Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/July 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] Floods in Gujarat, India

 * Already discussed and marked [Ready] but not posted, possibly due to not noticing it. See archive on date July 27.--Nizil (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In_the_news/Candidates/July_2017 (old nomination)


 * Support as large number of death and unusually high rain in region. Highlighted changing climate.--Nizil (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support don't see any reason not to. Banedon (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Quite surprised we didn't post it before when it was marked ready with enough Support. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I didn't support this before but the situation has changed from the last nomination(which had consensus, as pointed out). 331dot (talk) 09:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is adequate. Incident is notable. Previous nomination had consensus. Vanamonde (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted BencherliteTalk 12:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Iraqi embassy attack in Kabul

 * Comment I've tweaked the blurb, suited more to our house style. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Question. Undecided on the merits right now, but does "six dead on both sides" mean 12 dead total(6 on each side) or 6 dead total? 331dot (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the blurb. What do you think of it now? Amirk94391 (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks 331dot (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support when article moves to start class - Article is a stub now, so support when it is updated to Start class. Been in the top news for two days now on BBC. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added some more contents to the article. I hope you'll now consider it as a Start class article.Amirk94391 (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Question Have I misread the consensus, or haven't we decided not to include perps in the death count? I'm of the opinion that the fate of a criminal does not belong in the title of an article about his crime. GCG (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The question would then be are the ISIL fighters criminals or combatants. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For intentional suicide terrorist attacks on civilians the consensus is not to include the perpetrator(s). For conflicts between conventional military forces the consensus is to include all the dead. For everything else there is no absolute consensus I am aware of, so we have to judge what makes most sense in the specific circumstances. In this case it's a matter of opinion whether ISIS fighters are terrorists or a (guerilla) army, so I think it best to just give the total and leave the detail to the article which can use as many words as necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * When I give total number of Tempel Mount shooting. It was considerd wrong. I am wondering what is the difference here. Diplomatic mission are not ussualy considered as a military targed. This is political attack not some military operation. --Jenda H. (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Speaking generally, I'd say embassy attacks fall into the grey area. If the attacked embassy is nowhere near a war zone and operator and host are not currently engaged in the same war elsewhere (e.g. an attack on the Peruvian embassy in Argentina) then it is extremely unlikely to be anything other than a terrorist attack. An attack on an embassy located in a war zone is quite likely (although not always) to be military in nature, particularly if the operating country is involved in that war (e.g. the Russian embassy in Syria). It also depends on the type of attack - if its an air strike then obviously it's military, it it's a car bomb it's almost certainly terrorist or paramilitary. This means that who to include in the death toll needs to be assessed on a case by case basis. Thryduulf (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think this rises above the fray as a terrorist incident, and is borderline on WP:N(E). GCG (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Minor terrorist attack (killed two, in addition to the perpetrators) in a region where terrorist attacks are (sadly) common. I agree with GCG that this is borderline even to have an article. Modest Genius talk 12:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Liu Wen-hsiung

 * Weak support per the nom, brief but solid. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Referencing looks adequate.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics hosts announced

 * The IOC's press department—who are not exactly reticent when it comes to self-publicity—don't appear to be aware of this. The linked source itself says that the decision isn't going to be ratified until September. &#8209; Iridescent 20:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * NBC mentions a statement by Thomas Bach on the IOC website. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, scratch that—the reason I wasn't seeing it is because this story is three weeks old and had already dropped off the front page of their website. Oppose as stale. &#8209; Iridescent 20:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's three weeks old why is it hitting the news in the US and France today? 331dot (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. It's trivially easy to demonstrate both that the press release was dated 11 July, and that the story was in the press at that time.,, , &#8209; Iridescent 21:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Those stories refer to the beginning of the crafting of this agreement, saying that the final decision would be announced in September. Today they announced the agreement ahead of time. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Wait (Leaning Oppose) - saw this, and was tempted to nominate. However, with the caveat that it is yet to be officially announced, I would wait for such an eventuality to post. Besides, articles need significant work to get up to standard anyway. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute the quality issues but how much more official can it get than the head of the IOC announcing this? 331dot (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The official step will be the formal elections at the 131st IOC Session. Merely coronations now but still the point when we should post. --LukeSurlt c 22:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll point out that the ITNR listing only states "announcement". In the past that has been after the IOC vote, but they decided to do something different this time. The formal vote will likely get far less attention now. The vote has been described as a 'ratification' which suggests the decision will not change. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that the ratification refers to the cities giving their assent. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, Bach was referring to the upcoming IOC meeting.(see the Reuters story). Both cities are already excited and celebrating this deal. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Wait (Leaning Support) - Unusual dual allocation so worthy of publication. But wait till the deal is official between the three parties, IOC, Paris bid committee and LA bid committee, some time in August. I know we are close, LA has declared their candidacy for 2028, but I would like formal statement from IOC that 2024 is Paris and 2028 is LA. Meanwhile, please upgrade the articles, especially 2028. Hektor (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support now, pending quality updates Can you imagine how ridiculous it would look to post this months after it was known? It's extremely unlikely the "official" vote will even get much press. We're going to be getting "stale" votes. GCG (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But this news is already stale. I say wait until it's a done deal. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a done deal. The 'ratification' being described for September suggests that the IOC voters won't be making the decision anymore, but agreeing to this agreement. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, it seems like it is a done deal. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not stale. The prior report indicated that the finalists for 24 & 28 were LA and Paris because no other quality bids were made. It was also stated that, logically, one city would get 24 and the other 28. In this, there was no great divergence from prior finalists announcements. The actual decision on the host city for each was just announced, so it is new. GCG (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Done deal now.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment the games articles are thin, but the bids article is much better. If I were capable of writing a coherent alt-blurb I would, but the bids might make a better bold link. --CosmicAdventure (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No issue with that. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The IOC statement says The IOC will continue to work in close collaboration with Los Angeles in the lead-up to the possible ratification of the tripartite agreement by the full IOC membership at the 131st IOC Session in Lima, Peru, in September 2017. (emphasis mine). I know this is a done deal, but I don't think it's accurate to say the IOC have announced this. --LukeSurlt c 13:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Refusing to ratify this would mean no hosts. It's a formality. The decision has been made. Bach certainly qualifies as an IOC representative. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Alt blurb suggested. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer the alt. In general blurbs should always be technically correct IMO. --LukeSurlt c 16:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose as stale per Iridescent. We've known since July 11 that LA and Paris were getting '24 and '28. That was the news story - the first ever double award. I don't think the order in which the two are going is that significant. Also, I doubt when this was added to ITN/R it was envisioned that there would be no other bidders except for the two winners.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy for this to post now, with the alt blurb, though I understand the arguments about the timing of this (IOC not thinking of poor ITN editors when they make these announcements, very inconsiderate). If this fails now, I think we can pass this as ITN/R on 13 September when the formal selection/ratification occurs.
 * Could Bids for the 2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics be linked (maybe as bold) from the word "agreement" in the alt blurb? It contains the relevant details nicely.--LukeSurlt c 16:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that if it is posted now that it shouldn't be later. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Surely this is the first time we've had multiple votes each for stale, post, and wait? GCG (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Stale and wait alone are certainly a very unusual combination! I certainly can't recall a recent occurrence but The Rambling Man has a much better memory for this sort of thing than I do. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my notvote to Support since this now seems to be a done deal and is being reported in the media to a greater extent. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: Sam Shepard

 * Oppose—not just paragraphs but entire sections are unreferenced. &#8209; Iridescent 17:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – per Iridescent. Huge swaths of unreferenced material here, most apparent in the "Writing and acting" section. Getting this article in shape could be a daunting task. A good start to getting this cleaned up would be to verify his actual "birth name," and then go on from there. Christian Roess (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – Sam Shephard died on Thursday, July 27. But his death was announced today (Monday, July 31). And that's across all media sources. Therefore, listing it today is justified, imo. However, in my experience posting to RD/ITN, this has often been a point of contention. So I say we keep it here under the July 31st section. As is. Anyhow, that's my two cents, for what it's worth. Christian Roess (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This was previously raised, and I believe the consensus was that we need to place this on the date, but we could use a "NEW" tag in the header to draw attention. GCG (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this a very recent consensus? Leonard Cohen's was left on the 10th. -A la d   insane   (Channel 2)  16:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I'm misremembering this, but up in yellow on this page we have "Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC." The "event" for RD would be the death, not the announcement of a death. We could be seen in this case as playing with the dates to keep a big name up (assuming it ever goes up). GCG (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We had a discussion about this a few months back. The consensus was that where there was a "significant" gap between the event happening and the event being reported that we would take the date of appearance in the earliest reliable sources as the marker for which section it should appear in. IIRC there was no consensus on exactly what "significant" means, but 1-2 days definitely isn't and 5-6 days definitely is. This was about 4 days which falls in the grey area, but personally I'd have placed it on the day of the announcement (31st). The [New] header tag is a much more recent idea, and that can be used to highlight any nomination made in the day before yesterday's section or older (use in yesterday's section is permitted but not encouraged), regardless of why the nomination was made there. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, that makes sense and I go along with that. Also, thanks to GCG for the link to that previous discussion Thyrduulf is referring to. OK, here's my take: This section is called ITN. The question is: when is the RD first "in the news"? Sam Shepard's death was "in the news" on July 31. It was not "in the news" on July 27, the date of Shephard's death. So let's post it under July 31. Next, we don't necessarily use a notability criteria to decide on an RD posting. We evaluate an article's quality first. But let's not ignore that the mainstream media does have a notability criteria for their obits. They do decide which deaths are "notable" deaths, and these are posted promptly. But on the other hand (as often as not) with less notable figures, there can be a lag time for their death announcement. And that lag times shows up in the RD nomination process. Here's a rather stark, but recent example: Sterling Seagrave. According to this source, Seagrave died on May 1, 2017 (see here: Verso: Sterling Seagrave 1937-2017). But his death was only announced 3 days ago (July 31). Right now, Seagrave's Wikipedia article has not been updated since he died. But if it is revised, and meets our quality standard, shouldn't we list his RD nomination under the July 31 banner? Of course. This seems to be the point Thryduulf is making: that's a "significant" gap. But how about posting the nomination today? I say that should be a consideration, because we still don't have Seagrave's obituary notice via any mainstream media sources. And the only obit source is from his daughter, which has been posted at Seagrave's publisher's website. Christian Roess (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For a notice of a death, a close family member (who is not estranged and not in a dispute with the (allegedly) deceased) posting on a publisher's website is usually going to be sufficiently reliable. It's not independent, but that requirement is not the most important for verification of objective facts. If you do want to make sure, then look for coverage in local newspapers in the area where he lived and/or died. If they all report the death on 31 July then put the nomination on that date (mark it [New]). If there is nothing other than the publisher before today then put it on today's date, but I suspect that regardless it will be sorted to the 31st if/when added to the template. The oldest currently there is from the 30th so there is still time. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Stale. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis

