to revenue from ad impressions. Wikipedia has no ads, so I'm not sure why any editor would be interested in clicks or page view traffic in this context. Who does and does not get an "In the news" blurb on the English Wikipedia and who does and does not get a "Recent deaths" entry on the English Wikipedia are interesting topics to explore, in my opinion. The editorial discussions on this page do, in many ways, entail a level of judging and weighing a person's contributions and impact on society, as well as the person's age and the general expectedness of the death. And the views on this topic can be wide. For example, there have been suggestions in the recent past that former U.S. presidents not get blurbs. I very much doubt we'll ever set that standard. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. You might say that he just missed the mark of being a "major transformative world leader" in his "field".  He was, after all, never elected President.  But he was about as admired a figure as a politician of his rank and party can aspire to in his home country; and let's not forget that he is also a figure of some consequence in the history of Vietnam.  As such, his death is being noted as front page news well outside the USA and the English speaking world.  Front page news around the world, IOW. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the first possibly-convincing argument I have read over the past three hours. --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Being front page news throughout the world should certainly be at least "possibly-convincing." European editors are confirming that from the UK to Czechia to Germany his death is a front page story. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 03:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, weak support RD We do not post mere MPs/senators and he did not win the presidency. Only supporting RD as this will be posted. Also the page has orange tags.Lihaas (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * One of the "orange tags" was the Recent Death template, which is not an "issue." This inaccurate listing as an orange tag has been fixed. The other was vague, added mid-discussion, and the rationale for putting it there was never described. It has been removed. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 03:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support RD and oppose blurb per above !votes on reasons for supporting RD and opposing blurb. 184.153.25.119 (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb John McCain is not at the Mandela/Annan/Aretha Franklin level, and to suggest that he was is regionalism at its finest. For politicians, the Mandela level would be to be a transformative president or a Nobel Peace Prize winner (granted, this is not a hard rule), and despite McCain's fine career, McCain was not that.  McCain's influence was primarily felt within the borders of the United States, so he does not merit a blurb.  (NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC))
 * What if we listed him as a "celebrated war veteran and Vietnam POW", instead of a politician? Even his military achievements are highly notable. This is ignoring the headline news in just about every country worldwide. His influence may have been technically limited to the US, but his presence was not, both while living and now dead. Kingsif (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Too much puffery and I don't think his presidential candidacy was consequential. The appropriate term in this case is statesman in the tradition of Benjamin Franklin, Frederick Douglass, Robert Kennedy, and Ted Kennedy. None of whom held the highest office in the land.--- Coffee  and crumbs  04:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support RD and blurb His influence was primarily felt within the borders of the USA, but the USA is among the most influential and powerful countries in the world. 1779Days (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD and concerned that whilst there are discussions going on among editors about the relative merits of RD and blurb, neither gets done. There's an obvious consensus in favour of noting John McCain's death and his article somewhere in the 'In the news' section. This should be shown as an RD for now and then 'upgraded' to blurb if there is a consensus on doing so. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Prospectively posted to RD in the mean time without prejudice to a blurb posting; I would like the discussion regarding a blurb to run a little longer than 3ish hours, but the article quality is there for a posting in the section. I am planning to check back here tomorrow to assess the discussion, but any admin who feels otherwise can remove this from RD/bump to blurb, etc. (Frequently life gets in the way and I'm not always available to check back here as frequently as I would like). Best,  Spencer T• C 04:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks - BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Support for "In the News" - One of the most significant political figures in the United States of the past 25 years. KConWiki (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb and it's a good thing I didn't write it. It would be too much to mention his status as a Republican who refused to succumb to Trumpism. Connor Behan (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Conceding that it is still early in Europe, I think we are getting close to the point where we need to acknowledge that there is a consensus to post this. It would take a fairly dramatic wave of oppose votes without any new supports to tip the scales away from posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Early in Europe? presuming youre not in e Europe did you not sleep yet? I awoke 2 hours ago.Lihaas (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's really late here and yeah, I do need to go to bed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb domestic news. We barely posted the news about rthe death of a former prime minister of india for 7 years, and now you wanna post the news about a former US senator? What's next? Should we post the news about former US senatorial candidates dying too? This is ridiculous Openlydialectic (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I believe alt5 (which I added) correctly conveys his notability as a statesman. I would also be ok with the original blurb. His presidential candidacy was not that notable. His long career as a legislator and shadow diplomat should be our focus. --- Coffee  and crumbs  04:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per Wugapodes. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  04:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Regardless of what of your party, most people respect the contributions he has made to the US. He has been really influential and somewhat progressive (at least in energy) and really wants to see the best for America and the world. --JungleEntity (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment In the US - sure. But can at least a SINGLE EDITOR on this page take into consideration the fact that this is NOT AN AMERICAN WIKIPEDIA. The levels of self-glorification here are astonishing. Shame. Openlydialectic (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Inclusion of non-American topics does not have to come at a cost of excluding newsworthy American topics. I personally have worked tirelessly to promote several articles about non-american people and events. Enough with these "bias" accusations. Before McCain, ITN had a single American blurb and a single RD. This has been a consistent pattern that has existed for the few months I have been contributing to ITN. There have been several days in which we did not have a single American blurb or RD on ITN. It is not a competition. ITN is well above the norm on inclusion of news from other nations. We currently have 3 Indians on ITN, a story about Asian Games and we're about to post an RD for a Zimbabwean politician. --- Coffee  and crumbs  05:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You can't really count the recent death items as it was decided a while ago that having a decent article was the only criteria needed for posting there. So we essentially have one American and one Indian item in the section where editor opinion on worthiness still plays a role. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Coffeeandcrumbs. Very often, accusations of Americentrism and editor-shaming come from an (ironically) Americentric position that forgets how America is a foreign country to the rest of the world, and American news can be worldwide news. McCain's death is internationally front page news, as evidenced by the news headlines coming from several European countries. It's not just local news if you're a reader from another country. The threshold should be whether or not the news story is relevant across the world, and in this case we have more than enough reason to believe that it is. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 05:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb. McCain was well-known, sure, but his international profile is largely the result of his unsuccessful candidacy for the presidency. He didn't hold a cabinet position either; his career has been confined to the national legislature. This is a case where his profile far outstrips his actual influence. We wouldn't even consider a blurb for a person in an analogous position in any other country. The blurb for Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who was de facto head of the most populous democracy for six years, had less support than this one. Systemic bias is real. Oh, and then there's all the "such an inspiring figure" votes, which have nothing at all to with whether this is blurb-worthy. Vanamonde (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb sad passing but just a politician who died of natural causes. Not "transformative" by any means.  The Rambling Man (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb McCain did have a huge impact in American politics, death is making headlines globally, and I'd say he was a top figure in his career profession.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. An inspirational person, and received lots of media attention as a presidential candidate, but he was not that extraordinary when you compare to politicians who recently died worldwide, for example at Deaths in 2018. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I suggest everybody here who support a blurb read the guidelines. Items 1 would suggest RD, item 2 does not apply, which leaves us with item 3: "the death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb". McCain is not a "world leader", he's an American politician, not even a head of government. Whether he was transformative in the US (or not) is irrelevant. Isa (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Very high profile in the US certainly, but not really an international figure. He didn't hold the highest office, wasn't transformative of his field and his achievements were essentially all domestic. We wouldn't blurb Ken Clarke or Neil Kinnock who are approximately seminar figures in UK politics. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 07:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Yes he was a big domestic politician, but didn't hold any major political office nor did he have any major military achievements recognised internationally. It's only news because he was a prominent Republican opponent of President Trump but I wouldn't say that meets the criteria.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 07:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb - sad news, and McCain was a highly respected statesman, but he does not merit a blurb. He never held the office of president, and never was head of state. If we post all significant politicians as blurbs, we will never stop. Added to this is the fact that his death was anticipated, and the media knew it was coming from a year out. Sad news, but not a surprise, and not a world-altering figure. Stormy clouds (talk) 07:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment on the state of the consensus Wikipedia is not a vote, but the support to oppose ratio is 2:1. (~34 to 17 by my count) Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 07:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment on the state of the consensus Wikipedia is not a vote, but for some reason you've counted all votes - whether in support of RD or ITN as votes supporting an ITN mention. Openlydialectic (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And now European editors are having a chance to weigh in, the tide is very much turning towards maintaining the status quo, ie RD. We simply don't blurb every American politician who's had plenty of TV time, what next, Sarah Palin?  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb. This is getting a lot of clicks, but one way we avoid bias is by deferring to more objective measures of a person’s “rank”. McCain was a senator (insufficient) and an unsuccessful presidential candidate (insufficient). Readers interested in his biography can click the RD link and that’s enough. LukeSurlt c 08:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. If Kofi Annan's death warrants enough to deserve a blurb, despite receiving far less media attention in both the United States and the rest of the world, John McCain's death deserves one as well. Just because a number of qualified people have died in a short span does not mean that each cannot have their own blurb. Ac2k (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, Annan was UN sec-gen and Nobel Prize winner, McCain was American politician and failed presidential candidate. Mitt Romney and Bob Dole next?  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If Mitt Romney's and Bob Dole's deaths received a significant amount of media attention around the world, their deaths would deserve a blurb as well. McCain and Annan worked in different fields, as such, it is impossible to compare their achievements at this level. Besides, devaluing McCain as solely an "American" or as a "failed presidential candidate" undermines how influential McCain was in American politics, and how influential American politics is on the rest of the world. Even non-executive American politicians like US senators receive far more attention than the heads of state of small and medium-sized countries. Ac2k (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * " received a significant amount of media attention around the world, their deaths would deserve a blurb as well." no, that's absolutely incorrect. Attention in the media does not equate to "transformative" in an individual's actions.  McCain was a nice guy, a politician and a failed presidential candidate.  He was in no way "transformative".  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment "despite receiving far less media attention in (...) the rest of the world." Openlydialectic (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want some examples, BBC currently has McCain's photo and death as the primary article, while Annan's death received a smaller photo and was not the primary article. Der Spiegel currently has a large photo of McCain as the main headline, Annan's death was the third article from the top with a smaller picture. Looking further on, attention devoted to Annan's death decreased significantly in the hours following the announcement. Ac2k (talk) 08:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Due to international attention to the passing of this former US presidential candidate whose death also has ramifications for the balance of power in the US senate.Icewhiz (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * All that is just domestic politics, and we routinely do not post stories that relate only to one country's domestic politics. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 08:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A person's death has nothing to do with the domestic politics occurring within the nation at the time. Ac2k (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And a person's news coverage has nothing to do with the ITN death blurb criterion of being "transformative". McCain was not.  He was a politician who failed to become the president.  Twice.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Very much top of his field, and given McCain's focus on US foreign policy this has very much international ramifications. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:49C3:EFC1:10C5:4494 (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose blurb I just can't get away from the feeling that if a similar politician from any other country was nominated it would get shot down in flames. Some sort of consistency is needed here. I will stay weak because there is no doubt this is getting headlines and that should factor in somewhat to posting here. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think part of the reason would be that US politicians are significantly more influential and famous than national politicians of other countries. McCain and some other prominent US senators and executive branch members are probably the only non heads of state that have some recognition worldwide. Ac2k (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thus spoke systemic bias at its worst. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Kim Kardashian likely has better name recognition in the English-speaking world than Shinzo Abe. Name recognition matters not in the slightest; it's influence that counts. Vanamonde (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Blurb the usual complaints of "Systemic Bias" are absolute bollocks, fly in the face of "Please do not ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one." and should be rightly ignored as disruptive crap that has no bearing on the nomination. That said, my bar for death blurbs is very high, McCain is not of Mandela/Thatcher notability or influence (neither is any other individual presently in the box) and this is what RD is for. Can we please stop trying to blurb everyone? Please? --LaserLegs (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not what the complaints of systemic bias are about, as you would know if you had actually read all of them. It's not "McCain isn't blurb-worthy because he had only domestic influence." It's "McCain isn't blurb-worthy, because his influence was not that large; and if a similar politician from another country had been nominated, they'd have been shot down in flames, as noted." That's systemic bias. Vanamonde (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A few quotes from above: "Oppose blurb domestic news", "Oppose blurb" ... his achievements were essentially all domestic.", "All that is just domestic politics, and we routinely do not post stories that relate only to one country's domestic politics.". AKA the usual "Waaaa I don't like America" even one person dragged up the old USAPEDIA trope. Like I said, usual crap. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm from America, and I oppose this as a blurb. If this were USApedia, he would get a blurb in a second, but it isn't.  He did not have a worldwide influence. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD/Oppose blurb not a globally transformative world leader (which is the ITN criteria for a blurb). MurielMary (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD/Oppose blurb not a country/world leader. No real lasting impact internationally when compared against Mandela etc. Arguably the McCain-Feingold is important domestically to the US - but domestic campaign finance reform is not exactly blurb-worthy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Insufficient international notability.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb - Sufficient arguments have been provided above. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - I don't like to engage in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but since we lack proper guidelines, ITN is all about precendent. And given that we failed to post blurb for the death of an eight-year Australian prime minister, I don't think that the a career senator and one-time presidential candidate transcends the world stage in the same way as Vajpayee, Annan or Aretha Franklin. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (Closed) Consensus will not develop to post as a blurb. Stephen 11:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Boldly re-opening as discussion had only be open for 11 hours, and the state of the consensus is around 35 for support blurb, and around 24 for oppose blurb, which is a narrow consensus. Davey2116 (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not a vote tally. It's based on strength of arguments. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not as if I don't already know that. But the arguments being made on both sides aren't noticeably different in strength; if anything, the supports are pointing to the immense (international) coverage of his death and his long career as a legislator, and some of the opposes are only based on "systemic bias", which is invalid because a resolve to post more non-U.S. stories does not mean that U.S. stories should not be posted. Davey2116 (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Catalans Dragons win 2018 Challenge Cup

 * Oppose on current quality; they're not the "defending champions", and the entire article body are box scores; we've avoided posting major championships (such as Wimbledon) because of that. Regarding notability: I've never heard of this, but it might make the cut, especially in a very slow news week. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment It no longer says "defending champions", and it has some detailed sections before the box scores. To answer notability for you: the championship is the competition between over 100 teams to determine the best rugby league team in the entire Northern Hemisphere. Kingsif (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I would support this on notability - it is a big deal in Rugby League - but the article is in no way ready for the Main Page - there isn't a single piece of prose about the final, let alone many of the rounds before it. So, at the moment, Oppose. Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose There has to be some limit to the number of rugby events posted. We already have 7 on ITN, and there's been at least 2 additional posted in the last year. There's a general acceptance that we only post the very top end of competition; American Football has been limited to one for this very reason. ghost 11:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * rugby is not one sport, like football is not one sport. Also, American Football is played in one country, not the world, so the analogy is faulty. Rugby league just had the championship of the entire Northern hemisphere, in which a team from a country that has never won before took the trophy. Would you reconsider? Kingsif (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * League and union are distinct codes, but we're not talking golf & tennis; they're very similar. Nevertheless, let us concede for the sake of civility that that the support of league surpasses American Football in breath and width, so it gets more events posted. I'm fine with this; but how many more? Rugby and "soccer" seems to always have another (and another) event that is the biggest thing evar, and we post uncritically because those sports are so big. This event in particular seems to overlap heavily with the ITNR Super League; do we need both? Sports with bigger and wider followings should get more events posted, but there must be limits. ghost 13:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose ITN should only be posted for the top in each sport. For rugby league, that is Women's Rugby League World Cup and Rugby League World Cup. --- Coffee  and crumbs  13:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The top-level professional rugby league club competition in the Northern hemisphere are the Women's Super League (rugby league) and Super League. If this were to be posted that would be a change to WP:ITNR. I do not see "the first team not from the North of England to do so" as an especially exceptional achievement in light of the fact that this is already limited to the Northern Hemisphere and is AFAIK the second-level competition in the Northern Hemisphere. --- Coffee  and crumbs  14:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Though I would disagree — the North of England is an area covering a few hundred miles, with the Northern Hemisphere being literally half the world, and have apparently dominated this competition for its entire history — it's clear that nobody wants to post this, it seems from lack of Wikipedia coverage of Rugby league in general. From reading the articles and searching the web, the Challenge Cup is not "second-level" to the Super League, which is mostly British teams and has only been played for 20 years. The Challenge Cup article itself explains how placement in the Super League affects if teams can enter the Challenge Cup, it seems like they are actually equal level. Perhaps Wikipedia needs more information on Rugby League completely, but that's for someone else. I also don't have the knowledge to expand the page with prose, but I have asked in the WP for Rugby League. Kingsif (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Russ Heath

 * Support Everything appears to be sourced and ready. --M asem (t) 14:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good to go.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article appears to be ready. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 21:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment "He lives in Van Nuys, California, where...."????? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Trudy Stevenson

 * Support Good 2 go.BabbaQ (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Still classified as a stub. Well referenced and would be a start with a couple more paragraphs. Capitalistroadster (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support article has been expanded slightly, should be considered ready now. MurielMary (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Ideally would be expanded further, but is fine for RD as is. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Ready to post. --- Coffee  and crumbs  05:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Vanamonde (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robin Leach

 * Support What little isn't sourced isn't particularly shocking or scandalous. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support. One citation needed tag but otherwise OK. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. I removed the short unsourced sentence (after looking for a decent source), it can always be restored if one is found. Black Kite (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Malcolm Turnbull resigns

 * Comment it's currently 11:54AM in Sydney; reliable sources say that he will resign at the meeting starting at 12:00PM. I expect that by 1-2PM the news articles and Wiki article will be updated; it's not ready yet. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added Altblurb III and my support vote below, but this would have been a much 'cleaner' nomination process if you had just waited another 1 to 2 hours before creating this nomination. Chrisclear (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait. The new Prime Minister should be known within the hour. The story is changing rapidly. Posting should wait at last until we know who the new PM is. -dmmaus (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Added alt-blurb with Scott Morrison as new-PM .  I'm not 100% sure he is PM yet and not just the presumptive next PM. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Presumptive. He needs to be sworn in, which will take a few more hours. -dmmaus (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If he gets sworn in today we should wait; if it's not going to be until September we should go with "presumptive" in the blurb. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Not even the rabid Murdoch media, the site being claimed for this nomination, is actually saying Turnbull has resigned yet. Can we stop such silly nominations? HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Sydney Morning Herald and other sources also say he will resign. It's slightly pre-mature, but hopefully the editors here can improve the article now. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ABC is reporting Scott Morrison won. Wait, but if true, propose blurb along the lines of: Scott Morrison replaces Malcolm Turnbull as Prime Minister of Australia, after a party room vote. Adpete (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC).
 * Support - using the blurb from Adpete above. HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added that as ALT2. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment This is ITN/R, so the only concern should be article quality, and the leadership challenge article is quite good. That being said, I think the Scott Morrison article should be bolded, and it has several missing refs. In addition, not all of the articles have been updated with the change. Davey2116 (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, actually, AUS' PM is "head of gov't", not "head of state". Doesn't rule out for posting, just not an "automatic" ITNR. --M asem (t) 03:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Is there a reason that changes in head of government aren't ITN/R? Davey2116 (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The community has found it better to debate them on their own merits. The head of government is a position of varying degrees, depending on the country.  In some, the head of government is a puppet figure or otherwise a figurehead, while in others it is a powerful, independent position.  The context of the change also matters; is it just the PM deciding to retire, or were they tossed out? Changes in head of government are often posted as part of a general election. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

*Comment I added altblurb III. Altblurb I and Altblurb II are incorrect because they mistakenly suggest that Scott Morrison is already Prime Minister, without yet having being sworn in by the Governor General. Chrisclear (talk) 03:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Important story about change of government leader. Precedent is September 2015, when we posted the Leadership spill of 14 September 2015 when Turnbull defeated Abbott. Chrisclear (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, in principle, and the split vote article seems fine. But I'm not sure what the best way to put the blurb, Alt III seems a bit waffle-y to me. --M asem (t) 03:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that (my) Alt III is wordy. It could be shortened to be similar to Alt I or Alt II. The important thing that needs to be conveyed in the blurb is that Scott Morrison is not yet Prime Minster, despite having won the vote. (It is nearly certain that he will be Prime Minister within the next 78 hours, following a meeting with the Governor-General). Chrisclear (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm happy for a slight rewording of blurb 2 to reflect SM is not PM yet. But I have two problems with blurb 3: (1) no need to mention Liberal Party, and more importantly (2) Morrison did not defeat Turnbull in the spill. That's why I went for the very bland "after a party room vote". Adpete (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, I have updated Altblurb3 to remove the reference to Turnbull's participation in the vote. Chrisclear (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support once he is sworn in. ScoMo has said he will visit the Governor-General "later this evening", so we might as well wait until then (and use the time to ensure the articles are updated), and then use the word "replaces" instead of "set to replace/become". And since it's apparently not automatically ITN, for the record I strongly support posting it. I still prefer my AltBlurb II (with first and last items bolded) but I'll let others decide. Adpete (talk) 07:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Morrison has now been sworn in - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-24/live-scott-morrison-replaces-malcolm-turnbull-as-pm-after-spill/10159462 HiLo48 (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose/question what's the importance here? For me, a foreign observer, is appears it's just a regular standard change in leadership, and we normally don't post minor regular domestic news that, do we? Otherwise the ITN would be filled ith similar domestic news because party leaderships change almost every day in various countries across the world. Openlydialectic (talk) 07:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you may have answered your own question. It's the removal/resignation of the 29th Prime Minister of Australia and the swearing in of the 30th Prime Minister of Australia. This is major and not "minor domestic" news. Chrisclear (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Australian PM is like a revolving door, this would be like posting French strikes. As the BBC report notes: "Mr Turnbull is the fourth Australian PM in a decade to be ousted by colleagues." The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The two are not worthy of comparison. A strike is just a strike. A change of Prime Minister has far-reaching effects relating to the policies of the Australian government. Chrisclear (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Italy has a tendency of rapidly changing PMs and yet we always post them. A change of the head of the government is ITNR. In any case, now that Morrison has been sworn in, what article to bold? --Tone 09:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A change in head of government is not automatically ITNR; it is only a change in head of state.(which in Australia is Elizabeth II) Changes in head of government are ITNR only when posted as part of a general election. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The story of how the leadership changed is covered in the article at the top of the nomination - Liberal Party of Australia leadership spills, 2018 - so that's the right one. HiLo48 (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm not clear from what I've read on the reason for the leadership dispute.  Is there a scandal of some kind, or is it just the party wanting someone else?  331dot (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How long have you got? There is no simple answer. Lots of egos and ideological stuff. Have a look at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-24/malcolm-turnbull-liberal-party-fear-comes-to-pass/10160764 for some insight. HiLo48 (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment A little context we posted the same thing, from a similarly broken system just two years ago. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as this seems to reflect an ideological dispute and is not just a simple change(i.e. Trumbull deciding to retire on his own). 331dot (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Alternative blurb II Change of national leader Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb 2 The earlier discussion was before the new PM was selected. There is now a new PM of Australia and he has now already been sworn in, so the story definitely belongs in ITN now. Liguer (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - seems ready to be posted. And a major change in Aussie politics.BabbaQ (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt 2 significance shouldn't be a question, and from what I've seen, the circumstances of the leadership change is important as well. Banedon (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted with Alt2. Black Kite (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Krishna Reddy

