Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 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.

[Posted] RD: Barry Crimmins

 * Support The article is of sufficient quality to post. Mamyles (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Short but sufficient, no holes in referencing. -- Jayron 32 20:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support short but enough. Good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I was going to nominate the article myself! g2g. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Does not cross the notability threshold. Unknown outside the US.Manish2542 (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please familiarise yourself with the RD criteria before making such a post. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Canadian banknotes

 * Oppose. Individual notes and coins cease to be legal tender all the time (the English paper £10 note also ceases to be legal tender this week), and the linked article makes it clear that these are obsolete notes which haven't been produced since the last century, not a current issue being withdrawn. ("Ceased to be legal tender" doesn't mean they suddenly become worthless, either; it just means you can no longer spend them in shops and need to exchange them in a bank.) This isn't remotely a big deal, and if it is ITN-worthy will open a spectacular floodgate; there are 200+ countries in the world, and probably on any given day one of them is either issuing a new note/coin or withdrawing an old one. &#8209; Iridescent 23:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Iridescent. Not remotely ITN material. Black Kite (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - perhaps attempt a nomination at DYK, as this item would be more suitable thataways. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: M. Jaishankar

 * Oppose that is one bleak BLP. But oppose anyway because of " presumably because he was upset over his failure to escape" for example. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * - Removed, as there is no source to justify such a claim. Please detail any other such issues so that I may rectify them. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

*Support for RD. I for one will not mourn this man, but the sourcing on the article looks solid. The facts appear to be presented as neutrally as possible. Challenger l (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This reads as a string of accusations, suppositions and arrests, but has little detail on actual convictions. Whilst few will mourn his man we must still adhere to BLP. Stephen 23:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Sourcing is adequate, and article seems to be neutral. -- Jayron 32 02:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't help but wonder if this is really necessary. Sure, we aren't supposed to evaluate RDs on the basis of anything but article quality, but do we really think it's a good idea to put a convicted serial rapist and murderer on the front page? We can post anyone who has recently died (if article quality is satisfactory), but that doesn't automatically mean we should. Lepricavark (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * RD is meant to be indifferent to why a person is notable (though it should be noted that not all convicted criminals necessary are notable per BLP1E). --M asem (t) 06:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know that. I'm just saying that it's okay to make an exception to the rule once in a while. Lepricavark (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know that we should implement this policy - I can see it being a slippy slope argument (Charles Manson was posted, remember?), and we must refrain from righting great wrongs. Stormy clouds (talk) 07:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked at the actual text of RIGHTGREATWRONGS and it is not applicable here. I'm not suggesting that we implement a new policy. My point is simply that we should reconsider whether we want to give any acknowledgement to a recently deceased serial rapist and murderer. And I'm not sure the comparison with Manson is apples to apples, as Manson was a household name for decades. Lepricavark (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand your logic, I just don't necessarily agree. Under the same principle, we would not post major terror attacks as they would bring attention to terror groups like Daesh. Recent death are posted provided the article quality is sufficient, and making alterations to this rule is not, admittedly only in my opinion, a good idea. If others do not agree, so be it, but we are an encyclopedia, and should refrain from suppressing encyclopedic content of sufficient quality due to moral quandaries. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with this proposal, if is presented in the proper forum and approved by the community. I think you'd find that the implementation would be extremely difficult. The current standard is very clean: omitting a honorable person is not a travesty, including a vile person is not an endorsement. We are only saying we have this article you can look at that we all think is pretty good. Once we get into moral judgements... how do we treat O.J. Simpson, Pete Rose, or Art Schlichter? Billy Graham faced opposition due to his homophobia. (Oh boy, it's going to be fun when this pushes Sridevi off MP) GCG (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support article seems adequate. RD is for all biographical articles. An RD posting does not imply a value judgement on a person, any more than the presence of an article in the first place does. --LukeSurlt c 17:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose RGR notwithstanding, this article reads like it was written by a fan; I keep hearing Bill Hader doing his macabre Keith Morrison impression as I read it.  The proseline is rough. This really isn't spotlight material. GCG (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - we now have editors claiming that the article is not neutral as it consists of accusations against the subject, editors claiming that it is too positive towards the subject, and a majority claiming that it is in fact neutral. The discussion is now fractured into literally all possible viewpoints, so this may need the attention of an uninvolved admin to make an assessment one way or another. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed the Ready tag. Looking over the discussion I am not satisfied that there is an adequate consensus for posting at this time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too many sentences unsourced, or sourced to tabloid newspapers. Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Are we reading the same article? Because I can't find a single statement in the article which does not have a direct, inline source to a reliable source.  Most of it is sourced to the Times of India and New Indian Express, which seem to be legitimate journalism.  Can you elaborate on which statements are not connected to reliable sources?  -- Jayron 32 14:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * India Today ("Dreaded psycho rapist escapes from Bangalore jail") and DNA ("Watch out, there's a psycho on the loose") don't strike me as outstanding journalism. The other problem is that, for example, the "Second arrest (2011)" paragraph is written in Wikipedia's voice as fact, whilst the source makes it clear that much of it is simply what was reported by the villagers (which could be fact, but might not be).  ONe of the other problems is the tendency of Indian news sources to report alleged incidents as fact (for example, one source contains " Jaishankar and Selvam hacked the helpless woman with a sickle and severed one of her limbs before robbing her of a chain weighing around 8.5 sovereigns" in a story saying they had been acquitted of the crime). Black Kite (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment After reading and understanding the above, I withdraw my support for this - and find myself unsure what course of action to suggest, when rumor and hearsay seem mixed, as Black Kite implies. Challenger l (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Stale Discussion is now moot. Vanamonde (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Quini

 *  Weak oppose Two CN tags and one unreferenced table . Otherwise not bad. Fix those issues and we should be good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Much improved. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose RSSSF looks to be a wiki? GCG (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No it's not. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * okay then. Support GCG (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article needs more sources and copyedit. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC) Changed to Support now that it has been improved. 05:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I’m travelling and on mobile only right now but I will get to the referencing issues as soon as I can. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sourcing has been improved, could you take another look? Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support article needs tweaks, I'll get onto it tomorrow, but it's good enough right now. Good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Li Boguang

 * Weak Support It's a step above a stub and I added a CN. But while not ideal, I do think the referencing is minimally adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * - sourced the CN tag in this diff, so I removed it. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose The article is in awesome shape, but it is lacking information on death (except for the one sentence mention in the lead). A section regarding his death would be perfect and would expand the article and seeing many attribute his treatment by the government as a contributor to his death, would make it great to include in the Death section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC) Support Issues fixed. Perfect condition. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * - as of this diff, ✅


 * Oppose until the death is better sourced; a statement like 'media outlets considering his demise to be "suspicious attributed solely to Radio Free Asia (a US government propaganda channel which doesn't even make a pretence of neutrality) isn't something that should be linked from Wikipedia's main page. &#8209; Iridescent 21:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * - missed that. My bad. It is now also attributed to Reuters and the Washington Post. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 06:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] 2018 Papua New Guinea earthquake

 * Support Most damaging earthquake in 20 years, and the article is well-updated.  Spencer T♦ C 23:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Large earthquake for Papua New Guinea. Over 30 dead and death toll rising. Good article. ShakyIsles (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - ITN ready, significant number of deaths as well.BabbaQ (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I don't think this one is going to controversial. The subject is clearly ITN material and the article is in good shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] 2018 Winter Olympics closing ceremony

 * Oppose Multiple completely unsourced sections, years old tag, very short not offering any new information. The content it offers was already more elaborately covered in opening ITN post and just removed ongoing item. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The fanfares of the finale are fading fast. Sca (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I was not confused, I merely pointed out below that ITNR lists that the closing merits posting, and thought discussing it in the ongoing removal discussion made sense. If the article is of poor quality, as is the case, it should not be posted. If people want it off the list, that discussion should be started. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We simply don't conflate the removal of an ongoing with a proposal to post a shambolic article. You know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Advisory: See this. – Sca (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * We conflated the opening plus moving it to Ongoing. (" would also support letting this go to ongoing when it rolls off the bottom of the blurbs list", "But sure, this is ITNR, and ongoing after the blurb rolls out is what we commonly do for the Olympics") This was simply the reverse. 331dot (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty obvious this is the best course of action. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - article is dire. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sorry but the article quality is not up to scratch for the main page. In this case the issues go beyond the usual poor referencing. This is a poorly written mess. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Not gonna make it. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ainsley Gotto

 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - fully referenced. good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

[Removed] Remove: 2018 Winter Olympics

 * Per ITNR the closing is posted. 331dot (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am actually not a fan of posting the closing, it is somewhat less prominent than the opening. We can remove the Ongoing tomorrow, for example. --Tone 16:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Converted type from rem to no, added possible blurb, if we wanted to have one instead. If I should have opened a separate candidate, please feel free to revert/fix 184.153.25.119 (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is about removing the event from Ongoing. If someone wants to nominate the closing ceremony then that's a different nomination.  Please people, focus.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support my, how time flies! Lepricavark (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the right thing since it's over. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - it is no longer ongoing. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed Stephen 22:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Bud Luckey
One support and already posted. Great double standards, keep it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish2542 (talk • contribs)
 * Support - fully referenced, long enough. RD ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Stephen is more than capable of identifying whether an article is suitably updated and referenced for RD inclusion. There are no "double standards".  Please don't make any further personal attacks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

[Closed, Posted RD] RD/Blurb: Sridevi

 * Support Blurb - She was one of the best known comedians from Indian cinema and her career spanned several decades. She was the winner of several awards and played in numerous cult movies in both Hindi and Tamil. The article on her is detailed and well sourced --Manish2542 (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As this is a Recent Deaths nomination, support on the merits is not required; this will be posted once there is a quality update. 331dot (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. B class article and article is well sourced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose At least 12 paragraphs without a single reference, and numerous other uncited claims. Stephen 04:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Arguably the biggest 'Lady Superstar' in Indian cinema. The article needs a minor cleanup – there's a couple of tags in in the career section. &mdash; Vensatry  (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Minor cleanup needed otherwise nicely sourced. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Nicely sourced with minor clean-up but the overall article state is nice. Honestly, a blurb could also be argued seeing the death is sudden and is being covered heavily international (from the BBC to CNN). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Would support blurb as well. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Very well sourced article. Sudden death which gained international coverage.--SouravDas1998t@lk to me? 06:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks fine. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support when fully sourced It's mostly fine, but "Early years as child artist (1967–1975)" has no sources apart from the first sentence, the following paragraph has none at all. There are also a number of uncited claims in "Post-marriage and television debut (1998–2011)".  These things do need to be fixed. Black Kite (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - when completed. Right now entire sections are unsourced so I have to give a weak oppose right now.BabbaQ (talk) 09:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose virtually unknown outside India. And very poor article with unreferenced claims — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numancia (talk • contribs) 11:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Virtually unknown outside India? I'm from Mauritius where she is a household name just like in the whole of South Asia and everywhere where Indian films are watched. On the other hand, who is Billy Graham? Never heard of him before he somehow made the headlines on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish2542 (talk • contribs)
 * Well, I'm Canadian and I've heard of her. Every major media outlet here reported her death. Never heard of Graham though. 75.102.128.35 (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb, support RD this is what RD is for. For anyone tempted to scream about "American bias" and "Billy Grahm" pull that one and move it to RD. Per WP:USGOVERNMENTSHUTDOWN we now pull stories that have faded from the headlines, so go for it. --76.122.98.135 (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Graham is currently our most recent blurb. Pulling him would be a bad idea. Lepricavark (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