 * Oppose It's a very slow moving story, not appropriate for Ongoing. It is an area to watch, no question, but we're not seeing intense changes to the situation each day as we'd expect in Ongoing. (And this specific event appears more political blustering, no firm actions taken by any side yet). --M ASEM (t) 14:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "This is heading towards a war."
 * Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL. This is one of several nominations for this event in recent weeks without any significant change or worsening of relations. Qatar, by all accounts, are handling this rather well. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose nothing substantive happening yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: Jeanne Moreau

 * Support - Lead actress in many landmark French films, such as Diary of a Chambermaid. Hektor (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose her notability is not in question (nor part of this discussion); the article quality is insufficient (e.g. inadequate referencing) for it to be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The article looks fine. Lots of in-line references.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not about how many references there are, not at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Two sections have zero references. -- Jayron 32 17:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you please add CN tags at the end of each sentence where you want a reference?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a BLP, so we should be looking to reference any and all claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In terms of screen space, they were the two largest sections in the whole article, so I'm not sure how you needed guidance in finding them. But OK, they've been appropriately tagged.  Add refs for those, and you'll be good.  -- Jayron 32 12:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Stale. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Venezuelan Constituent Assembly

 * Support on principle but we need to definitely wait to know what the blurb should be. Far too much claims and misinformation from the two sides in Venezuela as well as other countries (like the US) trying to swing support. It's difficult to discern what the "truth" is here. -M ASEM (t) 05:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Added a blurb as well. Maybe too long. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits. This is not ITNR as this isn't a general election or change in head of state, but given the turmoil in Venezuela this does merit posting. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not on ITNR and the current blurb isn't neutral either. This could well be an important development in Venezuelan politics, but I think we should wait for the new constitution to be either voted on in a referendum or enacted without one. Forming the constitutional assembly is not in itself the big issue here - that is the constitution that they will produce. Modest Genius talk 10:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose An uncontested election in a country on the verge of civil war is not an election. This is an administrative matter that will have no lasting impact, as it's results will be not be acknowledged by the opposition. We rejected a similar vote 11 days ago in the same country for this reason. To post this now would confer legitimacy and show WP:UNDUE preference for Maduro. GCG (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The prior vote was essentially a poll of the populace called by the legislature. This is far more substantive. 331dot (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, note that opinion pulling shows the NO vote eviscerating the YES vote. A success for YES, especially a large one, would show the boycott held. GCG (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support an important development in the crisis, though obviously we wait till the results are announced. I've added an alt blurb that I think is more neutral. I think it is important to note the boycott in the blurb. I don't know if will make sense to quote the partisan makeup of the elected assembly in the blurb (i.e. "biggest party") like we usually do for parliamentary elections. --LukeSurlt c 12:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The preliminary (and official) results, according to the president of the Electoral Council, are that eight million people voted, meaning a turnout of around 40%; the final results will be very similar. The Public Ministry declared that the official number of deaths at the moment is 10. If possible, I recommend including in the blurb that the election took place among violence. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Support I support the topic but, as others have said, the blurb could be improved. I suggest including a reference to the criticism by members of the international community and US sanctions in order to demonstrate newsworthiness.Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: Those elections have had international impact. Cambalachero (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Enough supports. Why are we not posting? Sherenk1 (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment It's been a week since the nomination, the Constituency Assembly was swore in and it had it first session, so I added the Assembly article as article2 and I'll provide some of the highlights this week. I'm not sure about how's the best way to summarize the events in a blurb:


 * The Attorney General Luisa Ortega Díaz was removed by the Assembly and Tarek William Saab was named as her replacement.
 * Diosdado Cabello declared that the Assembly would take place for two years (meaning that the new constitution may take this long to be drafted).
 * The European Union, Mercosur, the Organization of American States and the Holy See and several states condemned the election.
 * Nicolás Maduro becomes the fourth head of state sanctioned by the United States along with Kim Jong Un, Robert Mugabe and Bashar al-Assad.
 * Over 10 deaths during the election day.
 * Smartmatic, the provider of the electoral machines, declared that the results were tampered. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Anton Vratuša

 * Oppose. The last sentence of the "Life" section needs a citation, and the article needs at least some mention of what he did between 1980 and his death. Additionally, but not standing in the way of posting, the article could do with expansion and the picture needs a caption. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Added some references. I think it's good to go, though expansion is always possible. After 1980, he was mostly retired from public offices, so no need to go in details on that. --Tone 10:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support article meets minimum standards. --LukeSurlt c 13:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - leaning toward weak support. I'm having difficulty with verifying some of the sources. Citation #9 (https://www.gzs.si/pripone/ec+diplomacy+31_5.pdf) is the most glaring, with a 404 gateway error. But it does seem to be close to meeting minimum standards. Christian Roess (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed the reference with another one, the SAZU biography. Posting. --Tone 08:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: iPod nano

 * Oppose deaths of living organisms only. Where does this slippery slope lead us, the death of concepts, the death of musical groups, the death of hopes? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Many would argue that hope died a long time ago! Thryduulf (talk) 07:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Musical groups are made of living organisms *gasp*. Banedon (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly this is in relation to the "retirement" of an item, or a "disbanding" of a band. Either way, it's a no-brainer oppose snow close. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As per policy. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD. The current policy does not exclude non-living things, it just doesn't give them an automatic entry. That said, its very difficult to determine a precise death point for machines/devices/products - date production is ceased, date withdrawn from sale, date support is ended, date spares stop being produced, date spares stop being sold, date last one functioning ceases to do so, etc. This means that (imo at least) they are fundamentally unsuited to RD as we can give no context at all to the listing. If you want to propose a blurb explaining what the news is then I'll evaluate that with an open mind, but I do oppose RD. Thryduulf (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's hard for me to see this as a blurb. Even if we take the iPod to be revolutionary and therefore worth a blurb, it's not being discontinued, only the nano version is. I'll give this another day and if nobody likes it, I'll withdraw the nom. Banedon (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not a living organism, and not a "death" but a retirement/termination of a product line. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This isn't a death. "Death" in the sense of RD means literal death. Ceasing to be. Expiring and going to meet one's maker…  --LukeSurlt c 09:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose and it's completely ridiculous to call this an RD. No on so many levels. Modest Genius talk 10:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: John G. Morris

 * Weak oppose The article is in good shape overall, but in the award section there are two cn tags and two dead sources. A good clean-up sourcing in that section and I'll give this nomination my support. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the "awards" section could be turned into prose in the "career" section. I also think the prose in the "publications" section could be moved to the "Career" section.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose lead is too weak, referencing is far too poor. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Stale. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Paul Shanley

 * Comment. Can you link to actual stories about this? It seems sensational to post his mere release.331dot (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment if this is posted we'll need to be very careful about phrasing the blurb for BLP reasons - avoiding value judgements completely as we should not be making any in Wikipedia's voice (even if near universally shared) and cannot source anything else inline. I've suggested an alt-blurb that I think avoids any issues, but I don't have an opinion atm about whether this should be posted or not but very many people get released from prison after serving sentences for very serious crims, so the bar to ITN-notability is very high so it needs to be clear why we are featuring this one and I'm not sure that it currently is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, his incarceration didn't merit an ITN in 2005 and if an individual with a similar level of influence was jailed now it wouldn't be posted either. He's an appalling person and understandably some are enraged about his release but it looks like a run of the mill parole and not especially significant. yorkshiresky (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose who cares, on an encyclopedic level, that one paedophile out of hundreds of thousands (or millions?) has been released from prison? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not newsworthy for someone to be released after serving their whole sentence (meager as it may be). Any expectation that he would serve longer is misplaced and more suited for the sentencing phase. I think if we had truly massive news coverage and a GA, we could look the other way on the newsworthiness; that's really not the case here. GCG (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Charlie Gard

