Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/January 2017

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: Tokitenkū Yoshiaki

 * Oppose referencing needs significant improvement. Stephen 02:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? Every section has multiple references. Are there particular statements that concern you?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support I'm not sure if the article has changed since Stephen voted or not, but I can't find any contentious information that lacks citations, referencing is exemplary and better than the minimum standards we usually require. This looks good to go.  -- Jayron 32 15:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support As Jayron32 points out, the current state of the article seems appropriately sourced and acceptable, maybe the sourcing had been improved since Stephen's !vote. --M ASEM (t) 15:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * --Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * When I looked at it the career section was pretty much unreferenced. There's a few more citations needed then it's good to post. Stephen
 * Comment There are currently two "citation needed" tags in the article. The first deals with the subject suffering a losing record at all six tournaments in a calendar year. The fact that he did so has now been referenced. I have not been able to find a reference to support the claim that he was the first person to do so in five years. Ideally it should be referenced, but I would say it is not a hugely contentious claim. The second tag is about his sudden movement up the rankings. To put it in layman's terms, he was ranked 25th in May, had a decent tournament with a 10-5 record, and got promoted all the way up to 10th at the next tournament in July. This is all sourced, except for the claim that he was the first person in 25 years to jump so far up the rankings. These two pieces of trivia have probably been copied from the Japanese wiki article. If they are the only thing stopping this article being posted, I would gladly delete them. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted after hiding unreferenced claims. Stephen 02:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Trump picks Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court

 * Oppose - not of the clear significance of the travel ban. One conservative judge is replaced by another conservative judge. We can revisit this when and if he nominates his horse. Blythwood (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is not USApedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Routine appointment of a judge to fulfill a vacancy. I agree with Blythwood, this would only be ITN-worthy if he nominated his horse for the position. Gfcvoice (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose If this gets posted, we may as well change the "T" in "ITN" to "Trump". AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is one of many nominations made by the new administration and posting every nomination/appointment is unnecessary as others point out. However, I do think it would be worthy for ITN when a new SCOTUS judge actually joins the court, ie. approved by Senate and sworn in (Talk:Elena Kagan (2010) & Talk:Sonia Sotomayor (2009) both have ITN templates for when they joined the court; but Talk:Samuel Alito (2005) and Talk:John Roberts (2005) don't). AHeneen (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Very contentious, drawn out vacancy that was stonewalled in the hopes of a GOP victory come the 2016 election (which has obviously happened). However, this is just a nomination. Suggest withdrawing this nomination and revisiting when a new member of the SCOTUS is sworn in. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but post if confirmed. Mélencron (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is why we should have an ongoing section for the Trump Administration. A Supreme Court pick is hugely important and will have decades of impact, while we have an absurd 5 lines of text (and a picture of a signing !) about an executive order temporarily halting immigration from seven nations identified by Barack Obama as state sponsors of terror. μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 49,000 UK men retroactively pardoned under the "Alan Turing law"

 * Comment Why is this in the news now?  Also, the article says that the law is part of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 which is a microstub which doesn't even mention the Turing law. Black Kite (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Because the law was enacted today, posthumously pardoning some 49,000 men. Stephen 23:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, right (there's a news link there now, there wasn't before). The article says "As of January 2017, some 49,000 men had been retroactively pardoned under the terms of the Policing and Crime Act 2017" which should probably read "On 31 January 2017...". A tentative Support in that case. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality. Article is an underreferenced stub. No comments on significance at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I clicked on the Policing and Crime Act 2017 link instead of the bolded link. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support A noteworthy event. The article looks solid. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on principle - I too was confused why this is news "today" but if what Stephen says is true, the article should be updated to reflect that the law came on the books today, and thus this retroactive pardon only started today. Once that's cleared up, this is a significant event and appropriate ITN material, and outside this issue on the timing, the article is in good shape. --M ASEM (t) 23:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless altblurb Referenced and nuanced thanks to the "reaction" subsection, but the law only applies to England and Wales apparently ("As the law – and the disregard process – only apply to England and Wales, groups in Northern Ireland and Scotland have campaigned for equivalent laws in their jurisdiction"); neither Scotland nor Northern Ireland are included (so it's not "the UK"). I also wonder if we could add a list of all the MPs who voted for and against it?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think a list of MPs would be useful, as this was part of a much bigger piece of law, and thus MPs could, for example, have voted against the bill because of a completely separate part of the legislation that they did not agree with. Agree about the altblurb (done, see above). Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - this is not just internal to the UK, it's a natural continuation of previously-posted items such as this and this. Banedon (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Arguably the previous ITN postings were specific to Alan Turing, but that's why this new piece of law is named after him. It is a continuation of a principle, but definitely not a continuation of the same story. --M ASEM (t) 00:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well let's suppose that a new law is passed ("_____ is no longer a crime, retroactively applied to 2010"). You would expect then that "_____ people are pardoned" will happen. The first implies the second. The same applies to e.g. "Trump signs law banning travelers from ____ countries" and "____ travelers from ____ countries are unable to travel to the US". If we have posted the first, we do not need to post the second. Banedon (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But that's not the case here. 2009 (the 2nd link) we have a British PM apologizing for how they treated Turing under existing laws. The first link was when he was posthumously pardoned by the Queen - while this was important it was also recognized as more a ceremonial process since Turing has passed away to enjoy any benefit of it. Now, and what is important here, is that the UK Parliament, after a few years of debates, have created a law that mirror what the Queen did for one person (one rather famous and important person) to 49,000-some individuals retroactively, including some who are still alive. While not all these people are as important as Turing, the impact is much greater, and reflects that the UK gov't recognized these previous laws anti-gay laws were harmful. --M ASEM (t) 01:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see that we did post the passing of the law. We posted the pardoning of Turing, but that's only tangentally relevant (i.e. to the - unofficial - name of the law). Black Kite (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me try this again. If Obama had decided to pardon Julian Assange, would you also expect him to pardon Chelsea Manning? Similarly, if the UK government decides to pardon Alan Turing, would you also expect the many other homosexuals in the country whose names are too minor for the press to mention to also be pardoned? If you answer yes, then where is the notability of this nomination? Banedon (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure of the thrust of your Assange/Manning argument, but I'd argue that the pardoning of 49,000 (plus many more to come) people is more notable than the pardoning of one high profile individual. Black Kite (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support the pardoning of nearly 50,000 individuals is highly notable, much more so than the commutation of the sentence of one highly notable individual. Let's have some consistency here people. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, presumably quite a few of these men are still alive. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - as The Daily Telegraph makes clear, it's slightly different for the living, who have to personally apply for a pardon: "As well as the posthumous pardons, the new law will allow 15,000 living men who were found guilty of sexual acts that are no longer illegal to apply to the Home Office for a pardon." Note that those pardonned posthumously include Oscar Wilde. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose, noble, but moot decision. Retroactive pardon means they already served their sentences and only then were pardoned. Also it's unclear what percentage is still alive. Brandmeistertalk  09:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * (see my comment above). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose The 49,000 are all posthumous, though living people can apply to be added to the list, and these will be considered on a case-by-case basis - it is not guaranteed that those applying will be pardoned. To my mind, that muddies the water enough that we shouldn't post this.  GoldenRing (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not my understanding. Provided the crime is on the list, a pardon will be issued. It's just an administative process. Perhaps the article doesn't make this clear. The Daily Telegraph says: "A spokesman for Stonewall, the gay rights charity, called the new law: “Another important milestone of equality.” Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have a source to hand, but my understanding is that, in the cases of those living, each will be checked that the conviction would not be otherwise covered by a different crime today. For instance, there are cases where homosexual sexual assault was prosecuted as gross indecency and these would not be pardoned.  GoldenRing (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I now see that the article says this: "This means that the Home Office will investigate each case involving living people to ensure that the act that the petitioner was convicted of is no longer considered a criminal act, to avoid pardoning men convicted of underage sex or rape." There is a BBC source in support. But I don't see that this procedure affects the fundamental notability of the event. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Such large mass pardonings of people, alive or deceased, are rare and notable. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Alt3 made for conciseness. As for a vote, this strikes me as an incremental step in a process that no one really doubts any longer.  On the other hand it apparently affects living people, so I'll just say neutral.128.214.53.104 (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Based on the statement by the Stonewall spokesman, it seems to be notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly oppose, despite it being a worthy cause. This is an entirely symbolic gesture, and whilst it's clearly important for those directly affected it doesn't lead to the sort of societal change that e.g. gay marriage did. We already posted the pardon of Alan Turing himself, which led to this law, and I don't see any reason to feature the story twice on ITN. This is also only getting muted media coverage, reflecting a 'well that's nice, but doesn't really change much' response. Modest Genius talk 15:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. There is consensus for this. Just because the law is informally named for someone who we have posted before is irrelevant.  That the 49,000 are dead does not lessen the social impact of this legislation to their friends and families. Stephen 22:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Pull. 7 supports and 5 opposes isn't consensus. 2.102.185.203 (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't count votes. Stephen 07:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Correction: good admins don't count votes. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Post-posting support. Large number of people pardoned in the context of a controversial former British law. Even if it is largely symbolic, symbols, matter. In this case, the law not only pardons the dead, but allows those living with convictions under the overturned laws to apply for pardons. Don't why this shouldn't be posted because we posted related stories 3 and 8 years ago. Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per Patar knight – I understand that this is mostly symbolic, but as it stands, the pardoning of 49,000 people at one time is still significant enough for ITN in itself. Mz7 (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please make concise This blurb is 5 lines long and contains language that has currency only within UK legalese ("cautioned"), is redundant ("retroactively pardoned") and unneeded ("historical legislation...").128.214.53.104 (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please take such concerns to ERRORS, per the notice at the top of this page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: John Wetton

 * Comment Significantly undersourced article. Band membership history absolutely needs to be sourced at a bare minimum as well as the discography aspects. --M ASEM (t) 18:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Vastly unsourced.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this time as above, though certainly support this progressive rock innovator deserves a RD pending sourcing updates. To lay it out plainly, in the Career section, everything from "In the late 1980s" onwards is essentially unsourced. The band timeline and discography sections are also wholly unsourced. Most of this info can surely be compiled from the reliable resources of his official website, his discogs.com discography, and his ProgArchives page. The myriad of newspaper articles that appeared today, which likely exclusively sourced these three, may provide additional info. I would do the updates, but my router blew and I'm running off my limited cell tethering data. -  Floydian  τ ¢  00:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] African Union decides to readmit Morocco

 * Support and I cleaned up the blurb. Obviously encyclopedic subject with updated articles.  The AU article is in good order despite the lede tag.128.214.53.104 (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment "decides to" or actually "does"? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on the sources above Morocco seems to have actually rejoined(one has a quote to that effect) so I've posted an altblurb. 331dot (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The 28th Summit of African Heads of State and Government is made up of representatives from the AU, which voted "overwhelmingly" to readmit Morocco. The Moroccan government website notes this, as well as votes in their own parliament, but the AU website has not yet updated their member states list to include Morocco.  Whether the AU and Morocco have "decided to" or "did" rejoin depends on whether or not the vote at the Summit is binding, and on that I don't know anything.128.214.53.104 (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * By reading the AU's own Constitutive Act, it's clear that this Assembly is the body empowered to make decisions about membership, which must be reached by consensus or by 2/3 majority. So, "did" rejoin.128.214.53.104 (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support on principle - this is the equivalent of the EU for Africa, so any changes in member-state status should be reflected as ITN. It would help if the blurb had some clarity; it seems that this isn't so much "readmit" but "admit" for the first time into what we know as the Africa Union, as Moracco had withdrawn a few decades earlier from the AU's predecessor organization. I don't know if we can make a succinct blurb to explain why Moracco withdrew before. --M ASEM (t) 18:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 Nergaal (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Event has continent-wide implications and notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb, notability should not be in question. Banedon (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb -- Yogwi21 (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb per above. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 01:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted alt-blurb. If anyone wants to discuss further the admits/readmits issue this can be done at WP:ERRORS. Thryduulf (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * SUGGESTION This may be an opportune moment to tag on the new AU chief. We do post EU? Lihaas
 * Which one? Chairperson of the African Union is a ceremonial post, roughly equivalent to the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, which we don't post. Chairperson of the African Union Commission might be postable, but it's not clear how much power this role has. Smurrayinchester 16:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Rohingya people

 * Support on merits, oppose as nominated - this should link to its own article. I'm favoring 2016–17 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar, but that article will have to be updated. Banedon (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * updating that article is easy, because the content can simply be added there with attribution: but I disagree that that article is appropriate, because this news item refers to the Bangladesh government policy. I'm open to persuasion, though. Vanamonde (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Is Bangladesh's policy not appropriate to the 2016-2017 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar article? If the Rohingya were displaced from Myanmar into Bangladesh, then Bangladesh's policy would be very much a continuation of the persecution. As it is I feel like the Rohingya people article itself is not the right place for this. In a vacuum, I'd expect to see something like "the Rohingya are a widely-persecuted people, and have been [yada yada blah blah]" in the Rohingya people article. I would not expect "on [this date], Bangladesh forcibly relocated Rohingya people", which is a great deal of detail, especially in a section that lists three "see also" articles. Banedon (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2015 Rohingya refugee crisis seems to fit better than 2016–17 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar. It should probably be renamed 2015-17 though. Brightgalrs  (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 09:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We could rework the 2015 Rohingya refugee crisis article, but the fact remains that that article, just like 2016-2017 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar, has a well-defined scope at the moment which does not include the news item being reported here. The "ROhingya people" article gives very prominent mention to their persecution and migration; it is also in decent shape, so honestly, I would still advocate for the original blurb. Vanamonde (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The two sources listed above seem to be using the same, single source for their reporting. I would like to see more and more diverse sourcing for something like this.128.214.53.104 (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the story has been repeated by a number of very reliable news sources: here are Reuters, and The Guardian, for good measure. Vanamonde (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Guardian article is from 2015! The Reuter's article is also using the same source as the original two in the nomination.  I fail to see how copy-pasting field releases is good journalism, "reliable source" or not.128.214.53.104 (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose looks like this "initiation" started a year ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as above, and since when do blurbs end in question marks? -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 01:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on significance. This idea has been floated before, but the Bangladeshi government has just announced that it is going ahead and it seems a good enough time to post it.  As reported, they are essentially proposing the relocation of over a quarter of a million people to a small island that is entirely submerged twice a day - ie. their mass murder.  If Trump's travel ban is worth a post, surely this is (though of course I realise not everyone opposing above supported that posting).  However there is a lot of work to do before this can be posted.  I agree with Banedon that 2016–17 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar is the right article to start with, as this move is largely a response to the influx of refugees to Bangladesh following the persecution in Myanmar.  However, it needs substantial updates and probably moving to some title that covers the situation more generally.  2015 Rohingya refugee crisis is probably not appropriate because it is about Rohingya leaving Bangladesh for other countries.  GoldenRing (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added some material to 2016–17 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar about refugees, and a couple of sources to this nomination. GoldenRing (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Wait until relocation actually begins. Unless I'm mistaken, all the sources provided merely show that this is being seriously considered, not that it is finalized or that anyone has actually been relocated. Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Miss Universe

 * Weak support - I think this is a silly and completely uninteresting event, but it is an international event making international news. I'd use active voice in the blurb regardless: "[so and so] wins the [pageant]". Banedon (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose about as far from encyclopedic news as one can imagine. Kardashian's jewel theft made international news but it doesn't make it something to feature on the main page of the fourth-most visited website in history.  The Rambling Man (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons given by TRM above. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm having to oppose it above for the reasons given by TRM, because our current guidelines (Please do not oppose an item because it is not on ITN/R) mean that I'm not allowed oppose it for what seem to me the most sensible reason for not posting it, namely that it's an annual event which the community has implicitly judged not to be worthy of ITN/R, which in turn tends to implicitly suggest that it shouldn't normally be posted unless there's some exceptional reason for doing so (which there doesn't seem to be in this case). But for some reason I'm not allowed give that as the main reason for my opposition, so I've had to give a secondary reason instead. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose does not seem to be encyclopedic news. Vanamonde (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support aesthetics contest with world-wide participation. Article is in much better shape than the below X Games article as well.128.214.53.104 (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting this subjective judgement. I'm surprised this was in the news at all. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality; however, I believe that this does meet the significance criteria. Mamyles (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Is this the largest pageant worldwide? If so, I do not see any reason to oppose the article. The quality of the article looks fine to me (the article doesn't look like an advertisement at all to me, and nearly all statements seem to be properly sourced), and assuming this is the biggest event of its kind, I definitely support its inclusion on the front page. ~ Mable ( chat ) 17:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I know that beauty pageants have become far less significant over the last decade due to the changing social climates (eg how they are considered degrading to women, etc.), but they still happen, they still make the news, and this seems to be the top-tier competition. It might be subjective but so are things like the BAFTAs and Oscars, so it seems silly to oppose on the fact this is a subjective result. The article seems to be well sourced for the event. --M ASEM  (t) 18:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's about encyclopedic value. You would oppose a mass shooting in America but would support Miss Universe?  What a curious barometer.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that aside from Miss Universe, there are also Miss World and Miss Earth. If there was only Miss World, which is also the oldest beauty pageant, then I think it could have been considered for ITNR. Brandmeistertalk  20:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Question: when did we post Mr Universe?  Or is this just another example of Wikipedia's vast majority of pubescent bedroom-lurking teenagers wanting a non-encyclopedic but titivating "news" item on the main page?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a planned annual event with a reasonable long history (65 years it looks like), so noting the winner of a given year is part of encyclopedic coverage, just as we'd do for any sporting event or the like. A mass shooting is in the realm of news, and because we are not a newspaper, not every breaking news story is necessarily an appropriate encyclopedic topic, and thus there can be reason to oppose those. If we were a newspaper, I would totally agree that the shooting has much higher weight, but as an encyclopedia the importance is flipped. --M ASEM (t) 21:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Planned annual event with a reasonable long history? That doesn't make it encyclopedic.  We don't just post "any sporting event or the like", we assess it for encyclopedic impact and quality.  This is not encyclopedic.  A bunch of pretty women being assessed against each other to determine who is more subjectively attractive, in a swim suit or evening wear?  You think this is the sort of thing Wikipedia should be publishing on the main page?  You've lost me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I supported with the assumption that this is the most major pagaent of the year. Is this incorrect or subjective? If so, I may want to reconsider my stance (not that it seems to matter much with all these 'I don't like it' !votes). ~ Mable ( chat ) 23:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per User:The Rambling Man and others. --Fixuture (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Historic winner. Good sourcing. Plenty of worldwide attention, much more than usual. Plenty of IDONTLIKEIT above. That is irrelevant.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment just a quick one for the supporters, please read the article. It's junk mainly, and a lot of it unreferenced.  Despite the fact it's an out-dated, irrelevant, misogynist cavalcade which creates childhood disorders and promotes unhealthy living, please remember this is an encyclopedia.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * While I agree that beauty pagaents are a remnant of the past, and while I wouldn't necessarily call it "misogynist cavalcade" I would still agree they are unnecessarily sexist, but we are not here to right great wrongs. The topic is encyclopedic, this event has gained worldwide coverage, and while there are some CNs (added since I looked to new information that appeared to be added since), it is not too far off from being posted. --M ASEM (t) 21:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This has no encyclopedic value. What longevity does Miss Universe demonstrate year in, year out?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * About the same as any given sporting event. People keep track of who won, how their favorite contestants performed, the usual. No different from any other kind of competition in those aspects. ~ Mable  ( chat ) 23:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? It's way off being posted - it isn't even an article, just a series of trivia factlets ("The pageant program was initially announced to start at 5 a.m., but it was later announced that the program was to run from 8 a.m. until 11:00") glued together. It reads like someone made notes for an article, but never actually wrote it. There are actually quite a few unsourced statements in it too, some of which may be contentious.  More to the point, there's a whacking great (and correct) "multiple issues" tag on the top of the article. Black Kite (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The tags had been removed, were readded, and are currently under discussion on the talk page. You could hardly say the article is underreferenced at this point, and I really don't believe it reads like an advertisement. As I said below, the article has too many "short paragraphs", but together they do form a sort of narrative through the event. "It started at this time, it had these judges," etc. Basic stuff. ~ Mable ( chat ) 23:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Apart from the notability, this article is incredibly poor and cannot be linked from the Main Page without a complete rewrite. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – a lot of people bring up an issue with the article's quality, saying that it needs a rewrite, but I don't see it at all and feel really confused about it. I don't like how short all of the paragraphs are, but otherwise it looks like a B-class article to me, far better than what we usually post on RD. Could someone explain what kind of issues The article is dealing with specifically? ~ Mable ( chat ) 23:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's plenty of beauty pageants, we can't list them all here. Better not set a precedent. --bender235 (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support once better sourced. The last time a Frenchwoman won was in 1953; perhaps an altburb could highlight this fact. Iris Mittenaere looks fine (if a bit short), but Miss Universe 2016 needs more sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Does it matter that the last Frenchwoman won in 1953? How many nations take place?  Why is that so notable? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Article gives 86 countries took part in the pageant. That's pretty big - bigger than e.g. Eurovision. Banedon (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The point is that the winner being French is completely irrelevant. Who cares? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a rare occurrence! That makes it even more newsworthy I think.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * When there are 86 participating countries in an annual pageant, on average, each country's participant wins one time every 86 years. In that sense, France last winning in 1953 isn't to be unexpected. Banedon (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment according to the Miss Universe article, "Along with its rival contests, Miss World and Miss Earth, this pageant is one of the most important and publicized beauty pageants in the world. It is held in more than 190 countries worldwide and seen by more than half a billion people annually." I'm actually wondering whether or not to nominate this for ITNR. Banedon (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support such a nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality. Multiple orange tags, very little prose about the actual competition, and many unsourced claims. Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Masayaa Nakamura

 * Comment Myself and other editors have greatly expanded the article, so it should be ready to go (in terms of ITN/C review, not to post). --M ASEM (t) 19:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support "Father of Pac-Man". Article is decently written and suitable for posting. 117.192.6.179 (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good work, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Winter X Games XXI

 * Weak oppose - I'm seeing only regional coverage for this event. If this is posted regardless I would strongly oppose "... with the United States winning seven gold medals" in the blurb, since it is a multi-national event and highlighting only one country's medal tally is not fair. Banedon (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support this is even being covered in countries with virtually no winter sports pedigree, e.g. the UK, and it's perfectly normal to include which country came top in the overall standings of such a multi-national multi-sport contest. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean no pedigree??!!? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out that the UK won two medals in this very event, so I do not agree that the UK has virtually no winter sports pedigree. Banedon (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support sporting event with world-wide participation, and a First to boot (successful quad underflip).128.214.53.104 (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The article Elena Hight is in terrible shape. How can it be linked on the main page?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So terrible it doesn't exist! You mean Elena Hight.  But why pick that one?  Quebec City is awful.  Western Sahara is awful.  If you're now reviewing non-target links, please seek a change to the ITN criteria to ensure all linked articles are up to scratch. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that Winter X Games XXI mostly consists of tables with insufficient prose and many of the references are just copied URLs. The discussion with two support votes (with one by an IP-address) against one oppose vote does also confirm that the posting was premature. I don't think we need changes of the ITN criteria when it's glaringly obvious that some nominations cannot be posted because of the insufficient article quality. I'd also like to see what Stephen was thinking when posting this.-Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. Quebec City and Western Sahara are in much better shape than Elena Hight, which has an orange tag, lack of references and extremely poor style (please note that much of it contains sentences without full stops).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The references were added by me to appease yet another complainant, feel free to pad them out properly, I don't have time right now, but I'll get back to it if no-one else does. At least it makes the article referenced.  As for orange maintenance tags, Quebec City, Western Sahara and Elene Hight's articles all contain orange maintenance tags.  The article has four cited paragraphs, easily sufficient to meet the ITN rules.  Of course, in all that time, you could have worked on making the article better. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I can re-work the article to make look better, but sometimes you have to complain. Posting 'crap' on the main page with the argument that you can spend time on improving it rather than complaining about it is useful in terms of efficient editing but not in raising awareness about content quality.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to the rules which state that we have to review all the auxiliary links in a blurb to ensure they're up to (some unknown standard of) quality? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't have established rules on checking all articles linked in a blurb, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't give a damn about the quality beyond the links visible on the main page. Compare this simply to the RD nominations and the strive for quality before posting. I don't think these two things drastically differ so that a different reasoning should be used.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Then your point applies to the other two links (the only two I checked), and there are doubtless more across the main page. RD nominations are the whole target article so the comparison is void. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should apply to all articles linked on the main page, but I can't go to each nomination and start up discussion about the same thing. My complain here generalises the case and doesn't defend the insufficient quality of articles that I haven't checked. After all, no-one can check all articles to draw conclusions with highest accuracy.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, so no action needed until we change the various main page sections to include a guideline to check that all auxiliary links are up to a particular (defined?) quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the distinction here is that the Quebec City or Western Sahara links are integral to the blurb itself. A link to a pictured gold medallist (1/7), is not really integral to the understanding of the Winter X games. Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Then replace it with an image of Turing which is two stories newer. You're an admin, this should be the stuff you can easily do.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty confident that neither TFA or DYK have a similar check of auxiliarly linked article quality of the text posted to the main page. Both emphasize the quality of the bolded link article, and the text that is to be put to the main page, but not any other links from that text. --M ASEM (t) 14:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support removal on quality/notability grounds, per my earlier comments at WP:ERRORS.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  10:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Every issue you raised has either been resolved or refuted. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Reword blurb I would strongly suggest we reword it to "with the US team winning most gold medals" or similar. As it stands, it makes the blurb sound like it's simply pointing out the US team's results for no reason. Smurrayinchester 15:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with above, but would prefer omitting the entire latter half of the sentence entirely ("The 2017 Winter X Games conclude" or "The 2017 Winter X Games in Aspen, Colorado conclude"). Banedon (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Pull. Besides the questionable ITN-notability grounds. The X games are not even the top multi-event Winter action sporting games, since it also hosts the Winter X Games Europe, which is of equal status (if maybe not viewership). This year's Winter X games had severe viewership drops in almost all time slots, and never getting more than 1 mil. Compare this to other winter sporting events such as the US figure skating championships, which got 3.7 million viewers  not counting the widespread international figure skating audience, and the Winter X games wouldn't seem to make the cut. The update is also not very good – I count only a handful of facts that are not just merely X won Y – and combined with the lack of ITN-notability, I think it justifies pulling.  Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The story will be moved off the ticker soon so I do not think removal is necessary. Andise1 (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Quebec City mosque shooting

 * Please note There is also presently a second article created just a minute afterward 2017 Quebec City mosque shooting on the same event. These should be history-merged to one article to cover it, but I don't know which one is the better name to do that with. --M ASEM (t) 03:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The articles have been merged; Blurb/target updated to reflect the target. --M ASEM (t) 03:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Anti-islamic attack on a religious service. And it was in Canada, so it won't be rejected here for being "just another U.S. shooting". – Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support'. Mass killings in Canada are extremely rare. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Provincial police just gave an interview confirming the number of deaths/wounded and that all subjects are in custody. Article should be stabilizing now and is well-sourced and probably good to post. Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. This is more significant in terms of fatalities than both the Ottawa attack and the vehicle ramming attack in 2014, both of which I think made ITN. 207.107.159.62 (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Mass killings of this nature are exceedingly rare in Canada. Kurtis (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The article is in good shape and this is getting worldwide coverage (see, e.g., coverage from the BBC and Al Jazeera). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Latest count is 6 dead. Isa (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, due possible quality issue? Currently the Suspects section a) wikilinks to a disambiguation article for Quebecquois, and b) links to a written (and unconfirmed) news report that one of the suspects is of Quebec origin and the other of Arab origin, while the same item also has a spoken (and unconfirmed, and perhaps evolving) video news report that seemed a bit confused, but appeared to be saying that both arrested suspects may be of both Quebec and Arab origin. I don't know whether this is sufficiently serious to require us to wait or not. And I don't know whether including such unconfirmed reports is 'encyclopaedic', but it's not what I would expect to find in Encyclopaedia Britannica. And I'm not sure what, if anything, should be done to try to fix the matter. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Put another way, the Suspects section may currently violate WP:NOTNEWS, along with its Disambiguation quality issue (see above). As I am not sure whether this should stop posting, I have temporarily removed the Ready tag from this item, to give others a little time to have a look at the matter, after which somebody else may want to restore the Ready tag. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The disambiguation issue now seems fixed, and there is now also a link to a tweet by La Presse, that they had learnt that a suspect was of Moroccan origin. Our text said 'attacker' (which I corrected to 'suspect'), possibly because the tweet says suspect in French, but is immediately followed by tweets from private individuals (not from La Presse) saying 'attacker' in English - most of our readers who bother to check this source will thus probably see the English mistranslation 'attacker' instead of the French 'suspect'. I leave it to others to decide whether this is now 'encyclopedic', and, if not, what to do about it. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The reporter in the TVA video clip basically says what's in the article text (i.e. one Arab, one Quebecois) in the first minute of the clip. Not seeing how NOTNEWS applies here. Unless you're suggesting that La Presse and TVA Nouvelles, and other sources reporting the same thing now (e.g. CBC) are unreliable, or that the identity of the perpetrators of one of Canada's worst mass shootings is unencyclopedic, I'm not sure how that would apply. There are potential BLP problems with content of this type, but here all the claims are sourced to reliable sources, are stated as being from those sources and not in Wikipedia's voice, and have their lack of official confirmation mentioned in the article. Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, just for the record, the TVA video clip (which hasn't changed) basically says in French 'two people of Quebecois origin, ... and two people of Arab origin, ...(more talk)... to confirm our story, two people of Quebecois and Arab origin' - in other words it appears confused, but may (or may not) be saying two people of both Quebec and Arab origin - such apparent confusion and ambiguity is hardly what one would normally describe as 'reliable' (as in 'reliable source'). The La Presse tweet may be consistent with either of the two different interpretions, since it only speaks of one of the suspects being of Moroccan origin (especially if we are correctly translating 'origine' as 'background', implying possibly multiple 'ancestry' rather than unique 'birthplace'). But, as already mentioned, this is just for the record, since I said I'd leave it to others to decide what to do about all this. And if CBC is actually reporting all this more reliably, it might be a good idea to add in that report in addition to, or in place of, one or both those reports. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Again just for the record, the tweet has now been removed by somebody else as an alleged violation of WP:RS (which seems correct, at least by my reading of the relevant sections of WP:RS). Meanwhile about 40 minutes ago the Washington Post was saying nothing about the suspects, while CBC News was saying:


 * A witness, who asked to remain anonymous, told CBC's French-language service Radio-Canada that two masked individuals entered the mosque.


 * "It seemed to me that they had a Québécois accent. They started to fire, and as they shot they yelled, 'Allahu akbar!' The bullets hit people that were praying. People who were praying lost their lives. A bullet passed right over my head," said the witness.


 * Note that this does NOT confirm that the attackers are of Arab origin. They are masked and speaking with a Quebec accent. The fact that they shout 'Allahu Akbar' may mean that they are Quebecers who have converted to Islam, or that they are non-Muslims trying to blame their crime on Islamists, but it is NOT CBC confirmation that one of them is of Arab origin. So we are currently just left with one source for that, and it is a source which appears ambiguous, confused, and self-contradictory. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. - article is in good shape. Worldwide covered incident.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This was called a terrorist attack by Trudeau. Any reason we don't call it that? Or is it only terrorism when it's Muslims pulling the trigger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.254.154 (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidents like this are often prematurely labeled as terrorist attacks, or may be treated like terrorist incidents as to engage special law enforcement provisions, but only until the motives of the shooters are figured out could we call it a terrorist attack. And that's not known at this stage. --M ASEM (t) 18:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] 2017 World Men's Handball Championship

 * Oppose A summary of the final will not suffice, there needs to be prose on the whole of the tournament. ITN/R or not, the article needs to have sufficient quality. Black Kite (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per BK. We need some actual text. Otherwise it doesn't look bad. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is not really even an article, just a collection of tables. No prose, hardly something we should ever consider posting to the main page I'm afraid.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I note that this wasn't posted last time it occurred in 2015, for the same reason. And that article actually had some prose; this one doesn't. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Australian Open

 * Comment the structure of the article seems odd compared to the previous years'; it's the same general layout but there's excess detail in places. It looks weird from that stance, and may need to be fixed to meet what other years have had. --M ASEM (t) 15:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably the main thing you're noticing is the day-by-day summaries section is not split into separate article like previous years. Additionally, the prose summaries of notable events is organized differently and bigger than previous years (not neccessarily a bad thing). - Samuel Wiki (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Procedural oppose the article hasn't been updated post-conclusion of the tournament. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Updated. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Still loads of sections without inline citations. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support: Looks pretty good to me. Obvious notability as one of tennis' four Majors. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Notable enough, but don't think the article is up to main page quality. For example the short prose update is squeezed into a list of trivia under a misleading "notable events" heading. AIR corn (talk) 06:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - the real news here is that both winners have extended their overall records, and that Federer in particular has made sporting history here. I don't have the time (so no snarky comments to do the work needed on the article, please), but I really hope someone will be able to do the work needed here (several of the last few tennis Grand Slams have failed to get into ITN because the work is not being done on the articles). Whether or not Federer wins another Slam this year, I suspect he will retire at some point relatively soon, and that really will be the end of an era. Carcharoth (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Non-notable event. Tennis has gotten so ridiculously stagnant with the same men & women's champions over the last 15-20 years that even the media is tired of covering it. In the US, Trump's immigration orders have gotten the bulk of the media attention this weekend; this was only a footnote. Aaaaaabbbbb111 (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/2017 Australian Open is thataway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong link, this should be the place: . This item is on ITNR, so opposing it on merit is pointless. Banedon (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose not a major event. 45.116.233.26 (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck, it's at ITN/R, which means if it meets quality criteria it will get posted. Mjroots (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support significant news headlines around the world; Federer and Nadal are considered two of the best tennis players of all time, and to have a five-set rematch at their age is unusual. Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This has been updated with significant prose for the singles and sourced per The Guardian match reports.Dustblower (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Still out of date (e.g. lots of "Matches start at 11:00 am, Night matches do not start before 7:00 pm") and sections of stats without a single citation, e.g. the ranking points changes has no verifiable reliable sources at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I fixed the problem with the phrasing and sourced the seeds, points, and rankings by Tennis Explorer.Dustblower (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The tense issue remains (at the bottom of all the schedule tables). The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What about the following phrase. "The day match session commences at 11:00 am local time, whilst the night match session commences at 7:00 pm local time."Dustblower (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, they've all already happened. These should all be past tense.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the tense issue. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Plan to Defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria

 * Oppose. A politician calling some plan a high priority agenda does not make it anything at all. ITN is for events, not plans. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Question How would this be posted since it's almost as old as the oldest blurb? Banedon (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. A remarkable pivot in foreign policy from the previous administration. Admirable, frankly. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:A3 (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Both going to be very stale as well as nothing enforcable, just stating an initiative to be planned out. --M ASEM (t) 15:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Stuart Timmons

 * Oppose, whilst notable enough for an article, his death does not seem to have been reported in the mainstream news, Stephen 12:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Per two RFC discussions, the existence of an article is a high enough threshold for RD. Please assess article quality only.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ITN's overall rules require that the nominated event be in the news. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That was a question I had on this too. He's notable but his death has not really be noted (LA Pride being the only major source I could find, and that's far too narrow for "news"). It is an interesting issue, but I would be tempted that the intent of the RFC is that as long as the notable standalone article is there, and the death is in an RS even if not "news", that RD would fit the intent that we have from that RFC. If we had to use a forum post, for example, or a standard newspaper short obit, that would be different. --M ASEM (t) 19:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts. I've added this obituary. I think we could WP:IGNOREALLRULES in this case and then try to reach consensus to change ITN rules. As a member of WikiProject LGBT Studies, I am struck by the way our current rules seem to reinforce the heteronormativity, if not the homophobia, of the mainstream press. A similar argument could be made about RDs from Zambia or Paraguay--unlikely to be on the front page of The Wall Street Journal, but as long as they have good articles, they should appear on the main page IMO. It seems amoral to reinforce the discriminatory and exclusionary biases of the Western press via ITN rules.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I find an obit in the LA Times, which is pretty mainstream. SusunW (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. User:Stephen: Do you formally support this now please?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support One of the films is not sourced, but I hope that should be trivial to fix, but otherwise the "lack of being in the news" discussed above is resolved with the LATimes obit. --M ASEM (t) 22:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A couple of references needed and this is good to go, now that it is 'In the News'. And please, this has nothing whatsoever to do with homophobia, so it's extremely disappointing to see that card played.  We had another recent example of Mark Fisher, who had an article but no-one reported his death until several days later.  Stephen 22:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the media is inherently heteronormative/homophobic. That was my point. I didn't say ITN was.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You said "our current [ITN] rules seem to reinforce the heteronormativity, if not the homophobia, of the mainstream press." Reinforcing rules is an active behaviour. Stephen 23:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not actively. Passively. But that's inevitable unless one lives in a gay bubble.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now for the same reason as Bland at this point. The two sources alluded to are local LA media.  If this is in the news it should be covered more broadly than by those who knew the man. μηδείς (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Los Angeles Times is a major newspaper though, isn't it? It has a daily circulation of 653,868.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, the death has coverage in reliable sources so any opposition on that point is, well, pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you're here--feel free to let us know formally if you support or oppose this...Zigzig20s (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak support still one [cn] in there, I made a few tweaks to the article, but otherwise it's ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 08:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Vatican forces the leader of the Sovereign Order of Malta to resign in condoms row

 * Oppose for now mainly on article quality. Referencing is very poor with whole sections lacking a citation. Beyond which I am concerned by the wording in the blurb. As a matter of private opinion, I entirely agree that one sovereign country has effectively overthrown the government of another. However neither side in this dispute is characterizing things in that language and the wording of the relevant section does not support it. All of which said this is beyond unusual, to the point of virtually unknown in modern political history. When was the last time a Pope deposed another head of state? This is definitely ITN material, but it needs work and unless the section is rewritten with solid sourcing, the blurb will need to be changed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Interesting to history buffs (like me) but of little general significance. Sca (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, conditional on article quality. NOT just of interest to history buffs, but potentially of interest to over a billion Catholics (and quite a few non-Catholics) worldwide in terms of what it says about the unusual measures the present Pope is prepared to take in dealing with various kinds of internal problems in the Church. It is arguably ultimately also about the Church and contraception (and thus global population and the global environment and poverty and sex and health and Women's Rights, etc), since the Pope was opposing the dismissal of the Chancellor of the order by its Grand Master "for allowing the distribution of condoms in a medical project for the poor".Tlhslobus (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Could an altblurb give some indication of what the dispute is actually about? Tlhslobus (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've now added an altblurb mentioning that it's partly about contraceptives. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's bigger than that. This is the latest battle in the Catholic Church's ongoing civil war between progressives aligned with Pope Francis and conservatives. Among the latter Cardinal Burk has been seen as a leader even before his de-facto banishment from the Vatican, where he was one of the most powerful figures in the Church, to the relatively obscure and ceremonial post of Chaplain to the KoM. There is a lot going on here that people who don't pay close attention to what's going on in the Catholic Church aren't seeing. It is one of the biggest power struggles in centuries with the future course of the RCC being the stakes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Username give away your views much, Ad Orientem? Why do I suspect you are a partisan of Cardinal Sarah? (All in jest!) --Varavour (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm not Catholic, but I do try to keep up on things. And yes, I'm sympathetic to Card. Sarah among others. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support As a sovereign entity, leadership changes are on par with leadership changes in sovereign states, which generally make ITN. --Varavour (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support an encyclopedically interesting and notable event. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi TRM. Are you endorsing the nomination with the article in its current condition? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm endorsing the newsworthy element of the story. I'm trying to rely on admins to gauge encyclopedic quality from now on.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Tu es homo summa fide... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ita vero, but some of your fellow admins are fully focused on getting me blocked, thanks !   The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Methinks that should perhaps read either "Es homo summae fidei" or "Es homo fidelissimus", and I can't even remember whether "Ita vero" is correct or not. Sigh! It looks like I wasted 6 years of my life studying a dead language to no other purpose than to make me unable to resist the temptation to be absurdly pedantic over 40 years later :( Tlhslobus (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The section about the Festing's resignation is now reasonable referenced (some 30 notes). As to the background is concerned, I think alt-blurb 2 gives a fair picture - this is basically a conflict between the "liberals" (Pope Francis and Boeselage) and the "conservatives" (Cardinal Burke and Festing). "Modernists" vs. "traditionalists" may be preferable concepts as the term "liberal" might be rather misleading as to the policy of Pope Francis. --Bruzaholm (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd not use the term "modernist" which is a pejorative among Catholics, given that modernism is a condemned heresy since at least the reign of Pius X. We don't want to be calling the Pope a heretic. Well, at least not in wiki-voice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think condoms (or contraceptives) may be both more meaningful and more interesting to the average reader (as well as avoiding any dispute over what the sides should be called) - 'liberals v conservatives' can probably be used to describe almost all disputes within the Church (eg child sex abuse, whom to canonize, women priests, attitudes to gays, stem cell research, euthanasia, abortion, etc) and is thus not very informative. Although the dispute inevitably grew to embrace other issues such as the extent of papal authority, etc, it was triggered by a row over condoms. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article quality is not what's required and the story is fast fading from public consciousness outside of certain circles. It's already footnote material. And I don't think any of the blurbs catch the essence. Agree that "liberal" is a poor word choice. Francis defeats a challenge to his leadership from forces of the old guard. (I jest.) Better: Pope takes control of Order of Malta, defeating those who ignored his advice to avoid publicity and drama. Sad! Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Christopher Bland

 * Comment Poorly sourced throughout. --M ASEM (t) 19:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * B-list connected upperclass sinecure holder with a long-standing interest in the cultivation of wine? I'd like to see that this is in the news outside the industry where he worked. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I see plenty of coverage of him when he was part of BT in other sources (like NYTimes), pre-death. There probably does need to be much more added about his business acumen here, but certainly that exists. --M ASEM  (t) 02:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Covered in The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, the BBC, the London Evening Standard. It's more than enough, thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Thanks"? Hehe, you so crazeh.  Whenever a cameraman at a local news station dies, they have a 30-second segment on him at the end of the broadcast because he's part of the industry.  That doesn't make his passing "in the news".  Likewise, listing four London media outlets that cover Bland's death does not make the media man's death News. μηδείς (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, yes it does, thanks again! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. contingent on improving the sources. The grounds for qualification is quality of article providing that the subject of the article is verifiable enough to justify an article. That qualification has been met. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind with the size of WP, we can have bio articles on non-notable people that can last even up to the point of RD, and for ITN purposes, questioning that notability like Medeis offered is completely fair game. So key is that the notability for the standalone article is clear, not just the existance of one. --M ASEM (t) 04:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As a former chairman of the BBC, he seems notable enough to me. He also was the chairman of London Weekend Television, British Telecommunications and the Royal Shakespeare Company. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Referencing needs significant improvement. Stephen 00:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Many Clouds

 * Comment Early part of the racing career section is undersourced. --M ASEM (t) 15:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks OK now.  Tigerboy1966  19:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support article is in good shape and is ready to post, if others agree. BencherliteTalk 20:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support yep, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Ongoing: Trump's 1st days in office (previously called Trump's 1st 100 days)