'''Let's not delay the publishing of the post. We have enough support for publishing it to the ITN ''' Regards,  theTigerKing  16:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Blurb - The article is well referenced and of good quality, when considered on standalone basis. The actor was very popular in Bollywood in 80s and 90s. Making headlines and quite referenced in the subcontinent, the Middle East, and the leading US and UK publications ( CNN, Fox News, BBC News, The Guardian, Sky News, ABC News). The death was untimely which shocked everyone in India resulting in the outpouring of tributes. And regarding the popularity of the actor, one must have the knowledge on what Bollywood is all about!!! If a nomination in recent past did not make through, does not imply it will also not go through (US government Shut down was poplular but was not expected and did not make any short term impact).
 * At least two of the supports above are actually opposes as of right now, because they are conditional on referencing being improved (Black Kite and BabbaQ). Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not about who YOU know. She is known to hundreds of millions of movie fans in the world. And don't you get it? Noone ever heard of Billy Graham outside the US before you decided to prostitute your evangelist in the headlines.
 * Oppose blurb on significance and RD on referencing gaps. Two sections with additional citations required banners, so not ready yet. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support blurb - Billy Graham has lowered the bar. WaltCip (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - does not cross the notability threshold in my view, and is not in the same league of significance and impact as Graham. Also oppose for an RD listing owing to referencing concerns. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * - I'm not American, though, something which you easily could have checked before your facetious and aggressive comment. As a non-American, I can tell you, without bias, that Graham is more notable, as I have to study him extensively for my history syllabus. He was at the top of his field, and was a figure of world-changing impact for evangelicals. Sridevi simply never reached that threshold. Being known to millions of movie fans does not guarantee notability - preaching to 2.2 billion, including multiple presidents, does. And please sign your posts, particularly when critiquing/making insinuations about other editors. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb Graham may have lowered the bar, but not that much. Lepricavark (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Far more notable than Billy Graham. Death at 54 is also surprising when compared to a 99 year old's death which is expected. 75.102.128.35 (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The paragraphs above are still unsourced. "Support" voters - this isn't going to get posted to RD or ITN until the referencing issues are fixed. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support blurb on significance, oppose on quality I'm seeing this being reported a good bit more than I was seeing Graham's death; then again I don't read solely or even predominantly US news sources. It's certainly a more unexpected death than Graham's. Vanamonde (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb on notability, oppose RD on quality. We don't elevate everyone who dies young to a blurb; her death must be noteworthy per se ("murder, suicide, or major accident" is the suggested standard). GCG (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote on notability to neutral due to the death seemingly being of non-natural causes (I'd put this on par with Heath Ledger, maybe?); but we are still miles away on the references. GCG (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain what was noteworthy about the death of Billy Graham? Double standards.
 * - First, please sign your comments inline. Second, give and get respect. By accusing me of double standards, you are not assuming good faith. I supported Billy Graham under the ITNRD qualification of a "major transformative world leaders in their field" which I believe Graham to be. Sridevi does not begin to fit this standard, even within India. We may consider her for a blurb under the standard of "the unexpected death of prominent figures by murder, suicide, or major accident." I'm conceding that she is a "prominent figure." Her death appears to be accidental, but not the result of a "major" accident (this implies a plane crash or similar). I think there might be a gap for this if the investigation becomes scandalous (murder? overdose? suicide?) This is all moot, as the article is woefully under-cited. If you care so much about this getting posting, help fix the article. Western actors get left off RD all the time for lack of refs. GCG (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. She has appeared in more than 300 films in Hindi and other languages.-Nizil (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once lede is referenced If she was American, it probably would be posted already. That's impossible to eliminate, because many editors are from the US, but it can be counterbalanced, by improving and posting the articles of non-Americans. India is the second-largest English speaking country. That said, though, the lede is still unreferenced. -A la d insane  (Channel 2)  15:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A few points: no, it wouldn't already have been posted, and this is in no way related to any "bias", there's clear consensus in favour of the article being posted, but there's a great big orange maintenance tag on it which means no right-minded admin would ever promote it to the main page. No, we don't need to reference the lead.  The lead should only contain information that's expanded upon in the main body, so referencing material there rather than in the lead is commonplace (just check any number of featured articles).   Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If she was American, people would have sourced it already. Or for that matter, countless editors could come out of the woodwork and insist that it be posted despite the referencing problems, like happened in December 2016 (to quote Carcharoth from then, objectivity takes a back seat to subjectivity.) It shouldn't be posted in its current state. But American bias trumps all, apparently (based on 2016). -A la d insane  (Channel 2)  22:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I think you don't get it. There can be no better references! The only ones you will have are from movie related indian magazines. If you are waiting for the New York Times and Newsweek, that won't happen. In short, if Sridevi, arguably the first female superstar of Indian cinema doesn't even get an RD two days after her death, it means that no other indian actor will ever get one. While we are here discussing, an unknown british actress got to be in the RD. What you are saying to the world is that even third-category western actors are more noteworthy that first category indian actors. That's more than shameful, that's simply racist. Probably she is also too Hindu for the admirers of Billy Graham... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish2542 (talk • contribs)
 * I suggest you read WP:V and then WP:ITNRD before continuing to make false claims and false accusations and personal attacks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * RD is fine once the article is up to scratch, but I oppose a blurb. We should never have given Graham a blurb; let's not compound that mistake by dropping the bar even lower. Blurbs are for transformative world leaders (Thatcher, Mandela), not popular entertainers. Modest Genius talk 16:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "We should never have" -- Yet we have. As we have with Carrie Fisher. As we have with Christopher Lee. As we have with Gunter Grass. Your Thatcher/Mandela standard does not exist. It is utterly bunk.--WaltCip (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe you disagree with my interpretation, but the criterion listed at WP:ITN/DC continues to be 'major transformative world leaders'. I think that has been ignored or watered down too many times, and will continue to assess blurb nominations by the actual criteria. Modest Genius talk 18:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You missed out "in their field." Consensus was that Graham was a "transformative world leader" in the field of Evangelical Protestantism. Also Bowie, Prince and Chuck Berry, while "popular entertainers" were without doubt transformative.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Transformative means Western, we got it. Just like Gandhi was passed on for the Nobel Prize for Peace because he wasn't transformative enough... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish2542 (talk • contribs)
 * I'm fairly sure that if ITN/C had been around in 1948 Gandhi would have got a blurb.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How kind of you. Thank you, sahib. Some chai with your scone?. I'm out of here, namaste Manish2542 (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the nationalities of RDs posted this month: Australia, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, China (4), Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland (2), Pakistan (2), Russia, Sweden, Tunisia, UK (2), USA (10). Not posted: Canada (2), Cuba, Denmark, Ghana, Nederlands, UK, USA (5), Zimbabwe. Pending: China, India. If you can find bias in there, you gotta be working for it. (aside: nice work, ITNC!) GCG (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose on article quality. Really serious gaps in referencing and there are orange tags which are a showstopper at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The article still has one completely unreferenced section, preventing it from being posted. In terms of global notability and coverage though, her death has received much greater media attention than Graham in Australia, a majority white and Christian country, which puts things in perspective. Gizza  (t)(c) 04:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support if issues with the article are fixed; otherwise regretfully oppose. Double sharp (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Large sections of the article text remain woefully unreferenced or underreferenced. Agnostic on the manner of posting, but this should not be on the main page until quality problems are fixed.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment If one more RD is posted, this will be stale and be removed. And still there's a whole huge paragraph almost completely unsourced which is stopping it from being posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is certainly notable for a blurb. For those who say that Graham was more notable, see |Billy_Graham this. 2.51.20.15 (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Page views should not necessarily be considered at ITN, as this could lead to systematic bias. If this were the case, Black Panther would merit a blurb at present. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, but many others were saying above that she wasn't much notable and her death wasn't covered in mainstream sources. It was, in BBC, NyT etc, and I just wanted to prove the point of global notability, when someone said more people know Graham than Sridevi, to which I disagree. I mean, Indians are 17 percent of the globe, compared to the much lesser number of Australians. 2.51.20.15 (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Contempt much appreciated. Western-centric references are not an absolute sign of quality. If I may repeat myself. YOU WILL NEVER HAVE BETTER REFERENCES. She was an Indian star, these are the only references you will ever have not forgetting that she was mostly active in the 1980s and 1990s at a time when Indian magazines didn't publish online. Western-centrism masquerading as "serious work" remains western-centrism. In any case, the story is stale now. "Create your own wikipedia"?, like how afro-american actors created their own awards to counter bias at the oscars? Today it's more subtle, now an objectively major indian celebrity gets cast away in the name of "good references" which should be understood as "indian references are worthless". And yes, don't accuse us of personal attacks, you just did it yourself. Manish2542 (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * COMMENT PLEASE READ THIS -> the article is too poor to even consider posting. All the dross above about systemic bias, inherent racism, and other such nonsense is actually completely irrelevant.  For all the supporters of this individual, spend your time fixing the article rather than telling the rest of us why Wikipedia is broken because it won't post a hopelessly crap article to the main page.  Once all the unreferenced material is referenced, it can go as RD.  If you don't like the fact we don't post unreferenced crap to the main page either change the relevant guidelines and policies, or find another Wikipedia or project to work on where standards are lower.  I understand that de.wiki and fr.wiki will post just about anything their main pages, so maybe that's a good place to start. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just as a heads up, TRM does not like being the target of false accusations, so you might want to strike that last sentence unless you can substantiate your claim. I see no personal attacks by TRM in the post to which you were responding. Lepricavark (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Does anyone like being the target of false accusations? The difference is those who falsely accuse or personally attack me usually end up being rebuked and punished.  There's no contempt in my post, no personal attack, please read WP:NPA to familiarise yourself with what constitutes a PA, and then check your own posts.  Last chance.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm now ready to support the RD. It's far from perfect, but given the size, the refs are good enough for me. With the inquest now closed, there is no basis to consider a blurb. GCG (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. There has been a significant improvement of the article since I checked the last time. --Tone 08:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb it's been a few days since she died and it continues to make the news, especially in India. Banedon (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The consensus was for a blurb, not an RD. Jamming this entry in the middle of the RD section after how long it finally took to post just seems like an insult. WaltCip (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree - this is what RD is for. There would have to be overwhelming support for a blurb to override the normal RD posting, and I don't see that above. Tone made the right call.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The blurb supports never rationalized their argument under generally accepted rules or guidelines. If they want to IAR, fine but they have to say that, and give everyone else a chance to respond to that argument. I've made my own argument, the key point of which is an accidental one-off death is not blurb worthy, per se. Otherwise we'd be posting mid-range celebrities who die of an OD, or as a result of a fall in their later years. GCG (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb per Banedon and WaltCip. I'm aware that "if we posted X, then we should post Y" is not a strict rule here, but the double standard is very noticeable here. Sridevi's death is far more notable than Billy Graham's. Davey2116 (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I just took another look at the article. While I am neutral on the merits of a blurb, the first consideration when looking at any nomination here at ITNC is article quality. It pains me to say this, but I have to stand by my earlier oppose. The gaps in referencing would preclude any other nomination from being posted to RD much less a blurb. This article still needs considerable work if it is to be posted on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I concur. There are still many unreferenced claims in this BLP.  Never mind, it'll slip away in a few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Sridevi was the first female superstar of Bollywood. She was also one of the most popular actresses in India and have acted in many popular movies. Sridevi's article is also properly sourced. Wiki.editAnshu (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Why "needs attention?" Clearly this is never going to reach consensus for a blurb. Should we just close it? GCG (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this should be closed. There is no consensus for a blurb. Lepricavark (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * How is there no consensus? A rough count of the !votes for a blurb (i.e., not counting "oppose on article quality", since the article is now adequate, and counting "support for RD only" as "oppose blurb") gives 14 supports and 6 opposes. Davey2116 (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's special need for a supermajority of at least 99.5% support, otherwise it's not certain enough ;) -  Floydian  τ ¢ 21:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not seeing 99.5%, nor am I seeing 70%. Many people voted for RD, a few voted strongly for a blurb, a few voted strongly against a blurb.  It was more 50/50 to me.  This is lingering now, and sadly so.  Time to move on people. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus because many of those above with simple Support votes were voting for an RD - which was what this discussion is. The actual "Support blurb" (including "support blurb when referenced" are about 11 or 12 out of 28.  That's nowhere near consensus, I'm afraid. Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I counted all the supports that mentioned her notability as "support blurb". If a !vote was for RD only, then there would have been no need to mention her notability. Davey2116 (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

For those questioning her notability, she was cremated with full state honours in India. That could be the phrasing of a blurb. Manish2542 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If the article is deemed to be good enough for the main page in terms of referencing now, then strong support blurb. Sridevi's impact on redefining gender roles in the world's biggest film industry and how female actors would be cast and treated from then on was monumental. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 08:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * So no blurb for the first female superstar of the largest film industry of the world. Way to go countering regional bias and gender bias. 42.109.165.118 (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Yang Rudai

 * Oppose - "Career data" (odd name) section is completely unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I was adding the source at the same moment you were writing your comment. Please check again. -Zanhe (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support: One of the less well-known member of the CPC top leadership, pretty much away from the spotlight for the past 30 years. But since none of that is relevant, the article quality looks fine and therefore support RD (Source has been added for the "Career timeline" section). Alex Shih (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Now the article looks OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems RD ready.BabbaQ (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - valuable contribution to economic reform, and combats systemic bias. Colipon+ (Talk) 14:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Emma Chambers

 * Oppose (with regret) tagged and with a completely unreferenced Career section. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good work, this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is short stub and mostly unreferenced. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Still short, but fully sourced now. I'll see if I can expand it a bit more. Black Kite (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Fully referenced, above stub level Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Vanamonde (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Ongoing: Rif Dimashq offensive (February 2018)

 * Oppose - Turkey's Afrin operation is also making headlines from time to time. Having one Syrian Civil War story posted to Ongoing and not the other seems arbitrary to me. And posting both would be too much for one topic. I could, however, support a blurb. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment unanimous UN approval for a ceasefire seems notable enough, but should that make this ongoing, or should we have a whole new nomination with that as the crux? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Support 1) It's a large scale and important offensive with huge civilian casualties, thanks to al-quaeda using the civilians as human shields. 2) it's all over the news. 3) the UNSC managed to secure a month-long truce, which is alredy ITN-worthy 4) Even Guterres commented on the offensive, stating that Eastern Ghouta is "hell of earth" Karl.i.biased (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. This is effectively a siege within a national capital, with higher casualties than Afrin. 2607:FEA8:1CDF:DF8C:C1B0:FBFB:8134:E367 (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing, though it might be worth getting 'Ghouta' in the entry somehow, as that's the name in most media headlines. The UN ceasefire would be worth a blurb if it had held, but it doesn't seem to be having any effect. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 24 hours and no more comments. Marking as [needs attention]. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 20:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: Battle of Khasham

 * No It happened on February 7th. I would have supported it 2 weeks ago. But it's not ongoing, and the oldest ITN piece we have right now is the school shooting in florida, which happened like 10 days after the battle. If I were you and was interested in the syrian war, I'd nominate the SAA intervention in Afrin. Seems like the absolute madmen actually did it and that's actually hug news and a severe blow to the american attempts to destabilize the country and put as many of their bases there as possible. Karl.i.biased (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Ongoing" means the event, not the coverage. GCG (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose decidedly not ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Richard E. Taylor

 * Weak oppose Awards section needs more sources and there is no section with death or later life info. I'll help fix it up. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC) Support Article has been fixed up and is g2g. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Stéphane Valeri elected as the new president of Monaco's National Council

 * Oppose the target article is a bland stub. Valeri's article is barely more than a stub and shows not one iota of update.  Perhaps this is why we "rarely post anything about Monegasque politics".  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a head of state/government. I'd oppose even with expansion. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not head of state, article sourcing issues. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Przewalski's horse

 * This blurb sounds a little esoteric, where the news is a lot more clear/interesting: wild horses are extinct. Should we go with something like "With the reclassification of Przewalski's horse, geneticists have determined the wild horse is extinct?" GCG (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Added alt. Brandmeistertalk  13:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I'm on the fence here. While the extinction of megafauna in modern times is extremely noteworthy, this event actually dates the last wild horse to 1909 at the latest. I'm going support because this should be of interest to readers. GCG (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - article quality is great. Makes for interesting reading for ITN. BabbaQ (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I think there is something here but the blurb(s) may be misleading, at least reading through other articles, specifically the part of "wild horses extinct". (I can't see the full Science article, so I can't see how the authors put it). Perhaps something like the first blurb but as "Genetic studies determine the Przewalski's horse (pictured) to be feral domesticated horse rather than the last-known wild horse." Also, I think the target article needs a slightly larger update than two sentences in the lede. --M asem  (t) 14:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Reassigning a subspecies that most people have never heard of doesn't seem like something that would interest many readers. zzz (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Random flight/train crashes aren't really that interesting either.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * There are many wholly unreferenced paragraphs in the Przewalski's horse article. In general, I'm in agreement with User:Signedzzz about the likely interest there is in this story. --LukeSurlt c 15:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Although I would probably argue this event is notable, it has enough problems as to make fixing the article a job for editors experienced in the subject, and unless you can find an editor who is willing to take the time, I cannot support it. Inatan (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Conditional Oppose. The article about the horse is busting at the seams. Although nevertheless an intriguing (and somewhat tragic) discovery, it is largely trivial and arbitrary.  Although covered in several science papers and websites, most conventional news and media are turning away from this discovery, and those that do cover it are not front page news, this is what turns me off. SamaranEmerald (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * @SamaranEmerald Coverage does not constitute whether or not an event is ITN worthy, I have seen world events before that that were posted on ITN and yet received barely any coverage. Kirliator (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose purely trivial as SE puts it, but still interesting, may reconsider if article is updated sufficiently. Kirliator (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose. When information about the article in Science, etc. gets included in Wikipedia (specifically in Wild horse, Feral horse and/or Przewalski's horse) AND the horse is reclassified as feral not wild (by the IUCN or whoever) then we might try again. After all, we didn't publish ITN items saying "Billy Graham is gravely ill", "Billy Graham is on his deathbed" and so on. Once this is done (if it is done), I think I would support such an ITN item. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose interesting DYK but I don't think its ITN-worthy. – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 02:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Highly misleading. One peer-reviewed study showed that they are a feral horse. There's definitively no consensus on that matter. Wikipedia is not daily Mail. Karl.i.biased (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sourcing issues and pretty much agree with all of the opposers above. I also concur it might be better nominated for DYK. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Billy Graham