 * Support I'd like to see a bit more sourcing in the opening paragraph under medical background, but overall the article is in decent shape and meets our standards. Memory eternal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, dead person does not have a standalone article, so cannot meet RD rules. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Question - if the word case at the end of the title inhibits what is a (formerly) BLP and servicable article from being listed at RD and ITN, should I boldly move the page? It was previously located at Charlie Gard, but was moved per a talk page discussion to the current title to fit with the consensus established by Ashya King case and Terri Schiavo case per naming convention. Thoughts? Stormy clouds (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Guess what, the word case is at the end for a reason. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am aware of this. As nominator, I support posting it in whatever form you wish to title it. The word case denotes, accurately, that the article is not about Gard in its entirety. However, this would not pass as a blurb, and is in the news. I feel it should be on the main page, the article condition assumed appropriate, rather than holding it back for semantics. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose as an RD; deceased does not have an article. and I suspect wouldn't merit one(though his case and the controversy about him does). 331dot (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We made an exception for Ian Brady, so it don't know why we can't do the same here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears I did not comment on that discussion but in reviewing it, it seems that some argued that Brady likely merited a standalone article. I am not convinced that Gard does. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Article is well-documented in case is very notable. Death has attracted international coverage. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the case might be notable (in the tabloid press), the individual is not. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Then we are very busy, as we have to inform the BBC, The Telegraph , The Guardian , The Chicago Tribune , the Irish Independent , The Irish Time , The Washington Post , Reuters , The Associated Press The New York Times and a shed-load of other reputable sources that they have all been arbitrarily demoted to tabloid status by an IP editor on Wikipedia. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per previous comment and that of 331. A tear-jerker for sure, but that's all. Sca (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Support invoking WP:IAR re lack of stand-alone article. Mjroots (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also support blurb if that is the only way this will get posted.Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - a death that has been in the news. People will be looking for this article. The name will be conspicuous by omission if left off the RD section. Arguments over whether this technically meets the RD criteria seem pedantic. If this is technically excluded from RD then we've encountered a rule that prevents us from improving/maintaining Wikipedia. --LukeSurlt c 21:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No comment yet but I need to stress that "People will be looking for this article." is not a valid reason for ITN. We are not a news ticker or a newspaper so people coming here expecting to find news stories are using WP wrong. We do want to highlight articles of good quality that are also in the news as to help draw interested editors to help improve further, though. --M ASEM (t) 21:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ITN - One of the stated purposes of ITN is "to help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". I may be interpreting this in an incorrect manner (and am fully open to constructive admin criticism for doing so), but it seems to support User:LukeSurl. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support demonstrably global news and certainly fulfilling one of the ITN tenets of featuring items our readers would be looking for, medical conditions and legal cases make it even more encyclopeically valuable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral I see the coverage and that the article is in good shape, and I don't see a problem with having an RD for a person that doesn't have a standalone article on principle. But the counterissue that the child never got past a year, so there's clearly nothing about him as a person that we can document, which becomes similar to the situation around putting Stubbs the cat in RD. Alternatively if we think of this as a blurb about a significant case over treatment rights in the UK, the problem is that there doesn't appear to be anything groundbreaking here yet to change the law or challenge that (something more akin to the creation of the AMBER Alert - we'd not have noted the death of Amber, but this would be more appropriate). And then one has to ask how many other such challenges like this happen out there and why this one is special to have this much news coverage. Hence my neutrality here, I could see this as a valid thing to post but also can see it problematic that reflects Western media bias. --M ASEM (t) 21:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, this is a time I need to remind the admins; no vote counting, judge it by the arguments. This case does not meet RD qualifications, there is no lasting impact, and it is a tabloid story. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * - Judging by the arguments, all three of these complaints can be addressed with relative ease. Multiple editors have invoked WP:IAR, which trumps RD qualifications. There is the same amount of lasting impact for this RD as there are for most, if not all, others - someone is dead. Finally, consult the cornucopia of non-tabloid, reputable sources added above in my response to a similar complaint. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The no lasting impact thing proves that this is tabloid story. Multiple users are wrong, and the reason why is that they think like tabloids. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I would like to make a couple of points. First Charlie Gard absolutely would pass WP:ANYBIO. The only reason he doesn't have his own article is for the very good and practical reason that it is easier to fold it all into the broader discussion of his legal case. Secondly there is precedent for posting people to RD in such situations as we recently did in the case of the notorious serial killer Ian Brady. I concur that this should not be the norm, but this does seem like one of those situations where WP:COMMONSENSE should prevail. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, he would not pass anybio, as he fails WP:BLP1E. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment -it now appears that, aside from the RD nomination, there is a further debate as to whether or not this merits a blurb. Would such a debate procedurally necessitate a new nom, or would it occur here? Stormy clouds (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per TRM and Ad Orientem. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 01:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD per IAR. With everyone from Trump to the Pope weighing in, this is a truly international story and the article is good. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Pawnkingthree and TRM. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 08:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Certainly meets the requirements. Rest in heavenly peace. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * whether you support or oppose this, it does not meet the requirements for an automatic RD entry as there is no article that is solely a biography of the person who died. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Covered in international media, I would dispute the claim it doesn't have a lasting impact- there's a BBC article at the moment entitled Charlie Gard: A case that changed everything, which as the title suggests lays out the likely lasting impact of the case, including the impact to the reputation of GOSH, the impact of digital media and the court battle. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. If this is posted, it should be as a blurb and not RD, as it is the event of his death and the controversy regarding him that is notable, leaving aside the fact he has no standalone article.331dot (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as RD If the supporters feel this event is so notable that it needs to be posted, judge it on its merits as a blurb. What we are trying to do is squeeze a story that does not merit a blurb under the very low standard of an RD. Fine; but RD does have standards, which is that the person has to be notable enough to have an article. This is a clear cut case of WP:1E. RS are perfectly capable of posting tabloid stories, which is what this. We do not post everything that appears in RS, per WP:KARDASHIAN. GCG (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't necessarily call it a tabloid story, but definitely a case of media bias to pick up on one specific case where there was issues over parental control of treatment options over the hospital/government side, which is something that happens all the time. Why this case got called out of many, I don't know, but we should avoid catering to that. (In the states, we had a similar problem with Death of JonBenét Ramsey, in which most recognized that the only reason the case got as much media attention was that the family was white and affluent. I don't know/can't tell if that's the case here, but that's also not the only reason). --M ASEM (t) 16:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Tabloid implies lurid or vulgar sensationalism. Debate related to the end-of-life law is fair game. When we pick up one case and make it the center of repeated and outsized coverage, it quickly becomes lurid and vulgar. GCG (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need a new discussion. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support RD, neutral on blurb. This child has generated more coverage and controversy than any of us likely will.  His death is undoubtedly 'in the news', and at this stage no one seems to be arguing about the quality of the article title.  The fact that a congenitally ill child who made international news has a brief personal biography seems beside the point. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment it's pretty clear there's a well argued consensus in favour of at least RD, so let's post that ASAP, and we'll see what happens about a blurb. Unnecessary accusations of tabloid-brains have been proven suitably ridiculous as this has been covered in RS and globally.  The debate here also should focus on the fact that we have an article, we have a precedent, we have no reason not to post this under the current criteria.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted as RD. I read a consensus in favor of posting, though certainly not universal approval.  Much of the disagreement (though not all) centers on the lack of a standalone article for Charlie Gard.  The current RD rules allow any person with a stand-alone article to be posted without regards to notability / significance provided their article is of sufficient quality.  However, to my mind, there is nothing about the current rules that prohibit posting at RD for individuals who lack a stand-alone article, provided a consensus exists to do so, but such persons won't automatically qualify for posting.  I suppose if someone wants to view this as an exercise of IAR then they are free to do so.  It is certainly in keeping with the spirit of IAR that one shouldn't let inflexible rules stand in the way of improving the encyclopedia.  Dragons flight (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Although I disagree with the decision, I must commend the elocution of the judgement. Thanks for taking the time, . GCG (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm late to this discussion, but I completely agree with 's decision and reasoning. I've been rather disgusted by the relentless and disproportionate tabloid coverage, but RD is the correct place for this. Modest Genius talk 10:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: Inder Kumar

 * Oppose The article needs expanding - there are only two prose sections, "Controversy" and "Death." What about his life before 2014? On the plus side it's nice to have a fully referenced filmography for once.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC) I still have concerns; see below. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support post artcle expansion Regards,   theTigerKing   18:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Article needs a little more sourcing. There are three or four cn tags. Should be easy to source. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - All cn tags now gone, article looks good.-- Stemoc 01:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not ready to support yet. I feel the lengthy Controversy section may be WP:UNDUE. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I'm trying to rework it. There's a lot of fluff in there, but I'm noting he was granted bail within two months, but no mention of a trial? GCG (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I think the volume of the "controversies" section gives it undue weight, the rest of the article seems okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Stale. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Pakistan PM court verdict

 * Support disqualification of a Prime Minister is really huge news. I would support it for ITNR.Amirk94391 (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on signficance (if the Prime Minister of Pakistan is head of state this might be ITNR) but I'm not a fan of the blurb - can it be more succinct? I haven't evaluated the article. Thryduulf (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on significance, wait until the article is brought into shape. I share 's concerns about the blurb, and have proposed an alternative. Article has sentences and paragraphs lacking references, and suffers from an over-reliance on primary and/or out of date sources in several cases. The lead, for instance, does not reflect this verdict as I am writing this. Vanamonde (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support it's only "head of government" but I'd still support it for ITNR. Banedon (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding and support alt 3. Banedon (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb. PM forced to resign due to improper activity is notable. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note relates to In_the_news/Candidates/July_2017. --Saqib (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on significance, as the removal of a PM from office is notable. --LukeSurlt c 08:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Supportper LukeSurl. Mjroots (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hang on a moment We've gotten a string of supports here, but the fact remains that there are statements in the article, including statements about living people, without sources. We should not post unless and until these have been addressed. Vanamonde (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * which statements are you referring to ? please point out so that I fix them without any delay.--Saqib (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * After a brief look: most of "opposition response", and a number of sentences in "Before the Supreme Court". Vanamonde (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * what do you think of it now? . --Saqib (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * the article seems to be alright. I think it should be posted now without any delay.Amirk94391 (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not fantastic, but better now, certainly. Vanamonde (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support If there were issues with article per Vanamonde, I don't see them now, and this is clearly of significance (a sitting world leader being forced to resign). --M ASEM  (t) 13:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Masem.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support – Head of government of the world's most populous democracy quits. Sca (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Since when? Thought they had less than 1.32 billion people of India Regards,   theTigerKing   17:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support should be posted by now! --Saqib (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Significant development. Should be posted without further delay! Blurb - Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif resigns following the Supreme Court's disqualification verdict  Regards,   theTigerKing   17:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems to have already been decided, but I'll toss in a wholehearted support for what it's worth. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Why hasn't this been posted? Sca (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Surprising that this article was ready with enough support some 10 hours ago and still not posted? Sherenk1 (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted blurb. Yes, I voted, but this has been ready for a while, and has unanimous support. Attention needed on the image. The last time I posted an image I fracked it up, so I'm just going to pass the buck on that. Vanamonde (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to be around: would you be willing to switch the image? Vanamonde (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind, handling it elsewhere, since response time here has been very slow in the past few days. Vanamonde (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've only just seen this ping. Due to illness I've got limited concentration available today, so I'm not undertaking complex admin tasks at the moment. Sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Jeff Bezos