 * All fine here, posting. --Tone 13:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kuldip Nayar

 * One ref missing in the bibliography. When fixed, this article is ready. --Tone 13:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Made significant improvements and tagged a few issues. Easily fixable when a couple more obits are published. Be on the look out for WP:BACKWARDSCOPY that could lead to WP:CITOGEN.--- Coffee  and crumbs  15:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Ready. --- Coffee  and crumbs  05:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Efforts to impeach Donald Trump
It's a slow news day, and not much is happening nomination wise, so here's another "Trump engages gob before brain" moment for you to ponder over. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trump claims a lot of things which are basically fundamentally stupid or untrue. This isn't a Trump ticker.  When he gets impeached I'll consider supporting.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , is this a good faith nomination? Do you think this belongs on the main page? ghost 17:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is, because the article has been updated, the blurb is on the front page of two major newspapers, and we might as well look at some new nominations if nothing else is coming forward. I admit I'm sceptical it'll get much support, but if you don't ask, you don't get. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Newspaper or not, it is just speculation about something that may happen, not something that actually happened. If it is a slow news day, let the current news stay in their place in the main page until we get real news for new blurbs. Cambalachero (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose We should never be posting hypotheticals, even if it is a slow news day. --M asem (t) 17:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I earlier closed this as what appeared to be a joke nom. It's since been opened again. Nonetheless, this is pretty low in terms of novelty, let alone notability, even for ITN's favorite orange buffoon.--WaltCip (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ed King
He counted off Sweet Home Alabama - what more notability do you want? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficiently sourced for posting. --M asem (t) 21:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Okay by me. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support He was a co-writer, in fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Good 2 go.BabbaQ (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Michael Cohen guilty plea

 * Comment before the opposes pile on, please consider this is a significant step in an investigation that's been running (and dominating headlines) for two years. It's very much in the news today. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Article will need to be scrutinized before posting as well for obvious reasons. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I would recommend this also should include the conviction of Paul Manafort at the same time, both cases tied to the campaign and both that analysts assert have potential effects on Trump's ongoing legal troubles. I don't know 100% if I can commit to supporting or opposing either, but I think the argument is stronger if Manafort is also included. --M asem (t) 19:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. The blurb should not have "at the direction of the president" which essentially says Trump is guilty too, but that has not been adjudicated. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * *Weak oppose on the grounds that if we include this story, we should also consider a mention of the Paul Manafort verdict, as both individuals are a target of the Mueller investigation. As a comment, I have provided an alt blurb that takes out the reference to President Trump, per 331dot's reasoning. Striker force Talk 19:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Now Support alt blurb 2 with the inclusion of Manafort. Striker force Talk 20:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The entire notability of this story hinges on the possible impact this would have on President Trump. I've said before the only thing that would be notable in this whole saga is if articles of impeachment were to be filed against Trump. Beyond that, it's a nothingburger.--WaltCip (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose As a minimum until/if a sentencing happens. Right now, it's just tabloid fodder, which the frontpage of WP should not be.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We typically post convictions for this sort of thing, not sentencing. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose let's not make this into a Trump impeachment ongoing ticker. Wait until something genuinely encyclopedic happens.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Wait for something bigger. Lepricavark (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support A crucial development. It won't get much bigger than this for a while. I added a blurb which combines the Cohen and Manafort headlines. Davey2116 (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * At 37 words, twice as long as most blurbs. Sca (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb 2 per Davey. This is not just another Trump story.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Walt. Too iffy & murky. Sca (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Manafort was primarily prosecuted to pressure him to flip.  Cohen plead guilty likely after agreeing to flip.  The cases themselves are relatively minor and absent a connection to Trump would not be publicized. There might be some step in this to post before an impeachment vote, but this doesn't feel like it to me. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the latest in the endless Trump scandal nominations for the same reasons I opposed all of the others. There is a longstanding and very strong consensus at ITN that we do not post domestic domestic political scandals that do not involve the indictment and/or impeachment of the head of state/government. I agree with that consensus. Every country has these kinds of scandals and we don't post them. The United States is not a special case. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose If the reasoning is that it's a significant step in a major investigation with possibly head-of-state change result, I think it's a too low of a bar. There are many investigations around the world that can change heads of states, and each can have multiple significant steps. Even the Trump investigation already had a lot of developments that was considered "significant". Posting blurbs for every single one doesn't seem a good use of ITN. HaEr48 (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment A little context. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem. If it leads to something meaningful such as impeachment, sure. But since it has not, no. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Villano III

 * Not a single reference in the article body. Stephen 20:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears this has now been addressed as most of the article is referenced. I can still see a few unsourced statements but it’s not far away. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * what are you talking about? It was sourced like it is now when I posted it, plenty of references, one or more in each section. Did you perhaps mean to reply to a different article?  MPJ  -DK 00:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Because when you first posted it you linked to Rafael Calventi by mistake. Stephen 06:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I did? Well Thank you to whomever fixed that.  MPJ  -DK 06:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted RD) RD/Blurb: Stefán Karl Stefánsson

 * Oppose - has an "expansion needed" tag and the filmography tables seem totally unsourced.  MPJ  -DK 19:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support when ready Notability is not in question, and the article is currently being heavily edited to improve the quality. Lots of new articles about this have been published in the last hour. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 21:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Article improved More sources than simply IMDB (which would, if the sole source, be a UGC problem) for his career. Article is in good shape. May he rest in peace. 😢 Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 05:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RIP 😭😭. Addressed some issues with article.  Nixinova   T   C  04:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Filmography is sourced albeit with IMdB as one of the sources. The article text is well referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 *  Strong support for a blurb Great actor, well-written article. Openlydialectic (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on a blurb at the moment. Not the same as a figure like Nelson Mandela who will forever be remembered in world history, but the posting of Aretha Franklin shows that beloved entertainers do in fact have their place on ITN. Stefán's notability in internet culture is well-documented, so perhaps that will be enough for a blurb. I'll wait to see what others have to say before !voting one way or the other, as I was neutral on posting Aretha's death as well. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 05:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD, neutral blurb: Article is good for posting and he had a huge impact on the internet culture and death is being reported worldwide. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb among entertainers or even specifically actors, nowhere near the top of his field. Vanamonde (talk) 06:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting as RD. RD is appropriate here, not a blurb. --Tone 08:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm happy he's on there as far as listing him (not so happy about him dying, mind you), but if we were to do a blurb, the first option has some problems. It's missing a period at the end, "his role of" should be "his role as", "in television" should be "in the television", and "LazyTown" should be italicized. Also, I would change "drama" into "series" seeing as it's a more general and accurate term for what I would describe as a comedic children's musical. Then again, this probably doesn't matter since this really isn't blurb-worthy news. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 11:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support for RD, oppose for blurb - Stefánsson, while popular amongst internet culture, was far from the apex of acting, and far from the game and impact of Aretha Franklin. He may have been number one, but this is what RD exists for. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's probably time to close this now. There will never be consensus for a blurb. (I can't believe this guy is being compared to Aretha Franklin).--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither do I, tbh. Like most people not from the US, I have never even heard about that songstress, and yet for some reason she had a blurb about her death posted to the ITN complete with her picture after only getting 3 supporting votes here. Sad. Openlydialectic (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Trying to compare Aretha Franklin with an actor that is not relevant even for Europe (outside LazyTown) is sad. © Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 16:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Enough with the generalizing, please. This non-US resident knew pretty well who Aretha Franklin was, even before her death (as did many of my fellow countrypeople). Just because you had not heard of her before does not mean she was not known outside of her country. –FlyingAce✈hello 21:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) Missing Iowa college student found dead

 * Strong oppose. This is the sort of story ITN absolutely does not need. WaltCip (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose possibly a DYK. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 16:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose DYK at best. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn I have found a couple of DYK worthy facts about the story that I am working into the article now. I will consider nominating there. Striker force Talk 17:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Discovery of water ice on Moon

 * Support except why not link to the Moon, a featured article? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably because most readers know what the Moon is. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The obscure isn't the enemy of the obvious. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Noting that I've just updated in the relevant section on Lunar water about this discovery. --M asem (t) 14:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in decent shape and the discovery is notable, as possible future lunar colonies are considered. I will also comment, however, that the blurb feels a little awkward, to me. I'm not sure of the best way to reword it, though, so I haven't suggested an alternative at the moment. Striker force Talk 14:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC) Switching to Oppose after additional review and noticing the same thing that Modest Genius pointed out below.  Striker force' Talk 18:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, and concur with StrikerForce. 74.93.182.21 (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support notable discovery, however I agree that an alt-blurb should be considered for easier clarification of this event. Although I doubt colonization of the moon will occur any time in the short-term future (at least not during this decade), this does prove that the moon has (or at least once had) liquid water.  Well done Masem. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It says nothing about liquid water, now or in the past. This is solid ice in cold traps, never liquid at any stage. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean the moon at one point had water, as Hornetzilla78 mentions. SamaranEmerald (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support alright... this is a discovery. Most of the astronomy related nominations on this board are often times based off speculation violating WP:CRYSTALBALL such as the proposed Alpha Centauri mission in 2069 or a lack of an actual peer-reviewed article, such as the new moons of Jupiter that were discovered awhile back.  This nomination however is neither of these two cases, which is why I support this nomination. SamaranEmerald (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Changed to Oppose, apparently I jumped to an instant conclusion..., apparently as MG points out, this "discovery" isn't actually a new discovery, the sources note that the actual discovery occurred back in 2009, and that this report is actually only further support for that occurrence. In other words, the blurb is Stale and Misleading. SamaranEmerald (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support . Oppose, as per User:Modest Genius below. Pondering, as per User:Masem below. But presumably it's still not any more blue. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Solid water ice on the Moon was discovered - and widely reported - in 2009 by the same instrument on the same spacecraft, as the article makes clear. The latest analysis offers improved evidence and better mapping, but for something that was already known. The BBC journalist appears to have been misled by a press release; this is not a new discovery. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Question: Hi, Can you please help me understand this comment in the lunar water article? "...mineral-bound water, or hydroxylated mineral surface, must not be confused with water ice." I don't see that "water ice" was reported in 2009 and the press release you cite is talking about "water-rich minerals", but I have only a weak understanding of this topic. [edited] -SusanLesch (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Modest Genius. WaltCip (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 16:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Still opposed after Masem's update. This is not a significant development; we're going from "probably ice of some form" to "even more probably ice of some form" based on a new statistical analysis of decade-old data.  It's just getting a lot of press in a very slow news cycle. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ooops! Oppose simply not news.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I hate to add to a closed discussion, but unfortunately I could not respond to Modest's comment before this was closed, as I believe it mischaracterizes the situation. The 2009 discovered water molecules on the moon, some associated with minerals, so in 2009 we knew there was some water molecules floating around and they were actively tracking them. However, this was not prove of water ice. At that time, they also postulated that these molecules would move towards the poles to become water ice. This report is different significantly and not the same discovery, just led to that by the same instrument/probe. They have discovered strong evidence that there is thick-enough layers of water ice at the poles to absorb infrared in water's signature bands. Now one can argue that the presence of water on the moon was previously affirmed in 2009, and that's valid, but its the fact there's concentrated areas of water ice that is new, and this would be important for anyone attempting to establish a lunar colony there to be able to tap into that water. I don't know if that changes anyone's minds, but I do want to address the difference from 2009. --M asem  (t) 18:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, so still postable with an adjusted blurb. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Masem, MG makes a good case but I'm leaving my support open because this is more than a few molecules. It would help if you or someone could revisit the lunar water article. I went through and removed a ton of repetition but would like to be sure all the M3s are right. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * comment I Herbert have reopened this following Jayron's earlier SNOW close and Masems comment above. I'm Not opining one way or the other on posting, but seems fair to give the conversation a chance to continue. If it transpires that it's still a clear no then it can be re-snowed. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Just water? If they detect coffee on the moon I will consider supporting that. Sca (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral I'd support if the blurb didn't jump the gun. There may have been a find worth posting, but the misleading blurb makes it hard to support the current version. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 21:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Masem. Also if the results weren't novel they wouldn't be published in PNAS. Banedon (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: In addition to the initial Chandrayaan-1 finding (In_the_news/Candidates/September_2009), there was a second related posting at ITN was made in November 2009: In_the_news/Candidates/November_2009.  Spencer T• C 01:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, it seems like somebody's milking a second publication out of largely the same data, and the media's buying into the hype. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: All we seem to have is a single paper by 2 scientists claiming to have 'definitive' evidence of surface water ice. The BBC indicates caution by putting the claim in quotes in its headline (and beginning the article with 'scientists say'). Our main blurb does not clearly indicate this caution to our readers (the alternative blurb seems so incautious as to be just plain wrong), and seemingly neither does our article (though I found it quite hard to work out exactly what our article is actually saying and whether it was correctly reflecting the sources both in the lead and in the body and I had to go to the 2 sources to work out what was going on, which means we may also have a quality issue). I am also unclear whether or not this paper contradicts earlier different-sounding results reported in the preceding paragraph in the body of our article. And if we put the requisite caution clearly into our main blurb I doubt if the news can seriously be deemed of ITN significance.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * First, I used "gives evidence" in the blurb to distinguish from "finds". The paper is clear they didn't find water ice, but instead a strong likelihood of water ice by their analysis that little else can account for. Nor does it contradict. As early as 2009 there was discovery of evidence for water molecules across the moon, and with this paper, that those appear to collect at the poles in bodies of water ice. (Also as a peer-reviewed journal, this is not just two random scientists publishing random theories, that's why its peer reviewed). --M asem  (t) 17:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support We put the Mars-lake discovery on here, so why not this? Ultimograph5 (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Obviously notable, still in the news, and look at the terrible selection of ITN stories we've got at the moment - three deaths and a literary award won by someone for the third year in a row for three books in the same series... Black Kite (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree the current selection is bad; however the only news here is Donald Trump and Mollie Tibbetts. The Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2018 is too parochial.  I suppose the 2018 U.S. Prison Strike might be notable, but the article is far too bare-bones to nominate. Hurricane Lane (2018) might need posting soon. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per BlackKite and this Reuters article which makes it clear that NASA regards this discovery as of high importance in establishing a moon base, both for fuel and human consumption. Opposes are unconvincing. Jusdafax (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * NASA is a world leader in hype. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's very, very difficult to understand the incremental "news" that is occurring now. Feels something like "Before we were 95% sure it was ice, now we're 97% sure." ghost 14:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is in good shape. Interesting news and is ITN ready.BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MG, overhype and already becoming yesterday’s news. Kirliator (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) The Stone Sky wins the Hugo Award for Best Novel

 * Support Article appears flawless and sufficiently comprehensive. I have added a picture of the author to the blurbs. I prefer some variation of the Alternative blurb. --- Coffee  and crumbs  02:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb, but without picture More informative. Kofi Annan's picture is more important Openlydialectic (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb winning 3 times in a row is unusual enough to be mentioned. Article seems good and this is ITNR. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Vanamonde (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Venezuelan bolívar

 * Oppose the currency crisis in Venezuela has been going on for a long time, I'm not sure this is significant. As a technical concern, the devaluation was only by a factor of 20  (the adjusting of the official exchange rate), the striking of zeros from the currency is something else.  The "crypto-currency" angle is getting coverage, but I'm not sure that should be covered here. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above and the fact that even this version of the current ongoing (ongoing ongoing ongoing) "crisis" is almost already stale having been announced five days ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Only reason I think today is the right date for posting (if it is posted) is that that's actually when the currency came out. This devaluation has been suggested for a few months and hit a few snags before implemented. --M asem (t) 21:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, it was announced in June. Even staler than I first thought.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per enwiki, TRM. (I wish someone sometime had raised my wages 3,000 percent.) – Sca (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fortunately for you, that 3000% pay raise retroactively applies to your service to Wikipedia as well! :) --M asem (t) 14:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose It's not everyday a government drastically changes the value of its currency, but Venezuela does not have an everyday government. It is an interesting story and has received a large amount of coverage though, so it's just a weak oppose from me. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If this were an isolated incident, I'd deem it a good idea to include, but the currency's been failing for a good long while already.  Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * as an expert on Venezuela. I'm inclined to Support since it's not every day that a country introduces a new currency. Banedon (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Regardless of the crisis, a change of national currency is an event rare enough to justify a blurb. However, the blurb should be fixed: the 3,000% raise in wages sounds incredibly generous if we skip the detail that inflation (basically, the percentage of general price raises, which is usually in a single digit in most countries, and some people in the US is worried because it may get near 3%) by the end of the year is expected to be... 1,000,000%. Yes, that's right, check the link. Yes, the blurb mentions hyperinflation, but such a concept is unheard of by common people in most countries (they only know about it those from countries with grave inflation problems, or those who study economics), and it may be hard to understand that even a 3,000% raise in wages is not enough. And yet, detailing the whole crisis in Venezuela in just a blurb is impossible. Try to reformulate it into a blurb that merely points that there is a new currency, and then we shall see. Cambalachero (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Regardless of the crisis, a change of national currency is an event rare enough to justify a blurb. I think the crisis is blurbable, but seems stale. The rarity of reissuing currency is a curiosity, not significant itself. This isn't even the first time Venezuela has done it this century. ghost 17:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Another reason for my opposition — the proposal is erroneous. The Sovereign Bolivar article notes that it's reverse: the currency has been revalued 100,000:1, not devalued.  Devaluation of 100,000:1 would mean that a kilogramme of pasta with a pre-devaluation price of 695,000 bolivares would have a post-devaluation price of 69,500,000,000 bolivares, not 6.95 bolivares as is apparently the actual situation.  Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Oppose Venezuela is a political and economic train wreck. But that has been the case for years. Purely on the merits of the story I'd like to support some mention of the catastrophe but as ITN is currently structured, I don't think there is a way. This particular story is stale and I don't think it's a good fit for ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose It only took a day, but the bad reactions to bad economic choices have been shaken out of the news. Kingsif (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Uri Avnery

 * Support - Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - looks good. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 12:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 14:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Jimmy McIlroy

 * Comment Article needs a bit updating to reflect his passing. Support Good update and article is in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Done.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good enough.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support It is okay now. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2 un-referenced sections. Stephen 06:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – Looks good enough now.BabbaQ (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Still two cn tags and the honours section is without references. --Tone 12:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Simone Biles sweeps U.S. Championship

 * Oppose parochial story of limited interest or impact, could be a DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Something from gymnastics ought to get posted, but this isn't it, would support if this was done at Worlds, rather than National level. Courcelles (talk) 06:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree that this might be notable if done at the international level. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Rafael Calventi

 * The article needs lots of work with sourcing first. --Tone 07:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs LOTS of source work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Tapsell

 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Posted Stephen 23:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Stephen, what about the article prompts you to oppose? Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops, meant Posted, which is what I did. Stephen

(Posted) Ongoing: 2018 Kerala floods

 * Support: 320+ lives have been lost, worst flood in over 100 years. Almost the entire state [tourist hotspot] is impacted and several thousands are affected. Covered widely in the international media. New York Times Washington Post Sky News Guardian Japan Times Regards,  theTigerKing  16:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Still a developing story receiving ample coverage in the media. Teemu08 (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Suport Concur on the magnitude of the disaster coupled with the continuous news coverage. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Already posted by Amakuru at 14:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC) --Danski454 (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose and Pull what consensus? Article has bad grammar, missing refs, broken graphs. Atrocious, not at all MP quality. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus was reached that the quality issues were resolved, in the August 11 section down in this very page. And it was posted as a blurb by another admin until it rolled off the bottom due to later events. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well the article now has referenced, poor grammar statements like "The Centre reached out to Kerala, offering a helping hand to tackle the situation.". What "Centre"? To Kerala how? What helping hand? WTF is that meaningless statement? --LaserLegs (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No Wikipedia article that's immune to poor grammar as there are no paid Oxford-trained proof readers here. The easiest solution is just fix it, you, yourself. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support if you don't like the quality of the article, fix it. It's still a noteworthy current event. 2601:200:4001:E52E:9548:E4CF:7DBE:FB15 (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Traditionally on ITN, articles with significant quality issues are removed from the template until they are brought up to quality, WP:SOFIXIT or not. See Kofi Annan below. Nonetheless, although the quality is somewhat middling, I personally think this article meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 05:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey IP, that is not a great attitude to have. Laserleg is providing his comments on viewing the article. It is now the responsibility of other editors to see if they can positively respond. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article is still receiving updates (diff changes over the past 24 hours, although without dating information, it's unclear when these changes are occurring. For an example, Carr_Fire has some of this and was previously included in the ongoing section.  Spencer T• C 05:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