 * Weak oppose for now; article is in pretty good shape, but the "other honors" section needs refs. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We should just delete that section; most of those awards probably aren't notable anyway.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. Quite a big deal, and the article is OK. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support on article quality. There are a handful of spots where a cite is needed but overall the article is in good condition and these can be quickly fixed. Support Blurb on the importance of the subject. Graham was an absolutely iconic figure both in the United States and globally and will certainly be remembered as one of the great figures in the history of Evangelical Protestantism. Unquestionably meets our criteria for a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD A couple of CN tags but nothing that should prevent posting in my view. Neutral about a blurb; I concede he was influential within he's field but he's hardly a global icon in the mould of Mandela.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. He is easily the most recognized clergyman in the world excepting only the Pope. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm an ignorant neophyte, but I have to admit this is the first time I've heard of or seen the name "Billy Graham".--WaltCip (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I had never heard of him before I moved to the US.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Curious how old these editors are. I'm 38 and definitely caught Graham in his waning years; any younger and he may seem irrelevant. But his influence was massive and global for decades. GCG (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm 41, if you must know :-)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * He was 99 and has been semi-retired for a long time. Also (and I am not making any assumptions regarding anyone's personal beliefs here) people who are religiously indifferent or are non-believers aren't likely to keep tabs on famous clergy. I am also quite sure there are people who have no idea who Nelson Mandella was. In fact I am fairly sure two such are relatives of mine. :-( -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I support inclusion as main news. For those who have never heard of him, then perhaps the inclusion of the news will address our appalling and immense ignorance about religion and religious men. werldwayd (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - not a fan of the man's work, but his notability is unquestionable. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 14:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability is not a question here. It is how much of an impact on the world that his death has/may create. He was 99 so his death was not surprising (I had thought he passed already), and while its still early in the news cycle, I'm not seeing the type of shock and awe we'd associate with a blurb-worthy posting like Mandala/Thatcher or Bowie/Prince/Williams. --M asem (t) 14:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, with rare exceptions the standard is not the impact of their death, but rather their life. Madella's death was long expected and had virtually no impact as he had long retired from politics. We typically give blurbs to people who were in the top tier of their field. Graham unquestionably fits that criteria. It is of course also true that we occasionally give blurbs in cases where a very well known figure dies unexpectedly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "shock and awe" has never been a requirement for posting a blurb on ITN, and for good reason. Shock and awe is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power, dominant battlefield awareness, dominant maneuvers, and spectacular displays of force to paralyze an adversary's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 14:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean it in a military sense. I'm looking at it from the fact that the world (broadly) was taken aback by the news. Clearly, someone as notable as Graham will get tons of obit coverage, but I'm looking to see if there are mass gatherings to show respect, or similar actions that demonstrate that this was more impactful as a death than just numerous obits. There might be, but that I'm not seeing yet, just a lot of obits. --M asem (t) 14:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies my tongue was in my cheek. So you're opposing because someone who literally just died hasn't had gatherings for them yet? Interesting logic. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 15:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A good rule of thumb for a death blurb in my view is whether there is likely to be a separate article just for the death. See Death of Nelson Mandela, Death of David Bowie. Will there be a Death of Billy Graham?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. We should make these decisions based on the impact of the individual's life, not the specific circumstances of his death. This man was a major world figure for decades. Lepricavark (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that we can post an interim RD while blurb discussions continue, this is completely reasonable to see how the situation develops in the next 24 hrs. The stuff I'm reading right now is still of the ilk "Oh, he was a great man, shame he died"-type of tributes, which do not meet my opinion of where a blurb is worthy. --M asem (t) 15:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Billy Graham is a world-famous white Christian Evangelical who I don't think is a raving right-wing fruit-loop. That's notable in itself ;-) One would like to think he would at least attempt a cup of tea and a sit-down with Richard Dawkins without each other screaming at 120 decibels. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb per Coffee, GCG, and Ad Orientem.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 14:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * RD is fine once the article is up to scratch, but strong oppose blurb. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this man is a world-changing figure comparable to Nelson Mandela or Margaret Thatcher, which is the standard we apply for blurbs. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, the standard is being misstated. It is not "world changing," Mandella did not change the world. He changed his country. The standard has always been that the subject is generally recognized as being in the top tier of their profession. World changing is silly. We would have a death blurb maybe once a decade if that. And virtually everyone outside the field of politics would be excluded. Graham definitely meets the traditional criteria we have always applied here for a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree in almost every way. I'll just point you to WP:ITN/DC which states that blurbs are limited to "major transformative world leaders", which Graham was not. You can't narrow things down to a tiny field just to claim this person was important. In a century's time, people will still be talking about Nelson Mandela. They will not be talking about an obscure preacher. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you believe that Billy Graham was an obscure preacher than all I can say is that we do not inhabit the same world and further discussion is pointless. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb According to WP:ITN, blurbs are for the deaths of "major transformative world leaders in their field" and in the field of religion, Billy Graham meets this standard. Additionally, his death is receiving substantial coverage around the world     , .  Spencer T♦ C 14:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb "He was widely regarded as the most influential preacher of the 20th century" from his biography says it all, biggest christian figure of the 20th century. Claims that he is a obscure preacher are outright laughable and i am not even close to being near the US. Here's a bit from an article i read about his death "Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. counted Graham as a close friend and ally, once remarking, “Had it not been for the ministry of my good friend Dr. Billy Graham, my work in the Civil Rights Movement would not have been as successful as it has been." GuzzyG (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb we might as well quit doing these blurbs altogether if this one isn't posted. Lepricavark (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment RD or blurb, there's gaps in sourcing throughout, and all the list of honors at the ends needs sourcing before this can be posted. --M asem (t) 15:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Too soon to judge about a blurb (I'm usually the first one opposing them, so maybe he does deserve one). News seems to be recent, let's wait a little and reassess? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Oppose blurb. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. is the person with a statue in Washington DC and a U.S. national holiday. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Dr. King is honored for his social/political activism, not his influence in religion. If he were remembered chiefly for his influence in religion he would not have a statue paid for with public funds. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong support. Article should be highlighted as leading news. As a minimum, his name should be mentioned as Recent deaths. werldwayd (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb international transformative impact in the field of religion far beyond his roots in the American South or even his denomination. One quibble though, I think it worth noting that he is considered the most Protestant preacher of the 20th century for NPOV reasons. One could reasonably argue that John Paul II brought down the Soviet Union with his preaching (not an argument I am making, but one that has been made in reliable sources), and I am sure that there are Orthodox clerics who one could argue with as well ( would likely be better at thinking of them than I am, to my shame.) what are your thoughts on this? TonyBallioni (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Prefer alt: that has recently been added by Ad for NPOV reasons. I didn't even begin to get into non-Christian preachers (which reasonably would include clerics of other religions whose preaching has also had an impact (positive or negative) on world events comparable to Graham. I think the sourcing would generally agree he was the most influential evangelical preacher, and this is typically what is being referenced, even if in shorthand. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Reiterating an earlier comment, Graham was a famous preacher but it is nonsense to call him out in this way. Martin Luther King Jr. was an American Baptist who exceeds Graham's influence from here to eternity. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Graham is the single most influential preacher of the last 50+ years and unlike most famous "pastors" was near universally respected. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb – Long a household name in the U.S. and fairly widely known internationally. Altblurb offered to avoid subjective "widely regarded ... most influential," which smacks of hagiography. (Is no recent pic available? This one is 52 years old.) Sca (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not see any altblurb.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Ad Orientem has added one, although it doesn't address the hagiography issue.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ⇒ Somehow mine got overwritten. Now restored above and Ad Orientem's moved down as Alt2. Sca (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - Admittedly I first heard of him by getting him mixed up with the rather-more-to-my-tastes Bill Graham, but he does appear to have sold the whole "don't be a jerk" side of religion quite well. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I remember being dumb-founded thinking that Superstar Billy Graham was going to proselytizing on prime time TV. GCG (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - Graham was a massive icon globally, and a world-leading figure in religion, and very clearly passes the threshold of notability, rendering him worthy of a blurb. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongly support blurb - He was unquestionably one of the most influential people of his day. Even discounting his work as "America's pastor", he served as a counselor to several US presidents (whether officially or not).  I'm quite surprised (though I really shouldn't be, considering this is an international project) at the amount of people who haven't heard of him.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 15:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As a side note, it looks like NBC interrupted their regularly scheduled programming to announce the death of Billy Graham, and that's not, in my experience, very common at all. (An "NBC News Special Report" like the one in the news article I linked is used to interrupt regularly-scheduled programming here in America.)  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 15:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Besides being America's pastor, he was also the pop music's pastor. A shining example is Cliff Richard, one of the biggests British and international stars. Here is when his life was changed by Billy Graham at Earl's Court in London in 1996 at the height of his fame. Here years later Cliff Richard in a 1984 Billy Graham crusade in 1984. see testimony. werldwayd (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * As an anonymous poster, I don't think my voice should weigh too much... but I do come here on occassion to see the discussion on cases which I think are notable enough to get a blurb. I'm glad to see that most of the people posting here seem to be getting it right. Graham was knighted by Queen Elizabeth and spoke to over 120K at a rally in England---the largest religious rally at the time in English history.74.124.47.10 (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted with a simpler version of altblurb2. Obvious overwhelming support for posting a blurb but keeping this open for any additional comments. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 15:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support blurb - It's interesting to see a lot of people who do not regularly participate in ITN/C come out of the woodwork to support a blurb for this person. That may speak volumes to his outreach. Moreover, to my relief, it may represent a loosening of the blurb standard so that we get out of this "Thatcher, Mandela, Thatcher, Mandela" mantra we otherwise seem to be constantly stuck in.--WaltCip (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Comment Post Posting Oppose blurb on article quality His well-known homophobia is not referenced even once. His misogynistic views are skated over.  Article is incomplete. Black Kite (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I recognize that the "if x then y" argument does not apply in ITN. However, I nonetheless find it seriously off-kilter that Le Guin's death was rejected for a blurb while Graham's is almost immediately posted -- and that the arguments for each are almost mirror-image. U.S. residents may have failed to notice that Graham's primary impact was almost totally inside the U.S. (In secondary impact, eg. charitable organisations working abroad, his work is comparable to dozens if not hundreds of others.) He did establish a number of successful firsts in the field of evangelical religion, mostly related to commercializing it. Others have done similar things before him, less successfully. Others have gone considerably further than him since then. He is a significant marker in a U.S.-based roadmap which goes back to Civil War England, but within the broad view he is only another such marker. (Religious rallies of that nature actually go back in the U.S. at least as far as the U.S. Civil War -- and most of those who held them then are forgotten today.)


 * At a neutral WP, we obviously don't use "For those who have never heard of him, then perhaps the inclusion of the news will address our appalling and immense ignorance about religion and religious men" as a criterion. (Probably just as well, or else the words "appalling and immense ignorance" might well resonate with other decisions which have been made here.) With Le Guin, I suggested two objective measures for a writer which would be necessary for a blurb: academic analysis and marketplace analysis. The comparable objective measures for Graham would be worldwide media coverage of his death (not just the U.S.) and an identifiable widespread social change brought about specifically as a result of his work. For Graham, I see significance, but I don't see worldwide reaction in any way comparable to the U.S. versions, and I don't see a clear social change which can be laid specifically at his door. That kind of thing merits an RD, not a blurb. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * On no planet and in no town is Guin more known/notable then Graham, it's not about religion either. You're comparing a genre writer to a major preacher who advised MLK and presidents. GuzzyG (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not my fault if you cannot remember all the literature you should have studied in high school. How many English-language U.S. schoolchildren have there been since 1969? That is the minimum number of how many people ought to know of Le Guin. It is one of the basic texts, after all. L-i-t-e-r-a-t-u-r-e, not "genre". - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, i am in Australia and that's the thing, i know Graham but not Le Guin, also F-a-n-t-a-s-y and s-c-i-e-n-c-e f-i-c-t-i-o-n writers are genre writers, sorry to say. GuzzyG (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb, support RD. The blurb is a bit much for a Christian minister. I also feel very, very uncomfortable with the POV-pushing tone of the article given his support for homophobia.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * He was a lot more than just a minister, he ministered to 2.2 billion people. His social views are not relevant to the fact that he was influential. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes it worse.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We're not here to right the great wrong of homophobia. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nor should we post POV-pushing blurbs on the main page.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's POV to call him influential. He was incredibly influential, as evidenced by his personal relationships with Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. People can judge for themselves his best and worst qualities. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Influential in the United States perhaps. Not influential in Monaco, believe me. We are not USApedia. If we are going to keep the word "influential", the blurb should read "in the United States" after "influential" at least.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oy, not this argument again. Influence is influence, even if it doesn't touch every country. Maybe he was/is influential to Christians in Monaco, I don't know that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No he was only influential to the 2.2 billion people living in the United States. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 18:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am very, very uncomfortable with the notion that being a Christian minister disqualifies one from a blurb. Lepricavark (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't usually post blurbs for RDs. He was not well-known outside the US, and he spread discrimination to boot. There shouldn't be a blurb. We will post a blurb when former president GHW Bush dies--I am sorry but Billy Graham was not on the same level at all.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if we will, though. Bush was a one-term president, and he was widely perceived to be riding on the political coattails of Ronald Reagan, who himself would be blurb-worthy.--WaltCip (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Questions 1) The blurb feels a bit weasely to me: "one of the most influential" is not a wording that's commonly seen on the main page. The quote is present in the article, but it is sourced to one book, which seems to be some biography published last summer. 2) In any case, should the blurb be "one of the most influential evangelical preachers of the 20th century in the United States"? I must admit I've never heard of him before, so I'm not sure about his international reach. Isa (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Altblurb would be more NPOV than Altburb2 for sure. Except we should add, "known in the United States".Zigzig20s (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support original blurb, truly an influential figure. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 17:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ⇒ Agree with Isa that "one of the most influential evangelical preachers" is too weasely. While I understand Fuzheado's motives in toning down the description, I think it comes across as a rather obvious bid to avoid criticism of a subjective assertion. I would point out that Alt1 is entirely factual. Sca (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Thomas C. Wales case

 * Oppose a minor update to a parochial crime. Stephen 04:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose highly localised speculation. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The update, whilst interesting, doesn't seem to be super news worthy. Pedro : Chat  11:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose'. Being US centric is not relevant(per "Please do not" above such objections would be invalid) but this is too local a story for posting and does not have sufficiently wide coverage even in just the US.  This is not a top or even mid-level news story.  We also don't typically posts developments in criminal cases; on rare occasions an arrest, but typically only convictions are posted due to BLP issues.  Thank you, though, for the nomination. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue is not that it's US centric, but more that it has no notability outside of a specific minute niche of interest.--WaltCip (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but the nominator mentioned "US centric" as a concern, I was simply informing them that is not an issue. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - As a general rule, "mights", "maybes" and "possiblys" don't get posted on ITN, especially when it comes to potential BLP issues.--WaltCip (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not sure there's a BLP issue here since the B is about someone who is decidedly not L. That said, the reasoning presented has changed my mind as to the utility of this as an ITN candidate and I withdraw the nomination. Chetsford (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The BLP issue is with regards to any suspect their is; posting a development in any criminal cases could suggest the suspect is guilty before their case is adjudicated, which we cannot do. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any suspect(s), but I suppose I could be wrong. Chetsford (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Sergey Litvinov

 * Support - Referenced,notable, short but I think just by an inch above the required length in my opinion. BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks fine to me. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Very weak support for an Olympic gold medallist and world record holder, this article is barely above stub. But it is above, and what's there appears to be adequately referenced.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Idrissa Ouedraogo

 * Oppose The filmography is unreferenced, and there is no coverage of his life from 2006 until his death. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I agree, the current coverage is insufficient; I would think something like a "legacy" section would help. Alex Shih (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Marked ready - Filmography section now entirely referenced. Should be good to go. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * His death isn’t mentioned in the article which is unusual, but at a mininum his date of death needs referencing. Stephen 22:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment agree, the death isn't covered at all, just a date of death. The rest seems fine, but for an RD, the minimum I'd expect would be a mention of death in the prose, along with a citation. This is not ready, but it's very close.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Re-marked ready - I added information on his death and funeral, and mentioned a couple of interviews he made in 2015. It was getting late last night when I marked this as ready, so I only noticed the lack of referencing. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted good work, thanks. Stephen 08:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you, Fitzcarmalan. — Hugh (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Peggy Cooper Cafritz

 * Weak support not the greatest article but sufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support - As TRM stated, and quite short but sufficient.BabbaQ (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The article looks decent and adequately sourced. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] 71st British Academy Film Awards

 * Oppose no prose, just a three-line lead and tables, tables, tables. Take a look at last year's article... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose apart from what the user above said, do we even post these awards in the ITN? Oscars I can understand, but the british academy awards are in the same league as, say, the Golden globes, or the festival de Cannes. So if we give this pass on importance, we should the also post the globes and the cannes, and then maybe the berlin festival and the chinese one who's name I forgot and then we turn IMDb into the IMDB news page. Karl.i.biased (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you don't like it being ITNR, nominate it for removal. Until then, it's ITNR, precisely to avoid the kind of comment you've just made.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Learn to tell arguments from personal dislike. Also, learn to speak properly. I have no idea what you meant by any of those two sentences Karl.i.biased (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't the correct forum for you expressing your "personal dislike". And I can "speak properly" thanks. If you have "no idea" then perhaps the problem isn't with what I wrote.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I was talking about your attempt to claim personal dislike instead of trying to counter my argument against including this in the ITN, and you know it. So keep trying to pull strawmans elsewhere. I rest my case. Karl.i.biased (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This event is on the recurring items list, meaning that notability is not at issue. You seemed to be arguing that this isn't notable. Since this is on the list, you need to propose it's removal from the list to challenge the notability of this event. Also, if you want to see other similar events added, you need to propose their addition to the list. 331dot (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose only due to lack of update. A 2-3 paragraph bit about the ceremonies themselves is all that is needed. --M asem (t) 23:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support What prose has been added is about the same as last year's, and in contrast to the Oscars, I don't believe the BAFTA has the same amount of pomp to warrant much more. --M asem (t) 02:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not updated.BabbaQ (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Have updated lead. yorkshiresky (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support and Comment If this were to be posted, wouldn't the title have to be de-italicised? i.e.:
 * Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri wins five awards, including Best Film, at the 71st British Academy Film Awards
 * — Hugh (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The movie should be italicized, and I've added the italics in the blurb above. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Enough prose has been added now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Disagree, Pawningthree. It's odd to me that none of the prose is beneath the lead. Also, much of that lead isn't sourced (like Ridley Scott for instance). – Muboshgu (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like those concerns have been addressed since we !voted. The article seems to be at a similar level to last year's. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Article is much improved. Support. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's downright impressive that the editors were able to get their act together to get the BAFTAs posted, yet for three years in a row, we've failed to post the Grammys due to an utter lack of editor interest in getting the article up to scratch. I'm not sure what to conclude other than that the BAFTAs are simply more popular.--WaltCip (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Only among the insignificant percentage of the world population that happens to show up here and cares. We're really not that important when one is drawing such a conclusion.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's easy enough to repair a worthy article if you care enough for it to appear on ITN. If you don't, well, you know how it goes.. — Moe   Epsilon  21:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's all about Team GB baby, TEAM GB! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Request that we agree also to post the results of the Berlinale, which ends Feb 25. – Sca (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704