 * Weak oppose. I would support posting this if Bezos was on top for longer than 'briefly'. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in very good shape plus it's not everyday a person becomes the world's richest for a few moments. Worth noting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with 331dot that "briefly" is something of a problem.  Is there an annual summary list or something a little less subject to hour-by-hour fluctuations?  Also, the rank ordering of billionaires is of relatively little importance compared to most things that make it to ITN.  Dragons flight (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a little sceptical of this news story. Billionares' net worth aren't figures kept diligently updated on a spreadsheet somewhere, these estimates require a lot of guesswork about the value of various forms of assets, including those that aren't public. With good reason, World's richest person is a redirect to the article about the Forbes annual The World's Billionaires report, which is slower, more in-depth reporting. I'd prefer to wait until the next Forbes report and post that. Note that even with Forbes "world's richest person" excludes dictators and royalty who may be even wealthier. --LukeSurlt c 08:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Even if this weren't a fleeting happening, I don't think this is quite newsworthy enough. These folks' wealth is in stocks: stock prices fluctuate. Changes are inevitable, and unsurprising. Moreover this list, as LukeSurl pointed out, does not contain certain categories of people. Overall, not enough to be featured. Vanamonde (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The fact this only lasted a few hours shows how fluid this designation is. --M ASEM (t) 13:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Notional Wealth. Does not make any impact whatsoever! Regards,   theTigerKing   18:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Financial willy waving. Mjroots (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per most of the above... unless I'm in his will. In which case I enthusiastically support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: D. L Menard

 * Support - Looks to be fully-referenced and ready to go. Christian Roess (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Support 45 rpm section is cited from discogs, which I believe is a wiki. Otherwise good. GCG (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Discodogs is a website that lists all of his music work and it not a wiki. To avoid any opposition, I have added new sources to the section including obits. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:ALBUMAVOID lists discogs among "Websites with user-generated content" that "should never be used as sources." But with the changes this is now good to go. GCG (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Support Everything is referenced and it looks good to go to me!Zigzig20s (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: June Foray

 * Oppose prose and tables need more references. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * But dahlink, who needs references ven you haf tcharm? – Sca (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose unfortunately, lack of refs. Aiken D 21:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Stale. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Nitish Kumar

 * Oppose this sort of stuff is not infrequent in multi-party democracies, common in south Asia, and more common still in those states and provinces featuring tussles between national and regional parties. Not enough of a big deal to post. Vanamonde (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Internal politics. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting machinations of domestic politics. A quirky headline does not and ITN entry make, but it could work well at DYK if the article is sufficiently expanded (or qualifies for GA). Modest Genius talk 10:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose local news, not a change in head of state/government. EternalNomad (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

[Ready] 2017 Gujarat flood

 * Weak oppose. Much like the China floods that were nominated not too long ago, this is the monsoon season in that area and this sort of flooding doesn't seem unusual. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Due to the number of people killed. Article looks good and well sourced. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support a disaster of this magnitude generally mandates a blurb. Article seems well sourced, though is probably at the minimum detail required. Regularity of event doesn't really sway me, as, for example, we post details destructive hurricanes even though an annual hurricane season is predictable of itself. --LukeSurlt c 21:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I tried to find some historical figures to weigh how common this is, but failed. To LukeSurl's point, there is a difference between regularity and predictability. If we start posting natural disasters on ITN every week, we'd have to reevaluate our standards. But that is not a problem yet. GCG (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * With 3 support and one weak oppose, this seems good enough for an admin to make the call. Marking ready. GCG (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: While the article has enough content, it needs a good amount of copyediting. It currently reads quite clunkily. Trying to do some of that myself, but some of the information is not presented in a format that's easy to understand for readers (for example, The Banaskantha, Patan, Gandhinagar, Morbi, Surendranagar, Mehsana and Sabarkantha received 267%, 208%, 189%, 174%, 172%, 130% and 115% rainfall respectively in the said period.)  Spencer T♦ C 18:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment fair point. I've made an effort to copy-edit, though in all honesty part of the problem is with the source material itself; hasty reporting in smaller English newspapers in south Asia tends to mean that grammar goes out the window. Vanamonde (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Renominated mistakenly. Already reverted. 200+ death is significant. Considered as the “the worst flood of the century” in north Gujarat by state Chief Minister as the north Gujarat receives little rain in most years. Highlights changing climate.--Nizil (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Transgender ban in US military

 * Neutral - big news without any doubt, but it is being overshadowed by many other Trumpisms. ITN can't realistically become the Trump News Network, so I don't know is this is the story I, as a metaphorical editor of a news establishment, not an online encyclopedia, would run with. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not about Trump. This is about transgender rights and (inter)national security.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * At the moment, the story is just a tweet by his Drumpfiness, so yes, it is. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There have been protests in the US as well as internationally.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * People protest Trump daily. If we posted them all, we might as well call this the Trump Ticker. 331dot (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're protesting Trump the individual (who cares? we'll never become his BFFs), but the policies of the commander-in-chief when it comes to transgender rights and (inter)national security.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Trump has also been tweeting that he dislikes AG Sessions, but Sessions still has a job. His tweets are not official policy. 331dot (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Who cares about DJT? This is about transgender rights (transphobic work discrimination) and how it may harm our (inter)national security if transgender translators can't perform HUMINT for other US military personnel and their allies for example.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There has been no change to their rights, just a tweet. The policy to expressly permit them to serve was never fully implemented, this is just the status quo. 331dot (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. Nothing has actually happened yet, this is just a tweet by Trump. The military has made no moves to implement this yet and didn't even know he was announcing it. Trans soldiers being expressly permitted to serve was a relatively new policy as well, that hadn't been implemented yet. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not altogether clear that the blurb is actually true. Trump has tweeted his preference and what he wants to see happen. But that is far from the current reality. This may yet occur. But until it does, we can't say this. A tweet is not a formal policy directive. This appears to be premature. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait. Trump's tweet has not actually established any official ban as the current suggested blurb implies. Funcrunch (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this time. The "policy" appears to be up in the air: Trump says one thing, the army bigwig says no change will be made until something else. If we have more clarity on this, perhaps. Vanamonde (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The generals have said that tweets are not official policy guidance. They are smarter than we are; they're disregarding his tweets. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] 2017 CONCACAF Gold Cup

 * Perhaps I'm missing it but I don't see this on the ITNR list. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not, so ITNR flag removed, heading added, blurb added. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's a reason why the CONCACAF cup isn't included in ITNR - it's almost an irrelevance in world football terms, because most of the members are tiny Caribbean islands who get dominated by the US and Mexico every time (between them, those two teams have won 13 out of the 14 tournaments). We already post five football stories per year; this is nowhere near the same level of importance. Modest Genius talk 10:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Canada won once, ZOMG! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In the interest of fairness, the runner up has been someone else 9 of 14 times. So it's not exactly a US v. Mexico tourney. GCG (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support I know I'm wasting my breath, but I'll reiterate my previous opinion that these confederation cups need to be considered as a group. Either we post them all, or only the truly relevant Euros and Copa America. GCG (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Almost no meaningful prose describing the tournament. The "article" is not an article but rather a long page of tables with an introductory sentence or two about each.  Not quality writing at all.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - as per Modest Genius. It's arbitrary, but we have to draw the line somewhere. In essence, if you were to rank them this would be the #4 or #5 confederation tournament. --LukeSurlt c 13:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ahead of Oceania, where New Zealand squashes small island nations every time. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - per logic above. The Gold Cup, at least internationally, is of minimal importance. I, for one, an avid football fan, had only passing knowledge that it was on, and no notion as to who won before seeing this nomination. I would place this on par with the AFC Asian Cup in terms of importance (and that is minimal). It is far surpassed by the Euros, Copa America and the AfCoN. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Seriously, this Gold Cup tournament is much much bigger than that women's cricket "World Cup" by any standard. STSC (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the women's cricket World Cup is important. You keep bringing it up even a week after it concluded. :)
 * I'm with him: no more posts about dames! GCG (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I look forward to verifying their claim with reliable sources in an objective manner, otherwise we can discount that position as pure WP:OR.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So a competition open to the best nations in the whole world is objectively less important on all measures than one open to only those from ~$1/6$ of the world?[Citation needed] Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Worked for the Ashes. and the Rugby Championship. Six Nations. Boat Race... GCG (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody claims (afaik) the boat race is more important than the Women's Cricket World Cup, just that it is the most important event in rowing. This is not the most important event in men's football by a very long way, it's not even in the top 4. Thryduulf (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "BOAT RACE KLAXON"!!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In terms of history, organization, venues, worldwide audience, and even the size of the cup, the Gold Cup is by far the bigger one (all the RS can be found in the article). I mean who's really watching the female cricket? Its blurb was posted on ITN just because of political correctness? That's a conspiracy theory, not quite original research. STSC (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * STSC I do hope your tongue was in your cheek when you wrote that as I find it rather offensive. Thryduulf (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * STSC It's fair to compare rationale for (not) posting something, but not directly compare interest. CFP should not be rejected on ITNC for being a second tier, amateur, college event when NCAA BB is on ITNR. But there will invariably be some second tier events in one sport that eclipse the first tier of others in audience. It's the primacy of the WWC within that sport that makes it important. As to how many people watch it, the answer is a) more than usual and b) enough to exceed the fringe threshold in the minds of ITN editors. GCG (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Modest Genius. "We already post five football stories per year; this is nowhere near the same level of importance [as other football stories]". Banedon (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Soccer is plenty represented in ITN/R. If the USA men's team won a soccer tournament, that tells me all I need to know about the level of competition. If we beat Jamaica, that tells me more than I need to know. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Murica - Stormy clouds (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu

 * Weak support yes, a couple of refs needed, otherwise just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Refs added, FYI. Vanamonde (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Live album release and some of the Career claims aren't referenced still. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess it wasn't: I had assumed, incorrectly, that it was in the following ref. The content is not to be found in mainstream refs after a quick search, so removed. Vanamonde (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support and marking ready, article is good to go. BencherliteTalk 11:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment @ posting admin: in your place, I'd IAR and remove Bob DeMoss, which has been on the main page for a couple of days, instead of Jim Vance, which I just posted. Vanamonde (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was just about to post this but I got an edit conflict with Vanamonde93 adding Jim Vance. As Vance would be displaced by Yunupingu adding him now feels a bit pointy, so I'll leave Vance up there for a few hours before posting this (unless someone beats me to to it). Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See my comment above, . Vanamonde (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Couldn't we just add a second line? That is done occasionally, no? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Before anyone posts, it might be worth considering Australian Aboriginal avoidance practices regarding avoidance of naming the dead. Note that the BBC source given, and the main Australian media sources, are referring to him as "Dr G Yunupingu" rather than the full name that is the title of his article. Does this affect how, or whether, his name should appear in RD? Neegzistuoja (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it merits discussion, and with this READY so soon after death, there's little harm in waiting 6 hours for comment. My vote is to post per WP:WIAE. We post images of Mohammad, the article for Emperor Shōwa is entitled "Hirohito." I totally respect the argument, but without wiping the entry as well, what's the point? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually those are false equivalencies. A better example is Madonna/Bono. I support this suggestion and think we should change title of article, with full name in the first line. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm all for being sensitive, but it's not possible for us to list this on the MP without using his name, in one form or another. That article suggests that any form of the name - not just the full one - would have to be avoided. I think WP:NOTCENSORED has to apply - we don't avoid using a neutral and factual phrase on the MP just because a certain group of people might find it objectionable. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Article says DOD is 7/25, not 7/26. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted, replacing DeMoss as requested above. Unfortunately there is no way to not name the person in RD to meet cultural requirements. Stephen 03:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: 2017 World Aquatics Championships

 * Oppose proposed article is a stat dump and what prose is there is hardly referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't think this is a "multi-sport" event. The events are all aquatic events in a pool.  The Olympics considers aquatics to be one sport. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify I oppose as ongoing as ongoing is not generally meant for sports events in progress; the end will be posted as ITNR if article is OK. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Firstly, this isn't finished yet. The article itself says the competition continues until 30 July. Secondly, the article is woeful. Two uninteresting tables and some utterly uninformative text that all seems to have been written before the event started. This is going to need a lot of work to get onto ITN, despite being on ITNR. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, to your first point, this is an "ongiong" nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It wasn't when I commented upon it. The template has been changed since then. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I've clarified in the heading that this is an ongoing nom. As 331dot notes, we will presumably see another nomination in a few days time for when the event concludes, per ITNR.  But since we don't have the concept of ITNR for Ongoing events, this seemed like it needed clarification. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not seeing the rationale behind posting an ongoing item, when the same story is likely to be a blurb, or will at least be eligible, in a couple of days. Vanamonde (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing per the precedents collected at WP:ITNSPORTS ("Nominations for various multi-day single sport events for the "ongoing" section of ITN have failed, with seemingly only one exception" (the Football World Cup). BencherliteTalk 11:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Point of clarification: Is the reason for posting the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup as ongoing and not others the level of interest during the event? That feels right to me, and the place where we can make a clear distinction. Those are big events that are followed very strongly throughout their run.GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The Olympics is posted because it is a multi-sport event; its article or related articles are incrementally updated- as well as interest in it. The World Cup is posted(which I've opposed in the past) due to its sheer popularity worldwide. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Bencherlite and 331dot. This is not what ongoing is for. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as ongoing as per several above. I think we should close this and have a regular nomination when the championship ends. --LukeSurlt c 13:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing, but would be a proper ITN for the conclusion of the events. --M ASEM (t) 13:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Enough with this madness. The main page is really lacking a big, unsourced medal table and a very looooooooong list of country flags.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above oppose votes, noting also that championships are already about 3/4 of the way complete. Could be nominated as a regular ITN item once the event is over in a couple days. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: 2017 Temple Mount crisis

 * Oppose Two of the three events are not directly linked to the original Temple Mount attack, so calling this a "crisis" seems far too premature and OR. --M ASEM (t) 04:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, seems to be winding down. Perhaps there will be a flare-up on Friday, but unless that gets seriously out of control, I can't see this being a crisis worth posting. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Abductive's reasoning. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am not seeing this story receive enough attention for it to be in the ongoing section at the moment; and it isn't for lack of looking. Vanamonde (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Adobe Flash no longer updated

 * Support - Article looks good. Also quite significant since Flash was really noteworthy in usage on the Internet. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Things can change between now and then. And we normally do not mark the "death" of a software product since it is not really dead. (Eg there's a reason why the ransomware attacks were able to exploit XP systems far pass MS's lack of support for them). --M ASEM (t) 05:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Microsoft announced Paint was dead, and then changed their mind. Nominate it if it actually happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. The article is indeed pretty good, and it would be nice to feature something a bit different. But the actual event isn't until 2020, assuming they don't change their minds or the schedule. Announcing that they intend to do something in three years isn't a major encyclopaedic event - though the actual end of maintaining this important software might be. Unfortunately I don't think there's much of an alternative to saying 'come back in 2020'. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 09:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait. I would probably support posting this..... in 2020. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with above, but I'm guessing by 2020 this will be less relevant. "Old soldiers never die..."GCG (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - The internet is going to start changing in response to this. Flash was used all over and this is one turning point. Wikipedia can't reject events than happen over the course of years without having a highlight day in which some bomb explodes or some President is elected. Rich web games and web content is now doomed. So many different well established and popular websites all have their days counted in their current form due to primarily working with Flash and the impossibility to do the same with HTML. 82.154.205.175 (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose now. This is just an announcement that something will happen in 3 years if nobody changes their minds. I might support when support is actually ended though. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait until 2020 when it actually does stop getting updated, if that actually happens. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - So what, software comes and goes, that's the nature of IT. STSC (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - STSC As much valid as presidents coming and going, being the nature of presidency. Yet, that never fails the news. It's not unimportant software, think of .swf files having the usage of .jpg, .mp3 and .gif files for example. Yes, they had that much usage across the web at one point and it's now ending. 82.154.205.175 (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment if one believes the source then it's hard to see Adobe changing their minds. Microsoft is phasing Flash out on its browsers, Google is doing the same, Apple is supportive of the 2020 timeline as well. Quoting The Verge, "HTML5 standards have been implemented across all modern web browsers, and the need for Flash just isn’t there anymore". Banedon (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with the nominator that the current blurbs are a bit dull - ITN/R sport items and two not particularly notable people dying who should be in the RD section - so this would at least be something completely different. I also agree that this announcement is unlikely to be reversed.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Barbara Sinatra

 * Comment: Is she really notable in her own right?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * AFD is the place to ask that. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * While the article is not particularly extensive, she would likely to pass GNG on her charitable works alone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose CN. She's had some celebrity derived from her association with Frank, but distinct in several ways (and since his death as well) noted in RS. There is this thing that happens where obscure RD noms get one support vote (from the reliable TRM) and no other support or oppose, and then they fall off. There are enough editors wandering these parts that abstention on the simple question of quality seems to me like a de facto vote of "obscure." GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC) UPDATE - I removed the movie with the CN which is so negligible that RT has zero reviews for it. - GCG - 18:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose . The "Legacy and portrayals" section needs more citations (the ref at the end of the paragraph verifies only the last sentence), but when that is fixed it will be good to post. A more extensive article would be significantly desirable, but what's there is enough (just). Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support now sufficiently referenced. Still wouldn't mind more depth though. Thryduulf (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted BencherliteTalk 13:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Lahore suicide bombing

 *  Weak oppose By my count, this is the tenth attack in Pakistan this year with a double-digit death toll (excluding perps). Tragic, but unfortunately veering towards normal. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per GCG. Terrorist attack in a area known for terrorism. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong support - the article looks good, and the death toll is significant. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  20:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks good. Quite a number of people died. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Death toll tragically high, enough that we should post even given that the area is prone to violence. Article in decent shape. Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support if it's not notable enough, then the article should be redirected. As it stands, it seems perfectly notable and super tragic. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose No sign this item is actually "In the news" (beyond the obligatory wire service articles reporting that a bomb went off and X people died). --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That is patently untrue. In addition to the BBC and the Pakistani news sources above, the story has been covered by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, by Al Jazeera, by The Hindu (among the better English newspapers in India), and the New York Times. This is very much a story of international importance. Vanamonde (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's a routine bombing in Pakistan, and all the articles cited are boiler plate 3 paragraph "This happened, this many people died, we think it was this islamist group". I don't care about "international importance" but unless I actively search for the story, I don't see it any place. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This wasn't even the deadliest attack of the day. 36 were killed in Kabul. Another 35 in Ghar the day before. These were not even nominated. "If you think those were notable, you can nominate them." Yeah, and then I'm being pointy. We're going to need to work this out sooner rather than later. GCG (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Article meets ITN standards quality-wise and there is consensus to post.  Spencer T♦ C 18:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Sun Zhengcai investigation