(Readded as blurb) Death of Kofi Annan

 * RD only. UN Secretary General is not a particularly important position and Annan was not the world-transformative leader in his field that we typically give a blurb to. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We also already have two deaths in the ITN box. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably, but I think it's something to consider. Readers may wonder what RD is for when most of the ITN box has deaths in it. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, we should never change standards just because of what is currently being displayed. Full stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Then we should be prepared for criticism that ITN is turning into RD. That's all I'm saying. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You've inadvertently disclosed your nationality but I see you have declared it on your user page anyway! Thincat (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with anything? 331dot (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * RD only. At least Kofi Annan is a famous person in the world’s political history. Many American or British politicians are nominated and blurbed even though they are not world-transformative as the previous person said. Furthermore, Annan is also a Nobel Peace Prize laureate that should have blurbed this article. If we cannot put the event on “On Going” sections, we can just put this article onto the “Recent Deaths” section.Iagen0509 (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 100% blurb as top man for the UN.  However, article is dreadful, so neither RD nor blurb need be discussed right now, just fix the myriad issues.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb very notable person, Nobel Prize laureate. No brainer. Article requires some work, of course.- <font face="Century Gothic"> Eugεn S¡m¡on  10:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've changed this to RD=Yes, as I don't know why it was No. This doesn't prevent people also asking for a blurb (tho I'm RD Only, see below).Tlhslobus (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * RD only - per 331dot. Being top man at the UN ensures you are well known, but usually doesn't make all that much difference in practice to all that many people, due to the limited powers of both the UN and of its boss. And his Nobel Peace Prize seems to be about as meaningless as Obama's (I liked and broadly approved of Annan and Obama, but that's beside the point).Tlhslobus (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - absolutely worthy of a blurb, as the world-famous and significant ruler of a leading global organisation. Absolutely worthy of a blurb, alongside the two already listed. It is not every week that ITN has three death blurbs, but then again, it is not every week that three figures of global renown and importance die. Support blurb pending article improvements. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The U.N. Secretary General doesn't "rule" the U.N. so much as they oversee it. The real power of the U.N. is in the Security Council. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - that there will be three death blurbs on MP does not matter one jot. It's just the way the dice fall. Leader of a global organization for a number of years, highly respected and worthy of a blurb. Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose at the moment given level of referencing. Would support blurb given he was the first black African Secretary General and I would argue the highest profile Secretary-General this century. Capitalistroadster (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * RD only. This is why we have the recent deaths section, so that we'll have space in the blurbs for events that have more impact in the present, instead of deaths of people, regardless of how great things they have done in the past. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's accurate at all. My reading of the RFC is that the chief benefit of the "new" policy is that we would limit ghastly devil's advocacy against the worthiness of the recently deceased (see discussion of the "random" Ms. Franklin). Intentional of not, it also provided less prominent personalities a figurative day in the sun (post their literal last day in the sun). ghost 13:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible support for a blurb, pending reference improvements. One of the most important politicians of the late XXth-early XXIst centuries. Presided over 9/11, the US invasions of Iraq & AFghanistan. WE just need to get rid of citation tags and we are good to go. Openlydialectic (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb A classic example, highest tier of international diplomacy. And end of another era... Brandmeistertalk  11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * RD only An important political figure but not world-transformative. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize are usually considered important figures and world transformative. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Obama got one primarily because he was not George Bush, not for anything he did.(which he would admit) Getting one doesn't necessarily reflect their influence on the world. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If Obama were to die tomorrow he'd get a blurb, not just a RD. --Gerrit CUTEDH 12:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If Obama, Bush Sr, Carter or Clinton were to die tomorrow I'd oppose blurbs. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Obama??! That's completely bonkers.  The Rambling Man (talk)
 * Aside from being the first black POTUS, he wasn't especially transformative, I don't consider a nobel prize to be "blurb worthy upon death" for anyone. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth just ignoring LL if he's not commenting on the article being discussed. He's welcome to his opinion as long as he doesn't become disruptive when the consensus feels otherwise. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Getting one doesn't necessarily reflect their influence on the world. this kind of POV speculation is not a good example to set around here. How many Nobel Peace Prize winners have there ever been?  It's not up to us to decide how worthy these individuals were.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure winning a Nobel Prize should be a ticket to a blurb for a deceased person. 331dot (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Me neither. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But that's not quite all he did, now is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Definitely support RD, neutral on blurb. He is a VIP, so he sure deserves RD ( if his article is good enough). Whether he deserves a blurb or not, I'll leave it to others. --Angga1061 13:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb again, not Thatcher/Mandela. Sorry. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 100% support blurb I love Aretha Franklin, but for her to have a blurb and a Nobel Laureate and UN Secretary General to be left off is a travesty. C'mon, WP:ASB people. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb because this death is really in the news, arguably more newsy than all the extant blurbs in the template and for serving as world top diplomat, Nobel laureate and further first black ... in so many things. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb – (Pending article improvement.) Arguably the most widely known and respected U.N. secretary-general since Dag Hammarskjöld. His name became a household word, in the English-speaking world at least. Sca (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: Annan, who lived in Switzerland, is described by the Zürich paper as "the moral conscience of the world." He was also the first black African to be elected secretary-general. Sca (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb as noted above, not a world-transformative figure. And I do feel that already having two deaths on ITN is a further reason not to post this. Lepricavark (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "world-transformative figure." is a subjective and vague label. It can't be objectively defined. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As of this writing, the article has had a two-sentence update (and the sentences, one of which is in the lede, are nearly identical) conveying no information beyond what's in the blurb, and is fairly littered with citation-needed tags. It's not postable to the main page in this state no matter how many people vote support. —Cryptic 14:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD/Blurb on quality, support blurb if updated - As Cryptic just pointed out, we're nowhere close for this being posted even as an RD. I would support a blurb, not so much as the UN SG (not really an elected position as with most other world leaders) but as a Nobel Peace laureate (which *is* a significant honor/importance). --M asem (t) 14:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb: Very important and influential person, and literally all over the world. Worthy of blurb. Article seems alright now, perhaps could have a few more references for its length but it's not specifically lacking. Coverage good, too.Kingsif (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * RD only An important person who deserves RD nomination. Not sure, if every Secretary General of UN should figure in blurb [per contributions to the mankind]. Regards,  theTigerKing  16:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As long as someone merits an article, they merit posting to RD. Importance is no longer judged for RD nominations. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb - It's true he received a Nobel Peace Prize, but he simply isn't a transformative world-leader figure a'la Thatcher or Mandela. WaltCip (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support blurb except for article quality; Kofi Annan is a household name. I think the Thatcher/Mandela standard is ludicrously restrictive. As for the concern that there would then be three death-blurbs on the main page, that is irrelevant. We post events as they happen, there is no quota. Davey2116 (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't irrelevant when we have a section of the ITN box dedicated to deaths. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (P.S.: I know that "if we posted X, then we should post Y" arguments are not generally valid here, but it'd be questionable to post (with all due respect) Aretha Franklin and Atal Bihari Vajpayee and not post Annan, since Annan was at least as prominent (if not more) than they were. Davey2116 (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * +1. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagree that Annan is a "household name". I think if you asked the average person on your average street corner if they knew Kofi Annan died, they would say "Kofi who?"  Most people in the world don't know who the UN secretary general is- but they have heard of people like Reagan, Thatcher, Mandela, and Aretha Franklin. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You know the danger with such hypothetical? I knew who Kofi Annan was even as a child (when he was UN SG). I've never heard of Aretha Franklin until her death being in the news, and even now I had to double check that's who you were talking about. -- KTC (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I did say "average", which by its nature would leave out people who may know who he was. We likely have different world perspectives on this, which I respect- but I can only give my opinion based on it. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your definition of average is seriously those who don't know who he is? Why aren't I an "average person on average street corner"? Just because I'm involved in Wikipedia doesn't mean I'm magically more knowledgable about any particular subject apart from Wikipedia itself. I don't follow politics apart from what pops up in the news and now social media. I certainly don't follow international politics. I'm not Ghanaian or even African who may be more likely to know of a UN SG from Ghana. Again, the danger with "if you ask the average person on the..." hypothetical is one inevitably answer it with their personal bias, so unless you have actually conducted such a survey and preferably in multiple countries, it's not a very helpful line of argument. -- KTC (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize for giving offense, as I don't seem to be clearly making my point, so I will stop before I dig myself in a deeper hole. Again, apologies. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm another person who has never heard of Aretha Franklin, but heard of Annan many times. starship.paint ~  KO   09:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Annan's status as a "household name" was greatest during his tenure as general-secretary (1996-2007), when he was often in the news, and a decade later it may have faded somewhat, at least among younger readers. That in no way diminishes his notability, however, and we should have a blurb. Sca (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb His death news are all over the world online news. His article is complete enough already, his position in the UN was considered the top in world politics/diplomacy. What else? Everything is there already to show his nobility. If a singer (Aretha Franklin) can be written in the news, then I don't know what to say if a world leader (plus noble price winner) can't be written there. Please don't get priority wrong based on mainstream popularity. Chongkian (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - (Support RD) Notable for sure, but weak legacy as U.N. Secretary-General, who also died many years after retirement. --Bruzaholm (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb if article is up to standards. I don't agree with the "not a world-transformative figure" assessment or standard. Annan was UN SecGen for ten years, received a Nobel Peace Prize and was - for me and many my age - the first SecGen we ever knew about. Annan was also Under-SecGen for peacekeeping in a time of huge conflicts like Bosnian War and the Rwandan genocide. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 18:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well the first one I knew about was Boutros Boutros-Ghali and he didn’t get a blurb. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Admin notice: RD posted. Given that there is clear support for at least a RD notice, I've posted that. Discussion about whether to include a blurb can continue. Opinion about this appears split.  Sandstein   19:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pull, there are uncited paragraphs in this article. It is not up to main page standards yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, consensus here says otherwise. There's a few people above objecting to the article's quality, but everybody else supports either a blurb or a RD notice. But I won't object to another admin with more ITN experience pulling this if they think it's necessary. I think that would be a disservice to our readers, though.  Sandstein   20:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * When we have cases of people arguing on blurb vs RD (particularly this noisy), editors tend to forget about checking on sourcing. That still has to be checked even by the posting admin. Don't assuming cases like this where in the blurb vs RD that the RD is automatically find because people support an RD over a blurb. --M asem (t) 20:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment the sourcing wouldn't pass muster for a Featured Article, but is good enough for RD. I don't doubt the accuracy of the claim that he received a degree from The George Washington University; and removing it wouldn't hurt the article if there was some reason to doubt it.  Others (was he "lauded by Kenyans" for the Kenya National Dialogue and Reconciliation Process?) are editing issues, and many are likely included in other references in the paragraphs (but not in sentence-by-sentence attribution). power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pull what a complete joke. Something like 37 [citation needed] tags across a BLP and it gets a drive-by posting?  This sets an all-time low threshold.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pulled As noted, the source is still bad (15+ CNs for example). I recommend when people are arguing over RD/blurb that posting admins use more care to arguments related to sourcing/quality before posting the RD, since that gets lost in the noise of the RD/blurb arguing. --M asem  (t) 20:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No blurbs for anyone Everyone dies as surely as everyone poops. If you're famous and your article is in decent shape, you get noted in Recent deaths. Implies the exact same thing we'd spell out redundantly, without pushing news that needs extra words out of the limited spotlight. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you're aware that two of the current blurbs are recent deaths (one definitely less notable), and two other items in it about deaths? Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Aye, it's the rapid-fire pattern that made me put my tiny little foot down more than any one of its three "deserving" the "honour" or anything like that. They're all important in their own ways, and whether any one of us appreciates any of those ways depends on what we were into growing up where we did. The important thing is they were all around the age people normally are when they die unremarkable deaths.
 * If an overpass collapses on Missy Elliot or Narendra Modi is blown apart by a flying robot abroad, they'd be as deserving as the other seven hundred or so mentioned beneath today's stars without pictures. Because that sort of death has significant and lasting ramifications people in or about the presently-affected area should know about, far more urgent than the routine remembrance and replacement of a pop singer or prime minister. It's not like we can fit the seven hundred notable deaths individually in the clearly designated section for recent deaths, like we can for these three and the next one, so it makes sense to count them collectively as blurbs. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Restore to Recent Deaths - there is no mention at present either in blurb or RD's, which is not acceptable - surely his death is noteworthy regardless of the quality of the article about him. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The article still has a large # of citation needed tags, and I do not agree the "sweeping under the rug" of moving all the honors he got to a separate article per . It cannot go up as RD in this state. --M asem (t) 04:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Blurb are we kidding here? The article quality and not the noteworthiness of the news is the debate? If it's a problem, fix the article, don't sweep the news under the rug because we're embarassed the house is messy. 2601:200:4001:E52E:9548:E4CF:7DBE:FB15 (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Feel free to fix the article, no-one's going to do it for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "no-one's going to do it for you" - Oh dear, looks like Mystic Meg has hijacked TRM's account Let's hope her prophecy proves self-defeating and not self-fulfilling. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Neat, let's all work on it together. But I do not have a problem with an imperfect article being represented in a blurb on current events. If a meteor struck the earth but the article about the event was a mess, it would still be something we should have a blurb about happening. Article quality is not the issue, it being a current event in the news is, because that's what this portal is for. It's not the featured article, or a list of good articles, it's the current events portal. 2601:200:4001:E52E:9548:E4CF:7DBE:FB15 (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD once outstanding concerns are fixed: Quite found of Annan, but thinking rationally, his legacy concerning the UN isn't really profound, aside from being the first Black African to hold office and his restructure of the bureaucracy. 106.208.143.177 (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I did what I could to fix the article. Annan was part of the few people in power with some kind of conscience. He was also chairman of The Elders (organization). Now there are even fewer of them left. Wakari07 (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Re-added as RD, blurb discussion can continue I have reviewed the state of the article, and outside a couple placed that I think we'd prefer to see refs (but on blue-linked organizations), it's no longer in bad shape, so I have readded as an RD at minimum. I've already !voted for blurb, so I leave that assessment to a different admin. --M asem  (t) 14:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Reading of consensus This may not be perfect, but I count 15 in favor of blurb and 11 against. Several of the opposes seem to want to ban on RD blurbs, which is a position I advocate, but ITNC is not the place to change policy. Several others have cited the Mandela/Thatcher threshold, which again I must point out is not a standard adapted by consensus. One may interpret "major transformative world leaders" however s/he wishes, but the frequent citation of these precedents has the risk of clouding policy (like the WP:MINIMUDEATHS fiasco). ghost 15:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Restating my support for blurb, if only because the leader of the UN and advocate for human rights through some of most polemic conflicts who has won the Nobel Peace Prize is more worthy of a blurb than the leader of a single nation, one of whom has a blur at the moment. You could pull Vajpayee if concerned about too many RDs. Kingsif (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not a competition. Probability tells us that there may come a time where all 4/5 items on ITN will be very notable deaths. It happens! It is not something we should concern ourselves with. If we have consensus, just add this too. --- Coffee  and crumbs  15:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support blurb. A major figure who was literally the world's top diplomat for a decade. Did important work on HIV/AIDS, peacekeeping etc. Important impacts around the world and Nobel prize winner. It's crazy that we gave blurbs to two people who shouldn't have had them, the refused one of the very rare deaths that do merit a blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's good I'm not the only one noticing the intriguing anomaly of current two RD blurbs of people who are deemed "super-notable" and more worthy of blurb than Annan, whose obvious, global-level achievements need no mention here –Ammarpad (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There's a consensus for a blurb. I completely agree with the above sentiments that Annan is equally worthy of a blurb as Franklin and Vajpayee. Davey2116 (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For me, he shouldn't be blurbed because they're blurbed, it should be other way round. Annan, was a global statesman. He deserves it on his own right way better than both current blurbs. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I don’t see issue with having 3 deaths on ITN, we regularly have 3 sporting events or 3 disasters posted on ITN. yorkshiresky (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't have a "Recent Sporting Events" section or a "Recent Disasters" section in the ITN box. We do have a "Recent Deaths" section and many will wonder why we are putting so many deaths in the ITN box when we have "Recent deaths". 331dot (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Because they meet our criterion on global influence and their deaths made international headlines. It is a coincidence that their deaths occurred so close together. We should not concern ourselves with some possible backlash.--- Coffee  and crumbs  19:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - Major world figure for the past 2-3 decades. Kurtis (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Article is good to go and IMO Annan's impact on the UN and as other political figures put it: Annan had a huge impact on the UN's mission for peace. He won a Nobel Prize and his death his making global headlines. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per all the above discussion. Annan had a lasting and notable influence on this world and its history. He certainly meets the Thatcher standard whatever that subjective criterion means. Growing up I thought of him as President of the Earth. I am a sci-fi buff and when I saw some futuristic President of Earth, he is the one I thought of. I would argue he ushered in the way for Obama. From a cultural standpoint, it was the first time in my lifetime, we saw a black man as one of the leaders of the free world.--- Coffee  and crumbs  19:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted as blurb from RD space. Consensus has emerged through the discussion that Annan is notable enough for a blurb given his contributions to the UN, although some arguments about limited notability of his role as Secretary General were considered. Although some felt he did not meet the standard for a blurb posting, not rising to the level of "Mandela" or "Thatcher", the majority did feel that his impact was substantial enough and his recognition high enough for a blurb. Referencing issues appear to have been resolved, and Annan's article has solid depth of coverage of his life and work. Concerns about number of deaths listed as ITN blurbs or comparison of Annan's notability to that of Franklin or Vajpayee, or suggestions that all deaths should be posted to RD, were not considered; concerns related to ITN and RD procedures such as these should be addressed in a wider RFC, rather than an individual nom. Best,  Spencer T• C 19:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted blurb) 2018 Asian Games

 * Comment Just need several additional sources for "Venues and infrastructures" section and a single source will probably suffice for the "Calendar" section, and then you have my vote.--- Coffee  and crumbs  00:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am specifically talk about the lack of sources in the tables in the sections I mentioned. --- Coffee  and crumbs  05:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added source on venues table and calendar. Hddty. (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We still need a source for the capacity of the stadiums and venues. Also there is a faulty source in "Marketing" section. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Ready to post, . --- Coffee  and crumbs  06:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Is there any chance it's marked as Ongoing? --Angga1061 01:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angga1061 (talk • contribs)
 * I don't see why it shouldn't have a blurb first. --- Coffee  and crumbs  01:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb An important sporting event. Regards,  theTigerKing  02:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Ongoing right now we only ongoing the Olympics and the "world" cup - there are enough significant regional competitions that if we start ongoing them, there'll always be some sport in the box. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - not as big as the olympics, yes, but the only event that's remotely close to the olympics in terms of coverage is probably the world cup. This is about the same as if not more notable than the 2018 Commonwealth Games - which got a blurb. Juxlos (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb only but as soon as the games opens, a lot of work needs to be done in terms of tenses in the article. That needs to be checked before posting occurs. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb only the Olympics and the World Cup are the only sporting events that qualify for ongoing. Lepricavark (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blub This multinational sporting event is at an Asian level, which is considered continental level and very important already, probably equal to Euro Cup (football). Chongkian (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb then ongoing This is a major sporting event, unlike what Lepricavark, any event can be ongoing. --Danski454 (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb only Ongoing is just for Olympics or World Cup. Yogwi21 (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: ...and I'm afraid it's getting overlooked due to the Kofi Annan stuff. --Angga1061 05:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angga1061 (talk • contribs)
 * Posted blurb &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please post the photo added above for a while. It should help alleviate some of the "too many RDs as Blurbs" issue. The photo was published by Fars News Agency which licenses all their coverage under Creative Commons 4.0 International.--- Coffee  and crumbs  19:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Imran Khan
<b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 20:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Did we not post this last month? --M asem (t) 21:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That was different, he is elected prime minister today. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 21:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Was there any chance that from the July election that Khan would not have been elected now? We treated the July election as ITNR. --M asem (t) 22:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was a great chance that he would not have been elected. His party had a very thin plurality, it went a lot into building a coalition. For example if MQM-P would not have decided to support PTI and few independents would have supported the parties in opposition and opposition have been intact then there was a great chance that Shehbaz Sharif might have won. At the time of July election, it was not clear which way MQM-P would go. Also, after July elections, parties in opposition formed a Grand Alliance, only right before the election of prime minister, one party split up. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 22:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just trying to make sure, this was an unusual case in that there was a good chance that he would not have been elected?  (To compare, while the US elects the president in Nov, he's not inaugerated until Jan, and there are things that can happen, like death, that could disrupt that, but nearly no legal process (short of Bush v Gore) that could disrupt that, so we announced the US president in Nov. Obviously if something changed in that rare case, we'd likely post it here. I want to make sure we're talking a similar type of case here, this being a rare alignment of conditions leading to this point. ) --M asem  (t) 23:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, we could always consider each case on its merits rather than having to Wikilawyer everything into neat shoeboxes. In the case of the recent US election/inauguration, despite not being an American myself I argued strongly that both were necessary for ITN due to the global coverage and the expectation of our readers to find appropriate links on the main page. I know you and I respectfully disagree on that issue Masem, but sometimes there is room for flexibility anyway. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If my years growing up in Canada taught me anything about this system, Khan was all but certain to form a government. The Dutch(?) or some Baltic country went like a year and a half without forming a government. This isn't news. Sorry. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

MQM-P and his PTI were bitter rivals before the elections. It was well after a couple of weeks after the election when they decided to vote for him. There was a talk that if they did not support him and if he could not sway independents, he would not win premiership. US case is different, it is almost set in stone on election night who is going to be president come January. That was not the case in Pakistan. This guy had a 22 year old political struggle. There were a lot of players involved which included judiciary, military, and intelligence agencies. There was a thought that Shehbaz Sharif might be more suitable to these powers as Khan might not prove as much subservient as Sharif. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 23:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * yes, yes we did --LaserLegs (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose we don't need to post this again. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 23:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between his party winning a thin plurality and him being actually elected prime minister. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 00:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment None of the above matters. This is a separate WP:ITNR than the ITNR for the general election. Only thing that matters is if the article is good enough. --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not ITNR. 331dot (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I now see the distinction made between head of state and head of government. --- Coffee  and crumbs  01:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This was the most likely outcome. If his party was not put into government, that would have merited posting. 331dot (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above comments Regards,  theTigerKing  02:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 331dot, I know it doesn't much matter in practice in this instance, but you've got two identical votes showing here, which 'looks all wrong', so perhaps you might remove one of them, please.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Not sure how I duplicated that.  Thank you 331dot (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose After election it was quite clear that PTI'll form the next government and Khan'll be its head. I know there was a thin plurality but still 116 seats is much more than PML(N)'s 64. Yeah if PML(N) had formed the government that'd have been surprising and we could've posted it just like how PTI formed government in Punjab despite securing less seats than PMLN. We cann't post a news saying "the leader of a party winning 116 seats (that's 33 more than 2nd party in the list) has been elected PM", as it was most likely, but we could've posted a blurb stating the "2nd most successful party's leader has been elected PM", as it'd have been surprising. Amirk94391 (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And, yet Khan got 176 votes while 172 were required hence my point that if MQM-P's four votes and just a couple of independents were not there for him and if current opposition had a united candidate which they had until two days before premier's election then Khan would not have won. I know it is not surprising but this guy is striving to become prime minister for last 22 years and finally becoming a prime minister in a country where change does not happen too often is incredibly important news. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 02:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As per section 91 (4) of PPC (a bit eleborated here) if no one secures 172 votes there should be a round two between top two contestants of first round and the winner of round two'd become PM regardless of weather he/she received 172 votes or not. So even if Khan hadn't secured 172 votes he was still most likely to become PM. Moreover there was never a fight for government formation in centre. What you're saying is that if Khan wasn't supported by allies of PTI and some independents he would never've became PM. Well from my elaboration of Section 91 above it is clear that only PTI candidates alone could have elected Khan as PM in round two as opposition was divided. Amirk94391 (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: David McReynolds

 * Oppose at least three paras without a single citation. Not good enough for a BLP.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yelena Shushunova

 * Weak oppose just looks like that last para of the opening section of the "Senior career" section that needs refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Now fully sourced and in more objective, neutral tone. Support as ready. MurielMary (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Nice work on this one; seemed miles away yesterday. ghost 16:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael Persinger

 * Support looks in good nick. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support well sourced and tidy prose, good to go. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support looks good, the person is notable enough. Openlydialectic (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. Notability is not really a requirement for RD, the article quality is. And this article is good. --Tone 08:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted blurb): Aretha Franklin