 * Support pending expansion – Associated Press reporting all 66 were killed. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just made the wording more standard and straightforward, as in the Saratov Airlines crash. Brandmeistertalk  09:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. Some small expansion now done, but probably better posted sooner rather than later. What's there is well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems just long enough and presumably will expand as more info comes in. Juxlos (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - major airliner crash with high loss of life. Mjroots (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Per above.BabbaQ (talk) 11:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support -The article is fine and adequately referenceed. The scale of the loss and coverage is also very high. Worth posting anytime soon –Ammarpad (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. Feel free to add the photo. --Tone 13:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: number of passengers later corrected to 59, total on board 65. Will post at Errors. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Has now been corrected. I've pasted in the new blurb as ALT above. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just be careful when deleting references which are used multiple times. I fixed two orphaned references that you removed when the numbers changed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether it's better to be half right or half wrong. One of those has since been binned. So we're left with two that contradict the content. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because the numbers didn't add up, the other details were used throughout the article. Please don't summarily delete named references without checking the mess you leave afterwards.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making it look tidy. I'd be reluctant to deliberately re-add links with incorrect information for something that's on the main page. Those sources are still wrong. I thought you might have had an opinion on the new blurb. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with it looking neat, it's to do with replacing references you summarily deleted. The sources may be out of date, but that's commonplace with ITN items.  The references were used for other verification, so please don't do that again without fixing the issues you leave.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * They're still wrong. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Then feel free to fix them, but don't just delete them when they're used to reference other items in the article. Thanks again!  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Feel free also, as nominator. Although the original blurb we had now seems less than ideal for some reason. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't follow you. The published blurb is fine, the news sources naturally differ on their numbers because of the situation, the original blurb has been superseded.  Do you have something to add that benefits our readers here?  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't follow me. I just make a mess, it seems. But at the article talk page you tell us the original blurb was "bullshit"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You did make a mess. And don't do it again.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And good luck with future nominating blurbs. "Thanks again". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't need luck, and please don't make any more of those kinds of edits. You made a mess.  I fixed it.  If you need help with how to use named references, feel free to drop me a line.  Thanks again.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have a number of lines in mind already. Thanks for just letting go with this so quickly, after giving just a subtle hint of wrongdoing. Would anyone care to hat this? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment this line of "conversation" is going nowhere, could an uninvolved editor close down the nomination please, the referencing issues have been temporarily resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Sheep human embryo

 * No comment yet on appropriatenes, but perhaps Xenotransplantation as the target? --M asem (t) 00:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also to comment, this is research announced at a professional meeting, but does not appear to be yet published (a paper seems to be pending though). --M asem (t) 00:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, garbage with a zeroary source. Nominator should know better. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose these cart-before-the-horse noms. ITN is meant to highlight quality articles/updates. If we don't even have a target article, how can we suggest the update is worth showcasing? GCG (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Just a claim at a conference, with no evidence. Come back once they've published a peer-reviewed paper and there's a suitable article for an update (sheep would be a ridiculous place to put it). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A target article isn't just the thing we make bold in the text, it needs to be a place where a significant, substantive, update has been made to the encylopedia. This has not happened here. Sheep would be a bad article to put this content in, and, reading the Guardian source there, this technique is different to xenotransplantation. Chimera (genetics) might be a better bet, but reading the current content of that article, I cannot see more than a sentence being added to the end of Chimera_(genetics) for this. --LukeSurlt c 15:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree on that about the substantial update; and realistically I cannot see this being significant until it is attempts to transplant the sheep-grown element back to a human. Eg, ways off. Interesting, but not ITN material here. --M asem (t) 15:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - We can surely find a more reputable source for this research than Telegraph and Guardian. In any case, as per above, the research needs to be subject to peer review.--WaltCip (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted: Ongoing] 2018 Winter Olympics

 * With the current blurb on the opening ceremony, there's no need for ongoing, and I'm pretty sure its established once that falls off the ongoing is automatic. --M asem (t) 13:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * However, we always link to the main event page, not to the timeline. --M asem (t) 13:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We have always linked to the chronological summary (please see for the 2016 Summer Olympics and 2014 Winter Olympics as an example) regardless of the blurb reporting about the opening ceremony (please see also for the 2016 Summer Olympics and 2014 Winter Olympics as another example).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, then. The only thing I would be concerned with is the collasped tables for summary of results - I would expect some visible prose on the list. (I see the 2016 one is the only other one with this collapsed format, and its not really helpful, to me. ) --M asem (t) 16:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - do not feel that simultaneous listings at ongoing and as a blurb are required. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC) - NB: This nomination was previously closed by me, but has been reopened per the wishes of the nominator.
 * Comment If the blurb reporting about the opening ceremony is the problem, then we could pull it in order to move the story to ongoing. The opening ceremony is not the main news for a such event any more.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support pull and move to ongoing. This is the logical decision in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose doing anything until this naturally rolls off the bottom of the list, and at that point we can shift it to ongoing. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the suggested list of results (chronological summary) fails as an encyclopedic article and, as a stub, shouldn't be listed on the front page. Until proper prose sections are added, I believe 2018 Winter Olympics would be a more appropriate article to list on the front page. ~ Mable ( chat ) 10:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The posting of the chronological summary page became an WP:IAR consensus because the original practice was to post them on ITN directly. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, even if we need to apply a little WP:IAR to the normal rules for ITN. It is definitely "in the news", it is well-updated and referenced, and it condenses all the most information related to the broader topic that is in the news into one convenient yet informative article. I don't really see the need to pull the opening ceremony if this were posted to ongoing, but I would support it if that were necessary for some reason, as this is the part that is currently "in the news" and the article that would be much more difficult to find than (rather than the opening ceremony one). Canadian   Paul  15:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note - I hope I'm not out of turn doing this, but as the opening cermony blurb is now the last item on the ticker, I figured this should be brought back up to the top for current discussion rather than remaining below, only to be seen by the oddly-timed watchlist entry with this section header. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 09:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support We've posted the summary page as ongoing for previous Olympics.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted as ongiong, as the blurb just rolled out of the ITN box. --Tone 20:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

2018 Oaxaca earthquake

 * Support The evente is notable and the article is pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape, even though "summary section" can benefit from improvement to have more direct reference. The blurb is also too wordy, and needs tweaking or alternative. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. When an incompetent government helicopter crash's death toll of 15 exceeds the entire earthquake's death toll of 0, that should tell you that it should not be posted. Abductive  (reasoning) 13:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not valid reason for opposing ITN candidate. See "Please do not" advise above. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, how's this; add the item in no longer in the news to my oppose. And please, poiny out which of the "Please do not"s where my oppose went wrong... Abductive  (reasoning) 19:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - This earthquake incident is notable, article is not good shape.18:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)BabbaQ (talk)
 * So, you oppose for now? Abductive  (reasoning)


 * Oppose - the earthquake killed nobody, and is therefore not particularly notable and of minimal lasting impact. The helicopter crash is tangential, and would struggle to pass on notability as it was a plane crash involving government personnel, and had a low death toll compared to the other posted aviation incidents currently at ITN. Therefore, I oppose both items (they should really be considered separately) owing to a lack of lasting impact. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, but... If we took the earthquake out of the picture, and focus on the helicopter crash, which didn't kill anyone on board but killed 13 on the ground + about the same number injured, that would be seen as a notable air incident. The earthquake itself, while significant at 5.9, isn't that major. I do not think we want to create a separate article for the crash, it's linked to the quake, but I think we need to put the helicopter crash as the focus of the blurb. I've provided an alt blurb that puts the focus on the crash section of the article for this purpose. --M asem (t) 14:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per stormy and WP:AIRCRASH. Neither event is independently significant, and their confluence is not causal. GCG (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: earthquake certainly not notable, air crash may possibly be, but that doesn't have an article. Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as stale. Suggest closing. Jusdafax (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

RD: Leo Cahill

 * Support –Stub but well sourced, good for RD. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose A well-sourced stub is still a stub. Challenger l (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support 1579 characters of prose is barely above the 1500 required by DYK, which I consider the red line between stub and start. A little expansion would help, especially to the lead, which doesn't summarize the article body fully. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Lassie Lou Ahern

 * Support Adequately sourced. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support brief but adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are only 2 sentences describing her life between 1932 and 2018. Although she may not have actively been starring in movies, the article does not have sufficient biographical coverage in my opinion.  Spencer T♦ C 22:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

KP Sharma Oli appointed Nepal's new prime minister

 * Conditional support: Head of government of a country but the article can use some references. Juxlos (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Article needs a bunch of references; the Marxist Insurgency section, several paragraphs under the multi-party democracy section, and the entire electoral history section needs refs.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The swearing-ins of heads of government are not normally posted, it's heads of state who are in the limelight. In this case, the Nepalese king president is the head of state. Brandmeistertalk  16:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevent. The swearing-ins of heads of government are not on ITNR.  Which is meaningless in any discussion not involving ITNR.  There are hundreds of items we post that are not covered by ITNR, we discuss them on their merits, and make the decision to post them without regard for anything except is the article quality good enough and is this a topic which is in the news. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't recall seeing various swearing-ins of PMs on ITN. Nearly all countries have their own PMs who come and go and I don't see why this one is particularly special. Obviously, if we post every one of them, the main page would be overwhelmed. Brandmeistertalk  18:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If Theresa May or Justin Trudeau was replaced, this would be an unanimous Support. They don't change that often. Juxlos (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nepal's monarchy was abolished 10 years ago. They have a president now but the Prime Minister is the real leader. -Zanhe (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Conditional support per Juxlos. -Zanhe (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs better referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Ethiopia PM Hailemariam Desalegn resignation

 * Comment Article needs a much better update to establish context for the resignation. --M asem (t) 14:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unreferenced material in the target BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per above, support once referencing issues are addressed. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 18:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Conditional support on quality notability is undeniable but the quality of the article is very poor. Will support if unreferenced material is referenced and the article is improved in general. Karl.i.biased (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Florida school shooting

 * Support Significant death toll and article is ok - it will improve as more information becomes available. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Even by US standards, 16 deaths in a school shooting is a big deal. Article is short but I expect it to be rapidly expanded when new information becomes available. -Zanhe (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support My default position on these is that they're generally non-notable (they run at around one every two weeks this decade), but this is the worst one for 50 years bar Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook, so I have to give it a weak support. Black Kite (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Sheriff just confirmed 17 victims, 12 inside the school. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's a mass shooting in the US every week. Already been 18 school shootings this year.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 17 people aren't killed every week at school in the US. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Shooting yes it is frequent but not with this death toll. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Big death toll. Article is ok and will be expanded and updated when more information is released. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. A horrific and senseless tragedy. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - even though these are a frequent occurrence (which is a solid rationale for opposing such incidents elsewhere in the world), the death toll is large enough to make this event somewhat notable, and the article is of decent quality. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Mass shooting? Ah, it's Thursday again already? Not notable due to frequency. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Worst school shooting since Newtown, worst shooting at a post-primary institution since Virginia Tech, and worst high school shooting since Columbine, surpassing the former in death toll. 184.151.37.216 (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Could have been just another school shooting in the trigger happy US. But this one has a significant number of deaths. Plenty of media coverage above the usual level already at an early stage. Perp survived. Article is quite short but referenced and in good shape overall. BabbaQ (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Very sad news. Casualties approaching Sandy Hook. EternalNomad (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Large death toll, article is in good shape. Davey2116 (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted to ITN. — xaosflux  Talk 01:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – Yet another shocker. Sca (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose 27 dead in Benghazi bombing last month, not even an article, let alone a nomination . If you tell me "Well it's because Libya is a warzone" well guess what? The US is a warzone in regards to school shootings.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.100.2 (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, the reason it wasn't posted is because you didn't create the article, and because you didn't nominate it. You can't expect anyone at Wikipedia to do any work you aren't willing to do yourself.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Jayron don't tell us main page quality articles on bombing in Pakistan or Afghanistan don't get nominated at ITNC. 39.57.176.239 (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Pull - Shooting incident in a place where it is frequent. I don't see why this is notable than everyday shooting incidents in US. Why does this gets posted and a bombing in Pakistan let alone one in Afghanistan or Syria is regarded as usual incident in a conflict zone? All of us bleed red. May be WP:BIAS is at play here. 39.57.176.239 (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I see systemic bias is alive and well on Wikipedia. Incidentally, pull as this is an utterly routine occurrence in the US nowadays. --WaltCip (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes school shootings are frequent but what is not frequent is a school shooting with this high of a death count. Look at School shootings in the United States and death count is usually 1-2. Not 17 and this shooting is nearly tied with Sandy Hook. It is a huge misconception of high death toll school shootings in the U.S.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I do what I can to be aware of systemic bias in my nominations. I'd like to think I have that down pat with weather-related nominations, but in this case I weighed this against the multitude of previous shootings in the US and a death toll of 17 at a high school, even just a school in general, sticks out as unusual. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – The death toll is significant. Mz7 (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. School shootings are not normal.  School shootings with double digit death tolls are rare.  By death toll, this is the 8th largest school shooting in the history of the world.  Dragons flight (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, school shootings seem to be very normal. From the BBC "Since 2013, there have been 291 reported school shootings in America, which averages out to about one per week." The death toll is higher than most of course but to say school shootings are not normal seems to be quite incorrect. 91.49.64.157 (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Of course, it won't be pulled now, but this really is routine now – we should be avoiding such postings just as we avoid routine bombings in warzones. A few more than normal were killed?  Same shit, different day.   The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Headlines in American news, top three news stories on BBC at present, but don't let that stop the cries of systemic bias, once consensus isn't in the usual favor. Regards, —  Moe   Epsilon  09:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, the rest of us have perspective: "The school shooting in Parkland, Florida today marks the 29th mass shooting in the US in 2018. There have only been 45 days in 2018." Marvellous. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Procedural note: regardless of your opinion on this item, it definitely shouldn't have been posted after less than two hours of discussion, especially by an admin who was WP:INVOLVED in writing the article. The admin instructions say that if there is opposition to an item 'consider letting the nomination run for more time, especially if the nomination is less than 24 hours old'. Pinging for an explanation. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This was closed while I was typing my comment. I disagree with the closure anyway, as discussion is continuing and there are reasonable calls for the item being pulled. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If people want to keep this open, fine, but I don't think this discussion will be constructive, as the "reasonable calls" being made are arguments which were already made. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi The only edit I made prior to posting this was in checking references present because of this nomination, adding a source. The tally at the time was 11-2 in favor, the article didn't have any red flags, and it was being heavily covered in the media. After posting I started working on the page more just as any editor can. Was it "too soon"? - The majority of the responses above don't seem to think so, but support can always change - go ahead and pull if it there is support to do so. —  xaosflux  Talk 12:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * my apologies, I missed that those edits were shortly after you posted it to ITN. I still think there was too little time for discussion, even if the outcome was OK. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support 4 of the 6 current stories posted feature routine events of larger than usual scale. No reasonable editor would ignore the scale of an event in considering ITNC. A few drive-by snipes from IPs are not "reasonable calls" vs. the overwhelming support. GCG (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Dragons flight, who made the following observation: By death toll, this is the 8th largest school shooting in the history of the world. This is not routine. Lepricavark (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Per our dedicated article on shootings in schools in the US (the rest of the world is covered in a single article): "There were 11 school shootings in the first 23 days of 2018.[45]" This is routine. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How many of those had 17 dead? 331dot (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * None I expect. But this is just a glitch on the ever-increasing diagonal line of deaths so far this year from mass shootings isn't it?  "There were 11 school shootings in the first 23 days of 2018." - I think there have been 11 school shootings in the history of Europe...  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Of those, only 2 actually have articles, and as best I known, this is the only one that has been nominated this year. We're well aware shootings in US schools are far too frequent, but most of the 11 in 2008 seem to be inter-personal issues where the shooter and victims had a past history; it is when we have a case of a person gone on a bent that is randomly shooting anyone that makes the situation very different, why this story grabbed international attention. We're able to make that distinction here at ITN so that we're not including every single event. --M asem (t) 14:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The votes were simply for the numbers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – This event is notable not because it's entirely unusual, but because it happened in a civilized ( ?) country – one where the "well regulated militia" is always on duty. – Sca (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Resignation of Jacob Zuma