 * Oppose Goodness, we're only 8 days in. First 100 is a bit ambitious... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 05:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * First 100 is just the name of the relevant article (and First 100 has conventionally been seen as important for every new president for a very long time). But we don't have to keep it in Ongoing for 100 days if we don't want to - if accepted, anybody can later nominate it for removal at any stage for whatever reasons seem sufficient to them. And I have no problem with the short name shown in Ongoing being changed to Trump's 1st days or Trump's 1st days in office if people prefer that. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Absolutely not. The emphasis on this first 100 days is still the lingering problem with the media reacting to Trump, and featuring it in ongoing is problematic. If there are any actions he takes that have a significant and immediate impact, that single story could be nominated. --M ASEM (t) 06:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - wait, is this template not named "in the news"? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - whether or not you agree with them, Trump's actions are unarguably having a serious and worldwide impact. Furthermore, they're all over the news. This is what this template is supposed to be about. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's "news" and then there's what the media is doing in covering Trump, which is over-sensationalist because the bulk of the media (which lean left) still are acting like sore losers from the election. There are some things Trump is doing that are making stirs in the international community (eg the Mexican president cancelling his visit after Trump signed the immigration-related executive orders), but the media's pulling at any thread they can here. And at WP and particularly at ITN, we have to avoid that rhetoric. --M ASEM (t) 14:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Journalists may "lean left", but media doesn't. Media leans corporate and click bait, not left. "Sore losers", huh. I rather think banning refugees and Muslims is unconstitutional. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. 1) He has not been president for 100 days yet. 2) "First 100 days" is not news in itself. 3) We've already posted two items relating to him becoming president. --Tataral (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I agree with Jayron, a bit ambitious. The "first 100 days" is a media creation to give its current reporting on Trump an integrity and gravitas that it would otherwise lack. But we all know that "first 100 days" is an assessment that should responsibly occur after the events of the "first 100 days," not during. At least, that's the perspective that a credible encyclopedia should operate from. The nominator's proposal was obviously made in good faith, but the target article's updates will become too unwieldy and unmanageable over time. Also, there will be continuous debate and controversy among Wikipedia editors over what items should and should not be listed in the first 100 days. Not to mention that Trump's own advisors and strategists (Kellyanne Conway et. al.) continue to provide the public with "alternative facts" that the mainstream media is not considering in its own reporting. Christian Roess (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On that basis we would never have any article in Ongoing, since we couldn't assess it properly until after it was no longer Ongoing.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Although he's been making some "yuge" waves with policy changes and such, I don't see a need to highlight coverage of his administration. Yes, it's inherently newsworthy but nothing has happened as of yet that would be worth posting as a blurb by itself (the only one close would be withdrawal from TPP but even that is contentious ITN-wise). He's angered people, made several executive orders, and set up plans to make more changes as would be expected from a controversial new president. I wouldn't even say this is an article worth postponing posting. This would be a case of either we post it or we don't. The first 100 days is "ongoing", but the concept of it is meant to be covered after the fact by which point it will be likely be far too vast to effectively cover in a blurb (but now I'm going into crystal ball territory) .I'm rather tired at the moment and not sure if I'm being clear enough, but hopefully I am. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with you that there will be no point in posting this in ITN after 100 days, and I have not suggested anything of the kind. Meanwhile what he is doing seems far more newsworthy (judging by coverage in reliable sources) than what we currently have in Ongoing (the battle for Mosul), so our readers may find it strange that we have no mention of it. They may also find it rather POV that, apart from his election, we have not seen fit to say anything about all the many Trump news stories except post the anti-trump Women's March story. Obviously we should not post the proposed article unless it currently meets our quality standards, and if and when the article deteriorates below our quality standards it can then be removed, but it seems to make little sense to fail to post it now because its quality might eventually drop - on that basis no article could ever be posted to Ongoing.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose while it's amusing to see this trainwreck gathering pace, there's no such thing as "Trump's 1st 100 days" or similar. This is synthesis and contrived.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per others above; if we're going to either add the first 100 days of the political leader of every nation to ongoing, or leave "Presidency of Donald Trump" up for the next four(eight) years, okay, but we're not. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support this makes news around the world. Bias is overstated: "when the US sneezes, the world catches a cold". It's sensible to feature something that will have major impact on the US's health. Banedon (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Every tweet Trump sends makes the news. Should we have a permanent "Presidency of Donald Trump" link on Ongoing for the next four years? 331dot (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Routine coverage drops after a while. We can remove it then. Banedon (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support regardless if you like the man, or if you are from the US, he has proven to do quite a lot of things in a very short amount of time that no other person in recent memory has. The amount of impactful events is larger than say the Syrian civil war at its peak or the Olympics. This is the definition of ongoing, regardless of your political preferences. And this can be taken down once his executive orders slow down. Nergaal (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Liking Trump or not liking him is not the issue. Ongoing is not an American politics ticker.(I say that as an American)  It is very standard for a new President to start implementing their agenda- since that's what they were sent there to do.  Donald Trump has pledged to 'drain the swamp' so everything he does will get news coverage.  '100 days' is an artificial and arbitrary measure(created by FDR if I'm not mistaken).  Unless we are prepared to have a permanent link for Trump on Ongoing, we shouldn't put it now.  331dot (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless, of course, we add Brexit to ongoing too! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Quiet there at the back. Stop causing trouble.  GoldenRing (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Dude I've already said this should stay until his stuff slows down. If he manages to do this for 100 days keep it up, if not take it down. The stuff he is doing now is more relevant than the protests we posted. Nergaal (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , actually I've already said in the TPP discussion that I think we should probably also have Brexit in Ongoing, but it currently seems much less important than the Trump issue (admittedly not helped by the unfortunate '100 days' bit). But that would properly be discussed in a separate Brexit nom (which I doubt if I will bother to attempt unless and until the current far more important nom (or a possible renom as Trump's 1st days in office, see my comment below) succeeds, which currently seems pretty unlikely). Tlhslobus (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support as "first days". Here's how the NYT puts it, " If other new occupants of the White House wanted to be judged by their first 100 days in office, President Trump seems intent to be judged by his first 100 hours. No president in modern times, if ever, has started with such a flurry of initiatives on so many fronts in such short order."  The BBC has Trump's first week: Well, that was intense, "The BBC website has published more than 200 stories and videos about or relating to President Trump since inauguration day.  It's been a busy week." Andrew D. (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support coverage of ongoing disaster. Topic is constantly in the worldwide news for outrageous executive actions that defy legal and social norms. Jehochman Talk 12:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose This smells too much of soapboxing and righting great wrongs, especially given some of the supports above. GoldenRing (talk) 13:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Jay and those voicing similar views. It's an artificial construct. Future DT acts may be notable individually. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment To answer the above, the opposes smell of whitewashing.  Feh, this sort of argument is meaningless.  There are two bases to evaluate:  (1) Is it in the news?  Answer: very, very much, all around the world.  (2)  Is the article good enough quality?  Nobody has asserted that it isn't. Jehochman Talk 14:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just being "in the news" is not sufficient, as we do consider the type of news too. Worldwide media commonly post stories that gain a lot of coverage but that we do not consider for a number of reasons. Repeatedly we have to remind editors that ITN is not a news ticker. --M ASEM (t) 15:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not the criteria for inclusion, as you very well know. GoldenRing (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose mostly per Tataral. There are significant news on individual stories relating Donald Trump's presidency but definitely not such thing like 'first 100 days' (albeit significant from a historical perspective to merit a Wikipedia article). Hence, we should judge the newsworthiness of individual stories on their own merits instead of an umbrella term compiling information that will have to come in from the future.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Would reflect the substantial (and probably unique) worldwide media coverage given to the early days of his presidency. There are obviously a large number of people seeking detailed information on the Trump presidency, but "First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency" is probably not an immediately intuitive article title or search term (unlike, e.g., Inauguration of Donald Trump). Having a link from the main page would allow our readers to directly navigate to that article, rather than having to stumble on a link to it elsewhere. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> IgnorantArmies  (talk)  15:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is seriously not that hard to search "donald trump" and within one link get to his presidency and aspects to that. ITN should not be a page to help with shortcuts. --M ASEM (t) 15:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly. For example, I could support a blurb regarding a separate article about Friday's "extreme vetting" order shutting down immigration by certain classes of refugees. Sca (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Navigational assistance is ITN's primary purpose: "The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." Andrew D. (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Directing readers to featured content is not navigation assistance. If anything, Portal:Current Events is the closest thing to navigational assistance on the front page and even then that is still curated. --M ASEM (t) 19:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Because so much of the opposition has understandably focused on the problems with 100 days, I am now considering closing this nom and reopening it as Trump's 1st days in office, which could be shortened to Trump's 1st days for its short name in Ongoing. If nothing else, I still think we are doing quite a lot of unnecessary damage to Wikipedia's credibility by omitting any mention of the main Ongoing news story in most quality news sources (as well as appearing thoroughly POV by having only included the anti-Trump Women's March in ITN). However, given that we would presumably still be stuck with '100 days' in the target article's title, such a renomination may prove to be a waste of time, so I think I would probably prefer to have one or two indications of support here for such a renomination before attempting it. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The first 100 days of any (not just Trump) political leader's term is an artificial construct. If there are individual developments of Trump's presidency that are notable - then they should be nominated. However, In the News is not an American news ticker, and it's silly to suggest that the day-to-day actions of the American executive branch are worthy of an ongoing item. Gfcvoice (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the '100 days' bit is an artificial construct with which we unfortunately seem stuck (at least in the target article's title, though it doesn't have to be mentioned in the short wording in Ongoing). But I don't agree that 'it's silly to suggest that the day-to-day actions of the American executive branch are worthy of an ongoing item" when those items are dominating most reliable news sources to the extent that they currently are. On the contrary, I think it rather 'silly' (or at least unnecessarily rather damaging to Wikipedia's credibility among its readers) that our In The News section is managing to systematically ignore any mention of the current main Ongoing news story in most quality news sources (with the lone exception of the anti-Trump Woman's March story, which thus also makes us appear thoroughly POV in our choice of stories, in violation of one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia - by contrast the suggested Ongoing item, covering all Trump's actions for better or worse, seems thoroughly NPOV and consistent with our 5 Pillars).Tlhslobus (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also 3 to 5 unchanging words is Ongoing is NOT a "news ticker". And it would potentially save us plenty of unnecessary arguments over which individual items were or were not worth posting. Those 2 arguments are presumably partly why we have Ongoing in the first place.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Ongoing the first 100 days seems like a little too much for me, but there is newsworthy stuff happening. Maybe a blurb about the refugee/Muslim ban and/or Mexican Wall would pass muster. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, Muboshgu. I've now withdrawn '100 days' from the suggested wording for Ongoing ('100 days' were only ever there because that's what the relevant article is called, a name with which we are probably unfortunately stuck). The trouble with Muslim ban/ Mexican Wall items is that they are potentially an endless source of POV disputes which Ongoing is presumably partly intended to prevent, and meanwhile we are unnecessarily damaging Wikipedia's credibility by omitting any mention of the Ongoing story which is currently dominating most quality news sources.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment (and remaining with opposition to posting this item) I am confused about the name change of this nomination from "Trump's 1st 100 days" to "Trump's 1st days in office". I doubt anyone's opinion on the nomination would change given the minor change. Also, does this invalidate any comment from editors (both in support and in opposition) made before the name change of the nomination? For what it's worth, I still oppose the posting of this item. If the nominator wants to move away from the concept of "100 days", then why is this still the target article of the nomination? There are perfectly good alternative articles at Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump. Gfcvoice (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your very useful comment, Gfcvoice. I'd be absolutely delighted to change the target article to either of the two you suggest. Which would you prefer, and do you think this should be done in this nom, or as a new nom (if as a new nom, I'd be happy to let you make the nom yourself, and take the credit, but I think you may also be still opposed to these noms)? Tlhslobus (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're looking to move away from the arbitrary concept of 100 days then yes I think you should close this nomination and create a new one. Either article Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump or Presidency of Donald Trump (or maybe even both articles) would be a more appropriate target. Yes, I am still opposed to the nomination, so it's probably best that you nominate this yourself. Gfcvoice (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A GF nom., but there will be so many DT-related events drawing coverage that a shotgun approach, time-limited or not, seems impractical. Individual articles, or perhaps multiple related articles, would be more workable as targets. Leave the big picture to wonkdom. Sca (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Note I've opened a discussion on how to handle the Trump problem on the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Trump's executive order on immigration

 * Oppose Controversial, but nothing significant yet. --M ASEM (t) 23:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Define "nothing significant yet". Lots of people are stranded abroad. The ACLU suing. There are protests at major U.S. airports]. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in the first 24 hours there are already widespread reports of people being stranded or detained. Among other impact listed in the article, I'd say that's a significant material impact. HaEr48 (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This is why an ongoing section might make sense, since there will be lots of news like this. Not that I would come here for such news myself. μηδείς (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Extreme foreign policy implications.--WaltCip (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I do note that there is foreign commentary on this issue, but it is crystal-balling at this stage to state there are implications to post this. --M ASEM (t) 01:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Iran's already announced retaliatory measures. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On day one, sources already reported hundreds of people being stranded and/or detained. It's certainly not "crystal-balling" to state that there are implications. HaEr48 (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And now a Federal Court has blocked enforcement of it on the ACLU challenge, this becomes more a non-story outside of internal US politics until the case is resolved. --M ASEM (t) 02:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Read Verge's updates to that story since you posted here—it's a very limited stay. Only people already in the US are covered by it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Reading from the content (not just title) of that link, it seems the court decision only affect those currently detained, not exactly nullifying the executive order. HaEr48 (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - international effects, with Iran's reciprocation and more. Media coverage is everywhere. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support with updated blurb to reflect ongoing protests at U.S. airports. Article is developing nicely and should be presentable soon.  Sounder Bruce  03:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We should just accept the inevitable and give this asshole his own fucking "ongoing" section for the next 4 years. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. This has global effects, with citizens of these seven countries being unable to travel to the U.S. Yeah, maybe we should give this guy his own section... epicgenius (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: The article has been renamed to Executive Order 13769, but IMO the cited references are not satisfactory - websites like that might well have gotten the number from Wikipedia. Suggest renaming the article to its former, longer title before posting, unless someone added a better source for the number "13769". HaEr48 (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Renamed back to old title. HaEr48 (talk)


 * Support Major international kerfuffle, will play out in the courts. The blurb might want to be updated to reflect that a judge stayed parts of the executive order. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted alt2. I took out "of the United States" for conciseness (since the country is already mentioned elsewhere in the blurb), and I added a link to Darweesh v. Trump - the article seems to be in good shape. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per everyone above and especially per the incontrovertible rebuttals of Masem's arguments. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * All 3 blurbs have missed a key detail. While they have the who, what, where, and when explained, they all missed including "why," which is next in importance to the "what." The protests and legal challenge, naturally expected, are least relevant, IMO. --Light show (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Post-Posting Comment Taking this posting along with our earlier posting of the Anti-Trump Women's march (incidentally a posting which I supported, and an article and subsidiary article on which I did quite a bit of work), it currently rather looks like we're usually going to post Trump-related matters where there are anti-Trump protests, and ignore them when there aren't, which will end up making us seem thoroughly POV in our choice of stories, seemingly contrary at least to the spirit of one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. But I had to withdraw my first attempt partly intended to prevent this by suggesting adding Trump's 1st Days in Office to Ongoing (partly because I made the mistake of targeting the article about his 1st 100 days), and I don't have the heart to try again with one of two better target articles (Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump). But I just thought I'd briefly mention it here, just in case somebody else might want to have a go, perhaps when the current story falls off ITN a few days from now. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. I agree that this topic should be included on our front page. Commentators have described this as a "Constitutional Crisis", and there is no doubt that this order (if enforced) has "global consequences." I know the blurb is already long, but I support saying more about the temporary restraining order. Perhaps we can say something like this: Donald Trump signs an executive order prohibiting the citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US; a federal judge blocks portions of the order, finding a "strong likelihood" of constitutional violations. A copy of the judge's order is posted in this article from Mother Jones. I'm sure there are more articulate blurbs than the one I suggested, but the very least, we should provide more information about the restraining order. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support He wasn't going to be on the main page until there were "protests" about his inauguration. At this rate I have a feeling Trump will be on the main page often considering how much uproar he will be causing.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support There is huge international interest in this - it is leading the global news and, with the chaos and protests, is likely to remain in the headlines. It is not POV to regard large protests as contributing to the notability of an event. Neljack (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment well that was well and truly rushed through while Europe slept, wasn't it? And already out of date considering US judge temporarily halts deportations.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Where in the ITN guidelines does point to a time minimum at ITNC? I've read the guidelines and haven't seen one? 2) See the replies to Masem above; it's not "out of date" at all. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, minimum time limits have been discussed on numerous occasions to no avail. It's just ironic that it's that Trump obsession again.  Despite the fact the blurb is too long and now incorrect, it's interesting that it was posted so quickly even though this is really one of those stories which could have used some outside (i.e. out of the US-universe) perspective.  Never mind, the damage is done, we've started down a long and tedious path of posting anything controversial that Trump does, and that seems to be likely to last for, ooh, four years. We should rename the section "In Trump's News", it would still be able to use all the ITN redirects, so that's one positive thing.   The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. On the substantive point you've made, how is the current blurb inaccurate and how would you reword it? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How is the blurb now incorrect? As I understand it, the judge's order is a temporary restraining order prohibiting the US from deporting ~100 people who were caught in transit when the order was signed, until further proceedings can take place.  Trump's prohibition on further travelers from those countries remains in place (thus far).  Dragons flight (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In so far as it doesn't tell the whole story, i.e. that a court has already suspended the ban on those stuck in airports. Trump's first legal defeat.  Arguably as or more notable than the swath of pointy executive orders.  Anyway, you may continue this debate at ERRORS where it's been reported for some time!   The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. Isn't it time we turned the text orange for Trump's storylines? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – Re: posting Trump related news every time he does something controversial or outrageous. It's not going to work for us over here at ITN. I agree with Floquenbeam and The Rambling Man, among others: When will it end? Because if we go down this road, it will never end. Trump is always going to make front page news around the world. Trump is, and always will be, "in the news"? So no news there. What is news to many in the US and around the world is the rapid and unstoppable decline of the United States. Can't hide that fact in plain sight anymore when you have someone like Trump, who is the ongoing and visible sign of a country in rapid decline. That's the real and "ongoing" story, here. That's the real headline, and it has been for some time. Only now is the mainstream media catching up to that fact. Like I said, it's kinda hard to ignore when you have someone like Trump, who is a daily and visible (often outrageous) reminder of a country and society in steep, even precipitous, decline. Christian Roess (talk)
 * , does this mean you would now be in favour of a Donald Trump article in Ongoing, and, if so, which one, and starting when (such as now, or when the current item falls out of ITN)? Also would you be prepared to nominate it? (I'm almost certain I won't be nominating again, but I'd almost certainly support, even though it may just prove a waste of time and effort). Tlhslobus (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The updated blurb is a bit misleading. The rulings only prevent people who were in transit from being deported. They don't, as far as I can tell, actually lift the restrictions on crossing the border. Smurrayinchester 12:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Boston Globe says "Judge Allison Burroughs and Magistrate Judge Judith Dein imposed a seven-day restraining order against Trump’s executive order, clearing the way for lawful immigrants from the seven barred nations – Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Syria – to enter the US... The ruling prohibits federal officials from detaining or deporting immigrants and refugees with valid visas or green cards or forcing them to undergo extra security screenings based solely on Trump’s order. The judges also instructed Customs and Border Protection to notify airlines overseas that it is safe to put immigrants on US-bound flights." which sounds like it's business as usual now for a week. So I'd say the wording is spot on. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Complaints about this being posted too quickly or out of step with ITN guidelines seem off base. There were 9 supports and 1 oppose at the time of the posting. The "stay" is only for a small slice of folks who happened to be traveling at the time of the executive order, so the EO still significantly affects folks for the next 3-4 months. A move like this in the US is unprecedented in the modern era, so this is not a case of a Trump story "every time" making it to the front page. If one really looks at the history of Trump-related stories in the ITN box, it syncs with what large mainstream media outlets of all languages are publishing on their front pages. Also, the lament about the one line blurb not exhaustively detailing all the particulars of the story is odd. We don't demand that of other stories, so it should not be a criticism for this one. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 14:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * One way or another there's a real determination to get anything Trump into ITN, it's obvious that closing the previous nomination and then opening a new one as the US opens for business was going to result in a landslide "US US US" vote. This is the beginning of "In Trump's News" as we know it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As I have said before several times and alluded to by TRM here, stories that have principally regional importance need vetting by editors from all parts of the English world for ITNC posting if they otherwise don't fall into RD or ITNR. This ITNC was started very late and was posted in the early morning local times before any European editors would reasonably have a chance to comment. So the consensus to post is likely from only considering NA editors. Second, the story was rapidly changing over time (with multiple block orders in place); we routinely wait on things like natural or man-made disasters to make sure the core details are set before posting blurbs, generally only having to update them to increase counts. This should have been done here so that, presuming consensus to post with more time given to discussions, we would not have to be changing the blurb as the story developed. Key to keep in mind is that ITN is not a news ticker, nor WP a newspaper - we are not required to be up to date, and we prefer being "late" for a better quality result than rush something of poor quality to the front page, even if it is just a blurb statement in question. We can cover current events but we should be writing them from an encyclopedic point of view: if in this case that the challenges shut down any attempt for Trump to carry out this immigration ban, this becomes a footnote and far less importance in the long run. A lot of what we have in our articles are better suited for Wikinews which was set up to allow editors to cover breaking news, whereas we have to take the longer view. That particularly applies to ITN, and hence why we avoid knee-jerk reaction stories like this.
 * But the large elephant in the room is that the media hates Trump, and Trump hates the media. We are going to have a systematic bias around any major presidential actions Trump takes in the next four years because the media, broadly, do not like that he won the election. Every action he does will be under a microscope, even compared to a usual President, and there is a lot of sensational reporting going on that does not make for good encyclopedic material. Add to that that there are editors on WP that are also not shy about their own contempt for Trump. Most do keep those opinions in check and maintain proper NPOV, but there still remains a good number of editors that also share the media's concerns for Trump and let that judge their writing style which does cause NPOV/NOR/BLP problems aplenty. There's also the same by those that support Trump, albeit in smaller numbers. In either case, we have to be aware that those views can also influence ITN and in this situation anything relating to Trump. ITN needs to ask "if any other President/World Leader did this action, would the press have covered if this much?" If the answer is no, then that's just the media is just focusing on the action because it's Trump, and we should be very cautious about posting it. --M ASEM (t) 14:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't propose or vote on the other Trump blurbs, but for this one my reason for proposing is not Trump but the impact on people from those countries. A lot of people from those countries live in the United States with green card, student visa or whatnot, and the fact that the order closed the border on them is in my opinion a huge deal, regardless of who's president. The sources said that 100+ people were detained and hundreds were stopped from boarding just in one day, imagine what the impact would be for the full 90 days. Then we have international reactions, protests, and legal challenges (all covered by RS and the article). In fact I would say "Donald Trump" is the least interesting part of the blurb, and I don't think I'd mind if we could find a way to shorten the blurb to exclude him. Now there are court decisions which suspends parts of the order, and that is interesting, but we need to see how the situation develops and impact the blurb-worthyness of this event. HaEr48 (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support – Probably will be big news for quite some time pending judicial moves. Sca (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - The two main points of opposition are (1) Trump keeps making the headlines, so (implicit) every time he makes the headlines is no longer "real" news, and (2) Trump stories are US-centric. To the first, a major point of foreign policy, instantly overturning previous policy decisions (rather than a grandfathered introduction, which is the usual way of introducing major policy changes, is not on the same vernier range as variations on the pussy-gate theme. To the second, Trump's actions affect a significant number of UK citizens, since dual citizenships are affected, and 12.7% of the UK population (2011 census) were born outside the UK, roughly 350,000 of them from the listed countries. For context, this means that approximately 0.5% of the total UK population are now unable to enter the U.S. on the specific basis of this executive order. (The UK has allowed dual citizenships since 1949, so it always exists de facto with new immigrants unless explicitly renounced or immigrating from a country where dual citizenship is not allowed.) Clearly the directive catches quite a few people travelling from other countries, but I focus on the UK, since we are on English-language Wikipedia, the main complaint involved Europe, and the UK is the only English-speaking union in Europe. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are plenty of Trump stories ready to take over "In Trump's News" section of Wikipedia. He'll keep on making these outlandish orders, and people will continue to protest about it.  Does that mean ITN needs to become "In Trump's News"?  No.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We should judge them on case-by-case basis and how widespread the impact is. This one I think warrants ITN, regardless of whether it's related to Trump or not. HaEr48 (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Consider that the obvious corollary of your statement, Rambling Man, is that because so many things Trump make the mass news, nothing Trump should ever make ITN ... no matter how extreme the effect. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Arthur H. Rosenfeld

 * Comment. So we've more than doubled the length of the page and it is looking a lot better.  I need to take a break for a while, but will come back to add more later.  I think we will have it in a good state for posting before too long.  Dragons flight (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Length and sourcing are fine. --M ASEM (t) 14:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: Article is in good shape. It's not every day that a highly-respected energy physicist did more than just talk about global warming, and saved us a $billion while doing it. --Light show (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment the article is at Arthur H. Rosenfeld so shouldn't that be the name we use in ITN? If we use Art then arguably we should be moving the article to the "common name" if that's actually the case. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm probably a little too close to the issue to judge fairly which name is more common, but I don't think either is a terrible choice. Probably just use Arthur unless the article gets renamed.  Dragons flight (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it wasn't a criticism, just a note that we normally post the items by their article name (excluding dab caveats, of course). If there's good grounds for Arthur H. to become Art, I'm all for moving the article.  Or at least, all for someone else moving the article!  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Clicking on Art and ending up on an Arthur article comes across as an error. For the time being, unless the article name is changed, I (boldly) changed the article name for the RD to match. --Light show (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 00:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Buchi Emecheta

 * Weak oppose Support - until a few things get more attention so that article is at a minimum quality standard. Ie., the section "Early life" needs a citation(s), and the list of her books under the "Works" section needs a citation(s), or at least ISBN's. But I do have a question about the "References" section: why is it included here? I ask because none of the "references" listed is used or cited in the article itself. I'm guessing this section needs to be renamed "Secondary literature." But then the question remains: why are these works listed and not others? Why are these particular "secondary" sources considered authoritative, and not others? - Christian Roess (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - referencing issues have been resolved. &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 12:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * nice work, and thank you. The article's quality looks decent now. I changed my vote above. Christian Roess (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support I glanced at this before but hadn't commented but saw sourcing issues. But at this point the sourcing is now fixed and looks ready to go (Only oddity, not critical, is that in the list of articles he wrote, only one has an article title, the rest just give the publication. If the articles are untitled, that's okay, but those titles should be provided). --M ASEM (t) 14:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John Hurt

 * Support: Notable, but most importantly article is properly sources (but I will take care of sourcing for needed areas) and article is being updated to reflect his recent death. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are gaps in the filmography - fortunately most is sourced to TCM, but there's still a lot of appearances w/o sources and I did catch a few cn's in the body. --M ASEM (t) 03:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I already covered the cn's in the article. Let me cover the filmography. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Some bits of his personal life still give at least the appearance of being undersourced. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: Article is in very good shape. It's a sad irony that the more an actor has done, the less likely they make it ITN. All the blue-linked films are good enough, and the few unlinked films or tv roles are unimportant and can be ignored. Had he only been in a few major films and tv shows, instead of 200-plus, the article would be near perfect, IMO, with its 64 cites. --Light show (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support the substantial filmography has been forked out to another article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - per Light Show. Jus  da  fax   07:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note He died on the 25th - note added to the template. Black Kite (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 North India cold wave

 * Weak support we posted the European cold spell which killed scores, but this, in India, is somewhat different. The article needs a little bit of polishing, those sources are terribly formatted, some unreferenced claims, but the notability of the news item is without question.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support international coverage is quite limited and the article is pretty bad too. But it's something, and judging from the list of references in the article, has dominated regional news. Banedon (talk) 10:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted, will not be there for long. Stephen 02:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Lindy Delapenha

 * Support not seeing any major issues with this at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Stephen 22:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Metallic hydrogen created in the lab

 * Weak oppose They key is the metastable nature- right now the sample they made is sitting between two diamonds to keep the high pressure on it; if they release that pressure and the material remains solid, that's the breakthrough. It doesn't seem to have really been a question of making metallic hydrogen, but how stable they could make it to observe it long enough to validate that it is metallic hydrogen. I do note that the article could probably explain more about this paper's result since it doesn't catch this subtly (that's its not yet proven metastable). --M ASEM (t) 23:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - seems obvious to me. Quoting the The Independent article, "This is the holy grail of high-pressure physics". Banedon (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Leaning support. Really tough one this. I can't find any fault in anything either Masem or Banedon say. For balance the very same article Banedon quotes goes on to state "But the prospect of this bright future could be at risk if the scientists’ next step – to establish whether the metal is stable at normal pressures and temperatures – fails to go as hoped.." But what leans me towards supporting is on the grounds that this is a long sought-after scientific feat in its own right, and that this would be true even if it's ultimately found that the material's practical potential is non-existent or not as hoped-for. Scientists had been looking to demonstrate metallic hydrogen for a good 80 years or so. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support NYT quotes an awful lot of skeptical solid-state physicists - but then again, this is in the news and if someone does confirm the result, the second discovery won't be in the news. I've added a slightly more non-committal altblurb. Smurrayinchester 09:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and metallic form has only been theorized. This is highly relevant for example to the core of Jupiter and other gas giants, and may be relevant to star cores also. Nergaal (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb on the merits as a notable discovery in chemistry/physics; Masem is correct that the article could do a better job of explaining this. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Strictly speaking, the experiment with deuterium last year actually did this first (as it is an isotope of hydrogen), but the common parlance of these things and the trouble in conveying this distinction in a blurb, and the impact of this finding on normal hydrogen, as opposed to rarely-occurring deuterium, makes me want to overlook that very slight inaccuracy.128.214.53.104 (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a good science story and I see a strong support here. I will wait until the cn tags are fixed, then ready to post. --Tone 12:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a conflict of interest here, so won't !vote, but I will say that it's very odd to name the authors' institution in the blurb. That's not really information that a general Wikipedia reader needs to know, and the space could be better used to highlight other good articles. I've added an alt2 blurb. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To not name the institution is sweeping the contributions of the real researchers/scientists under the rug. We have tons of acknowledgements for success for sports, politics, entertainment, etc. but this aversion to including the institution, at minimum, for a major scientific breakthrough is counter to all that. There can be issues of space problems if there are multiple institutions involved in a discovery, at which point we do need brevity, but here, work done from one specific school, there's no reason to not give some acknowledgement, given how infrequent scientific breakthroughs are posted here. --M ASEM (t) 15:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, but given my conflict of interest I won't argue further. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Naming the institution is disgusting. Who gets the Nobel Prizes? People! Abductive  (reasoning) 18:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, there's usually one or two professors that are the centerpoint of knowledge for these discoveries and whom in the scientific literature, get credit for it, but within the way these stories are reported, the media and even works like Science and Nature nearly always start with the research institution. My impression is that it is not just one or two people that are involved but the students/grad/post-docs/assistants that work with those professors, the supporting functions (like analysis laboratories, machine shops, etc.) that help with the experiments, and the admin side to make sure things are funded or distribute funding. Further, the institution's name (like Harvard here) carries weight that the work done is of good quality, hence why it is featured over the actual researcher. This is a situation tied with the whole issue of notability of academics, in that few actual researchers are ever notable. Since we can't really change that, it still makes sense to follow how discoveries are credited in the reporting media. --M ASEM (t) 19:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb. Seems like the experiment has resulted in an important scientific discovery, which itself is of high encyclopedic relevance and a fine ITN material.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting alt. --Tone 13:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I know this has been posted, but I see that there is significant doubt to the validity of this expirement (and Nature is not one to necessary throw out random speculation from other scientists). This leans further to something that we should not be posting since the method of determining is not apparently strong enough to support their claims. --M ASEM (t) 14:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The article has been in review for like 3 months and was published in the highest tier journal in the world. Nergaal (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "peer review" even in a top-ranked journal like Science does not equal "truth". (and that only means 3 people reviewed it, not the scientific community as a whole) From the Nature article, it is not that they disagree with the methods, but that they are judging the formation of metallic hydrogen by an appearance factor rather than a chemical factor, meaning that other things with similar appearance could have been made instead (eg like aluminum used to make the anvil apparatus). --M ASEM (t) 14:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing equates "truth". I can't even prove you exist.  However, for the purposes of scientific journalism, this passes the highest tests for reliability.  There have never been, are not, and will never be any proof of anything ever.  However, in terms of reliable science, this is pretty damned good.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Peer-review, even at Science or Nature, is only as good as the peer-review process, which is not infallible, and the fact that there is some vocal questions to the validity of the claim by other scientists at the same peer level is important. The updated blurb (to include "claim") at least addresses this point. --M ASEM (t) 15:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My point is that absolute perfection and certainty in anything is an unsustainable standard in anything, and science is no exception "but it isn't perfect and immutably true" is a completely ridiculous standard. All we can do is maintain what the best journals do.  That even the best is not absolute perfection is not a reasonable objection, as your apparent standards here would make, quite literally, absolutely nothing knowable.  That's just silly.  If the best journals report it, that's the best we've got.  That the literal best is not perfect is unreasonable, because if the best isn't perfect, nothing will ever be perfect, and thus perfection is not attainable.  It's quite good enough.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 05:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I just posted at ERRORS before checking here. Needless to say, I agree with Masem above. I am not familiar with ITN but I think an acceptable compromise would be to keep it in the news but with a "Scientists claim" rather than "Scientists have" - for instance, the alt blurb #1 is good. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 15:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Per my comment above, I agree that the blurb should start "Scientists at Harvard claim...". Have changed. Smurrayinchester 15:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Tone 15:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Claim is typically used to imply skepticism. How about a more neutral "say they have," etc.? Sca (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * the current wording has been changed to alt #1, "report". That seems neutral enough. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 16:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Sca (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Thank you for drawing my attention to this. Considering how long I have been waiting for experimental confirmation of this theoretical extrapolation, it is distinctly embarrassing to have missed it when it finally came out. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Lost in the "Sea of Trump"... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, lost in the sea of work, so that I only first saw it on ITN. How do some of you people have so much free time? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Tam Dalyell

 * Weak oppose still several unreferenced sentences and the odd para. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair point- I haven't posted at ITN before. I have gone through the article and added several relevant sources and removed a few that were a bit questionable. I think I've now addressed the concerns you raised. Drchriswilliams (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - now adequately referenced. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Well referenced and (though not a requirement) is notable and has made a name for himself! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD - Quality now seems fine, which is basically all we now need for RD. So Marking as Ready. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted -- KTC (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Doomsday Clock 2.5 minutes

 * Support altblurb III Important, and although I suspected this would happen, still notable enough to be posted. -A la d   insane   (Channel 2)  17:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The NYTimes frames this well by quoting "...the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is marking the 70th anniversary of its Doomsday Clock on Thursday by moving it 30 seconds closer to midnight." My opinion is that this action is simply an attempt to attract publicity on its anniversary, and does not have impact or significance. Mamyles (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That was the first link I found from them. I just realized that apparently that is an editorial. Here is a non-opinion article. Elisfkc (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Neutral I'm a bit torn on this. Obviously the Clock is an important issue, but given the reasoning for why they moved it "We’re so concerned about the rhetoric, and the lack of respect for expertise, that we moved it 30 seconds ... Rather than create panic, we’re hoping that this drives action." (from the linked NYTimes non-op-ed), it feels less like a scientifically-backed decision and one specifically targeting President Trump's policies. I know it has nearly always been a subjective matter when the clock is moved, but this feels more politically driven than scientifically. --M ASEM (t) 18:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - You're telling me we're "closer to midnight" than we were during the Cuban Missile Crisis or the days of the "Evil Empire" attitude of the Reagan administration? This is politically driven, pure and simple.--WaltCip (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Doomsday Clock says: "The closest nuclear war threat, the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, reached crisis, climax, and resolution before the Clock could be set to reflect that possible doomsday". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though they could have retroactively set the clock for posterity.--WaltCip (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It now factors in climate change and other issues. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support funnily enough I was having a conversation about this at work just yesterday, with Trump so keen on nuclear proliferation, torture, building walls, ignoring climate change, I'm not surprised by this. Having said that, of course what Walt says is probably true too, this is a device used to beat the world up.  Could be right though... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Like I'm torn. My main concern is noteworthiness. They change it relatively often and the news coverage I've seen has been relatively minimal. I'm not concerned about motive (it's always political because it's in response to politics). If I see coverage gain or lose more steam, I may lean toward one side. Until then... neutral.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support because I do see a lot of news coverage of it, and I don't see many mentions of its 70th anniversary. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose reflects no reality other than a policy statement by a political body. μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Since it was inspired by Trump's recent comments, as their spokespersons stated, it seems a bit early and too reactionary. Agree with Masem, it implies a political aspect. --Light show (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Forget about whether or not this is politically motivated, and forget about whether it's 30 seconds or 5 minutes. The move is only worthy of consideration because of how close to midnight it takes us. However it is as close as it is because the boffins behind it considered the 2007–2012 period to pose a more immediate risk to the future of civilisation than most of the Cold War and the immediate aftermath of 9/11, greatly diminishing the clock's significance and credibility. Come back when the radio stations are introducing this story with Iron Maiden, and I might consider supporting despite my reservations due to the long-standing and high-profile nature of the clock. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said above, during the Cold War they didn't factor in climate change or other issues that they now do. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That weakens both the historical significance argument, and the implication that it is a scientifically-based predictor of the relative likelihood of rapid global catastrophe. Tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes are all potential mass casualty, devastating events, and a rising sea level will reduce the ability of a steadily rising population to live off the planet. All serious stuff, all worthy of the scientific, media, business and politicial circles to put it as a very high priority. But none of it rises to the level of an immediate threat to the survival of humanity as a race, in the same way as nuclear war (indeed, the very outbreak of open, conventional war between nuclear powers), a global pandemic, or an object the size of Majorca hitting the planet. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb III. The report also said "new global realities emerged, as trusted sources of information came under attack, fake news was on the rise, and words were used in cavalier and often reckless ways" and "Today’s complex global environment is in need of deliberate and considered policy responses. It is ever more important that senior leaders across the globe calm rather than stoke tensions that could lead to war, either by accident or miscalculation" - not sure if that should also be reflected in the blurb. --Fixuture (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose A highly political statement by a highly political group. We don't play politics with the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - if there were any reason to believe the clock had some predictive value, maybe. Otherwise it's WP:CRYSTAL in a non-WP forum. Banedon (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose political nonsense that deserves no representation on the Main Page. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 04:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm no fan of Trump but this sounds like Orwellian 'War is Peace' (or in this case 'Peace is War') - the Inauguration of a US president who is accused of being too friendly to Russia is being used to say the world has just got more dangerous. One might have expected these scientists to at least have the common sense to try to protect their credibility by waiting until there was some evidence of a breakdown in the Trump-Putin love-in. Maybe somebody should tell them the story of the boy who cried 'Wolf'. Even the usually fiercely anti-Trump New York Times seems to regard it as a 70th anniversary publicity stunt, so it seems implausible to claim that most quality sources are treating this 'news' seriously. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (Actually I personally am a bit worried about Trump's possible effect in the Baltics, as I mentioned at the time of his election in the Talk page of International Reactions to Trump's election, but the Baltics are seemingly not mentioned by the scientists, so I couldn't support the nomination on the basis of nothing except what is seemingly just my 'WP:OR') Tlhslobus (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose as a judgement call by a group(and for the same reason I opposed the last time; as I said then, maybe- and I stress maybe- if it goes to below two minutes (the closest it has been) it would merit posting. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Though many might empathize, it's obviously a subjective statement. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Around the world sailing

 * Wait until this team is awarded the trophy they are seeking or the record is otherwise certified. I've also suggested a less awkward blurb(no offense intended to the nominator). 331dot (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait per 331dot. Never heard of this trophy but definitely seems a top achievement in sailing. It would be best to wait for the Trophy to be actually awarded and certifying the time. --M ASEM  (t) 14:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the rewrite. The trophy is secured, I'm not sure waiting for a ceremony would add any value to the information, the achievement is today. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The suggested blurb said they made an "attempt" to win the trophy but didn't say that it had been determined that they had met the criteria for the trophy- which it seems that they have now. I wasn't suggesting we should wait until they take possession of the trophy, only for the determination that they won it. However, the article on the trophy needs much improvement before this is posted.  331dot (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose the JV trophy page is a complete mess, mostly unreferenced, some written in abbreviated French... And out of date. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think we can discard mention of the Jules Verne Trophy altogether. The story here is breaking the around the world sailing record, which I support posting in principle. However it's unclear to me whether this still requires validation by the relevant body or not. There also needs to be a proper update somewhere, though I'm not sure what the best place is. Joyon's article is a bit of a mess and has an orange-level tag. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * PS. I assume this happened in 2017, not 2016! <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm pretty sure the main blurb is grammatically incorrect. It should probably read either "On 26 January 2016, Francis Joyon led a six-man team aboard its Trimaran IDEC sport to beat, by more than four days, the crewed around the world sailing record in 40 days, 23 hours, 30 minutes and 30 seconds in an attempt for the Jules Verne Trophy." or "On 26 January 2016, Francis Joyon led a six-man team aboard its Trimaran IDEC sport to beat the crewed around the world sailing record by more than four days, finishing in 40 days, 23 hours, 30 minutes and 30 seconds, in an attempt for the Jules Verne Trophy." Elisfkc (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't need to list the time, at least not to the second. Stephen 03:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - although the word is worded pretty strangely (an "attempt" to win the trophy would imply the record's not been broken yet). Why not just say they broke the record? Banedon (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Mental performance enhancing drugs

 * Oppose much better suited to DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's just a single study and so doesn't pass WP:MEDRS. And a lack of media coverage means that it's not actually "in the news".  The result is not very surprising either.  It's no coincidence that people like Benjamin Franklin were playing chess in coffee houses like Old Slaughter's centuries ago. And it's now time for my first cup of tea of the day.  Ah, the pause that truly refreshes... Andrew D. (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Dow Jones Industrial Average

 * Oppose, an arbitrary number. Stephen 01:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nomination. This is far too trivial. Records are made and broken all the time, especially on financial indices. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Honest question: do you understand what a financial index is? Banedon (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I do. On a side note the Dow is probably the least important of the various US indices and the least accurate as an overall measure of the financial markets. The S&P 500 is probably the better one to pay attention to. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Everyone knows the DJIA has fundamental problems, but it's still the most widely tracked index in the world . Go figure. Banedon (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose It was bound to pass 20,000 at some point, and it will be bound to pass 25k, 30k, etc. As noted, these are arbitrary metrics. If anything we focus more on rapid declines and demands (crashes or near-crashes) which have much more of an impact on immediate situations than the gradual rise past specific marks. --M ASEM (t) 02:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a comment on that, long-term investors actually don't care about rapid declines and demands, as long as the overall uptrend is preserved. Banedon (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But CEOs, stock market analysts, politicians, and the like do worry about hose, and those are the newsmakers. --M ASEM (t) 02:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose purely arbitrary. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Mary Tyler Moore

 * Support - Came here to nominate this. Support inclusion in RD.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Referencing, particularly near the bottom, needs work. And there are orange tags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Sourcing a clear issuer per TRM and Ad Orientem. Fortunately, most of it appears to be filmography-related listings which should be relatively easy to source, but that still needs to be done to post this. --M ASEM (t) 21:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support big news in the entertainment world. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, she was an American icon. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 03:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - The quality issues have been addressed and there are no longer any orange-level cleanup tags or citation needed tags. AHeneen (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, there are still unreferenced claims in there, plus IMDB is used to source the appearances, and as we know, IMDB is not a reliable source. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The remaining unreferenced claims have been addressed and the filmography and awards tables have been moved to a separate article, as is common for actors/actresses with long careers. AHeneen (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As I think during the discussion of Carrie Fisher, while you are right that long filmographies are often a separate article, moving that out of an ITN RD to avoid having to deal with a sourcing issue (in this case, excessive weight on user-wiki IMDB) is not really appropriate as that is just sweeping the problem under the carpet. I am not suggesting pulling this RD at this point, but I need to stress that this is not a good way of handling poorly sourced filmographies, because someone in time still needs to remove all those IMDB refs with more reliable ones. --M ASEM (t) 19:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Ready no tags, every paragraph and standalone sentence is referenced if not multiply. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Butch Trucks

 * Comment First three para in body are unsourced, but it looks like the type of info that the obits will be able to fill in. --M ASEM (t) 21:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] New yokozuna promotion

 * Support - Sumo is a highly underrepresented sport on ITN, and we have posted yokozuna promotions before. That the 72nd yokozuna is Japanese is exceptionally notable as well, and I'd be in favor of having that mentioned in the blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Severally undersourced article and one section is a wall of text of one paragraph. This is ITNR so no question on importance, but the sourcing needs to be fixed. --M ASEM (t) 04:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The sourcing is definitely improved and the few lingering bits tagged to be fixed, so that's less an issue, I'm still just seeing a huge paragraph that is trying to summarize stats here, and I feel that needs trimming or splitting or rewording. However, I'd consider that less a barrier to posting compared to the sourcing. --M ASEM (t) 15:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the article (a BLP) is sourced adequately. As it's ITNR, no need for debate over notability.  Blurb should include that he's Japanese too, as that's what's making the headlines. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that it was ITNR. In that case, I agree with your rationale that the article needs to be updated.--WaltCip (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. First Japanese yokozuna to be promoted in nearly two decades. I will work on adding sources.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Very notable. I have just rated the article 'B' quality. It seems complete, free of maintenance tags, and thoroughly updated. Jehochman Talk 13:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, if it helps, I've tagged the claims which are currently unreferenced, just nine of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Presumably we will hold the nomination until those are fixed. Jehochman Talk 13:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added references to all the tagged claims.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Sam Walton (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Miller case (Brexit/Article 50)

 * Support. There will be editors who, preferring to post train derailments, will come to this discussion to say that this is but a mere step or hurdle in the Brexit process which ITN should not highlight. They will be wrong. It is a significant step in an ongoing international event. We may well end up posting again if/when Parliament passes the legislation and again if/when the exit is formalised. I have no problems with such multiple postings in a case like this. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 *  Weak Support  As Mkativerata says, this is significant in the brexit process.  However, hasn't parliament already voted on this, while the case was ongoing?  Or does it need to be primary legislation and not just a motion?  Since the motion passed 448-75, is there much doubt that legislation will also pass?  GoldenRing (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It needs to be legislation, not a resolution. It will almost certainly pass in one form or another, but this opens the law up to amendments and conditions, allowing parliament to set exit terms rather than the government. Smurrayinchester 10:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Switch to Oppose. This is a non-story.  If there was any chance that this would actually change the outcome, I might support it.  As it is, it's a waste of time GoldenRing (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - this just means the government will get approval from parliament. I don't see this as anything other than a speed bump. If parliament withholds approval, then we can post. Banedon (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Largely expected, what is also guranteed is this at best adds a few weeks to the roadmap. (The Tories have a majority that can push through any bill in the Commons and thats before the Labour brexiters, including the leader, are counted). The Lords might throw up a speed-bump, but it would be political suicide for them to do so. Save this for when May actually triggers 50. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on importance, oppose on quality This is a major constitutional/political decision. If it wasn't important, the Government wouldn't have spent all this effort arguing for using prerogative powers, nor would the Supreme Court have sat with every available justice (unprecedented, and not something that its predecessor the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords ever did). But the article needs a major rewrite - lots of it is out of date, and trimming some of the sections to the key details wouldn't go amiss. Shorter alt blurb added - we don't need the name of the case, for instance. BencherliteTalk 11:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support pending article improvement. Aside from the complication of the Brexit issue, this seems to be a notable legal decision. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Per previous two. May mean Brexit won't happen quickly? Sca (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support with a couple points: The "Facts" section is unreferenced (but likely an easy fix), and from an NFC standpoint, the montage of the four paper headlines is not appropriate. One image to show how they reacted to the judges (probably the Daily Mail one here, as it makes the judges look like criminals, tying with the theme of the section) is sufficient here, but not all four. --M ASEM (t) 14:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've sourced that section. You're right that the Mail page is the most appropriate - "ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE" was by far the most quoted headline. If no-one else uploads the pic, I'll do it tonight. Smurrayinchester 15:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Images swapped. Unless it's reverted, I'll nominate the old one for deletion shortly. Smurrayinchester 19:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Much better, thanks. That single image still captures the spirit of detest that the media seemed to have. --M ASEM (t) 23:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The UK Supreme Court issues a ruling that an Act of Parliament is needed before the government can trigger Article 50 to leave the European Union. The UK Supreme Court concludes that an Act of Parliament is needed before the government can trigger Article 50 to leave the European Union. —David Levy 00:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support newsworthy, good article, ready to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 - The blurb is long and I don't think the case name is necessary; Act of Parliament has an orange cleanup tag, so I changed the link to a piped link to Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom. I added ALT2 as a combination of ALT1, which contains side-by-side links that (even though "rules" is bold) doesn't look good, and the proposed blurb. AHeneen (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note if posting ALT2, it's a British court judgment not judgement. -- KTC (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The single bolded word in this posted blurb seems to be lost among the other sea of blue in the blurb. Is there anything we can do about that? --M ASEM (t) 23:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to rules that, as I find the alternative wordings to be clumsy and convoluted. User:David Levy is a better wordsmith than I and may have a better suggestion? Stephen 23:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Possibilities:
 * Comment The current blurb is a little imprecise, as the ruling applies to the executive part of the UK Government. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 15:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the term is perfectly precise in a British context. In British English, the word "government" means roughly what "administration" means in the American context.  Also, the contexts of "separation of powers" and co-equal "branches of government" as typically expressed based on the American system does not make contextual sense in Britain.  To make it short, the current wording is accurate and unambiguous for a British context.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pull Is there going to be a post when Parliament (inevitably, as the press is portraying it) passes the necessary bill, when it is filed with the EU, and for every single step along the way? This is quite a bit of overkill, and I'd hate to see every court decision and legislative and executive manoeuvre dealing with Obamacare posted here. μηδείς (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No one has proposed every such court decision posted. Someone nominated THIS ONE decision because THIS ONE decision was in the news and, based on the evidence of reliable source coverage of THIS ONE decision, THIS ONE decision was posted.  When another court decision gets nominated, we'll consider THAT decision based on the merits of THAT nomination without reference to this unrelated decision.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WHICH pill are you on Jayron, because I want to ask my doctor for THAT deictive-reuptake inhibitor and not THIS ONE. μηδείς (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support: Probably the most important royal prerogative ruling in a century, since DeKeyser. If there was a SCOTUS case on, say, Trump's executive orders re: the Muslim ban or the the border wall, we would expect to see that on ITN too. Sceptre (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Leslie Koo