 * Oppose one imagines that people across the world are placed under investigation every day. This may be more significant but it appears from the nomination that it's the subsequent ramifications which should be newsworthy, and we're yet to see what they really are. Everything else seems speculative at this point.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The term "investigation" is highly charged and should be considered in its independent context; it is essentially a irreversible indictment in Chinese political parlance - a death knell. There is been no known instance of anyone who was placed under investigation by the party's disciplinary authority and subsequently "cleared", therefore the news is most shocking when the announcement is made, not when the results of the investigation are known. Same argument was made at Bo Xilai and Zhou Yongkang. Colipon+ (Talk) 12:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment To TRM's point, it looks like Bo Xilai was posted after he was expelled, correct? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Bo Xilai was added to ITN the day after he was dismissed as Chongqing party chief. I added an alt-blurb and ask editors reconsider. . Colipon+ (Talk) 18:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting a mere (even if rare) investigation because he could be cleared. Would support posting his conviction/expulsion.  331dot (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. ITN practice has long been that conviction is the point at which these sorts of stories are posted. Just because nobody has been cleared before does not mean that it will not happen on this occasion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think one guy did get cleared once. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not seeing this in google/bing news feeds, but the fascist regime of the CPC isn't exactly known for rule of law in a country where billionaires disappear. Being "investigated" is as good as found guilty over there, the rest is a formality. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Most outsiders don't seem to understand the significance of this event. Politburo members are usually untouchable in communist China; if one of them is being investigated by the state, it's certainly significant news in itself regardless what the outcome is. STSC (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, systemic bias at its best here. Colipon+ (Talk) 13:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We're still talking only an investigation. We're well aware that likely means the end of the career, but we presume innocence to start, and so only at the end of the investigation does it make sense to post. --M ASEM (t) 13:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've already stated that I would support posting the end game of this investigation, even if that outcome is virtually certain at this point. We haven't (rightfully) posted investigations into Russian interference or hacking; I don't support posting this mere investigation either.  No bias issue for me at all. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is who is being investigated here, the outcome is secondary. This event significantly shows that the anti-corruption campaign in China is targetting the "big tigers" as quoted in Chinese press. I think it's much more significant than the "Women's Cricket World Cup", just 8 teams from British Commonwealth countries playing a minority sport (women's cricket), which was quickly posted on ITN. STSC (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What you consider significant is not necessarily what others consider significant; hence the need for discussion like this before posting. India, a participant in the Cricket World Cup, has 1/7 of the humans on this planet. Clearly cricket is notable to many- and has now been added to the ITNR list. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, second STSC's comment. It is laughable that Women's Cricket World Cup, an event of (relative) little consequence even in the countries involved, receives ITN coverage but not Sun Zhengcai. To be clear, it is not just the 'investigation' that is the bombshell here - it is the fact that Sun was abruptly removed from office. It totally, suddenly, and irreversibly changes the Chinese political landscape (second most consequential only to the United States). Colipon+ (Talk) 15:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't post removals from offices below head of state in the US either. Thryduulf (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yawn, "India is a big country so cricket is news", that argument is as tired as it is ineffective. Anyway, there will be no "end" to this investigation. Sun will just quietly go away. That's how they do over there. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where I'm coming down on this, but the opposition seems to be pulling the "Evolution is just a theory" card. You may choose to reject the factual basis of Colipon's characterization (essentially that Sun has already been convicted) or you may accept it but still dispute the worthiness, but to say "we post convictions not accusations" is side-stepping the issue. GCG (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you say that? The news is that he has been placed under investigation, not that he has been convicted, so why is it sidestepping the issue to point out that we don't post these sorts of stories until conviction? Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Because the weight of various stages of a criminal/political proceeding are not the same in various countries. The proper course for ITN voters is to weigh the prima facie case of the nomination, in this case that a) this act is "a death knell" (to quote Colipon), b) it is extraordinarily rare, & c) due to the role of the office in the country and country in the world, it is significant. To say we don't post indictments ignores the entire case of the nom, but specifically the first point that this is not a indictment in the common parlance. I'm going to register myself as weak support, because in each case a) Yep, all signs point to the criminal justice system in China being a formality to execute the wishes of the CPC, b) seems true, but c) I don't understand the internal politics enough to know if the change from this guy to his replacement matters at all.  GCG (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The main point remains - the Chinese internet is largely walled off from the global internet; assuming Chinese internet users were proportionally represented on the English Wikipedia - or even Wikipedia more generally, it would be a 'no brainer' to post this story - because the significance is so obvious to those familiar with the matter - it is a bombshell of immense proportions - and has happened exactly three times since 1990 (Chen Xitong, Chen Liangyu, Bo Xilai.) That the subject matter needs to be justified at all seems to reflect overall systemic bias. In response to, Sun's dismissal changes everything about the upcoming 19th Party Congress. It was anticipated that Sun would be a successor candidate to Xi Jinping; that the party was to remove such a high profile figure speaks to a total revamping of the 'rules of the game' and irreversibly re-shapes the political landscape. It is of course difficult for those who live in an electoral democracy, unaccustomed to the machinations of a one-party state, to appreciate the significance of this, so I don't hold it against the editors personally for opposing such a nomination. But for the sake of balance and in light of the arguments made, I urge the final adjudicating admin to weigh the arguments on their merits and consider the issue of systemic bias seriously.  For what it's worth, at the Chinese wikipedia, the item is #1 on its ITN feature. Colipon+ (Talk) 04:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @Colipon, maybe the blurb could also include the 'Anti-corruption campaign under Xi Jinping'. STSC (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait for a conviction. However much we might think it's inevitable, that is the standard we have always applied (see the recent item on Lula's conviction in Brazil). If a major Politburo member is convicted and removed from office that would probably be notable enough for ITN, but merely announcing an investigation is not. 'Innocent until proven guilty' might not have much currency in China, but it does at ITN (and is enshrined in Wikpedia policy at WP:BLPCRIME). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 09:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The way these Chinese "investigations" work, at least as reported in state media, is that you don't get a formal investigation opened (with a public announcement, no less) until they already have decided that you are guilty of at least some violation. Given such an announcement, the chance Sun will escape unscathed is basically zero, and that's not mentioning that Chinese state media for the past few days are filled with stories announcing local officials' support for placing Sun under "investigation", and there's no way in hell they'll back out now. I don't have much to add to Colipon's description of the significance of this event. T. Canens (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The president of the USA doesn't get an impeachment hearing until the senators are convinced he's guilty of at least some of what he's accused of. We still don't post until he's either impeached or not. In this case if it's been decided already that he's guilty then they will announce the guilt at some point. That's when we'll post (assuming the article is of sufficient quality at that time). Thryduulf (talk) 07:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That analogy is so completely inapt that I'm at a loss for words. To start with, the House of Representative impeaches; the Senate tries the impeachment. If you are actually claiming that the Senate has ever refused to try articles of impeachment passed by the House due to insufficiency of evidence, please provide a reference, otherwise you are just making things up. The way the Chinese system works, we are way past the point of no return. The chance he'll be cleared is zero; the chance that he'll avoid criminal prosecution is minuscule. It's like insisting on not posting about someone's death until the official autopsy report is released months later. T. Canens (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think what Thryduulf is saying is that the House won't vote to impeach unless they are reasonably sure that the Senate will vote to convict. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? You honestly think the House voted to impeach Bill Clinton "reasonably sure" that at least 12 Democratic senators would vote to convict him? Regardless, the analogy is still utterly inapt; in the CCP system at issue here, the "investigating" and the "convicting" are essentially by the same body, and they don't publicly announce a formal investigation until they already found that the subject is guilty of some "violations of discipline". T. Canens (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Balangiga bells

 * Oppose. Anyone can call for anything; unless this develops into a major diplomatic incident (which seems unlikely as that is not a new position) this is just a platitude.331dot (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose more suited to DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - It highlights the love-hate relationship between the Philippines and U.S. - STSC (talk) 05:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I can see this ITN if the US returns them, but asking again for their return isn't sufficient. --M ASEM (t) 05:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - When it actually happens, then we raise in ITN Sherenk1 (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Greece has been asking for the Elgin Marbles back for decades but they are still in London about 200 years after they were taken. AFAICT from the linked sources, the US hasn't even responded to the request let alone agreed to it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Flo Steinberg

 * Weak oppose several statements without reference in this BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Which ones? Could you add cn where you think referencing is needed. --LukeSurlt c 11:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * One of those statements has been removed, the other referenced. --LukeSurlt c 13:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, gets my support and is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support I see one CN but it seems from context that it was from the prior cited interview. Would certainly be nice to note a woman in a man's field, though I know that's not the point. On balance, I think the article is well-cited. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted BencherliteTalk 11:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John Kundla

 * Weak support Minneapolis Lakers section has an unreferenced paragraph. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * got that one, don't see any other concerns. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Does his head coaching record need sourcing? Just a question.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would think so. Added citations for the NBA & NBL, college is cited already. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support and marking ready, citations done. BencherliteTalk 11:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Vanamonde (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Bob DeMoss

 * Weak support for a "legendary career", it's very brief, but adequately referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the career section using sources. If more must be expanded to demonstrate his "legendary" career, I am waiting for more obits to be published to have a variety of sources throughout the article. I think for now it should be expanded well enough using the resources I had. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Appears to be well referenced. Is "Perdue" a misspelling or an earlier name of the school? It successfully redirects, FWIW. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Israeli Embassy attack in Amman