 * 'Bout time. Citations needed in "Early life and political career". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support pretty obviously notable news. Aside from citations mentioned above article looks good enough. Resignation of Jacob Zuma might have to wait a bit though. Juxlos (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - the resignation of a leader is not ITNR as far as I can tell. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The succession of a head of state is in ITNR. Perhaps the blurb should include mention of his interim replacement. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've always been confused when situations like this come up; is it ITNR when the head of state leaves, or when the new one comes in(if the change is not immediate)? Further, in this case, the successor is "Acting" President, and not actually President.  Does that make a difference? 331dot (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Add that I've always interpreted the head of state changing listing to simply mean "a change in head of state". 331dot (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No confusion required, this blurb isn't about "succession", it's about "resignation". We should all be able to see that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Resignation includes succession, though yes the resignation is more important than the succession. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support alternative blurb per nom. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – "The President of the Republic of South Africa is the head of state and head of government." It leads many of the main Eng.-lang. news sites. (Support either blurb) – Sca (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Either blurbs, article looks decent and really in the news. –Ammarpad (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support - this is really big news and should be posted. Unfortunately the article has numerous unreferenced paragraphs. This BLP needs better sourcing before posting. -Zanhe (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Head of state resigning due to corruption allegations, especially from an influential nation. Article is roughly ok enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the original blurb, as I feel that the significance of Zuma's resignation is the story here, rather than his interim replacement as an ITN/R proposal. Thus, we should WP:IAR and post the resignation. However, the article needs work. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support either blurb, this is notable regardless of nitpicking of whether this falls under ITN/R. However, there are still a few cn tags that need to be addressed. Davey2116 (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Article is close, but a BLP like this needs scrupulous referencing, and there's just too much in terms of missing references to post on the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support this is effectively ITNR, since it inevitably triggers an ITNR event. Banedon (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality (support on importance); needs some more references I reckon - under-cited in some areas. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose BLP containing more than 20 [citation needed] tags? Seriously?  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb. I believe his successor is officially elected by parliament today, so this should go up after that happens. This is Paul (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 12:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article quality is not there yet - way too many citation tags for a BLP.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Referencing needs work. (Yes, this is ITNR.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's ITNR on principle, but man, I cannot make heads or tails of the article. It needs a massive rework and organization to flow better. --M asem (t) 14:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ⇒ Looks to be 2:1 in favor. Needs attn. Sca (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, not one single of those voting support have addressed the fact that the article has no fewer than 20 [citation needed] tags which, for a BLP, means it doesn't get posted. Full stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The ITNR argument is moot; this seems to have support on notability. Which article is the quality issue with? We could omit Zuma under the ITNR, or only list Zuma's resignation for now if the issue is with Ramaphosa. GCG (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you looked, you'd see that both articles are unsuitable for inclusion as both contain dozens of unreferenced claims which is not acceptable in a BLP let alone one which is to be featured on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I was asking which article the opposition was referring to when it consistently used the singular "article," but your meaningful contribution to civil discourse is appreciated as always. GCG (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There are only two choices of article, both of which are unsuitable. That surely isn't too hard to see, particularly when they're both plastered with [citation needed] or bright orange maintenance tags?  I appreciate your snark too.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Practically, we need both the Jacob Zuma and Cyril Ramaphosa articles to be adequate quality for this item. While it looks like the former has had a lot of good work done to it over the last day, the latter still has orange-tagged sections. --LukeSurlt c 17:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added a shorter and less clunky altblurb 2 that mentions Ramaphosa first, as a new head of state is ITNR. μηδείς (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Purely on citation grounds. Once issues of reference are solved, this is ready for posting and most of the previous oppose votes will be resolved. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 18:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Nice one, ​Cyril.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 20:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support.--WaltCip (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per above. obviously a notable event Karl.i.biased (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Administrator note There is obviously consensus here that this story is significant enough to post. It is equally obvious that there is no target article in good enough shape at the moment, and no admin is likely to post this. So if you would like to see this posted, I'd suggest working on Jacob Zuma and/or Cyril Ramaphosa. Vanamonde (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added citations for all but one of the "citation needed" tags from Jacob Zuma. Zaian (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * At a quick glance, the article appears referenced now, and even the sole CN tag I see has a reference to it. Can someone second-check, please? Then, ready to post. This is the proper way to go, improve the article -> guaranteed ITN, pretty much ;) --Tone 19:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Good work .  I'd post it if was still an admin.  Just make sure the blurb only bolds Zuma.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 20:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

RD/blurb: Morgan Tsvangirai

 * Oppose article is both tagged and not updated. I imagine a blurb would be impossible too.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as an addition to recent deaths, and pending improvements. This is Paul (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Which means to say nothing really, RD will post this as soon as it's up to scratch, we only worry about quality, so supporting "pending improvements" is a waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - serious quality issues. Regarding the blurb, I would oppose on notability grounds even if the article was impeccable. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. He was not a world transforming figure and it was known that he was ill. His opposition to Mugabe had limited effect. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb no matter what. Oppose RD for now because the quality is not good. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb - I still don't like the new 'proposed blurb' I think "Long time Zimbabwean Opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai has died aged 65 following a battle with colon cancer" Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - - If you think Morgan Tsvangirai is not notable enough, then you need to do your research, not only has he been the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, but he is also a notable figure within the African Union and had relations in many other countries. While the quality of the article is not great, discussions about his notability are not suitable in this particular case anyways per RD. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Stormy clouds is opposing a blurb, not RD on basis of notability. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I oppose a blurb in any circumstance, as the notability is not there. I oppose an RD listing at present as, while assessing article quality in the course of my "research", I found it to be inadequate for listing at the main page. Thus, my vote echoes many above, andnis not seeking a suspension of the rules of RD - if quality improves, post as an RD. Thanks to for the clarification which you offered to User:ChieftanTartarus on my behalf. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but neither of you are making any sense to me, you're opposing the blurb on the case of notability? That just doesn't make sense in my opinion, that's still opposing something on the basis of notability whether its targeted at the RD or not. I don't understand what you're getting at here. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * - I do not feel that Tsvangirai is a significant enough figure, as he lacks the notability to merit such a blurb. There is an informal Mandela-Thatcher-Bowie axis which is used to gauge whether or not the figure was transformative enough to deserve a blurb, and there is no way that this nomination surpasses this level of notability. Moreover, as 331dot alludes to, it was known that he was ill, so this is not a surprise and was expected to happen, meaning that there is minimal notability in this case. Thus, for a blurb, I agree with 331dot and Muboshgu that Tsvangirai does not merit a blurb, and will only receive an RD listing once the article has improved. Notability is not an issue for RD, but it absolutely is for a blurb. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand your point now, and I tend to agree with you that a blurb is not really suitable as we knew that he was ill for a long time, we were also told at the start of the month that he was critically ill so it isn't a surprise that he has passed. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support in Principle He was significant enough that I heard about him while learning about the country while preparing to study abroad in Zimbabwe. I would support this. I'll let other folks decide on the blurb; if the article is ready, etc. TenorTwelve (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * RD only – Limited significance in the Big Scheme. And the man had been seriously ill. Sca (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb a magnitude of order below his peer Mandela's importance in the wider scheme. μηδείς (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. The current list of recent deaths is a good example of the widely anticipated failure of the 2016 RD proposal. The deaths of Tsvangirai and Lubbers, both reported at news broadcastings around the world, are missing because of the endemic Wikipedia fallacy of preferring style over substance. Moreover, if one's concerned about the quality of the article, a mention on the front page will get a lot of editors interested in improving it. Afasmit (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How is it fallacy? It's a choice that was approved by consensus. It's working exactly as intended. You might not like it (I don't either) but it was never intended to list the biggest names. GCG (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, this would never have been listed prior to the 2016 RFC. The article quality is substandard, and for a BLP we take extra care.  Attempting to blame the non-posting on the RD revolution is a waste of time.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Suppport already. Seriously? Do you people even know who Tsvangirai was? Guy (Help!) 13:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who you think he was. The article is crap and not good enough for main page. Simples.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Ruud Lubbers

 * Oppose more uncited than cited, the lead is somewhat too long for the length of the article, also very annoying unrelated images of his face, but that can reasonably easily be fixed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nowhere near ready. Still in present tense, no details of death, large gaps in referencing.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose too many odd images, too much unreferenced, and most importantly, too much emphasis on the sexual harassment complaint. Almost 1/3 of the decent prose relates to that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment well, when Harvey Weinstein kicks the bucket, I assume he'll get an RD specifically because of his sexual harassment claims. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone who is notable gets an RD if their article is up to scratch.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You said "most importantly, too much emphasis on the sexual harassment complaint" as if that was a reason not to RD. I disagree with that notion entirely. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * He's saying it's WP:UNDUE weight. That's a policy problem with the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. The current list of recent deaths is a good example of the widely anticipated failure of the 2016 RD proposal. The deaths of Tsvangirai and Lubbers, both reported at news broadcastings around the world, are missing because of the endemic Wikipedia fallacy of preferring style over substance. Moreover, if one's concerned about the quality of the article, a mention on the front page will get a lot of editors interested in improving it. Afasmit (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Even before we had that RD proposal, we would still not accept badly written articles onto the main page.  Particularly BLPs.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. "the widely anticipated failure" good one! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The article is mediocre, but this is a man who was Prime Minister of a world power for 12 years. If the article isn't good enough, efforts should be made to make it better because this is likely among the top 5 most notable people to die this month. 1779Days (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We look forward to you making the effort. Stephen 05:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Draft:United flight 1175

 * Oppose and SNOW close. The plane landed safely with no casualties; there is no issue. The NY Times piece also note that such incidents are not uncommon. I suspect the draft will not be accepted. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * SNOW GCG (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Dobri Dobrev

 * Kinda short, but I guess good enough. Need to cite about his father in WWI, and I don't like the "legacy" section at all. It's just a quote, with an internal link instead of a reference. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. His life was unusual enough where I think if someone fixes the 2 unreferenced sentences and perhaps adds a paragraph more, I would support it. He was rather well-known both in Bulgaria and outside of it. Inatan (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , for future reference, see the bottom line in the template above, which says that "the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post". The unusual nature of his life makes the article interesting despite its size, but isn't a factor in whether or not we should post it. Only the quality issues you and I have mentioned. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you. Inatan (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - Damn that beard! Still a few significant cn tags that I've added. Strike my oppose once those are resolved. =-  Floydian  τ ¢ 18:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Fixed any sourcing issues. Should be g2g. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support also somewhat well known in religious circles outside of Bulgaria75.73.150.255 (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: Prince Henrik of Denmark

 * Does this rise to the level of a blurb? Lepricavark (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No; he was old, and he was not part of the governing body (hence the "consort" part of his title). RD is sufficient here. --M asem (t) 04:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose too many sentences without references, and still a few updates needed to cover the fact he was and no longer is... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support . The man himself was quite notable. I went through the article, and about half of what looked at first like uncited claims are just unconventionally supported. The rest of the article is well-cited enough, with the glaring exception of the lead. Fix that, and the article is ready. Inatan (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, "unconventionally supported?" Can you flesh out that thought a bit? GCG (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The way I'm reading it, some of the lists of honors are sourced by one reference preceding the list rather that per-title. That's fine. But there remain other more critical sourcing issues like the children/grandchildren and various CNs tags about. --M asem (t) 14:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It does not look like anyone will take the time to fix the issues soon. Inatan (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Marty Allen

 * Support seems alright to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Fethia Mzali

 * Support. Looks ok.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Malacidins