 * Support Short article, but well sourced. Vycl1994 (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support it is a brief article but I can't see any major issues beyond that brevity. Good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Bernie Ecclestone

 * Oppose - We rarely post resignations on ITN and I don't see this as one of the rare cases where we would. Andise1 (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nowhere near the level of significance required for ITN. --Tataral (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support easily on a par with Alex Ferguson but a longer time in charge of a truly global organisation. F1 wouldn't exist as it does without his legacy. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The news is reporting this as ousted and replaced as part of the Liberty Media takeover. Stephen 23:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is not news. Who cares?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * F1 is one of the most widely followed sports in the world, worth several billions. That's larger than most other sports. Banedon (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support per nom. Weakly because I want to see some kind of new policy his successor will implement, but I acknowledge it'll be hard to post those new policies. Banedon (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - lack of notability for ITN concerning its a long-time-coming resignation, of all events; On a side-note, the comparison with Sir Alex Ferguson is, frankly, laughable. What has Bernie Ecclestone achieved on a personal level compared to AF - not much I would argue, outside of business and large-scale management in a huge corporation. Skycycle (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ironically, I find the comparison with Alex Ferguson laughable in the other direction. Alex Ferguson was one of many managers, and there are many of them. Even within the EPL itself there are twenty of them. F1 brings in more revenue than Manchester United's market capitalization every year. Comparing someone who built a company that does that to someone who doesn't even manage the smaller company (only its team) is, if I may say so, ridiculous. Banedon (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - The comparison to Alex Ferguson is not a good one. Ferguson was only in charge of a team in a country's leage. Ecclestone was in charge globally. So we need to be looking to compare him against people that were in charge of global organizations for a period of four decades. There are very few that would fit that bill, which is why I think this is a significant story which should be posted. Mjroots (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Political resignations sure, but business/sports ones, not so much.  Spencer T♦ C 09:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support we posted death of two minor Hollywood actresses, but we aren't posting the end of the era of the guy who made F1 one of the largest sports in the worl? Nergaal (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Death and retirements are treated drastically differently by this section, so comparing them is like apples to oranges.  Spencer T♦ C 11:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. And we shouldn't have posted the deaths of minor Hollywood actors either. Sports administration, like Hollywood, matters little at the end of the day, especially when it concerns no more than a matter of personnel. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This doesn't fit into any of the categories that we would normally post, but I think this is exceptional. There are not many major organisations in the world that have had the same head for 40 years.  F1 is unusually large and global as a sport - I would guess only football exceeds its global appeal.  Unusually, this item fits two normally-contradictory points of the purpose of ITN: To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news (for the motorheads) and To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them (for everyone else).  GoldenRing (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support If this was just a resignation I would probably oppose. He has (he claims) been forced out of control due to the buyout which edges it over. Its also undeniable that (for good or ill, by whatever method) he turned F1 into a massively popular world-wide sport. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in principle as said above, comparing this with e.g. Alex Ferguson misses the point. Ecclestone dominated the entire F1 industry for decades, which is a sport with worldwide interest. However, oppose on quality. The article is inadequately referenced in places, and inadequately updated (I see one sentence in the lead). BencherliteTalk 11:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, alright, the point on Ferguson was to show a precedent of a prominent sports "administrator" coming to the end of his "career in the sport". I'm now officially fed up of being told that it "misses the point", "frankly, laughable",  etc.  Of course, if said things like this, I'd be up in front of the beak for yet another block. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't having a go at you, my apologies if it came across that way. I should have said comparing this adversely with AF misses the point. BencherliteTalk 11:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa - I assumed that because it was in the lead, it was in the body too. I've added that info and asked at WT:F1 for assistance with the reference issues. Mjroots (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits, much as Only in death does; this is more than a simple resignation. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support We had Jochen Rindt as FA yesterday so why wouldn't we have his manager, Ecclestone, at ITN when he is actually in the news? ITN scrolls too slowly compared to other parts of the main page, which usually change daily, and so it often seems neglected.  "Nothing is so stale as yesterday's newspaper..." Andrew D. (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral on merits, oppose on quality. I don't have a strong opinion either way on whether his departure is worthy of a blurb.  However, if his significance is strongly linked to his role as F1 executive, then I find it rather bothersome that the seven paragraph section on his time as an executive contains all of two citations.  The preceding section on his career at Brabham is also in need of references.  Dragons flight (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Recognizing we are talking about a 40 year career here, I would be looking to see how much of an influence he was to it (beyond just being the top person in charge) to concider posting something about his retirement, and that seems lacking here to make this ITN. His career seems to be a mix of positive and negative (note the number of controversies here), but there doesn't seem to be any discussion of lasting influence to the sport because of him. Thus, posting his retirement (one that is not under the influence of any ongoing controversy or lawsuit or whatever) seems weak. --M ASEM (t) 15:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Influence? Here's a two-second Google result, a BBC report from today covering the "remarkable four decades (in which) Ecclestone revolutionised the sport" and where what he leaves behind in F1 is described as "An incredible legacy"... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Reading that BBC article and the five points that follow the quote you pulled, it doesn't read as a necessarily positive portrayal of him (esp. point #5 of the BBC article). It's snarky praise at times. Even with that, our article does not show how F1 was revolutionized by him. If it can be expanded to show that, great, but I don't see much about that presently. --M ASEM (t) 16:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What the BBC refers to obliquely (and I above) is that while he built the F1 up, he didnt necessarily always do it in the most positive manner. Even his 'negative' actions contributed to its success. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Which, at least to me, is something more to highlight were this a RD blurb. His retirement, however, doesn't appear to be causing a massive change in the sport, and simply makes this, at this point, passing of the guard. --M ASEM (t) 18:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to say that's a very strange way of looking at the last 40 years of a single person running the largest sporting contest on the globe outside the Olympics and the World Cup. But I can see this is fruitless so no point in continuing this discussion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Support contingent on more sourcing in Formula One Group. A CEO stepping down is not significant enough for ITN by itself, but with the purchase of a large sports organization I believe this meets the significance criteria of ITN. I recommend Alt Blurb 1 with the primary, bolded article as Formula One Group. Mamyles (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there are great swathes of Ecclestone's BLP that are unreferenced. It's not fit for posting even as a secondary link. Stephen 23:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: A more relevant comparison than Alex Ferguson might be Sepp Blatter's June 2015 "resignation" which we posted (see discussion here), only to find he later unresigned. We didn't post his suspension in October 2015, as being just another stage in his demise. Of course the comparisons are imperfect - Ecclestone is not involved in a current corruption scandal, and F1 is smaller than soccer, but Ecclestone has been in charge twice as long as Blatter. I'm vaguely inclined to support posting in principle. But I guess article quality will probably doom this, and I certainly can't support posting in its present state (and I won't be trying any fixing myself, having already done more work on Women's March than my semi-retirement should normally allow).Tlhslobus (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] United States withdraws from Trans-Pacific Partnership

 * Oppose since this hypothetical treaty never came to fruition. The negotiations are over, but it's not like a treaty has been repealed.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It had come to fruition: it was a treaty signed by each and every one of its member states. It is only the stage of ratification that had not been complete. A deal not being fully concluded is just as significant news as a concluded deal being reversed. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the added info. I still disagree though. It was a project that was never implemented--that's what I meant by "came to fruition". Nothing happened, so there's no news to speak of.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose The article is in decent shape and this is definitely major news. However, at the moment there are only two sentences in the target article dealing with the subject of the blurb. This needs expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. An international trade agreement entering into force would be ITN-worthy, but the withdrawal of a country from an agreement that never entered into force is not, in my opinion. Also, that he would withdraw from the planned trade agreement was announced back in november, so this isn't exactly breaking news. --Tataral (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thing about that is, if it had been nominated in November, it would probably have been opposed because it "hadn't happened yet". Banedon (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Banedon (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait This may be something that has financial implications, but that will be clear when the Asian markets open tomorrow. It doesn't seem to have that much yet by NA markets, but its still early in the news cycle. If the markets don't blink, I don't think this should be posted, per Tataral. --M ASEM (t) 01:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - even though everyone else had signed the agreement, U.S. congress rejected it a long time ago, which I would argue was the real news item. Today was just a formality, it was widely known that ANY republican president would have done the same. I think there are more notable events to include as of right now. Skycycle (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The agreement was never ratified, and Trump pulling the US out was one of his primary campaign issues, so this was expected. 331dot (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As Banedon said above 'if it had been nominated in November [when Trump became President-elect], it would probably have been opposed because it "hadn't happened yet"'. You are excluding a whole class of extremely significant news from ITN. Thue (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I usually support posting the announcement of a business deal at the time of the announcement; this is different because the treaty was not in force and the Senate had not even scheduled a vote; it was one of Donald Trump's primary campaign issues, and Hillary Clinton announced opposition to it as well. This action is just a formality resulting in the status quo. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Huge trade deal which has been a point of contention and widely covered. That Trump's cancellation was promised does not make its cancellation any less significant. Expected important news is still important news. Thue (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is notable enough to include, but the TPP article is a behemoth with an orange tag (since July). Would support on fixing that section up (and maybe a bit of trimming of others as well). AIR corn (talk)
 * Oppose. The strongest argument against is that the treaty had not entered into force before being withdrawn.  "Things will be, as they were" is not news to anyone.  It was not given that the treaty would be ratified, as it had strong opposition from labor groups, the far right and the far left, as well as a congress that is at odds with the treaty's principle patron.  People who assume that the treaty would ever come into force are engaging in WP:CRYSTAL and support votes based on that even moreso.128.214.53.104 (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on significance but the article needs attention, per Aircorn and Ad Orientem. GoldenRing (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, an event with huge economic implications for the world trade. Btw, page views for the target article jumped to over 457,000 on Jan 23, from the usual 2-3K per day for this article. Nsk92 (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not significant enough, and not surprising at all. It's what's been advertised all along. Maybe we need an ongoing item for antics of the Trump Administration.Jehochman Talk 15:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - We posted the signing of it, it's weird not to post its collapse. The orange tag seemed inappropriate - the section draws from a variety of sources - and I have removed it. Smurrayinchester 16:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose current blurb The news is not that the US is withdrawing, it's that the TPP is now dead. I would support something like "The TPP becomes unratifiable because the United States withdraws from it". Isa (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait until we know more about what will happen. There are chances that the Trans Pacific PArtnership will continue possibly with China replacing the United States. If that were to happen, it would be an historic moment, a big win for China and a big loss for the US. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reason as the Article 50 reasoning above. We simply can't post every reversal of course resulting from the recent US elections, and this was a foregone conclusion; even Hillary Clinton was against TPP after she was for it. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * weak support 1. in line with brexit above, 2. its highly notable, especially when turnbull said theyd invite china.Lihaas (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree with Jehochman that we probably need an Ongoing item about what he calls "antics of the Trump Administration", though a less POV way of saying this would be to have Ongoing link to First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency (perhaps shortened to something like "Trump's 1st 100 days"). I may eventually try to nominate that myself, though not just yet (I'd probably prefer if somebody else nominated it, and the credit should probably go to Jehochman if he wants it). But meanwhile the possibilty needs to be mentioned here because it seems relevant to whether or not we should post this item. Incidentally we may also need an Ongoing item for Brexit. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Gorden Kaye

 * Support Referencing has been improved. 'Allo 'Allo! was a popular series in many other countries, including Germany. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Any more sources required? Please tag if necessary. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Still see a handful of sourcing gaps, but probably not too difficult to source. --M ASEM (t) 19:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - the show was very popular in large parts of Europe throughout the 1990s and 2000s, and remains on reruns in many countries. Skycycle (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose still some unreferenced statements in this WP:BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted after fixing a couple of refs. Stephen 23:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Pete Overend Watts

 * Oppose too many gaps in sourcing. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on further sourcing Compared to when TRM !voted, sourcing has improved but I still see a couple unsourced statements. I do think the article begs for expansion in some areas but it's sufficiently long at this point for posting. --M ASEM (t) 14:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - sourcing has been improved. -Zanhe (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ready ✅. &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 06:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Naqsh Lyallpuri

 * Support Except for two blue-linked films, this is appropriately sourced. As key song writer for those works, it should be relatively trivial to source those two films. --M ASEM (t) 15:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Southeastern United States tornadoes

 * Comment The description of the storms/damage in the tables should be sourced (though I suspect this is reuse of a source), and there likely should be some type of reaction/response in terms of first responders, estimated damage cost, etc. I do think that while torandos in the SE is nothing unusually, normally, this time of year is different and this is likely a notable system. --M ASEM (t) 01:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This part of the Southeast doesn't usually see major tornado outbreaks even in the spring. The National Weather Service called it the most significant for the region in nearly 24 years–since the 1993 Storm of the Century. Either way, I've added more references and started up an aftermath section. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * True, thinking it was a bit more north (having lived in torando alley myself). The article seems in good shape now, and I still contend that the January nature of this event, much less location, is the unusual part that I Support this for posting. --M ASEM (t) 00:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding to my support as this same storm appears responsible for the massive nor'eastern in the mid-atlantic states, which, while not as lethal, is causing a mess. I don't think the blurb needs to be updated, but this is not a small scale system. --M ASEM  (t) 02:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Bad weather happens around the world all the time. This doesn't seem to rise to the ITN level. (The article is also fairly short and with no interwikis, which also indicate that this isn't a very widely reported/significant event). --Tataral (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So do terrorist attacks and changes of government, yet they're posted The outbreak being the deadliest in the US in nearly 3 years indicates it's not a frequent occurrence. It's short due to how recent the event is, and information is limited as a lot of communities are in search and rescue mode rather than recovery. Not sure how lack of interwiki articles is relevant here. It's also one of the top stories on BBC, New York Times, Reuters, Sky News, etc. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ITN isn't about the United States. 20 weather-related casualties over a large area simply isn't very unusual or noteworthy. Far more people die around the world for weather-related reasons every day. --Tataral (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For the region it occurred in this is unusual, and the last solely US-weather related article to be posted on ITN—to my knowledge—was the June 2016 West Virginia flood with 23 fatalities. If you can make an article covering events that claim the number of lives you're purporting they do, by all means please do and nominate it for it. Additionally, please refer to WP:ITN/C regarding coverage of a topic. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The event isn't sufficiently noteworthy to be included on ITN and there is nothing particularly unsual about it. Also, please avoid making references to material that is not not relevant for the discussion; I have not done any of those things listed in the section you refer to. I'm not opposing this because it relates to one country, but because it is not significant and not noteworthy. I would have supported it if it was significant and noteworthy. --Tataral (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, but a localized avalanche in Italy that struck a single building is notable enough? Double standards against United States-based events are rampant here, and a statement like ITN isn't about the United States, leads one to assume that reason for opposition is because it's only related to the United States. The reference to the West Virginia flood is to give you an understanding of how infrequently US-only weather events are brought to ITN/C. We're also talking about a region that largely avoids getting hit by violent tornadoes (the region in question has only seen a handful of E/F4 tornadoes since 1950), and has not seen a thunderstorm event of this magnitude since 1993. I'd say that qualifies as unusual. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Did I support the avalanche event being posted? No. US-centrism has traditionally been rampant on ITN and more so in ITN discussions, but this is slowly improving due to more editors being conscious that ITN must be balanced, that ITN isn't solely about the United States, and due to the efforts by many editors to apply the same criteria to all countries. As it happens, we currently (as we frequently do) have a US item on the top of ITN, which I – for the record – supported. I'm more than happy to support US items when they are sufficiently significant and noteworthy. --Tataral (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - sure it's the deadliest outbreak in the US in nearly three years, but that's problematic because there are hundreds of countries in the world and so hundreds of deadliest outbreaks in nearly three years. I need to see some kind of objective measure of why this is worth posting even when one is comparing against the world to support the nomination, and right now, I am not seeing it. Banedon (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The United States sees, on average, more than 1,000 tornadoes per year, by far the largest of any country. The next closest is Canada with an average of less than 100 tornadoes per year. The only time you'll see other countries having such deadly tornado events are generally from isolated violent events that happen infrequently. Remember that this doesn't have to match up to other countries anyways per WP:ITN/C (failing to relate to other countries). The last tornado event that was posted was back in June: 2016 Jiangsu tornado, an isolated violent event with mass casualties. Regardless of "deadliest since" statements, it is an unusually destructive and deadly event for the region and it is making headlines in international media. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not convinced I'm afraid - possibly it is just me but the fact that the US and Canada sees the most tornadoes a year is something I would regard as rather tangential. What is causing the deaths here are presumably strong winds, heavy rains and floods. These things clearly occur elsewhere in the world. The underlying cause may be different, but from the perspective of ITN, does it matter if the cause of the deaths were due to tornadoes or hurricanes, or La Nina, or even seasonal monsoon rains? A quick search through Wikipedia reveal events such as 2017 Southern Thailand floods, which "are the biggest floods in over 30 years" in the country and also killed twice as many people. Against that kind of comparison I still do not see this as worth posting. Banedon (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but for what it's worth the deaths from this event are all from the tornadoes as far as I can tell, not floods or straight-line winds. Regarding differentiation of the type of natural disaster, the last time I remember multiple major weather disasters occurring at the same time it turned into a mess of trying to figure out how to combine everything into one blurb. Long story short, differentiation or lack thereof depends on the commenter. I would jump on saying the floods should be whipped into shape and nominated, but it sadly seems to be slightly too old to be posted (oldest entry is January 18 and flooding was primarily in the first week or so of the month). Unless resumed flooding worsens the situation, that is. I'll try and keep tabs on it and work on improving it tomorrow. Thanks for letting me know about this one! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This seems (just) sufficiently deadly to warrant posting. Neljack (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I will note, however, that the confirmed death toll needs to be cleared up. The article and blurb say at least 20, but we have sources saying less (for instance, the AP article says 19). Neljack (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * delay in sources adding the 4th death from the Albany, Georgia, tornado. Total does indeed add up to 20 (16 in Georgia, 4 in Mississippi). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. This is significant news due to the death count. -- Tavix ( talk ) 04:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on par with other disasters we've posted on ITN. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Cyclonebiskit's explanation of the rarity plus the fact it's (as per the norm for these kind of articles) in very good shape. Would like the issue over the article title to be resolved before our readers have to wade through two "tags" (the "current" one is fine), otherwise good to go.  The Rambling Man (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose 20-odd people dying in a weather event is not a significant story on a global scale. It might well be on par with other disasters posted on ITN. That is the problem. ITN has too many of these minor events and too few real news items. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, always welcome and in fact encouraged to propose new candidates at ITN. If you wish for it to really change, that's the only way to do it because complaining about it makes no difference whatsoever; I'm afraid that eventually your !votes will be ignored and you'll just be wasting your own time.  The Rambling Man (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't figure out how to propose new candidates. The template is too difficult. Besides, I'm one of three opposing this nomination: hardly a peripheral operator whose !vote is going to be ignored. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you'd like some help with the template, let me know. You don't have to fill in 75% of it for most cases, all you need is a target article, a blurb, a source and your signature.  And I didn't suggest your vote was the only oppose vote, just that your continual opposition based on "ITN has too many of these minor events and too few real news items" will become like "crying wolf" if you fail to do anything about it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a kind offer, TRM. Unfortunately, I rather doubt that nominating more 'real news' will fix Mkativerata's problem, and it may actually just end up disillusioning him/her with Wikipedia. Because if it were simply a matter of nominating more 'real news' then others would probably already be doing it.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, that is about number 245394857 on the list of things about wikipedia that disillusion me. Accepting TRM's point I will try to keep an eye out for things I think are nomination-worthy and give the template a go. (My template fails are not due to inexperience -- like TRM I'm a former admin -- but are rather due to my general lack of technological literacy.) --Mkativerata (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well next time you do see something you think ought to get an outing, let me know and I'll do the template work for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Can't support posting an article where the content does not correspond with the sources. It was the dramatic language used to describe the tornado that peaked my suspicions on the one near Albany. On further investigation, I'd say that a mobile home park on the outskirts of Adel is some way away from the claim that "Several neighborhoods in eastern Albany were reportedly leveled." Even the comment from a woman living in said area in one of the sources does not correspond with a statement this strong. The overall article looks decent though, and without wishing to predict whether the event is ongoing or not, I don't think the full scale of what has happened has emerged yet. User talk:StillWaitingForConnection 06:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Adel and Albany tornadoes are two separate events (they're about 60 miles apart), nothing is being mixed up here as far as I can tell. A mobile home park was largely destroyed near Adel, and Albany suffered a direct hit from a large tornado. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. So how does that become "Several neighborhoods in eastern Albany were reportedly leveled". Claiming that entire neighbourhoods were flattened in a place like Albany were flattened is a very strong claim to make. If it's true then please find a source that spells it out and source it inline, as it's by a long distance the strongest claim in the entire article. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like I removed the source I initially got the information from by accident when updating the death toll. It was from WALB: "[Dougherty County EMA Director Ron] Rowe said they are in the preliminary stages of getting damage information. However, he did say that there is widespread destruction and the East Side has neighborhoods that are completely destroyed." ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support large and impactful meteorological event. More deaths than fingers and toes put together, official states of emergencies declared in multiple states and FEMA deployed across the Southeast.  Article is nice, with contextualization and links out to other fine articles.128.214.53.104 (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While a tragic event, I don't feel the circumstances merit posting.  This sort of thing is not uncommon. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Since 2014"... If that had been 2004 that might be more noteworthy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – I think any natural disaster with a deathcount of 20 and an article of reasonable quality deserves to be posted. ~ Mable ( chat ) 12:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not exceptionally record-breaking, per Only in death's justification. Although, this does serve as a reminder that man-made global warming is real and having an impact on the planet even now.--WaltCip (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * there's a hefty wall for "deadliest since" in 2011 that I hope we'll never surpass. Anomalously violent and incessant tornado outbreaks in April and May of that year claimed over 500 lives in the United States (most notably the 2011 Super Outbreak and 2011 Joplin tornado). This outbreak took place farther southeast than is typically expected for these deadly events, but I don't see a need for something to be "exceptionally record breaking" for it to warrant posting on ITN. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, pending refs for two unreferenced tornadoes in table  - This is a notably strong tornado outbreak. Article is in good shape. AHeneen (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - This single outbreak killed more people than the entire 2016 season, and it is one of the strongest such events on record in January, certainly the deadliest in decades in the U.S. Skycycle (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose The article consists of lots of tables and weather information, which is nice. The deaths are mentioned in the tables and the lead, but if this is the newsworthy aspect of the tornados I would expect a bit more of a summary or even a section of prose. It was hard for me to find and collate this information in the body. Otherwise I would support. AIR corn (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I think some of the opposes here are verging on anti-US bias. The article seems in decent enough shape - the aftermath is described in prose and all the tornadoes at least claim to be referenced now.  I posting a deadly tornado outbreak in the US every few years really so undue?  GoldenRing (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment while not overwhelming, there is consensus to post this. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Andy Marte

 * Comment Serious sourcing issues here. --M ASEM (t) 18:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, working on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Should be sufficient now. Let me know if I missed something. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Appears all ready to go now. --M ASEM (t) 22:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support — Aria1561 (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just one fact to reference and this is good to go. Stephen 04:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support only because (to my reading) that [citation needed] is quite an important one. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I've found and added citations and amended the dates to reflect them and removed the related CN. However somebody might want to check whether those sources are sufficiently reliable before posting.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted, after removing the claim sourced to a blog. Stephen 08:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Yordano Ventura

 * Support Not seeing any major failings in the article quality here. --M ASEM (t) 17:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support — Aria1561 (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - article is updated & there are sources. Is there any reason why this has not been posted in the 6 hours since the nomination was made? Elisfkc (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus for posting takes more than a couple !votes. Not enough !votes yet to post. --M ASEM (t) 23:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Appears well referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Kuneru train derailment

 * Support Article is short but sourced, and this is not a trivial public transportation accident. --M ASEM (t) 18:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - that was a major accident, even if is somehow routine in India. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  21:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not unless there's some kind of long-term impact arising from this. As I see it right now it's just a simple accident with no lasting consequences. Banedon (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Major disasters with high death tolls are significant in themselves and routinely posted (the Rigopiano avalanche and the Plasco Building collapse are currently on ITN). -Zanhe (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - of no demonstrated consequence beyond the casualties. The proof of that point lies in the fact that the article is only 10 sentences long. If that's all there is that can be said about the incident, it clearly has no place on the main page. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - As per above reasons. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per above. GoldenRing (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

[Updated] Yahya Jammeh leaves

 * Support updated blurb Successful resolution of a major story. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support updating blurb Although Yahya Jammeh is not the "Incumbent President". Should probably be "Former President". - Samuel Wiki (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. I couldn't think of what exactly to call him when I started this nomination. Elisfkc (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as he was in power, he was president. Everyking (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Update blurb, and put it at the top of the template. Banedon (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Update blurb, have proposed alt2. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support the change to my original nomination. Elisfkc (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Updated. It's only been a few hours but I think it's OK as it's not about posting a new blurb, but updating an existing one. I took alt2 and moved the ECOWAS bit to the front to make the sentence flow a bit smoother. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment In a curious co-incidence, it seems the Gambian treasury is missing quite a lot of money. Time for another update?  GoldenRing (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Did anyone honestly not expect him to have exiled some treasury funds as well? Stephen 10:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Protests against Donald Trump

 * Comment I don't see the relevance of protests in other countries. Neutral on whether to post overall, as I'm torn between the fact that what has happened was broadly in line with expectations, and that those expectations were the exception to the norm in and of themselves. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Is the relevance to other countries really relevant? Quoting the following from the big blue box at the top of this very page: "... 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." Palmtree5551 (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "other countries"? Wikipedia is an international project and not written for just one country. It is irrelevant where protests take place, the only relevant factor to be considered here on ITN (in addition to the quality of the article) is the noteworthiness of the protests, as demonstrated by their coverage in reliable sources; in fact if there are protests in many countries, this means the protests in question are almost certainly of greater noteworthiness, and hence more relevant for ITN. --Tataral (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not unusual for a world leader to upset the people of other countries. It's extremely unusual for a new leader of a country to attract beyond a certain level of protest from their own people (in a democracy because people tend to respect its rules, in a dictatorship or military coup out of fear). In that context our project's international nature is irrelevant to this story. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is unusual for a leader's inauguration to attract significant protests in many other countries around the world, however. Neljack (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - nothing we're seeing is beyond what might be expected for any presidential inauguration. Also, this. WMoW can be discussed when it happens. Blythwood (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about whether to post, but the claim that "nothing we're seeing is beyond what might be expected for any presidential inauguration" seems entirely contrary to my recollection of previous inaugurations. I suppose it's always possible that this is simply due to media bias (as implied by the above-cited Washingtonian opinion piece about the burning garbage can) and/or to faulty recollection on my part, but if we are to take the claim seriously it might be useful to see some evidence of similar 'reliable source' reports for previous inaugurations.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support (updated clarification: I support altblurb VI or a similar wording). Seeing how this has become a global event, with significant protests in many countries on most continents, and apparently escalating protests in the US across the country, I'm inclined to support this, particularly if the protests continue on saturday (which appears to be the case with several large protests planned). Protests taking place in large parts of the world are relatively rare, and thus much more significant/noteworthy. This is clearly not just a routine, fairly small-scale, local protest in Washington. For example, when did we last see protests by the thousands against the inauguration of a President of France in Washington, London, Sydney, Berlin, lots of other places, and all across France? (I don't think there were international or even comparable domestic protests of this kind against George W. Bush's inaguruation, despite the divisive nature of his election and views) --Tataral (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll oppose this right now, depending on the scale of unrest this weekend. — foxj 06:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Similar to the post-election reaction. --Light show (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Some generation snowflake bed-wetting muesli-munching sandal-wearing tree-huggers don't like the new guy. Wah, wah wah.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 09:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I take that as an oblique allusion to Global Whining. Sca (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not just "tree huggers" who don't like him, he got 3 million fewer votes than the Electoral College-losing candidate. Polling also indicates he is one of the least popular presidents at the time he began his term. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting description of EEng you got there, Lugnuts - do you know something we don't? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Wait until later today to decide if the protests were notable enough. The women's march today may draw a larger crowd than the inauguration itself. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose all very nice for those involved but ultimately completely meaningless, particularly for those marching outside the US. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "completely meaningless"? Surely it means that hundreds of thousands think, like Obama, that Trump is "unfit to be President"; or like Springsteen, this he's "a moron"; or like thousands of women across the world, that he's a misogynist? But I thought we were concerned here just with newsworthiness not "meaning"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of us soon may be marching out of the U.S. Sca (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Wait Lots of people hating Trump is not exactly scoop of the century. If the protests spread and are sustained, we'll revisit. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right, things might hot up a bit later. I love a nice cosy fire, don't you? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose These events are run of the mill for inaugurations and are unlikely to rate even a footnote in the history books. The violence was fairly small scale and the inaugural protests were far below expectations. None of these events individually, nor all of them collectively rate their own article (Protests of Donald Trump inauguration). -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see Women's March on Washington. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as notably unusual in recent times, as reflected in the coverage. Also support being being dipped in free-range honey, immersed in muesli and rolled in a barrel alongside the 5,000,000 women  :D  O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  14:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Free-range honey? That's the final straw. Did you know that honey is made between the joints of the legs of the insect? You could say it's the bees knees.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 14:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Or you could say, 'Jeez, I can't find my knees.' – Sca (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Still no idea whether item should be posted, but object to proposed waste of good honey and muesli being discussed here rather than under its own nom (suggested blurb: 'Empress of the World plans insufficiently cruel and unusual punishment for snowflake-hating Wikipedian'). Tlhslobus (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Wait To me, the big story would be if the Women's March draws the 500k it is expected to, and that to me seems like the bigger story here. If it does draw that many, a blurb could be "The Women's March on Washington draws over 500,000 to promote women's right among other protests against President Trump following his inauguration". The protests that are happened, again, are a continuation of protests since November, but this would highlight a more interesting story while grouping several less-ITN-worthy stories. --M ASEM (t) 14:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support the altblurbs that focus on the international scale of the Women's March (x Millions). This is clearly unprecedent in worldwide scope (the last closest thing I can remember being the Charlie Hebro reactions and that was nowhere near this scale). --M ASEM (t) 21:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Wait  – While I don't agree that these protests are typical of an inauguration, so far they seem of middling significance. They don't appear to pack the political punch of the 1963 March on Washington, or the anti-Vietnam War march six years later. – Sca (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The big news is the inauguration, which was snow-closed yesterday. The protests are irrelevant.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In fairness, we snow closed the inauguration because that was considered routine. I have no objection at all to this being debated as it was the element of the story which made Trump's accession out of the ordinary. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Protests are "relevant". Whether or not they're ITN/C is another matter. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree with MASEM's comment above. The only article that is possibly worthy of a mention as being "In The News" is the Women's March on Washington. In which case this nomination about Trump should be closed, and there should be a separate discussion about that one specific event. I also note that Inauguration of Donald Trump protests is subject of an Article for Deletion proposal. Gfcvoice (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Women's March article is extremely POV. Don't Melania, Ivanka, Betsy, Kellyanne, etc., count at all? It's also extremely offensive to the LGBTQ community since he is the first POTUS to support gay marriage--what on earth are these people on about? Again, very POV; definitely too POV for the main page.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL. That would be Obama, who was the first POTUS to support gay marriage. And the Trump women bit is funny, too. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, as I recall, Obama ran as an opponent of gay marriage, didn't he?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The point is you wrote that Trump "is the first POTUS to support gay marriage". For Obama's changes of position, see Social_policy_of_Barack_Obama: "On May 9, 2012, Obama told an interviewer that he supported same-sex marriage. He was the first sitting U.S. President to do so." ---Sluzzelin talk  23:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant as a candidate. Trump is the first POTUS to run as a supporter of gay marriage. Obama ran as an anti-gay marriage candidate.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the Women's March is that it is not only focused on the fears that Trump would weaken women's rights, but also those of immigrants and LGBTQ, so there are more marching as part of this common cause - and the march is not only limited to Wash DC but in several major cities having equivalent events for the same purpose. Just because it's titled as such doesn't mean it is restricted to that. --M ASEM (t) 17:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This understanding is correct. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm adding an altblurb that can only be validated after about another.. 5-6 hrs? to get a estimate head count, in light of this and would be a blurb that I could support. --M ASEM (t) 17:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In the altblurb, LGBTQ acts as an adjective, so would need to be followed by a noun such as people. And the alblurb is a bit longish. Sca (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Very offensive for those protesters to claim they are speaking on behalf of the LGBTQ community. Trump included the LGBTQ community in his GOP convention speech, where Peter Thiel (a member of the LGBTQ community) also spoke...I would feel less uncomfortable if we left the LGBTQ community out of this political game they are playing. We are not tokens.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, but close because no one gets it and this will only result in more unnecessary political and US-centric arguing. Thechased (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The crowd for the march in DC was expected to be five times bigger than for Trump's inauguration. The estimate is now 500,000. And that doesn't count the sister marches. The one in Chicago has 150,000; they had to cancel the march part because there's too many of them. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nom comment - I think the WMoW is gaining more media attention than the general protests (although it is part of the overarching protests of the inauguration). I think that the march(es) need to be the main subject if it is included on ITN. --   LuK3      (Talk)   18:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Me too. Today's actions are more newsworthy than yesterday's protests. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support a blurb focused on Women's March on Washington, which has global sister marches. Sam Walton (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I've heard about reports all over the place now, from London (including the mayor turning up!), Australia, India and Nigeria. Even accounting for the reporting on Washington that hasn't happened yet, this is now major worldwide news. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also Paris and Nairobi. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support After considering, I think we should post a joint Inauguration/March blurb. Trump was inaugurated, and that and the marches are making major international news with sister marches across the globe. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless something extraordinary happens (e.g. civil disobedience with high damage and casualties, changes in the voting mechanism, other major political changes etc.) and even then the news would be the resulting event but not the protests themselves (compare this to the Euromaidan as a relatively recent example). Soros-backed protests similar to these have taken place in many other countries in the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Soros-backed protests"? Why does the right wing always bring out George Soros as a boogeyman? Even if he's at the DC march, there's another 499,999 there too. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Because the only chance for this to result in something extraordinary to merit inclusion would be thanks to George Soros. The rest may count even 4,999,999 or 49,999,999, but it'd be just a number without this 'tiny nuance'.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence of George Soros' involvement. And that includes the Breitbart "article" claiming this is all Soros because Soros supports Planned Parenthood, which is a ridiculous leap. They're saying 670 marches and 2.5 million attendees. That ain't Soros. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't claim his involvement and deliberately used 'Soros-backed similar to these' instead of 'such Soros-backed protests'. It's just a sarcastic metaphor for how these protests can result into something that would merit inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Soros everywhere. Watch less RT, use your brain instead. 196.188.0.53 (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what does RT stand for and I use my brain perfectly well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with the first sentence of Kiril Simeonovski's oppose. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting note: I now support this. Posting it was the right thing to do. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Sister (pun not intentional) marches are happening across at least 60 countries, and on all 7 continents. The total participating estimated so far is in the millions. Thus I think the focus on the marches are the key news item here. --M ASEM  (t) 19:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kiril. Unless people get shot or somebody resigns this is not worth an ITN spot. Nergaal (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This was an event attended by what seems to be millions of people on a global scale, and is 'in the news' by every definition of the term. Why does someone need to be killed or lose their job to be posted on the front page? Sam Walton (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We do not ordinarily post inaugurations, and by definition if we were to post this it would be because the protests were so exceptional as to override POV concerns about posting. They're significant, and I gave this a lot of thought, but I don't think they rise to that level. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What POV concerns do you have about the blurb or article? Sam Walton (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In the context of the decision to post Obama's inauguration, we are now really faced with two broad choices. One, consider that the default position for incoming presidents (rejected multiple times below and therefore not an option). Or two, only post when the circumstances are evidently exceptional enough. Furthermore, in the context of having posted Obama due to the positive connotations, to then go on and post Trump due to the negative connotations, it really would have to be exceptional enough to justify impartially without being open to reasonable accusations of POV pushing. I do not think the level of protest has risen to that level, and therefore POV is the primary concern. No issues whatsoever with the encyclopaedic merit of covering the protests against Trump, nor, overall, with the way in which they handle the topic (though I'm dubious about whether a stand-alone article for inauguration is needed, given that there were many significant protests in 2016 both before and after his victory). StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The current blurb (alt 3) is focused on the Women's March on Washington which has been attended globally by millions. What would you consider exceptional enough to post? I'd consider this quite exceptional. Sam Walton (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Object to proposed blurbs on POV grounds, leaning support on posting something. The more I think about this, the bigger the march and associated rallies strike me as being. I still stand by my initial concern, which is the justifiable – whether accurate or not – accusation of liberal bias. Think about it: we made an exception for Obama's inauguration and yet we're only posting Trump's in order to play up the level of protest about him. This made all the more unfortunate given that (there not having been a justifiable focal point for it), we've posted nothing about the reason for Trump's success being directly attributable to disillusion in the establishment. It would be better if we could use the blurb to loosen the relationship between the two and let the reader judge for themselves. Perhaps replacing "in response to" in alt 3 with "a day after"? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. As I said when we discussed the inauguration, which was routine by itself, I would support posting something if something extraordinary happened, such as millions of people protesting. This has now happened with protests in the millions across the US and across the globe. We should disregard comments above from editors who just express their political views/support of Trump instead of discussing the noteworthiness of the protests based on their merits in accordance with Wikipedia policy and ITN criteria. --Tataral (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Millions of people worldwide Hundred of thousands of Americans feeling angry, fearful and aggrieved. And prepared to take to the streets to shout about it. Don't see how this can be ignored or treated with "we don't normally" comments. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This nomination is about protests in the United States and not about the feelings of millions people worldwide. If you think  someone's fear and grief merits inclusion as news, you're encouraged to propose it as a separate item with impartial sources or, at least, propose an alternative blurb to this nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite happy to see an alternative blurb that reflects the true global scale of these protests. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, probably as many people protested in the UK as will vote for nobodies in The Voice tonight. Big news!  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow. Thanks for raising the level of debate there. But that is an interesting political comparison. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And all those (3) thousands in Sydney, almost as many folks went to the Wham Stadium (BAM!) today to see Accrington Stanley, who are they? draw with the mighty Carlisle. Exactly.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want "politics", see the French who had around 78,000 on the streets last September protesting (per the norm, like protesting against Trump) and that included loads of violence. These kind of protests are in no way unusual and they have no impact beyond creating a lot of litter and costing a lot in policing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Amazing what "meaningless" things these women folk get up to isn't it? Perhaps we should hope for more violence next time? Let's just count numbers from now on? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops. The reports clearly state these feeble worldwide "protests" were by men and women together.  And yes, there has to be some reliance on the scale of a protest in order to determine and contextualise its encyclopedic value.  That's why we don't have a French protest at ITN every two weeks.  Protests of this nature are de rigeur these days, unexceptional and worth perhaps a passing note in some Trump article somewhere, nothing more.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops indeed. Did you want the violence from the men or from the women? So your rationale for not posting is partly that not enough people know who Accrington Stanley are? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely, plus not enough milk was consumed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Still searching for that attendance figure. Perhaps you could oblige? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem - 2,634. HTH! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's hope the stadium was full, of meaning. After such a persuasive argument, perhaps I'll have to change my !vote? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - major protest that dominates headlines worldwide. It is beyond bizarre that WP has no mention of Trump, yet there is space for a building collapse... Renata (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the grounds that nothing has actually happened—in terms of either violence or some kind of desired result being achieved. That lots of people are unhappy with Donald Trump has been perpetually true for 18 months now. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's it, in a nutshell. I think there's some kind of developing (or developed) obsession to get something or anything about Trump onto the main page at the moment... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Julian, I understand your point, however millions throughout the world (see the Washington Post article) seems like it is a big deal and should be included, regardless of what the subject, what they are protesting, or politics in general. --   LuK3      (Talk)   21:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support a blurb focused on the worldwide nature of these protests. I would agree that US citizens protesting in the US is a typical reaction to a new president, despite some protests being larger than usual(including 250,000 in Chicago), but an estimated 3 million around the world marched, including 100,000 in London, other protests in Bangkok, Berlin, Paris, Nairobi, and Tokyo. The sheer number of protests about this subject worldwide means they are getting attention worldwide and people will be interested to read about them. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe protests of this scale against a new president upon his inauguration is a typical reaction, even in the US. The protests, both in the US and around the world, are a reflection of the fact that he is not a normal politician and that he holds explicitly racist and extremist views. Many people didn't like Bush and strongly disagreed with his views, but nevertheless it was quite different when he became president and there wasn't this perception among the majority of RS that he was extreme and unfit for the office, and that he held outrageous views. --Tataral (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The numbers that have turned up in Washington are considerably larger than expected and, together with the national and international scale of the protests, make this significant and unusual enough to warrant featuring. Neljack (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Both the inauguration and the protests are huge international news. And that's a fact, like it or not. Clearly blurb-worthy. Jus  da  fax   21:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb III: This is grabbing headlines everywhere. One of the largest one-day worldwide protests ever. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Presuming this will be posted, found a good image already at Commons. --M ASEM (t) 21:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - unprecedent in US history. 196.188.0.53 (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: The closer should take into account that the first comments regarding this proposal (including my own somewhat conditional support) were made yesterday when the protests were much smaller in scale, and that the newsworthiness of this event has changed substantially over the last day; as others noted, this is now huge international news and headlines around the world, and one of the largest one-day worldwide protests ever. --Tataral (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - I am forced to concede that this march is trending worldwide. It's receiving wall to wall coverage on multiple reliable sources. --WaltCip (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support By any definition of the phrase this is very much "in the news" AIR corn (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is no chance of consensus here and the more notable aspect is Trump's inauguration which wasn't deemed worthy of a mention consistent with policy. Protest marches happen all the time and usually have little ongoing effect. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact, when taking policy-based comments into account (i.e. comments that address the newsworthiness of the event based on its coverage in reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia policy generally and ITN criteria specifically), and disregarding comments that merely express a personal (political) opinion, or comments that are outdated due to the developments over the last day, there is now consensus to post this. The inauguration wasn't deemed ITN-worthy by itself because an inauguration in itself is routine and because we don't post inaugurations when we already posted the same story (election result) earlier; however the millions of protesters around the world is a highly significant event, as seen from its coverage in reliable sources. In the discussion over whether to post the inauguration, there was agreement that we could post something if something extraordinary happened, and I specifically mentioned the example "Two million people protest..." Now far more than two million people are protesting across the globe. When we post this, we will of course mention both the protests and the inauguration. --Tataral (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how Capitalistroadster arrived at that assessment, there is clearly a good chance, whether it actually happens or not. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Protest marches in Washington hundreds of thousands strong do not, in fact, happen all the time. This is as notable as the Vietnam War protests. --WaltCip (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is clearly strong opposition from a number of people to posting this on what we perceive as noteworthiness of the events. The inauguration of Donald Trump has received widespread coverage. If this is posted the blurb should be used with the inauguration first and the protests second or otherwise it will not be NPOV. As for numbers protesting, the |March for Life will occur next week in Washington with hundreds of thousands protesting but it will probably receive a blurb As for comparisons with the Vietnam War protests, the jury is still very much out on that. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed my oppose above to wait, but the time for waiting is just about over, as is the Women's March. The RS closest to the event, The Washington Post, wasn't reporting any extraordinary happenings as of 5 p.m. local time (22:00 UTC). Per Kiril, I'm inclined once again to oppose, although if we had a really comprehensive piece including all the international stuff ... ?? Sca (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the article? There's plenty of coverage of the international events. Sam Walton (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, although almost a list, it seems fairly comprehensive, so I'll switch once again to support alt2 or alt3. Sca (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: We should be cautious about estimates of total worldwide participation, though. Sca (talk)