 * Oppose on sourcing issues. When she was in the hospital earlier this week I did check the state of her article and there's several unsourced paragraphst throughout which persist today. --M asem (t) 14:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No more para without citation.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support I think that for an RD the article is sufficiently sourced. Were someone to request a blurb that might be something different, but the RD is certainly worthy of inclusion in the RD section. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, we tend to have high standards for RD articles. Right now, I see a couple of sections without references, which is a no-go. List of singles and filmography are also unsourced. Needs some work, but it will probably not be difficult to find sources. --Tone 14:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced for a RD. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose multiple paragraphs with no references.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No more paragraph without citation. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The overall state of the article is good, although additional work and referencing are always welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose some contentious claims without any references, simply not the stuff we put on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait . This deserves to go on the main page; hopefully by the close of play today, we can get the article appropriately copyedited and referenced. I had intended to get some book sources and take the article to GA at some point, but unfortunately I never got round to it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Now Strong support for blurb - whole article is referenced. Also see RIP Aretha Franklin: Five ways the Queen of Soul made history for more convincing arguments about blurb. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait until the article is fixed, then add quickly because this breaking news that will most likely remain in the news for some time. It would just be wrong if we were the only people who threw her death under the bus. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD and blurb, well-sourced with 107 citations.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Emphatically Her article will always need work, and even after it is posted, it could change. This is NO REASON to withhold listing her in In The News. List her now. - Haxwell (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb pending improved sourcing. Aretha Franklin is a cultural icon and worthy of more than an RD mention. Kurtis (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb assuming we can get our act together. A plea from bus-drivers everywhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD, looks good enough as it is. However I oppose a blurb because this is an old person dying of natural causes and her influence on the world was far smaller than the Mandela / Thatcher standard we should apply per WP:ITN/DC. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought we were supposed to evaluate their influence in their field. It's hard to overestimate her contribution to soul music.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thatcher couldn't even sing. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As I write, the front page of BBC News has live reactions to Aretha's death left, right and centre. This is not just your typical musician's obituary. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Purely from a factual standpoint, this isn't "an old person dying of natural causes". She had pancreatic cancer. Striker force Talk 16:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Is cancer not natural? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, cancer is one of the main ways that old people die and as much as it's tragic, there's nothing unnatural about it. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Sorry to bring up ITN's dirty little secret but Franklin IS on the Bowie level in music. Certainly more of a major influence in music then Carrie Fisher or Paul Walker were in acting. GuzzyG (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fischer and Walker were not old people who died of natural causes; their deaths were news themselves. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * None of those should have had blurbs IMO. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Good thing the decision-making process here is based on consensus and not on opinion.--WaltCip (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Consensus" is often just an aggregation of opinions though. Particularly so at ITN which lacks almost any policy or guidelines to support our recommendations. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD. Feel free to continue discussion about converting to blurb.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)*
 * Comment I've added a suggested blurb. Striker force Talk 16:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb with caveat that list of number one r and b singles and filmography need referencing. A blurb is warranted given her influence in her field. It is a vital article level 4 the same as Margaret Thatcher so a blurb would be appropriate. Capitalistroadster (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I just found a citation that mentions Franklin's 1962 album The Tender, the Moving, the Swinging Aretha Franklin as having reached #69 on the Billboard Pop albums chart - specifically, the Clinton Digital Library. It doesn't seem to have gotten its information from Wikipedia. Even so, would anybody consider this to be a reliable enough source? Kurtis (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. It appears to be maintained by the Clinton Presidential Library, which is managed by the National Archives. Striker force Talk 16:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. Period. Does this even need to be explained??--WaltCip (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, with following text: "Singer Aretha Franklin, dubbed the Queen of Soul, dies from pancreatic cancer aged 76." - Haxwell (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb She was a local singer. Except USA nobody around the world knew her. she had no world impact stastically speaking.
 * Support blurb "major transformative world leader in their field" per WP:ITNRD.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb not Thatcher or Mandela caliber. Not seeing this even in the US Top 20 at Google News. This is exactly what RD is for. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Top story under Entertainment at Google News.  Striker force Talk 16:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, under the "entertainment" section. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Top story on BBC News, The Guardian, The Independent. I'm going to wager you a tenner that when I go to the newsagent tomorrow morning, Aretha will be on the front cover of every broadsheet newspaper. (And she's not British). <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But will she still be there the day after tomorrow? Doubtful. Poor old slow print media. So slow. So old. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And it's not often the BBC Radio 4 6 O'clock chimes get ushered in by a little prayer. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Prediction confirmed! I didn't think all the tabloids would follow suit, but despite The Sun being desperate to stick the knife into Danny Cipriani, every national British newspaper (including the Financial Times and the Daily Star) has got Aretha on the front cover. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also front page news for Al Jazeera and Times of Israel. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb per numerous contributions to music, soul, R&B, pop, gospel. She has had an enormous influence on artist that followed. Besides winning numerous Grammy awards, she was also honored with 3 special Grammy awards:Legend Award (1991), Lifetime Achievement Award (1994), and the MusiCares Person of the Year (2008).
 * She was #9 on the Rolling Stone list of Greatest Singers of All Time and ranked 19th among the Billboard Hot 100 All-Time top artists.
 * She was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom and was only the second woman to be inducted to the UK Music Hall of Fame in 2005.
 * --- Coffee  and crumbs  16:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb "Top of their field" would certainly apply here. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  16:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per her significant contributions to music, as explained in the above supports. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb hard to think of a more impactful female singer. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Needs Attention there is obvious, overwhelming support for a blurb at this point. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Hey 19, you better think (think). CoatCheck (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Weakest possible oppose to blurb I am not going to stand in the way of a blurb post, but I would like to point out the difference between Franklin and Bowie or Prince is that the latter were still touring and performing and their deaths were sudden, while Franklin was no longer singing, was known to be suffering from cancer, and had been hospitalized earlier in the week, so it was more a matter of when, not if. I fully otherwise see the reasons to post, and given we've been slow on blurbs lately, there's good reasons to use a blurb here. (but keep in mind about the India PM which definitely should get a blurb once to quality). --M asem (t) 17:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec with post) Mandela retired 9 to 14 years before his death and his death was expected. Did we not post that? (I haven't cehced the archives)--- Coffee  and crumbs  17:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We certainly did post and posted Peter O'Toole the same month (aged 81). --- Coffee  and crumbs  17:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Blurb posted. There seems to be consensus at the moment... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-blurb post What about a photo? Are we just waiting for protection? --- Coffee  and crumbs  17:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Is the photo above sufficiently free? The licence says it's not public domain in Canada and other places. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the photo is sufficiently free, it's a Billboard advert photo from 1968 without a copyright notice, making it PD in the US but not elsewhere. You could try File:Aretha Franklin on January 20, 2009.jpg, which is a US government work and is PD, full stop. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * File:Aretha Franklin on January 20, 2009.jpg and File:Arethafranklin.jpg and File:Aretha Franklin.jpg are all free to use, but may not be up to quality standards of the main page; no picture may be better than a bad one. Others all seem to suffer from the copyright issues noted above.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think the first of those is too bad; it's a professional shot and wouldn't look out of place on a main news ticker, in my view. The other two, definitely not. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support image File:Aretha Franklin on January 20, 2009.jpg or File:Aretha Franklin 1968.jpg Haxwell (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Guys, consensus or not, this was posted before the referencing issue was fixed. In any case, I won't contest it, I will just remove the cause of death, since this is not the main focus here (we'd mention an accident but not an illness). --Tone 17:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Alternate blurb? The current is "American singer-songwriter Aretha Franklin (pictured) dies at the age of 76." Would there be any objection to changing it to "American singer Aretha Franklin (pictured) dies at the age of 76"? Two reasons: (1) Although she wrote some songs, her notability comes much more from her singing than her songwriting. (2) The term "singer-songwriter" implies a tradition and a way of working, as our article on the topic indicates, that does not really fit for her. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 19:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would object. She has hundreds maybe thousands of credits on Allmusic.com for either composer or composer/lyricist or both or just lyricist. She was a singer-songwriter. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But her article calls her a "singer and songwriter", which is not quite thing as "singer-songwriter" - that is used for an artist who almost exclusively performs their own material.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Paul Erik and Pawnkingthree. Though mass media does often confuse the two, there is a difference between a singer-songwriter and somebody who writes and sings their own music. Singer-songwriter is a style/approach espoused by figures like James Taylor, Bob Dylan, Tracy Chapman etc Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In any case, if the issue you raise is related only specifically to the term "singer-songwriter", I would be ok with "American singer and songwriter Aretha Franklin...". Otherwise, we are perpetuating the same 1960s B.S. to lessen the contributions of the primary artist, especially women artists. She wrote or contributed to the writing of many of her songs. Give her the credit she has earned and has been recognized for. --- Coffee  and crumbs  20:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. Not sure "singer-songwriter" is appropriate. Also unsure about "pianist". But maybe further discussion is better placed at Talk:Aretha Franklin? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) I hadn't thought about User:Coffeeandcrumbs's point about what we might be perpetuating. So then yes, I think "singer and songwriter" on the main page would be best. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 21:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So can we now go for Altblurb II? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But per User:Tone's comment above, I would leave out the cause of death. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In no way significant to her notability. But am wondering about "soul singer and songwriter". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * PP comment – It would seem more relevant to her career to use the photo from 1967 (right), when her "signature song" (per our article) Respect hit the charts, or the 1968 mug accompanying this nom (above). Also, instead of the rather generic "singer-songwriter," how about "soul singer" – ?? – Sca (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No objection to "soul singer". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see discussions above regarding images. Neither the one used in the nom, nor the 1967 one you mention here are suitable for posting on the main page because they are tagged as without a copyright notice, making them public domain in the US but not elsewhere. Also, there seems to be consensus above not to remove the term "songwriter" from the blurb due to her large number of composition and songwriting credits. We could perhaps go with "sould singer and songwriter..." though? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * That would be soul singer and songwriter. Sca (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * support for blurb. A soul and music icon. I'm glad it was posted quickly.Johnsemlak (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per LaserLegs. A death should make the main pages, not just the entertainment pages, to be a blurb. Banedon (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support for rd, neutral on blurb. I don't believe that entertainment figures are to be considered as influential worldwide as figures such as Nelson Mandela or Stephen Hawking, but I'm also not certain that they necessarily need to be in order to warrant an ITN blurb. However, I also don't feel that I'm very qualified to speak of how influential she is or is not, so take this with a grain of salt. If possible, I would change the infobox picture to one of the photographs of her in the 1960s as these are more relevant to her career than the one of her at the Obama inauguration, but I understand that copyright may prevent this from being possible. I agree with the decision to exclude the cause of death, as it is her life that made her death notable, not her death itself. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 01:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pull/Oppose blurb Where were other admins looking when someone posted this as a blurb? I am pretty sure we have an established tradition of only posting deaths of Mandela-size figures to the ITN, and this person is sure as hell isn't, neither by the importance, nor by the number of views of her page before her death. Very disappointed in a yet another example of heavy American/Western bias on Wikipedia. Sad. Openlydialectic (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Pull/Oppose blurb I find it extraordinary that a blurb was posted at 17:17 UTC, only 3 hours 11 minutes after the item was nominated, especially when her death was already on the main page under Recent Deaths. It wouldn't hurt to wait a bit longer to allow all Wikipedians a chance to comment on the nomination, particularly those in Oceania/Asia where it was nighttime when it was hastily posted to the mainpage. Chrisclear (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Arbitrary minimum discussion times have been suggested before but never gained consensus. We usually get criticism that we are too slow to post things. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't explain myself properly the first time. What I meant was that I don't believe there was strong consensus to post this at 17:17 UTC, and the simple way to resolve that would have been to wait a while longer, to allow consensus to form. I can understand posting an article for a truly influential dead person like Nelson Mandela, but for someone like Aretha Franklin whose influence was smaller, and where consensus had not been formed, it would have been better to wait longer than 3 hours and 11 minutes. Chrisclear (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, not really fair enough. It was already main page news across the globe and had a consensus to post a blurb here.  No question about that whatsoever.  Would it have been better to wait 4 hours?  6 hours? 12 hours?  You can't please all the people all the time, but if you want a minimum waiting time then propose it, but this decision was beyond question at the point it was posted, not a problem at all.  We've gone beyond the Mandela requirement and have done for some time (since people like Debbie Reynolds have been blurbed).   And as yet, I've seen not one single reader question the decision to post a blurb.  So it looks like Wikipedia got it 100% right on this occasion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Pull/Oppose blurb Not a world transforming figure therefore doesn't merit a blurb. Never even heard of her before she got hospitalised recently. 39.57.133.182 (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You never having heard of her doesn't mean she was not highly influential in her field, which I believe you would discover in doing research about it. Many media outlets would disagree with you, based on the reporting and her Presidential award she received. 331dot (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd never heard of the Ponte Morandi until last week (and I've worked on quite a few highway and bridge articles myself) but I didn't see much call for pulling that.F <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe you work in health insurance? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Bing! <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Her death has made a huge impact and IS making headlines across the world. I mean if Christopher Lee and Debbie Reynolds could get blurbs Franklin does merit one. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The article received a million views in the days leading up to this nomination being posted. It will be interesting to see what the pageviews are for yesterday, when they come in - I wouldn't be surprised if they topped a million on their own. Also, can we leave out the calls of "bias"; remember that the article has, in part, been improved by a shout out on WikiProject Women in Red, whose very raison d'etre is to help counteract bias (in this case, bias against women, and especially black women). <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Aretha Franklin is still on the front page of the BBC and NYTimes websites, a day after her death. These are online news mediums and not the "old slow print" that LaserLegs was bemoaning with Trumpian rancor. This is a death that is making the world slow down and catch its breath. Posting it as a blurb was the correct decision. Not posting as a blurb would have reeked of systemic bias.--WaltCip (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "A death should make the main pages" and indeed it has, across the globe! This underpins the posting of a blurb to be exactly the correct decision.  And a belated well done to everyone concerned in bringing the article up in quality.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. The AP source used as the reference above clearly says A professional singer and accomplished pianist . Aretha was the Queen of Soul music, known mostly by her big voice. Out of her 20 number-one R&B songs, she only wrote two ("Call Me" and "Daydreaming"). That's not enough notability to call her a songwriter. I'd say soul singer is a better description. Bluesatellite (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted Blurb) Atal Bihari Vajpayee