 * Support, in principle. The discovery of a new antibiotic is undoubtedly important (even if we don't yet know if it can be used safely in humans), but the article still needs expansion before it would be ready for posting.  Dragons flight (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This now has my full support. The article has been expanded adequately.  The concerns about WP:MEDRS are overzealous in my opinion, since this microbiology discovery is still years away from human testing, let alone being used as a treatment.  Because MEDRS requires literature reviews and other secondary peer-reviewed studies, adhering to that standard would essentially prevent any new discovery from appearing in ITN, and I don't consider that outcome to be reasonable when the discovery is still far removed from any practical medical application.  All the information has been sourced, and I would recommend posting in spite of the citation tags asking for secondary medical sources, since such literature reviews simply won't yet exist for ITN worthy discoveries.  Dragons flight (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I've added a section on their discovery which I believe helps to "dumb down" (at least, to the level that BBC was writing at which still was pretty high) the article to understand how these were found and their importance. --M asem (t) 16:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – major advancements in the medical field aren't terribly common and this seems worth posting. Amount of content in the article is borderline, but seems like just enough to me (>1,500 characters prose). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Rescinding my support due to concerns outlined by opposing comments. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - an interesting discovery which may turn out to be very important and a decent enough article. I've put down an alt-blurb because I dislike "Scientists discover" as a term. --LukeSurlt c 16:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Seeing a lot about this, article seems adequate. Vanamonde (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article is very preliminary, and all of this is based on one research paper. Natureium (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is generally the point where any scientific discovery is posted at ITN - a peer-reviewed research paper that is also covered in mainstream publications. The fact that it's a Nature-published paper means that the peers do not likely believe the researchers are wrong that this is a new family of antibotics. --M asem (t) 17:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - adequate article even if short. Interesting discovery.BabbaQ (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no adequately educated opinion on this one, but consensus is clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - exciting new discovery. Article is short but adequate. -Zanhe (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Someone opened up discussion of this at WT:MED, where they are raising concerns about MEDRS issues. I personally don't think that's the case (Nature is on MEDRS), but may want to see their input here before posting. --M asem (t) 19:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is that this is mostly a microbiology topic rather than a medicine one at this point. Right now there isn't a treatment available, or even a widely available compound that could be abused in untested treatments.  Obviously, if things go well, the hope is to make a new treatment out of this, but treating this topic as medical information at this very preliminary stage feels like a bit of a stretch.  Dragons flight (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I wholly agree with Dragons flight here and have removed the tags. This currently is an article about microbiology, not a medicine (and will remain so for at several years at the least). Nature Microbiology is pretty much as good as it gets here. —LukeSurlt c 21:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * They were readded, but based on this discussion, it's clear that applying MEDRS at this stage is premature. I re-removed them. --M asem (t) 13:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - an exciting discovery, happens rarely, has great implications. Banedon (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is currently tagged with possible issue of unreliable medical sources, talk at WT:MED about possible WP:NOTNEWS as well as needing genuine attestation by independent sources, this is not ready for mainpage actually. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * oppose blurb and alt blurb 1  -- the "excitement" here is exactly because we need new classes of chemistry for antibiotic drugs. It is kind of interesting from the standpoint of how some bacteria try to kill other kinds, but  nobody really cares about that.  The excitement is about the medical potential and the scariness of the "post antibiotic apocalypse" (actual phrase from the Independent article).   And part of why MEDRS matters is keeping out all kinds of preliminary hype, be that from pharma or  medical device shillers, or snake oil salespeople, or this kind of hype.  Wikipeida's mission is to present  articles that summarize accepted knowledge, not to be vehicle for hype. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC))
 * support alt blurb 2  in the spirit of trying to reach consensus. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Mainstream coverage of science can go to hyperbole, no question the Independent here is opining that phrase. But we know we can avoid that here and stick to the relevant facts. From a scientific standpoint, it is a new class of antibiotics. It is comparable to discovering a new chemical element. Whether they end up in any practical application, that's only speculation, though understanding that it could fight drug-resistant bacteria is necessary to understand why the researchers ended up getting to this point. As long as we do not try to present this as snake oil either at the article or ITN, it is outside of the medical area at this point. Another way to view this is that this is at the basic research level; where MEDRS would be critical is when that research moved into the applied field. --M asem (t) 21:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * i could not disagree more. And while it remains true that the only reason anybody cares is because medicine, there are even more fundamental layers of risk here.  The paper might not replicate at all.  Even if it does, there is no way to know that any of these could be drugs (they might be toxic as hell for the liver for example). And even if they look interesting from a medical perspective, the chemistry might be impossible scale up (technically or economically).  If the hook were way more microbiology driven (new class of chemicals that bacteria used to kill each other - who knows what it might be useful for) it would be OK with me.  Not this. This is hype.  (in case you are not catching it, the hook calls this "a new class of  antibiotics".  An antibioitic is a kind of drug.  This will not be a new drug class until there actual drugs in it. We are at least ten years away from there being drugs based on this (if ever)
 * News organizations jerk the public around with this kind of bullshit hype to make money.  What is our excuse?
 * it is actually really harmful. People see headlines like this, and they look around and wonder why we haven't cured cancer (or antibiotic resistance, or whatever) yet.
 * everybody here should follow healthnewsreview.org. they are great. Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Antibiotics" does not always mean "drug"; "Originally, an antibiotic was a substance produced by one microorganism that selectively inhibits the growth of another." which is exactly this. That's how I read the research report; they are not speaking of it as a drug, only that it has potential for one if they can succeed in proving out its function and safety/non-toxicity to humans. --M asem  (t) 21:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * you are arguing finely parsed rare shades of meaning, about a front page thing - you know as well as i do that every news organization that covered this, and the nominator, and pretty much every reader, thinks 'drug to kill bacteria" when they glance and read 'antibiotic". You are generally not a bullshitter. Don't start now. :) Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to BS here, I'm just recognizing that we have a terminology problem. I agree "antibiotics = drug" is the most common usage if we're looking at this from medicine/pharma, but "antibiotic = substance from a micro-organism that hampers other cells" is a valid term when talking from a biological aspect, and unfortunately lacking a different proper term (That I can find) to better distinguish it from the "drug" related definition. If we can apply more context in the blurb, that would help, but I don't know a simple way to do that yet. --M asem (t) 23:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Masem. Davey2116 (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - while I feel that some of the !votes are somewhat too enthusiastic, possibly ignoring the policy laid down at WP:CRYSTAL, there is no denying that this story is in the news, and that article quality is sufficient to merit posting at this juncture. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ammarpad. Those tags have re-appeared so clearly the medical sourcing issue needs to be resolved before posting. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * All the statements in Malacidin are accurate summaries of statements from the Nature Microbiology paper and are sourced as such. This isn't a "classic" unsourced statements problem. This issue here is that at least one determined editor considers these to be medical statements, for which WP:MEDRS mandates that primary sources (which this is) are not acceptable. I don't think this is a medical article - there is no medicine that will be developed from this for years (if ever). I'm with Masem here, "antibiotic" does not necessarily equal "drug". This is a microbiology article. Perhaps we can rephrase the blurb and parts of the article to make this clearer, but I do think the tagging is over-zealous. --LukeSurlt c 09:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. An interesting discovery in a field we rarely feature. The article itself does not appear to be making medical claims, just microbiological ones, so the arguments above based on WP:MEDRS do not convince me. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal is the standard we apply to scientific discoveries, which has been met. Over-zealous tagging should be removed, not prevent us featuring this on ITN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll also add that we posted the discovery of teixobactin in 2015, without any MEDRS concerns. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * that is a great example of WP:Other stuff exists. That article needs a bunch of work. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really, this isn't an AfD discussion. My point is it shows we have previously seen the discovery of new antibiotic classes as important enough for ITN. If you think teixobactin needs improvement then feel free to work on it; it was good enough to post on ITN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The spirit of "other stuff exists" is "don't point at the incorrect thing that happened somewhere else at some other time to justify the incorrect thing you want to do here and now" Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support There is no suggestion in the blurb that this is a drug. As science news, this is as notable as the stuff we usually post. GCG (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Unrelated to this nomination, I've started a discussion at WT:MEDRS about delineating microbiological discovered from biomedcial coverage (eg when MEDRS does and doesn't apply). --M asem (t) 16:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. An important scientific development. I don't see any tags in the article now, so it seems to me that it is ready to go. Nsk92 (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You have no evidence that it is an important scientific development, except your slavish belief in the hype. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Don't believe the hype!!" The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose, just because the tags have been removed doesn't mean the the MEDRS problem was solved. There is still only one primary source and a bunch of hyping lay media "sources" doesn't fix that. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * comment - I have gone through and removed medicalish claims (what we know now, is that these chemicals kill bacteria; we don't know that they can treat infections in people). I also added, per one of refs, that we won't know for many years if there will be a drug based on these. i also removed "antibiotic" from the first sentence and replaced that with "chemicals made by bacteria" with an underlying WP to secondary metabolites, which is what these are. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. MedRS plainly doesn't apply as long as ITN & the article are completely clear that this is not a class of clinically active drugs. The problem is that 'antibiotic' has two meanings, 'clinical antibiotic' & 'chemical with antimicrobial activity', but most people will read it to mean the first. I have proposed an alternate wording that might help. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * the alt 2 blurb is fine with me. MEDRS  doesn't apply anymore because all the health claims have been removed from the article.  MEDRS applies to content, anywhere, like RS. Many comments about MEDRS in this discussion have been incorrect or handwavy and therefore useless and indeed harmful with respect to trying to reach consensus. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, looks ready, since the concerns have been resolved. Brandmeistertalk  12:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted alt2. The article seems to be up to snuff now, and Alt2 seems to have allayed concerns other blurbs had.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Cyclone Gita

 * Support - weather phenomena are common enough at ITN, but the large scale of the storm means that this is notable. Normally, the low fatality count would deter me, but I will defer here to the wisdom of our resident meteorologist, as his judgement on storms is rarely awry. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Especially now. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait until the dust settles. Currently only 1 unofficial death and one category short of strongest on the scale of 5. Brandmeistertalk  11:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * While it fell short of being a Category 5 on the Aus scale, it was only just short by 5 knots which ain’t significant since systems are regularly adjusted by 5-10 kts in either direction during post storm analysis.Jason Rees (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose right now. Windy, inconvenient, damaging, but very limited in impact so far.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't really say limited impact: nationwide curfew, estimated 40% of homes damaged/destroyed in capital city, "whole areas [flattened]". ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 11:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not to belabor the point, but generally "impact" for a storm in context to ITN usually refers to number of fatalities, rather than general land area affected.--WaltCip (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I try to keep my cyclone nominations contextual to the areas affected. In regards to Tonga, multiple fatalities are not common from these storms so impact is the better metric. Best I can tell, the last fatal cyclone in Tonga was Cyclone Ian in 2014 and the last one to cause multiple fatalities was Cyclone Kina back in 1993. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 12:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll concede to Weak support - while the impact seems localised, it seems pretty devastating, so switching my position. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per TRM, Walt. Plus, the article is not written in encyclopedic style. The first sentence says "is currently," and the article even includes a section headed "Current storm information." ITN, and Wiki, are not news portals. Sca (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The "current storm information" has been around since tropical cyclone articles began populating Wiki in 2004. It has never been an issue with ITN/C nor Wiki as a whole to my knowledge. It's an easy-update that gets phased out once the system is no longer a tropical cyclone. I reworded the opening to avoid the non-encyclopedic style there, however. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ⇒ The fact that it's been done does not make it ipso facto correct. IMO, current and currently should not be used in encyclopedia articles, as the reference could become outdated at any time. For similar reasons, past-tense verbs should be used, as most articles will outlive the present-tense status of breaking news. Sca (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would bet my house on this being updated in a timely manner once it's in the past. Due to a cadre of dedicated editors, the English Wikipedia has fantastic articles on tropical cyclones. Articles should strive to be accurate as possible, and this includes using the present tense when appropriate. We don't write all BLPs in the past tense because at some point in the future that person will die. The article in question here is headed with current weather event which expressly tells readers that information is subject to change. --LukeSurlt c 15:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Are we a news-aggregation site or an encyclopedia? Other eds have been telling me for years that Wiki is not a 'news ticker' (to use the British phrase) . Sca (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support A random bus crash or snooker tournament gets in ITN. Certainly a country's largest storm on record and the destruction of its parliament is worthy of note. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 14:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support destructive storm, towards the low end of the disasters we typically post here in terms of the human cost. However the article is very good, and, if & WikiProject Tropical cyclones track record is anything to go by, it will probably be literally good or better in short order. There seems to be very little to lose by posting this, and we have the opportunity to keep ITN fresh with a top quality article. --LukeSurlt c 16:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Storms of this intensity for this area of the world are rare, and it is fortunate that the death toll is so low (if not even nil). But the damage is extensive and the arpeggio nature of Tonga and other island countries hit make restoration going to be difficult. --M asem  (t) 18:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - in the news everywhere for destroying Tonga's parliament building. Article is well written. -Zanhe (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support a big deal for the country. Banedon (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks detailed and well referenced. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 00:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Luo Haocai

 * Support - as updater. -Zanhe (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support it's brief but what's there is referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - Quite short but fully referenced. I think RD posting is to be accepted here.BabbaQ (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - article is very short, but it is sourced to its fullest extent. Good work . Ready to go now. Stormy clouds (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 10:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] David Grossman wins the 2018 Israel Prize for Literature

 * Comment This isn't my area of expertise, but I can't seem to remember us posting any national honors before; every state has a few, after all. Vanamonde (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Barring exceptional circumstances, awards of national recognition like this, National Medal of Technology and Innovation, etc. should not be featured in ITN due to the potential to flood the noms with several similar awards. --M asem (t) 16:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are 200+ countries in the world, most of which are considerably more significant than Israel, and almost all of which have multiple awards of this nature. I could probably keep ITN full for an entire year just with the winners of equivalent awards in various fields in the US and UK, all of which are likely to be of considerably more interest to English Wikipedia's readers. If anything, we should probably be reducing the number of awards we cover (how many readers actually care about the Hugo Award for Best Novel), not adding more. &#8209; Iridescent 16:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose national prize, and literature is just one field. List of Israel Prize recipients shows 257 total winners since 2000, 14 yearly on average. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Minor award. Unknown author. The blurb's probably created by a family member or the author himself. Should SNOWclose this. Naj&#39;entus (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems unlikely. Your theory would make sense if the nominator was a single-purpose account, but in the fact the nom has made nearly 150K edits over a span of more than 11 years. Lepricavark (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per everything said above. So many prizes are given out each year, and this doesn't rise close to the level of ITN. Lepricavark (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Tom Rapp

 * Support Article is well sourced and looks ready for RD. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

RD: Chris Stockwell

 * Oppose too much unreferenced material in there for this BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Several citation needed tags.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jan Maxwell

 * Support Well-sourced, no quality issues here. --M asem (t) 02:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Saratov Airlines Flight 703

 * Support Short but fundamental details are there, more only to come in time. --M asem (t) 13:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support  samee  talk 14:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - apparent mid-air collision, all on board the airliner killed. Mjroots (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - many deaths. Mid air collision. Fully referenced.BabbaQ (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per all the above.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Asma Jahangir

 * Support - Well sourced. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - RD ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support -  samee  talk 14:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Ready for RD. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Vanamonde (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Tom Rapp

 * Support Article is well sourced and looks ready for RD. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

RD: Chris Stockwell

 * Oppose too much unreferenced material in there for this BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Several citation needed tags.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jan Maxwell

 * Support Well-sourced, no quality issues here. --M asem (t) 02:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Saratov Airlines Flight 703

 * Support Short but fundamental details are there, more only to come in time. --M asem (t) 13:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support  samee  talk 14:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - apparent mid-air collision, all on board the airliner killed. Mjroots (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - many deaths. Mid air collision. Fully referenced.BabbaQ (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per all the above.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Asma Jahangir

 * Support - Well sourced. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - RD ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support -  samee  talk 14:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Ready for RD. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Vanamonde (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

[Ready] Israel & Syria & Iran

 * Oppose put it on a watching brief and if anything actually happens as a result then reconsider. This isn't on the BBC News homepage, either the main one or even the "World News" one. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As per the article “The February 2018 Israel–Syria incident took place on 10 February 2018”. This should be the date of the nomination and the blurb should be about that military exchange rather than the aftermath. —LukeSurlt c 10:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in principle; article is in good shape; though as noted above this should be a Feb 10 nomination and the blurb should be one that highlights the plane shootdown, so the blurb needs some work. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per above, added alt-blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - per above.BabbaQ (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment still not really "in the news" is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM - this item simply is not appearing in any news feeds that I frequent, and I have to go digging to find it. If, while reading a wide and disparate array of sources, the discussion at ITN/C is the only place where I hear about a news story, it is an indication that it may not merit posting. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This was headline news on February 10/11 when it occurred. --LukeSurlt c 10:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Or it's a consequence of geographic bias ... Banedon (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It wasn't in the news when nominated, and isn't in the news now. It's stale.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * One more thing about "the discussion at ITN/C is the only place where I hear about a news story" - modern websites are undoubtedly capable of tracking your browsing or search history and matching its featured stories to match your interests. For example if you read every darts story but ignore all soccer stories, the website will eventually customize itself to show you darts stories even though darts is a much smaller sport than soccer. That could explain why you only see this at ITN/C. Banedon (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How bizarre. I saw this story break and then I saw it quickly evaporate.  It's a rare case of Wikipedia benefitting from it not being rushed to the main page as it's truly no longer in the news in any real way.  As for your claim about the "undoubtedly capable" websites, no that's simply not true for the majority of news website homepages.  They tailor your view if you log in and adjust it so, but if you don't, you get to see what the rest of the world sees.  And in this case it was about three hours of coverage of the downed jet, then some editorials about what might happen next.  Stale.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - this is a major story, as Israel's involvement could herald a completely new phase and escalation of the war. I certainly saw it covered on front pages at the time, and there are plenty of articles covering it worldwide. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but all those articles are just saying what I said in my opening comment - wait and see what (if anything) really happens. Nothing is giving this proper main page full news coverage because nothing is really happening.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The escalation is the news; what has already happened is news. "Let's wait and see" leads to continual incrementalism where no single step is enough to post, then we break out the stale votes. GCG (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No it isn't in the news. Analysis of things that might happen next is on page 11 of the news, but nothing is "in the news", and only was momentarily on the day it happened (10 Feb), not even when it was nominated.  You're right, it's stale.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, with alt blurb (or similar) and date as February 10 - the time of the principal part of this incident. IIRC this was headline news at the time of the plane downing. The article is adequate to post. We require an item to have been in the news, but it doesn't necessarily have to still be in the headlines at the time of nomination or of posting. In fact, delaying nomination until an article is higher quality is often preferable. This nomination should have been under the Feb 10 header, but we can deal with that. --LukeSurlt c 12:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pretty humdrum right now. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose While there seems to be potential to change what is happening in Syria due to the incident, it's media speculation and not that much of such at this point. The incident itself seems relatively minor to not post. --M asem (t) 14:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced, developed new article. Saw this in the news on the 10 February. To suggest this is stale when it is newer than the oldest blurb on the template goes to explain why random readers perceive ITN as stale. It also defeats the purpose of having a week long nomination system. This marks a new overt participant into the Syrian Civil War, similar to the 2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown - which we posted. Fuebaey (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - major escalation in a long-running war. I've moved the nomination from Feb 12 to Feb 10, the correct date. -Zanhe (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jóhann Jóhannsson