 * Support - worldwide protests with millions of protesters are relevant. And ITN worthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - er, have you seen the headline news all around the world, people? Black Kite (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The only thing I would like to see is if we know the total number that participated is estimated at. "Millions" right now is a bit vague, I'd like to give a better sense of scale; last best number I saw was 3 million but could be more. Basically, I would like to make sure we can different between "just above a million", in the 3-7 million range or 10 million or greater. And this should clearly be labeled an estimate. --M ASEM  (t) 00:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * FallingGravity just mentioned this source which estimates 2-3 million, so we could go with that. Sam Walton (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Demographics question: Off-topic, but because of the nature of the event, which is U.S.-centric, but expanded outside the U.S., it would be interesting to get some estimates of the ratio of us voting editors that are American vs. non-American? Any volunteers willing to give their estimate? --Light show (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strongest Support - this was an international event. To claim it is not notable is utterly ridiculous. According to NPR, PRI, The Guardian, and CNN, rallies we held in Sydney, NYC, New Delhi, Mexico City, Buenos Aires, Wellington, Melborne, Auckland, Berlin, Paris, Cape Town, Christchurch, Nairobi, Time, Frankfurt, Munich, Cardiff, Liverpool, Manchester, Belfast, Leeds, Vianna, Amsterdam, Geneva, Marseille, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Edinburgh, Ghana, Malawi, Dunedi, Barcelona, Brussels, Greece, Kosovo, the Czech Republic, Georgia, and even Antarctica.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strongest support global event with huge turnout, well beyond organizer's expectations. Ought to be covered. Sadads (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Does 'strongest support' count as three supports? Sca (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I once – admittedly under the influence – came very close to using AWB to replace instances of "strong support" and "strong oppose" with "(feel free to ignore me)". The inevitable block, follow-up drama and Arbcom case almost seemed worth it. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have, at times, thought of responding to a "Strong Oppose" with which I disagreed with an "Extra Super-Strong Mega-Support with bells and whistles, flashing lights, and a cherry on top"... but I was concerned that the closing admin would be so awed by my magnificence and infallible insight that s/he would forget to look to policy and consensus and instead acclaim me as omnipotent and declare all future disputes would be resolved by me alone. I don't have that kind of spare time... though designating as my proxy has appeal!  EdChem (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per Blackkite and others - it is not usual. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's been said before. Sca (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose we didn't post this in the immediate aftermath of the inauguration, why post now? As for this item making headlines, that's not the case: the inauguration itself made more headlines. Banedon (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doing so would be placing the secondary event (leftist protests) over the primary event (the Inauguration of the new President) in terms of importance. --Tocino 02:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but the difference between both events is the fact that one happens on a regular, 4-year basis whereas the other (because of the sheer magnitude and its timing literally one day after a presidential inauguration) is unprecedented. ♠  TomasBat   03:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * HEY! – We're up to 5,200 words of blather. Time to fish or cut bait. Sca (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have added [Needs attention] to the heading. Jus  da  fax   04:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support posting, this is a major story. I have proposed alt blurb IV as a shorter and more direct version of III.  If we wanted to note the protest aspect, another option would be "Millions of people worldwide join the Women's March on Washington protests following the Donald Trump presidential inauguration."  EdChem (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "In response to" is a bit loaded for me (long-winded version above). Can live with "following". StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. It's a big deal. Everyking (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Attendance to this worldwide protest event exceeded expectations (which were initially high), by far - and by far I mean really far (see Women's March on Washington). A protest against the incoming President drawing crowds clearly larger than those at a U.S. presidential inauguration literally the day after the inauguration is not usual. The Wikipedia article for the march reads (and I quote): "The march drew hundreds of thousands to D.C. alone and approximately 2.9 million in cities throughout the U.S., thus becoming the largest single day protest in American history." This alone should qualify it - people don't need to get shot for something to appear in "In the news". ♠  TomasBat   03:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support now with preference for blurb 3/4, after having opposed before. I think some kind of explicit message that the protests are about defending and promoting the status of women in the blurb is preferable to "we're cross because our candidate lost" Blythwood (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support due to the worldwide significance of the protests; this is really unprecedented among presidential inaugurations of any country in the world. As for the blurb I support the following which is very similar to IV and I'll call Alt blurb V: Millions of people worldwide join the Women's March on Washington in response to the inauguration of Donald Trump. "Millions of people worldwide" is a good concise way of framing the scope of the event, while I prefer bolding both articles. I think this is like the Carrie Fisher case, where a single event (i.e. just the inauguration) may not be sufficient for posting, but the combined blurb is worth posting and both events should be bolded. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I added an ALT5 with two bold links. EdChem (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the template only supports going up to 4. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I managed to force it in after I discovered the limitation, thanks. :)  EdChem (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support with an estimated turnout of 2.9 million people, this was the largest single-day political manifestation in the history of the United States. I think this fact should go in the summary too.--DarTar (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Worldwide protests involving millions, and being reported as one of the leading stories by most 'quality' news sources. However some of the proposed blurb wording seems problematic: "Millions worldwide join Women's March on Washington..." (altblurb4 and altblurb5) or "Millions of people march worldwide as part of Women's March on Washington..." (altblurb3). I agree with these altblurbs focussing on the worldwide nature of the protests, but if you're marching in Paris or Nairobi or Sydney then it sounds a bit silly to say you're part of a March on Washington. Also the blurbs need to mention these are "protests" (much current wording might mean marches supporting Trump). So I'm adding an altblurb6 to try to avoid these problems: "Millions of people worldwide, including 500,000 in the Women's March on Washington, march in protests following the Donald Trump presidential inauguration." Tlhslobus (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm now creating a proper Redirect for "worldwide", as in Donald Trump Inauguration Protest March Locations.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done, + added to altblurbs 1 to 6.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Err, it makes zero sense to link twice to the same article in a single blurb. I would expect that just on reading the context that the March article will include the locations. (And from a quality standpoint, listed out every city and country is bad form, at some point that needs to be reduced to prose). --M ASEM  (t) 05:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I have removed the links from all the blurbs. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason why I put in the link (which is to a different part of the article) was because we are announcing a worldwide phenomenon (or US-wide in some of the altblurbs), yet are only giving a link to what is ostensibly an event in Washington DC. So I fail to see how it makes "zero sense" to supply our readers with a link to the wider phenomenon that our blurbs announce (on the contrary, I fail to see the sense in depriving them of such a link). So I would like to restore the link, but I don't risk an edit war, so I may (or may not) eventually just create an altblurb 7 (a copy of altblurb 6) with it. Meanwhile I'd like to know whether the current alleged quality issue is deemed sufficiently serious to prevent the item from being posted. And also whether the article needs to be renamed to something like Worldwide marches against Trump Inauguration, or whether a new such article needs to be created, and whether failure to do this is also a quality issue sufficiently grave to prevent the item from being posted. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I note that the article describes the other marches as "sister marches" - in other words they are NOT part of the Women's March on Washington, contrary to what many of the altblurbs say.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Having the biggest post-inaugural protests ever is ITN worthy, especially since protests took place around the world. The consensus to not post the inauguration was based on the fact that nothing exceptional had happened yet, but with these protests, something has. Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, this is 1) highly unusual and very notable and 2) being reported all across the world. Here are news coverage links from Finland, Nigeria, India, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, UAE, Argentina, Mexico, Uruguay, Egypt, Faroe Islands, etc, etc. --Soman (talk) 07:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: I have moved the article to 2017 Women's March due to the emerging consensus on the article's talk page. Does this address your concerns? Anyways we will need to rewrite all the blurbs. -- King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . It mostly addresses my concerns. "2017 Women's Marches" might be better as it's not a single march (but on the other hand "2017 Women's Marches" might have to be more specific, such as "2017 Women's Marches against the Trump Inauguration", to avoid referring to all feminist marches in 2017). But I guess Wikilinking means that we can call it something like that in the blurb even if the article's name remains unchanged. As for any remaining article quality issues (a still dubious article name, and the list format of the locations), these are not part of my concerns, but they may still be part of other people's concerns.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Posted alt V without the inauguration bolding, as there wasn't much discussion of bolding both. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Haha, so balanced how the inauguration is not bolded. Good job unbiased admins! Nergaal (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your concerns are exactly why I suggested bolding both. It appears that it was posted without bolding solely because of insufficient discussion, not because anyone actually thinks it would be a bad idea. So I've WP:BOLDly bolded it (pun intended) under the assumption that it's unlikely to be controversial - of course any admin should feel free to revert me and we can have a discussion here. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 11:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Let the people have their moment for sobbing and breached neutrality as a comfort for the inevitable truth that won't change. It's pretty obvious here that the main news is no longer the inauguration but the march against it (please note just how the infobox in the article divides Trump administration and the leaders of the march like they are warring one to each other). I find it meaningless to debate here any more and, after all, Wikipedia is not perfect.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * While not being the march's fan, I think the inauguration should be unbolded as the main subject seems to be the march (besides the consensus was not to post the inauguration). It was fine before, I can't recall when we bolded two items simultaneously. Brandmeistertalk  12:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not standard practice to bold two items on ITN, but I guess someones feelings might be hurt because the bolded item isn't Trump. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  14:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Er, our ITN/C template has space for two articles to be highlighted. These are thus listed at the topic of the ITN/C blurb. When this is done, both can be bolded, but this also means that both articles have to be reviewed for proper front page posting. Certainly the Women's March article was vetted once it was identified, but I don't see any scrutiny of the inauguration article, which is why we should be careful just randomly bolding parts of the blurb. --M ASEM (t) 15:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Though, I have just checked the inauguration article and don't see any glaring issue. --M ASEM (t) 15:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Blurb says "millions of people worldwide." This sounds rather slap-dash. AP on Sunday says "more than 1 million people rallied at women's marches in the nation's capital and cities around the world," and that seems more prudent. Sca (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Other sources are giving 2+ million. .  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , that USA Today piece seems to rely on "projections" for its 2M+ figure. Note that cutline says, "Early projections show that over 2.5 million...." The NYT article cited with it in the article does not mention "millions" worldwide. Sca (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. Who is this Trump character?  What country is he in?  Or do we presume that everyone around the world just knows basic information like that?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: I know it's been posted already, but I wish to express my support for it. Unlike what Lugnuts said, this is not just some "snowflakes" protesting against a president. It's an unprecedented worldwide protesting event against a strongly unpopular president in a strongly divided country. Not to mention, it has received significant news coverage and many notable celebrities participated. Definitely worth the blurb.  κατάστασ  η  18:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

2017 Verona bus crash

 * Oppose given that this is going to stale out in a day and it is older than the oldest ITN presently in the box. Clearly this was reported at the time, but as it wasn't nominated, we can't do much about it. --M ASEM (t) 04:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with the reasons provided by . – Aditya (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] 2017 Melbourne car attack

 * Oppose. As much as I would like to think that Australia is the centre of the universe, the truth is that this incident is of no international significance. Having it up on the ticker alongside the Gambia, the anti-Trump protests, etc, would look silly. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose (and I'm Australian). If this was a terror attack, maybe. But this was nothing more than a deranged person on a rampage who killed 5 people. Which is terrible, of course, but killing 5 people is not unusual enough to warrant being on ITN. Also, my impression is it's not dominating Australian news in the same way as, e.g. 2014 Sydney hostage crisis, which did make ITN. Adpete (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mkativerata. Banedon (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Harry Middleton

 * Support Article seems all in proper shape and ready to go. --M ASEM (t) 15:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Well crafted article. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Good quality article, which is now all that really matters for RD. Wth 2 others agreeing on its quality, and no dissent on quality (at least so far), marking item as Ready. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Extradition of El Chapo

 * Support - Article is in great shape, this is being covered by all major news outlets, the man is the largest drug lord in the world, he's finally going to trial and he hasn't escaped. Perfect ITN if I've ever seen one. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I am pretty sure Chapo has been on ITN at least 2 times by now. Unless he escapes Hollywood style or is executed he doesn't need to be put on ITN again. Nergaal (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait until he is convicted in a US court. We don't need to post every step in this process. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Conviction in either this district or the other districts that have indicted him is assured. The surprising piece of news is that the Mexican government actually extradited him. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 16:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing is certain. Someone like him or his organization could intimidate jurors; he could escape again(albeit unlikely), anything could happen. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Once he's convicted in the U.S., the blurb will be opposed here on the grounds that it was expected, that he has been previously convicted, that he still needs to be sentenced, that he could appeal, that he could strike a deal to reduce his sentence, that he could escape, any number of reasons. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 17:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that I support posting it then. I can't guarantee it will be, but I think it should be. We usually post convictions as they are a formal judgement of criminal activity- even if they are overturned later. 331dot (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We normally don't post criminal stories until there's a conviction, for obvious BLP reasons. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised at some of the article's contents - there's quite a lot there that I'd have expected to see framed as 'allegedly' at the very least, if not removed altogether.  That said, I agree that the story has the significance to be posted at ITN, but I share the concerns voiced above about when in the process would be the right time.  I could be convinced either way, though.  GoldenRing (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * He has been convicted for organized crime in Mexico. That's why he was in prison when he escaped twice. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 16:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - he was convicted of drug crimes long ago, so no BLP issues here. His sudden extradition, which Mexico had long refused, is the big news. -Zanhe (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – For now, per 331; await verdict and/or sentencing. Sca (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Sca, that blurb will not be posted for the same "wait" reasoning. See above. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 17:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Wait until conviction.--WaltCip (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The fact that he has been tried and sentenced in Mexico courts already, and with US officials been trying to get him extradited to try him here for months now, makes this an unsurprising turn. Agree that the US conviction will be the point of ITN posting. --M ASEM (t) 17:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose on BLP grounds. He is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Contrary to the suggestion above, it is not certain that he will be convicted. I have no idea what the basis is for the suggestion that it is certain that he will be convicted. It is never certain that someone will be convicted unless the trial is a show trial, which I see no reason to believe this will be. Neljack (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I find people's objection on grounds of BLP ridiculous. He was convicted and sentenced in his home country Mexico more than 20 years ago, and escaped from prison twice! BLP does not say that only people convicted by a US court can be considered criminals. -Zanhe (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment BLP isn't a suicide pact. Currently, 2017 Gao bombing is on ITN. It identifies Al-Qaeda as behind the attack. Next people will say they haven't been convicted for this specific attack, so it's a BLP violation. The blurb isn't even about his crimes. It's about his extradition, an indisputable fact. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 04:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Invoking BLP in opposition to this nomination is completely spurious, as Ramaksoud2000 correctly points out. My ground for opposition is that I don't see this step of the criminal justice process against Mr Chapo as amounting to an event of international significance. But it's not far from it, either. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Inauguration of Donald Trump
<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.


 * Oppose. We already posted the result of this election. We don't ever post inaugurations, which are just formalities. The precedent in this case is extremely clear, and inaugurations have as far as I can ascertain always (correction: almost always with only one known exception a decade ago) been rejected on ITN. If we post this, then we will have to do the same for other countries too, and post, for the example, the much anticipated upcoming inauguration next week of Alexander Van der Bellen as President of Austria, despite already having posted the election result after the election. The inauguration of a new President, particularly in a larger country such as the US, but also France, China and many other countries, will always be a major story, and there is a reason that we only post such events (namely, a country getting a new President) once, not twice. --Tataral (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's actually not true. We posted the First inauguration of Barack Obama because of the singular historic nature of it, given the record breaking crowds and his status as the first African American U.S. president, not to establish precedent (which does not exist at ITN.  If momentum in baseball is only as good as tomorrow's starting pitcher, "precedent" at ITN is only as good as who shows up to vote in a discussion on any given day.  Consensus of every individual discussion is always decided only on the merits of every individual nomination, without artificial connections to coincidental events of similar categories.  But I digress)  Aside from my digression my only point was that the "we've never posted inaugurations" is demonstratedly false, since we HAVE (and posting either that one or this one would not bind us to ever post anything else outside of consensus to do so).  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, Trump is not the first white president, and is there any reason to expect record breaking crowds (except perhaps people protesting against him in the US capital, in which case the blurb should emphasize the protests against him if that was the reason for posting it)? --Tataral (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Did I make any of those statements regarding a reason to support posting this? Why would you bring them up?  You'll note I opposed posting this blurb.  Or maybe you couldn't be bothered to read that.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't write that you made any such statements, I merely commented on the fact that the reasons that were apparently cited back then, nearly ten years ago, don't apply today. --Tataral (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb as written, wait for possible more interesting stories related to the event, such as aftereffects of protests, etc. To merely report the dry fact of the inauguration is burying the lead on this story.  If nothing interesting aside from the inauguration itself happens, it isn't worth a blurb.  If something else does, that should be the focus of the blurb and not the routine ceremony itself.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose this obnoxious US-centrism. However, like Jayron, I would be open to posting if something significantly out of the ordinary occurs. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I would also support posting something if something extraordinary happened, for example something along the lines of: "50 people are killed in protests against the inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States" or "Two million people protest against the inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States". If there is just the usual formalities, then there is no reason to post anything. --Tataral (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For me the more likely scenario that could result in an ITN post is that Trump carries out some significant--and I mean internationally not domestically significant--executive action on his first day. Maybe rescission of measures in relation to Cuba, movement of the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, a large and provocative movement of troops in Europe or East Asia, etc. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Obama's 1st inauguration made sense as being the first African-American. Trump doesn't break any trends or records, and I think there are very few people in the English speaking world that don't know he will about to be President. Understandably on the principle of this being the effective leader of the free world, that's a huge power position, which is why I can see the US inauguration is more significant than any other country. --M ASEM (t) 02:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, the state of the article (pre-ceremony considerations) is a bit questionable. There's one section that has an orange tag, and I don't think including the full list of Senators and Representatives boycotting it is necessary on this page, making its POV in question. --M ASEM (t) 02:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The point of course is the transition and assumption of authority, not the ceremonies; we can select a different article to be bolded, if desired. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that we've already highlighted (per ITNR) the election win, and barring any extremely unlikely events, the transition was assured to happen. And to move away from the inauguration article would be a poor excuse. I would not expect that the article at the time of ITN posting be as detailed as previous ones, but it should be in a shape that shows it ready to be added to by new editors were this to be posted, and right now, its far from it. --M ASEM (t) 03:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't post inaugurations, and we shouldn't make a Trump exception. I would reconsider if there were massive violence in protests, or something else similar. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not true. Of all prior U.S. Presidential inaugurations that have occurred prior to this one during the timeframe when ITN has existed as a main page section, we've posted exactly 50% of the.  If you're going to oppose, please oppose on the merits (note, please don't assume I supported this.  Bad reasoning and blatant falsehoods should be corrected regardless of the conclusion.).  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That sort of oppose works on so many other nominations. We posted the election. Hmm, maybe we should post this. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Inaugurations in general, not just USA ones. Adpete (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose and subject to reconsideration. As noted above, we don't usually post inaugurations, and I'm not just referring to US inaugurals, if the election results were previously posted. We made an understandable exception with Obama's first inaugural but I don't think that should be treated as precedent. All of which said, there are people and groups who have been quite openly promising to do anything within their power to disrupt the ceremonies, not excluding violence. If there are major disturbances I will likely reconsider my !vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support There is an extraordinary amount of nervousness and uncertainty around the world around what will actually happen now that Trump is President, which simply would not exist if a mainstream candidate like e.g. Jeb Bush had been elected. Especially in Europe, as I understand it. It may seem sensationalist to say "this inauguration is special", but it really is. My local state media have a front page item with the title "we must accept that Trump is now President", for crying out loud. Thue (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is pretty much the definition of WP:CRYSTAL. If something extraordinary actually does happen now that Trump is President, I'm sure we'll post it.  "Nervousness and uncertainty" are not the makings of an ITN item.  GoldenRing (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support since it's generating so much news worldwide. The event hasn't come to pass but it's already made lots of headlines around the world. Bias is bias, but we have to be fair, powerful countries receive more media coverage than less-powerful ones, and the US has both the world's largest economy and is a member of the UN security council. As Mkativerata put it earlier this week, this is "real news" with major global impact - no idea why (s)he's opposing now. Banedon (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not "real news with major global impact." This is "event we've all known would happen for months happens."  Inaugurations of presidents of the United States are not more or less ITN-worthy than inaugurations of heads of state of other countries - we shouldn't post this one, either.  Arguably, we should be less willing to post this one, since part of the purpose of ITN is "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them."  GoldenRing (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose - One great thing about ITN is that it has a global perspective and does not merely roll out the same headlines as the conventional western press. So the "every other media will have it on the front page" doesn't necessarily hold. (There's a been a lot of coverage in the western media in the last few days about a robbery of Kim Kardashian, that doesn't make it ITN-worthy). I'm not seeing any pressing real world significance to include it. And besides, Trump will (unfortunately) probably do a lot of genuinely ITN-worthy things in the next year, so let's save Trump for that. FWIW, I probably would have opposed posting the Obama inauguration 8 years ago too. Adpete (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - already posted the result of this election. This is just a party. -  Eugεn  S¡m¡on  07:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb. What's newsworthy here is the extreme divisiveness and protest. This is unique. I've never seen it before. Jehochman Talk 07:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's been protests nearly every single day since he won the election in November, so the protests aren't new. (And in most cases, they haven't been violent either, just angry) That said, if they actually disrupt any part of the ceremony, that might be something. --M ASEM (t) 07:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The election result was already posted, so no need for a blurb about the inauguration. The inauguration is largely a formality and just a big party. Also, I don't see what makes this inauguration that much more newsworthy than the swearing-in of heads of state and heads of parliament in other countries. If this article were to be published in ITN, then presumably a (bad) precedent would be set, which would see articles posted about the swearing-in of leaders in countries other than the US. Gfcvoice (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose We do no post inaugurations and there is nothing extraordinary about this. Also, saying that this "will be what January 20, 2017 will always be remembered for" is rather amusing. It may surprise you, but the rest of the world doesn't usually care about what Americans think or do. File this under "US bias" and move on. Isa (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose so what? Unless something exciting happens like an assassination attempt or similar, this is simply run of the mill.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not sure what to think about this - it's certainly not a run-of-the-mill inauguration. That said, I don't really think we can post this again unless and until something actually happens on the day. — foxj 09:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - this section is called "in the news". I'm pretty certain this particular piece of news is front page in virtually every country in the world. I know it's run of the mill because of the election results, but it's still news, and readers will expect to see it here. I am not from the US, and I do sometimes think the coverage here is slightly biased towards the US, but this is major news whichever way you cook it. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I am of the understanding that the "In the news" section has a higher threshold for publication than just being for those things that are "in the news". If it was just "in the news" then presumably Kim Kardashian would be worthy of an article almost every week. Gfcvoice (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I personally use the criteria "in the future 'on this day' history books", not so much "in the news". By that criteria, Trump's inauguration qualifies (much more than any "normal" president perhaps except the first black one), while Kim Kardashian does not. Thue (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * True. Unfortunately In_the_news is not that helpful in this regard, as it does not really give any concrete guidelines for eligibility, leaving it up to individual discussions. Which is all well and good, but that tends to lead to biases and inconsistencies. My personal rule of thumb is that something on the front page news in multiple countries (e.g. US, Canada, UK, Australia, France, Germany would be a good range) should almost always be posted, hence why I think this particular event is a shoo-in. Something that's more of national interest somewhere in the world, but is still significant, well that's a good contender too. Coverage in broadsheets rather than tabloids is also a good indicator. Not that I'm belittling tabloids, but as an encyclopedia, our coverage would lean towards the broadsheet end of the spectrum. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment What makes this inauguration any more newsworthy than those of Obama in 2012, GW Bush, Bill Clinton or GHW Bush? Gfcvoice (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, Obama's 2008 inauguration was actually posted, presumably because the first black president was so symbolic. As for Trump's inauguration being more notable than a normal US inauguration, it is because of how big a break with the past it is. Trump is not just another politician as e.g. Jeb Bush would have been, but has e.g. made EU politicians seriously consider whether the EU-US alliance is set in stone. Like if Le Pen was elected to lead France - it is a break with the past, which looks sure to get special mention as "not just a run of the mill Democratic change of power" in future history books. Thue (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. I attempted to close this, as I see no reason to drag this out any more as there seems to be clear opposition to posting and the support arguments seem unpersuasive, but was reverted. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * IMO there was nothing bold about the closure. The consensus is clearly not to post unless something unexpected happens. And I would suggest that keeping the discussion open in the interim harms the chances of a new consensus being reached should something unexpected actually happen. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying - I think it would have been the right move. To add to the very clear record, I oppose this nomination.  IMO, posting Obama's inauguration was a mistake.  Some of the supports above are verging on, "This isn't just any inauguration - he's the president of the USA!"  Most of the others are firmly gazing into their crystal balls.  If something extraordinary happens, as others above, I'd support a blurb.  Otherwise, this is "rich white man who won election takes up his office."  GoldenRing (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Gambia invasion

 * Support a blurb refresh. Events of the last 24 hours clearly warrant it: constitutional crisis; rival inauguration; Senegalese troops crossing the border. Don't worry about the formatting. Someone at some point decided to make ITN nominations inaccessibly difficult. They should be ignored. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with above. Banedon (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone may want to suggest a blurb and add some value to the discussion. Or do we ignore that now? Stephen 04:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support posting as a development of 2016–17 Gambian constitutional crisis. Oppose posting of Invasion of the Gambia which seems a rather POV article name (and is an inappropriate article name anyway, should at least have the year). For instance, the article International Force for East Timor is not called "Invasion of East Timor". Adpete (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the blurb should refer to an intervention rather than an invasion. This is a regional intervention in an internal constitutional crisis, not the invasion of a unified country. It also seems likely that the Invasion of the Gambia article will be merged into the constitutional crisis article. Details of exactly which forces entered the country should be checked. It seems clear that Senegalese forces entered the country and that Nigeria sent at least one warship and provide some air support. It seems less clear whether Ghanaian troops actually entered the country. Togo and Mali may also be involved. Some of the sources are slightly dated reports about preparing to go in, rather than reports of what actually happened after that. It may be better not to try to list the specific countries at this stage. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Both articles look in good shape, though there is a discussion about merging them. IMO we should go ahead and post, and if the merge happens soon then the blurb can be tweaked.  Obviously significant to the modern history of Gambia, and In The News.  GoldenRing (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per above. I prefer the altblurb but don't object to the original one. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb. "Invasion" isn't the correct word to use. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you call it when troops from one country make an opposed entry into another country? It's true that none of the sources currently cited in the article use the 'invasion' language, but surely the dictionary supports this?  GoldenRing (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Invasion" suggests the forces have no permission to enter the 'invaded' country. Jammeh is no longer the legitimate leader of the country, so him opposing this intervention does not make it an 'invasion'.  The legitimate leader, presumably the people who voted for him, most of The Gambian military, the UN, and other countries all support this action. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not too worried either way. I'm seeing reports of clashes as troops entered the country and tens of thousands fleeing, which to my mind makes this sufficiently invasion-like to call it an invasion.  I haven't followed the political situation very very closely; if everyone in the Gambia (except Jammeh) supports this, then why is it even necessary?  GoldenRing (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say everyone in The Gambia supports it, but most people seem to(including the navy, and the army chief, though a few individual units are still loyal to Jammeh. If Jammeh is no longer the leader, he is just a trespasser with supporters to protect him. It's only an 'invasion' if the legitimate government opposes the action. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Surely 'legitimate government' is in many cases in the eye of the beholder? It's worth noting in this context that the Gambian parliament has voted to extend Jammeh's term.  So the foreign forces are not only opposing a few units loyal to Jammeh, but also the national parliament (whose vote may well have been unconstitutional, I'm just saying it's complicated).  GoldenRing (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Legitimate is a particularly muddy word to use here. What Jammeh is doing is quite possibly both legal and showing contempt for democracy, simultaneously. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) You are certainly correct- but more groups and people seem to think Barrow is now legitimate than Jammeh. Yep, it is complicated, though. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This also appears on our List of invasions if that helps (which it probably doesn't) GoldenRing (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I thank you for finding that, I wasn't aware of that page. It may be worth examining how they came to post it there. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The top of that page defines an invasion as, "a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity." This would qualify.  GoldenRing (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Googling the word invade states that the armed force must enter "so as to subjugate or occupy" the entered area- which is not the goal here. But I will say that I don't strongly oppose the use of the word 'invasion'; just that I feel the other would be better. Thanks 331dot (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Conditional support. According to the article Senegal halted the invasion to give Jammeh one final chance to step down, with a deadline of noon (same timezone as UK, so we're talking 45 minutes). I would suggest waiting until then to see what has happened. I would support the transition of power either way given the circumstances, but see no point in posting an invasion for the sake of waiting that length of time. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Update according to the BBC, Jammeh is "highly likely" to fly to Guinea today. What's less clear is whether he will formally stand down. I advocate waiting here. I would note that a non-violent transition of power under these circumstances would be highly newsworthy in and of itself - I support any conceivable outcome, but think we should wait to see what that outcome is rather than post something for the sake of posting. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's too late for a non-violent transition. There was already a pretty big military incursion yesterday that was met by armed resistance – mostly mercenaries, according to some reports. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support alt. blurb per 331dot.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing. It's an ongoing constitutional crisis, so it makes the most sense to put it in ongoing. We had just featured a related blurb, so I'm adverse to having another one. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing Exactly the type of story that is changing a few times a day and likely will until the crisis is resolved. --M ASEM (t) 14:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted as blurb (before the two ongoing comments were added). I'm open to moving it to ongoing, and perhaps it should have been put there when it aged off originally. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Can we not wikilink The Gambia? I didn't know it was a country, I thought it referred to a disputed territory or something and had to bloody type it in search to look it up. Would have preferred a simple click. #wikiproblems -- Natural  R X 15:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Long-standing convention at ITN is not to link countries. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This came as a surprise to me, too, recently, but then that's because most of my geography comes from the precursor to Wikipedia, Dr Fegg's Book of All World Knowledge, also known as The Nasty Book, according to which the Gambian national anthem ends, "From mountains down to flat bits, ring out your anthem great, though now you're part of Senegal the words are out of date." GoldenRing (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This issue has now been raised in WT:ITN. -- Natural  R X 19:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Jammeh agrees to step down, again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.124.212 (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Attention needed: This blurb should be updated to reflect Jammeh's departure from power: -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Nomination for new blurb made. Elisfkc (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Request for attention resolved per above section entitled "[Updated] Yahya Jammeh leaves". —BarrelProof (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Miguel Ferrer

 * Oppose for now Needs more sourcing. R.I.P. Albert Rosenfield. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose far too many references needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Plasco Building

 * Comment I note that they seem to reporting between 30-50 firefighters that were attempting to fight the blaze and were caught in the collapse, so I believe this should be included in the updated blurb. I do not that this is definitely ITN-appropriate as it is about an iconic building in Tehran in addition to the lives lost. --M ASEM (t) 14:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support notability and post once expanded beyond a hub. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support when article is developed - Similar to TRM Sherenk1 (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment/Update - The Iranian state-sponsored media has reported that at least 75 are dead (see here), I'll edit the article and blurb. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait - Honestly, the best decision would be to wait. My father is a firefighter and he says it takes multiple days to sort out a fire with a high death toll. This could take upwards of a week, possibly two, because of identification and confirmation. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been updating the article, and there are definitely still fluctuating numbers. That said, even if everyone ended up safe (doubtful, but..), the collapse of this building itself is also significant. I would recommend that we altblurb "At least 20 firefighters are reported missing from the collapse of the Plasco Building." or something like that. If this blurb is then still up at ITN when a fixed death count is known, it can be updated. --M ASEM (t) 16:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - major disaster. Article is decent. -Zanhe (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb. Article is fine. AIR corn (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment article looking more than adequate now for main page inclusion, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted I went with the alt blurb pending more solid numbers. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I think for the picture of the news, this file is better. It's more related to the accident. GTVM92 (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * changes to posted blurbs, including issues with pictures, is dealt with at WP:ERRORS. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Blurb update: Gambia
It's not confirmed by other sources. The situation remains unclear. Everyking (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait until confirmation, then post if true. Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Turns out it's not. From the same website that Lihaas is citing: "Gambia’s Jammeh Backtracks, Decides To Stay Put". Everyking (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just saw that, too bad. Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Gao, Mali bombing

 * Support - A very important event with a huge amount of casualties. The article needs work however. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support deadliest attack on Mali soil, article could be larger but with current info, it's all in there. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * weak support The article is reasonable and it has been described as Mali's deadliest suicide attack. Only weak because the international news is dominated more by the avalanche and building collapse. However, given the number of causalities and concerns about systemic bias (which may partly explain the relatively low coverage) I think we should post this. AIR corn (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - major terrorist attack with high death toll. -Zanhe (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment We are going to need a new photo in order to post this as it will knock the The Gambia story off ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few good photos for Plasco Building. -Zanhe (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've asked for file protection for the main Plasco photo over at Commons which ideally should be done before posting a photo to the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Posted No oppose votes and this has been up for a while. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Italy avalanche

 * Wait at least until we have some idea of how many is 'many'.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. The rescue attempt, it appears, is still ongoing, the figure is "up to 30". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait per Tlhslobus. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 *  Wait  – Per pvs. Deveolping – support in principle. Sca (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I do note in news stories that while the hotel/avalache is no small part of this story, the fact there were four quakes in an area under a cold snap and that was hit by quakes around the same time last year is also a significant part of the story. It will probably be a few days to confirm how many they have been able to save or not, so I would suggest something along the alt-blurb line to get this up sooner than later (noting we can update the # and status once the rescue attempt is complete). The article, however, still has sourcing issues. --M ASEM (t) 14:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - 2017 Farindola avalanche should be target article. --Jenda H. (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Four have been confirmed dead and up to 35 others are missing. The blurb can easily be updated as more information becomes available. AIR corn (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment ok, alt2 added so this can get to the main page sharpish. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Alt2, but to simplify for int'l audience suggest we make it just "in central Italy." (That it occurred in the Abruzzo Region doesn't seem particularly relevant to the event.) Sca (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Whether it's 4 or 34 dead, it simply isn't of lasting or global significance. Having this and the Tehran one up at the same time would distract unduly from the far more significant stories ITN presently has: climate change, Chelsea Manning and Gambia. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a dramatic story. Anytime dozens of people are suddenly buried by snow (or anything else), there's great interest. Sca (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in drama. I'm interested in ITN being more than a news ticker for the latest natural/maritime/aircraft disaster. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your interests are your own. But this is definitely in the news, and will continue to be for a time. Sca (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not really in the news at all. For example, on the New York Times homepage it is a small-font headline-only link well down the page. They correctly take the view that it is a minor albeit tragic disaster that doesn't warrant significant editorial attention. We should take the same view, because it is the correct view. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. It's good to know what is real and what is not. – Sca (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - major, unusual disaster, widely reported. -Zanhe (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support alt2. An unusual type of disaster, with casualty figures broadly in line with the sort of casualty figures that tend to garner consensus for more conventional types of tragedy. The rationale for the sole oppose amounts to "Chelsea Manning being released in May is too important to be bumped off by this". It would be like me trying to pick quality holes in RD nominations for the sake of keeping Graham Taylor on the main page. If you support the intention and the workings of this section then you must respect its outcomes. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Could someone alter the blurb? It explicitly states in the article that the cause is unknown at the moment with the earthquakes as a possibility. We shouldn't treat it as fact. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 10 years 19:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2016 was the hottest year

 * Pedantic note—"hottest year in history" is journalistic shorthand and has no place in Wikipedia, since it's very obviously not been the hottest year in history (that would be the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum or parts of the Neoproterozoic, depending on which geologists you listen to). What this actually was was the hottest year since systematic worldwide records began to be kept in 1880. &#8209; Iridescent 21:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * History must by necessity have been recorded. You're referring to prehistory. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pedantic pedants note—Still a bit clumsy, as history extends far earlier that the means of accurate temperature measurement; it should really be "in the history of climate measurement". I guess that's even clumsier. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just say "hottest year on record" rather than "hottest year in history". I can't see why that wouldn't be an accurate short-hand. Although I prefer "warmest" to "hottest". --Mkativerata (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. And "warmest" would be more in line with useage in the linked article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I originally wrote 'on record' before realising that having 'record' twice in the same blurb sounded horrible. Happy for someone to come up with better phrasing, and I agree that 'warmest' is better than my 'hottest'. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - Absolutely. We need a goddamn wake-up call around here.--WaltCip (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - yes. Blythwood (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in principle (pending an accurate blurb and good article). Obviously the blurb needs to be corrected, per Iridescent's more-than-mere-pedantry point. I can't conceive of any possible reason why this not ITN-worthy. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support an alt-blurb based on Iridescent. Climate change is real and important news. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Per WaltCip UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose simply because this is yet another record-breaking year. Climate change will take decades to reverse, so we'd technically be seeing this type of story each year for decades. I think a more interesting story related to climate change would be this potential break-off of a giant ice sheet from Antarctica as this could potentially raise sealevels by 10 cm alone. (It hasn't happen so no ITN/C yet) --M ASEM (t) 21:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And what's wrong with posting this, and then a year later posting when 2017 becomes the hottest year on record? What ITN policy says we shouldn't do that? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's the unwritten ITN policy of posting nothing other than minor maritime tragedies. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So maybe wait until we can post "New York under 2 ft of water"? That'd be newsworthy? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Simply because all but a few people recognize that we're undergoing climate change and the years are going to keep getting warmer and warmer. Saying this year was warming than last is basically is the equivalent of "the sun will rise tomorrow". On the other hand, events like the ice sheet crack are much more concrete sights that something different is happening. --M ASEM (t) 21:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The ice sheet crack is concrete and observable, but one could say it's just as "inevitable" as the temperature increasing. They'd both be worth posting. Also, I think that every consecutive year that sets another record adds to the newsworthiness of the warming, by showing that it's going up, up, up over time. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Article has not been updated yet. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support but say "hottest year on record" or "hottest year in recorded history" or something similar; I'm not picky. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - certainly newsworthy, and post it every year if the record keeps getting broken. If the trend continues, we should add it to ITN/R. -Zanhe (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have updated the article. C628 (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support get some real news onto ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 07:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Incidentally those who think this story will have to be posted every year are probably mistaken. The next record year probably won't be until after the start of the next El Nino in a few years' time. The blurb could debatably be improved by a mention of the contribution of El Nino, but, if so, there is a different forum (WP:ERRORS) for discussing changes to posted blurbs.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - even if this is superseded next year (of which there's no guarantee), what's wrong with posting it then? There are ITN/R stories that repeat every year. Banedon (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * NOTE: has changed the blurb to read "... due  to anthropogenic climate change" (emphasis added), citing WP:ERRORS.  I think this change is unwise as it can be read as the science organisations suggesting that some (or even most) of the warming is not due to climate change, though I think the intent is to note that variations like El Nino mean there is natural variation and not every year is expected to be a new record.  Anyone wishing to comment in support of the change or otherwise is advised that Espresso Addict has noted the change at ERRORS.  EdChem (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that the Guardian article says "... with scientists firmly putting the blame on human activities that drive climate change", I think the original blurb was correct. Is around to help with this? Banedon (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Some sources have political motivations in their reporting. The more impartial BBC article states "The El Niño weather phenomenon played a role, say scientists...", so the blurb correction is sensible. Mamyles (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have responded at main-page errors. Suggest we keep the discussion together. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Rachael Heyhoe Flint

 * Support RD Article quality seems OK to me, which is basically all that matters for an RD these days. But maybe a few other editors (hopefully with more experience of assessing article quality for RD purposes than I have) might want to have a look first. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD - Suggest using the title of nobility in the RD posting.--WaltCip (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. A couple of extra sources would be good, but nothing problematic outstanding I don't think. Do you mean posting as "Rachael Heyhoe Flint, Baroness Heyhoe Flint" or as "Baroness Heyhoe Flint"? I'm happy with either of those or just as "Rachel Heyhoe Flint". Thryduulf (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, per above. It's normal practice to just display the name, sans title. Mjroots (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 08:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Tirrel Burton

 * Support, everything appears to be in order. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. The infobox and article body disagreed on the death date (infobox said 18th, prose said 17th) but as the source given in the article says he died on "Tuesday" which was the 17th, I changed the infobox to match the prose. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Ken Wyatt

 * Comment the article states that he is "of Aboriginal Australian, Indian, English and Irish descent", which seems rather less poignant than "first Indigenous minister". Is it really the case that this is the first person of any amount of Aboriginal descent in government?  The single line under "Family" has no source and may run afoul of BLP.128.214.69.207 (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Virtually all of the sources refer to him as the first indigenous [insert office here], probably because AKAIK, in Australia (as elsewhere) indigenous people identify as such even if they are partially descended from non-indigenous people, and their right to do so has legal basis. Vanamonde (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Are there any sources that dispute this point, or does the government have an official position on this? I'm all for posting this, I just have a hard time believing that a country the size and age of Australia has never had anyone with any Aboriginal parentage in government.  That people can identify as whatever they wish is fine and good and certainly the tradition elsewhere (c.f. "Indians" Elizabeth Warren and Ward Churchil and "Black" Czech activists in the US), but if there's ambiguity about an assertion we should specify it in the blurb so as to not diminish the accomplishments of earlier persons who were just as much (or more) Aboriginal as the subject, but for whatever reason did not identify as such.  I'd suggest something like "Wyatt becomes the first minister to identify as Aboriginal...".128.214.69.207 (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Every source I have read so far has not disputed it, and I think that hedging in that manner when the sources do not is not entirely appropriate. I will look for sources that disagree, though. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support just to be clear, whichever way this goes.128.214.69.207 (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Mal Brough, who was a minister in the Howard government (appointed in 2004), has some Aboriginal ancestry but is never described/identified as indigenous. The first Aboriginal minister at state level was Ernie Bridge, who was appointed in 1986. I agree that the distinction between "indigenous" and "of indigenous descent" is pretty arbitrary, but we have to follow what other media use. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> IgnorantArmies  (talk)  13:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Don't think this is significant enough for ITN, and AFAIK we don't have a track record of posting any similar "firsts". For a bit of context, Wyatt has not been promoted to cabinet, but rather to the "outer ministry", which is broadly the equivalent of being a junior minister (in the UK) or a deputy secretary (in the US). He was previously an "assistant minister" (an even more junior position), which means his elevation isn't really much of a surprise. Frankly, the distinction between his previous position and his new position is only one of semantics – he'll probably get a small pay rise, but there's no real change in his responsibilities. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> IgnorantArmies  (talk)  13:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is an internal appointment in a country. Further, there are many possible "firsts", as any reader of sports trivia will know. For example, there might be "X becomes the youngest ..." or "Y becomes the first celebrity ...". Banedon (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Given the concern over exactly how they are classifying "indigenous" here and that this feels like a DYK rather than an ITN (an interesting factoid but nothing groundbreaking), I don't think we should include this. --M ASEM (t) 14:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think "Wyatt becomes the first minister to identify as Aboriginal..." sums it up perfectly. μηδείς (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There have several of indigenous Australians appointed as Ministers in Australia's states and territories. Mal Brough, a former Minister had some aboriginal ancestry through his maternal grandmother but did not identify as indigenous. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Close? Is it time to close per WP:SNOW on grounds of no hope of consensus for posting? Tlhslobus (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Invoking Mal Brough or State Ministers is disingenuous. Reliable sources clearly do not identify Brough as indigenous. And a Commonwealth Ministry is far more significant than a State Ministry. The Cabinet/non-Cabinet distinction is also immaterial: Cabinet Ministers have just as much power in law as non-Cabinet Ministers. I would have thought that a landmark in indigenous representation in any country is of international interest. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Colo (gorilla)

 * Oppose. Article in current state poorly reflects this animal's importance and is under-referenced. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose substandard referencing needs to be fixed. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What content/references exactly are missing in your opinions? The article doesn't have any or similar tags...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support due to updates made since my original objection. Reontgenium111 maybe doesn't realize that articles are frequently edited, so the version he viewed may not have been the same as the version I viewed.  Also, they may not be aware that tags do not make an article substandard.  Being substandard makes an article substandard  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I hope this doesn't turn into another #DicksOutForHarambe. Let's hope #CocksOutForColo doesn't happen. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Referencing is a problem, I don't know if the genealogy section is necessary here since none of the other gorillas are notable (yet), and that "favorite food" line in the lede stands out like a sore thumb. This needs a major copyedit before considering posting. --M ASEM (t) 14:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. I've added some sources and I would say ready to go. There was an uncited statement but it wasn't really relevant to the article (belonged in the article on her zoo) so I decided to remove it. Blythwood (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in the news from Arizona to Rome to Belfast to Der Spigel. μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Nigerian bombing of civilians

 * Oppose The apparent fact that this was accidental significantly dilutes its ITN-worthiness. It makes it only marginally more significant than a plane or boat tragedy.  In my opinion these are fairly run-of-the-mill events which ITN should avoid.  There are hundreds of accidental civilian casualties that occur on a weekly basis throughout the Middle East, which illustrates the relative insignificance of this event.  I don't think this is comparable to the Kunduz hospital airstrike: that was committed by a foreign military and gave rise to all kinds of grave international ramifications, as the article on that tragedy explains. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, significant loss of life, and significant event in Nigeria. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Unusual for such an accident to have such high casualties (52 killed, 200 injured in BBC report), including multiple international aid workers. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Espresso Addict. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Nigeria isn't some small, uncoordinated nation. This is a nation of 140 million with a formidable military. Things like this don't normally happen and especially not with such a high number of casualties. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support - because accidentally hitting civilians on a large scale is rare. Weakly because international coverage appears to be limited (but I'm seeing more coverage than the Chelsea Manning event). Banedon (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The clashes with Boko Haram have not really touched too much on civilian lives (compared to the Syrian war, and of course outside of the women they have kidnapped), so innocents killed in such an accident is significant. --M ASEM (t) 14:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Chelsea Manning