 * Oppose, fallout from events at the Temple Mount/al-Aqsa Mosque which were not posted. Does not deserve an article, let alone being on the Front Page. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as Abductive notes, we didn't get close to posting the Temple Mount issue, so this one is a non-starter. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's also not a shooting: "Israel's foreign ministry said a Jordanian attacked a security guard with a screwdriver in a residential building used by the embassy." The security guard may have fired back in self-defense, but that's it. At best, this is a domestic crime and shouldn't even be an article. --M ASEM  (t) 06:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above. Vanamonde (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Do reconsider as it is being reported as "one of the most serious incidents between the two countries since they signed a peace treaty in 1994" and is leading to a diplomatic crisis. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait. This could be an issue if it degenerates further (and also if it is accurate that embassy staff are not being permitted to leave, essentially being held as hostages) but I don't feel it is yet. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Although perhaps not the embassy attack, but I think that something needs to be posted regarding the Israeli-Palestinian tensions. The situation there has escalated considerably since the 2017 Temple Mount shooting 10 days ago, and what is happening there now definitely does not look like par for the course. There was the initial shooting, then Israel installed metal detectors at the Temple Mount; the muslims in protest started boycotting the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the 3-d holiest site in Islam; the Palestinian authority suspended all cooperation with Israel, and there have been several deadly stabbing attacks, including the embassy one. That's far from business as usual, even for that part of the world. Nsk92 (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * if there is a single article that covers these events then it's worth considering a nomination to Ongoing. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This article seems to match for ongoing news, 2017_Temple_Mount_crisis Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 19:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Open Championship

 * Support there's even a little summary of each round in there, bonus. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is a rather off-putting data dump in places (especially the 'field' section), but the prose summaries of each round meet our update requirements and this is on ITNR. Looks good to go, marking ready. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment the "Media" section is lacking sources. I don't think it's controversial and it should be easy to source but I'm not in a position to look myself at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed by . <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Trivial nit pick: please consider unbolding the full stop after "Open Championship" in the live template. 24.17.207.180 (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Done, but better reported at WP:ERRORS, thanks. Stephen 03:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Women's Cricket World Cup

 * Comment - I noted that ITNR only covers the men's cup, Cricket World Cup. Should we assume that also implies the women's cup, to avoid the gender systematic bias? --M ASEM (t) 12:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say we should assume so, or even ignore ITNR and post this anyway; we have enough men-only sporting events, as it is. Vanamonde (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just thinking we should make that explicit at ITNR, just wanted to make sure. --M ASEM (t) 13:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say no seeing as the ITN/r for football specifically states Women's World Cup. AIR corn (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on significance, wait for the article to come up to scratch after the final is over. I've never been a fan of this type of wording, though. Why can we not go with "Country X defeats Country Y in the final of the 2017 Women's Cricket World Cup", which seems more natural? Vanamonde (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree we don't need the "In cricket", since the event's official title has it. It's not like, say, Daytona 500 that's its not clear its a car racing event, so we need that "In car racing" prefix. --M ASEM (t) 13:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We deliberately avoid that phrasing, because of the WP:ENGVAR issue on teams being plural or singular. British English uses 'defeat' whilst American English uses 'defeats' in that situation; both varieties think the other is ungrammatical and complain at WP:ERRORS. To avoid argument ITN has adopted a specific phrasing that all varieties of English agree makes sense. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on significance (you beat me to nominating this 😜!). I don't think the current ITN/R item covers this. Obviously we need to wait until the match is over and the article is updated adequately. --LukeSurlt c 13:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Match summary seems more than adequate to post. --LukeSurlt c 19:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Despite of the name "World Cup", in reality it's simply not a significant event globally. STSC (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * India, Pakistan, West Indies, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Australia, New Zealand and England is pretty global. AIR corn (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just 8 teams from British Commonwealth countries playing a minority sport (women's cricket)... it's hardly "globally significant". STSC (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support on significance, wait for quality update . I don't think the current ITN/R covers this, nor do I think it should as they are separate events held at separate times and while it is significant enough for ITN this is not always the case when men and women compete in separate events at separate times (e.g. the Women's Rugby League World Cup is nowhere near as prominent as the men's equivalent) and so I do not want this to set a precedent for those events. I would support adding the Women's Cricket World Cup to INTR though. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Full support now, the match is over and the update is good. Thryduulf (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Significant global event.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support We don't post many women sports events. The world cup is the pinnacle of woman's cricket and the sport is growing in popularity. Update is good. AIR corn (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The Women's World Cup is a significant event and should be added to ITN/R. Article is good enough as well Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support and I tweaked the blurb for WP:ENGVAR. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Not ITN/R but this is the only women's cricket event that is likely to have a chance of posting and we should go for it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on significance and article quality. Is that pipe needed in first link of blurb? JennyOz (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as per above comments - Sherenk1 (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support plus tweaked the blurb (we don't add years in there), this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Taking the unusual step of posting something I also voted for because this has been ready for a while, and has received overwhelming support here. Vanamonde (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support on its merits - this has attracted a lot of attention. I don't think the current ITNR listing cover this though; we can't just assume that it does in every case without discussion. If we want to add every Women's Cricket World Cup then we'll need a discussion on WT:ITNR. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items --LukeSurlt c 11:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Tour de France

 * Support Articles are in great shape, ITN/R, and pending the conclusion of the race/update, of course.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The articles look great and ready for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The race article is fine. Also I see Froome's article is in good shape for front-page posting so this could be highlighted. --M ASEM  (t) 18:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support article is ready for posting. --LukeSurlt c 19:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. Now, that is a well-written sport article, good job! --Tone 20:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

RD: Lau Wong-fat

 * Oppose. Needs more references, there are a good many sentences and several whole paragraphs that are uncited. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - An influential leader for the indigenous community in rural Hong Kong. STSC (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant to RD, all that matters is article quality. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right, I shall put my support on hold. STSC (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support I understand he basically had a personally reserved seat on the Legislative Council. Given his importance I think he merits a mention in RD. --Varavour (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose still unreferenced claims. Notability is not in question. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jim Vance

 * Weak support mostly okay, a couple of unreferenced claims though. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support and marking "ready", citations have been added. BencherliteTalk 11:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Stale Sorry, folks. Older than the last currently on the main page. Vanamonde (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Strike that. Dates mixed up somewhere, this can displace Stubbs for a couple of hours until Yunupingu is posted. Vanamonde (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Stubbs

 * Support As animals are RD eligible the only factor to consider is article quality and it looks ok to me. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per IAR. For one, while there is no hard rule that a death must be widely reported, common sense points to the irrelevance in that there is no wide coverage of this death. Secondly, if (and that's a strong if) the story of a cat being elected mayor warrants an encyclopedia article, the election should be target and not the cat (who did nothing). I know we all think we're being too cute by half with this "technically ITNRD is for all living creatures" BS, but this is shameful. That exception is for the likes of American Pharoah or General Sherman. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think the subject should not have an article, nominate it at WP:AFD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I could see a credible argument for deletion based on WP:1E and INDISCRIMINATE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Now that I see that there never was an election and this is all just a stupid hoax, yeah, AfD seems like a good idea. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral . The article is in good enough shape, and consensus is that individual animals with their own article are eligible for RD. However there is a requirement that the death be in the news and I'm only seeing it in one, local source so I'm not certain this is met. I'll support if it is getting wider coverage than just Alaska though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is in good shape and the news coverage has increased since my previous comment. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only one significant news story and that is local. Per WP:IAR. This is "In the News" not a promotional forum for silly trivia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose amended. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Note This article is currently at AfD and therefore not eligible for posting on the main page. I would suggest an uninvolved editor close this nomination w/o prejudice to re-opening if the AfD is closed early as a Keep. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * AFD has been closed as SNOW keep. Also, CNN and The guardian have published obits which should alleviate earlier concerns. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Some people just want to watch the world burn. I've had too much to say about this damn cat, but let this be the last: WP has a lot of rules, enough that you can make any case you want by pushing one and ignoring the rest. But there is a clear sentiment that common sense should prevail. That you may not just troll the entire community on a technicality, because A-HA!!! WP:IAR!!! It'll be fun to see which living organism with actual accomplishments is pushed to make room for your joke. Looks like this guy. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Bennington is the most recent listing, and there are other RDs that are set to ready and will probably be posted before this potentially reaches the main page, so no, it probably won't be him.Nohomersryan (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As per above points. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support article is in decent condition, and that's what we're assessing. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose and the rules be damned.--WaltCip (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as not in the news. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The Guardian and CNN beg to differ. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks; that wasn't offered before. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think the questions about the notability of the article remain in question enough that the DC aspect should not apply here. (Arguably if the bulk of the article is sourced to obits, that fails BLP too). --M ASEM (t) 13:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The bulk of the article isn't sourced to obituaries and it has just been kept at AfD so I don't think that notability can be said to be in question. 14:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't see how the notability is still in question. It's mostly just the same few people who wanted it gone beating that drum. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Something feels wrong with how this article developed, though I have to admit before the cat's death, it did have some notability (the obits pushed it over, but we generally avoid notability of people that are only notable for their deaths). To that end, I'm changing my !vote to neutral. I recognize the RFC, this fits, there's no technical reason not to post, but with a spat of RDs of actual people, displacing one for a cat seems wrong. And maybe that's the issue to address in talk. --M ASEM (t) 19:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment What's the point of having animals in RD if it's just going to be ignored every time? We went through the same thing with Pedals the bear.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good question. Consensus was clearly in favour of individual animals with standalone articles being eligible for RD on the same terms as humans (i.e. subject to article quality alone) - and it's even mentioned in the nomination template. There seems to be a lot of IDONTLIKEIT around this cat for some reason. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should re-visit that decision, start a new RFC on recently deceased notable animals/plants etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would also agree with that. It seems like a game of chance if you're going to nominate an animal, and it probably shouldn't be.Nohomersryan (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Posted - discussions about changing the rules can be started elsewhere if desired, but on the present approach there is now no reason not to post this. BencherliteTalk 11:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: John Heard

 * Oppose. Significantly more references needed. There is only one citation for the whole acting career section for example, and that just sources a lengthy quote. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose sorely under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Stale. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] National Council of the Judiciary