 * Oppose until it's better referenced. Some of the inline citations are to IMDb, which is not a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose too many referencing issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added several references and removed the contentious ones. Some of the theatre work is finding difficult to ref. Can someone have a look to see what needs done? yorkshiresky (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've tagged two things that need citations. Everything else is there, and really is close. --M asem (t) 02:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * filled in citations as requested.yorkshiresky (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Referencing issues appear to have been dealt with. --M asem (t) 16:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Gerry Adams steps down

 * Comment. Retirements don't usually get consensus to post except in very rare circumstances which could probably be counted on one hand(during my time here at least).  Adams might arguably merit a blurb when he passes(the case could be made at least) but I'm not sure about right now. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it’s entirely expected - it was announced in November last year. There is no shock or scandal; this is routine. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom. Politicians come and go, even highly controversial ones. N. Ireland is not the only place that has them and if we post this we are opening a door that I think should remain closed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral I think the opposes are underselling just how big Adams' role was in contemporary Irish history. There aren't a lot of people like this, full stop. However, I think the time has passed for Adams resignation to really signal much of anything. Had he gone in '98 or perhaps in '06, that would have been quite indicative. Now it just seems an acknowledgment that the party is better off without his baggage. GCG (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose local politics, I remember him not even being allowed to be reported using his own voice ("Gerry Adams' voice is played by an actor"), but regardless, he's a politician who has announced retirement. No big deal.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as local politics, and while he may be important in NI he's not remotely "one of the most significant and controversial figures in recent British history"; he's the leader of a party with 7 MPs, a handful of local councils and part of a power-sharing administration in a province whose entire population is roughly $2/3$ that of Manchester, not some kind of major political force. Note that, even with the "allegedly" you've stuck in there, Adams was (allegedly) one of the most important figures both in governing the Provisional IRA is on extremely shaky ground legally, since he's always consistently denied that he has any connection to PIRA, and it's probably not a claim you want to be making on the sixth most-viewed site on the internet. &#8209; Iridescent 22:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Redacted. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Hong Kong bus accident

 * It's well-sourced and expanded for a new article, with international news coverage. While not the largest bus death toll this weekend, it occurred in an area that suffers from infrequent bus crashes (the last serious one being in 2003). I think it comes down to whether consensus wants to post another disaster on ITN. Fuebaey (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - major accident with high death toll. Article is well written. If someone writes an article for the Indonesian bus crash, I guess the two can be combined in a single blurb. -Zanhe (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - the high death toll, coupled with the rarity of bus accidents in that neck of the woods, give this item the required significance for posting in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Zanhe and Stormy clouds. Davey2116 (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - high number of deaths for this type of accident. article is well written.BabbaQ (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: Reg E. Cathey

 * Support strongly. Portrayed important characters on some of the most critically acclaimed television series of the 21st century, as well as a multi-time award nominee. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose large gaps in sourcing. Needs work.  About 1/3 of the text in the largest section lacks any references at all.  Zero references for filmography.  Very first reference in reference section is to an unreliable source.  Needs a lot of work to be main page ready.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 04:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose It's not horrible, but referencing does need some work. Hopefully this can be addressed in short order. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose very much under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per lack of sufficient sourcing. Lepricavark (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Liam Miller

 * Support and marked ready (I've sourced the last two seasons of his career). Everything else is fine - this is a Good Article. Black Kite (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article is up to date, GA too.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: John Gavin

 * Support on improvement Reasonably sourced, but the Business Career paragraph needs a big haircut and the prose is mostly bullet-pointed, needs turning into actual paragraphs. Black Kite (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unreferenced material in there, especially around the filmography, the "unmade films" etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: Ebony Reigns

 * Weak support Kinda thin but good enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Switch to oppose Looks like some IPs have worsened the article since I last saw it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose at the moment Majority of the article is unsourced. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose unreferenced mainly. By no means good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, : I have no idea what happened to the article, but looking at the history of the article, the quality of the state of the article when this nomination was made was diminished in the time when the last two votes were cast. Please check the article now that it has been restored. Per Muboshgu is corrected the IP edits has worsened the article, but I have fixed it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. The version I looked at was not of anything like acceptable quality. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a stub. Also unsure as to why my edits were reverted for ITN purposes. Fuebaey (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] 2018 Winter Olympics

 * Support article is in good shape; would also support letting this go to ongoing when it rolls off the bottom of the blurbs list. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The opening is actually tomorrow. But sure, this is ITNR, and ongoing after the blurb rolls out is what we commonly do for the Olympics. --Tone 14:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Although some events do begin before the opening ceremony, I would prefer to wait until that occurs (this ceremony is the ITNR event, and "opening" generally implies the opening ceremony rather than the low-key first brush of the curling mixed doubles). We can see what the 2018 Winter Olympics opening ceremony article is like once the event has taken place. --LukeSurlt c 14:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Waiting of course about 24 hours from this comment, when the opening ceremony happens. Inatan (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support For obvious reasons. Major event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naj'entus (talk • contribs) 12:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Moving to the appropriate date. Also, the opening ceremony article not being ready, we can use the main article and eventually update the blurb later. --Tone 12:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the main article in the blurb as Tone suggests.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. The article is in good shape and a link to the summary can now be added to ongoing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting now that the tenses in the main article have been updated. --Tone 14:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jill Messick

 * Weak oppose looks okay, most of what there relates to Weinstein which, while important, seems to me to be given a little undue weight. Her film career isn't really covered at all, and she's not even mentioned in some of those film articles, so references are required.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Well referenced now. GCG (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure if this prevents posting but there are definitely undue weight issues as TRM notes. We have "Jill Messick was an American film producer" and then virtually the whole of the rest of the article is about Weinstein, McGowan and her suicide.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose reiterating the problems TRM and Pawnkingthree point out. The way this is presented, it fails WP:BLP1E (the event being the Weinstein accusations and her role in it) negliciting anything about her actual career. Unfortunately a search of pre-July 2017 stories shows very little (though I'm just scanning google news, this is by no means complete). If there is more outside of listing her film credits, that must be added. Otherwise, this should be merged elsewhere per BLP1E. --M asem (t) 14:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * All my issues with BLP1E have been dealt with by expanding her career section. Support. --M asem (t) 18:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree the article gives undue weight to Rose McGowan and not enough weight to her own career. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment as nominator. It is a new stub article that should be expanded (I'm currently too busy myself for the next few days) and a better search of older articles may result in a more complete Bio, but the recent death is currently newsworthy, which is why I believe it should be listed.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No-one is stating they believe the death or the article to be non-notable, indeed it's on the homepage of the BBC News website right now, but we examine only quality here for RD, nothing else, and right now the strong consensus is that the stub (which it isn't) pays far too much attention to the Weinstein connection and not enough time coverage the individual in question's life in totality. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh another posthumously created article. Tyler Hilinski didn't get posted in spite of it being a much higher quality article than this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) I'm not sure what "except when..." relates to, or to whom it's addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I reworded what I wrote around the same time you saw it. My initial comment wasn't clear. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hilinski was closed with no support as stale with concerns over GNG if I recall correctly, he certainly wasn't featured on the main page of the global BBC News website. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh well then, BBC is the sole arbiter of everything then. Didn't realize. GNG concerns, but nobody took it to AfD. Meanwhile, this article is primarily about Rose McGowan and not Messick herself, so we're not concerned about GNG here? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * GNG is an issue yes, but it is more BLP1E (which has higher priority). By meeting the GNG here for anything outside of the Weinstein stuff, that BLP1E would go away as well. --M asem (t) 17:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's just an example of a report of a death that was certainly global since they weren't British and made it onto the homepage of the BBC. I suspect if you bother to Google it, Messick's death will be covered in multiple continents, across dozens of countries, etc etc.  Your belated comment about GNG has been picked up by just about every reviewer (including me about 8 hours ago), so I'm not sure what additional information or point you're bringing to this.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems to have evolved since the initial concerns. Reading this, I have no concerns about content or referencing in terms of main page readiness.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There remains - outside the lede - only exactly one paragraph that has zero connection to the Weinstein accusations. That's not sufficient. While its well-referenced, that state failed BLP1E. --M asem (t) 18:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per the opposition above, the article only overwhelmingly reflects the Weinstein-McGowan events with little noting on Messick's career. I have faith however that the nominator, Deoliveirafan, as stated will expand the article when time opens up. Afterwards I will change my vote. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In re:BLP1E, doesn't the manner of death constitute a notable event that is distinct from the scandal itself? GCG (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As best as I read sources, her suicide was directly tied to how her involvement in the Weinstein accusations became known. It's part of the same event. And even still, if the suicide was fully separate (at which point I don't know how much coverage there would be with it), the combination of BLP1E and BLPCRIME would still suggest no article about her, barring the ability to fill in her career absent the accusations. --M asem (t) 00:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, another posthumous article that would undoubtedly have failed WP:BLP1E yesterday. Black Kite (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * CommentIt has been expanded to the best of my ability to find older articles about her full career.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Good job, thank you for expanding it. --M asem (t) 18:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm happy enough to lend my support for this having seen the career section (and tag) I added yesterday expanded during the last six hours. Fuebaey (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

[New] Khaleda Zia

 * Support This seems pretty notable. The article update is adequate. Davey2116 (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. Far too many unreferenced claims in this BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - She is the first Muslim female prime minister in the world and three times prime minster of Bangladesh. Currently, she is facing around 35 charges and for the recent verdict she will not be able to contest in the 2018 general election of Bangladesh. A serious issue for global politics. - Mar11 (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per above, plus the fact that imprisoning a former head of state doesn't happen often. Banedon (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support:- Precisely, it is a important story and should be displayed at wikinews. I want to correct about Zia's being first Muslim prime minister, it was Benazir Bhutto. This was a mistake by AJ, which has rcently claimed that Zia was first muslim female PM. Whatever it doesn't matter here. Ominictionary (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not Wikinews. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Regretful oppose based on article quality. Not only does the article have a lot of unreferenced material, it skates over the fact that her political stance has a strong strain of religious nationalism; which should be acknowledged, whether or not you support that sort of thing. Vanamonde (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm surprised to see so many people supporting a BLP which has so many unreferenced claims. We could have 1000 supports right now, but no capable admin is ever going to post this with so many problems.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - almost half of the article is unsourced. No way this BLP can be posted in its current state. -Zanhe (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John Perry Barlow

 * Support It's been updated, sourced well enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've had a better chance to scan the article, and I have tagged some places where citations are needed. (But I also did add a few citations, and removed the copyvio issues around his list, but found a good source to say his philosophy behind the list). This is not too far off, but again, rough ref edges. --M asem (t) 03:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I've cleaned up the unsourced content and quotations, and trimmed out the close paraphrasing, so we should now be good to go. Looks like rain outside.... :-( <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Adequate for RD. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 15:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] 2018 Hualien earthquake

 * Support on principle Clearly a notable quake, well covered in media from a quick Gnews, article just could use more prose. --M asem (t) 15:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose for now; article is barely above the stub level. If it could be expanded a bit more, this would be main page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - while I could personally go either way on notability, probably leaning support given the media focus paid to the quake in spite of a low fatality count, the article simple is not ready at this point in time to be posted to the main page. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - notable earthquake. Article is on the short side by well referenced and adequate. -Zanhe (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support worst quake of the year so far, several fatalities and lots of injuries, huge coverage (two articles, one prose + one video) on the BBC News UK homepage. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article has been expanded enough to post now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Joe Knollenberg

 * Posted Stephen 00:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jao Tsung-I

 * Support Article is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Falcon Heavy maiden flight

 * Support - article quality seems fine, and there are no notability concerns as this is ITN/R. Time to posting should not exceed t-12 hours in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable. Article seems ready for posting as well.BabbaQ (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait until the actual launch (which should be 1:30 PM EST) and info about the launch itself should actually be in the article, referenced, and checked before we post this. Everything else looks OK, but we should actually have information about the launch itself.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait until the launch occurs and the details are in the article. Last I checked there was still a 20% chance of it being postponed due to weather, so it might not even go today.  If it does go, I'd wager there is a better than 50% chance that something goes wrong.  Given that it is their first try in this configuration, a totally flawless launch would be somewhat surprising.  There could be a major failure and the thing blows up, or we could see a minor failure that prevents it from reaching the right orbit, or causes one of the boosters to not be recovered, etc.  Regardless, I suspect the details of the outcome will be worth mentioning.  Dragons flight (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - The launch is now scheduled for 3:10 pm EST (20:10 UTC), 90 minutes from now. If we don't put this on the main page soon people might miss the historic launch, which will be broadcast live on YouTube. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 18:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not what ITN is for. We feature articles which have been updated to reflect recent events, not advertise ones that are about to happen. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And if man was about to land on the Moon or Mars, that would have no place on the main page until after the fact? <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 20:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually. We can prep as much as possible, but I remember in the past some nearly assured-to-be-posted events that we waited until the second after it was confirmed to actually post, just to make sure it happened as planned. (I want to say the last time was a UK Royal Wedding but my memory is foggy on that) The only thing I think we post ahead of time would be something like a solar eclipse where no event outside the heat death of the sun would change. --M asem (t) 14:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Does it really make a difference if it happens as planned? If they were sending astronauts to the Moon or Mars and it was an hour or two before the event, as it was when I posted here yesterday, and Cape Canaveral or wherever was lined with thousands of spectators and all the world's media, that in itself would be a major event even if they scrapped the launch. Surely ITN ought to reflect what's actually in the news. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 14:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ITN is not a news ticker. We feature quality articles that happen to be in the news. An article about a space launch is not of quality until after the launch completes. --M asem (t) 14:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You completely ignored my example, so let me ask you directly; If they were launching astronauts to Mars an hour from now, and it was being streamed live, would you not want to mention that on the main page? <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 15:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not until after it happened. If it was successful, we'd write it one way. If it wasn't successful (ala Challenger), we'd be writing it in a completely different way. That's why we wait for the update of the article for the event to occur to judge how well it is written and then add it. --M asem (t) 15:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, talk about pig-headed! Okay, I'll just leave it there, but before I go I will point out that the articles about the Falcon Heavy launch were being edited constantly for several hours before and after the event, and despite your clutching at straws there was no attempt to judge how well the articles were written before adding them to the main page. In fact it was a free for all, with many editors chipping in with both good and bad edits. The only requirements that were met were that the event was over and the launch was successful. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 15:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is completely fine to make sure all parts we can talk about before an event are of quality in the article - in fact, for any planned event, this is a highly recommended practice. It is just that until we can say "It worked" or "it didn't work", we can't consider the article "complete" for posting to the main page. (See the Super Bowl nom below - we couldn't post until we had a specific update to the article despite knowing the result). We can prep all we want, have the consensus ready to go if it worked (as it was here) and then flip it onto the main page once the update is done. --M asem  (t) 15:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait for the launch to actually happen. For all we know it might blow up on the launch pad (unlikely but possible). If it does launch successfully then this qualifies as ITNR, but will need a proper update with details of the launch. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment it's funny, clearly it's a "wait" vote, all round, but even if it blew up on the launch pad, it'd probably still get a blurb, just not via ITNR, the article is perfectly adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait until it actually takes off and flies correctly. Not every maiden voyage has ended as expected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good and clearly an ITN worthy nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Only need to wait for another handful of seconds, it seems. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if it blew up on the launch pad it was still very much in the news, before, during and after. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 21:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment BEST YOUTUBE VIDEO EVER.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I had tears in my eyes. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 21:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, history was made. Someday we'll witness its manned flight to the Moon and Mars... Brandmeistertalk  21:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless you get your information from Wikipedia, in which case you'll only find out about it after it's already happened! <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 21:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's an encyclopaedia. Kind of the point is to write about events after they've occured, not advertise events before they occur. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's an encyclopaedia. No shit. As already stated, this was big news before the event, since the live launch was quite historic. Nothing to do with advertising. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 21:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is consensus that has been established for several years now and was applied correctly here - we do not post launches unless and until the launch is successful, and the article is sufficiently updated. Period. If you disagree, get an RFC.--WaltCip (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Period, eh? Would you like a tampon? Consensus is an ongoing decision-making process. This section is (or was) a discussion about whether to include something on the main page, and if we all decided that it should then that would be the consensus. Just because one group of editors made a decision among themselves several years ago it does not set anything in stone, and if enough editors disagree with an established consensus then, by definition, it is no longer the established consensus. What would you do if they were launching astronauts to the Moon and they all died? I suppose by your reasoning that wouldn't be ITN even though it would be major news around the world before the launch, and afterwards it still wouldn't be ITN since it wasn't a successful launch. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 14:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright then, smart-ass. "Full stop". Happy now?--WaltCip (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand what you meant. Saying "period" indicates that no further discussion is possible or desirable. What I didn't appreciate was your attempt to have the last word. In future I suggest you say your bit and leave it at that if you've decided that no further discussion is desirable, and of course others are free to continue discussing things. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 16:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes WP:Consensus can change. But I'd just like to add my voice to the chorus supporting the current practice of only posting events after they occur. It's not necessary to debate future theoretical cases; ITN/C is fully capable of discussing (real) events as they happen. --LukeSurlt c 14:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not trying to say that future launches should be posted before they occur. It was just this particular launch that I thought deserved a special mention. You say it's not necessary to debate future theoretical cases and that ITN/C is fully capable of discussing events as they happen, but actually it's rather difficult to start moving a boulder with short notice, as was demonstrated yesterday. I guess when they decide to send astronauts to Mars I'd better get here a week early so I can blow off a few cobwebs. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 15:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Amazing! Ok, regarding the update. How much do we need aside the fact that the launch was successful? --Tone 21:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing. Since the entire article is the ITNR subject, i.e. new rocket and its launch, as long as we have that referenced, it's good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Posting! --Tone 21:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting is the china teapot on board the Tesla Roadster. Count Iblis (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment First, I do think it is note worthy and cool, but the "Elon Musk's Telsa Roadster" part feels so promotional to me. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 03:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Late to the party, but support anyway Most obvious ITNC candidate right now. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Donald Lynden-Bell