 * Point of order: Manning was not pardoned; her sentence was commuted. 331dot (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point (and the sources back that up). Blurbs changed. Black Kite (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Your POV is showing. Makes it hard to consider this on its merits. So I'll say oppose unless a better reason is presented that I find convincing. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the POV of the IP, this is going to be a huge story. Waiting to see how it goes, though. Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this really a bigger story than the coinciding commutation of Oscar López Rivera or pardon of James Cartwright? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it might be, because it's effectively Obama sticking the middle finger up to Trump. Someone in Trump's cabinet (the national security adviser? I forget) said Manning should be executed, remember. Black Kite (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume you're referring to this by KT McFarland. Anyway, I presume Obama is above giving the finger to Trump and is doing this based on his own convictions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Very possibly, but I suggest that it how it will be seen. Black Kite (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't yet decided whether I think this should be posted, but in answer to Muboshgu's above question, neither Rivera nor Cartwright are mentioned in the cited BBC story (I haven't checked the cited Independant story). If necessary somebody could count their Google hits compared to Manning's - I haven't bothered, but I'd expect Manning to get far more hits than the other two combined. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment As already pointed out by Muboshgu above (and by at least one other editor below), the nominator's POV is unfortunate and possibly thoroughly counter-productive since it may provoke editors who hate Manning into opposing the nomination. That would be a pity, as a good case can be made that those who hate Manning should also support the nomination, precisely because they think Obama's reduction of her sentence is very wicked, and should not be hidden from our readers. (Note: I don't hate Manning, but that's somewhat irrelevant.) Tlhslobus (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose too minor. She was convicted of leaking classified US material to Wikileaks. That's the classified material of one country. There are also lots of people worldwide who have their sentences commuted. There are lots of more notable events with longer lasting impact, such as Theresa May's speech laying out the plans for a hard Brexit. Banedon (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean Theresa May's speech laying out a possible plan for a transitional arrangement for a possible hard Brexit, although that might be with a negotiated customs union agreement, and the whole thing depends on the attitude of the 27 EU members to a possible arrangement on immigration and free trade, although she's not going to commit to anything yet (oh and Parliament might get to vote on the plan, if it ever becomes a plan. Or they might not.)?  Black Kite (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Banedon (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference between a speech about an action not yet taken and an action taken. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's also a big difference between an action taken in a minor affair and a speech about an action to be taken in a major one. Banedon (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's comparing like with like. In any case, you could always try to nominate Brexit as an item for Ongoing, but that discussion would belong somewhere else. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is currently the top story on Google News, New York Times, Washington Post, and my local newspapers here in Denmark. These newssources apparently judge that this is not a minor story. While there may be many leakers in the world, Manning has become symbolic, and hence notable. Thue (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The "this is the top story in this, this, this and my local newspaper" argument is a dangerous one, because it is extremely vulnerable to sampling bias. This isn't front-page news in newspapers in Malaysia, Turkey and Argentina. I didn't cherry-pick these countries - I just selected them as the first countries that came to mind. Banedon (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be front page news in every country to be ITN. But it is front page news in some places, which helps. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. It is an embarrassment to have rubbish items like dozen-fatality accidents and actor deaths on the front page while missing events of significant international coverage. First, even if this were a purely domestic event, the degree of international coverage is such that it transcends its locality. Second, it is not a purely domestic event: Manning's leaks were of great international significance; her release may also prove significant in and of itself if it forces Julian Assange to comply with his apparent promise to consent to extradition. In this case I think it would be correct for the blurb to mention Manning only; it is far less clear that any of the other commutations or pardons, either individually or in total, are internationally significant. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I very much agree with the "rubbish items like dozen-fatality accidents and actor deaths on the front page while missing events of significant international coverage" part! Thue (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The day we start posting things like Trump calling Clinton's imprisonment as a felon on the grounds that it receives significant international coverage is the day I can get behind posting this. Until then, we're stuck with our current setup behind a massive wall of precedent (see also AO's oppose). Banedon (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I couldn't give a shit about precedent; it is usually the refuge behind which a poor argument hides. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK then let's make this happen. Still not going to support this, but hey. Banedon (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Judging by the coverage of this story in reliable sources, this is a major story. --Tataral (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The leak, the circumstances with WikiLeaks, and Manning's treatment has lend the affair notability enough to feature ITN. Also Assange's promise to be extracted to the US is an interesting twist. Thue (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Orig. Either blurb. High-profile story, with a long history; leads many U.S. news purveyors on Jan. 17. Sca (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The outgoing President pardoning those of federal crimes is nothing unusual. Following the supports, there are subsequent results that would become more important as a result of this action if all processes go through, but are crystal-balling their signifigance here. --M ASEM (t) 02:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I will note that this did not change the previous ruling - Manning is still considered guilty, simply that the sentence was reduced to time + 4 more months. That's not changing anything from the original case. If the President decided to completely overturn the case (I don't think he has this power, but let's pretend), that might be something more, but that's just not happening. --M ASEM (t) 03:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose We just said no to posting the death sentence in the case of a racist mass murderer but we are going to post this? Either we are going to post criminal justice stories or not. And for the record I do not appreciate the political editorializing in the nominating statement which is contrary to NOTFORUM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Manning case has a much larger international impact and coverage in reliable sources around the world. For these reasons, it is more noteworthy and significant. I'm usually opposed to posting US domestic news on the main page that we wouldn't post if it happened in another country, but this particular case has been demonstrated to be much more significant on a global scale than the usual news about death sentences from the US. --Tataral (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Tataral, you couldn't make this stuff up could you... Comparing Dylann Roof's sentence to Chelsea Manning's release on the basis that they are both "criminal justice stories"... That takes the cake for today. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As was pointed out at the time, there was also a serious WP:CRYSTAL problem with the supposed significance of that death sentence, because the appeal process meant it was completely unclear whether and/or when the death sentence would be put into effect. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Claims that it is insignificant seem to be completely at variance with the editorial judgment of almost every 'quality' news source in the Western world. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose one person among 273 whose release was announced today. What makes this case special among them? μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Have any of the 272 others received comparable coverage in reliable sources around the world? Or done anything with a comparable impact, as judged by reliable sources around the world? --Tataral (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good for her, but this is more of a human interst story than something fo real significance. 196.188.0.53 (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Major story, coverage in numerous major news sources. Funcrunch (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Who am I to stand in the way of a growing consensus? I've come around. It's not a "human interest story" so much as a major part of the WikiLeaks saga. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Obama has commuted sentences hundreds of times, this one will be notable iff it happens. Trump will certainly have something to say about it, and if he allows it then it'll be an even bigger story. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just FYI only, pardons and commutations cannot be reversed by another president. Once done, they are done. Outgoing presidents typically do a flurry of them before they leave office(such as Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich in his last hours in office). I would add that you are correct that Obama has issued more commutations than any other US president.  331dot (talk) 07:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, pardons can be reversed and have been. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ^ Funcrunch (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See Isaac Toussie. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pardon revoked by the same president who issued it (and also noted as unprecedented). Not particularly relevant to your Oppose statement. Funcrunch (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) That case was an example of a President announcing a pardon and then changing their mind before delivering it. The article you cite states that was the first example of such an instance, and that the legal authority to reverse an issued pardon is unclear at best. No President has reversed another President's pardon/commutation. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Presidential pardons have only been revoked a handful of times in US history. If that happened, it would arguably be a much larger story.  George Bush revoked his own pardon of Isaac Toussie, and Ulysses S. Grant attempted to revoke a handful of Johnson's pardons.  As far as I know, every case where a pardon was actually revoked, the decision to cancel the pardon was made before the official pardon documents were delivered and accepted by the pardonee.  In one of Grant's attempted revocations, the documents had already been delivered and the subject released.  The precedent at that time was that once delivered the pardon could no longer be revoked and the subject remained free.  Dragons flight (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My vote stands, cover it when she walks free. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The commutation is the story, not the release. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This !vote illustrates the need for a "know what you're talking about before you say it" rule on wikipedia. That rule would see 98% of current editors get blocked, but would probably give us a better product. Of course presidents cannot revoke pardons and commutations granted by their predecessors. That would amount to the purported exercise by the executive of judicial power: re-imposing a lawfully nullified sentence. No sane legal academic would disagree. Here is just one academic noting this Captain Obvious: "Using pardons, the president of the United States has the power to lift criminal consequences from people. The president does not, however, have the power to reimpose them unilaterally, which is what a pardon revocation would do." There might have been room for debate in the Toussie circumstances, which involved a pardon that had not been made fully effective at law, but there is not a shadow of doubt that Trump could not reverse Obama's commutation of Manning's sentence. This ill-conceived red-herring oppose should be discarded. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the rant and the personal attack. If you actually read the oppose notes, I state that not only will Trump have something to say about this, but Obama has pardon hundreds and hundreds of individuals, and the real story will happen when Manning steps out of prison.  Have a great day! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that no major media outlet of record shares your quixotic view of "the real story".--Mkativerata (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, sure. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support In spite of the nominators obvious POV and Mkativerata's surprisingly combative approach I tend to agree that this is notable enough news item enough to include. Support the original blurb, but without the in May part - if that was the important why not wait until May)AIR corn (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - An internationally covered story well worth featuring as a blurb at ITN. Jus  da  fax   08:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose this has zero implications onto the world. It is one person let out of jail 4 months from now. Nergaal (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support any blurb. Prefer both be mentioned. Major news with international coverage. In spirit of DUE, blurb seems warranted; even if individuals here don't think it's that remarkable media coverage suggests otherwise. E.g., It's the second article listed on Le Monde's front page   Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Significant decisions especially in terms of the possible impact on potential people considering leaking information or using US government data for their own purposes. The commutation of the sentence for Lopez Rivera is also significant. Both poor decisions (in my opinion which counts for nothing) but significant. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Outgoing presidents commute/pardon regularly. Nothing particularly special about this one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And because there is nothing special about this one commute, really just one random among many, it is the top news item on nytimes.com and washingtonpost.com . Quick, someone should tell those newspapers that there is "Nothing particularly special about this one"! Thue (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ongoing This is part of the process of the changing of the guard from one President to another and we can expect lots of news items about this this week. Perhaps there should be an entry in the Ongoing section? Andrew D. (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose It really should be done when she is free. We will want to list her again when that happens, so that is when it should be done. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is huge news now, and all over the mainstream 'quality' media, so we should cover it now. We have no idea whether it will be big news when she is actually released, so the suggestion to postpone has a fairly strong whiff of WP:CRYSTAL about it, among other problems.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Support for altblurb (U.S. president Barack Obama commutes the sentence Chelsea Manning, who is expected to be released in May, instead of the original date of 2045.). While we are not condoning the mistake she made in her early twenties, her commutation is a historic victory for transgender/human rights.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * She wasn't imprisoned for being transgender. How'd you draw that conclusion? Banedon (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) She made a mistake in her early twenties. I think we all did, though not on that scale.
 * 2) She made this mistake because she had access to documents she shouldn't have. The USFG needs to review who can access classified documents; they need to take responsibility for their own system.
 * 3) Members of the LGBTQ community are more likely to 'act out' in their early twenties, because they grow up without the prospect of equal rights as they try to become adults.
 * 4) The documents she leaked were apparently republished by the mainstream press, like The New York Times, El Pais, The Washington Post, The Guardian--yet their editors-in-chief were not imprisoned.
 * 5) To essentially end someone's life by imprisoning them for the rest of their life when she made a mistake in her early twenties made America look like a dictatorship. The sentence was meant to scare whistleblowers, which is fair enough, but Obama must have realized that this made America look bad to the rest of the world.
 * 6) As I said, we (and the USFG I would assume) are not condoning the mistake she made in her early twenties, but it would make America look very, very bad indeed in terms of its human rights record if she were to commit suicide in prison. I think this is a huge story and shows that Obama has more humanity in him than one might assume. It would be interesting to note if he talked about it with the president-elect, and what his views were; in any case, this is very significant and should appear on the main page as ITN, given how much international media coverage it has gotten.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * While I personally support Manning's release, I don't think we should be discussing whether or why she made a "mistake" here; that's a matter of opinion that has nothing to do with whether this news item should be featured. Funcrunch (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it wasn't the right decision, so I think it can be described as a mistake. She was 23 when this happened I think! Has Obama spoken about it yet?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's your opinion that it wasn't the right decision, and that it was a mistake. That is not the only view, and it's not relevant to this discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really. Who is the world would think this was a good idea? No one!Zigzig20s (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Lots of people do. Get out of your bubble and you might learn about some of them. You can even start by reading the whole thread. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support The fact that this piece of news has been receiving front-page coverage in non-US sources suggests the impact that it has been having. Comparing this to Dylan Roof is just silly. And I find the argument that such commutations are routine somewhat specious: elections happen every so often, but we do not hesitate to cover those, do we? Also, the remarkably off-topic POV arguments from both sides are rather bothersome. Vanamonde (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Adjusting the sentence of a single convict is hardly ITN material. Whilst the original leaks by Manning had important repercussions on international affairs, the details of the length of punishment do not. Some of the support !votes above seem to be because users agreed with Manning's actions, not based on the ITN criteria. Regardless of anyone's opinions on the rights or wrongs of the leak, that's not something that should influence !votes on this ITN nomination. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The fate of Manning has become symbolic of the the fate of whistle blowers, as a prisoner of conscience. The history articles I have read are full of prisoners of conscience, and find mentioning their fate important enough to include. If History (and the front pages of the major newspapers) finds his fate relevant, then I don't see why we shouldn't. Dismissing his fate as "Adjusting the sentence of a single convict" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the symbolic significance - should we then refuse to mention any one man's fate ITN, no matter how significant that person? If the New York Times finds his sentense adjustment notable enough to feature as a top story, and you don't (do you think the New York Times and Washington post is making a mistake?), then I consider it likely that it is you who let your ITN "vote" be influenced by your personal opinion. Thue (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We do not post every story covered by the mainstream media on ITN. You appear to be confusing us with a news service like WikiNews. You have no idea what my personal opinion is on Manning - as it happens I supported the leaks. So please don't accuse me of letting personal opinions bias my judgement. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose as a potential misrepresentation of news to readers. The sentence is commuted, but the conviction and record remains.  In effect, the government believes that what Manning did was wrong and illegal, but have decided to be lenient after the fact.  Manning in neither "in the right" nor able to live a rehabilitated life beyond imprisonment.  That we need to avoid confusion in this story is apparent by the editor above who believes that this somehow has something to do with LBTG rights(?).128.214.69.207 (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Transgender rights aspect of the story is widely covered in the mainstream media, so it seems that the editor who thinks it has something to do with such rights is no more 'confused' than the mainstream media who report the matter (much as such media are presumably also similarly 'confused' when they think this is a newsworthy story). Tlhslobus (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I am honestly very surprised at the quality of many of the oppose arguments, claiming this is insignificant. While I am relatively new to ITN, I cannot see how a story that is on the homepage of a very large number of major news services outside the US is not considered significant: BBC (UK), The Hindu (India), Al Jazeera (Qatar), News24 (South Africa), ABC.net (Australia) and Le Monde (France). I mean, seriously? This is getting more coverage than any story we have up on the main page right now. Vanamonde (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Kim Kardashian's jewellry theft in Paris was all over the main pages of news outlets. Doesn't mean we should have featured it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between celebrity news and this case. Also I really, really doubt that Kim Kardashian's jewelry theft was featured at the top of the New York Times - I actually never heard of it before now. Thue (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the world has changed outside of one non-violent person being released from federal detection several years earlier; the crime was still considered committed so that story doesn't change. The only major thing that seemed to hinge on Manning's release was a statement made by Wikileak's Assange that he would voluntarily be extradited back to the US to stand trial if Manning was released, and as far as I can tell, Assange's not said anything (tons of speculation from third-parties though on this). And even if Assange was extradited, that would still be a trial to show if he's guilty or not, and we'd not report on that until the trial was over. Add that we are overlooking 200+ others receiving the departing President, and that's basically leaving us with a very weighted story towards one person that doesn't affect anyone else. That's why this is a poor ITN/C, it reflects a systematic bias of the press. --M ASEM (t) 17:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Close? I voted Support, and I still support it in principle, but I make it 14 Support, 12 Oppose, so is it getting near the time when some admin should close this item per WP:SNOW, on grounds that there seems to be little or no prospect of a genuine consensus for posting, and leaving the matter open will thus simply tend to distract editors away from doing more productive work? Tlhslobus (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, don't close, that would look like censorship. Let this ITN run its course please.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * None of the oppose votes cite valid policy-based arguments, only personal opinions and unsubstantiated claims that this isn't more significant than hundreds of other pardons and commutations this week, which is obviously not true at all. At Wikipedia, noteworthiness/significance (for ITN's purposes) has to do with with how reliable sources treat the subject, not editors' personal views. --Tataral (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Ultimately, Wikipedia provides a service to readers by highlighting comprehensive articles, like this one, that provide background and context that might be missing from many newspaper accounts.  The ability to highlight broadly informative wiki content is probably the thing that pushes me over to support here.  I think, on the merits, commuting Chelsea Manning's sentence didn't really need to be front page news around the world, but there are many news organizations that treated it as such.  It is ultimately not up to us to decide what the international media feels is important.  This story is also not so trivial as the tabloid / celebrity news we often ignore, since the larger context of her leaks had impact on international relations and issues of national security.  So, I think this story meets the requirements for ITN although less decisively than some news stories.  Dragons flight (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "It is ultimately not up to us to decide what the international media feels is important.". WP:ITN/C is not a news ticker. We are much more selective than the mainstream news to avoid the sensationalism that mainstream news has. Otherwise, might as well just dump WP:ITN/C and stick an RSS feed to CNN on the front page. --M ASEM (t) 15:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously you mean a more neutral organisation like Reuters or BBC News, surely not CNN.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * hmmm? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Could be BBC, Reuters, AP, any other number of sources, but key is they all nowadays tend to report sensationisticly and do not give great weight to actual impact on the world-at-large, what our measure is for encyclopedic appropriateness. --M ASEM (t) 17:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Our measure? So, now you get to decide what impact is without any referral to any reliable source ever; just what you adjudge to be "sensationalic" based on your own feelings about what should or should not have any impact?  Can you point me to a Wikipedia policy, guideline, or widely cited essay that says "our measure for encyclopedic appropriateness must explicitly ignore reliable sources like BBC, the AP, Reuters, etc. and instead be based solely on "impact" as adjudged by the personal opinions of a small number of very loud and aggressive Wikipedians?  Because I don't think that I was present for that discussion that invalidated WP:V and WP:RS and WP:NOR and the like.  It is one thing to say "I oppose because there is no source material on this topic showing it is likely for people to be seeing it in major news outlets."  It is quite another to say "I know literally every major news organization in the world is dedicated to covering this in substantial detail, but I don't really like it, so I am more important than the entire editorial decision making staff of every major news organization ever."  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy is WP:NOT, and specifically WP:NOT. We are evaluating things that happen to be in the news that are of encyclopedic quality, which cannot be measured by counting how much coverage the story is getting in a short (one-day) time period. That's how we avoid being sensationalist that the mainstream media are more likely to be nowadays. Wikinews is thataway if one wants to corroborate on breaking stories. --M ASEM (t) 23:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

   If I counted right, it's 13-11 in favor. Needs attention. Suggest post. Sca (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's time to close this I agree with the above comments. We are nearly evenly split with no realistic likelihood of gaining consensus. I can't do it myself as I am INVOLVED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on valid policy-based arguments here (relating to the significance/newsworthiness of the topic as seen from reliable sources), there is consensus to post. Comments that are not based on Wikipedia policy, such as purely personal views, should not be taken into account. --Tataral (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly the point I was trying to make on WT:ITN after the non-postings of the Fort Lauderdale Airport shooting and the College Football National Championship. Don't count votes. Evaluate them and disregard the ones that should be disregarded. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ad Orientem, as an admin, should know that we don't count votes, we analyse them. There's a consensus to post this, because most of the Oppose votes are of the "this isn't important" type which is clearly proved wrong by the fact that it's front page news all over the globe.  Those, therefore, can be discarded.  Most of the policy-based votes are for Support.  I'm not going to post it myself, because I commented above (even though I didn't vote).  But it should be posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I could argue the exact opposite: most of the support !votes are of the "it's on the (media outlet) website", which has nothing to do with the ITN criteria, which state "Do not assess whether a story is "prominent" or not based on where you see it reported on major news websites". Most give no other reasons to post this. You could equally discard those. We're currently at no consensus. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * After that bit you cherrypicked, it goes on to talk about the "length and depth of coverage, the "number of unique articles about the topic", and the "frequency of updates about the topic". It passes on those three. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Assessment of significance is subjective. You may feel that the media coverage is sufficient to justify posting this to ITN. Others came to a different conclusion. Personally, I feel that the media coverage is no greater than dozens of other stories each week, and that there are insufficient encyclopaedic repercussions to merit posting. You clearly disagree. That's okay - we're allowed to have different opinions. What we cannot do, though, is discard contributions here just because we disagree with them. Black Kites' 'clearly proved wrong' is in fact a matter of opinion, where there can legitimately be differing views. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree fully with Muboshgu and Black Kite. I see consensus to post, given further supports below. Jus  da  fax   21:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A symptom of the modern discourse. Modest Genius's position can be summed up with "My feelings are more important than your data"  He doesn't like the story, so his vote should "count" actually more than people's whose votes are based on a dispassionate analysis of source material and data.  It isn't who has the best data or best source material, just who shouts the loudest.  Typical.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ITN/C has turned into the United States Congress. Some people argue with facts, other people counter with unsubstantiated opinions, discussions get deadlocked and no progress is made. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Was lead article on BBC and Guardian this morning, so clearly of international interest. More significantly will have ramifications re Julian Assange's extradition to US. 18:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – the only commutation/pardon of international interest, and the international interest is such to merit an ITN entry. Sceptre (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The commutation of this sentence is very much not of international interest.--WaltCip (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As someone who lives outside the US and watched last nights news and saw it as one of the lead articles I can say with some confidence that it is of international interest.yorkshiresky (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You state that this is "not of international interest", but you don't offer any sort of rationale or evidence for this unsubstantiated opinion at all. This of course is true for all the other oppose votes here, and is the reason that we will have to disregard them. Such expressions of personal opinions are not relevant for this discussion. The ITN process is not based on whether editors personally like the topic under discussion, but on how it is treated by reliable sources. Editors who don't think it is significant would need to go and look for evidence that reliable sources don't consider the story important, but not a single editor has done so. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that reliable sources from across the planet treat this – both the commutation as such, but also Manning's fate more generally – as a highly significant, important, noteworthy story of very large international interest – to put it in perspective, I'm not aware of any US presidential pardon or commutation ever receiving the same amount of coverage in reliable sources globally, or being considered to be as important. Therefore, there is clearly consensus to post this now – consensus doesn't mean counting votes if they offer nothing of substance and no valid rationale, it means evaluating comments based on their merits in accordance with Wikipedia policy. --Tataral (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. Blythwood (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 *    16-12. Time's a' wastin'. Clock simple.svg Sca (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Gambian state of emergency

 * Support perhaps with a mildly toned down hook, but the article is excellent and something we should certainly be proud of posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. A notable development, and a great article to post. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support BFD. Should this be an ongoing rather than a blurb? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Marked ready. Prefer blurb to ongoing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I know this will be a very controversial vote, but I think this is not notable, not because of the topic at hand but rather the nation itself. The population of The Gambia is about 2 million and it's only about 4,200^2 miles. Let's put it into comparison. Connecticut is about 3.4 million and 5,500^2 miles. If the governor of Connecticut refused to step down, it wouldn't warrant an ITN notification. Also, The Gambia is an extremely poor third world country that relies on UN aid for survival. If Barack Obama refuses to step down on Friday, maybe it'll be a different story. But for now, I say no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UNSC Luke 1021 (talk • contribs) 14:28, January 17, 2017 (UTC)
 * Connecticut is not a nation; The Gambia is a nation. Leaders of other nearby nations are attempting to intervene, and the UN and governments around the world have weighed in.  This is in the news and notable.  I would add that arbitrary population cutoffs to limit which nations are posted have been proposed and failed in the past.  Only systemic bias would prevent this from being posted.  Small nations deserve attention too.  We also have a good article to post.  331dot (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comparing the relative significance of stories by the size of landmass is patently absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's comments like these that give Americans a bad name here. The success or failure of a democracy in a sovereign nation is a major international news story regardless of the land mass or population of the country in question. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Posting. I also think a blurb is better than ongoing, since there are not so many day-to-day updates in the article at the moment. --Tone 19:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There will be war in less than 20 minutes. So we should change blurb accordingly. --Jenda H. (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] MH370 search

 * Weak oppose This seems more like a whimper that the search is being ended (And I'll bet there's others like me that thought they closed the search down months ago). I'd also add that there's still a chance private companies might pick up the search, just that any gov't sponsored search is now over. --M ASEM (t) 14:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment  it is a "suspension" rather than a "termination". If further new evidence came to light, such as perhaps a large amount of new debris, one assumes a search might be re-started. That said, such new findings do seem very unlikely and it does sound like the authorities have "given up". The cost is a major factor and could be usefully part of a blurb. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My impression is that it's termination, even though they say "suspend" in the joint statement. Brandmeistertalk  15:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe. But the statement ends: "We remain hopeful that new information will come to light and that at some point in the future the aircraft will be located." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This was always a search which was unlikely to be successful. Surprise surprise, they didn't find the aircraft. It's not ITN-level news if a long shot fails. The ongoing media obsession with this flight is frankly weird. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nomination per Modest Genius. "Man does not win lottery" is not ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - We featured the airliner's disappearance and we should feature the results of the search. The airliner was a hot news topic from the day it went missing to the day it was suspended. All in all, newsworthy, 100%. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose No updates in the timeline section (other than this) since July. Even CNN long ago moved on from MH370. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose the original crash wasn't in the news and this item will fade before the day is out. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wasn't in the news?? The press was full of it for days... and it was posted on main page. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * TRM is technically correct; the plane going missing was in the news, not it crashing. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, no one knows if it crashed or not, do they. I'm not sure that makes it less newsworthy. Many might argue that makes it more newsworthy. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll clarify, the search after the crash really hasn't been in the news lately, a few odd bits of plane found on a beach somewhere, but really it's not news, and therefore the decision to suspend such an unfruitful search isn't really remarkable at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Reported total costs of the search have varied between US$135-160 million. That's quite a sum. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This has kind of petered out in terms of interest.  If significant wreckage washes up somewhere, or is found by private searchers, that may merit posting. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per User:Modest Genius and others. --Fixuture (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: William Onyeabor

 * Adding sources for the albums/years and support subject to that - it's not a stub any more. Fascinating. Good work. BencherliteTalk 00:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Each album now has at least one source confirming existence and year of issue. BencherliteTalk 00:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This kind of 'niche' news is what the page needs. O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  10:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Quality is good. Sourced and in good shape. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] BPM Festival shooting

 * Oppose. With all due respect to the deceased, the injured and their families, this is of zero significance on a global scale. ITN needs to get serious: fewer maritime, aircraft and shooting tragedies and more real news. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment A second shooting happened the following day in Cancun that killed 4 that is also presently attributed to organized crime. Note that there is no affirmation that these are decidedly linked but I think a combined blurb might be reasonable. --M ASEM  (t) 04:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose 'Like every other day, organised crime, much of it drug-related, yet again killed X hundred people (give or take Y dozen) all over the world yesterday, including Z people at location L due to specific reason S'. That's the global significance of the event, so in a sense it isn't really globally insignificant, but that 'global significance' just isn't "news" (and whatever 'global significance' it has is largely or entirely unmentioned in the news reports). Tlhslobus (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Northern Ireland elections

 * Oppose - this is a regional election. A quick Google search turns up things like, which are comparable. I do not see why this is worth posting, unless it's because we have a good article on it, in which case it's a sign of bias. Banedon (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Essentially while a 'regional' election, the situation in N.Ireland is a lot more complex due to the power-sharing agreement and political/religious voting involved. The link you have provided is in no way comparable. It would take too long to explain the 'whys' here, the short version is this is much bigger deal than the usual sub-national election so I support its inclusion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a regional/subnational election, but it isn't that simple- though I won't regurgitate what was said below. What's the bias here? The usual criticism is that we have a US bias. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The way I see things, we have a US and UK bias. For example, Iridescent supported this below (and lots of people agreed with him / her) because Northern Ireland is sui generis as with Hong Kong, Greenland, North Cyprus, etc. This sounds reasonable until you look at, when AO opposes a piece of Hong Kong news because Hong Kong is part of the PRC, and "The idea that Hong Kong enjoys any true autonomy ... has never been anything other than pure fantasy". I am not implying that Iridescent's arguments are invalid, but that we are at least as pro-UK biased as we are pro-US. Banedon (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So to be clear, you didn't understand the importance of this nomination when it was originally posted, and when it was explained to you, you still didn't understand it? Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * When it was originally nominated, yes. After explanation, I became more convinced this is not worthy of posting. Banedon (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's OK. We're all wrong occasionally. Black Kite (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support as I did before; this is a significant development that potentially destabilizes the region(more so than it is already given Brexit). 331dot (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Yes, theoretically this is "a regional election" as NI is nominally still part of the UK on paper, but as with Hong Kong, Greenland, North Cyprus and other post-colonial anomalies NI is sui generis. Since the result of this election will be either "executive collapses and Britain reimposes direct rule thus reigniting the armed conflict" or "stable government elected, the crisis is averted, and Brexit goes ahead", this will receive a much greater degree of international coverage than would be normal for an election in a country of less than 2 million people. &#8209; Iridescent 15:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Iridescent's sensible argument. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on sourcing improvements There's a few paragraphs in both target articles lacking sources as well as a bare direct quote without a source in the scandal article. Should be easily fixable, and this is a notable development to post. --M ASEM (t) 16:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support with one minor change  This is major news, and I would suggest the removal of '/called' because the election will not be called immediately. The Executive will fall at 5pm today. st  170  e  16:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was wrong, it's been called for 2 March 2017. I suggest the blurb be changed appropriately. st  170  e  17:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose We post election results, not calls for elections. Wait until there's a result. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The government has collapsed, the British and Irish governments have to intervene. Power sharing has effectively collapsed - is that not worthy of ITN? st  170  e  17:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe so. I acknowledge as someone who doesn't live in a parliamentary system that I don't know everything about snap elections. When they're usually called, the government in place typically remains as is until the election? Is there any precedent for this? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I do get what you mean, but Northern Ireland is unique. The government has completely collapsed and control of NI is now with the British government. This happened last in 2003 (if I remember correctly); NI is effectively destabilised. This is especially important because NI was a war-torn region until 1998. st  170  e  17:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Rather than oppose something I don't fully understand, I'll scratch my !vote. Hopefully that'll start a trend around here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your edit. Thank you st  170  e  17:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @Muboshgu, the closest equivalent in the US model would be if Puerto Rico or Guam—nominally part of the US but de facto self-governing except in foreign affairs—suffered a breakdown in government so complete that nothing was functional and the Federal government had to impose direct rule. Northern Ireland has an almost-unique system in which the government is constitutionally obliged to include members of multiple parties, so if the parties refuse to co-operate then a government literally can't be formed; thus, NI is de facto being administered as a British colony until new elections are held and produce a viable government, a state of affairs which pleases neither the Unionists (who no longer have control of the country they've run for the last 20 years), the Nationalists (who hate the idea of being ruled by a foreign power) or the British government (who are in the midst of delicate negotiations around Britain's future relations with Europe and Ireland and have better things to do than mediate someone else's conflict). &#8209; Iridescent 17:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * An excellent explanation. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That is helpful, thanks Iridescent. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support largely per Iridescent. It must be weeks now since ITN posted a serious news story. It seems that most editors here have been scared of posting serious things which with a serious encyclopaedia would deal, like Russian interference in the US election. Instead the ITN feed has been littered with fatal accidents of various kinds, as well as deaths of actors and the like. Kind of like a CNN news feed, but dumbed down, if that were possible, and much slower. The item suggested here is proper news. It should be posted. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per my previous comments, now that elections have been called. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, this seems to be ready to be posted. I see many people here are well familiar with the situation, just let me know if the proposed blurb is fine. --Tone 19:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support posting. As a minor point of wording, I don't see the word "snap" in the article and while I can infer what is meant, it might be worth adding a sentence or two of clarification in the article, and/or a minor rewording of the hook, whatever those more familiar with the subject-matter think would be better. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Snap election linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Thank you Iridescent for the background. Given the gravity of the situation, I would support this nomination, but the details given by Iridescent are not in either of the target articles.  The elections article reads like a standard elections article and includes nothing to indicate that it is anything but.  It needs to be made more clear this election is more than just an election, and more than your standard snap election at that.  Without these changes, I could only support this after the election takes place on 2 March.128.214.214.67 (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Turkish Airlines Flight 6491

 * Weak oppose notable story but the article (despite not being tagged as such) is a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. We should wait to post this until the article is a bit more fleshed out. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Give time for this to develop, but I do suggest the blurb note that the bulk of the casualties were on the ground from the village near the airport where the crash happened. --M ASEM (t) 06:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, encyclopedic value and impact. It's a stub.  Even if it were not a stub, what is the encyclopedic value of this?  Impact is lessened by the relatively low number of deaths (as such because it was a cargo plane), and this list shows that these things are actually pretty common.128.214.53.104 (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The number of casualties on ground is exceptionally high. That's the encyclopedic value. Juliussasar (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support my suggested blurb, mentioning the ground casualties. It is unusual for that many people on the ground to be killed in an aircraft crash(I would agree that just the cargo plane crashing would not be notable enough without that). 331dot (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment no longer a stub. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - high number of ground casualties. Article not in too bad a shape, although image sizes could do with tweaking. Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please tweak further if required. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Here, THY claims they have no connection with ACT crew/aircraft. Maybe we can change blurb into Turkish ACT Airlines cargo jet crashes in Kyrgyzstan, at least 35 people are dead.--Joseph (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's already a thread at the article Talk Page. Suggest you copy your comment there. It may require a change to the article name, not just a change to any blurb here (if and when it ever gets posted). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that we should post this until this issue is clarified in the article (and if necessary in its title) -- at least that the responsibility for the flight is disputed, with references. Who has legal responsibility for a crash that caused 33 deaths on the ground is not a small issue. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Significant death toll and now the article looks good. Brandmeistertalk  21:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support significant event and article is no longer a stub. -Zanhe (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Death toll seems to have stabilised at 37, so main and ALT1 blurb, if chosen, will need adjustment. But I'm not sure Turkish Airlines would appreciate the publicity. The operator was ACT Airlines, branded as MyCargo Airlines. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have suggested moving the article on the talk page. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Posted. Consensus appears to be that the article is correctly titled. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. With all due respect to the deceased and their families, this is a dime-a-dozen accident so far as plane tragedies go on a global scale. I can't believe we still post this kind of thing. Not that Espresso Addict had any choice: the wrong-headed consensus had clearly been formed. Chelsea Manning? No. Russian interference in the US election? No. Minor plane accident? Yes. Well done, wikipedia. As embarrassing as ever. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Oppose per Mkativerata and IP. Banedon (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Most of the accidents linked by the ip involve small planes and minor accidents. A crash with 38 dead is a significant death toll, according to the list only about four similar accidents occurred last year. AIR corn (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Eddie Long

 * Comment Books should be at least linked to their ISBN or equivalent # to validate authorship. I don't necessary see anything glaring in this area, but I would recommend other editors give a quick read for neutrality since part of this guy's notability was involvement in a couple cases. --M ASEM (t) 03:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Books ref'd with ISBNs --Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. More than 50% of this article refers to "controversies"; someone expert in this area should look the article over before we put it on the main page. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not an expert on evangelists, but had a go at reducing the sections to make them more WP:due. Don't think I left anything out that was needed and the general message is the same (reduced some quotes and irrelevant links mainly). AIR corn (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support looks good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 08:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Eugene Cernan

 * Comment Several areas need souring improvement, notably the Honoraries and the Popular Culture section. --M ASEM (t) 20:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Lots of unsourced material in here. Not postable in its current condition. BencherliteTalk 20:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose too many unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Just a few more sources to be posted on the page, but other than that should be a good to go. Strong Support: Great improvements and perfect newly added sources. Article looks good to go! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose</S> Still needs some more cites, especially where it claims he is the first, second or third to achieve something notable and for his honours. Post NASA section is pretty much completely prose-line and the in popular culture section is poor. AIR corn (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Quality has now improved. AIR corn (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

*Oppose Still a lot of uncited facts and even paragraphs. Maintenance tag on (surprise surprise!) the "In popular culture" section, which is messy. Not ready for main page viewing yet. Support when issues have been fixed. Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - article is good enough and the RD is certainly notable enough. If there's an issue with unreferenced claims on the page they could be removed for now with a talk page post being made so that the parts can be readded with refs later. --Fixuture (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Full stop. He was the last man to walk on the Moon.  It's crazy that we are even debating the historical significance.  Not only should this be in recent deaths, it should be In The News. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But none of the above Opposes are based on historical significance (which in any case is no longer a valid ground for opposing RD) - all are based on article quality.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support I have cited all information in the article and cleaned up the pop culture section. Kees08 (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 08:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jimmy Snuka

 * Support this is good to go, article is in very good condition (worth considering GAN!) so no issues here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted looks great. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus closing

 * Oppose we have the occasional "X announces it will close" and usually they're bounced out of ITN as "wait until it happens". Same applies here, let's post the last performance, not the announcement.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support as a notable announcement, this doesn't happen every day. Normally I would say that usually it is the announcement that gets more attention than the actual closing, however in this case I think there will be coverage of their last show, so I would understand not posting it now.  I think we should do now or then, but not both. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I am going to think we can hedge our bets that the last show will get significant coverage, but without prejudice that if that last show does happen and there's only a whimper of news, we can still have it renominated pointing back to this discussion that we (tentatively) all agreed the last show would be the proper point of posting. This is definitely a bit more crystal-ball situation compared to business deals, so I'm willing to have this leeway. --M ASEM  (t) 15:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose purely on article quality. There are a few gaps in referencing but not so many that it will require a major effort to fix. I have no issue with the nomination on its merits. A 146 year old world famous entertainment closing is a big deal and sadly the decision does sound pretty firm. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness. A legacy of animal exploitation has come to an end. Oppose per TRM and Masem; we will probably see significant coverage of the last show and at that point we should make the posting.--WaltCip (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose in favor of the last show. I generally favor posting when the news is happening, but this is something that could easily be (sort of...) reversed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait for last show, as one never knows. About a third of our business story announcements never end up coming true.  This isn't a doomed merger that "we just gotta, gotta, post!"  But a white knight might still arrive. μηδείς (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: Kevin Starr

 * Support: Article quality (which is all that really matters for an RD) seems fine, at least in my somewhat inexperienced opinion. And if this is not posted soon it will get lost (by tonight, I think), which would be a pity. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Stale This is older than the oldest current RD entry (17th). Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Mark Fisher

 * Comment I have to express concern on the source selection of this article (which affects the sourcing which initially appears okay). Two are obit pieces, so those are okay if they are augmenting other works. But when you look at the other sources, taking out the references to his own books, there only seems to be one that is really of any type of significance (the interview). Some sources that might help:    .  There's more out there, so he's definitely notable, but the source choices leave a lot to be desired. --M ASEM  (t) 15:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I understand what you are saying, there is only really one secondary source in the article, the other sources are just mirroring that. The exception is the interview which is a primary source, along with the sourcing back to his book Capitalist Realism.. But since I just now saw your comment, I will make fixes when I can, unless someone can get to it first. Thanks for your input.--Christian Roess (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. I agree with Masem, the sources need broadening to demonstrate Fisher's notability. More than one reference is required to support the idea that he "inspired other scholars to adopt this frame of reference". There's also some significant gaps in the biographical material eg place of birth/date, date of marriage &c. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose based on general notability. Yes, he is deserves an article notable.  There is no evidence his passing is making the mainstream press. μηδείς (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability is no longer acceptable grounds for opposing an RD, see the note in the above RD nomination form and also WP:ITNRD.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Patna boat accident

 * Support though I would give it a few more hours to see if more details can be added (region and general media coverage in area may make this difficult). --M ASEM (t) 04:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article is not yet sufficiently developed to post. I'm also not 100% convinced that such events are sufficiently rare; for example, BBC news this evening has a completely different drowning incident involving ~100 migrants in the Mediterranean and List of shipwrecks in 2017 highlights 23 deaths on an Indonesian ferry on the 1st. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Accept others' opinion on notability, but I still think the article is not sufficiently developed to post. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The BBC is now reporting 6 deaths in an unrelated incident during the same festivities; perhaps the two can be combined somehow? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Now death toll rises to 24. Espresso Addict I think it's sufficiently developed according to news & information. Nope I will update this article as informations will come. It is rare in context to India. While Shipwrecks in Mediterranean are common now a days.--  Prateek Malviya • ✉ • ✎ 07:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support article is a little weak and news is ongoing so things may change, although not radically I suspect. A quick look at the maritime disasters in India category reveals that this kind of thing is reasonably rare, and while the BBC has been reporting on yet another boatful of migrants drowning, that hasn't been nominated (nor, I believe, has an article even been created on it) so we have nothing to go against.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable and article looks fine - Sherenk1 (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as the article looks developed enough to post. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is 11 sentences long. That of course is a very accurate reflection of the significance of this event. 11 sentences. Wikipedia: kicking goals. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted as blurb] RD: Zhou Youguang
Comment: Extremely influential person in the development of Pinyin. He was also a Sinologist and economist. He passed away earlier today at the age of 111.  WdS  &#124; Talk 07:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in very good shape. AIR corn (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with having this as a blurb. AIR corn (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support: Obviously meets the notability criteria and the article is pretty good. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Appears well referenced; more on why his achievement was notable would be good; I learned a lot more from reading the linked Guardian article. Also I don't know why the personal details has quite so much on the non-notable spouse, the length in days of their marriage, their children & other relatives (in the infobox). Espresso Addict (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 10:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Article about pinyin is also in good shape and we are using it for everything concerning China. --Jenda H. (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - It's extremely rare for anyone to live to the age of 111, and almost unheard of for someone so influential to do so. He created a writing system that's used by 1.4 billion people (not to mention anyone who reads a China-related article on Wikipedia), and since 1982 an ISO standard. -Zanhe (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb I tend to agree that he has created something extremely influential and thereby had significant impact in the world. A writing system used by 1.4 billion people is a very big deal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Again, to avoid the situation at the end of December, blurbs should be reserved for people who's death has a worldwide impact like Thatcher and Mandela. Here, this is not the case; he achieved an important goal while much younger, and died by old age; clearly notable but not influential in his passing. --M ASEM (t) 20:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb the death of this individual has not one single ramification, while it's sad and all, it's just the death of a very old, notable individual. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. If influencing every person in China since 1958(as well as anyone learning the language) doesn't merit one a blurb, I don't know what would. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. You shouldn't have to be called Thatcher or Mandela to get a blurb. Significant impact and notability.--WaltCip (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment consensus in favour of a blurb, marking as such for trustworthy admin attention! Note: there are two images, either of which could also be used which might shake the ITN section up a little.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb, offered above. Sca (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted as blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support for blurb. Combination of very old age and the importance of the writing system he developed justifies a blurb in this case, IMHO. Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support for blurb. Per above. At first I said, wow, it's a real slow news week for us ... then I saw how old he had gotten. Hell, when he was born China was still an empire! "... we that are young / Shall never see so much, nor live so long." Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support for blurb. I would argue that for highly notable people who aren't quite sufficient for a blurb on their own, any kind of unusual circumstances around their death are sufficient: unnatural/unexpected death (the most common invocation of this), coincidental death (e.g. Carrie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds), extremely advanced age (he was probably the oldest person in the world notable for something other than age), etc. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not the oldest (compare this list), but certainly one of the very oldest. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb given age, importance, and that not many people invent an entire semiotic system. I am sure more people use pinyin than esperanto. μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Magic Alex

 * The article seems to be in a good shape (a GA), but the first paragraph is really strange for a biography. --Tone 17:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- The lead of the article doesn't even make clear why exactly this person is notable. Needs a bit of rewrite before posting I think. -- Shudde  talk 18:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good condition, rounded, neutral, no reason to oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 20:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Question – How is this a good article when the ONLY content pertaining to the first 20+ years of his life is his date and place of birth? This is one of far too many examples I've seen recently showing just how low the bar really is for GAs. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  22:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources on subject matter that is missing from the article or are you speculating? And, for what it's worth, this is the GA project, so your concerns on that front are better addressed elsewhere.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Grading scheme, which has 1,700+ transclusions, includes the following as the criteria for B-Class: "does not contain obvious omissions". Uh, lack of mention of over twenty years of a person's life isn't an obvious omission?  Furthermore, this suggests that B-Class articles should not contain obvious omissions, but it's okay for GAs to contain obvious omissions so long as the reviewer doesn't know any better.  This reminds me of seeing Corno (artist) on the front page recently, a "biography" consisting of an excessively detailed retelling of few particular aspects of this person's life, with a bare minimum of biographical details tacked on to either end.  As for your argument, it begs the question of whether our ultimate purpose is to offer information or to collect sources (there is a difference, as far too many articles point out). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  01:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, I have looked around to see if anyone has info on his first 21 years, and there's nothing. No one has any real idea where he came from, only that suddenly at 21 he was getting involved in the music scene. While that might be considered an omission in quality, the fact there's no sources to build this period from is something we have to recognize as just being absent from any biography of him, and thus appropriate to not have described. --M ASEM (t) 03:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment It's worth noting that this person was born in Occupied Greece, and would have been 9 or 10 by the time the Civil War ended and the reestablishment of central control over the whole of the country. It's likely that there are no records of his early life because people were a little preoccupied with other things at the time.  Further, he worked in the security industry and so his personal and early life might have been sealed away as a condition of his employment (to prevent blackmail, hide previous political sympathies, etc.).  Either is likely and the latter is common.  Omissions like this are understandable from the subject's perspective, but I do find it inappropriate for a GA.128.214.214.67 (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: William Peter Blatty

 * Oppose too many quality issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: Award-winning and influential writer and screenwriter who wrote a well-known novel that became one of the most acclaimed films of all time. Article needs some work but for RD seems fine. κατάστασ  η  23:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, as this is an RD nomination, discussion on the merits is not required as anyone with an article now is presumed to merit posting; we only need the article evaluated for quality. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. This needs a lot more work -- multiple bits with direct quotations lack references and all the awards need citing; a couple of the uncited paragraphs read like copyvios; some of the existing refs look like fan sites; the lead needs rewriting outside the first paragraph; personal details are lacking. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * All issues raised have been addressed. &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 13:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Marking Ready - I just fixed up some of the book list sourcing to give ISBN or equivalent numbers for those otherwise not directly cited for sourcing purposes, all is ready to go. --M ASEM (t) 15:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon

 * Support - After improvements completed.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would suggest listing as Lord Snowden as his commonly known name as a photographer. Stephen 20:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support because the Issue section (which isn't actually that important for the non-notables) isn't referenced. But otherwise good to go.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support (as "Lord Snowden" or another appropriate shortening of the full title). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not Ready - Much of "First Marriage" is unsourced, and that absolutely needs fixing before posting. I would also recommend but not required cropping his infobox image to a head/shoulders shot to use the infobox space better. --M ASEM (t) 20:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, while this is after it was posted, it all looks fine now on this end. --M ASEM (t) 23:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 21:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC) (Actually, Stephen posted it ;))

[Posted] RD: Anthony King (professor)

 * Comment Several unsourced statements but should be fixable. --M ASEM (t) 15:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Article is now fully referenced and in good shape. &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 07:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Referenced, interesting. Perhaps one could flesh this out with more reviews of his books via JSTOR, but this is fine for the main page I think.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Referencing looks solid - it's pretty minimal and could use more fleshing out, but no tags and solid referencing passes muster. Challenger l (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Short, but sufficient. Post it, and readers can help expand it. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This looks fine now. I am happy to see that we are now following the citing standard for lists of works, awards, etc. Posting. --Tone 07:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Graham Taylor

 * Wait. Superficially seems to be at a reasonable starting place (his playing career was low-key so hardly surprising that there's not much in that section), but some inline cites needed. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Referencing is now there or thereabouts. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Massive sourcing gaps, particularly in the early part of the article. --M ASEM (t) 15:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support with the improvements noted. There's the first para under "Wolverhampton Wanderers (1994–1995)" that lacks a source but that looks like an easy fix and nothing super contentious. --M ASEM (t) 17:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Currently, the article has major needs with regard to referencing.  Statistics and honours are uncited, several potentially contentious statements have no cites, many sections have one or no cites at all.  If that is fixed, this could be posted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Full Support. Looks great now, thanks to the work of  for cleaning this up.  A great article!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 18:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] 2016 United States election interference by Russia