 * Support Under his leadership india had kargil war.India also had it's first Nuke test which has changed India's position on the world completely.Sir Joseph (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Some sections are not referenced at all. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, Oppose RD given quality standards are met. He served 3 times as Prime Minister of India. Ask if you would post Obama/Bush as RD or Blurb and figure out how much systemic bias exists if its the latter and this death is not. 155.64.138.81 (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just as reference, the most recent US President death (Gerald Ford, 2006) was included as a blurb. HaEr48 (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Point of order did the RD option exist then? Hard to imagine Ford would qualify under current standards. Do we intend to blurb the death of every head of state and government if the country is big enough? Do we go by population, geography, or GDP? This could get out of hand quickly. ghost 17:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose on sourcing. I would say that death of one that served as the effective head of state for the world's second-most populous nation probably should get a blurb. --M asem (t) 15:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As your actually supporting to add the nominations to the blurb. You must actually write 'support' rather than 'oppose'. Please correct the mistake at the earliest. Adithya Pergade (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I hope to address the referencing issues soon. And for the record, I agree, the subject definitely deserves a blurb.   MBlaze Lightning  talk 15:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb pending referencing issues are resolved. 39.57.133.182 (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support for a blurb  once current issues with referncing are resolved. For those who don't know, Prime-Minister of India's the "real" leader of India, and this guy served as one for a total of 7 years. I wouldn't expect problems with getting a blurb once one of the former US presidents die, and India is a country with 5 times as many people as there are in the US, and since it's a democracy, all of the adults there elected him to his post. So he definitively deserves a blurb, more so than the singer whos death is currently featured on the ITN (with a photo too!) Openlydialectic (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb/RD I agree with the above statement, as a leader of world's largest democracy that too a developing country with a lot of problems, a person is entrusted great burden perhaps more than any other country and a person must be remembered for the same. I ask the administers to take a decisions taking a clear perspective of his legacy. Adithya Pergade (talk) 06:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb/RD basis prominence of the subject. Considered one of the best PMs India ever had. --User:WoodElf 07:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. This PM was not a world transformative leader or tip-top in their field like Margaret Thatcher or Nelson Mandela. I'm not certain every US President would necessarily merit a blurb; we didn't have RD for Gerald Ford or he might have been put there.  331dot (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If your argument is that you're citing an established practice, then I am sorry but we just posted a blurb AND a picture of some random American singer nobody's heard about outside of the US (her article before her death was visited on average 2-3 times less often than the article about the Indian PM), so no, I don't think your argument works. On a side note, didn't we post a blurb about Fords' death? Openlydialectic (talk) 08:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * RD did not exist at the time of Ford's death, I believe Ford would not get a blurb today(nor every US President). If you were to research her, you would find that the description "some random American singer" is grossly inadequate.  But you are entitled to your opinion. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "we just posted a blurb AND a picture of some random American singer nobody's heard about outside of the US" - would you like it if I opposed this because of "some random former politician who nobody outside India has ever heard of"? Keep the discussion on sources and page views, please. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would if you cited your arguments for that statement. I cited mine - the importance of her post and the number of views her article had received. Openlydialectic (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * *Point of order A person cannot be judged on how popular they were nor were they internationally honored and were praised in history or civics text books but rather on what work they have done, how did their decisions and doings influence the surroundings and the future and being leaders how did they protect the interests of their citizens. Hence I would ask all the debaters to not make baseless statements just to prove their point. When it comes to the subject we are discussing, our statements must be strictly guided on the legacy of the person in question . If anyone does not approve of Aretha Franklin being on the blurb then they must oppose the posting of the blurb on the place so provided [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#(Posted_blurb):_Aretha_Franklin ], This is not a platform for anyone to oppose her being on the blurb. Adithya Pergade (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The above point of order seems to rather miss the point. Nobody is using this item as a platform to oppose a blurb for Franklin. One or more editors is using her blurb as an argument for Vajpayee to be given a blurb, which seems a perfectly legitimate argument to make (regardless of whether one agrees with it or not, or has no opinion on the matter), even if some of the wording used may understandably be seen by some as somewhat injudicious.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb A notable head of state of the largest democracy. In office during india's nuclear tests.SaurabhMittal523 (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * He was not head of state, the President of India is head of state. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't fret over semantics: the president of India is a ceremonial post. The Prime Minister of India is the person in charge of the country. Openlydialectic (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You may call it "semantics" if you wish but the fact remains that this individual was not head of state, but head of government, two very different things. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Prime Minister is de facto head of state in India While President is de jure like Queen & Prime Minister in Great Britain.-- Godric ki Kothri talk to me 10:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn t the place to argue that point, and it isn't pertinent to this nomination. I was simply correcting the OP. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality - article is full of tags. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The former head of government of the largest democracy, who played a big role in letting MNCs (Multi-National Companies) into India, Pokhran-II, and the Kargil War is important enough to be featured. Besides, where would India be without him?RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb American singer and songwriter Aretha Franklin's had no international deplomatic ties or connection meanwhile 3 times PM of indai is getting reject here! this is pure bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.233.52.254 (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Singers and politicians are two different fields. There is no requirement of international ties to be posted here; if there were, very little would be posted. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I am amenable to supporting an RD (I have no opinion on blurb), but I'm sure as heck not supporting anything that's covered in tags. Fix that first, and I'll revisit it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb As he is a prominent and one of the best prime ministers of India.-- Godric ki Kothri talk to me 10:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Needs improvement for RD as there are numerous cn tags. Oppose blurb; he was PM of India for 6 years, but did not have major worldwide influence and falls short of the Mandela/Thatcher threshold we apply. Arguments that he was one of India's 'best' PMs are subjective, meaningless, and not part of the criteria at WP:ITN/DC. I don't think Franklin should have had a blurb either; pointing at that is just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so very unconvincing. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How can you say that he did not have major worldwide influence? Pokhran-II conducted in his prime ministerial reign after which many countries of world imposed ban on India. Also Kargil War happen in his reign.-- Godric ki Kothri talk to me 10:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose At least 19 Citations needed tags and two whole sections tagged with Refimprove section. --- Coffee  and crumbs  10:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. It appears the blurb supporters are focusing on the size of India. That's fine; but lets take that to it's natural conclusion - post all Indian PMs, US Presidents, paramount leaders of China. No big problems there. Next comes Indonesia, Brazil...queue the crickets. Leaders of certain countries (G8 comes to mind) will have a greater potential to impact the world, but these positions should make the holders blurb-worthy per se, as this opens us up to clear bias toward the US, UK and India (i.e. the home countries of the bulk of our editors). ghost 11:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * On notability grounds, this should be a blurb, especially considering Franklin's position there. Vajpayee was Prime Minister, for several years, of a country of over a billion people. Note that that was one in every six persons on the planet, not to mention India is a significant global player. A huge deal. ITN on the the English Wikipedia tries to avoid bias towards the English-speaking world, and excluding such a person on notability grounds would be terrible. Posting should still be subject to quality assessment though. --LukeSurlt c 11:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I knew that was going to happen. Vajpayee was not a pop singer, Franklin was not a prime minister, there is no comparison there, none, none at all. (I opposed a blurb for Franklin, btw). --LaserLegs (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Blurb not Thatcher/Mandela. Oppose RD on quality. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "not Thatcher/Mandela"
 * /Franklin*     --Openlydialectic (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Meaningless I'm afraid. Didn't Debbie Reynolds and Carrie Fisher already have blurbs?  And Prince?  And Bowie?  And ... and ... and ... ?  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This'll happen every time we burb a death, for the next few weeks there will be "Well we did a blurb for X, therefore we must Y and Z". FWIW I don't think Prince, or Fisher, or Bowie or the fast and furious guy should have had blurbs. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb He was not only a 2-time PM of the world’s largest democracy, but was instrumental in making India a nuclear power, of which there are only 9 of in the world. EternalNomad (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with the two orange-tagged sections. There's now about a dozen citation needed tags, but that's not an insurmountable task. --LukeSurlt c 13:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb on improvement..three time prime minister definitely qualifies once article is dealt with cn tags..The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Slightly Oppose Blurb, but strongly encourage current editing so it can make RD ASAP. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose still not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Many citation tags remain.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment added some cn tags - when you see a whole paragraph, with one ref at the end, and the last sentence appears to be an aside to the rest of the paragraph, you can generally assume that whole para is not supported by the ref and needs to be checked. I don't have time today to check this whole thing, before we rush this "OMFG VIP not a singer also India has a BILLION PEOPLE" article to the main page, could someone please check it in detail? Or not, I've been told such practice is obstructive, maybe it's a waste of time. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is also full of flowery garbage like "major achievement was a significant expansion" and "army units were swiftly rushed into". Needs a copy edit too for MP. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article has several citation needed templates. On the other hand, one of the famous PM of largest democracy definitely deserves blurb, so once the sourcing issue is resolved, a blurb should be posted.Amirk94391 (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "PM of largest democracy definitely deserves blurb" - why? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Because random American singers and former presidents had theirs, and most people here are tired of Western-centric bias on wikipedia. Openlydialectic (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's been adequately demonstrated that your ongoing use of the word "random" with respect to Franklin is completely at odds with the mainstream press around the globe and the strong consensus here at ITN, so if you want people to take you more seriously, you should refrain from continuing to make such assertions. And if "most people here are tired" then there are plenty of other Wikipedias that are desperate for attention, and other projects altogether.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll say this once and then hush up - we are all concerned about bias. But has it occurred to you that "that other nomination" is also a stand for systemic bias against women, and particularly against black women? Now, if you can clear down the remaining tags, I think having an RD is reasonable. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you think its a coincidence that most of the blurb supporters are members of WP:IND or IPs? Bias is about thinking outside of one's own sphere, wherever that is; not just the U.S. The rules say "major transformative world leaders in their field." Ask yourself: who were the most trasformative living statesmen on August 1st? How about singers? It's not even a conversation. ghost 16:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not Indian, and have no bias towards India at all. I didn't even know this guy existed before he died. Openlydialectic (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Because he sparked a nuclear arms race in the Indian subcontinent and then made peace talks with Pakistan; so he actually made a lasting impression in his field and the impact of his actions was not limited to his country. Also, is it just me or do musicians (English language ones) have a relatively low bar for getting a blurb? 1.39.159.71 (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per nominator's rationale. Capankajsmilyo(Talk 16:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Question is there a tag for "weasel words" (if that's even the correct term)? The article is full of historic this and significant that it reads like a puff piece from the guys personal publicist. Remove or tag (and if tag, with what)?. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is Template:Weasel, but it seems to me that Template:Peacock is closer to what you are looking for. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb except for article quality. The so-called "Thatcher/Mandela standard" is way too restrictive; with regards to some of the discussions above, I think every former U.S. President should qualify for a blurb, and so should this prime minister of India. Davey2116 (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – all the energy spent in debating whether or not to post a blurb would be better used ensuring that the article is up to standards... otherwise, it won't even make it to RD and this will all be moot. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was actually going to make the identical comment to this one an hour ago! It's quite comical the way they're arguing over which of the two options to use when we can't use post anyway because of the article quality. I've been trying to fix a few of the refs myself... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD - OK, I've fixed all the remaining citation tags in the article, so seems ready to do now and I've already posted it to RD. As for whether it should be blurbed, I'm a little unsure if there's a consensus yet for that so the debate can continue here now. I'm inclined to support it myself, as he was leader of a major nation for quite some time, but then again I can see the "slippery slope" argument if we are to consider deaths for all possible leaders of all G20 countries as blurbworthy. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Australian prime ministers typically don't get the blurb treatment. Data on other nations in recent years is quite scant - there haven't been that many deaths of longish-term leaders in recent years. The last Indian was ages ago in 2004, pre-RD days, and it did receive a blurb, but in a template with only three items... one of which was the Queen's Christmas broadcast to the UK. Sounds like a slow news day. IK Gujral only got an RD in 2012, but then again he was PM for less than a year so clearly less notable than Vajpayee. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We blurbed a German Chancellor who didn't even get a blurb at the de wiki, to my knowledge no POTUS has died since RD was created (and I'd oppose blurbs for Carter, Bush Sr, Clinton and probably Obama). --LaserLegs (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - I'm leaving for the night now, but on reflection I think I support a blurb for this PM. Although not necessarily a household name in the western world, and perhaps less global reach than Thatcher, Mandela (and Carrier Fisher/Arethra Franklin?) I do think he was a very important figure in the world's second most populous country and from a WP:WORLDWIDE point of view we should respect that. If this later leads to a glut of similar nominations in future, then we can always rethink this benchmark. Wikipedia is a work in progress and nothing is set in stone. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Final Comment (I promise) these ESL articles get the worst grammar, and that's one of the things that keeps them off the main page. "The UPA Government on 1 July 2013 accepted before Supreme Court that National Democratic Alliance Government led by Vajpayee has developed half the roads in last 32 years in their 5-year term." WTF? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should fix those then? You had spent more time typing this comment here than you would have spent correcting those spelling problems. Openlydialectic (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fix it how? I can't grok the intended meaning of that rubbish enough to fix it. I read articles and check refs before I breathlessly impose my POV of "importance" on the project, if that fails some WP:MINIMUMPARTICIPATION then go ahead and wander on over to WP:AN/I and complain about me, which seems to be in vogue anyway. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Regards,  theTigerKing  02:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The funeral possession was attended by the heads and representatives from various countries [commentaries running from elsewhere]. The entire Indian political class and the famous were united to offer their condolences and saying their final goodbyes. Tributes pouring in social media was similar to the ones we had seen when Steve Jobs or Former president of India - APJ Abdul Kalam [infact I had nomiated his passing away as a blurb and could see similar opposition commentary running at that time, but was ultimately posted as a blurb then] passed away. The guidelines are quite clear - The event must be notable which had been in this case. Let's not comment on, if his passing away was as noticeable as of Nelson Mandela or Thatcher. He was quite popular in the subcontinent and has contributed significantly to Indian polity. Not every Indian leader will make it to the blurb [IK Gujral in the past]. If we are looking into posting of RD posting in the blurb, we definitely should not consider the "size and scale of India". Not every leader conducts the nuclear tests every day. His death has been covered widely by the foreign media as well. If the article is fixed, we should consider it for blurb now as many oppositions above were based upon on poor references and citations which looks ok now [Not sure, if they are coming back to change their voting status again].
 * Support blurb. This assumes that the quality is sufficient; I've not looked at the article, so I'm neutral on that side of things.  This person was the head of government of one of the largest and most influential countries in the world; by what kind of standard is he less deserving of a blurb than some singer?  If any standards (other than article quality) make him unworthy of a blurb, it's time for a serious revision of the standards.  Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. While it has been argued that the article deserves a blurb simply by virtue of him having been PM of India, please note he was PM during a particularly significant period in modern Indian history. India carried out nuclear tests under his tenure, declaring nuclear capability, fought a major war with Pakistan, came close to another war which could potentially have been nuclear, had a commercial aircraft hijacked by terrorists. President Clinton's visit was the first state visit to India by a US president in 22 years. All of these can be categorized as major international events. In addition, economic reforms accelerated India's GDP growth, paving the way for greater influence in world affairs. There is sufficient rationale for a blurb here. In addition, most of the citation issues have now been resolved, in case that is the primary concern.  Shobhit102 |  talk  03:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurp Not a quality article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numancia (talk • contribs) 03:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle (I leave article quality for others to judge). At least to me, being PM of India for over 6 years seems an adequate reason for a blurb. Some claim he shouldn't get a blurb because he allegedly is not in the Thatcher/Mandela class. I disagree, even if we have to accept the Thatcher/Mandela standard (and I'm not clear why we should have to, nor am I all that clear that such a standard has any objective meaning). Measured by persons ruled multiplied by years ruled, I have every reason to think that he actually affected the lives of far more people than either Thatcher or Mandela (and that's without even asking what presiding over India becoming a nuclear power has done for or against the security of the entire human race). Tlhslobus (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb on significance. I'm still working my way through the article, but the event is significant enough to post a blurb. We've posted, among others, Leonard Cohen and Aretha Franklin in the not-too-recent past. Vajpayee was the effective head of state in the world's most populous democracy. More importantly, unlike I. K. Gujral (mentioned above as the only other Indian Prime Minister to have died in recent years) he was more or less re-elected; which is to say he wasn't a consensus candidate from a minor party in a coalition government, but a leader re-elected more or less in his own right in what was then the largest election in human history (no, I'm not going to provide a source; every Indian general election is the largest in human history, thanks to its large and growing population). What's more, he was a founder member and the first president of the Bharatiya Janata Party, and played a large role in its predecessor the Bharatiya Jana Sangh; the BJP is India's ruling party today. All in all, an influence certainly as large, probably far larger, than that of any musician or film star we have recently posted. Vanamonde (talk) 05:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, but change picture Full support blurb as the article is very good and had a huge impact on his nation. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb: 3-time Prime Minister of India, was instrumental in making India a nuclear power and prevented a border skirmish from escalating into a nuclear war. Opened up the Indian market and introduced reforms which industralized India. Dignitaries from many, many nations attended his funeral. The article's quality has also been greatly improved. 117.208.198.223 (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Blurb posted. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the contentiousness of this nom, a comment explaining your reading of consensus here would be appropriate and appreciated. ghost 12:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose blurb not a world-transforming life or death. May have been highly significant figure in his country but barely known outside of India and certainly not a global figure. RD listing sufficient. MurielMary (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How exactly was his life not influential? The argument that a leader is barely known outside his own country can virtually be applied to everyone, even those termed as "globally influential" (and that isn't even the case here). Presiding over the world's largest democracy for three different terms while it became a nuclear power and preventing a conflict that almost escalated into use of nuclear weapons itself is a huge bequest to protecting the security of the world, and that is just one among his countless contributions. A second offering would be his travel to the war's opponent, which worked wonders in easing tensions present in the subcontinent and extended over the continent. This single action itself saved millions of lives, and the world as we know now may not have existed. The fact that Indians account for one person in groups of six would indeed mark his reach as "global", coupled with the high level of popularity he enjoys in areas of Indian influence: Pakistan, Indonesia, along with parts of the rest of the world. WP:WORLDWIDE asks us to respect that. 2402:8100:390C:3B0C:944E:FD7D:480F:41AD (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of national leaders who are also globally known e.g. Angela Merkel, Barack Obama, JFK, Margaret Thatcher. This person was a national leader who was not globally known. Being well known to a lot of people, all of whom reside in one part of the world (i.e. the Indian/Pakistani subcontinent) doesn't meet the requirements for a blurb at ITN. MurielMary (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And where has such a policy been written/implemented? I don't find any corroboration as such. You never heard of him, but that doesn't suggest that he was not highly influential in his field. 2402:8100:390C:3B0C:944E:FD7D:480F:41AD (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Here: "the death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news#Recent_deaths_section He was not a world leader, he was a national leader. Should be posted at RD only, not blurb. MurielMary (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As per the Oxford Dictionary, a world leader is "The leader of a large or powerful country; a person who has global political influence." Vajpayee checks both (global political influence isn't global recognition; a ruler of India has visceral political influence globally), as well as a "major transformative" leader, quoted from the Wikipedia mainspace article. 2402:8100:390C:3B0C:944E:FD7D:480F:41AD (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb; the bar keeps getting set lower and lower on "blurb deaths" with both Franklin and Vajpayee being very notable figures dying of natural causes in old age. The result is there is precedent creep, citations of "well X got a blurb so should Y". The blurb is not conveying any more information than the RD apart from age of death and occupation. The standards of what is a blurb and what is an RD is notably arbitrary and entirely lacking in global perspective - seemingly one group of dedicated users who earnestly believe the notability of a subject (Fisher, Franklin, etc.) can simply crowd out any dissenting voices. I will say Annan's death is more widely reported globally than both Franklin and Vajpayee. Africa, Asia, U.S. and Europe all reported Annan on front pages. It would be a stretch to find a Japanese or Taiwanese newspaper reporting on Franklin on its front page. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD: Rita Borsellino

 * Support Short but sufficient and well sourced to majority secondary sources. --- Coffee  and crumbs  09:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. She might not be there long though. Already the oldest on the list... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) August 2018 Kabul suicide bombing

 * Support Added altblurb. The article is ITN-Worthy and the story is getting media coverage. I know Afghanistan is a place where attacks are usual but 48 casualties is a significant number. Moreover, most of the deceased are students. I support altblurb. Amirk94391 (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose still a stub really, but stands out from the usual attacks. Article also needs a copyedit for English. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Shipley Rowlinson

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The personal life section is far too trivial (maybe a specific climb could be cited?), but nothing to keep it off MP. ghost 11:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to me. Nice to see chemists on the main page. shoy (reactions) 15:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Ajit Wadekar

 * Oppose too much unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs massive work on sourcing. Amirk94391 (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

(Removed) Remove from Ongoing: Carr Fire
The most recent prose update from Carr_Fire is from 5 days ago; without continuing substantial updates, this should not remain on ongoing.  Spencer T• C 02:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we could replace it with Mendocino Complex Fire, which is bigger and still partially ongoing. Then we can remove that when it's contained. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove adding any other fire should be a separate nomination and not tucked away in the removal of this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It was more of a passing thought than a serious one. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI, according to CalFire, the Carr Fire is 65 percent contained but still draws 4,000 firefighters. Sca (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - while still ongoing, there are no longer sufficient significant updates to merit this remaining up. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove If the article isn't being updated, it isn't eligible for ongoing anymore. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove - A majority of the fire is contained.--WaltCip (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove - still burning, not getting updates, not in the news. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove - Agree that the topic is getting stale. Jusdafax (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed Stephen 00:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Morgana King

 * Comment - She actually passed away in March, but it is only now being confirmed publicly. Forgive me if this nomination is gravely in error, given the circumstances, but I didn't see anything in the RD guidelines that specifically covered a situation like this (unless I just completely missed it). Striker force Talk 16:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Washington Post was the first to report that she had died in March but no one reported it until this week. Just a death that slipped through the radar, it seems. Using the date it was first reported is an acceptable practice as long as we're clear there was no coverage back when she died (which I cannot find). --M asem (t) 17:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what the NYTimes says as well including giving credit to WashPo. --- Coffee  and crumbs
 * Oppose I can't read the source and the article doesn't cover why we didn't discover her demise until some five months later, but in any case, the article needs works on referencing. I think it's a legit nomination by the way, as long as the death hasn't been reported in the interim.  Perhaps RD needs a clearer guideline to cover this scenario.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Ponte Morandi collapse

 * Support on notability. Oppose on lack of content - literally all there is a the moment is a single sentence that gives less information than the blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I've taken the liberty of rewording the blurb. There's work ongoing at Ponte Morandi to get it up to date with news of the collapse, so it should be much more informative shortly. Prioryman (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support and Oppose per Thryduulf. Also suggest blurb need a little rewording before posting. -- KTC (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article expansion/sourcing has taken place since the nom.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is improving, and of sufficient quality to feature. Major bridge collapse with a fair amount of casualties. Mjroots (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Details/update are appropriate at this time. Added Alt2 to be more straightforward blurb. --M asem (t) 13:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Significant. Article looks good. Marking as ready. Mamyles (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting Alt II – Muboshgu (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Battle of Ghazni

 * Comment I have adjusted the blurbs. There may be room for more improvement. IMO, calling the city "historic" was not necessary just in this context. I would also suggest finding more sources beside Long War Journal. The reference section lacks variety. --- Coffee  and crumbs  11:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Death and transfer of territory are routine in warfare. Is the casualty rate here especially high, or are we putting weight on the strategic part? If it's the latter, I think we need to meet a very objective standard in applying that value. It tends to raise more questions than provides answers (strategic to whom or to what goal? According to whom? How many cities are so designated?) ghost 12:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've updated the article with the latest information today. Yes, the casualty rate here especially high here. No other battle has reached this level in a long time.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - Saw it dominate news for a while. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - This should be posted now since it will be old news in a couple of days. It's also uncommon to have news from this region, most Afghanistan news is about Kabul.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - A milestone in the long conflict. Jusdafax (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the original blurb. Article has come along nicely since I noticed it doing NPP. This particular region of the country hasn't seen much conflict in the last couple of years, if I'm not mistaken, so I'd consider this newsworthy. Striker force Talk 19:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment We have competing articles about the same subject. I have noted the second article - which was actually the first created - in the nomination. I've started a discussion on the Talk of the editor that created Ghazni offensive to try to reach a consensus on a merge. Striker force Talk 20:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've now migrated everything worth migrating from Battle of Ghazni (2018) to Ghazni offensive. It should be all set.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Gigantic news, arguably the biggest victory of the terrorists in the 17-year long conflict Openlydialectic (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The combined article is well sourced. The story is news worthy. I prefer the original blurb. Altblurb doesn't say anything notable. --- Coffee  and crumbs  09:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted original blurb. Sam Walton (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm confused about this. The blurb was outdated pretty much by the time it was nominated here: the article states that the Taliban withdrew from the city on the 14th. How did it get posted as such? ansh 666 20:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh you're right. I only read the lead of the article and the above support votes. I've modified the blurb to "In Afghanistan, hundreds are killed as the Taliban seize most of the strategic city of Ghazni for 4 days." Do you think that's an improvement? Sam Walton (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, thanks. ansh 666 22:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Jim Neidhart

 * Oppose for now; too much of the article is unreferenced. Aim for 1 per paragraph minimum, with contentious statements given special attention.  Also, several of the accomplishments section lacks refs.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose horrible article, needs complete overhaul, nowhere need ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * comment - Calling it a "horrible article", is a bit of a stretch. The article does need some more sourcing, however.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Article got worked on, now ready.LM2000 (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Still whole paragraphs unreferenced, inappropriate for a BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like at least one reference per paragraph now. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Too late to post?LM2000 (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Somnath Chatterjee

 * With your MOS:SOB, that sounds like quite a title. 159.53.78.142 (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose at present, as the article is in dire need of more references. Vanamonde (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Vanamonde The article needs some updates.I have added some references. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose early sections have unreferenced paragraphs. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

PGA Championship

 * Oppose headings and a few words for round summaries are there but inadequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't far short. Expand the round summaries to a full (referenced) paragraph on each and it would be postable. The 'field' section is a complete mess, but that was also true of 2018 Open Championship. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Samir Amin

 * Oppose whole biography section is unreferenced, and more uncited material follows that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Parker Solar Probe

 * The probe is not ITNR until it arrives at its destination. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right. But it is an interesting story nevertheless. --Tone 09:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim otherwise, only commented on the ITNR aspect. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 331dot.--WaltCip (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I was not supporting or opposing, only stating that this is not ITNR. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support This is well written article already. But I will assist with improvements. The first spacecraft to fly into the low solar corona. Unlike most probes this one is headed straight into the sun. The scientific application for the data collected are innumerable. The article is well sourced and very informative. The probe will not reach the first of its several destinations until the end of September. We should post the launch and post arrival to Venus as well on September 28 (ITNR). --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - The article is indeed well-written and sourced, and covers a major scientific first, the extremely close-up observation of our sun. Global significance, and ITN-worthy. Jusdafax (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: V. S. Naipaul

 * Support, with the obvious qualifying comment: calling Naipaul a "British novelist of Indian extraction" misses the fact that he was born and raised in Trinidad and Tobago (as were his parents) and that he wrote extensively about Trinidad and Tobago and the Caribbean. Guettarda (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A belated support. Bibliography now referenced and rest of article was in reasonable shape. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Have added refs to the bibliography. yorkshiresky (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article now in suitable condition, marking "ready".  Spencer T• C 18:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support indeed, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I am working on fixing some pesky errors in citation but this is more than ready to post. Question: Is there a possibility of a blurb. His significance in the literary world seems very huge. I have seen several books dedicated solely to reviews of his work (more than those listed on out article and there is the nobel to boot. --- Coffee  and crumbs  20:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say probably not. Blurbs are extremely limited. Was he the greatest author in a major genre, or among the top five living authors last week? ghost 12:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Please post, user:admin ---Sluzzelin talk  22:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Kerala floods

 * Support notable Openlydialectic (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article needs expansion; too short in current state.  Spencer T• C 19:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Copy edited the hook. Story seems ITN noteworthy. No opinion on the article yet.--- Coffee  and crumbs  19:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support but the article can use quite a lot of work. I wouldn't link it from anything at the current state. Juxlos (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub. Browsing "in private" with no tracking history or other suggestion engines influence, I'm not seeing this story "In the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that this is one of the top stories on the Times of India:, which is the world's largest circulation English Language newspaper. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Times of India is focusing India-centric news? I'm one voice, my feed shows a stolen plane in Seattle, a shooting in Canada, the Turkish economy, but no floods in India. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * All news is "X"-centric, where "X" is where the news is published. Just because you don't live there doesn't mean it isn't important.  Your personal experience in the world is not universal.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Just because you don't live there doesn't mean it isn't important." The section is "In the news" not "Recent disasters which I think are important". Agree 100% with the rest of your statement. Let's not clutter another nom with this discussion, if you think I'm wrong to check that a nom is "in the news" (insofar as I can) and leave feedback to that effect, please ping me on my talk page or open an RFC at WT:ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's important. I have no say in the matter, and hold no opinion.  The Times of India does think it important, which I confirmed.  They are a genuine, reliable, major news source.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is in no condition to appear on the main page. Large sections unreferenced, large amounts of grammar and writing issues, in some places semi-incomprehensible ("Heavy rain in Wayanad makes big disasters and Ghat road smashed").  Some content copied verbatim from sources.  Black Kite (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's actually getting worse - "In addition to the second installment of Rs 80.25 crores of SDRF" - what's SDRF then? And a whole unsourced section has now appeared. Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Initially I opposed because the article didn't met ITN-standards (quality wise) but now it has been improved and I think it should be posted citing to the massive media coverage the news is getting from across the globe.Amirk94391 (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support only if the article is improved. The subject is worth posting. The article needs to be improved to post to the main page. If the orange tags are fixed in due time, consider this a support !vote. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 21:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the Carr fire displaced 38k people and is posted to Ongoing. Since this displayed more, why shouldn't it be posted also? Banedon (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The population density of Kerala is 2200/sq mi, the population density of Shasta County, California is 46/sq mi -- it seems obvious that the Indian state would have more people displaced. Interestingly, the huge disparity in populations serves to highlight the devastating impact of the Carr fire on Shasta County, CA (whose total pop is only 180k). --LaserLegs (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Is the impact of a fire measured by how large an area is burned or how many people are displaced? Banedon (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose for now, it looks much improved based on the above comments, but the "Responses" section has quotes with no sources. That needs fixing.  If that is fixed, consider this a full support.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Heavy rain in Wayanad makes big disasters and Ghat road smashed." The grammar in these ESL languages... --LaserLegs (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As good as many DYKs loaded for the main page that I see. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong support 75 people died in a week . https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/kerala-floods-live-updates-situation-serious-in-many-districts/liveblog/65403405.cms
 * Support. I've just spent some time tidying the article and adding a load of citations. It's now mostly cited and looking in much better shape. As the worst flood in Kerala in nearly a century, and very much 'in the news', I think this is worth placing in ITN. Pinging opposers LaserLegs, Black Kite, Amirk94391, and Jayron32 for 2nd thoughts. Sam Walton (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone created the "Relief aids" section: " Businessmen to various film actors from the South Indian film industry have donated to the CMs Relief Fund." --LaserLegs (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The article has now national importance an i support to be published under the news. The article has currently provided with inline citations and improved. So i support this nomination now.-Jinoy Tom Jacob (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Added alt blurb. Removed material which was not sourced. Sherenk1 (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Should it be added as ongoing, since the floods seem to still be occuring? CNN --- Rotruthseeker (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - And after the floods are over should it then perhaps be added as a full blurb? If it's added now with the August 11th date the article will have the last position in the news list and not last very long. Rotruthseeker (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The article need more dates as to when the events actually happened. Stephen 03:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Cites all looks good and is a good to go now. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Cites all looks good and is a good to go now. I fixed some minor reference formatting. GTG.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Opposition was about article quality, which seems to have been addressed. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - certainly worthy of inclusion, but I should just point out that the blurb was not written in the correct tense. ITN blurbs are written in the present tense. I have updated it to read Heavy rainfall in the Indian state of Kerala causes more than 300 deaths, with an additional 200,000 people displaced. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Govt sources is now 390 -- naveenpf (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) 2018 Horizon Air Q400 incident

 * Oppose this is perfect DYK material. Once it's expanded beyond the current stub state.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fully agree with The Rambling Man Openlydialectic (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - seems more apt at DYK. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is interesting, but not the sort of thing for ITN, more along the lines of DYK material. SamaranEmerald (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous – sgt snow. Sca (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

RD: Bernard Burke

 * Weak oppose three dab links need addressing and the proseline is frankly despicable. Otherwise just about passable. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The chronology is totally fucked. Every sentence is true and verifiable but jumbled together it becomes nonsensical. I tried for a full hour to descramble it and I have a headache now. His biography jumps back and forth entire decades with no logic. --- Coffee  and crumbs  11:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to say thank you for your edits, and sorry for causing you a headache! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Takeshi Onaga