 * Death now confirmed by his institution. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * While we are waiting in good faith for a proper source, this article is woefully short for someone of this import to astronomy. Hopefully obits might help but I'd implore editors to see if they can expand better here before then. --M asem (t) 14:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Margot Duhalde

 * Support fully cited and updated. MurielMary (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - ready for posting--BabbaQ (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Vanamonde (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Record DJIA drop

 * Oppose Seems pretty meaningless to me, especially since it could rebound right back tomorrow. As you say, this isn't a stock market crash. Just a correction. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose - Market swings are tricky news aspects. The drop didn't cause any of the automatic triggers to prevent a crash because it was already so high. Also, just effectively points in a set of tables is not really a major update. --M asem (t) 04:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - arbitrary. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - arbitrary, will almost certainly rebound within the next few days. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd imagine that a ITN-notable crash would have its own article along the lines of 2010 Flash Crash or Black Monday (1987). This could develop into such a situation, but it's not there yet. Pointing to an entry in a table isn't sufficient --LukeSurlt c 10:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose not merely as arbitrary. The single biggest mistake of the amateur investor is to assume that a catastrophic day of trading is indicative of a long-term trend. It's not all that uncommon for the markets to have corrections, and this is one that has been long overdue. Until banks start closing, aberrations like this should be paid little mind.--WaltCip (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as arbitrary. If it keeps dropping this week (or longer) and causes a crisis of some kind, we can reevaluate. I would add that it is a better measure to take the drop as a percentage instead of pure numbers.  There have been much larger percentage drops. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jockie Soerjoprajogo

 * Support Looks to be well sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Esmond Bradley Martin

 * Oppose for now. Article is a stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Needs expansion. Definitely getting coverage; I find  as sources that have somewhat more depth +  Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose with some reluctance - per Galobtter, the coverage is there. However, the article is the embodiment of a stub currently, and is not fit for posting as it stands. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose with regret, what's there is fine, but it's just not enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: US flu season

 * Oppose for two different reasons. One is that the article is of poor quality, and really does need the attention of an editor with medical expertise to address. Second, even if fixed, its flu season, it happens. Yes, this year's flu is particularly nasty and has resulted in many deaths (more than just children), but this happens every flu season, its nothing new. --M asem (t) 14:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. This happens every year.  I also don't think the article has incremental updates other than new casualty figures. This would have to get much worse to merit posting. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * While this is news in the US, I would wonder if it is elsewhere. I would also ask the nominator to provide links to such news stories. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * BBC is covering it, but again, if they're using the 2009 swine flu as the worst case in recent times, we're nowhere close there yet. --M asem (t) 14:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Masem. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Potentially notable topic but the article quality is nowhere near good enough for the Main Page.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - In 1968, the Hong Kong flu killed over a million people. This is nowhere near that level of intensity. Due consideration should be given to potential systemic bias.--WaltCip (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: John Mahoney

 * Oppose unless the filmography and a few other parts are sourced. Would like this to be on though. Aiken D 07:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Referencing needs work per the big orange tag at the top of the article. [A sad loss. I really enjoyed his work on Frazier. Memory eternal.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Cayce, South Carolina train collision

 * Support Article could be expanded, but it is adequate. Davey2116 (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose not particularly notable on the scale of things. Stephen 07:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Stephen. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Deaths and injuries of Americans aren't more noteworthy than those relating to victims of train accidents in Italy or South Africa or any other country. Chrisclear (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is asserting that they are, this seems to be a good faith nomination. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, but it would be rare for a train collision involving only two deaths from any other country to be nominated. Chrisclear (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose posting a relatively minor, if tragic, accident. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per the above. Not deadly enough.--WaltCip (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Super Bowl LII
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Comment Of course we need a prose summary of the game and a few tense updates for planned events. --M asem (t) 03:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose This may be news in the States but it sure isn't news anywhere else. – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ —Preceding undated comment added 03:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is ITNR, this is not a valid reason to oppose. --M asem (t) 03:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's just not that much of a big deal anywhere else. It's not an international competition or anything. – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 03:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A discussion for removing the Super Bowl from ITN/R for the future should be started here. Davey2116 (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support - Since this is a long-standing established tradition. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 03:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's not even real football, just some obscure American variant.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 03:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A discussion for removing the Super Bowl from ITN/R for the future should be started here. Davey2116 (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Still needs improvements in sourcing. I'm placing tags. Also, future tense needs to be updated to past tense. And, individual statistics tables and starting lineups are unfinished. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The same old organized violence and aggression. Little or no general significance. Sca (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also not a valid oppose. Can't tell if joking or serious. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Do the above oppose !votes get counted? They are made only in regards to the notability of the Super Bowl, which has already been established at ITN/R. Right now the only issue is article quality, and the article lacks prose and sourcing in some places at the moment. However, the oppose !voters should make a notability argument at the ITN/R talk page in time for next year's Super Bowl, not here. Davey2116 (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nixinova, Gamaliel, and Sca's "votes" can be safely discounted. My comments amount to an oppose as well, but those are comments based on article quality, and that's valid. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As an admin, and not a scold, one can avoid naming names and "scare quotes" which come across as snarky and simply note the principles or guidelines involved, without making it personal. μηδείς (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering two of these named users have been editing Wiki for over ten years (much, much longer than I have, for instance), I don't think they need a reminder of the relevant guidelines. Davey2116 (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality (like we're supposed to comment on here...). Teams section is missing sources, Entertainment and Game summary sections have yet to be written.  Sounder Bruce  03:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I added as many sources as I could find. Only two CN tags left. GrossesWasser (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose On quality only. No prose for the game is a no go for any sports event. Needs to be a decent sourced summary of the game. This should not have been nominated half way through the game. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose with regret. It sounded like an epic game, which is why it's both surprising and disappointing that no game summary exists.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Based on some sections currently being tagged and a few CN tags too.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not very promising if the current quality of the article is all that can be mustered. This is notwithstanding my objections based on notability, which have no bearing on this.--WaltCip (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support It's one of the largest sporting events in the world. There are far less notable sporting events that make it into ITN with comparable article quality. It's slightly embarrassing that it's not up there already. Alacrity25 (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As the Super Bowl is on the Recurring events list, there is no need to support this on the merits. However, there are article quality issues, which is why it has not yet been posted.  Feel free to work on the article to address the concerns given(or if they have been addressed, please state that)  The biggest concern is that there seems to be no prose description of the game yet, a must for posting. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There are over 100 references, I think that satisfies things. There are a lack of photos, but that's an easy fix (and again, I've seen other articles without significant graphics in ITN.) What else do you think is an issue? I will help on those things if I can. Alacrity25 (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As I indicated, there is not a prose description of the game itself in the article, which is a must for posting any sporting event to ITN. If you wish to write one, feel free. You can look at articles on past Super Bowls to get an idea of how to do it if you need to. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I'll get on it now. Alacrity25 (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support For what it's worth. Insane game, tons of scoring (apparently a bad thing), twists, turns and upsets. And a first ever for Philadelphia Eagles. What's not to love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.114.219 (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * IP user, please understand that since this event is on the recurring items list, support on the merits is not required. This is only a discussion about article quality. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted – Concerns brought up by valid comments above appear to have been addressed. Although a tag requesting additional citations is present in the Game Summary section, a quick look at previous Super Bowl articles (including GA-assessed Super Bowl XLI) shows this section isn't normally directly cited. Minor expansion requests withstanding will be sorted out in due time and I don't see them as a reason to withhold the article from posting. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a piss poor game summary. This is supposed to be one of the premier events in the USA and editors here have described it as an insane game. You would not get that impression from the game summary. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , this is ITN/C, not FAC. All that's required is for the content to exist, not for it to be stellar. If you have suggestions for how to improve it, help out the editors working on the article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of the requirements for submitting a sports event at ITN, having done so many times, and this is well below par. It is not just a requirement that the content exists as there are standards here. How about adding some citations and actually creating proper paragraphs. The lack of consistency when posting American events is one of the reasons there is such discontent in this area. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As noted earlier, in-text citations for game summaries of sporting events have not been required before you just asked for one right now. If you're going to invent criteria on the fly, could you give the community a few days to adjust first?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 21:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sweet. I will refer back to this next time I nominate a sports game and ping you. It will save me a lot of time to not have to find citations to a game I just watched. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's not good enough. I fail to understand why this supposed biggest sporting event on planet Earth has such a crap update.  Rushing it to the mainpage when it's badly referenced is, as noted above, just another example of systemic bias we could well do without.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This entire thread is why this sub-sect of community is the worst on Wikipedia for making judgment decisions. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  20:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I`m not sure what it is that you don't like, but if you don't like the decisions we make, you don't have to visit this page, or you can participate so your views are involved too. You don't need to attack the people who do contribute here. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That "comment" is why a sub-set of the community should be ignored when there's an apparent gross and glaring misunderstanding on the way in which ITN (and ITNR) works. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] RD: Edwin Jackson (American football)

 * Oppose a lot of the career section is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose -Because more citations are needed. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Séamus Pattison

 * Support No issues.Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support barely above stub level, and for such an extensive political career, a real shame, but sufficient for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - article is adequate for RD now. Career was long, but never reached a notable enough position of seniority in the Dáil to have an extremely long article. His greatest accomplishment was becoming Ceann Comhairle, which is an important post, but one which hampers your ability to do any politicking of note. Sad news. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Bert Lundin

 * We need to validate the date of death, and I'm not seeing anything out of Google News (recognizing this won't be in English, likely). --M asem  (t) 00:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Masem. We need a validation. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * His union has now confirmed death date on their web page. Iselilja (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - per source confirming death. RD ready, fully referenced.BabbaQ (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support article is weak but just about acceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Jon Huntsman Sr.

 * Oppose Unsourced awards section which has orange tag. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose that awards list is proper horrific, plus a lot of it seems borderine trivia or puffery ("International Balfour Award (most outstanding Sigma Chi in US/Canada)"? REALLY??).  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Stale. Vanamonde (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Nunes Memo

 * Comment. The blurb suggests the mere authorization of release is the story, when it is the actual release that is the story. I'm also not sure the blurb can adequately(and briefly) explain why the FBI and DOJ objecting is a big deal. Not weighing in on the merits yet, but most analysis I have read suggests the memo does not actually prove what supporters of its release claim it does. The bigger story would be if this memo leads to Trump attempting to have Special Counsel Mueller fired. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Internal political posturing in one nation with only speculation as to lasting impact. Heaviside glow (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is political posturing unless it results in the removal of Mueller - in which case it would be significant global news worthy of ITN. At the moment, it is lacking in impact and inherent importance. Thus, any support would constitute ignorance of WP:CRYSTAL. Thereby, I oppose. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely oppose. While horrible that Nunes is doing POTUS' dirty work for him at the expense of the rule of law, the memo itself is a huge nothingburger. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - as is ultimately the case with innumerable US political stories here, my meteorological instincts foresee an incoming blizzard. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose obviously not as important as the usual ITN mix of sports events, election results and fires, explosions and storms. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:2D34:A1E8:3240:DA13 (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This "memo" is an utter nothing, and this is just political theater in one country. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose On the one hand, it’s definitely in the news. I’m sure there will be readers coming to try and see what the hell this memo is actually about, and the article is not too bad, but ultimately posting this would give it a significance it would not deserve.Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is Wikipedia, not Ameripedia. It's unlikely a similar domestic politics article would be published as an ITN item if this was from another country. Chrisclear (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Agree with Pawnking. – Sca (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] New Mayan site

 * Conditional Support pending article improvement - this is a major archaeological discovery, but the article is not in great shape. The newly updated archaeology section is well referenced, but the rest of the article needs improvement in referencing. -Zanhe (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I fixed the referencing problem. Inatan (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support on significance, and pinging, whose area of expertise this falls within: Simon, thoughts on article quality? Vanamonde (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. It is certainly a very notable discovery, on a scale that does not happen often (at least not in my part of the world). Inatan (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support really nice intersection of archaeology and modern technology. Article's okay too.  This is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - article is fine, story is very interesting, and I am glad to purge ITN of negativity as it is dominated by archaelogists, paleontologists, astronomers, and the recent cloning biologists. Good wave of STEM news on ITN, consistent backed by quality articles. Great work. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks. Brandmeistertalk  22:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 22:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Fidel Castro Díaz-Balart

 * Oppose Article created posthumously and I don't think he's notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I thought about nominating this one, then I looked at the article which had been rapidly created. It has not improved much since then. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose clearly work has been done since the previous two comments were made. His death was noted in the BBC so I have hesitation regarding his notability, the quality of the article is above average for our nominations here but not good enough for the main page at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Stale. Vanamonde (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Hazar Khan Bijarani

 * Weak oppose something like 27 consecutive sentences with "he..." makes for abjectly terrible prose. Seems reasonably referenced.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose copyvios. Close paraphrasing. That consecutive sentences is actually from copying lazy writers like from this. Copyvio detector reveals, but looking closer I think it's closer than shown. Very repetitive and boring anyhow. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually Samma and many other Pakistani news website copied the material from Wikipedia upon the death of this politician. Here's the older version from 14 December 2017. --Saqib (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh, apologies. Anyhow, oppose per the Rambling Man Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak support For the same reasons as TRM. The text is boring and uninspired, but it's referenced and not wrong.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * support - Per Jayron. And the fact that the article is fully referenced and ready for posting. That the article is "boring" is not relevant in my opinion.BabbaQ (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support -Article is well sourced, ready to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I've made some copy-editing, but there's not a lot to go on, it's mostly election results and vote counts. Isa (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for copyediting I have expanded the page and can be expand a bit further based on this obtiuary. --Saqib (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Change to support, has been improved reasonably. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 16:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Su Bai

 * Weak support brief stub+ but adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support Adequate. Ready for postingBabbaQ (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Ready to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Niranjan Bhagat

 * Support - well cited. -Zanhe (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support No issues. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - looks OK from here. Good work on citations. Ready to go. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ready to post. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Vanamonde (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)