 * Oppose not sure how this could ever be "ongoing", nothing is going to change, there'll never be anything other than conspiracy theories about this, posture and counter-posture, and now soon-to-be-POTUS has been caught on camera in Russia, he's going to be Putin's best buddy for a while. This is all over the press but most of it is non-encyclopedic tattle.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not agree. And how can you say that "nothing is going to change" - that's a very strange statement given that this whole thing is developing by the day now. "Conspiracy theories" by a country's administration and its intelligence agencies? If you want to call it so please do - indeed you even may be right (which I highly doubt, especially as even Trump now admits that it was probably Russia who did the hacking) - but that's not objective, neutral and appropriate conduct here! The tattle in itself is already significant enough. Please also note that the section is called "In the news" - and, like you said, this thing is very much in the news - all over it, all over the world. Such a "tattling" if it concerns two major world superpowers, the election of a person that's often called the most powerful person of the world and warfare/foreign-influence-taking of a new type is very certainly significant. You do not need to understand this but I hope that Wikipedia collectively gets this thing's significance, because if it doesn't it'll make it look absurd and biased. --Fixuture (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it would seem, several other members of the Wikipedia community do not "understand this" as well as me. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking this is one of those real world news stories that doesn't work that well at ITN. There will probably be continued drips and drabs, but little is being confirmed by anybody, and it's too late to prevent it anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose We are still working on extremely evidence that is trying to tie the Russian gov't directly to the intrusions with malicious intent, and now we have what Buzzfeed did and that some papers (but not all) by posting an unverified statement which has since been proven completely wrong that would have serious ramifications if it were true. This rings of a story the media really wants to be true to contest the election, and until there's concrete evidence or some type of criminal arrest, this is definitely not appropriate for ITN. --M ASEM (t) 23:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The documents have not been proven to be false. They're unverified. Could be bunk, could be legit. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll not weigh in on the newsworthiness, but "has not been proven false" has never, in any known human endeavour, ever been an acceptable claim about anything. Read up on the null hypothesis before you ever speak such silliness again.  This is certainly a newsworthy event, and I'd have supported its inclusion, but I'll oppose it just to prevent you from winning any argument ever with such complete and utter bullshit.  Good grief!  Seriously, never do that again.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Plenty of news stories are hoaxes, and can be definitively called as such. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes they are. "Have not been proven false" is not a standard of proof.  If you continue to use it as such, you should rightly be ridiculed for it until you retract is.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem overly concerned about semantics. I was simply pointing out that it has not "since been proven completely wrong", as Masem suggested. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Far enough point (I struck that), but it's still raises serious questions about the state of the media to want to cover this without checking the facts and thus the alarmist nature of this story. --M ASEM (t) 00:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as not meeting the criteria for posting to Ongoing.  Unless something like a smoking gun being discovered, someone being charged with treason and put on trial, or WWIII breaking out over this, I see no reason to post anything about it. 331dot (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm seeing ongoing coverage about it (a couple of headlines from the past 24 hours for example: "Donald Trump Concedes Russia’s Interference in Election", "For Russia, U.S. election meddling claims strip Trump win of luster") and the article's being frequently updated. What's not to like? Banedon (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We are never going to achieve a concensus about this and much of the conjecture seems to be unverified tittle-tale as we have seen over the past day. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Without concrete evidence, the claim about hacking seems to me to just be political excuse-making, probably forgotten about in a year or so.--WaltCip (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for a variety of reasons. First, there's nothing suggesting a material effect of this hacking, and most evidence is stuck trying to prove that the hacks happened at all or were directed in any way.  Second, the article reads like the sort of feverish political emails I receive from my elder family.  Third, nearly everyone furthering this narrative is somehow connected to the current President, who will be leaving office shortly and so I expect this will drop off the radar entirely thereafter.  Lastly, the investigation into this affair hasn't exactly gone where the instigators though it would.  The recounts unanimously support the original winner, and there's been some hilarious accidental discoveries along the way (such as more people voting for Clinton in certain Detroit districts than even live in those districts!).  We can't post articles discussing "trolls" which make us sound like teenagers on their parents dial-up.  We can't feature groundless political intrigue on the front page of a supposed encyclopedia.128.214.53.104 (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Elbphilharmonie Hamburg Official Opening

 * Comment. Referencing is needed, and the claim made by the nominator that it is "Europe's largest and most modern concert hall" isn't even in the article at present. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose might make DYK, but not ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not ITN worthy. --Fixuture (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment How so? It obviously is ITN worthy to the major news sites in the world. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, "Fury over India flag doormats for sale on Amazon" is on the BBC News International news site, and this story isn't. There's your answer.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I might be missing it, but the BBC isn't featuring it on the Europe index or the Entertainment & Arts index. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously the BBC has relevancy criteria converging with those of "The Sun" these days. Bet they'll have it tomorrow with quality pictures delivered. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, still nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose A concert hall isn't that significant. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Muboshgu. Being "one of the world's largest ..." isn't sufficient, since that implies there are other comparable concert halls. Even being "Europe's largest ..." isn't sufficient, since that implies there are five other comparable concert halls, one on each continent (discounting Antarctica). We do need new ITN blurbs but this feels too much like scraping the bottom of the barrel. Banedon (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose on lack of sufficient notability, but this seems like an excellent DYK candidate considering the lack of coverage outside Germany. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Addis Ababa–Djibouti Railway

 * Comment It's been open for three months and passenger services haven't started yet; all that happened today appears to have been a formal inauguration ceremony. &#8209; Iridescent 18:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Last October it was inaugurated only the ethiopian side, while yesterday they completed ALL the railway, also on Djibuti side. --Holapaco77 (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. [Edit conflict] According to the article, the railway appears to have been inaugurated on 5 October 2016? Which is a shame, because this would have been a good story. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, in October only the section in Ethiopia. --Holapaco77 (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The article needs to be clarified. At the moment the lead gives one date, and the text another. I've also requested a couple of references. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - I think this is a big deal and people are so anti-American news on here that something like this is a godsend. I actually think this is a big deal and deserves its own ITN slot, but I'm going to add a third possible blurb because I don't like the other two. Honestly, I don't expect this to pass ITN but you can always try. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What are you suggesting the news is here? This is a story from October—to repeat, this railway has been fully operational for freight for three months and isn't yet open for passengers (and is a replacement for an existing railway, not a new route), all that happened today was a handover ceremony. &#8209; Iridescent 19:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's newsworthy when a massively important railway opens to the public. It would be like having a railway going from Boston, MA to New York, NY to Philadelphia, PA to Baltimore, MD and then to Fredericksburg, VA, distance wise. Besides, like the hypothetical railway I just mentioned, this railway will service millions of Ethiopians and Djiboutians who want to reach the Red Sea. Very newsworthy in my opinion.
 * Neither of us is commenting on notability; despite two inaugurations, one in October, the line doesn't seem to be open to the public yet. I'd be prepared to support if the date it opens to passengers could be pin-pointed & nominated. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * According to many news outlets based in the East Africa-Asia area, the railway is officially open for business. However, |there is a dispute over who actually owns the railroad. To find a ton of media outlets just search 'Addis Ababa-Djibouit Railway' into Google, Yahoo  not bing   etc., UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose stale or not real, you choose. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Our chance to post about this rail was three months ago I'm afraid.--WaltCip (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Three months ago they opened only the ethiopian section. Yesterday they inaugurated ALL the new railway, also on Djibuti side. --Holapaco77 (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support _I'm new around here, so I don't understand where in the rules it says that the blurb has to be timed exactly to the beginning or end of an event, especially for something like a railroad launch that takes several months to complete. Why limit posting to a fraction of the time the event is happening? In this case, I think the case can be made that the official inauguration is timely per "The event can be described as "current", that is the event is appearing currently in news sources, and/or the event itself occurred within the time frame of ITN."104.182.168.222 (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - railways have a major impact both visible and less visible. That this is neither an American or European story is also good for decreasing bias, while the ongoing dispute on the talk page is hashed out. A formal opening ceremony is a natural posting point, too. Prefer original blurb. Banedon (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. A notable transportation development in Africa. 331dot (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support once unreferenced statements have citations. A big development for African infrastructure, and a part of the world that's rarely featured in this section. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support with some refs in the Route section. The two citation needed tags are for minor facts. I also rewrote the first blurb in the template. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  05:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It may be worth noting that its the first fully-electric railway in Africa AFAICT. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  05:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's true: all four lines of the Metrorail Western Cape are fully electric, for example, as is the entire route of the Gautrain. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Metrorail Western Cape is a suburban light rail, while Ethiopia-Djibouti railway is an international line. --Holapaco77 (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how that's relevant to the claim Floydian made? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * In which case, the blurb should be something like The Addis Ababa–Djibouti Railway, the first fully-electric (international?) railway in Africa, opens for regular traffic. If so, I support. --Tone 07:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as a significant transport development. The article is a bit lacking in substance, but meets the minimum standards. Exactly which moment we choose to feature this seems rather academic - now is as good a choice as any. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is very unclear what the 10th date represents, given that it claims that in November the full line was inaugurated too. The article needs clarity to understand why the 10th is an important date here, as well as other sourcing aspects. --M ASEM (t) 14:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * [upgraded], in brief: this in an international railway connecting two different countries: Ethiopia and Djibouti. In october was opened the ethiopian side, while yesterday was inaugurated also the Djuboutian side. So, now all authorities say the railway is full completed: for this reason also the President of International Union of Railways was present at the ceremony in Djibouti yesterday. --Holapaco77 (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support though I would recommend if someone could give this a quick copyedit, that would be good. The clarity provided by Holapaco gives good rational why this Jan 10 event is a key one (linking Ethopia to a seaport via rail). --M ASEM (t) 22:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support It's the first fast, electric, not narrow gauge railway in Africa, Ethiopia's a landlocked country of 100 million and this greatly improves the horribly slow trip to the sea (3 days to go 300 air miles?, good God! That must be some mountainous road) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment As a contributor to the article, someone who has followed this project closely, and all-around general rail-buff, I'm very pleased to see this make the main page. At the same time... I just don't think it's that notable. There already was a railway. Far larger projects are concluded monthly around the world. On a certain level, I feel like we are celebrating (relative) mediocrity. I also recall this making the front page of China Daily back in November when the line opened. But then again my views are not WP:NPOV—I have family there. --Varavour (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to nominate other infrastructure news that you consider more notable. We can only post items if they get nominated. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Tony Rosato

 * Comment. I think this needs significant work. Besides the lack of references in places, there's nothing on his personal life beyond his early life/education until the "Arrest and mental-health issues" comes up, which makes this seem disproportionate. I'm also uncomfortable with hanging that entire paragraph off a single newspaper; more varied sources would be ideal. His career needs more detail. The big list of voice work could probably do with being moved to some kind of tabular presentation at the end. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Had saw this earlier ( VG news channels focusing on his Luigi work) but had opined that it was in too far shape in quality and sourcing to be a possible RD with the time factor involved. Espresso notes the problems that I also see with the article. --M ASEM  (t) 19:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. I took a quick skim and thought that I've seen worse, and do see worse when I peruse the recent deaths articles. Don't think I have much time to work on it, but maybe someone else does. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose too many unsourced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Oliver Smithies

 * Support There's a few tiny gaps in sourcing in the accolades, but that appears to be generally sourced to ref 10 right before the list. Otherwise looks fine. --M ASEM (t) 16:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support when referencing improved. Could do with more on research, but so could nearly all our articles on Nobel winners. I'll try to fix the referencing for the minor awards. It might all be covered in the general reference but I wouldn't count on it. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Dylann Roof

 * Oppose mass shooter gets death penalty - so what? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Top story in much of the English-speaking world. (In blurb, perpetrating is unnecessary.) Sca (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As per your suggestion I have removed it from the blurb; thanks. Everymorning (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support We covered the shooting, it seems reasonable to cover the end of the legal process. Capital punishment is exceedingly rare in the developed world and is declining sharply in the United States. Federal death sentences are even more rare. The Roof article looks solid while the shooting article has a couple of spots in need of a cite but overall I think it's good enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Non-ironic question: how final is this? The BBC report says that Roof has requested a retrial and that the formal sentence has yet to be given. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is the sentence of the primary trial court. Appeals are more or less automatic in capital cases and can drag on for years or even decades. Anything beyond that is getting into WP:CRYSTAL territory. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * hell also have his lat min appeal to the gov who at athat point hopefully wont have the same skin color as me ;)Lihaas (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * First this is a Federal case, so the Governor won't be involved. And secondly your comment has racial overtones that are really inappropriate. Please exercise some restraint when commenting and remember that this is not a WP:FORUM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This may be pushing WP:CRYSTAL/WP:FORUM territory but he has yet to face trial in state court, in which case if convicted and sentenced how he was here, the governor could be involved if South Carolina Palmtree5551 (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * support came here to nominate AND per below we post convictions. that lil pipsqueak is gonna be executed in 5-10...that's what you get for taking down our flag from the capitol.Lihaas (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this comment is really appropriate. Can you tone it down? Isa (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * +1 -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * +1. Lihaas, remove your comment per WP:NOTFORUM or I will remove it for you.--WaltCip (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Just sentenced, not really hanged or whatever method is followed. Very likely to be reviewed through appeals. Maybe post when the execution actually happens and if it's in news then. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support - The Oscar Pistorius sentencing wasn't featured, but I find this trial more interesting compared to that one (its intentional, it had deep-reaching motivations, and so on). A danger with waiting is that if he is executed, it might not be in the news then. Weak support because coverage appears to be limited to the anglosphere. Also, there are some proseline issues in the article. Banedon (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We did post Pistorius' conviction, however, which is odd, as the standard is generally on the sentencing. Even still, in Roof's case, he basically confessed to the crimes, so a guilty conviction was assured, the question was going to be the type of sentence he got. --M ASEM (t) 16:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support - I feel like the bigger news might be when (or if) he is actually executed but with this being a big story at least stateside, I could see posting this Palmtree5551 (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment this has already dropped to eighth in the BBC's international homepage, behind Star Wars gibbons and Ban Ki-moon's naughty relatives. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Cover it when he is dead and cold. Meaningless sentence. Years of appeals to come. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for most of the reasons already given by others (probable years of appeals, etc), but also as a small gesture of protest against giving yet more publicity to the kind of murderer who seems to kill at least partly in order to get such publicity. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Since the Americans complain if we use regional interest as an oppose, I guess I support an article that highlights the US still kills people like a variety of other corrupt and amoral regimes.Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Question -, what do you mean? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Only in death does duty end please refrain from engaging in obviously political commentary. You are free to support or oppose the nomination, but this is Not a FORUM or soapbox. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * can we strike this vote, in the best interest of preventing political arguments? A conflict about the 'barbarism' of the death penalty is the last thing this already heated topic needs. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done per WP:POINT and above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Undone. You can ignore it, the closer can disregard it if they wish, but my rationale for supporting is allowable. The premise that a one-liner support/oppose is 'soapboxing' or an abuse of forum is frankly laughable. You may not *like* the rationale, but that is no reason to strike another's comment. Secondly Ad Orientum, you have already voted in this conversation, so you cannot make Administrative actions (which striking another's vote would be in this situation) due to INVOLVED. And perhaps you two should both have realised literally no one else took issue with this until you made a drama out of it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on my being INVOLVED, but your vote rational is naked political SOAPBOXING and obviously POINTY. And no it is not valid. I would encourage you to consider striking or rewriting it on your own. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * First off, you made it into a big deal, not me nor Ad Orientem. We were being diplomatic and asking nicely after you made a vague, weirdly worded political statement. Second, you undid something that two other editors felt was best to prevent controversy, so I'm somewhat bothered by the fact that you refuse to strike your controversial vote but you also refuse to reword said vote. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would encourage you to stop bringing attention to it? *I* didnt respond until you two decided to start striking votes. I was ignoring your obvious provocations until that point. If you are going to make a POINTY argument that implies the vote is in bad faith. But since you both seem to have a bee in your bonnets about it, yes I do think its a good idea on an encyclopedia that serves the world to have on its front page a blurb that shows the US still executes people. You neither have to like, or agree with that reasoning, but that is your problem, not mine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Trust me, he'll have died on death row long before the US ever gets around to executing him. In Texas it takes 25 years, and that's considered fast. And we aren't in Texas.--WaltCip (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I assumed he will be there for 25 years then complain being on Death Row forever is cruel and unusual punishment and get it changed to life ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm still opposed to posting, but in line with my above-mentioned dislike of giving unnecessary publicity to the killer I've added an altblurb that leaves out his name.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No lasting or global significance.  Nowhere near close to being the "top story" in UK or elsewhere.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Has received international coverage. However, Dylan's article could do with some of the WP:Proseline fixed up first. AIR corn (talk) 10:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Might be notable if the sentence had been three weeks' community service. Might reconsider if there's a televised execution. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support because federal death sentences are very rare. The conclusion of this racial attack on a church will have some sort of historical significance. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It'll be stuck in automatic appeals for decades.--WaltCip (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on principle We have generally reported on the first initial sentencing of major crimes that we previously featured in ITN as a means of closure. Yes, there will be appeals, they will go on indefinitely, but barring a complete reversal of the sentence, the results of those usually go without the same fanfare as the initial sentencing. Hence why we generally focus on that initial sentencing. I do think both article suffer from proseline problems but the sourcing is there. --M ASEM (t) 14:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As an American I can safely say that based on our court system this thing will be clogged up with appeals for decades, and when it's finalized he'll still be on death row for about 180 months, or 15 years. Clump that with the ten-twenty years in court, as a rough estimate and we'll all grow old together before the event actually takes place. Maybe when they settle on a decision or give him the chair we'll include it. The court system is extremely frustrating and mind boggling, so it's not surprising that this mass murderer was allowed to represent himself as well as appeal a seemingly infinite amount of times. Check back in 25-35 years. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose basically per Martinevans above; this would be notable if he'd received a fine, but "criminal gets the expected sentence" isn't of any particular interest. (It's certainly not and never has been the lead story on the BBC website, either.) &#8209; Iridescent 19:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In regards to your BBC comment, it wouldn't be there. In all fairness, the Dylann Roof issue is more of a domestic United States matter, while the BBC is a UK-based domestic media outlet. However, the other points you mentioned were spot on. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the BBC might take issue with your quaint description of "domestic media outlet"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * When I say domestic, I mean mostly UK related stuff. They probably won't cover the conviction of a mass shooter in America. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment If he goes to the chair and fries, would the Roof be on fire?  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 20:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Depends how High and Dry he is. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This nomination is just one of those interminable drifters. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Contrary to Iridescent's claim above, this was the lead story on the BBC's news homepage ( which is here for me and other Americans) when I nominated it yesterday. Everymorning (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - The question is: what makes Dylan Roof receiving a death sentence more worthy of being posted as an ITN item on Wikipedia's main page instead of other death sentences given around the world to other mass shooters who kill for "ideological" reasons? In the United States (US), mass shootings occur on a daily basis. And in fact, if you define a mass shooting as "at least four or more people maimed or killed' during a single shooting incident, then in the US today, right now in 2017, there is more than one mass shooting every single day. In most of these mass shootings, the gunmen are "selecting their victims somewhat indiscriminately," and so the violence in these cases is not a means to an end. That is not the case here for Dylan Roof mass shooting. Roof did profile his victims. And for quite specific ideological reasons, it would seem, Roof selected this specific church as a target because of its historical significance as a symbol of the ongoing struggle for racial justice in the US. But who cares about this outside the US? I wish I could support on principle like Masem above, but I oppose because this story has ITN interest only in the US, and nobody outside of the mainstream media in the US seems to care one way or the other about it. There have been no significant structural or systemic changes to the way the US does business as a result of the shootings by Dylan Roof. If there had been real changes made as a result of Roof's actions, then I would support. The shootings did not change hearts and minds in the US. Unfortunately, Americans continue to have amnesia, and the only thing that changed (no kidding) as a result of this shooting was that they stopped flying the Confederate flag in front South Carolina state Capitol building. So back to my original question, why does this mass shooter's death sentence ruling deserve ITN status over any other mass shooter in the US or anywhere else around the world?  Christian Roess (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you get your data from, but we've had less than one mass shooting per day. And Roof's was particularly horrible, worse than most. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I worded the thing poorly. I should've written something like, "as of 2017, and over the past X number of days, there's now, on average, more than one mass shooting every day in the US." As to your second point, I'm not sure how or why anyone outside of the US would find this "particularly horrible," without factoring into it the ideological part of the equation. And btw, I'm an American currently living in the US and so I'm trying to view this from an outsider's POV, so my question is not meant to troll or snark my way through this debate. My oppose is a weak oppose, and I can possibly be persuaded to change my vote. Christian Roess (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Suggest Close I am not seeing any consensus or reasonable hope for reaching one. I'm INVOLVED so I can't close it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] World Cup expansion

 * Support - Now this is a newsworthy sporting event. Take note.--WaltCip (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? A minor formatting change is newsworthy, but an actual championship isn't? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't see this as significant enough for ITN. This looks to me like a simple rule change for an event 10 years from now. Mamyles (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per above, one of the most watched sports events worldwide. Brandmeistertalk  18:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Yes, very notable competition, the most watched in the world, but a rule change that won't occur for 9 years? Nah. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's in line with ITN practice of posting when decision is made, not when it becomes effective. In elections, for example, we don't post inaugurations or oaths, but voting results. Brandmeistertalk  18:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but is it notable enough for ITN? Also, it's a bit WP:CRYSTAL; if the management of FIFA changes (there is opposition to it) it might never even happen. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose the sporting event is newsworthy, not the rule change that'll take effect in a decade. A one-sentence update sort of emphasises its significance. Also fun to see a double reflist in the middle of a FA. Fuebaey (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Both as effectively just a rule/format change, and that when talking about an event as far out as 2026, that falls clearly within the scope of WP:CRYSTAL (too far down the line to presume it will happen). --M ASEM (t) 19:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Minor rules/formatting changes for ITNR tournaments should not go on ITN, absent something else. Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest closure. FIFA are, at best, a completely disreputable organisation whose decisions are always questionable and may have no real longevity.  That aside, a minor rule change to tournament isn't even that interesting, for me, it's all about more money for FIFA because more tickets can be sold, and nothing else.  It may result in North Korea winning the World Cup after beating England 9-0 and Germany 11-0 and Spain 99-0 on the way, but I doubt it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Propagandist. North Korea already won the World Cup, every year for the last fifty years. They beat all competitors 500-0. Kim Jong Il was an excellent forward, as I recall.--WaltCip (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose So the tournament will expand in nine years. Unless, as is pointed out above, they change their mind. WP:CRYSTAL applies then, doesn't it? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted and closed] RD: Clare Hollingworth

 * Support noting that the five books should have their ISBNs or equivalent attached to validate her authorship, since they are otherwise non-notable books. --M ASEM (t) 14:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ISBNs and ASINs added. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Very interesting career – is she blurbable? Sca (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Although she is most noteworthy for WWII-related coverage, there seems to be very limited coverage of her life post WWII all the way up to the 1980s, a huge gap. All that the article mentions is "During the following decades, Hollingworth reported on conflicts in Palestine, Algeria, China, Aden and Vietnam" and then a single line about the Shah of Iran.  Spencer T♦ C 16:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The BBC Obituary has a wealth of information. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Have added some detail about her early life. Agreed that more about her post-WWII career would be helpful. Edwardx (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD now or blurb when a few more details are added. NYT has a bunch of info too. This probably doesn't meet 'traditional' ITN standards, even though she broke the so-called "scoop of the century" and there's dozens of obituaries in major news outlets. But at minimum I'm supporting on reader interest: a trailblazing woman journalist who was the first to report huge stories like WWII or Philby and was around long enough to contribute info about Tienanmen Square in 1989. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Was an item on BBC News at Six tonight, including interview footage. A brave pioneer journalist. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Spencer. The third ref makes our article look laughable. One paragraph on her Second World War scoop and the rest of her career is a footnote? This is a person who covered the birth of modern Israel, the Algerian War, Vietnam War, the last Shah of Persia (Iran) and China after Nixon met Mao. It doesn't even mention that she worked for The Guardian. Fuebaey (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Seems sufficiently updated, sourced, and comprehensive to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Sam Walton (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Let's get a blurb together. This is the sort of thing ITN is designed for - bringing coverage to notable people from the past. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a nice suggestion but I'm afraid that since she wasn't an American actor or actress prominent in the 1960s to 1990s, there'll be little interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Au contraire. Sca (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd support a blurb. Her life story is fascinating, and the article is now moderately fleshed out. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb – offered above. Sca (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb More than famous enough. AIR corn (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Given the recent mess of blurb problems with RDs, here is a person that has an interesting career, but far from influential that we would consider as something key to a blurb. --M ASEM (t) 06:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a major transformative world figure. Notable only for what she did while she was alive.  Her death did not change the world.  Death of Clare Hollingworth will never be blue.  Doesn't meet the stated death criteria nor any reasonable alternative ones, no matter how many times Sca writes "support".  RD only. —Cryptic 09:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Notable only for what she did while she was alive. How is anyone supposed to do anything after they die? AIR corn (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See Cryptic's comment regarding 'Death of'. Some people are only notable because of how/when they die. The death itself may be an event that has greater repurcussions (Start of WW1 anyone?). Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Having a "death of" article is not a requirement (Death of Carrie Fisher Death of Debbie Reynolds Death of George Michael) AIR corn (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * None of which should have been blurbs either. —Cryptic 12:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No its not a requirement, only that a 'Death of' is one indication the death in itself is notable. Some people do not have biographies at all, only 'Death of X' ones. I cant recall who it was, but there are some completely non-notable people who because of the manner of their death have led to changes in law etc. Their living actions had zero consequence, their death had impact. Obviously they themselves cannot do anything after they die, however their death can spur changes. I dont know why we have a Death of Carrie Fisher article. Beloved actress dies of heart attack is really not of great significance to need more than a section on her biography. -ninja edit- Ah I see its a redirect, which is rather the point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * RD only She does not meet any of the criteria: "where the news reporting of the death consists solely of obituaries, or where the update to the article in question is merely a statement of the time and cause of death, the "recent deaths" section is usually used" (obituaries only here); " In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb" (death itself not newsworthy for its manner or the reaction); "the death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb" (no). BencherliteTalk 09:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * RD only it'd be a memorial to her to blurb her, but her death isn't any more newsworthy than RD is designed for. Blurbing deaths has become a little devalued lately.  Basically, what Bencherlite said. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * RD only - Doesn't meet the standard set by Nelson Mandela, Margaret Thatcher, or Carrie Fisher.--WaltCip (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Now there's three people you don't often see together in one sentence. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Which would be the first you'd omit as not belonging in the group? Sca (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't answer that! That's a trick/gotcha question.--WaltCip (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 *  NOTE – FYI, from today's "Connecting," an emailed newsletter for former AP writers:


 * A legend in journalism left this world on Tuesday night in Hong Kong.
 * Hollingworth had been a journalist for the Daily Telegraph for less than week when she revealed that German tanks were gathered at the Polish border, poised for an invasion. It was the start of an illustrious career....
 * Sca (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And...........? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So, it's not true there's little interest in the U.S. in someone who's "not an American actor or actress." Sca (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well it seems obvious that it would be of interest to former AP writers. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Covered by NYT, Wash. Post, ABC, The Atlantic, Time, AP (tho she never worked for AP) and others. Many U.S. papers, such as the Charlotte Observer, gave the AP story significant play with pics. Not because she was a household name in the U.S., but because her story was important and fascinating. Too bad it wasn't featured on ITN. Old now. Sca (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * RD only This is not a blurb person. The news coverage is not significant enough for that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * IMO we should occasionally blurb people who may not be widely known at present but whose stories or accomplishments are/were particularly interesting. Sca (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Roman Herzog

 * Oppose "Early life and career" and "Personal life" section entirely unreferenced. Clean up before nominating articles. Seattle (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I'm sure it'll be much more improved when entering the index site, anyway this can't be ignored, no matter the state of the article. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose we simply do not post items in this condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment What exactly constitutes "this condition"? It's fine by the standards and more extensive and comprehensive compared to the above nominated Clare Hollingworth. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be better to look at posted items rather than unposted candidates. The orange tag, for starters, needs to be resolved, and there's no mention of his death outside of the introduction of the article. Additionally, a good chunk of information from the infobox isn't covered in the prose of the article (personal life/family, education, etc.).  Spencer T♦ C 17:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are whole sections and paragraphs without sources. Oppose until this is fixed. Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Highly notable but the article remains far from ready. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb. Highly notable, as noted, and the article is adequate in my opinion. --Tataral (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it is not adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment In addition to still needing the career lists sourced, I would recommend someone do a minimum copyedit and merge a lot of those 1-2 sentence paragraphs into larger ones. We do want to avoid excessive proseline. --M ASEM (t) 15:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is approaching staleness; what do people think about hiding all the stuff under "Other activities (selection)" & "Recognition (selection)"? The meat of the article now appears reasonably well sourced and just in need of a minor copy edit. (Now done.) It's a pity to forego noting the passing of an important figure because no one has the energy to cite relative trivia. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article has been adequate since my comment above. Since then, a user added these ref improve tags to two sections containing entirely uncontroversial information such as a list of honours, which doesn't really seem constructive. It does not appear to be normal for a Wikipedia article to have inline citations for every honour in such a list, and in fact I think it would clutter up the article. The other activities section could be deleted; a couple of these activities could possibly be mentioned in the body text, but many of them seem relatively trivial. --Tataral (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We are actually pushing for such sections to be referenced for RD articles. The rest seems to be ok. --Tone 12:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support- should be posted ASAP. Notable person and quality article now. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Now of postable quality. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] 2017 College Football Playoff National Championship

 * Let's summarize the support and oppose arguments for this annual nomination from years past. The main support argument is that the national viewership for this particular sporting event is high, year-after-year, and there is international coverage for this event on various news sources. A secondary support argument is that the players participating in the championship are playing with the high likelihood of becoming professional athletes, essentially a step away from the top tier of American football. Finally, the game brings in millions of dollars of advertising and sponsorship revenue, as well as pumping money to the respective schools that participate. The main oppose argument, on the other hand, claims that regardless of this, the athletes are still amateurs participating in a provincial game between competing universities. They are not professionals, nor are they paid for their participation. American football also, despite having international coverage, has a limited interest in other countries and is widely considered a regional sport. Therefore, while it's all well and good to post the NFL Super Bowl, it's a bridge too far to post a championship game for regional collegiate sports.
 * Now, the consensus has been in prior years to not post this based on the multitude of factors. As the notability requirements for ITN have not been significantly altered from the previous years, I do not expect that consensus has changed, and therefore I oppose and again reiterate my call from prior years to salt the earth.--WaltCip (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "A bridge too far" to increase the annual American football postings from one to two? "Regional"? The NCAA comprises colleges all over the United States. "Salt the earth"? I believe this is more of an issue of an inability to form a consensus to post, not an established consensus to not post. Also, consensus can change. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Continental is more like it. America is bigger than Australia and almost as big as Europe (and I mean all the way to the Urals at the longitude of Afghanistan Europe, otherwise the USA's bigger). The game may be between universities but they often represent their state. Alabama football is the team of Alabama in any sport. Alabama has no professional sports of any note in or near the state. Clemson's the best football team in another state that has no major pro teams. If the second level on the English football pyramid is sometimes posted (I think) then why not this? Would the best non-Premier League team spend over $100 million/yr if the players had to work for free? Note that if college football didn't exist the 2nd through 9th biggest stadiums on Earth wouldn't either and there's only like 6 home games a year but the football programs still turn a profit. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have never seen a second-level game in the English football pyramid posted here (I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not). Black Kite (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine, because this and a "second-level game in the English football pyramid" are not analogous. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure they are, this college game is lower tier, i.e. it's not Superbowl, but it's the same sport, so our closest analogy is the Championship playoff in English football, second tier, but worth £150 million to the winners. One match, the winners of which will get £150 million, at least.  Is that a clue to the significance of that game versus this lower-tier event?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can't acknowledge that the NFL and NCAA are not directly analogous to the Premier League and the English Football League, then we're going to keep going around in circles. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can't see that this college sport isn't worth discussing when we never go near a multi-hundred-million-pound second tier "soccer" match, than you're right, we're wasting time, yet again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The supports that this does have suggest that it is worth discussing. All the soccer postings that come through ITN, and we can't get a second American football story in a calendar year? Because you clearly don't understand its impact in the United States? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't American Wikipedia, remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, game winning touchdown with one second left in the game. Headlines like "Alabama vs. Clemson II is costliest national championship ticket in recent years". This was an instant classic, lived up to the hype and then some. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. One of the most-watched sporting events of the year. Yes, it's American football, but we post exactly one story on the sport each year. The world won't end if we up that to two, despite what many of my colleagues who will be longing on in the next few hours would have you believe.  Calidum   05:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Calidum. Personally, I wouldn't care if everyone woke up from pleasant slumbers tomorrow morning and decided American football is a completely ridiculous and barbaric form of entertainment and that they would all rather make watching paint dry the national pastime. But this is a big event in one of the biggest countries in the world, and there's no real "slippery slope" problem. This is the one "big game" watched all over the United States (and by some Canadians) that is not the Super Bowl. The article isn't amazing, but the references are fine and it does contain a summary of the game. ITN is stale right now. Let's get this up. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose second tier sports event. We don't post the English Football League Playoff final ever, so I don't see why this would be any different. We certainly shouldn't be lowering the bar just because ITN is stale, that would set a terrible precedent.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it's in its own category. This is not comparable to the English Football League Playoff. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not "in its own category", it's American football. That's NFL.  Done.  English League Playoff final, one game, one 90-minute game, is worth something like £150 million to the winning team.  And we don't post it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of money involved here. That it doesn't go directly to the players is a separate issue. And the presence of the Super Bowl in ITNR, one story a year, shouldn't be used as a reason not to post this. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you've missed the point. Winning the second tier championship playoff in English football will reward the club by at least £150 million.  It will probably reward the players by millions each as their contracts are expanded and prolonged.  This college contest is charming but of no encyclopedic value.  We've got the top tier American football game (played in .... America) covered already.  We don't need another American football story played ... in America by ... Americans.  American football is niche and covered by the Superbowl if it expands outside that niche.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, the "no encyclopedic value" canard of yours again. Again I'll await you taking this article to AfD then. Millions of people are out there telling you this is not "niche". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not millions, about five or six, here, all Americans, all telling me that somehow I should give a toss about "college football". Which neither I nor the rest of the world do.  Superbowl, sure, but this stuff, nope.  It's not ITN-worthy, even in our times of limited updates.  We don't want to start a precedent where all such minor American games are given a pass based on this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Amateur competition. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This is not a second-tier competition to the NFL (as the Championship is to the Premier League in English football); it is a completely different competition. We don't dismiss the Premier League (which is ITN/R) as a second-tier competition to the Champions League. What matters is popularity and cultural impact. If an amateur university competition has this to the same or greater extent as professional competitions we post, why shouldn't it be posted? Neljack (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not top tier. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's the top tier of college football, which is completely separate from the NFL. You might as well say that the Champions League isn't top tier because of the World Cup. College (American) football is different to professional football, just as club (association) football is different to international football. Neljack (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't follow that, college football and professional football are both non-international football tournaments. Club associtaion football and international association football differ.  Champions League is top tier in Europe.  Premier League is top tier in England, La Liga is top tier in Spain etc.  College football is not top tier and lowering ITN's bar to include it would be a mistake. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please try to follow this opinion piece: "Passion, tradition elevate college football over NFL". Or "25 Maps That Explain College Football". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Thanks for the summary of arguments in the first post.  The argument that college football players are "amateur" or not paid is preposterous.  Nearly every one of them is compensated handsomely, and a few are cash-paid outright (although in contradiction of regulations).  I also find the argument that college football is not "top tier" similarly wrong.  Anyone who watches a good college game next to a "professional" game could tell you that.  Often, "professional" players are not honed college players; rather they are past-prime.  Their designation as "professional" players is a quirk of how compensation accounting is performed and has nothing to do with their talent or level of play.  Getting hung up on this triviality is a bizarre avenue for opposition.128.214.53.104 (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose We should only be posting sporting events if they are at the highest level and/or of interest worldwide (and no, that's not a US v REst of The World thing, I don't think we should post The Boat Race either for example. Black Kite (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per above. I also think the boat race is a regional event of low interest. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I won't discuss The Boat Race here, but if you'll examine the record it draws hundreds of thousands live at a time and millions on TV. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think The Boat Race is poor example, if you're trying to provide one to justify your !vote. The Boat Race is a competition that is solely between two competitors, never any others, with no qualifications or deciding matches to earn a spot to this event. If you want a real analogy you might want to try low-tier football/soccer events. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  09:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Which low-tier football (soccer) events do we post at ITN? Black Kite (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't follow candidates for ITN that often to say you do or don't. The point was The Boat Race was a poor example of something that is similar to the college football playoffs. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  09:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Precisely. We don't post lower-tier soccer events, which is why we shouldn't be posting this either. Black Kite (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The point is moot anyway. College football is top-tier.  The only difference between this and "professional" football is that professional players are able to openly disclose their compensation.  This is a quirk of American collegiate sports that has no parallel elsewhere.  There is no equivalence between level of play and which boxes you have to check on a tax form.128.214.53.104 (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Amateur competitions are almost universally not top tier. With a few exceptions. And none of the ones with fully professional leagues are. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Take a moment and watch 20 minutes of a random college football game on YouTube, and then 20 minutes of a random professional football game. You'll find that the college game has noticeably more energy, spontaneity and speed than the professional one.  The only place where pro players excel is in drilling, which is for nothing when 80% of that drilling is "slug it out 1 yrd from scrimmage".  College ball is the top.128.214.53.104 (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your opinion on the players skills. Amateur leagues are not top tier - which is reserved for the top divisions of fully professional leagues. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Yes, I feel the college football playoff results are worth mentioning, as it's a major sporting event in the United States. College football is the third most popular sport in the United States behind the pros in the National Football League and Major League Baseball. It tops Major League Soccer, the National Hockey League, National Basketball Association and auto racing in popularity (three of these four we post results for on ITN). However, it doesn't fall in line for inclusion and never has. I think the main page is long overdue for a change IMHO. The main page needs to have it's own blurb of different sets of ITN, rather than combining top headlines with sports and recent deaths. There is too much news for this much debate, as this is arguably a big headline which we traditionally leave off (which we shouldn't). In December 2016, around 2,300 edits were made on the candidates page deciding what should be on the template. I guess I'm the only one who can see that such a narrow scope for inclusion means worthwhile news is passed up and we end up wasting a massive amount of time and effort for a few days worth of mention on the main page. So much more useful news, sport results, etc. could be added and aren't. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  11:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose This argument, again?  Oppose for all the same reasons.  We need a new type of close; not WP:SNOW, but WP:THISISNEVERGOINGTOACHIEVECONSENSUSBUTWILLCONSUMEAHELLOFALOTOFBITSANDGOODWILLINTHEPROCESS.  GoldenRing (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your bad faith oppose sure doesn't engender good will, no. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Top tier of its sport, college football.  It isn't a lower tier than the NFL, just a different league- which all but directly pays its players.  I think it's hard for many to appreciate how big a deal this is for millions of people. I won't repeat any more than that. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support we posted Star Wars lady, this passes that threshold. Nergaal (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I find it amazing that: right now ITN notes the death of three entertainers who died in advanced age of natural causes decades after their fame had peaked; ITN notes a violent attack in a region wracked by violence; RD has been expanded to include animals and plants; and yet the inclusion of the pinnacle of a sport generates so much controversy.128.214.53.104 (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Not the top level of the sport. We should not be diluting our criteria by posting amateur student competitions. We've had discussions over college sports time and again, and no-one ever advances any new arguments. They are not suitable for ITN. I also oppose posting celebrity death blurbs, so the fact that those exist doesn't change the situation. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Student?   Supposedly the link 1 TV series is pretty accurate (student sport wasn't that big in my schools (New York City) so can't comment first hand). I do know that there's way too many college student athletes picking easy classes and some of the least useful degrees in the school (including "Bachelor's of General Studies", studying "everything" to avoid going deep in anything before you're kicked off the team (they can only play school vs school for 4 years even if they still only have 80% of a bachelor's to prevent further abuse of the system, thus the standard is to not touch the playing area for 1 millisecond during school vs school on year 1 so they can study football very hard for 5 years instead of 4 and only have to get 1/5th of a bachelor's per year (the legal minimum)) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This shows how college football is just a kludge of grafting something like the Premier Leagues' under-23 teams into universities. Which is only this way because college football was invented by a bunch of probably well off real students of nearby schools in 1869 but gained popularity till it became a farce. Like a Monty Python sketch. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Celebrity trees and whales are cool though. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  14:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Correction, they are "notable", not "celebrity". And they meet the RD criteria.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it does, but the most notable thing I can find about the Pioneer Cabin Tree is that it fell over. It falling over was literally the most notable thing it could have done, because had it stood for another 250 years, Wikipedia might not have been around to write an article on it. I digress though, this game was infinitely more notable than that tree will ever be. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  15:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Infinitely"?! Time will tell, and you and I won't be here to argue about it.  A minor college sporting event which happens every year is really not spectacular, I'd expect to see it covered by one line in a sporting almanac for 2017, but nothing else.  I suppose Americans care about it a bit but the rest of the English-speaking world couldn't care less.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * American sports almanacs have a whole chapter on college football. I think I've even seen college football in farmer's almanac(s) which have tables of gestation periods and lifespans of livestock and eggs, animal speeds, woodchipper ads and things like that. And how can it be minor when it gets more US TV viewers than any other annual sport event? (besides the Super Bowl game) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I could say that your oppose isn't suggesting a new reason to oppose either, just the same old "not the top level of the sport" which fails to understand the enormity of this event. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You might want to rephrase that after looking up the definition of "enormity". Even if it meant what you think it means, an event which is relevant to a very small percentage of the globe is not "enormous". Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh I used the right word. It might not mean the same thing to people across the globe, but it's an "enormous" event here, and locality and international scope aren't (or shouldn't) be factored into votes. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Reluctant support - because we really need new ITN blurbs. Banedon (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a highly watched sporting event with enough interest to warrant inclusion on the main page. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - event with merely a regional relevance, as opposed to the English Wiki having a global meaning. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * From above: PLEASE DO NOT oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. Your !vote isn't valid. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To me, the oppose isn't based to it relating only to a single country. It's based on only being relevant to a regional audience. The Super Bowl relates only to a single country but it still has international relevance.--WaltCip (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's still not valid. We have so many nominations that are only "relevant" to a "regional audience". Even if you don't care about this, there should be a recognition that millions do. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Perfectly valid I'm afraid. It's college football.  So what?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So millions of viewers, millions of dollars, millions of news articles, major significance in the sport. But you don't like it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Second lowest CFB championship ratings since 2005.--WaltCip (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There was no CFB championship game in 2005. The current system is three years old. The game ended at around midnight east coast time, which surely didn't help ratings, and is a problem the NCAA should address, but doesn't change the worthiness of this nom. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It ended 12:25 am in the time zone where 47% of Americans live, including the time zone of the winning team. . The kind of, sort of championship game was on cable since 2011, some Americans don't have cable. The viewership differences are mostly minor. The most viewed game in that time period was between Southern California and Texas, the #1 and 2 highest population states in the US. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Ditto. "Really needing" new items isn't a good reason; neither is the regrettable Fisher-Reynolds precedent. Sca (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As above, this isn't a valid oppose. And the fact that ITN is stale makes opposing this relevant, newsworthy sports story even more questionable than by buying the Eurocentric view that doesn't understand the purpose of the nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article is sufficiently updated with a referenced game summary and is covered widely in the press news.  Spencer T♦ C 17:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Clemson’s Title Was a Surprise. Just Not to Clemson", "Deshaun Watson And Clemson Made History Against Alabama", "Clemson's national title win a big hit on social media","President Obama, Jeff Sessions, Clemson: Your Tuesday Briefing". Seriously how does this game not qualify here? I'm not saying we should add this to ITNR yet, but the 2017 event belongs. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not the purpose of ITN. As an avid New York Times reader myself, I can see some other headlines - "Sessions Says Law ‘Absolutely’ Prohibits Waterboarding"; "Fox Settled Sexual Harassment Claims Against O'Reilly"; "Obama Races to Overhaul Police in 2 Cities by Jan. 20". These are by all accounts newsworthy stories. Not a one of them will be posted on ITN. Our standard is not to report the daily political goings-on of regional governments, or a play-by-play of events of limited national interest. If you want that standard to be changed, consider an RFC.--WaltCip (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The purpose of ITN is to showcase newly updated content with significant developments and wide interest. Like a college football national championship. It's not a "daily political going-on". And since it's millions who watched it, we can say this game is not of "limited national interest". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * From the yellow box above, it says that ITN criteria are "based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments." Well, let's break that down. Some editors above have given the check mark on the first criteria. The article is updated, it could do with more, but it has the minimal required level of detail. Then "perceived significance"... for college football, this is the mack daddy of significance. I know it doesn't cross over outside of sports, but how many sports stories do? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that sports events (note: separate from news stories) should have some notability outside the country they take part in. The Superbowl does.  College football doesn't.  If you look at the nine ITN/R football (soccer) entries, you have 8 that are supra-national (i.e. continental or worldwide competitions) plus the Premier League, which is watched by billions worldwide. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That directly contradicts the PLEASE DO NOT that I quoted above. That is not and should not be a requirement at ITN/C. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But in that case you're succumbing to systemic bias, because only the sports that take place in countries with a large number of Wikipedia editors who care to comment here will gain enough supports to be posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You could find hundreds of these sources in American press. Thing is, this isn't American Wikipedia, it's English language Wikipedia.  We don't post lower-tier sports competitions, regardless of the "how big is your stadium?" nonsense.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We're succumbing to systemic bias by not acknowledging the importance of this event. And the fact that it might not relate to countries outside of the U.S. (I haven't looked to see if it was broadcast anywhere else) isn't a factor in ITN/C discussions. Yet people are making it one. This is not a "lower-tier" sports competition the way your second-tier soccer league is. This is its own concurrent beast. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all, and by your own admission you have no idea whether this charming parochial event is considered significant by anyone outside the United States. Some of us non-Americans endure the Superbowl, just to see how many sensitive folks can become offended by a nipple at half time, but beyond that, it's a navel-gazing exercise.  To avoid adding a lower-level version of the same sport to ITN isn't systemic bias, it's common sense.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't need to know because it doesn't have to be an international story to be posted, no matter how hard you try to twist the criteria for posting to make it that way. College football stands on its own, as I've tried to explain this nom and in past years, and because you don't have a comparable system, you won't accept the arguments. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's clearly escaped your notice that this has been opposed year on year on year and it's not just me saying it and it's not me trying to "twist the criteria" (I've said precisely the opposite not that you'd notice). We have plenty of comparable "systems" and they are all more significant than this college game.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Read WP:CCC. If people considered the criteria a little more carefully, and acknowledged the differences between this and the NFL, we'd be in a different situation. Meanwhile, this is only the third instance of the national championship game for college football, and the college basketball tournament (the only other college sport worth posting) has been posted here before. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fully aware the consensus can change, I've been here a while you know. People vote with their instinct, and most of the time that means that minor college sports with no impact to 95% of the world won't get posted, like mass shootings in the US don't get posted, like car bombings in Syria don't get nominated, like suicide bombers in Iraq don't get posted.  The general feeling is that these events fade away after a few hours.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is an amateur event, followed in only one country, and does not make headline news around the world in the same way that the Super Bowl or other major professional sporting events do. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment that Americans have to fight so hard to get this apparently so notable and so significant event onto ITN must demonstrate to them that at the very least that it's utterly insigificant outside their own universe? I'm not stating that that's the only reason to oppose it, because of course ITN discourages opposition of items relating to a single country, but at some point, there has to be a reluctant acceptance that "college sports" are of no interest to anyone outside of the US in any way, shape or form.  Sure they have big (American) crowds and big (American) stadia, but I recall watching the Superbowl in New Zealand with a bunch of Brits and Australians, and after seven hours we were happy to see it end, but the point was that the Superbowl was notable enough to draw that kind of international (drinking) audience.  This college stuff is charming but nothing more.  It means nothing to anyone outside the US and most of the opposition (every year) point this out (every year).  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to fight this hard because you don't have an understanding of sports in the U.S., and you object to posting something so far outside of your wheelhouse. Tell me again about how you're rejecting this because it's not sufficiently international. That's not a valid reason to oppose per ITN rules and you know it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Northern Irish ministerial resignation
{{ITN candidate {{ITN candidate }}
 * article      = Renewable Heat Incentive scandal
 * article2     =
 * image        =
 * blurb        = Martin McGuinness resigns as deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland over the Renewable Heat Incentive scandal.
 * recent deaths = no
 * ongoing      = no
 * altblurb     =
 * altblurb2    =
 * altblurb3    =
 * altblurb4    =
 * sources      = BBC News, New Statesman, Politico
 * updated      =
 * updated2     =
 * nominator    = Fuebaey
 * updater      = St170e
 * updater2     =
 * updater3     =
 * ITNR         = no
 * nom cmt      = We don't normally post stories relating to devolved legislatures. However, this article is somewhat detailed - akin to the previous HK political nominations - and we are going through a slow patch in terms of ITN blurb turnover (oldest story being more than two weeks old). This is currently the top story on the UK BBC news website: a person who has co-lead a country for ten years leaves because of his [political] partner's involvement in a subsidy scheme.
 * sign         = Fuebaey (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for nominating this. The resignation is huge: it could prompt the collapse of the NI Executive, the NI Assembly, forcing snap elections and may even threaten power-sharing in Northern Ireland. However, I'd recommend adding 'in protest over the Renewable Heat Incentive scandal', because it currently implies that he was to blame. All the best, st  170  e  18:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. The article looks updated and referenced. Agree with St170e over the rewording. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per St170e. A great argument for waiting to see whether this leads to a bigger political event than one subnational official stepping down. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, the resignation is massive news in itself. It was reported worldwide; whether something will come of it is unknown. I'd probably guess elections, I'm not sure how big of a political event that is for inclusion. st  170  e  07:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. This seems a notable development in Northern Ireland, possibly putting the peace process at risk. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait Sinn Fein have seven days to nominate a new deputy first minister; if they do, things will carry on as before.  If they don't, there will be snap elections.  If the elections eventuate, that seems the time for this to go to ITN, with a blurb something like, Snap elections are called in Northern Ireland after the deputy First Minister resigns in protest over a renewable energy subsidy scandal..  Concerns about this putting the peace process at risk are worrying enough, but a bit too CRYSTAL for the front page at this stage.  GoldenRing (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hey, you can blame the disgraceful actions of the DUP for that... Support GoldenRing' proposal.--Máedóc (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait. This will be suitable for ITN iff it causes the NI government to fall. The constitution provides a seven-day period to sort things out before it happens. It seems likely that no compromise will be reached and all sides now expect an election, but stranger things have happened in NI politics. If/when the assembly is dissolved and new elections called then we should feature this. I know it's a sub-national entity, but this isn't a routine election posting. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> {{sup|talk}} 14:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait until a change in head of government for NI is confirmed or if there are snap elections. Patar knight - {{sup|chat}}/{{sub|contributions}} 19:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - the article says "In the power sharing government, McGuinness' resignation also meant that Foster was removed from her role as First Minister ... As the Executive Office of Northern Ireland has fallen with McGuinness' resignation, it may now cause the collapse of the Northern Ireland Assembly, forcing a snap election to be called." In this case I don't see waiting as preferable. I oppose nonetheless because Northern Ireland is but one part of the UK. Weakly, because we really need new ITN blurbs. Banedon (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * {{u|Banedon}} The First Minister role is a joint office; if one resigns the other goes too. If there is no replacement within 7 days, then the institutions fall (which is scheduled for 5pm on 16th Jan). This isn't a routine scenario: it is a real threat to the Northern Ireland peace process.  st  170  e  13:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * {{u|St170e}} Can you explain what this peace process is? Northern Ireland is not at war, the Northern Ireland peace process article refers to developments two decades ago, and even if it is a "threat" to the peace process, I'm hard pressed to see why we would post it until the threat turns into a reality. Banedon (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Banedon}} I really don't think an explanation is necessary, but nevertheless: The Troubles in Northern Ireland ended in 1998 with the Good Friday Agreement. War in Northern Ireland took place over 30 years; this was the agreement that finally ended it all. The reason this resignation is so significant is because the institutions will collapse on Monday, the nationalist community (represented by Sinn Fein) have effectively called time on devolution. I ask that you change your vote to a 'Wait' rather than oppose. The situation in NI is (sadly) unstable (see Dissident Irish Republican campaign) and this resignation has received major news coverage internationally. Whether the institutions will collapse or not will be a waiting game, but Sinn Fein are adamant that they will not replace the dFM. You can find the information regarding Northern Ireland in the articles I've linked. st  170  e  01:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not convincing I'm afraid. If the war was 30 years ago (it can't really be described as a 'war' either) then there's a high bar to meet before we can say it matters today. The news articles I've seen don't make it seem like violence is going to happen again soon, only that it places Northern Ireland's fragile politics in uncertainty. But that much is obvious every time someone resigns. Furthermore, anything that affects Northern Ireland only will also have to contend with the fact that it is not a sovereign country. I don't see the difference between internal NI politics and those from one of the many states of the US or India, for example. To top it off, this is not receiving major news coverage internationally. I just looked through e.g. the Yahoo New Zealand portal (a country in the anglosphere, too) and couldn't find this unless I specifically searched for it. As of right now, we still have two old blurbs on ITN, so I still only weakly oppose, but if some newer blurbs get posted I'll move to full opposition. Banedon (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This blurb isn't about violence happening anytime soon, it is about a realtime threat to the peace agreement that set up these political institutions. Even Fox News reported on it and so did El País who called it a crisis política including also Le Monde, who said it could delay Brexit and even CNN wrote an opinion piece on it. Its significance is huge and has repercussions for peace; this doesn't just affect NI, but Ireland and the UK as a whole. And I hope I have satisfied your concerns about it not being reported on worldwide. st  170  e  12:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I continue to read your argument as more convincing for us to wait for further and more immediately significant developments than to post this now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me, I do see the merits of waiting to post it. 5pm on Monday is the deadline for a re-nomination, so at 5pm, we should know whether a snap election will be called. If there is an election called, I recommend this to be posted then. st  170  e  22:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