 * Weakish support brief, not brilliant, but adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the article is okay. The person was a standing governor of a large province in a large country. so quite notable. Openlydialectic (talk) 07:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What are "Japanese neocons"? Can this be either explained in the text or linked to a WP page which explains? MurielMary (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have wikilinked it to Neoconservatism in Japan. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. --- Coffee  and crumbs  23:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted (8 August was the day he died). --Tone 08:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2017–2018 Romanian protests

 * Oppose - article currently has an orange maintenance tag about being updated, which has been there for eleven months. An ongoing listing is predicated on frequent quality updates, which do not appear to be the case here. The article has gone months on end without edits while the protests were concurrent. Moreover, with no end in sight, and uncertainty in what would constitute a complete end to the protests, this may rumble on indefinitely, and as such is ill-suited to ITN in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC) - I also oppose a blurb, since the nomination has been retooled. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - also worth noting that this article was posted in February 2017 when the protests were at their zenith, and there were 500,000+ protesters. They have receded to anywhere from 30,000 to 110,000 now, and had stalled dramatically until yesterday. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - dear Stormy clouds, thank you very much for looking into this issue! Regarding the ongoing nature of the protests, there I am also not sure how it should be handled with regards to ITN. Regarding the maintananace tag, we mobilized on /r/romania on reddit and started to update the page with new information about the latest protest. Regarding the number of protestors, some sources say 100,000+ (new york times, deutsche welle) other say 30,000-50,000 (bbc). I've posted a quick timelapse video of the protests below to give an idea of the size of the protests. Again, thank you very much for your time and for looking into this issue! :) Rotruthseeker (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - BBC has now updated the numbers to over 50,000 people, with more than 400 injured: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45156598 Rotruthseeker (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Tried to fix the hook a little. No opinion yet on article quality but the news seems ITN-worthy.--- Coffee  and crumbs  14:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Here is also a timelapse of the protest, which might help to give an idea about the magnitude of the protest and about what happened there: https://www.facebook.com/pressoneromania/videos/2116312888628908 --- Rotruthseeker (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Protests continued today (11 August 2018) across the country. Estimates range from 50,000 to 100,000 protesters over the whole country, with about 35,000 to 60,000 in Bucharest. (G4Media.ro hotnews.ro digi24.ro ) Rotruthseeker (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please also update the lead section. There is too much focus on 2017. We to add some summary of the activity in 2018. --- Coffee  and crumbs  20:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * on it --- Rotruthseeker (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I've updated the lead section to include a summary of the activity in 2018 and also of the events leading up to it. --- Rotruthseeker (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Support No more orange tags in the article, and the August 2018 events are ITN-worthy (six digit participation numbers along with 400+ new injuries is certainly a newsworthy new development in this conflict) Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 21:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per BrendonTheWizard. Banedon (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The news is ITN-worthy and the article also looks good. Amirk94391 (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:HEY. I have monitored this article and news for severals days and I believe it is ready to post. I was waitng for significant improvements since the page has been dormant for a while and those improvements have been done by me and others. --- Coffee  and crumbs  16:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose if this is supposed to be ongoing, wrong kind of nom. If it's supposed to be a story, it's stale and really quite inconsequential, let's not kid ourselves, "452 injured" actually meant "70 people" going to hospital.  That so6unds like a bad day out at the football, not newsworthy.  As noted before, this is something that's already been highlighted last year, and this update is minor.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Dear thank you very much for taking the time to consider the nomination! It was definitely a very bad day, with a scale of violence that I think was unheard of in Romania since the 1990s Mineriads. I've read numerous reports of journalists, foreign correspondents, passersby, tourists and many others being brutally assaulted. When I get back home later today, I'll also link some videos and update the article (with referenced sources of course) to give perhaps a better idea of what happened. Later edit: And of course, I'll also offer references for the claims made in this comment. --- Rotruthseeker (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Here are some examples showing how this protest was remarkably violent in comparison to all previous 2017-2018 Romanian protests:


 * - An Austrian cameraman from the Austrian national public broadcaster ORF was beaten up by gendermes. ORF NYTimes Hotnews.ro


 * - Israeli tourists were dragged out of a taxi and beaten up by riot police. Washington Post NYTimes Digi24.ro with video of the incident


 * - Hotnews.ro journalist was beaten up by riot police. Hotnews.ro


 * Videos:
 * - gendarme attacking man who is holding his hands up and saying he is going home: Youtube
 * - protester on the ground being beaten up by gendermes: Youtube
 * - gendarme beating up protester: Youtube
 * - 2 gendermes get trapped in the protester crowd - some protesters try to protect them, some try to beat them up: Youtube


 * Additionally, if you have the time, here is a journalist account that shows how the protests degenerated into violence (with English subtitles available):


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF4fu3BS_Vc


 * There were also notable foreign reactions to the protest:


 * - Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz: "We strongly condemn the violent confrontations in #Bukarest, at which numerous protesters and journalists were injured. We expect a full explanation [Aufklärung]. We wish a speedy recovery to the injured #ORF cameraman." (own translation) - Twitter


 * - Amnesty International called for "prompt, thorough, independent and impartial investigations by civilian authorities into the allegations of unnecessary and excessive use of force by the gendarmerie against participants of a protest in Bucharest on 10 August" Amnesty


 * - Beate Meinl-Reisinger, the head of the Austrian liberal party NEOS asked Hans van Baalen, the president of ALDE in the European Parliament, to remove the Romanian governing party sharing the same name from the European Parliament ALDE group. - Mediafax.ro


 * --- Rotruthseeker (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear Rotruthseeker, I get it, but it's not something I think is worthy of the main page of English language Wikipedia. But I do appreciate your efforts in educating me.  All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * TRM, I do not completely disagree with your opinion but I have to take exception to the characterization "English language Wikipedia". I hope you are not saying this is less news-worthy because English is not the native tongue in Romania or that it is of less interest to the English world. --- Coffee  and crumbs  22:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear no worries! I'm just trying to bring here all the necessary relevant information, so that people with way more Wikipedia experience than me (I'm still getting the hang of wikipidia-ing, sorry if I make any mistakes) can make the right decision. Best wishes --- Rotruthseeker (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * no, you've made no mistakes at all, and thank you for your efforts! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I've updated the article's August 2018 section, in case you would like to give it a final chance --- Rotruthseeker (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Updates are substantial and well-sourced. Marking as Needs Attention, as I think there is sufficient support for this to get an admin ruling rather then being allowed to go stale. ghost 11:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) 2018 Fredericton shootings

 * Oppose Everyday occurrence in the North America Openlydialectic (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Uhhhhh? What? Really? Canada is a sovereign nation with it's own laws and culture, it is distinct from the United States no matter how much you'd like to think otherwise. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 13:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait we can't post a one-line stub. This type of incident is extremely rare in Canada, and the story is in the news today. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait as incident is ongoing. --Jenda H. (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose barring any unusual aspects that may come about. It's been confirmed two of the dead are police officers while the suspect is in custody, and the situation is basically centered on a household in a suburban area, so it wasn't like a random busy street shooting like the one a couple weeks back. This sounds like a domestic situation gone unfortunately wrong. --M asem  (t) 14:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Masem. – Sca (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral - it's made international headlines, e.g. in the UK Guardian, but as Masem says, ultimately it's not a very big story. Article certainly needs a lot of expansion to be considered worth posting anyway. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose mass shootings in Canada are not an everyday occurrence. That being said, this one does not rise to the level of ITN. Lepricavark (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems to have been expanded to an acceptable level compared to when the above opposes were written, subject is a current event being covered sufficiently by reliable news sources. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is in good shape and the event is in the news. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose minor shooting that will likely have little impact, will likely fall out of media coverage within the next few days. SamaranEmerald (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment even if mass shootings are less common in Canada than in the US, it seems odd for a shooting with 10 children killed compared to one with 4 adults. Alex of Canada (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 *   I'm not aware of any rationale for assigning wider significance to this shooting solely because it occurred in Canada. In the first day of its presence on the news cycle, no RS reports raised questions of terrorism or other ideologically driven motives. Sca (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any rationale for assigning wider significance to any loss of life solely because of where it occurred, the age of the victims, the profession of the victims... I wish we'd start considering topics as a whole, instead of relying on WP:BODYCOUNT. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

⇒ Not gonna fly. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - four fatalities mean that it is unlikely that this will have too much lasting impact. However, the fact that policemen are amongst the deceased, coupled with the rarity of such incidents in the Great North, mean that this seems to be just significant enough for ITN in my eyes. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose pursuant to the claim that mass shootings are not common in Canada, I just searched for it and it turns out the last one that made the news was on 23 July . Even if they're not common they're certainly not uncommon. I'd need to see some kind of lasting impact or ongoing coverage to support this. Banedon (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose ITN is supposed to take us to high quality articles. That one is rubbish. It tells me almost nothing about what has really happened, and who apart from police officers was actually killed. Maybe we can include it when more information is known but certainly not now. HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just a small deaths. That's it. BSrap (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - article has been moved to Fredericton shooting. ansh 666 06:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Back again, as predicted. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose had this been 100 km to the southwest this wouldn't be news at all. Juxlos (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing: Turkish currency and debt crisis, 2018

 *  Oppose  mostly because WP:PROSELINE but also because the Lira has been slipping for a while now, I don't know when this is no longer "ongoing". Propose a blurb and cleanup the article a bit I'd support that. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Jayron32, though I still think it's better suited for a blurb than ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose at the moment, there are still little day-to-day updates when considering for Ongoing. 3 updates in last 10 days. Usually we have more than that. --Tone 12:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the pound continues to "tumble" against the Euro because of Brexit, but we'd never consider that for ITN, nor would we ever consider such a sparsely updated article either. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Part of the reason why an article about the Pound would not be considered is that its value against the Euro has remained little changed over the past 12 months, (not sure where you get the "tumble" idea from?) in the middle of an (approx.) 10% range. Whereas the Lira has declined by more than 10% against the US Dollar and the Euro in the last 24 hours. Chrisclear (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Support Article is about as current event which is frequently being updated, no issues with referencing. There's enough prose text to balance the timeline of events; though I would like to see some of the highlights of the timeline also added to the prose sections as well.  The existence of a timeline in addition to quality prose is not a game-killer for me, WP:PROSELINE is primarily about using a timeline in lieu of real prose, or more to the point of formatting a timeline to give the illusion that it is real prose.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Currency market machinations are unpredictable. If Turkey were to devalue the lira, it might be worth ITN. Sca (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment What does "If Turkey were to devalue the lira" mean? The lira, like the US Dollar, is a freely floating currency. It is not fixed to anything. Chrisclear (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * National policy has an effect on currency value through Monetary policy. They can't peg the lira to something, but they can devalue it by using their national bank to play around with the money supply.  All national banks do this all the time.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Quantitative easing and quantitative tightening can be used adeptly to manipulate the value of a fiat currency. Alter the supply, shift equilibrium and ergo demand, reduce "worth" in the eyes of currency markets. If there is more money in circulation, there is a detrimental effect on value, and vice versa. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per IAR: All other arguments aside, this has been on the MP long enough. If your economy is in the toilet in June, it's going to be in the toilet in August. It would be decidedly more newsworthy if it suddenly wasn't. ghost 17:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per - currencies fluctuate all the time. While severe, the fall in the lira isn't unprecedented or particularly worthy of a listing at ITN. If it goes the way of the pengő, perhaps, but not now. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose seems to me (according to the source in the nom) the actual news item should be "Trump doubles metal tariffs on Turkey". The Lira crashing is just a consequence of Trump's action. I've now seen more than enough coverage of this to switch to support. It genuinely appears like an ongoing issue, and will be ongoing for a while longer. Banedon (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Erdoğan did far more damage to the Lira than Rump. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The source article was just one of many that exist. And as Laserlegs points out, the Lira had its huge declines mainly for other reasons - the tariff decision just made it worse. Chrisclear (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support This may be a case of personally selective input, but I can't seem to escape news of the Turkish lira and was surprised it wasn't already included ITN. This is a current event spanning multiple days with multiple interconnected story angles impacting a major developing economy and with transnational consequences (US steel tariffs, American prisoners, Turkish domestic politics, Turkish-NATO relations, etc.) all of which are, more or less, chronicled in the article. Chetsford (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support -I too notice this story continues to crop up in the media, lasting significantly longer in the news cycle than other economic news of this type. The impact is global, and I suggest we give this a run as an ongoing item. Jusdafax (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment what is the actual impact of a collapse of Turkish currency that we haven't already seen before? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hard to say: They're a NATO country and are absorbing the flood of refugees from the ME trying to get to the EU. Worst case? Another "arab spring" situation maybe, if inflation takes hold and unemployment skyrockets. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Dahyan bus bombing

 * Support in principle, but article requires major expansion required as nominator mentions. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support if expanded a little. I modified the hook slightly for length. --- Coffee  and crumbs  05:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on principle - we know there were children among the dead and injured, but looking at the state of reporting right now, the numbers of dead/injured are unclear, why the bus and children were there was unclear (I've seen coming back from a picnic, I've seen going off to summer camp), and the reaction by the Saudis needs to be clear as they were claiming it was a legitimate strike. This just needs probably a bit more time (half a day) for details to settle to one general version. --M asem (t) 06:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment way down the list in my top 20 stories today, and there isn't much to the article (minus reactions section) --LaserLegs (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you just not care about the fact that 29 children were killed?--WaltCip (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not especially, not any more so than people of any age killed for cruel and unnecessary reasons. Posting this blurb to ITN wont' bring them back, nor will it prevent future atrocities. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hardly surprising the slaughter of 29 kids is being suppressed by US-led news outlets. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not being suppressed at all, just way down the page. It's not a secret that the Saudis are targeting civilians in Yemen or that their arms are supplied by the USA. What is the WP:MINIMUMAGE for mass slaughter significance? --LaserLegs (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's called "suppression", pushing bad news stories about one's militaristic allies to a footnote. Bravo! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Notably "My experience tells me this isn't important to me" is not the same thing as saying that "this is not shown to be significant by coverage in the news". Personal experience and personal interest are not relevant to these discussions, content of source material is.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The section is "In the news", I didn't see it "In the news" is all. I'm one voice, out of many. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, it's not what you see. It's what is.  There are three, legitimate, bona fide news sources listed above.  Just because you hadn't personally seen those sources doesn't mean they don't exist, and you could remedy the problem of your own lack of knowledge by looking at them.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, but there are bona fide news sources about everything - even the electric scooter menace in California. I rely on the aggregators Bing and Google to bubble stories up to the top, instead of applying my own bias. Yes, those aggregators are geo-centric, ok, but we have contributors from everywhere. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Those aggregators are your bias. They feed you stories they think you are interested in based on various analysis of your online presence.  That's why they are worthless for assessing the story.  The evidence shows that this is a top news story, and that evidence exists outside your personal experience.  Small, human interest stories like California Scooters are not covered as top stories in internationally renowned news sources the way this story is.  That you refuse to accept evidence because your pre-conceived notions and individual experience doesn't conform to that evidence is the problem here.  Just remember that your attitude and behavior makes your contributions to these discussions irrelevant, and admins will treat them as such.  I only am carrying on this discussion as a means to inform you of the proper way to do things.  I consider you properly educated in such matters, and you should not thus be surprised when your contributions here are ignored repeatedly; which will continue unless and until you get on board with the way things work.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I browse "in private" so that I don't get their recommended content based on my habits. All I did here was point out that the article was thin, and that it didn't bubble up in my news feed. Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably because half the Western alliance participates in the Saudi invasion of Yemen. Openlydialectic (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, no mass conspiracy, it's just another grim footnote in a long running unlawful conflict. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the story was the lead story on the UK BBC website when it happened, and it's still on the front page now, some 36 hours later. Black Kite (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak support, post-posting – I was reluctant to support a stub, which should be expanded, but that fact that the victims were kids heightens the significance of this crime, even in Yemen. (Please, no more flag salad! That's padding.) – Sca (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * PP Support the investigation into the heinous crime has been "initiated" by Saudi and that's front page news. QED.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes – a commentator on DW News Thurs. cited apparent "ineptitude" on the part of the Saudi military. Sca (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, there's ineptitude, then there's Saudi military ineptitude. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Say whaat? Sca (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been exposed to some of their "abilities" first hand. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support we posted Saudi Arabia's hissy fit response to a Canadian tweet and IMO the murder of nearly 30 children is far more newsworthy. Lepricavark (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support I'll be honest, if we posted every time Saudi Arabia bombed a hospital in Yemen, a school for blind students in Yemen, or just somewhere filled with innocent Yemeni civilians, every time the Saudi's ally UAE was found to have raped innocent Yemeni women with bayonets, every time the Saudi-US coalition prevented food and medicine from entering the country using their naval blockade while a million civilians starve during a man-made cholera outbreak, that would be all we post to ITN (not saying they're not worthy though, these kinds of outlandish human rights abuses absolutely are and deserve much more attention and I would not !vote against any of them). This one is particularly notable, because it's getting much more media coverage than the rest of them and it's already proved itself to be front page news. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 18:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per above. Tragic story, plenty of coverage. Davey2116 (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-post comment or any admin: Can you update the blurb:
 * In the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen, Saudi armed forces execute an air strike on a school bus in Dahyan killing at least 50 people, 29 of which were children.
 * The page has moved and I want to make it absolutely clear that is was a (despicable) air strike. We should also reflect the preliminary total number of deaths.--- Coffee  and crumbs  23:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose listing the children separately -- ALL deaths are tragic, be it children, women, the elderly, journalists, or successful middle aged white men on their way to pick up a luxury sedan -- ALL people are equal, and all deaths are tragic. Highlighting the child death toll is tabloidesque, and is something ITN has refrained from doing in the past. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Valid point. However, the current blurb already highlights the children. Not sure what should be done, but I feel like the total number of deaths needs to be included somehow. --- Coffee  and crumbs  01:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tamara Degtyaryova

 * Support Not much there, but what is there is ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 13:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Working Definition of Antisemitism

 * Oppose Speculative. If it does split the party, that's ITN, but just because there's debate, that's not really sufficient ITN. --M asem (t) 05:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose internal politics of an opposition party. Stephen 05:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose As above this is largely speculative as to its seriousness within labour. I am also unsure of how neutral this is, as many would argue the controversy is mainly outside the party (and a manufactured one at that).Slatersteven (talk) 07:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose a kerfuffle in local politics of a non-ruling party. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Internal politics with no major implications. This is of interest to the UK political classes but no-one else, and is not even the biggest story in UK politics at the moment (that would be Brexit). Also, there's no way ITN would post an article that's justifiably tagged as violating WP:NPOV. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Though Brexit has taken a back seat, so has this, since Boris Johnson decided to say people in burkas looks like bank robbers and an investigation has opened on him, the Foreign Secretary. Kingsif (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Katie Cannon

 * Comment: Current gap in coverage between 1974 and 2001; what did the subject do during that time? Additionally, given that she is an ethicist/theologian, I would love there to be a section on her views she put forth, or possibly woven into her biography (e.g. "In 1985, Cannon published X, which argued that Y and Z.").  Spencer T• C 19:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Richard Sipe

 * Two things: External links much? See also "pedophilia"? Reeally?  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment quite oddly structured article, lead is overly long compared to the body of the article, which is lots of small sections, and I don't understand the value of all the external links. Oppose in this state. MurielMary (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jarrod Lyle

 * Okay, massively upgraded the referencing, not quite done, but I must go do offline things now. Courcelles (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Appears sufficiently referenced.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nicholas Bett

 * Support - how much expansion do you think it needs, ? It looks fully referenced, covers the main points of his life (i.e. long enough to not call it a stub), and the death is covered. Happy to try and address any concerns with lack of coverage. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Several statements in "Career" are not supported in the refs, another is broken. Int'l competitions is unreferenced. ghost 12:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the Tilastopaja link, and improved some others. Also expanded on his 2015 success and put a ref for the results in competitions. Think it's good enough to post now. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support "Career" section seems to be as well cited as needed and "International Competitions" chart is referenced by this, which is also used as a reference within the prose. Striker force Talk 14:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The broken link is at Tilastopaja.org which appears to be a partner, so this could probably be cleaned up easily. Given this article is pretty bare bones, what's there needs to be verifiable. ghost 14:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)\


 * Support Looks clean enough, provides ample information Kingsif (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. I think it's up to scratch now, with ghost's main concerns addressed and others satisfied. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Arrest of Juan Requesens

 * Support, but blurb needs an improvement in NPOV. I added an alternative blurb as a suggestion.
 * Weak oppose by precedent, we only post convictions, not arrests. Banedon (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Amado Boudou

 * I think this meets significance, and the narrative is compelling. A few small issues: there are specific but different charges noted in reference to an indictment (passive bribery and influence peddling) and arrest (money laundering and racketeering), but not conviction/sentencing. Further, "Boudou is also being investigated" is cited to a 2014 article; probably needs updated? ghost 14:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are the same charges. He had been arrested before the trial concluded, because it was feared that he may interfere with the investigation. As for the "also being investigated", those are other cases he is also facing, he has been sentenced in just one. Cambalachero (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support then. I meant not LITERALLY the same charges, like you arrest someone for killing a guy, then charge them with manslaughter. But I'm more than willing to take your word on it. ghost 23:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: Notable individual and is in the news. I remember Lula da Silva being in the news as well, so this is an easy support for me.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 19:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: Good article, valuable news. Here's hoping that Maduro trial goes down as well. Kingsif (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article is in decent shape and news of this kind is notable, but this is only a vice-president and not a president as in the comparison to Lula above. There might be a history of ITN blurbs for stories regarding vice-presidents though, so take this as a full support if there is. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose He's a former vice-president. If it was Cristina I would have supported this, but now... eh... Openlydialectic (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I didn't specifically weigh in on this above, but that's what I meant in calling this a compelling narrative. There can be boring Premier-level scandals, but interesting sub-Premier ones. There is no right/wrong answer here; the consensus will need to make the call. ghost 11:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's imagine a similar news about Joe Biden or Dick Cheney. Would you dismiss it because Obama and Bush were more important? Cambalachero (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support leading government officials being imprisoned for corruption doesn't happen every day. This dominates Argentinian news, for good reason. Banedon (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article update of good quality; marking "ready".  Spencer T• C 03:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - per Banedon. Jusdafax (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted For transparency's sake, I did support the nomination, but it's continued to stay ready and receive support without being posted. If anyone feels that posting is not warranted, please contact me and I will remove the item for someone else to assess consensus.  Spencer T• C 18:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Arvonne Fraser

 * Maybe I'm wrong, but this seems to heavily rely on primary sources. ghost 12:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, you're not wrong, . Oppose for now based on same concerns. Striker force Talk 14:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to this source? http://www2.mnhs.org/library/findaids/00034.xml Although the papers themselves would be considered a primary source, the material referenced is the biographical notes on the biographical overview, which is not primary but secondary (someone has written those biographical notes based on the primary sources). MurielMary (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Librarians and archivists are reliable secondary sources in my opinion.--- Coffee  and crumbs  22:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Upon further review, referencing is really a mess. 5, citations are to works by the author. Others don't directly address what they claim to. This is salvageable, but not ready yet. ghost 02:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please clarify your statements. There are 2 citations to books by Fraser, because they are publication records of the books listed in the "publications by Fraser" section". Not sure what you are referring to ? You can tag any citations which you think don't include the information in the text to also clarify, as I don't see any issues in that area. MurielMary (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right about the biblio (so it's not 5) but the subject's papers are primary sources. A secondary source must involve "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts," not just collation. ghost 12:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Refer to my prior comment above regarding this query - that citation is referring not to the collection of papers, but to the biographical notes written by the library. MurielMary (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition, the statements with references to the library site also have additional references to other sources. MurielMary (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Marking ready.. Please review the latest version. I truly cannot see the issue with this article. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll withdraw my opposition. ghost 23:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stan Mikita

 * Oppose far too much of it is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Only one tag, at present time.  Striker force Talk 20:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I see many places tags can be added. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Cleanup is happening very quickly. I'd encourage you to take a look, at your convenience. Striker force Talk 21:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support The last CN was about the "Why is Daddy sitting" anecdote. The quote itself was cited, but the fact that it was a reaction to the camera showing him in the box is WP:SKYBLUE. I cited from the primary source because that's all I could find, but you could just drop the line entirely if need be. ghost 11:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Changing the updated status and pinging and  for their reconsideration.  Striker force Talk 14:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Was in pretty rough shape but good team effort to get it up to snuff. Teemu08 (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, good job. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Tensions between Colombia and Venezuela

 * Oppose but I might consider supporting an "all out war". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The "assassination attempt" was closed because there was no reliable proof that it was one. Unless there is something more concrete, "tensions" is not grounds for posting. EternalNomad (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Maduro says he has solid evidence that the Colombian government tried to kill him, and new Colombian President Duque says he will not have an ambassador in Venezuela, among other less-major things. Please propose a better blurb if you can. Kingsif (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Maduro can say what he likes, but I am certainly not taking his word at face value. These hostilities are not yet significant enough for ITN. Lepricavark (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose in favour of posting the explosion. Banedon (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Tensions rising" is nothing too major. I'll support if something comes of it but not right now.  Nixinova   T   C  03:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not notable. Tensions have been pretty bad for quite some time.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 04:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as nothing has actually happened yet. Some diplomatic sabre-rattling is not enough to merit posting on ITN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. I think it's more important to post the previous nomination and note many of the arrests that are undergoing, including that of deputy Juan Requesens and her sister Rafaela, president of the student center of the Central University of Venezuela, besides the removal of the parliamentary inmunity of deputy Julio Borges. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: M. Karunanidhi

 * Oppose for now The article needs a lot of work. Orange tags appear to be justified. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose currently far more wrong than right with the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, the fact that this RD could not be fast-tracked is an indication of bias. Notably the funeral in itself could be newsworthy, https://indianexpress.com/article/india/karunanidhi-burial-funeral-marina-beach-5298199/, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foLZ6U4X5UM , https://indianexpress.com/article/india/karunanidhi-dead-funeral-live-updates-madras-hc-rajaji-hall-marina-beach-5296869/ --Soman (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This nom is three days old, and you show up now to throw around specious accusations? Actually, it isn't stale yet. So go ahead and fix the article, and we'll fast-track it for ya. ghost 17:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. And my comment was not an accusation against other editors, but rather an observation on how wikipedia functions. If we compare with other recent RDs, this one is definately way more notable. --Soman (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Paul Laxalt

 * Oppose per nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is mostly unsourced. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Joël Robuchon

 * Oppose: referencing is poor. --Danski454 (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The proseline in "Biography" hurts my head. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Saudi-Canadian diplomatic row

 * Support While at the first glance I was going to vote oppose due to the lack of importance - I mean diplomatic dispute is a bad thing, but it may as well just not lead to any concrete events unlike say laying a claim to another country (like Saudis did with Qatar) or invading another coutnry (Yemen). However, I do think it's a verry surprising event - Saudis starting a row with a Western nation - so much so that this surprisingnes can very well make the event notable and important enough to post on the ITN. tldr: I think there's notability for the sheer unexpectedness of the unfolding events. I mean, come on, whats next? Are they going to bomb Greece tomorrow too? Openlydialectic (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you consider it "verry surprising"? Saudi Arabia has used "expel the ambassador" as a routine tactic for sending a signal of its displeasure with its allies' actions for literally decades, (including expelling the ambassador of the UK, a country with considerably closer economic and political ties than Canada, to express the government's dislike of a British TV programme), while the presence or absence of an ambassador doesn't mean diplomatic ties have been cut (the US hasn't even had an ambassador to Saudi Arabia since Trump took office). &#8209; Iridescent 10:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, though your example backs your statement that the practice of expelling ambassadors has occurred for decades, it really was decades ago and, for obvious reasons, we couldn't post stories ITN in 1980. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 17:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would just like to note for the record that Greece has, in fact, not been bombed as of this comment.--WaltCip (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not since 1941, anyway. Sca (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Moral support - Good faith nom. Still, it's unlikely that this will be posted to ITN simply because of its sadly tiny scope. In the end, this is just political posturing that will amount to nothing.--WaltCip (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Seems the target article should be listed as Canada–Saudi Arabia relations. Also, the URL to the 'dispute' section of said article doesn't belong in a blurb. That said, if the two nations were to break diplomatic relations entirely, that would be worth posting. Sca (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Although an ambassador has been expelled, the countries have not cut off diplomatic relations and the impact seems to be fairly minor. The BBC report makes it clear the ban is on 'new trade', not existing business, and only two international flights have been suspended. Another major concern is that the bolded article now has major WP:UNDUE focus on this particular incident, with barely anything about relations in general or other historical incidents. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, if they go to war then I might consider a support. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Might!? Consider!? Is Poe in effect here? Oppose, like the other not-yet-a-war conflict. ghost 16:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose, Ousting of diplomats, at least to me, doesn't poses enough significance to be posted to ITN. Amirk94391 (talk) 09:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This has already escalated to far more than just expelling diplomats. Saudi Arabia expelled all Canadian diplomats, ordered all Saudi scholarship students in Canada to go to other countries, immediately suspended all flights to and from Canada, suspended their new trade agreement, repatriated all Saudi hospital patients in Canada, in response to Canada requesting that Saudi Arabia free the jailed womens rights activists.source: businessinsider An unusually quickly escalating feud between two major G20 nations with rash methods from the Saudi government; we've posted stories far less consequential. (even the boat race and the snooker championship were considered worthy enough, and in all fairness these stories were relevant to roughly negative six people combined) Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 17:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * !!!!!!BOAT RACE KLAXON!!!!!!! In all fairness, it was making some sense until the last sentence spoilt it all. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly; if you disagree with my assessment that the boat race wasn't as consequential or newsworthy as this, that alone doesn't somehow detract from how Saudi Arabia has in fact escalated this to much more than just the expulsion of diplomats. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 17:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, did you just tell me not to be silly? You need to focus on your own thoughts and expressions, not mine.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, most of BrendonTheWizard's post above is completely fabricated. KSA has expelled one Canadian diplomat (not "all Canadian diplomats"—the embassy remains open and all consular services are functioning as normal), suspended new investment (existing investment and trade agreements are continuing unaffected), suggested that Saudi students in Canada may lose government funding (not "ordered all Saudi scholarship students in Canada to go to other countries"), and a single airline has announced that from 13 August it will end direct flights between Riyadh and Toronto (as it's part of SkyTeam, you can still book a Saudia ticket from Riyadh to Toronto just fine; it just means a stopover in Paris, Schipol, JFK or Dulles). ‑ Iridescent 2 21:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If in fact these statements are completely fabricated, you may want to modify the text of Canada-Saudi Arabia relations. Please also note that I did in fact state that they suspended new investment in my original post, so to suggest that was a "complete fabrication" would mean you misread my original post. Consider these excerpts from the Wiki article: "It was announced on 8 August by Saudi Arabia that it would put a halt to its medical programs in Canada and shift all Saudi patients receiving care in Canadian hospitals to hospitals in other countries." ... "It was reported that on 8 August, Saudi Arabia began the process of selling all of its Canadian assets to foreign investors. In August 2018, Saudia also stopped flights to Canada." A direct quote from the article cited states: "Saudi Arabia has restricted travel, medical access, and student scholarships to Canada while using its state-owned media to depict the country as unjust." Even had the entirety of my original post been botched, what actually happened is unchanged and it remains more notable internationally than most of what we've posted lately. And yes, I do think it is a rather silly thing to say that one sentence "spoilt it all" after agreeing that the rest of it "made some sense."  Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 22:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not at all. You spoilt what was a reasonable post with some silly trash at the end.  If you want to convince people of your position in future, best to avoid repeating such excursions.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say that no reasonable person would agree that an admittedly reasonable statement is overridden by one parenthetical comment somehow rendering all rationale void, but that's fine if you think that as there's no need to continue this digression from the original discussion any further than we already have. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 18:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - As BrendonTheWizard. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support this is becoming a much bigger story as Saudi Arabia continues its irrational escalation. Lepricavark (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - There’s been a surge of developments in the past 48 hours, and the news coverage continues. Not your average diplomatic spat. Jusdafax (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Tom Heckert Jr.

 * Oppose per nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Charlotte Rae

 * Oppose for now. Referencing is indeed quite poor. I dropped an ITN nom notice on the article talk page. [Vechnaya pamyat!] -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alan Rabinowitz

 * Oppose for now as the article does have citation needed tags in it.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 06:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose just a handful of items need references. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added more refs and removed the cn tag (I could only find one tag CofE?). pls add more if needed and I'll endeavour to fix. JennyOz (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks better, but the tone (e.g. "Dr. Rabinowitz died after a long journey with leukaemia") could use some clean up. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, removed from lede per MoS, added trimmed 'legacy' quote to death section. JennyOz (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article is up to scratch. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) August 2018 Lombok earthquake

 * Suggestion: Is it possible if we merge the article above with 2018 Lombok earthquake? –Angga1061 17:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I just found out–– Can we merge them with July 2018 Lombok earthquake? –Angga1061 17:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A scan of the articles on this quake all suggest it is a related quake from last weeks (then they were already warning of powerful aftershocks). These should be treated as one "quake" system so the articles should be merged, and the blurb updated. --M asem (t) 18:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose posting as a separate story. The two should be merged into one article (2018 Lombok earthquakes?). An updated blurb should be sufficient. Mjroots (talk)
 * Comment the Indonesian Geophysics body described it as the "main shock of the series" so it's probably a good idea to merge. However, I've no idea how this would work. In addition, the two topics are sufficiently distant from each other in coverage that a double-link entry might work better. Juxlos (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Alt blurb – we don't need two of pretty much the same story.  Nixinova   T   C  01:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb. Also the word "at least" should be added before "20". Hddty. (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. We use the magnitude from USGC? The Indonesian authorities (BMKG) claim that the magnitude is 7.0. Hddty. (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually wrote 7.0 in the blurb, but then another editor edited it. –Angga1061 04:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb We should keep the 6.9 MW figure reported by the USGS for consistency as that is the source used in the foreshock figure of 6.4 MW in the lead at July 2018 Lombok earthquake. --- Coffee  and crumbs  05:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that in July earthquake both USCG and BMKG reported the same number. Hddty. (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Add BMKG to the July earthquake article and I am 100% behind you. I have no reason to believe one is more reliable than the other.--- Coffee  and crumbs  09:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Does it really matter? Besides the BMKG seems to be reporting in Richter instead of which would explain the difference. Juxlos (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, BMKG uses the Richter scale. –Angga1061 10:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If we are listing these in the same sentence/blurb, it only matters that we use the same scale in reporting the number. The blurb as written seems fine to me.--- Coffee  and crumbs  10:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok then. I just can't distinguish the scales. Hddty. (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support combined blurb. This is in fact a more significant event than the original blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support combined blurb. Significant death toll.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted alt.  Spencer T• C 13:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Barry Chuckle

 * Note that while a person having an individual article is a requirement for an automatic RD entry, being covered only on an article about the duo or group the deceased was a notable part of (as here) does not prevent them being listed. Comments should focus on article quality. Thryduulf (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. While the death section would ideally be expanded I'm not currently seeing anything much in reliable sources to expand it with. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Goodnight, sweet prince.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose with regret. TV and live appearances sections appear to be basically unreferenced.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (The C of E here) I have now removed those unreferenced sections. I do hope we will be able to get this run on ITN. The Royal C (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you need an alternative account to add that comment and remove all that material? 86.187.169.70 (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, oh dear.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It was simply a bit of To Me, To You on different devices, one of which was a work one. Thankfully No Slacking didn't turn up!  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 06:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support very sad news. Aiken D 13:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – Article quality looks good. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I think this is ready to be posted. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Alleged attempted assassination of Nicolás Maduro

 * Support short, typically lame "reactions" section, but it's both in the news and an unusual event - explosive drones! --LaserLegs (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Reactions section has now been updated. Kingsif (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment reports arising further suggest that it was not an assassination attempt but only appeared as such, suggest using the term “apparent” in the blurb, as originally proposed. Kingsif (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's a staged attempt. the article should reflect as much. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, but change blurb in light of the circumstances and neutrality. I suggest that the blurb explains the explosion during the speech and that there are, if I'm not mistaken, at least seven wounded. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The murky origin of this incident, and the fact that Maduro was not injured and there were no casualties, make it unsuitable for ITN at this time. Sca (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: The AP notes, "As is often the case in Venezuela, accounts of exactly what happened remained murky." Sca (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Notable story, I'm seeing lots of coverage of this. The articles are pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The story is based on unverified claimed by the Maduro government which is not a reliable source, quite the opposite. The BBC story linked in the nomination says that according to the firefighters at the scene, it was actually a gas tank explosion in a nearby apartment building. Was there really an assassination attempt? What, if anything, actually happened? At the moment it is very unclear, and there is no reliable information. Nsk92 (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:V. is right. The Maduro government is claiming it was an assassination attempt, but firefighters said it was a gas explosion. Wikipedia is WP:NOT the propaganda outlet of dictators or strongmen. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fascinating, taking a look at WP:NOT it says "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.". You might want to have a gander at WP:NPOV and WP:VT - as of this morning WP:RS was calling it an assassination attempt, like it or not, the item is "in the news". I'll tell you what WP:ITN is WP:NOT, a WP:SOAPBOX for you to complain about the Venezuelan president. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I was proud of that. There is too much uncertainty about what did or did not happen, that we run dangerous risks around promoting fake news if we post this. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Even if this was a real assassination attempt, it didn't get close to succeeding. Reliable sources are now questioning whether it was a genuine attempt, staged by the government, or even an unrelated gas explosion. We should avoid posting on ITN on both grounds. If he had been injured I might have supported. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I would tend to agree that there is too much uncertainty around this, and I don't think that's likely to change soon.  331dot (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose If this were 100% confirmed as an assassination attempt against a sitting world leader, that's post-worthy. But the dubious claim this is one, and that he wasn't injured, leaves this as a non-story. --M asem (t) 19:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Blurb 4 proposed to focus more on the explosion. Should replace the image with one of the street? Kingsif (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support so what if it's uncertain? Post now and update the blurb as things become clearer. If this winds up not being an assassination attempt, that's still okay, since 1) it'll still have been covered in news and 2) investigators will have spent time to reach that conclusion. Banedon (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You really don't see a problem with publishing a blurb that (a) may not be true, and (b) if false, can only be called propaganda from a dictator? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See blurb 4, nothing in this version is untrue or debatable. An explosion happened, Maduro said it was assassination, seven soldiers were injured. Kingsif (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Blurb 4 is clearly the only one of the above that could be postable. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If the US had invaded Iraq today as opposed to in 2003, would you support a blurb? Look at the parallels: they go to war over alleged WMDs which "may not be true", and if false, can only be called propaganda. The action taken is the most important aspect here. Not posting because the alleged intended victim is a dictator is also borderline editorializing and / or RGW. Banedon (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice strawman argument. Nobody is questioning that the U.S. has invaded Iraq. This explosion leaves lots of unanswered questions. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak weak support Ugh. There is a laundry list of "alleged" assassination attempts against Maduro, but this one is different since it was quite the spectacle. However, I do not support any blurb suggesting it was an assassination attempt and suggest the blurb "Drones detonate during an open-air speech by Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro" (or something similar). If the blurb incorporates the assassination wording, then my support is withdrawn.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 04:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I do not see this article or its phrasing being saved any time soon while this is still news.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 15:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I think a slight understanding of the context (Venezuelan politics) would evoke reasonable suspicion. I would only support after more details emerge on whether or not this was an genuine attempt. Alex Shih (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolute weakest of supports - If we're going to post this, at the very least we need to use alt blurb V, which removes any pretenses of potential propaganda.--WaltCip (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Can't link an article with a "factual accuracy disputed" tag to the Main Page.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t know why the tag is there, since factual accuracy isn’t disputed, it’s probably because news is still appearing. It’s redundant with the current event tag, but since there hasn’t been discussion it hasn’t been removed. Unless it’s a tag that doesn’t need discussion to remove... after a check, it just requires citations - will remove the unnecessary tag. Kingsif (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm not comfortable taking the word of a man like Maduro. There is too great a possibility that this was a staged event, and I think we should err on the side of not giving them the attention they were seeking if this was indeed staged. Lepricavark (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Nsk92 and Muboshgu. The source for almost all of what is being reported comes back to a dictatorial government that is clearly not a reliable source for the time of day much less these kinds of claims. The unhappy truth is that we don't know what happened, and it could stay that way for a while. If/when that changes, I may be open to reconsidering this nomination. But right now, in the absence of a clear picture of what exactly went down, I think we need to err on the side of restraint and caution. Especially given that the claims be trumpeted (pun intended) by El Jefe may be used as a pretext for arresting political opponents. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Routine government propaganda, zero casualty, sketchy details. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Re-opened Just today, reliable sources are STILL calling it an assassination attempt   and the only source I see calling it a "pretext" is John Bolton who lost all his credibility searching Iraq for "nookular bombs". The story didn't go away, and if we're going to accept the twitter reports of street protestors in Bangladesh as accurate, we're going to have to accept the Venezuelan governments - as reported by WP:RS - whether you like that government or not. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please close. Article has not changed significantly and neither has the suspicion surrounding the whole incident.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 04:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have to disagree with closing. The Bolivarian Intelligence Service is currently carrying out raids in Caracas, congressman Juan Requesen was detained along with his sister, the president of the student center of the Central University of Venezuela, and Julio Borges' parliamentary immunity was removed, accuding him of being related with the incident. This is still ongoing, if it is to be closed it should be due to lack of consensus. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This is not the first time that the Maduro regime tries this stunt. Cambalachero (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Needs attention The article is now titled "Caracas drone explosions" and indicates "Video footage shows two drones: amateur video of one drone exploding, the video showing few people in the area, and another video recorded by Telemundo cameraman Cesar Saavedra of a drone hitting the Don Eduardo apartment building." so we can ignore all the "Oppose - Maduro is a liar, it was a gas leak" above and re-evaluate consensus. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I still oppose on lack of significance. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm re-iterating my support in light of this new information. Davey2116 (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Still have to oppose on this one. I have a feeling that there is a push to name this an "assassination attempt" when it is still debated.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 18:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging previously invovled users:            <i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 18:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I still oppose.  There is no independent way to know what happened here. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I weakly supported before; now I will just oppose. It's essentially stale now.--WaltCip (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Still oppose. The staleness and verbosity in the blurbs strengthen that. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, we are not accepting the word of the Venezuelan government. Lepricavark (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Ju-Air Junkers Ju 52 crash

 * Comment Deaths now confirmed. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 *  Weak Support at approximately five sentences, it's still a stub, but right now there's little more to say I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose not seeing it "in the news", operator is a red link, plane was on a "pleasure flight" article is stubby. WP:AIRCRASH applies. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - In headline news on BBC - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45076060 Sherenk1 (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Also in Breaking News on Sky News. They refer to it as a “vintage plane”.Kingsif (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - yes, homepage of the BBC News website seems "in the news" enough. Not seeing the relevance of AIRCRASH here since (a) it suggests that fatalities/hull loss of commercial airline flights can be standalone articles (after all, if anyone really believed that AIRCRASH applied in the context I guess it's trying to be used above, it's AFD time... which it clearly is not...) and (b) it's an essay.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * TRM we've been through this, I don't see the UK-centric BBC home page because I don't pay your despotic television tax. I look at the Google World news top 20 I see Venezuela, I see Bangladesh, I don't see a rickety old plane on a pleasure flight crashing in Switzerland. I look at the article, I see the operator doesn't have a standalone article, and the crash article is barely a stub. Don't worry, we'll post this irrelevant very important crash per WP:MINIMUMDEATHS you don't need to erect a wall of text disparaging my opinion. Thanks though. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't erect any wall, I just added to it. Once again you're heading for that terminal flight to ANI with this continual (and pointed) drum-beating.  (Oh, and it's on the homepage of the BBC News "world" section too, "despotic tax" (hilarious) or otherwise).  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - given your comments below, and that the article has been expanded, do you still hold this view? Mjroots (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 *  Comment Support – Notable mainly due to the 80± -year-old airplane (of a type famous among history buffs). Our 3,500-word Junkers Ju 52 article is quite complete. But as noted, target article is was a stub. If enough info comes out soon to expand it, this would be ITN-worthy due to its unusual nature. Sca (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: it's on German Wiki's ITN, piped to a 400-word article. – Sca (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Then wouldn't it be great if you, as a German speaker, could translate some of it which isn't already covered in the English article, and include it? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, it looks like there's an image of the crash site which could be added. Looks good to me, but could use more eyes on it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Added a few bits from German WP; others have updated as well. The hot weather (less dense air) seems to have been a factor. Article now 300 words. Sca (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - original image restored - image of the crashed aircraft needs its copyright status clarifying. Should not be considered until this has been done. Mjroots (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless there's long-term consequences, especially given the current items on ITN it's competing against. Banedon (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment when this gets posted, the blurb should mention the age of the plane, since that's what's propping up the notability on this one. I do wish the article had more history on this specimen. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Built in 1939 – by which time it had already been made obsolete by the DC-3. Sca (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Are we really saying that an aircraft crashing with 20 deaths is under the bar for notability? Mjroots (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I see no harm in posting but this seems to have little consequence on the world stage. However unfortunate the number of deaths may be, when viewed in light of the other items nominated on this page (especially the one right below this), this story pales in comparison. IMNHO. --- Coffee  and crumbs  07:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The event in the story nominated below this one had twenty fewer deaths, i.e. zero. Mjroots (talk) 07:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So what? What is more news worthy: an old plane crashes or a national government is actively suppressing news (including beatings of Associated Press reporters) about a legitimate protest that could erupt into national civil action? --- Coffee  and crumbs  08:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Some perspective. --- Coffee  and crumbs  08:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It depends on your perspective. That's why we follow consensus. If people want to add a "must have a consequence on the world stage" criterion, that's a separate discussions. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No need for a change in policy. I see no harm in posting which is why I have abstained from !voting. I just don't like indignation when people don't jump at the opportunity to post a story about something that is of little consequence.--- Coffee  and crumbs  08:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In your perspective, of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I like to say, in my not humble opinion.--- Coffee  and crumbs  09:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm saying 20 people dying in a private plane crash is under the bar for notability there are no WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, WP:AIRCRASH applies here this was not a commercial flight and there will be no changes to the type, no air worthiness directive, because it's 80 years old. The blurb needs to mention the age of the aircraft, that's the only thing notable here. Five people died when a private plan crashed in a mall parking lot in California yesterday should I create a barely-stub article and nominate it so you can all shoot it down as not enough deaths? Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see an WP:AFD tag on the article, so it's just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:AIRCRASH does not apply to stand-alone articles. Mjroots (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Perhaps this might meet whatever significance threshold exists on ITN. I don't know. This just seems inconsequential to me.--WaltCip (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In journalism, reader interest is a composite of many factors, not just significance or consequences. One of them is oddity, unusualness, rarity, etc. When was the last time you heard of an 80-year-old, 'historic' plane dropping out the sky "like a stone" and killing 20 people? Sca (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: Note that about 50,000 readers viewed the Junkers Ju 52 page on Aug. 5. Sca (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Article is of adequate length and it seems notable enough.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as per Pawnkingthree. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support solely on the loss of life, which I think is enough, albeit barely, to ring the ITN bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The criteria I look for on death and destruction noms is some combination of: a) I can find the story without searching for it, or b) the article is excellent, or c) the death toll is staggering. None of those apply here. "but it's an old plane" is not a good reason to post IMO. ghost 16:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The article has been improved since I last looked. Davey2116 (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support while the death toll is on the low side for ITN purposes, the age of the plane makes this case rather unique. Also, this story comes from a country that doesn't make frequent appearances at ITN. Lepricavark (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, article looks to be in good shape. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Needs attention – Soon it'll be three days old and start to stink like a fish. Sca (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Bangladesh road safety protests