[Posted] European cold wave

 * Support.--WaltCip (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose so far. Compared to 2013 extreme weather events, for example, this looks relatively mild. Moscow, however, has recently set a new low temperature record, so would support if this wave worsens. Brandmeistertalk  18:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in principle snow on the beaches in Greece?! 20 deaths?  Notable and across the news, and has been for a day or two.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. By my count the reported deaths are now at 27. Article is short and would greatly benefit from a map, but meets the minimum criteria. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging our resident to see if we can rummage up one. Fuebaey (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is ready to go, marked as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 07:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we finally found something new to post on ITN. I do however find it kind of humorous that after a long pause with nothing to talk about, we end up talking about the weather.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] McDonald's sells China business

 * Oppose - McD's is only selling its controlling share, will still retain 20%, and of course will still be involved in the franchise in China. And $2.1B is pocket change in terms of deals particularly for a compare the size of McD's. Seems mostly some bookkeeping optimization rather than any groundbreaking business deal change. --M ASEM (t) 14:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a fun fact Masem: the value of a human life fluctuates wildly when different methods are used, but it is typically between $1 million and $10 million  . $2.1 billion then is worth between 210 and 2100 lives. And an accident that kills 210 people is virtually a shoo-in for ITN. Banedon (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a really poor comparison, and should never be used to try to justify the importance of business deals. McD has > $25B in revenue in 2015, CITIC had $3B in revenue and >$40B in assets. $2.1B to these companies is a small figure, and much smaller than most business deals. Further, it is not like McD's is leaving the China market at all. --M ASEM (t) 00:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I find it offensive that you can say $2.1 billion is "a small figure" to these companies. Really, how many companies in the world even have a market capitalization of above $2.1 billion? Yet you say it is "much smaller than most business deals". Also, $2.1 billion is less than 10% of McD's revenues in 2015 (it is closer to 50% of net income, but I digress). McD also employs 420,000 people. If an accident kills 42,000 of McD's employees, does that make it not postable since it's "a small figure" to the company? Further, even if 42,000 of McD's employees die, it's not like the business is going to cease operations or anything like that. Same goes for CITIC. Banedon (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, comparing business deals to human lives seems rather pleading. Business deals should be compared to business deals and nothing else. And on that, At least 500 companies had revenues >$2.1B, making the amount relatively trivial in the world of business today. --M ASEM (t) 01:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - $2.1 billion might not be big money to McD's, but it's big money to us. We don't really post very many business/economy stories on ITN, so this would be a welcome change to our usual slowness.--WaltCip (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose neither target updated, not a big deal in monetary terms, no real impact from a business perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The least recent blurb we currently have on ITN dates back to Christmas of last year. What is it going to take to get a business story posted? What's our criteria?--WaltCip (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, as a minimum both targets would need a decent three-to-five sentence referenced update, that would assuage the quality concern. But we routinely don't post business deals that are much more valuable or impactful than this so I'd hate to see the bar slipping just because we're lagging on news. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – It's a hohummer, IMO. Sca (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose both on article quality and merits. It would require a great deal of work, with emphasis on referencing for the target articles to be postable. There are multiple orange tags. And as noted above, this is not really that big of a deal in the world of high finance and mega corps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad Orientem (talk • contribs) 16:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems a trivial nugget of information.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 20:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Want fries with that nugget?--WaltCip (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment This report states that McDonalds only owns 65% of its business in China to begin with. The rest is already franchised. 55% of its stake goes to Citic, 28% goes to The Carlyle Group and McDs retains 20%. Blurb probably should clarify this. Haven't seen an article update yet either. Fuebaey (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Multi-billion dollar deals like this happen all the time. If we were to include every one of them in the 'ITN' section it would be total chaos. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Michael Chamberlain

 * Support not seeing much to complain about here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems well referenced and adequately developed. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 16:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Ruth Perry

 * Comment The second paragraph under "Interim Head..." looks very suspicious like copyvio, and definitely far from anything close to encyclopedic writing. The rest otherwise seems okay, but this paragraph needs serious work. --M ASEM (t) 15:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you like to fix it please?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. At best, it was a copypaste with a few words switched out in an attempt at paraphrasing. That paragraph on her role in office probably needs replacing. More reliable sourcing would be preferable as well. Most of the article relies on this Answers.com biography. The first part is from Contemporary Black Biography (useable - look for the actual book) and the other is a circular reference; other book sources shouldn't be too difficult to find. Fuebaey (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am surprised there aren't any obituaries in the Western press. But that's part of the problem. If we wait for them in vain, we reinforce anti-African censorship by not posting this RD.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not mention obituaries. I deliberately did not use the one above because it closely paraphrases our (previously copyvio) article. It's been nearly twenty years since she left office and there are at least two books in the article already. Playing the systemic bias card with someone who occasionally tries to promote non-Western stories here instead of attempting some research isn't doing much to convince. Sorry.
 * In any case, I'm a bit busy working on another article at the moment. Pinging to see if she can help. Fuebaey (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not personal. You're not responsible for the fact that she doesn't have an obituary in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Times, The Guardian, etc.. I do think there is censorship but this is not our fault at all, it's a much bigger issue.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose not really "in the news" is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, she just died, but she was African, so she did not get countless obituaries in the way that American or Spanish politicians would. Frankly that may be a problem with ITN?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, we need to see it "in the news". If it isn't "in the news" then it's not part of this section.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. Perry seems very notable; the BBC refers to her as "Africa's first female Head of State" but the current article fails to reflect her importance or cover her life fully. If newspapers written in English fail to cover her death then there is little that English-speaking editors can do to improve her article. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support for RD immediately. I frankly do not understand the objections. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My objection is that (because of the removal of a chunk of promotional, copyvio text) there is now precisely no information about her tenure as head of state. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Golden Globes

 * A consensus from the previous years was that the GG are not posted, just the Oscars. --Tone 19:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, that seems fair, can I withdraw the nom? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose you could but consensus can change and people might think differently this year. I think the next major awards are in Feb - BAFTA and Grammys (same day) - and it's not as if we're being inundated with ITN stories at the moment. For me, the article is a bit light on prose and could do with some expansion on the ceremony (Fallon's hosting, Streep's speech, etc). Fuebaey (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit on Streep's speech & responses to it; Fallon's hosting isn't getting much comment over here. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't watch it either. I was just thinking how everyone always comments on the awards host; Fey and Poehler got rave reviews, though Gervais not so much. Then I search 'fallon golden globes' and come across stuff like this. Appreciate what you've already added. Fuebaey (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't even get shown on any channel I can access, sigh. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit on the ceremony based on the Vanity Fair source Fuebaey linked. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Please provide some sources, and sell us on why we should post the Golden Globes. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Support. BBC: "La La Land has broken the record for the most Golden Globe Awards, winning seven prizes.". If the article can be brought up to quality I think we should consider posting this. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose because of failure to meet WP:ACCESS, per WP:BOLD. The rest of it is meh, okay.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a requirement to meet WP:ACCESS? I thought that only applied to featured content. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well no, it's part of MOS which applies to all content. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware that we normally require full MoS compliance for ITN. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No but deliberately contravening it is unnecessary and clumsy. We should aim for better.  This isn't DYK, after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - Isn't this like a world record? Most Golden Globes won by a single feature film? It's been in the news all week so I think it seems like fair game for our 'ITN'. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not a "world record", it may be a "Golden Globe" record, and that may well confer more significance to the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It has certainly been covered extensively in the UK, both for the record success of La La Land & for Streep's remarks. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Any further discussion on this? Espresso Addict (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - we really need more ITN blurbs, and this is significant enough. Banedon (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment made some tweaks and marked as [ready] but surprised that there's no coverage of Hiddlestone's speech gaff which has been all over the actual news for a day or so. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be because the note I put in the Reception section was removed by an IP just prior to your edits. Sigh. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support and I added 'a record-breaking' to the blurb to reflect importance.128.214.53.104 (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Nat Hentoff

 * Oppose for now. Needs work with special attention to referencing. Also there is an orange tag which is a showstopper at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose most books are unreferenced, without taking too much time to look at most else. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Needs better referencing throughout. Some more on his personal life would also be helpful. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Provisional support, looking better now. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ready - The article is now fully referenced. &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 14:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Career" section is just not good enough quality. It seems like it has a bunch of 1-3 sentence paragraphs, and over half of the sentences start off with some variation of "in [date], Hentoff..."  Spencer T♦ C 16:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support my concerns addressed, good work! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Article seems much improved if still light on his personal life (all his marriages need referencing). However, if he died on the 7th, as the article states, it is already older than the oldest RDs. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Question. I was set to post, but then I noted Espresso Addict's comment, which seems to be correct. Do we just close the discussion as stale, or is there something else to be done? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I posted a query on the talk page about whether we should post RDs in posting order, rather than date of death order -- sparked by this RD going stale immediately before it was tagged as "ready" -- but there doesn't yet seem to be consensus to do that. So probably best just to regretfully close as stale. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD/blurb: Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani

 * Support blurb as he was very notable figure in the modern history of Iran.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb – Looks to be well documented. (Should that be hyphenated?) Sca (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Question. Could someone explain for those of us not in the know the merits of this person for a blurb, which we typically reserve for either sudden, unexpected deaths that are themselves a story, or the death of a world-transforming figure.  Thanks in advance 331dot (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * One of the most widely known heads of government in the Islamic Republic of Iran (the other being Ahmadinejad). Sca (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 331dot: He had been an influential figure from the beginning of the Iranian Revolution. He held many important official responsibilities. Can you just see that how the main stream media have exploded by his death?  M h hossein   talk 17:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) I was aware of who he was, but as I understand it, generally former head of state is not a ticket to a blurb.(sitting head of state, yes.) I've skimmed the article but it doesn't seem to describe what his role in the revolution was other than being the first Speaker afterwards. 331dot (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support blurb: Per my comment here. -- M h hossein   talk 17:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I suggest to include his picture, like what we have here. -- M h hossein   talk 18:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * RD only as of right now. I don't think at this time that this person meets our traditional criteria for a death blurb(sudden/unexpected, or a world-transforming figure). If he does, his article doesn't make that clear to me. I actually think the case would be stronger for Ahmadinejad. 331dot (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose RD on article quality. Too many gaps in referencing. Oppose Blurb on merits. The standard for death blurbs are any combination of... a sitting head of state or government who dies in office, their death was sudden and unexpected to the degree that it is shocking and/or they were a truly iconic figure at the very pinnacle of their field. IMO Rafsanjani does not meet any of those criteria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Was his death expected? -- M h hossein   talk 18:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * At 82 there is nothing surprising about his death from natural causes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, You're right. My 2 cents; "He was one of the leaders of the 1979 Islamic revolution," which changed the equations in the region and the world and Iran international relations. -- M h hossein   talk 18:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support blurb, answer to above, he was going for presidency on 2013 and his death now was actually sudden and unexpected, he was holding multiple top governmental consultation positions even very immediately before his death. have a look at current #1 story of BBC to get an idea. −ebrahimtalk 19:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, three days national mourning is declared now on Iran as his death. −ebrahimtalk 19:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing sudden or unexpected about a man dying of natural causes at 82. And while certainly an important political figure, important people die every day. If he merits a blurb we are going to have nothing but obituaries for "important" people on ITN. This lowering of standards is getting out of hand. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have always supported the position for keeping very high standards for posting both death blurbs and links to articles in RD, but it seems like much has changed in the last year so that now we post ordinary deaths based on article quality only to RD and do not give a damn about how extraordinarily important the person was to merit blurb. But since we have regressed on posting the deaths of Carrie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds, which received far less attention in the media than Rafsanjani's death (note that Rafsanjani's death is top story on most of the media) and the blurb is still on the main page, then this is a perfect qualifier for a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) He was politically active and influential even before his death. Is current top news of BBC just means nothing? Speaking of age, maybe you are not well considering other active politician ages on Iran. Ahmad Jannati, one of most famous and still news making politicians of Iran is aged 89 and Ali Khamenei, Iran's head of state, 79, many more also can be listed here if you are interested in. We are of course talking about local and relative suddenness/expectancy at some level here because otherwise, death of all mortal humans on earth would be just an expected thing for say, an alien. −ebrahimtalk 20:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Now his name has the second trand of the Twitter Yamaha5 (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Undoubtedly an important figure, both as President and otherwise, but the President doesn't have the same power as the Supreme Leader. Neljack (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD, neutral on blurb: Sort of the same situation as Soares -- if we post one, we ought to post the other. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs copyediting for neutrality, and some referencing issues. Having said that, its not a million miles away, but it's RD only, this person ceased to make a mark on our lives two decades ago, it's the death of an old man who hasn't been influential in any way for years and years. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "In any way"? He was just running for another presidency on previous presidential election and his influence is one of the reasons of current Iran's president win on the last election, have a look at this and this to see some interesting points like his influence on.making JCPA happen or possible effect of his death on Iran's current government and reformists. −ebrahimtalk 20:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, but thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support blurb – He was one of the most famous figures in Iran and the world. GTVM92 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I get Iran, but please provide evidence that he "was one of the most famous figures in the world" or otherwise a world-transforming figure ranking with Nelson Mandela, Margaret Thatcher, and Fidel Castro. His article doesn't indicate that, at least to me. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * He was one of the key figures in the Iranian Revolution after Ruhollah Khomeini and ruled Iran for eight years. I think a president of a country like Iran is known in the world! GTVM92 (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is also upgraded by me as I can. GTVM92 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Posted RD - Consensus unclear about blurb. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 22:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pull did you even look at the WP:BLP you just posted??!  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pulled Terrible terrible BLP violating article as RD. --M ASEM (t) 22:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb RIP great leader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.217.34 (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This absolutely cannot be posted anywhere on the main page in its current state. Not only are there huge slabs of unreferenced text, but a number of BLP issues.  Please don't do that folks. Black Kite (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose May be well known in Iran but virtually unknown in the rest of the world. As this is a English wikipedia, and he is not well known in any of the English speaking countries or India. May be blurp could be put on Persian wikipedia.--Numancia (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Per the RD RFC, 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. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. Oppositions based on notability are therefore discounted.--WaltCip (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Peter Sarstedt

 * Oppose on the grounds of lack of references only. Mjroots (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose ignoring the unreferenced vast body of works, the article seems stub-like in coverage of his life and death. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support pending better references, currently has 24. Not sure what the "vast body of works" is: 19 singles and 15 albums not really a lot. Probably very easy to find references for the un-referenced 17 singles. I've commented out all the album tracks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the "vast body of works", it all needs referencing. As always, thanks for your interest.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyone want to construct tables for the singles and albums? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Under-referenced, with a lot of gaps in the coverage of the career. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the nominator, User:MBlaze Lightning, the article now looks well-referenced (41 citations in total), inclucing all singles and albums. Do you still have concerns? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support well done to everybody involved in improving the article. O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  11:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll second that. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T♦ C 15:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Pioneer Cabin Tree

 * Support as RD - Though tragic, the tree was alive for more than 100 years. We generally only reserve blurbs for trees with extreme global significance, such as Mandela or Thatcher.--WaltCip (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD on sourcing improvements not appropriate for blurb per WaltCip. I note other parts of the article need sourcing before this can be posted. --M ASEM (t) 14:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Added sources for rest of article. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Quick question, unlike the other living animals etc, this doesn't actually have a stand-alone article. The criteria read to me that only dedicated articles to the subject should be considered. Is this not the case? "An individual human, animal or other biological organism that has recently died may have an entry in the recent deaths section if it has a Wikipedia article that is:" being the relevant bit. This doesnt have a wikipedia article. Its a mention in an article about the park. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I did think about that before my comment, and one thing I determined is that we could have had a separate article on the tree (there's enough secondary sourcing to support a separate article on doing a google search), but it doesn't seem to make sense to separate the tree from discussion of the state park in terms of comprehensiveness. (Otherwise we get the situation like from Nov 2016 with the Big Tree ). --M ASEM (t) 15:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We should determine now whether or not we can use the current standing article Calaveras Big Trees State Park as the "pipe" for the RD. If we can't, then we need to close this nom until the new article for the Pioneer Cabin Tree is created.--WaltCip (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * From looking at that discussion (Big Tree) where the prospect of merging is raised, Ad Orientum indicates that would prevent it being an RD? So here where it already is not a stand-alone article, that would be the default position? I have no beef either way, if the consensus is that living people mentioned on other articles are eligible for RD then fine, but I was under the impression the relaxation of the RD criteria to prevent super-notability arguments hinged upon the notability already being established by having an article (which isnt the case here). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability allows one to create a standalone article if the topic is notable, but does not require this. We encourage editors that if a notable topic is better covered in a larger topic for better comprehension of both topics, that's acceptable. That should be reflected here at ITN as well. Ideally, I think that a section of the current Park article should be split off to discuss the Tree in detail (more can be said about when it was carved that way, why it was carved, and the influence of the other tunnel tree from Yosemite) to make that stand out, but it will still otherwise short. --M ASEM (t) 17:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Clarification The tree may be millenials old, age unknown. It was 33 feet in circumference.  It is more than 100 years since they hollowed it out as a tourist attraction.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>)
 * Comment - the Pioneer Cabin Tree is not individually notable, only the park in which it stood? Reporting it's death would be analogous to posting the death of one of the whales named in the Granny article? If all the trees in Calaveras Big Trees State Park had died, that would indeed be notable? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose if the tree isn't notable enough for its own article, I don't see that it qualifies for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Struck support vote above. Precedence dictates that an RD requires an article demonstrating individual notability. Thus we can have neither a blurb nor RD posting until this is made so.--WaltCip (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly notable and sourced.  Has a great picture.  Suggest you look at the article again.  In any event, if you insist on a separate article I can do that.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a great picture. But I suspect your new article might not survive any ensuing unfavorably strong winds. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, but worthy of a blurb. Mjroots (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. For an RD we need a separate article. Somewhat to my surprise, it does seem to be in the news internationally eg BBC, so a blurb might be also be a possibility (which paradoxically would not need a separate article). Espresso Addict (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pioneer Cabin Tree. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 22:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Pioneer Cabin Tree is now a stand-alone article.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You make a hard case, but with a name like that you must be biased. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support RD. Article is long enough and fully cited. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD once more. Good job on the new article.--WaltCip (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support now a very decent standalone aritcle has been created, this is good to go. Nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD, without prejudice to discussion of a blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Carbon

 * Weak support - Interesting, and potentially ITN-worthy. Not sure why it wasn't published in Science though. Nergaal (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is no update to the target article. This nomination can't even be properly considered until this discovery is described in the article.  Dragons flight (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I added the update in the article. I would support on notability, but it appears that the discovery was actually confirmed last month. EternalNomad (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Publication date appears to be 2 January 2017? Espresso Addict (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose While the science is commendable, this is nothing groundbreaking or vastly changing the nature of how we approach carbon-based chemsitry. The idea of 6-bonded carbon has been around, and certainly possible given all orbital theories, just that isolating the state has been difficult, and here, to isolate it, they had to make this molecule in extremely acidic conditions and kick two electrons off the structure (technically making this a non-stable state), neither which are readily practical conditions for any major breakthroughs. --M ASEM (t) 16:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Seems to be more of a novelty project rather than something paradigm-shifting. A quote from the second news article: Although the idea for the structure isn’t new, “I think it has a larger impact when someone can see a picture of the molecule,” says Dean Tantillo, a chemist at the University of California, Davis who wasn’t part of the study. So this suggests that the idea has been there but this is the first time they have a visual of it? Willing to reconsider my position if I'm misunderstanding this.  Spencer T♦ C 16:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments from a chemist: If this is posted, the blurb should be changed as this is not talking about a covalent bond between any more than two atoms. It is suggesting 6 bonds around a single carbon, as opposed to the typical 4 bonds.  Sets of 5 bonds are well-known, such as in  and arguably like the intermediates in SN2 substitution reactions.  Further, though I have not read the Angewantde Chemie paper, the Science News reference describes an x-ray study of the solid state which determines atomic positions rather than bonds, and I can draw a plausible 4-coordinate structure using organometallic approaches, with the C at the top of the pyramid bonded conventionally to a methyl group and one of the C atoms in the pentamethylcyclopentadiene dication ring, and the two vacant sp3 orbitals having sideways overlap of the &pi;-bonds.  This would give a structure with the geometry described by the article and with bond lengthening due to the geometric strain on the sp3 hybridised ring carbon.  The rearrangement of hexamethylbenzene on oxidation is interesting (and this article is the place for the details) but if I am correct about the organometallic-like arrangement, it is worth noting that showing bonds to each ring atom is generally the disfavoured approach.  Ferrocene, for example, can be shown with the Fe bonded to the 10 C atoms surrounding it, but showing just bonding to the centre of the ring is much more common.  (Yes, I know my comments include WP:OR, hence I am making comments for others to consider or disregard at their option.)  EdChem (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest as a potential blurb? And as a chemist, your views on the notability of this (worth posting or not) would also be welcomed. Best,  Spencer T♦ C 16:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Alternative Blurb suggestions: Spencer, since you ask, something like on of these:
 * Scientists from the Free University of Berlin determine a structure in which carbon adopts a 6-coordinate geometry.
 * Scientists from the Free University of Berlin determine the structure of a dication of hexamethylbenzene in which one carbon atom adopts a 6-coordinate geometry.
 * Scientists from the Free University of Berlin demonstrate that hexamethylbenzene rearranges on oxidation to form a structure with a 6-coordinate carbon centre.
 * Hyping the name of the university is disgusting. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is standard practice in reporting of scientific discoveries to credit the school(s) involved, if there is space for them all. --M ASEM (t) 02:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Horrendous. And ITN usually just says, "scientists announce." Abductive  (reasoning) 02:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As for my view on posting, I am interested but not highly surprised, but then I know that the notion that carbon must have 4 bonds is not an inviolable rule. I would like to see a decent image added to the articles mentioning this as how this might be possible is not intuitively obvious.  It is a highly unusual arrangement for carbon – no comparable example comes to mind – and carbon always having 4 bonds / being 4 coordinate is a rule taught very early so most who have ever studied chemistry might be intrigued or surprised by the blurb.  EdChem (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support when a target article has been properly updated. This struck me as fascinating, even though I was aware of 5-coordinate carbon structures. A free image would be nice. I like EdChem's first and third alt-blurbs; if the original blurb is incorrect it should be struck -- I note that both carbon & hexamethylbenzene currently talk about the carbon being "bonded to six other atoms", as this is what is stated in the lead of the Science News source. If we use carbon as the target, it should be piped to the appropriate section. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment without some help here, 99.9% of our readers will not understand the significance of this discovery. I suggest you all work on a blurb that relieves the "so what?!" question that's on most people's minds when they see this.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's part of my oppose - from a chemistry side it is "cool" but it doesn't have any immediate ramifications (compared with the anti-matter aspect from a few weeks ago, for example). --M ASEM (t) 23:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Oppose - When in doubt, listen to the expert, in this case EdChem. Banedon (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose, pure hype, no real-world impact, resurrection of decades-old idea. Note the lousy sources. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Though I had not heard of it previously, I have found Wikipedia already has an article on this pyramidal carbocation and its preparation was reported in the Journal of the American Chemical Society in 1974: .  The structure shown at our article reflects the interpretation I described above of a pentamethylcyclopentadiene dication ring.  Looks like these scientists have found a new approach to making it, from hexamethylbenzene rather than from hexamethyl Dewar benzene, but I don't see that as ITN-worthy.  EdChem (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Mário Soares

 * Oppose almost entirely unreferenced. &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 17:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose not referenced, certainly not blurb-worthy, I'm not even sure this death made it to the main page of the international BBC News site, so it's clearly not notable enough for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * BBC – Sca (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I didn't say it wasn't covered by the BBC, obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Described as the "father of democracy" of Portugal by BBC, tremendously important figure.  Article is woefully under-sourced though for a person of his notability. EternalNomad (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle, pending article improvement. Article may require some work, but surely deserved. Covered in BBC's European News. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Far too unsourced to even consider RD. It's going to take a lot of work to even get there, and the importance (effectively only influencing one country) seems too narrow to consider for a blurb even if the article quality could reach that level. --M ASEM (t) 00:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Of far more importance than the second-rate American celebrities posted last week. 2A00:23C4:A688:DB00:C925:F1DC:400E:5A30 (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment if anyone cares sufficiently to support a blurb, perhaps they can work on the referencing in the article which is practically non-existent. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If no consensus to post people will think waste of effort. You said "certainly not blurb-worthy". 86.190.108.0 (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just my opinion, of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support blurb pending referencing. The bar has been brought very low with Star Wars actresses. Nergaal (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose blurb. While undoubtedly important to Portugal, I would regard death blurbs as mostly for figures of international renown, and I'm not seeing much evidence of importance/impact outside of Portugal.  Oppose RD pending referencing.  The current article is profoundly under referenced.  If it can be improved in a timely manner, posting to RD would be appropriate.  Dragons flight (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason I said it might be worth a blurb is Soares seems to have been important to the late 20th C. history of Western Europe. But must concede he's not widely known in the U.S.; not sure about UK. Sca (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb A very important figure in Portuguese history, but not quite at the blurb level for my money. Neljack (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article is still almost entirely unreferenced. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD at least. I suspect he actually deserves a blurb, if only for his role in helping to prevent Portugal from going communist and becoming a kind of European Cuba during the Cold War. As regards article quality, the shortage of references may be due to the lack of 'citations needed', leading me to suspect that those who know about the relevant Portuguese history may well think the article is almost entirely correct.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] President of Ghana: Nana Akufo-Addo

 * Question. Is there any particular reason this inauguration is notable, other than the fact it is occurring? 331dot (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would add that the only US related event is the deaths of Fisher/Reynolds. The others are Turkey, England, and Russia, so I'm not sure where "US centric" comes from. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support upon sourcing improvements . We didn't post the election article back when it happened and ITN is stale. Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it was nominated, but if it was and not posted, it was likely due to quality issues, as elections for head of state are ITNR. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It does appear due to quality issues. --M ASEM (t) 15:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. seeing little coverage of this inauguration or an indication of why it is notable other than its occurrence. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm unpersuaded by the argument "we didn't post it then, so we should now." It doesn't seem to be in the news now- not sure if it was then, either, but it isn't now. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The BBC coverage of the inauguration is currently on the main World news page and is second to lead on the Africa page. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I accept that this is in the news somewhere in some capacity, but it is not a top headline story in my area, nor do I believe in many places. I would add that inaugurations are routine events(for awhile we stated on ITNR that they generally weren't posted, though we don't now) and absent some special notability for this particular one, I don't see why it should be posted. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly more in the news than anything we currently have up. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I grant that, but I find it a poor reason to post something, if still understandable. If it merits posting(or not), it shouldn't matter much when the last update was made. I get doing so, but... 331dot (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: There are two "citation needed" tags. Those need to go before I support this.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – since this wasn't posted when the election results were finalized back in December. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose the article needs improvement, but as we didn't post the result of the election, I'd be amenable to allowing this. Having said that, we're on a slippery slope there, as it's going to give every election of head of state a second bite at the cherry, which appears to be somewhat biased.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a concern of mine too, it does feel like gaming the system (but obviously here in good faith) to allow this. --M ASEM (t) 19:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The article looks in an adequate state to me now. Did you have any particular concerns, The Rambling Man? I don't think we should consider this a precedent for allowing two bites of the cherry to elections, but we do seem to be rather lacking in news at the moment. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm not convinced we need this, but since we haven't had the preceding story it's probably okay. We may need to work some words into ITNR about duration between switches of head of state, or perhaps we can exercise common sense (unlikely).  I'll stick with my position, but wouldn't cry foul if an admin assessed it differently.  This is no longer about article quality, just about newsworthiness in the pure-ITN sense.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Espresso Addict and Patar knight. Banedon (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment So, do I see a rough consensus that we can post inaugurations in case the election results have not been posted because of issues with target articles at the time? I am fine with that, but I would firmly oppose posting the same story twice. Would not make this an official rule, though. Ready to post this one, then. Opinions? --Tone 14:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The uncited stuff I tagged has been cited, so quality wise, it looks good to go. Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose The election is what's notable, not the inauguration; the time to post this was when the election occurred. Ghanaian general election, 2016 is not updated with a prose results section and only has a section for "Preliminary Results"--it's unclear if those are final results or not.  Spencer T♦ C 16:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – Yeah, we should have had this when the election results were known. Posting his inauguration now is a little like saying, "Oh, by the way, this guy was elected a month ago, but we didn't notice." Sca (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Fort Lauderdale airport shooting

 * Oppose Just another shooting in the US. Nothing special about this one. Gfcvoice (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support because it's in the news, which is the point of "in the news". The article quality is decent for a new article on a developing situation. Please don't argue that shootings at airports are run of the mill. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Check it out, it's in the news on the other side of the pond. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support that's just an opinion, "Just another shooting in the US.", so is the turkey attack "Just another shooting in Turkey."  20:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Mass shootings are rather rare in Turkey and the nightclub attack was a terrorist attack with a very large death toll. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * According to this, Turkey has a just slightly higher homicide rate than the US (4.3 to 3.9), though that margin is very small.  20:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "homicide rate" does not equate to "mass shooting rate". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. I actually edit conflicted trying to nominate this myself.  An attack on an airport is rare, even in America.  The article is actually in a pretty good condition for a brand new topic.  Dragons flight (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is the deadliest attack on a U.S. Airport since 1975 (LaGuardia), and the deadliest shooting committed by an American ex-military officer since 2015. However, given that all the other current ITN stories are about shootings, deaths, and aviation incidents, I'm not sure that my conscience permits giving this a full support. 2620:101:F000:700:F082:E953:9768:BAEB (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure why a shooting in/at an airport makes this event any more special than a shooting at a different location. If for example the shooting took place at a factory that manufactures toothpaste, would it matter that the shooting was a rare shooting at a toothpaste manufacturing factory? Gfcvoice (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter at all where the shooting took place? Somebody opened fire, killing and injuring people, causing chaos among the bystanders who ran, and it's a newsworthy event being reported on by news outlets across the globe. Why isn't that enough. Why is there a systemic bias against posting these shootings here? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Because they are a common occurrence in the US, just like fatalities from car crashes. Gfcvoice (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not sure this should be posted, but shootings at airports are not common in the US. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Which goes back to my earlier question - why does the location matter? Why is a shooting at an airport considered particularly newsworthy compared to a shooting elsewhere? Gfcvoice (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Gee, I am wondering why it matters. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:C04E:3594:1796:89BC (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec)Airports generally have armed security personnel, procedures, equipment, and many witnesses to deter violent activity. For someone to commit a violent act there despite such measures is unusual, to say the least.  For the moment this doesn't seem like terrorism and I don't think it yet merits posting, if ever, but I understand why it was nominated. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I know that I could park my car, walk into my local airport armed and run into the baggage reclaim area shooting the place up no problem at all (if I had the inclination, the gun etc, which of course I don't). To think otherwise is either ignorant or naive.  P.S. More than 22 million passengers per year go through my "local airport" before you get all sniffy about it....  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with The Rambling Man, for many airports it is very easy to access the arrivals and baggage reclaim area. The location does not seem to be very different to a toothpaste factory which also has many witnesses to potential violent activity. Gfcvoice (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A toothpaste factory is not a public facility with armed security personnel present, even in baggage claim. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect Gfcvoice was being faceitous. And in any case, it turns out the shooter was taken down in one minute, so that's not too bad. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've heard conflicting stories on how the suspect was captured; one account stated that after he was finished shooting he got on the ground to allow police to arrest him(and the sheriff said he was arrested without incident) but the other account was that he was shot within a minute as you state. But I digress.... 331dot (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And yet you don't think it's sufficiently newsworthy when someone actually does it? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's worth an article, maybe, but it's still "so what?" The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So people are dead and it's a major news story based on all the outlets covering it. Plain and simple. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So people are dead, it's a major news story. So what? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So the whole point of ITN is that we post major news stories when there's an article of sufficient quality. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the point is that we post articles of encyclopedic value. Quality is essential, but so is EV and consensus.  This has no EV and no consensus.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You say it has no EV, but I don't see anyone else arguing that. There's no consensus to post, clearly, but I call bullshit on the oppose reasons. You're disregarding a major, ongoing, and newsworthy U.S. problem. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Call it whatever. It's another day, another mass shooting I'm afraid.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Another day, another mass shooting" ... unbelievable disregard. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, just sad fact. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Will reconsider if the death toll breaks double digits or there is evidence of terrorism. Otherwise, sad though it may be, mass shootings are just too commonplace in the United States to keep posting them all. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd probably lean towards this point of view, but I think we should at least wait to see how it shakes out. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No doubt. If the facts change, I will reassess at that time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "To keep posting them all"?? We don't post ANY of them, unless it's considered Islamic terror, which shouldn't be a factor in the decision making process here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * False claim, see Washington Navy Yard shooting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow one example. And it's from 2013, before non-American Wikipedians here started cracking down on any American mass shooting story here, I believe. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It was notable. This is not.  Regardless of your anti-anti-American hate speech.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL "hate speech"? I'm just calling it like it is, at some point people here decided to oppose U.S. mass shootings almost entirely, unless some aspect of it stood out (like ISIL). This is plenty notable, newsworthy, and updated for posting, but WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * YOUDONTLIKEIT relates to deletion discussions, just for clarity. And actually, I don't like it, I don't like seeing thousands and thousands of Americans being shot to death every year through ignorance, but I can't do anything about that.  I'm entitled to my position, and if that means "oppose", so be it.  Got it?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it applies here as well, another discussion board that tries to build consensus. No, I don't get how disliking mass shootings means opposing posting the articles. That doesn't connect. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't claiming causality, read it again. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your position, as best I can tell, is that this sort of thing happens too often. But that disregards the entire category of mass shootings, without considering that some are more newsworthy than others. Check the list of mass shootings again and you'll see that only a small percentage of them get articles, and even fewer get nominated at ITN. And yet the ones that reach that bar get disregarded here, unless the guy is an Islamic terrorist. That still makes no sense in my view. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not more newsworthy in any sense. It's being reported because, like our own ITN section, things are slow.  It'll be off the news this time tomorrow and probably never spoken about again.  Because it's yet another mass shooting with no consequence.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Tell that to the people at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, and the people involved in the gun control debate. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well obviously, this discussion is about the notability of the event for inclusion on the main page of Wikipedia, not a memorial debate. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose the comment above ... deadliest shooting committed by an American ex-military officer since 2015 ... says it all, that this kind of thing is so commonplace in the US that someone can quote that factoid out of the box. Just another mass shooting in the United States.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, just another mass shooting in the US, just another terrorist attack in Turkey/Iraq, just another election in XY. Let's just focus on dead orcas and star wars princesses, after all that's what our core audience is interested in. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:C04E:3594:1796:89BC (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * False comparison. How many mass shootings take place in the US every year? And the sooner y'all learn this isn't American Wikipedia, the better.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I found British sources, and I'm sure I could find sources from other countries if I looked. You're trying to disregard American news through an interesting form of systemic bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not disregarding any "news", I'm simply stating that this is not encyclopedically notable. It's "so what"?  It's "get more armed guards at airports".  It's standard American gun culture.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not "standard American gun culture". That would be the person who ones one or more than one gun and hunts from time to time. Mass shootings make the news because they're not "standard", no matter how much you want to standardize them. Believe it or not the U.S. is not a country of whack jobs running around streets shooting each other like we're playing GTA V. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This very much epitomises standard American gun culture. Mass shootings take place every day, sometimes domestically, sometimes at work places, this time in a baggage reclaim area.  So what?  America has a staggeringly high rate of death by firearm, and this is just another example of it.  Just like Libya or Syria or Iraq has a staggeringly high rate of death by bombing.  We don't post all those, why should this be any different at all?  Is it really that Americans are more important than Syrians or Iraqis or Libyans?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * More people should nominate those for posting, I'd support. The existence of one form of story that doesn't get its due doesn't mean that this shouldn't get its due either. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's your systemic bias!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It goes both ways. Not enough people nominating bombings in the Middle East, people who don't understand gun violence in the U.S. rushing to oppose mass shootings that ISIL doesn't claim credit for. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, car bombings in Iraq which happen less frequently than mass shootings in America are summarily overlooked. We shouldn't be looking to compound that ignorance here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Car bombings in Iraq still don't relate to mass shootings in the U.S. They can both be ITN-worthy, and there's no reason to summarily disregard from either category. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm doing either, but I'm opposing this non-story, just as I'd probably oppose a car-bomb that killed a dozen in Syria. Just because it's in America, it doesn't make it more notable.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "In the news" means "in the news". You're opposing a story that's in the news because you don't like it. There's no good reason not to post this, or some of the bombings that happen in the Middle East. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, and for the avoidance of doubt, with one mass shooting per day in the US, this doesn't rise to the level of notability sufficient for inclusion in ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - It'll actually be newsworthy if the gun lobby loses their coveted Second Amendment.--WaltCip (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Every single media outlet disagrees with you. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh really?! Tell me with a straight face that it won't be an immediate posting on ITN if the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution gets repealed.--WaltCip (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It will also be newsworthy if the sun rises in the West, which is roughly on the same level of probablility. Now can we focus on the issue at hand as opposed to, once again, turning a tragedy into an opportunity for people to climb on their political soapboxes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Let me rephrase: every single media outlet sees this shooting as newsworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Why do I get the sense that this would be posted with unanimous support if the perp had been named "Mohammed" rather than "Miguel"? A shooting in a Turkish airport gets posted, and a shooting in an American airport is being dismissed as run of the mill. What systemic bias we have created. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Bleve alleged perp is named Esteban. – Sca (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Mass shootings in America happen every single day. You know that.  48 people were killed in Istanbul.  This event is notable enough, probably, for an article, but will be a nothing-to-see-here load of pulp tomorrow.  Nothing will change, this has no impact on anything, other than the likelihood that more guns are sold and more mass shootings take place in the United States.  No systemic bias, just this kind of thing is business as usual.  Like bombings in Iraq or Syria or Yemen.  None of which get posted, or even nominated.  So there's your bias!  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Mass shootings don't always make the news the way this one did. And I'm seeing people disregard it in a knee-jerk fashion. That's a bias. We do still post stories that are "in the news", right? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Only if they're encyclopedically notable. Which this is not.  For context, see this.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of the rates of gun murders in my country. And if you don't think it's encyclopedically notable, nominate it for AfD. I'll wait. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Still waiting. I assume your not nominating it for deletion is a tacit recognition that, in spite of what you've typed in this thread, you recognize that it meets GNG. Then, when coupled with the news coverage it's getting, it becomes a story that should be posted by ITN. But, the bias against U.S. shootings not tied to Islamic terrorism prevents you from coming to that conclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Take it however you like. I'm not interested in this, it's probably a one-liner in a list of mass shootings, so eventually the article will redirect there.  The EV of it will be determined in months or years, i.e. will it change anything other than encourage Americans to carry more guns, i.e. no, the status quo will remain.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Mass shootings are never status quo, in spite of how many of them we have. And there's our biggest disconnect on this issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Deny it as much as you like, but mass shootings are the status quo in America. Denial is commonplace, but bare facts show otherwise.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This shooting, and the reaction to it in news coverage, is not status quo. But you can't allow that one shooting differs from another. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Respectfully TRM, they really don't happen anywhere near "every single day". In 2005, the FBI used a criteria for "mass murder" that required: killing at least four people in a single incident at a single location and not with an apparent intent to commit armed robbery, gang violence, or domestic violence .  Under that criteria, such events happened in the US about twice a year on average from 1982 to 2012, and 4 times in 2016, 4 times in 2015, 2 times in 2014, 5 times in 2013, etc.  If you believe that ~4 incidents per year is too many for ITN, then fine, but the hyperbole that this happens every day in the US is just wrong and unhelpful.  Dragons flight (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, a mass shooting is where at least two people are shot. They don't even have to die.  Our own article states that a mass shooting is "an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence" Just because the FBI have re-defined it in the United States to make it more acceptable, that's meaningless.  So I'm afraid I entirely disagree with everything you've just written – filtering the numbers to make it seem less awful is cheap and condescending to the rest of the world.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "less awful"? That seems to be the opposite of my point.  The magnitude of this event is relatively rare, even for the US, and hence more awful than the garden variety murders that do happen every day.  Maybe you think any shooting involving 2 people is the same as shooting 13 and killing 5, but I would strongly disagree with that.  Dragons flight (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, you're wrong again, the magnitude of this event is not rare for the US. As noted above, I abhor all killings, but in America mass death from government-sanctioned gun crime is commonplace.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: An airport shooting in the US is pretty rare -- and it's all over headlines. Seems worthy to me. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 22:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Holy crap well that's something new, apparently this individual had "had checked the gun in his baggage". Which makes the shooting even simpler than I had ever expected.  You can check guns into your baggage?!  What a complete mess.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course firearms can be checked into baggage, that's how they travel internationally by air. Unless you're suggesting they should be allowed in one's hand luggage. ;-) Even in countries with much more restrictive gun laws, that wouldn't be a suprised. -- KTC (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a complete joke and something in a non-gun-toting country we'd just fine pure madness. Makes an airport shooting even easier, and this even less remarkable.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How does that change anything, either way, in this story? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Aren't they supposed to be unloaded and in a locked case without ammunition? That wouldn't stop the crazy from unlocking it and loading it with a magazine in his pocket of course. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't accept that there is a bias against US shootings on ITN. We have posted the Orlando, San Bernardino, Sandy Hook and Washington Naval Yard attacks in recent years, so it seems that a shooting where the number of fatalities is in double digits is likely to be posted. But half a dozen deaths is simply not enough - the death of six people in a violent incident sadly happens frequently around the world. We can't post of all of these incidents and there is nothing that makes this one stand out as sufficiently significant. Neljack (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is there a death count minimum being applied? Where is that in the ITN criteria? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There isn't a death count minimum, which I why I mentioned that I didn't see any special features that made this particularly significant despite the low death count. There certainly can be such cases - the Boston Marathon Bombing is a good example of a attack with a low death count but greater significance, which led to it being posted - but we can't post every case of six people being violently killed in the world. There are just too many of them. Neljack (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - I hate the fact this will be yet another body count blurb, but ITN is in sore need of a new blurb. Banedon (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - has received attention world wide in media. article seems decent and it is rare with airport shootings. BabbaQ (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely support How come a single black criminal being killed lawfully by police is news but 5 people killed by Muslim terrorism is not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.192.31.98 (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Body count is not double digits, but it was at an airport that according to the article is one of the world's 50 busiest, the article is sourced, and it is "in the news". ITN is also pretty stale. Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Too premature. If you look up "Fort Lauderdale" on Google News, some unreliable websites I did not click on suggest he may have self-radicalized online. There may be more to this story. Let's wait and see what the authorities tell us first.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support A serious and rare event.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment We're sitting on three stale celebrity entertainer deaths in blurbs - none of them under 50, all last year's news, but the majority of words written here today involve a British admin(!) ranting about US politics (again) rather than a discussion on getting today's top headline - a mass shooting at a nominally secure location, an event most would agree is not frivolous entertainment news - ready for posting. At least no one will mistake us for a ticker! - Lvthn13 (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know which British admin you're referring to, but as predicted, this has already dropped out of the news, other than to reignite the gun control debate once again, which of course will be utterly futile, particularly in light of the incoming President.  None of the celebrity deaths should have been blurbs either, perhaps people need to nominate more articles of encyclopedic value and lasting notability?  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh don't play coy, you stepped right up to enjoy the spotlight! Save your breath sir, I don't give a damn whether this goes up or not, it's a banal story and death is the most boring news.  Nor do I have any wish to engage you, the above exchange shows your endurance for petty internet argument far exceeds my own.  I only suggest that you are part of the problem, not the solution, and that your petty soapboxing discourages productive editing by people who might care, here and in other discussions you choose to shit upon.  As a result, we have last year's entertainment news, and ITN is a joke.  That is all, good day! - Lvthn13 (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not an admin, hence the confusion. But you have a great day too.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies then, I always assumed by the way you shouted others down with such authoritative gusto that you must have some kind of actual power. I did not realize that you are merely loud. - Lvthn13 (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yes, like it or not, it's just another shooting in the United States. You can make efforts to convince us believe how big or how important this is, but it's neither a terrorist attack committed by a global enemy nor an extraordinary rare incident that merits attention. It's an example of a deviance in the American society and nothing else.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggest Close After being under active discussion for most of a day there does not appear to be any consensus. Nor does it seem likely we will get one. And, predictably, the discussion has devolved into debates over other issues that seem to pop up every time we have a mass shooting in the US. I'd close it myself, but I'm WP:INVOLVED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I was just coming to support this, and it looks like I have missed it. Anyway, it is still a pretty prominent news item at the bottom of the world. If this reopens (I think less than 24 hours is too fast, especially since this is an international encyclopaedia) then this can be moved to a full support. AIR corn  (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And yet, even though this story is international news, it's not "In The News" because of a cabal of editors who automatically oppose posting any American mass shooting event, without any regard for how one mass shooting differs from another. This is a systemic bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Tilikum