 * Support came here to post this. Very major news, from the videos I've seen the fatalities are at least in dozens if not hundreds protesters. Though the article is in significant need of attention right now. It's fine and doesn't have any of the regular problems so it can be posted right now, but with more info coming in the upcoming hours it would be great if some of us could focus our attention on it. Openlydialectic (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Well-developed article on a story that's gaining worldwide traction.  Sounder Bruce  22:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per this but also this, this, and this. Removed Ongoing (I don't think that was noms intention). Added image.--- Coffee  and crumbs  22:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose How relevant are some protests exactly though? Protests happen all the time, I honestly don't see what is special about these protests. Alex of Canada (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose this was in the news today, I guess we can post it. The thing is, the article says the "students" are demanding "road safety". It's in response to two people killed by some out of control buses. Ok, how is there no Road safety in Bangladesh article or something similar? Is road safety such a systemic problem there that people are generally fed up? As a reader, I'm stuck by the lack of background that could give me context for why people are so upset. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This really reads more like a student protest about two people who were killed, and less about a national movement about road safety. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm seeing conflicting news about this report, BBC reports only 25 may have been injured, and the point about exactly the point of the protest (are they protesting road safety or over the two deaths?) I'm also seeing the counts of people involved only in thousands across the entire area, so it's not as big a protest as we'd normally have posted. But I do see this story is still technically developing, this could potentially merit posting. --M asem (t) 04:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - The story is gaining media coverage globally and the article looks good. Amirk94391 (talk) 05:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is a Reddit Live thread on this (for sources): https://www.reddit.com/live/11e4mknpbhjqr/ Sherenk1 (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment aaaaaaand now it's a wall of WP:PROSELINE in need of a copyedit for grammar. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, because it's unusual to have large protests over traffic safety, perhaps unique in world history. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm tempted to post this, but LaserLegs is correct that it should be less of a timeline and more prose. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongly support Government shutting down the internet. Mass rapes and violence to quel the teenagers protesting the government? This is on par with the 2009 iranian protests. --Aréat (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support given the scale and number of injuries. Banedon (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Large number of coverage in international media. The event has gotten a new turn with the abduction of Shahidul Alam after an interview with Al Jazeera. Source, Source, Source - Editor General of Wiki (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted as the article has been changed to have more prose. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Question "On 6 August, students of East West University were carrying out peaceful protests when they came under violent attack by BCL men and the police force." This smells like an NPOV thing, the article is basically social media reports and heavily skewed against the government. I'm thinking to tag, but would like a second opinion first. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please use Dubious or More citations needed or similar and I will gladly check for you. But neutrality does not mean fair and balanced. The article including the statement you quoted is sourced from legitimate and reliable media sources. I have toned it down by removing language like "peaceful" but the facts are verifiable.--- Coffee  and crumbs  20:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. WP:NPOV ...a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias" I think is the definition of "fair and balanced". There was a collective losing of the minds over the Venezuela thing, but this article reads like a pro-protester propaganda piece. I think any time a WP:RS is simply reporting something from "social media", I'm going to tag it dubious - I mean, if that's ok we may as well just use twitter is a WP:RS. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes but don't forget the end of the policy sentence you quote: "...all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." What you percieved as editorial bias is not bias at all. It is a fair reflection of the source material. There is no pro-protester propaganda by editors. There is a pro-protester stance in the reliable sources in light of a clear crackdown by the government as pointed out by Amnesty International and PEN International.--- Coffee  and crumbs  23:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ingrid Espelid Hovig

 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – Article is of decent quality. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Apple is worth over $1 trillion

 * Oppose It's an arbitrary number and it was only above $1T for a few hours (since its value is highly dependent on the stock market). --M asem (t) 20:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment no less arbitrary than goals kicked or centuries batted, it's just another record, and my goodness is it ever "in the news". One liner update is no good, and that article is a wall of text, with 500+ refs there is no way I'm going to actually read that mess and check any questionable content. This is, however, "in the news" - no doubt about that. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - the claim that it's the first to hit $1 trillion is also not certain. PetroChina achieved a similar valuation in the midst of a bubble in 2007. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – It's a number. It doesn't change anything. Sca (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support even if it's arbitrary, $1T is a nice round number that is a natural threshold. PetroChina doesn't count since it's majority government-held. That it is temporary should not matter, since it's still a record. In the same way if someone runs the 100m in 9.50s, it's a "temporary record" since tomorrow he might not be able to run at that same speed again, but it's still a record. Banedon (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Sure it's arbitrary, but the Facebook record below wasn't arbitrary and we didn't post that. In my view, both are notable records. Davey2116 (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The high market capitalization is no more remarkable than $999 billion or $1.001 trillion, it's just a round number. Furthermore, it's the second time a company has "achieved" this milestone, after Petrochina "achieved" a market cap of $1 trillion in 2007. I don't see how Petrochina's partial government ownership invalidates this. Whatever excuses people come up with, Apple will always be the second public company to "achieve" a one trillion dollar market cap. Chrisclear (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Petrochina's main asset is oil, which is strictly speaking owned by the country and not Petrochina. So Petrochina being worth $1T is misleading. Here's an analogy: suppose we wind back the clock to 1800. You are the government of China, and you've just discovered this asset called "oil" that's very valuable. The oil is owned by your country because it's located within your borders, the same way Mt. Everest is "owned" by Nepal. You form a new state-run company to sell that oil. Your country owns 100% of that company's shares. You decide to sell 1% of those shares to the public. How valuable is your company? To say that Petrochina really is worth $1T is like saying that China as a country is worth $1T - not sensible. Banedon (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said above, people can come up with all the excuses they like, the fact remains that Petrochina was the first publicly-listed company to "achieve" this pointless "milestone". Chrisclear (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Someday, someone will say Microsoft is the first trillion-dollar company because its peak inflation-adjusted market capitalization in 1999 was 27.27 trillion Taiwanese dollars, and everyone else who denies this is coming up with "excuses". Banedon (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * With near certainty, you are now being deliberately obtuse. First of all, as you are aware, the "milestone" we are discussing is US Dollars, not Taiwanese dollars. Second, the "milestone" we are discussing is market capitalization not adjusted for inflation. Third, even if Microsoft's 1999 market capitalization is revised upward to account for inflation, in 1999 it was not close to a trillion 2018 US Dollars. Chrisclear (talk) 05:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Arbitrary round number in one particular currency. Mere trivia with no lasting impact. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose interesting, but arbitrary nonetheless. Statistical milestones would be fine with DYK, but not with ITN in general. Python Dan (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - while interesting, this is perhaps better suited to DYK, as it is simply too arbitrary to pass muster at ITN. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The number is not arbitrary; it's a threshold, and a notable one. Petrochina is not a valid comparison, for the reasons state by Banedon. However, while this should absolutely be posted to business-pedia and Cupertino-pedia, it's to niche for us. ghost 11:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is DYK trivia. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Let's take another look at this when APPL hits $1 quadrillion. For now, suggest close. Sca (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Catholic Church and capital punishment

 * Support the alt blurb per nom comment. Article is in decent shape. Striker force Talk 19:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just a statement, but no actual plan to be implemented or the like. --M asem (t) 19:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How would a religious organization implement a ban on the death penalty? By that logic, Vatican II was not notable. IcierJacks (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If the Pope announced they were going to organize numerous meetings with the leaders of countries that include a large number of Catholic followers to try to convince them to change the country's stance on capital punishment, that might be something. All this is is saying that from yesterday on, the Catholic Church will teach capital punishment is not approved by the church, which is far less of a proactive action. --M asem (t) 13:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't think that a doctrinal clarification by the Pope is particularly of lasting impact, or worthy of an ITN listing, especially in this case. Perhaps it is my ignorance as an atheist, but I didn't think that capital punishment respected the sanctity of life in the eyes of the church. Unless legislation changes in a major fashion due to this declaration (say, for instance, the death penalty is abolished in the US), I view this as nothing more than a religious figure reaffirming something their congregation likely already knew. It is also of no discernible impact for those people who don't believe in the Immaculate conception - as such, I don't see this as a suitable blurb for ITN. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So religious news is excommunicated from ITN? And for the record, until today, the Catholic Church did not consider the death penalty as contrary to the moral law. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course not - we'd obviously post things like a new Pope - but a declaration of a body without any legislative authority is basically a non-story, nothing immediate will come from it. (its like when the Doomsday clock is updated, same type of thing). --M asem (t) 20:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - ^ I agree with what has said here, for the record. In relation to the church's position on the death penalty, while not explicit, it could be very reasonably inferred from actions, doctrine, and scripture that they weren't fans - today just affirms it, and I don't see the impact this haves beyond the pulpit. While undoubtedly considerable, it doesn't reach a threshold of importance for me. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This will not ban the death penalty in the US. For one Protestants outnumber Catholics by about 2:1. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - that is my point (tangentially). Minimal lasting impact. Just used the US as an example. Apologies for confusion caused. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb. This is huge news and represents the final shift, that has been coming by inches since the 1960's, in Roman Catholic teaching on the subject. It places the world's largest Christian church (over 1 billion) officially in opposition to the death penalty. Article appears to be in decent shape. Side note- I prefer the alt blurb as the original is a bit unweildy and longer than it needs to be. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb per Ad Orientem.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I doubt that this is really going to have a big impact. People with sincerely-held opinions on the matter are unlikely to change their mind because of this. Lepricavark (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Most self-described American Catholics approve of using birth control, would a change in church teachings not be notable? Of course it would be. IcierJacks (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the entire "Aquinas" section has a single ref, and it's in friggin' Latin. "Roman Catechism" has a single ref and it's broken. We can do better. It pains me, but this is in the news, so I'd support if the article were improved. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Friggin' Latin is not to be sniffed at, you know. But then neither is a broken catechism, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Stormy Clouds and Lepricavark, notable but this is nonetheless the Catholic Church annoucing it’s opposition to Capital Punishment. In addition, it is the governments of the world’s nations that control the position of the death penalty, not the church, in other words the influence will almost certainly be minimal at most with no major impact. SamaranEmerald (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That isn't what major news organizations are saying. (CNN for example) IcierJacks (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that this is largely speculation, and as any experienced Wikipedia User should know Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we cannot predict the future based on speculation. SamaranEmerald (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I know. I'm saying that your point would also fall under WP: CRYSTALBALL. We have no idea what influence it will have. We do know that it is a change in major Roman Catholic Church teaching. That is why I think this is independently notable. IcierJacks (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, may bear fruit, may not. Still a major doctrinal change in a religious branch with 	1.299 billion members. Perhaps a defining moment in the papacy of Pope Francis. Also the promise of a push for global abolition. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the Catholic Church does not control whether the death penalty should be administered across the world. Will likely have no significant impact on the fate of capital punishment, and become forgotten by the public eye within days. Kirliator (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a religious topic, not a governmental or civil one. Regardless, this will still have a major influence. IcierJacks (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Being notable does not automatically make an event automatically ITN worthy, several users have noted in the past that even the most arcane, barely notable news items have been posted onto ITN in the past; likewise there have been ones that recieve widespread coverage, yet do not get posted amidst a number of arguments. Kirliator (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Martinevans123. It's "just" the action of a single religious leader in one of the world's many religions, but there are 1.3 billion Catholics in the world. Banedon (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I think this is very notable, and the article is pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support I take it this means we're not burning any more heretics at the stake.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on significance. This has been all over the news I've read today, and I read a variety of sources. It's impact is yet to be determined, but the potential is huge, the decision is significant in and of itself as a doctrinal change for a huge religious group, and there's no way we'd be in a position to support this at a point when the impact is measurable. Vanamonde (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I rarely support posting a statement from a public figure but I think an exception can be made here because Pope Francis has huge political and religious influence globally and the statement is an extremely significant and unprecedented point of view. EternalNomad (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose a statement from a religious leader with no power to influence capital punishment. This will not make any noticeable difference to the number of people executed worldwide - which is dominated by China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea, countries which are not going to be swayed by a Catholic pronouncement. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - This is irrelevant. This is notable for theological and social reasons, not in the sense of governmental laws. IcierJacks (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You can't !vote twice, let alone on your own proposal. Please strike at least one of your !votes. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose according to the death penalty article, more the 60% of the world’s population lives in nations that still use the death penalty, many of which are NOT Christian majority nations (e.g. China, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea), so the influence on abotion of the cruel but otherwise legal policy will likely have next to no impact in the world. Python Dan (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So could you tell us what percentage of the earth's population live in countries which ARE Christian and which DO use the death penalty? Just wondering, not that it really influnces what is "in the news". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Countries that are predominately Catholic and enforce the death penalty make up 0.295% of the world population. If you expand this to countries that are predominately Christian (Catholic + Protestant), then it will be 4.682% of the world's population, with the majority of this figure coming from the United States alone (4.29% of the world's population). Databased (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's a much tinier figure than I was expecting. But I still support this candidate. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A governor in Nebraska has stated that the Pope's views on the death penalty will not halt a planned execution. He is Catholic.--WaltCip (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No-one said they would halt any planned executions. That's not really surprising. Not sure anyone was really expecting a global change in the space of one day? And I guess Gov. Pete Ricketts can now enjoy looking tougher than before. Anyone might think the Pope's announcement was "in the news". Your sample of one doesn't really sway me. Sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone else think he was targeting this at the 80 million Catholics that are enabling the so-called "Philippine Drug War?" ghost 11:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That would explain all those white vans making late-night deliveries to the Vatican? But seriously, that topic does seem to be on Francis' agenda. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Saying the announcement is significant because it might lead to widespread change is definitive crystal-ballery.--WaltCip (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree about that crystal-ballery. But the original nomination makes no such claim. The announcement is notable in its own right from a historical perspective? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct, a lot of people seem to think I'm trying to say it is notable because it would change governmental laws. I said it is notable because of social and theological reasons. IcierJacks (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree with those above that this is not of sufficient importance to post, as it is highly unlikely to change the perspectives of those who actually control whether the death penalty is used. Arguments to the contrary are not convincing per WP:CRYSTAL. Gluons12  ☢&#124;☕ 19:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC).
 * A possible change in governmental policy isn't the reason this is notable. It's notable from a theological perspective. A change in the Catholic catechism is extraordinary rare, even more so on a notable topic such as this. IcierJacks (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If any change in the theological perspective of any large religious denomination is now notable, ITN will soon be packed with such nominations. The opinions of non-state actors on the death penalty are not notable because they are theological in nature. Even if it was the abolition of the death penalty in a large country that regularly uses it, I would still question its notability, as such changes have happened in many times in history. Gluons12  ☢&#124;☕ 16:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC).
 * Non-state actors? Does that include ISIS? Or the Taliban? What if they came out with a statement tomorrow that capital punishment was wrong in all circumstances? I think that might just make the news. And you see the Catholic Church as just another "large religious denomination"? No distinctions to be made there all? Or how many "large" ones are there? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - It is notable on a theological and social level. A lot of people here seem to be implying that I think it is notable in the sense of laws, which I do not.IcierJacks (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - given your capacity as the nominator, your support is already assumed. Please retitle the above to Comment or Support as nom to distinguish it from a !vote, or weave it into your nominator's comments. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC).


 * Support - A major development in the theology of the largest religious group covering nearly 1/6th of the world. -Thunderforge (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A minor development in the theology of not even the largest religious group in the world that claims to have about 1/7 to 1/8 of the worlds population as its adherents. Openlydialectic (talk) 09:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not theology. It's church doctrine, or at best religious ethics. 86.187.168.185 (talk) 09:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Neutral, but Oppose wikilinks to POV articles on Quality grounds, unless and until the POV is properly fixed. For instance, the main proposed blurb currently has this wikilink: abolished worldwide. That tells us "Currently, the large majority of countries have either abolished or discontinued the practice." This is arguably technically correct, but it is deeply misleading - it gives our readers the impression that capital punishment is some kind of minority aberration. Our readers could be forgiven for failing to understand that, for instance, as of 2017, 7 of the world's 8 most populous countries are retentionist, including the world's 3 largest alleged 'democracies' (India, USA, Indonesia), and those 7 already represent a majority (51.5%) of the World's population between them (and there are another 51 retentionist countries still to be added, including other populous countries such as Japan, Ethiopia, Egypt, Vietnam, etc, see List of countries by population (United Nations)). I did my bit to try to partly fix a similar problem at Capital_punishment by adding India to the list of notable exceptions. But I suspect that a serious attempt by me to fix it properly would involve quite a lot of work and would likely be defeated by those who presumably created the problem in the first place, so I almost certainly won't be attempting to do so myself (per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO).Tlhslobus (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mary Carlisle

 * Support Article looks to be in good shape and has been updated. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

(Re-posted) Fields medal

 * This is an ITNR, so it will be published as long as the 4 articles are actually updated. Nergaal (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note Peter Scholze could use some expansion on the work that led to the Field Medal; the current text just states "He won the Fields Medal in 2018". Similarly with Alessio Figalli.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support there's enough of an update, and as Modest Genius notes, the bios are in good shape (there area few cn tags on Caucher Birkar which will hopefully be fixed, but with Fields Medal in bold that's probably fine). power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 23:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Articles look good to me. Davey2116 (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose - the four awardees are the articles to be bolded, not Fields Medal. Banedon (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment looks like the fields medal article was the bold target in 2014 but why the rush to post this? Fields Medal has a whole "landmarks" trivia section which is largely unreferenced, and the refs for the whole medalists section is poor (the recipients are refed, what they won it for is not). Look, I don't care that much, but this is a fringe topic to begin with we should be posting better content for our readers IMO. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment It should be mentioned what they did to win the medal. Something like: "...for contributions to the minimal model program, optimal transport, cohomology, and analytic number theory respectively." Databased (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that they awarded the four for very different reasons, and most of those are definitely not easily described in layman terms, the briefer blurb makes sense. --M asem (t) 15:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose The MP in general is meant to highlight quality material. ITNR specifically has no other standard beyond quality. It's a little disturbing that we would so actively seek out a loophole to post when the quality is not there. ghost 11:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pulled While a rough consensus existed, at the time of posting, that has shifted since posting and consensus now seems that the quality of the article(s) needs to be fixed before posting. If problems are fixed, feel free to return.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-pulling comment Fwiw the article for recipient Akshay Venkatesh has now been updated. JennyOz (talk) 04:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I was going to oppose a few days ago but I was edit conflicted by the comment that stated the blurb had been posted. The Birkar and Figalli articles still have too many unsourced statements. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment & repost. I've been offline for a few days, but I think there's enough of an update here, it's just spread over multiple articles. The articles on Scholze and Venkatesh seem fine to me, with appropriate descriptions of their work and comprehensive references. If we're abandoning the precedent of 2014 and only posting bold links to the winners, this should be reposted with those two bolded instead. Birkar and Figalli have a few cns and unreferenced paragraphs; unfortunately the mathematics is beyond my expertise to address those. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently no-one is looking at this nomination as it's so far down the page; marked (needs attention). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been peeking in a few times a day, but my prior position stands. We've omitted countless RDs of major celebrities because their lengthy articles were not up to snuff. There's nothing wrong with just not posting this. As an aside: where does it say unbolded links do not carry quality requirements? I'd be open to delinking the lesser articles. ghost 11:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In_the_news states that the quality requirements apply to the bold-linked article (only); ITN has always applied it that way. I don't see any quality concerns with Akshay Venkatesh, so this can be posted with just that as the bold link if required. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, it's nice to see that someone has noticed the work done on that article (for example, by and myself).  There are certainly more things that could be done but it is well past the start class it is rated and certainly main page ready, IMO.  A blurb on just Venkatesh could say something about his work, too.  EdChem (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll buy that - Support with the bold for Scholze and Venkatesh only. ghost 15:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Reposted per above.  Spencer T• C 00:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment the blurb sure looks ugly. It's easily interpreted to be saying two of the four winners are more significant than the other two. Banedon (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Banedon, it makes no sense to bold half of the winners. If the other two are not up to snuff, the blurb should not be posted. -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Bold all of them I made some changes to the remaining two that should be suffiecient for now.--- Coffee  and crumbs  02:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for your work in improving those two. -- Tavix ( talk ) 03:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Zimbabwean general election, 2018

 * Support per ITN/R, but the election article needs updating and filling-in. Juxlos (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is unnecessary to say "support per ITNR" as ITNR means the merits are not in dispute. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose article is missing any useful information about the results of the election except what is mentioned in the blurb. Needs a relatively complete results section with prose summary before it is main page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 *  Oppose /Wait – Per Jay. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait per, The result of the presidential vote is not yet known. power~enwiki ( π , ν ) 22:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, now that all the results have been announced. FallingGravity 03:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If they have been announced, then you should write about them in the article. Let us know when you've done that, so we can post this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: this needs a prose update on the result, reactions, and the violent protests which have followed the election. At present there's just a table. I've added an altblurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – in principle, pending expansion of article. (AP, Guardian added as sources above.) Opposition charges of election rigging not unexpected and should be handled in article. Sca (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support right now This is already receiving significant coverage. p  b  p  18:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: The results section is only a set a tables with no prose update; as with similar election/sports articles, a prose update is needed in this section. Removing "attention needed".  Spencer T• C 23:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)