 * Support. I'm psychic. Sourced, updated with death, well covered due to being a serial killer whale. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support...nominating "Only in death" our resident Nostradamus. Also support this posting per our new RD rules. Yes, IP, we are posting Shamu.--WaltCip (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 *     Is this a bid to orcastrate RD? Sca (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, despite the moaning and whaling of those in opposition, that is our porpoise.--WaltCip (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This nom. can't be normal – it's just a fluke. Sca (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not really a big fin of these puns, they really blow. shoy (reactions) 18:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Water you talking about? These puns are killer! -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Where are whales weighed? At a whale weigh station. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support with improvements. The current article gets many of the big / controversial things right, but somehow fails to cite some of the basic descriptive details about Tilikum.  In addition, for a prolific breeder who was related to roughly half of all orcas now owned by SeaWorld, the section on his offspring is woefully short.  Lastly, I would have expected more discussion related to Blackfish, and his safety / behavioral issues.  Yes, the three deaths are listed but there is hardly any context to say how unusual this was, and there is no discussion of what the post-death safety investigations found and whether they criticized or exonerated his owners and other handlers.  Dragons flight (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that is a function/result of most of that material being covered in their respective linked articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What linked articles? The first and second deaths are reported with no wikilinks at all, nor does his offspring section have any links.  Also, the rather relevant contextual article killer whale attacks on humans was not linked from Tilikum until I added a link just now.  Dragons flight (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support subject of multiple documentaries, news articles, and books. Extremely notable.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Per sources, per media attention. Has been the subject of a documentary and books.BabbaQ (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support still some inline maintenance tags to be addressed, but consensus to post appears clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted -- KTC (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Om Puri

 * Oppose Vastly undersourced, going to take a lot of work. --M ASEM (t) 04:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah! Sadly long work to do. Will give a try. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - After article is developed. Very notable person in Indian cinema - Sherenk1 (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Once its Good enough. Pretty much Hollywood version of Michael Douglas.-- Stemoc 05:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem and TRM. Extremely poor referencing. I have tagged the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] [Posted to RD] Jill Saward

 * Oppose: I actually don't think this article passes GNG?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strange interpretation of WP:GNG. The woman was at the forefront of campaigns over the last 30 years, and her prominence is shown by the speed of reaction and depth of coverage of her death (it is the lead story on BBC News website (UK-facing version at least), and covered by many other news sources. In the absence of a credible nomination for deletion, this oppose has no weight. BencherliteTalk 17:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It does seem to raise questions along the lines of BLP1E. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that the fact she wrote a book describing her experience is (at minimum) a second event to surpass BLP1E/BIO1E concerns here. She's clearly notable beyond just having been a victim. --M ASEM (t) 17:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * She might be notable, but having never heard of her and only having read the article, I don't see that she is. So perhaps the article needs to be expanded further first.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The article has been expanded by a number of editors. After her attack, she became a prominent campaigner, has been interviewed by many reliable sources, and has influenced a number of UK law changes. I'd say that passes WP:GNG. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Article is reasonably sourced, and while short is of reasonable length. --M ASEM (t) 17:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, lead needs a bit more expansion to demonstrate significance and some copyedit for the article, too. Brandmeistertalk  17:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Brandmeister. Notability needs to be verified.--WaltCip (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And as per Brandmeister, if you don't think she's notable, then you need to start a formalised discussion about it. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not say she is not notable. I'm stating that the notability needs to be verified and cited with reliable sources within the article.--WaltCip (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Just watched the BBC national news at 6pm and it's the lead story on it.yorkshiresky (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support article is sufficiently referenced, and a high enough quality for the main page. Coverage already cited within the article MORE than surpasses BLP1E, she wrote a notable book and was noted for her campaigning work. Clearly passes GNG.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Whilst the article when nominated was somewhat flimsy, the updates since then clearly show her notability and the article is adequately sourced. Black Kite (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you an admin?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Why would it matter to the discussion and 2) If he weren't, it would not be technically feasible to post the article because the template is under full protection, and only admins can add it to the template. Thus, your question is pointless because a) if the action didn't require an admin to do it, then his admin status would be irrelevant (for actions that don't require admin tools, admins have no special powers) and b) since the action does require the admin tool set, he has to be an admin to do it.  There's no feasible reason to ask if someone is an admin unless you need them to use their admin tools to do something for you. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 21:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought but they don't say they are an admin as they don't have a userpage and their talkpage gives nothing away either. Given the extra powers that admins have, I don't think this information should be hidden from other editors. I also do not see a consensus for posting this Recent Death; it looks like a No Consensus to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * RD only requires two criteria; notability and quality. Since there is no doubt about the former (non notable people don't get front page stories on the BBC etc. when they die) and the article is adequately sourced, there's no reason not to post this. The opposes were clearly good faith based on the poor state of the article when it was nominated, but that has clearly been addressed since. Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really. The lede appears to contain a fork. It's also extremely marginal--Wikipedia is not WikiUKtabloids. I am concerned that we are letting our emotions guide us here--yes it's tragic, she was raped and found the fortitude to publish a book about it but--surely someone like Tullio De Mauro would be more notable for the main page?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to see Tullio De Mauro on the front page, nominate Tullio De Mauro for the front page, rather than questioning this posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you need to withdraw from this discussion as your line of argument is becoming a little too confrontational and is ill-founded.  If you have actionable issues with the article, let's here them, otherwise it's best for you to do something else.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support Article appears to be of sufficient quality. Consensus is it belongs on the front page now. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What about the unreferenced fork in the lede? Hello!Zigzig20s (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:LEADCITE. It's cited in the body, so it doesn't need to be cited in the lead. And I don't know what "fork" you're referring to. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support opposition based on "never 'eard of 'er" is immediately disqualified. Hilarious touch to demand that forks are fully referenced, if we demanded that then we'd never post another American actor RD again, and the rogue admin cabel wouldn't like that one little bit. Mind you, they'd ignore that too I suppose.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is outrageous at all, given that we have demanding standards-- for example, I was asked to reference every single film by Michele Morgan recently. Here we have a fork that sounds like original research to me. Yes, she campaigned for change, but how do we know that her activism made a difference?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You just asked for references for the fork. Let's stay on-topic for the moment.  Do you expect every article to have every linked article fully referenced?  Simple yes/no.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I expect no original research. The lede is original research, unless someone can find a reference saying specifically that her activism influenced legislations "indirectly". Otherwise Wikipedia is simply making it up, and that makes us look bad.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you're off-topic again, you said "What about the unreferenced fork in the lede? Hello!", and I asked you if you expected all linked articles to be fully referenced. Please answer that question before moving on to other issues.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The fork ("led indirectly to changes in the law") appears to be original research. That is the point I am making. That is the only question here. Are there reliable third-party sources saying her activism influenced legislations "indirectly", or are Wikipedia editors making this up?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not a "fork" at all. What are you talking about?  And if you read any of the sources, e.g. the BBC, you'd see Among the causes she successfully campaigned for was the barring of accused rapists from cross-examining victims while representing themselves in court., so yes, her campaigning seems to have led to changes in the law.  Of course, her campaign didn't do it directly because she was just campaigning.  Now it's definitely time for you to drop this.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * She campaigned for change. But there appears to be zero evidence whatsoever that her activism influenced legislations, unless specific sources say that. I don't think it's right for the lede to suggest that that is the case if no reference says that. "Seems to have led" is just OR.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We could rephrase it as "may have led to changes in the law" perhaps?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This discussion would be better off on the article's talk page, not here. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I started a topic there but no one replied. I don't intend to spend too much time on this as it's boring, but logically there is a difference between campaiging for something and influencing legislations.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, read it again "Among the causes she successfully campaigned for was the barring of accused rapists from cross-examining victims while representing themselves in court." she successfully campaigned i.e. what she championed made a change to the law. Now please, it's boring hearing your reluctance to understand this.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's so vague. I think we are making a mistake by jumping to conclusions. I would prefer adding "may" to the lede; it sounds more accurate. Hopefully others will agree. I am off to bed now though.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm more partial to requiring references for the knives and spoons. --WaltCip (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Post-posting weak support - for RD. Though one could claim that this is local she seems to have had a lot of significance for victims of sexual assault etc within the UK and possibly Ireland as well. Article seems fine and her death has recieved attention internationally as well.BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support article sufficiently updated and of sufficient quality for RD standards. Absent an AfD nomination, which would lead to a precipitation of white wintry weather, that's all we need.  (Hint: non-notable people tend not to be the lead story on the BBC news.) BencherliteTalk 23:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] 2016 Chicago torture incident

 * Fixed nomination. Oppose not merely due to the stub nature of the article but also due to the general tendency of ITN only to post convictions, not arrests, and only to be concerned with major criminal cases, not minor ones like this. BencherliteTalk 23:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a minor (though horrific) event that isn't up to the significance required for ITN. Also the article is a stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nomination; while a sickening case, this doesn't rise to the level of posting; if we posted this, we would have to post many such cases from around the world(or explain why we posted this one and not those) 331dot (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I just nominated the article for deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly oppose deleting the article, this event will have some pretty long-lasting domestic repercussions. But compared to other events world-wide, and the lack of a fatality or a notable participant, this is overblown as an ITN nomination. μηδείς (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as ITN, but I do agree with Medeis that the unfortunate event is sufficiently notable given the intersect between racial violent, politics, and social media. But it is very much a domestic story at this point. --M ASEM (t) 00:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Re-opening discussion The AfD was was speedy closed following the withdrawal of the nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose As horrifying as this is, it is essentially a tabloid type crime story. The fact that the victim was reportedly a conservative white and the motives appear to have been political and racial does add an interesting twist. But in the end this is far too run of the mill to be posted at ITN. These sorts of crimes occur every single day all over the world and we don't post them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Just too minor. I'll grant that the top blurb in ITN has become somewhat stale again, but even with lowered standards this is still too minor to post. Banedon (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Lucy and Psyche

 * Oppose premature. They're only in planning. Anything could happen between now and their potential launches. Stephen 05:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. It's still a big event. The result of a two-year long competition to select the new missions to launch in the Discovery program, which is a program held in high esteem by astronomers and planetary scientists. I should also mention that the Selection of Discovery Mission 13 and 14 article would be worth mentioning in the wording as well. Also probably good to mention that they'll be the 13th and 14th missions of the program as well. Philip Terry Graham 05:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ive added an alternative blurb including thatXavierGreen (talk) 06:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, consensus is to post launches to ITN. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose and I don't think all launches are considered ITN worthy either. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed; ITNR lists the arrival of a probe at its destination, but not its launch(which of course can still be ITNC nominated). 331dot (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose let's wait for them to actually happen. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose not at the same level as this star wars princess. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:C04E:3594:1796:89BC (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU. It needed to be said. Someone needs to call out the demographic bias around here that drove that non-notable death to the main page as a blurb. Guess we're equating Star Wars actresses to Nelson Mandela around here. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:7A (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Wait until they launch (and again when they reach their targets). Merely embarking on a programme does not mean that the mission will launch - there have been plenty of cancelled NASA missions in the past. Besides, there's very little information available yet, and the articles are bare bones. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Milt Schmidt

 * Oppose far too poorly referenced. Needs a lot of work and then perhaps a re-review for comprehensiveness.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose (EC) Nearly entirely unsourced, and will need a lot of work. --M ASEM (t) 22:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM and Masem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Mesentery

 * Support in principle. I actually saw this earlier and almost nominated it, but hesitated when seeing the academic article's publishing date. Still, it doesn't seem to have gotten news coverage up until now, so why not. Pinging for his thoughts as well. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Aside from the review date, I'm unclear how a review in Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology -- a very new journal -- constitutes 'official' status to the new designation? Espresso Addict (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure this is a specialty section of The Lancet, which in turn is one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world (together with the New England Journal of Medicine). In other words, simply by being associated with an established journal gives the newer journal credibility. Banedon (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's a new journal in the Lancet stable, launched 1 Sept 2016. I expect publishing controversial reviews like this is intended to bolster the readership. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose as the lead puts it It has been proposed that the mesentery be designated as an organ .... The Rambling Man (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, along the lines of User:The Rambling Man's comment, this fails to meet WP:MEDRS, which requires a source showing medical consensus. Put another way, I considered and then decided not to even put this in the article, let alone the Front Page. Also, I read that it was not assigned to an organ system yet, very problematic. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: H. S. Mahadeva Prasad

 * Comment: Could you please add a reference for his master's degree and where he got it from?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ref relocated for degree but I have no info from where he got it. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose needs an end-to-end copyedit into acceptable English, and additional referencing. Stephen 22:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Every bit is sourced. Please place a cn tag for which you think you could not locate sources. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 01:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. An edit by an English speaker is needed in places. There are some important gaps in coverage eg his career before becoming an MP, his policies in office. Additionally, the controversies section appears disproportionate and I am not sure whether or not the newspapers used as sources are adequately reliable. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I could not locate any information of him other than what's mentioned. There are news coverages of him he speaking and inaugurating at places; both minor and unencyclopedic in nature. You may trim the controversies section but The Hindu, Bangalore Mirror, Daily Mail, India Today and The News Minute used in this section are all WP:RS; as is the case with all references used. You may argue that his own personal website is not RS in full sense. But it is used only to source his degree and family member's names. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose I admittedly have a (very slight) COI as Dharma and I are both competitors in the Wikicup. Nonetheless: India alone has many thousand state legislators, possibly as many as 6000, not sure. These positions have all been occupied since the country became independent. Therefore, at a very rough estimate, there have been many tens of thousands of legislators since 1947: and therefore, at a normal rate of population turnover, one would expect a state legislator to die every couple of days, in India alone. Vanamonde (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Haha! Am I small competitor for you in that Cup. But "the nomination of any individual human, [...] with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article." §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)'


 * Support and I think Dharmadhyaksha adequately rebutted the above opposes and the article seems to be in a good state. It's being covered by other news organizations so it's sufficient to be collected in the section. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 09:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support article seems to meet the current ITN RD requirements. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Did a little more copyediting on the article to clean it up.  Spencer T♦ C 16:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Alfonso Wong

 * Weak oppose it's barely above stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's above the 1500 "readable prose size" (currently at 1982) which DYK would accept for a full length hook. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Stub is not defined by length. A 1500-character article on, say, nuclear physics, would clearly be a stub. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, please never use DYK as an example of something that would be accepted for the main page! The Rambling Man (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I wrote that to point out that TRM's oppose was not really clear. Espresso Addict's comment below helps in understanding it better what I assume TRM also expects the article to have. And ya, I will remember not to use OSE example but if "stub" is so vaguely defined and readable prose is not a minimum requisite for RD lets us also be verbose in our oppose votes. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support meets criteria. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Stub with very limited information on Wong's life, eg what did he do between 1944 & 1960? Was there anything of note in his personal life, apart from being ambidextrous? The referencing could also do with bolstering; there are several strong statements about his comic's popularity/influence which are not adequately referenced. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Given he was in post-WW2 China this might actually be difficult to get more than basic information on given the circumstances. It is unsurprising the timeline picks up when he moves to Hong Kong. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Article is sufficiently long.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)'
 * Oppose article does not provide sufficient depth of coverage of the person's life and/or work to be useful to readers. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Santa Claus

 * What the fuck?--WaltCip (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In regards to the nom, oppose since this is only one study that may or may not be indicative of a larger trend, and needs further review (not to mention circulation by reliable sources) before we can claim it's a theory. Seriously, has Harvard lost its marbles?--WaltCip (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Bollocks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Granny (orca)

 * Comment it's not about being "really committed", it's about the fact it was indoctrinated in the RD instructions following a community consensus to do so. As for this candidate, Oppose as it's not been updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Only in death fixed the remaining verb tense problems. Dragons flight (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting this will bring the encyclopaedia into disrepute as people will be expecting an article about their grandmother. This should be taken to ANI.  Stephen 09:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How is this an ANI issue? Consensus here is that the deaths of animals that have articles are no different than those of people with articles; if you wish to change this consensus, please start a discussion on the talk page here. I don't see how this "brings the encyclopedia into disrepute" at all.  Plain old Granny redirects to a disambig page, not this article. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the assumption that random comments made at Wikipedia relate to one’s own grandmother, is probably indicative of some deeper issue related to psychological insecurity/ paranoia. Surely this must be many times more true for items appearing as front page news? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I assumed Stephen's reply was tongue-in-cheek sarcasm. Is that not the case? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As if anyone would ever use tongue-in-cheek sarcasm. I'm shocked. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Come on everyone, please read the Sutter Brown nomination below. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not having looked at that one as I was busy at the time, my original assumption of sarcasm was correct I see. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Seems well-referenced and appears to have been updated. -edit- Ah I see what you mean. Its been updated with death in the lead but the body is still alive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose on procedural grounds as we don't know if this orca is deceased. The opinion of the scientists is only based on the fact that she hasn't been seen. At a minimum, the article needs an update as TRM states. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well she has been 'considered deceased' by the group monitoring the pod, which has been reported by reliable secondary sources as such, not sure what you want here - a whale corpse to wash up with a 'Yup I am dead' sign round its neck? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As someone who lives near a coastal area I can say that whale corpses wash up on our beaches semi-infrequently(I also googled "whale corpse on beach" as well as orcas, and got many results). I don't want anything per se; I'm simply saying I don't think this is enough. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You dont think a declaration by a group actively monitoring the pod, followed up by reporting from reliable sources satisfies WP:V? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The opinion here by the scientists boils down to "we haven't seen this orca so it might be dead because it was really old". This orca clearly merits an article and an update as to its status, but I don't think "it might be deceased" qualifies as a recent death for an animal.  Maybe it swam elsewhere; we don't know. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a very different interpretation from what they actually said which is "by year’s end she is officially missing from the SRKW population, and with regret we now consider her deceased.". That is not 'it might be deceased' by any reasonable interpretation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate this discussion but I am quite comfortable with my opinion as of right now. Regardless of my opinion, the article still needs an update. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Orcas are highly social and only very rarely travel alone (her pod was 27 orcas). As the oldest female, she would have been considered the leader of her pod.  I'm no orca biologist, but I think they idea that she just "swam elsewhere" is pretty unlikely.  If the whole pod had gone missing, sure they would probably just be hiding somewhere, but in this case the researchers see her pod but don't see her which is naturally a pretty bad sign.  Dragons flight (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. If there is a concern that listing "Granny" on RD might be confusing(?), it might be worth posting this item as "Granny (orca)".  We don't usually included parenthetical terms on postings, but doing it in this case might help avoid undue surprise.  Dragons flight (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a serious concern. Stephen's comment above is clearly making fun of Newyorkbrad's in the Sutter Brown RD nomination. Nohomersryan (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Not a person; fails 2.2. Sca (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See RD rules, to whit An individual human, animal or other biological organism that has recently died may have an entry in the recent deaths section if it has a Wikipedia article that is:.... pretty sure an animal counts here!! If you think that you've found an issue with the rules, please link us to "2.2" which you claim this "fails", thanks!!!  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot that in a flight of fatuity the floodgates were opened to non-humans in RD too, no matter how insignificant they are may have been. Sca (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no need to apologise, these kind of mistakes you make are easily forgiven. Of course, if you don't "like" the way ITN works, you could either do something about it or do something else.  That would certainly help us here!   The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not only 105 years old. But also a member of the endangered Main page resident killer editor population, allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support I recognize that there's no affirmative evidence of her death - best we have is a lack of sighting with the rest of the pod, and following knowledge of how orcas travel in social groups, her absence likely means she died. Barring actually finding her body (given the size of the ocean...) a statement by the authority that tracks and monitors these pods to the extent that they consider her dead (and which took them a couple months to validate based on sightings) is reasonable strength of argument that it should be included here. It's a strong hypothesis by a expert/creditable group, and one carried by news sources, and since it is very unlikely that affirmative evidence will ever be found, is the right place to nominate this. Article is otherwise is good shape sourcing-wise. --M ASEM (t) 18:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Come on guys. It's a whale. What, are we going to post Shamu's death to RD now? And don't bother linking me to the RFC which was a sham from day one. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:9F (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Shamu died in 1971. So no its unlikely to get a nomination for 'Recent Deaths'. Tilikum probably. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow. I see that Category:Serial killer whales is still a red link. Lucky he's not a fin whale, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To the IP user, if you disagree with the established consensus, you are free to attempt to change it by starting a talk page discussion. Until that happens, your oppose is not valid. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair, when you have established editors and former Arbcom members like making threats against such postings, like "taking it to ANI" and "bringing Wikipedia into disrepute" (my paraphrasing), we have a serious problem communicating our guidelines to IPs.  Brad's interjection on the Sutter article is most unhelpful, and indicates that he's way off understanding what the community around here is expecting.  Yet because of his "lofty" past, we run a serious risk of people thinking "he knows best" which he clearly does not, as he has demonstrated a few times lately.  We don't need this kind of purposely disruptive !voting, nor do we need someone with such experience to summarily ignore the community consensus established and documented.  My advice going forward is to ignore Brad's posts until such a time that he can demonstrate that his thoughts are up to date with community expectations which, right now, are miles apart.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah Brad, not many folks knew you were a social worker. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict; responding to The Rambling Man) My concern about posting Sutter Brown to RD was that a reader who sees an unfamiliar name on RD and wonders "I wonder who that is who just died?" would not reasonably expect to find that it was a dog. It would be understandable that he or she would think less of Wikipedia after being misled in that fashion, and I thought (and still think) we need to avoid doing that. Obviously that concern does not apply if the article on RD is Granny (orca) rather than Sutter Brown. As it happens, I don't think we should be including anyone other than humans on RD, but that is a different issue and not one I feel nearly as strongly about. I would appreciate if The Rambling Man would avoid gratuitously dragging my name into discussions on this or other pages in which I have not participated and did not intend to participate, as the conduct is verging on harassment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Brad, I would appreciate if you stopped promoting American actors to RD regardless of community consensus, as the conduct is absolutely in contradiction of WP:ADMINACCT. I will not stop reminding you that he you do not WP:OWN Wikipedia, especially not the main page.  Your over-bearing conduct is bordering on ownership and absolutely must stop.  Several other editors have recently noted this, so please, take that on board and desist.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * (no edit conflict at all). Just wanted to make it clear, I never meant to suggest that "Beneath the facade of his National Health glasses smoulders the fire and passion of a cold toilet seat." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Episode 3. Wow, that takes me back, especially now 'Chelle is back on t' square.   The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not opposed to including animals, but this is not a recent death.  It is a conjecture of a possible death that may have occurred months ago.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We normally allow the posting of RDs on dates "far" after the actual death if the death is not reported for several days (often because the family wishes to have its period of mourning). This would fall into a similar situation: Yes, she probably died in Nov or Dec, but only today is this group saying that are considering her to be dead. --M ASEM (t) 20:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that, opposing on "recent death date" in this case isn't valid because the death (or presumed death) has just been reported in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I had doubts too, User:Gamaliel, but then I thought of other fishy nominations. It might still be useful if the article told us where he she actually lived. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * He? The clue was in the title. And, as my three-year-old son would be quick to tell you, she lived in the fucking sea.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Great to see a well developed vocabulary. Martinevans123 (talk)
 * Indeed, not Welsh or American, so able to string a sentence or two together and still be understood. Still a bit shouty, but you have to shout to make yourself understood sometimes, it seems.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Her home territory was already in the article, but I added a bit to the lead. Dragons flight (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dragons flight, that's really helpful. Glad she's not "all at fucking sea" any more. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well sort of, per the nom, she's dead. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Presumably. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: If I asked someone "guess who just died?", and I told them it was a whale, they would take it as a joke. A whale or other animal is a "what," not a "who," regardless of it having a name. I see it as OK for ITN (during a very slow week,) but never as an RD, which implies us humanoids. --Light show (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So you're not secretly opposing just because she was American. It's just because she's from from whales... *sob* Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe there is support for this RD above (most oppose votes have been refuted with the outcome of the RfCs stating that animals are eligible for RD); one question remains before posting, however, and that is whether we should clarify with (orca) or not. Could I get a few opinions? Sam Walton (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked at the Granny disambiguation page, and outside of fictional people, there's no past or present that is commonly called, simply "Granny". Excluding a few that might think for a moment that WP is reporting about the death of their personal grandmother, I do not see a name conflict that we need to disambiguate here with. As I noted over at the Sutter nom, only if it is the case of exact name confusion with a notable living human should we consider the extra disamb. text. --M ASEM (t) 21:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, do not disambiguate. Post as "Granny".  Any "disrepute" this brings Wikipedia is far exceeded by the continued poor behaviour of those who push items without consensus to the main page.  This article, at the very least, is in good condition and actually meets the RD criteria.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Count Iblis (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd count that as your best ever post. Thank you, it made me happy and sad at the same time.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't sound orca. It sounds like nothing I've ever heard!. Stephen
 * "It's not a fucking fish, boyo." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not Welsh either, but you're not three years old and oddly my son has more respect than you seem to ever demonstrate. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "lol". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted as Granny. Stephen 22:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See you ANI, you bloody rebel. To think that you've brought Wikipedia into disrepute once again, so overtly, I feel filthy and denigrated, etc etc etc.  Happy New Year! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - this should say Granny (Orca) for reasons Stephen gave early in the discussion. Banedon (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Stephen was making a joke. Sam Walton (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps but this part "as people will be expecting an article about their grandmother" is still a valid concern. Banedon (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John Berger

 * Oppose mostly unreferenced, including a massive section (oddly under Awards) containing all sorts of unverifiable material. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Highly notable but the article is still far from ready. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 09:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good work but still plenty left to reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks. &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 14:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Poetry and Other sections incompletely referenced, but good going so far. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 17:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fix up those bare URLs and we're good to go! Nice work.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * . &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 05:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: Everything is references and he won several prizes.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Marking Ready per above back-and-forth between TRM and MBlaze and confirming sourcing is all in place. --M ASEM (t) 06:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posted support - Terrific job updating and getting this posted, props to the editors and mid-wives who saw this through. Thank you. Christian Roess (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] 2016 United States election interference by Russia

 * Comment For me the problem is the missing link between the Russian hackings and voting in the Electoral College. If there's evidence that the hackings influenced the Electoral College voting, then we can post this for sure. Can't find this in the article. Brandmeistertalk  13:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But really it doesn't matter here. And it also doesn't require evidence that Russian actors were actually behind these hacks to preempt any similar arguments: it's enough that the US accuses Russia of cyber-attacks to influence the election. That alone is more than noteworthy (it's historic). Also such things aren't usually under consideration here - it's rather the extend of coverage; and this has been all over the news as a major story. --Fixuture (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose First, I think this would be considered a stale story, and the reasoning given by the nom (that we haven't had this story featured yet) is a poor reason to push any story to ITN. Second, I still think this is a story that is the subject of the systematic media bias, who for the most part did not want to see Trump become President, and thus are pushing this angle hard. That hackers from Russia have gotten to some of the US computer systems is certainly true but we're still unsure if it was agents of the gov't or the like. --M ASEM (t) 14:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would also oppose any Ongoing to this for similar reasons. --M ASEM (t) 14:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not an argument pro featuring it: it's just a note that so far, for whatever reason, it hasn't been featured in that section despite obvious notability & coverage etc
 * While I agree that media is non-neutral I do not share your opinion WP:NPOV here. It's conspiracy-theory. Also it has been covered intensely by countless media outlets - not just a select few - (and imo for good reason) so I'm not sure if you're saying that the world's whole media is biased?! Also it doesn't matter. See WP:RS.
 * It doesn't matter, as above: it's enough that the US accuses Russia of cyber-attacks to influence the election. That alone is more than noteworthy (it's historic).
 * --Fixuture (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a much larger issue about the current state of the English-speaking mainstream media that we have to be aware of, and the US election shows a lot of those true colors. Everything I've read on the claims of Russia influence and hacking have certain elements of truth, but the media are taking those nuggets of small truths and making that the central story because it helps to contest what they weren't expecting to happen; they've done this before on smaller stories, but this is the first major story I've seen it done on. Yes, the US has leveled accusations and they have taken sanctions which consisted of similar asking some dozen of Russia intelligence officials to level the US - a hand slap compared to sanctions against major threats. It's also commonly presumed that as soon as the transition of office happens that those sanctions will be dropped, and make it seem like actions in the last part of a lame duck term. That's why to me, unless there was something harder to prove the Russian gov't was really behind it, or extensive tampering with the actual election process, that this is just a FUD-type story that the media is pushing, and one we as a neutral encyclopedia should avoid pushing. --M ASEM (t) 15:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter, as above: it's enough that the US accuses Russia of cyber-attacks to influence the election. That alone is more than noteworthy (it's historic).
 * --Fixuture (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a much larger issue about the current state of the English-speaking mainstream media that we have to be aware of, and the US election shows a lot of those true colors. Everything I've read on the claims of Russia influence and hacking have certain elements of truth, but the media are taking those nuggets of small truths and making that the central story because it helps to contest what they weren't expecting to happen; they've done this before on smaller stories, but this is the first major story I've seen it done on. Yes, the US has leveled accusations and they have taken sanctions which consisted of similar asking some dozen of Russia intelligence officials to level the US - a hand slap compared to sanctions against major threats. It's also commonly presumed that as soon as the transition of office happens that those sanctions will be dropped, and make it seem like actions in the last part of a lame duck term. That's why to me, unless there was something harder to prove the Russian gov't was really behind it, or extensive tampering with the actual election process, that this is just a FUD-type story that the media is pushing, and one we as a neutral encyclopedia should avoid pushing. --M ASEM (t) 15:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a much larger issue about the current state of the English-speaking mainstream media that we have to be aware of, and the US election shows a lot of those true colors. Everything I've read on the claims of Russia influence and hacking have certain elements of truth, but the media are taking those nuggets of small truths and making that the central story because it helps to contest what they weren't expecting to happen; they've done this before on smaller stories, but this is the first major story I've seen it done on. Yes, the US has leveled accusations and they have taken sanctions which consisted of similar asking some dozen of Russia intelligence officials to level the US - a hand slap compared to sanctions against major threats. It's also commonly presumed that as soon as the transition of office happens that those sanctions will be dropped, and make it seem like actions in the last part of a lame duck term. That's why to me, unless there was something harder to prove the Russian gov't was really behind it, or extensive tampering with the actual election process, that this is just a FUD-type story that the media is pushing, and one we as a neutral encyclopedia should avoid pushing. --M ASEM (t) 15:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * GRAMMAR NOTE — Both blurbs contain plural subjects with singular verb. Sca (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed now - the blurbs can be improved.--Fixuture (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm not seeing this mentioned anywhere on the BBC international news website homepage (currently top 5: Turkey gun attack, Brazil prison riot, Spain migrants discovery, Israeli politics, Baghdad car bomb), even the top six stories on the US homepage of the BBC website has Mariah Carey's non-synch-ed lips and the passing of MASH actor William Christopher listed above this hacking row. It's way off the main pages now, this can be safely put to bed and ignored, much like the rest of the world have already done.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment There can never be any consensus on this story and any related political stories. Completely independent of their objective newsworthiness, different standards than the usual measures are being applied, almost to the point of being the definition of a moving bar. The story in itself -- isolated -- should be the only one we are looking at here. The various ITN versions of the story itself (U.S. government claims Russia attempted electoral interference through hacking, U.S. retaliates against Russia for that reason) are not conjecture. The action upon which the retaliation is based has been confirmed by the major U.S. intelligence agencies. However, many people are insisting that to be valid, specific damage as a result of the action (in this case a change in the election results) must be proven ... in a case where public opinion and not physical ballots were targeted. If anyone ever finds an absolute measure by which to assess the exact reasons behind all sudden shifts in public opinion, let me know, because it would be really useful to the world to have such an absolute measure.
 * The division also breaks down along firm political lines. If you voted pro-Trump (or pro-Brexit), you will be highly likely to see any attempt to give this story the light of day as an attempt to provide an alternate reason why Clinton was not elected. If you voted pro-Clinton (or anti-Brexit), you will be just as likely to see a documented attempt by Russia to influence an election in Trump's favour as a dangerous precedent. I have seen no attempt by either group toward compromise, and thus there can never be consensus so long as that refusal to compromise exists. In ITN, indefinitely stalled compromise will always result in non-posting (due either to non-consensus or to eventual staleness). Such silence on specific types of stories is a very common form of censorship.
 * This type of result may possibly be an inherent weakness in ITN. If so, it is growing, not receding. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It's like comparing a tabloid "RUSSIA HACKS AMERICA!!" with a broadsheet "Growing speculation that Russia somehow influenced the presidential election". We would never post the latter, as it's just a hypothesis.  Do we post the former?  Sometimes, but it's a classic Kardashian test case.  We're not here to go along with the mass hysteria, we're here to provide some encyclopedic balance and value.  Also don't forget this is English-language Wikipedia.  As I demonstrated above, if you have to go from the BBC News homepage to the America/Canada news homepage and then find it listed below Mariah Carey, you should, by now, get the hint that this isn't of interest to most of the world.  If ITN is growing away from a tacit over-acceptance of American "news" stories, I'd see that as a strength, not a weakness, and its growth should be encouraged, strongly.   The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose the sanctions and expelled diplomats are the better story for ITN purposes, and it closed as no consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support ongoing: Most of the sources given in the nom. are dated. Something more recent, like 30-minutes ago, should be used. In any case, when the CIA, FBI, DHS, and the U.S. President agree on this, we should take note. Forget the BBC or U.K. press for this one. And when someone like John McCain says "it is clear that Russia has attacked the United States of America," we can assume this one will be ongoing and hot for months, at least.--Light show (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really. Those agencies work for Obama. Trump denies the allegations. Besides, there is no evidence, so it could be fake news.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: the sanctions and near 35 expelled russian diplomats are facts and the real event, the hacking is just a wierd acusation of some country against another, Maduro from Venezuela did a simil acusation every month, we gonna post it?--Feroang (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb (or, as a second preference, ongoing) - came to this decision slowly, but regardless of whether or not you believe it's true or think it really made a difference, it's an official accusation made by the US government, and most journalists seem to find the claim credible. Nothing like this has really happened before in the USA, and the expulsion of diplomats and announcement of sanctions means that there's ongoing events associated with it. I think it's very newsworthy. Blythwood (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No consensus for expulsion of diplomats which is a meatier topic. If we posted every example where country A accused country B of various types of malfeasance, we would post nothing else. For mine, the claims that Russia allegedly hacked websites having a material effect on the American election are greatly exaggerated. It is more a case of a failed campaign trying to shift the blame to someone else. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. And I suggest a speedy close. This is very similar to "United States sanctions against Russia", which was closed with no consensus. (See discussion below.) Please cut it out. This is a POV-pushing non-story, denied by Russia and poopooed by the POTUS-elect, and we don't need to keep arguing against its inclusion ad nauseam.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, oppose as nominated - I still continue to support posting something related to this, but can't accept a blurb with "accuses". Countries (and politicians) accuse one another of things very often, and many of the time it's either untrue or nothing comes out of it (e.g. "Trump accuses Clinton of felony"). If posted, this should include something substantive that has happened, such as sanctions. Banedon (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We already voted that one down (see above). I'm afraid this alleged fake news is old news.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Five-day-old fish. Sca (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on article quality, but we'd need to work out a better blurb. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But it's simply not in the news any longer. The world and even the US has long moved onto the next Trump affair, this time tweeting so hard the Republicans buckled on policy.  What a state of affairs, when this supposed "superpower" country is run by the "grab her by the pussy" Twitter-wigger.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And please give the POTUS-elect a chance! He was "egged on", remember?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's still in the NYT and WSJ today. Friday's apparently the important briefing day, and per NYT, "Next week, Mr. Trump is certain to face questions about his position..." Obviously ongoing. --Light show (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Could still be fake news. Assange just denied it. Looks like the Obama administration is the only cohort trying to push this story.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] António Guterres as the new United Nations Secretary-General

 * Oppose We posted his election a few months ago, and in fact added the election of the UNSG to ITNR as a result. The ceremony of taking the position now is not really ITN itself. --M ASEM (t) 15:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. For the the same reason we most likely won't post Trump's inauguration. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – There's only one UN secretary-general in this disunited world. Sca (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Elections are notable. An elected person assuming office is not notable. Elia Soaten (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I remember the election was posted - the custom here does not post the event of such elected people taking office. HaEr48 (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] NYC subway line opening

 * Oppose good faith nomination. Not sufficiently important for ITN. While interesting (I'm a native New Yorker) this is essentially a local/regional news story. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why was the Moscow Ring Subway posted then? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am undecided on this, but with the Moscow Ring, as described, it drastically changed the topology of the Moscow subway; this bit seems more about helping to alleive a stressed system but not really changing the topology. So I can see the difference, but I do think there's something similar about these too, as the cost and # of people affected are similar. --M ASEM (t) 00:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Upper West Side has 2 lines, now the Upper East Side will have 2 lines. Not as drastic a change in topology as a ring around the city but still more important than an equal-size line in my part of NYC would be (outer boroughs). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - not your run of the mill subway extension, big project by any standard (impact, cost, length etc). 81.204.120.137 (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment it is a GA but has nearly doubled in size since it passed in March. I've tagged it as too long because I'm concerned that the average reader won't want to trudge through reams of text, if they bother to wait for the page to open at all. There is also a talk page discussion on the issue. Its development history should probably be split from it. Fuebaey (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just one of 30+ lines in NYC subway, hardly of interest outside New York. HaEr48 (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's only 9 trunk lines. It'll become a trunk line instead of a branch of the Broadway Line when it's extended in the future. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support The project has huge interest outside New York and is a very large infrastructure project being completed, equal to others that have been featured on ITN (Moscow Ring Subway, bridge openings, etc.).  Sounder Bruce  05:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How is this "huge interest outside New York"? The linked news sources in the nomination, as well as maybe all of the references of the article, are local New York sources. Could you point me to a news source in Kenya, for example, talking about this? HaEr48 (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Philippines Germany Dec 28 2016: (translated with Google Translate) <in New York Project of the Century> No other infrastructure project in the American metropolis is so infamous: A subway on Second Avenue was already spoken in 1919. Now it is finally opened. On January 1, the metro line on Second Avenue will finally be opened in New York. It is not just a project, but for decades the largest extension of the subway network of the American metropolis. Above all, the "Second Avenue Subway" in New York is something like a bad "running gag" and notorious as a project that is never realized. Their construction has been under discussion for almost a hundred years, but the plans have been abandoned one by one. The fact that they have now been implemented is considered a miracle for many New Yorkers. Poland New Zealand Herald Guardian the Independent (UK) Washington Post Singapore Maybe more will appear on Monday. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm afraid this is something very regional, and barely something of people's concern. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 愛 ) 05:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you produce any evidence for this rather bizarre statement? 81.204.120.137 (talk) 09:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The lack of enough compelling evidence that it is of interest outside NY. I hope the contradiction logic works for you. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 愛 ) 09:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What lack of outside interest? Reported in Polish, British, German, Filipino etc news, that's hardly lack of outside interest. Again, could you please provide any evidence for your bizarre statement? 81.204.120.137 (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support although maybe it should read "a section of the Second Av Subway" or some other similar statement? I mean it is only 3 stations and is only ~20 city blocks long for now. — G FOLEY   F OUR!  — 09:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Closer to twice that but okay. Changed. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, you're right. 63-96, right? — G FOLEY   F OUR!  — 21:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose as too regional. Even if it transports a lot of people every day, it's still a subway system in one city of one country of the world. Banedon (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Bandeon; this is too regional a story. While I find it personally interesting, I don't feel it is so dramatic a change to warrant posting to ITN.  Maybe if this was the NYC Wikipedia, but not just Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Ditto, ditto. The only generally interesting aspect is that it took so many years to finish. (I also opposed the Moscow Ring Subway.) Sca (talk)
 * PS: At 23,000 words (!), target article is way overlong for general readers. Sca (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah it is overly detailed and recentist. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose The opening of a 3.2 km section of a subway line is not notable. If this line was in Africa, I doubt it would even be nominated. Elia Soaten (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Both the Lex and new line stop in the #1 most prestigious and #1 population density zip codes in America so that's a huge minus then. The 72nd & Lex station is 200 yards from "Earth's richest apartment building". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The 97-year development time seems like a good DYK hook, but this isn't ITN material. Even the opening of an individual city's first metro line is rarely going to get posted here, let alone incremental development (and I speak as a transport enthusiast). Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too marginal.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Istanbul nightclub attack

 * Support - thanks for the nomination. A very tragic attack. Clear details will not emerge for some time, so we should wait until we have at least one official announcement, but the eyewitness reports I am seeing right now indicate a high number of casualties... --GGT (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait Not clear how big this is or the casualty level. As of right now the death toll is in the low single digits. If it stays there I'm not sure this will fly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Governor of Istanbul just announced at least 35 deaths. Will add as soon as online resources are available. This is clearly a major-scale assault. --GGT (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, yes, obviously. Made particularly salient compared to... the attacks that happen about twice a day by now... by the fact an attacker seems to still be inside with hostage, reminding one of Bataclan. LjL (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Moving to Support once we have enough that's adequately sourced to post. This is clearly going to be a big deal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, but likely Support - I'd like to have us wait a few hours for details to become clear. It does seem it is still an active situation. I've also provided a less clunky alt.blurb (IMO). --M ASEM (t) 00:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Notable event with many casualties, very sad way to begin a year. EternalNomad (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support after article is developed - Not properly structured, so wait until done so. - Sherenk1 (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support It's clearly the biggest news right now. SWF88 (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, then support: I think we should wait a bit so more accurate details can come out, and the article can be developed a bit, but then definitely support.  Seagull123  Φ  01:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support given the custom of posting multi-death high-profile attacks in ITN. Agree with above comments that we should wait until the article stabilize a little bit. HaEr48 (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I do note that the Turkish gov't has ordered a media blackout of the event, so we are not likely to get more details in the short term. As such I think we should accept that the info we have is all we're going to get at this point, and judge if there's anything glaring with the article before posting. --M ASEM (t) 05:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Makes sense. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 愛 ) 06:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 10:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Update since ISIS claimed responsibility. Something like "ISIS claims responsibility for an attack on a nightclub (pictured) in Istanbul, Turkey, which killed at least 39 people and injured more than 60 others during New Year's celebrations." Banedon (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Tony Atkinson

 * Weak support brief article but no major issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb one of the most influential economists of our time. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:C04E:3594:1796:89BC (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD It's nice to get a nomination that's in decent shape when it shows up here. Oppose blurb Nothing unexpected about this persons death and while influential in their field, this is not an iconic figure. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. No prejudice to ongoing discussions of a blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)