 * Oppose There's a lot of "ifs" here, the issue would be if the EU evokes Article 7 (suspending Poland's vote in the EU). Passing this does not assure that Article 7 will necessarily be enacted. --M ASEM (t) 21:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose If the EU does invoke Article 7 then that's definitely ITN-worthy, but let's wait until it happens, if it does. Black Kite (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait until Article 7 is invoked, which would merit posting(suspension of a nation's vote in a major international organization). This is just one step. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - isn't this a bit bigger than just the Council of the Judiciary? If I'm understanding this correctly, the controversial law includes sacking the entire supreme court.  Rami  R  14:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Rami R there are actually three separate bills. The article on the National Council of the Judiciary, which I wrote and to which my nomination links, only mentions the first of them (which would restructure the Council). The Supreme Court measure is in a different bill. TIME has the essential nature of the legislation correct, but they've played a bit fast and loose with the details and seem to have reimagined several distinct bills as a single piece of legislation (sort-of how authors sometimes create composite characters out of real people, I suppose). Chetsford (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If all these laws are being advanced, I believe they are collectively significant enough for ITN. Chetsford, would expanding Judiciary of Poland to include these developments be feasible?  Rami  R  07:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - I think this is sufficient to post even if the EU doesn't invoke Article 7. Nationally it's hardly smaller than the similar crises in Venezuela, and we posted blurbs on that. It has international repercussions as well. Possibly wait until the President signs it, but not until (if) Article 7 is invoked. Banedon (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as Masem clearly put it, too many "ifs" and Black Kite's comment is correct. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment And they were vetoed anyway. --M ASEM (t) 13:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] India train food declared to be unfit for human consumption

 * Oppose This appears to be something everyone knew and it was just a long time coming for the Indian gov't to regulate like this. It is not the case of a sudden outbreak of some contamination or the like. --M ASEM (t) 21:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Opppose overblown silly-season news, horrible target article, blurb is plagiarised headlinese. μηδείς (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting this general judgement not related to a specific incident(like a mass food poisoning or illness outbreak). 331dot (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:BIAS. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  09:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am unclear on how Systemic bias can be the reasoning for including an item in ITN. --LukeSurlt c 09:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The user may be saying that this should be posted to address systemic bias, but that doesn't override the need to update the article and better explain why this should be posted on its merits. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the target article has not been edited since the 17th and does not mention this recent issue. --LukeSurlt c 09:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Most of "food" served up on the British trains isn't much better.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] 2017 Aegean Sea Earthquake

 * Wait until it can be determined if there are large scale casualties and/or damage. Nothing needs to be posted ASAP; only when it's ready to be. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait. As it stands 2 killed, 200 injured and no significant damage reported this is nowhere near significant enough to post. If things significantly change from that it might merit ITN, but not yet. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John McCluskey

 *  Oppose  Unreferenced content.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added further references to the article and I think the issues that you had picked up on have now been addressed. Drchriswilliams (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I now Support this.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Article now appears to be in good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Looks well referenced. Is there a threshold of "votes" we're looking for? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted despite being one of the !voters as it's been ready for over a day. there is no formal threshold. My personal standard is comments from at least 2 people other than the nominator and at least one support after any problems are noted fixed. Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * due to my typo the previous ping will not have worked. Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Majorana fermion

 * Comment Would suggest to specify in the blurb to give the reader a better idea, like one the title of the first source: Stanford theorists finds evidence for the Majorana fermion. Significant scientific discovery, could be compared to the gravitational waves and only needs updating. --Jamez42 (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Stanford didn't do the work. You fell for the hype. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. You can't source this to a press release, even a press release put out by the World's Best University, Stanford, may all other universities bow down to its greatness. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ... so source it to something else? Really, I don't think it should be compulsory for the nomination to give the best sources. You can fill in the blanks yourself. In the same way a scientific paper never explicitly tells you where the relevant sentences are in the reference, they just give you enough information to identify the source and leave the rest to you.    found all that in under a minute. Banedon (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is incumbent upon the nominator to update the article, which you have not done. Telling me to do it is asinine. And the reason I lay into the press release is that that piece of garbage is taking credit for the discovery done by researchers at other universities. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That is factually wrong. There is no requirement that the nominator has to update the article (there's a reason the "nominator" and "updater" are separate fields) That said, if someone says "this should be ITN" and repeatedly argue that point, and do nothing to help the article, that's poor behavior. It's also on the nominator to show reasonably strong sourcing to support the ITNC if the article is not properly updated. --M ASEM (t) 04:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, so let's pretend that we can all nominate articles that haven't been updated, because they will magically get updated. The reason the "updater" is a separate field is so that the updater can get credit, not so that users can nominate articles that haven't been updated. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The only place I used the Stanford press release is in this nomination. Are you criticizing me for not updating the article because I used the Stanford press release in this nomination? That doesn't even make sense to me. Also, when you're done updating WP:ITN to specify that nominators must update the article, let me know. Banedon (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm criticizing you for asking us to believe a load of malarky put out by an overeager, attention-hogging PR operation run out of Stanford. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for you to submit a rebuttal to Science arguing that the original article should not have passed peer review. If you don't like the Stanford PR release, look up another source. I did not "ask" you to believe the PR release, but if you're going to say "it's a Stanford PR release, therefore it is fake news", I'd call you unscientific. Banedon (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm still split on my opinion for this, but it is also to be published today in Science, so it is the result of a peer-reviewed paper. I would suggest, following Jamez's comment, the statement needs to be "dumbed down" to explain what this is to the layperson. --M ASEM (t) 04:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is not updated. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose The Blurb is too technical and needs to change. However the whole article needs a re-write to go on the front page. I cant understand a word its talking about even in the opener. I had to read the linked pages and then still didn't understand what it is only the odd word here and there made any sense. It requires a level of knowledge far in excess of what you can expect the average reader to have in order to understand what its talking about. As such until a layman's explanation is adder explaining what it is and why we should care its a bad idea to post this. 85.159.132.48 (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose We posted the discovery back in 2014 Brandmeistertalk  10:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, this was why I was persisting in asking that the article be updated; to expose the fact that the update would look suspiciously similar to the last couple of updates. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I have a conflict of interest here so won't !vote. However, I will point out that this is not the discovery of a Majorana fermion, but a Majorana-like state in a quantum semiconductor-superconductor interface (i.e. a form of quasiparticle). That's interesting but far from being a discovery of a particle, and related quasiparticles have been seen before. See the actual paper. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Any comment on the importance of this recent in the field? Would help someone who isn't familiar with the topic assess its notability, even if you have a COI. Best,  Spencer T♦ C 19:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is what I get after looking through the recent news and comparing it to the 2014 one ( link, as given by Brandmeister in the original nomination). What's new this time is that the Majorana fermions are mobile ("chiral"). The signal for non-mobile Majorana fermions have more confounding factors so this presents a cleaner detection of the Majorana fermions. If chiral Majorana fermions are significant in other ways, I didn't see anything about that (perhaps Modest Genius can explain?). In terms of possible applications the only one given is to stabilize quantum computers, which the researchers concede is "far in the future". Banedon (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. It seems that the latest Majorana fermion finding is of individual moving chiral quasiparticles. Whether these three adjectives; "individual", "moving", and "chiral" (but still "quasi") are worth posting is debatable. I strongly object to mentioning Stanford in the blurb, as the experiment was conducted elsewhere and the profs are from three different universities. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Jadwiga Szubartowicz

 * Support article is brief but referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I have doubts about the notability of the subject and am seriously considering sending it to AfD. See the discussion I just opened on the article talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article currently nominated for deletion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose We should close this per point 1 of WP:ITNRD - it's not eligible while under AFD.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Chester Bennington

 * Whoa. Support. This came totally out of left field. Despite the death being unexpected, though, can't make it a blurb since he was neither a Mandela nor a Thatcher.--WaltCip (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The suicide of the frontman of a major rock band could be blurb-worthy in my opinion. Worthy of a discussion at least. Quality-wise the article seems to be well-referenced.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article quality is not up to main page standards. It's close, but some text is unreferenced or underreferenced. The following sections need serious work in this regard: "Dead by Sunrise", "Stone Temple Pilots", first short paragraph of "Other works".  If that were fixed, it'd be main page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support All problems have been addressed. RD is sufficient here.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait - Once the referencing issues in the music career section are addressed, this will be ready for RD Spiderone  19:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support for RD Overall the article is not in bad shape. I've added a few CN tags but this should not be a major project. Once properly referenced we should be good to go. FTR I oppose a blurb. However sad this is this guy doesn't rate that level of attention on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD only (with remaining article improvements) The RD is obvious, the article just needs a few CN tags fixed away. I don't think a blurb is appropriate as while an apparent suicide by someone still at the prime of their career (ala Robin Williams or even Prince), this is not a household name worldwide (much less in WEstern cultures). --M ASEM (t) 19:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Support for blurb - obviously. World famous artist, global headlines, early and tragic death. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:BC43:B2E7:865E:F5E7 (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD only when article is of sufficient quality and oppose blurb. Prominence of the singer not high enough to warrant bigger coverage. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 20:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD with image like you did for Chris Cornell. 42.109.194.74 (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * RD only. Not a world transforming figure. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support RD only no way you can consider this individual for a blurb. Seriously.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite honestly, under the old criteria, not sure if he'd pass the notability bar.--WaltCip (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be instructive for us to go back to the old RD method for a month and see how many endless arguments over these kind of nominations we'd see....!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Bennington would have passed the old criteria quite easily ("key figure in their field of expertise, and died unexpectedly or tragically"). Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support for RD article seems ok. Fronted a ground-breaking band. A sad loss. Martinevans123 (talk)
 * Support blurb, somewhat surprising death that has shocked the music world. Not trying to make a OSE-esque argument, but I'd consider this as big or bigger deal than Mirzakhani's death. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 21:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb lacks the required prominence and importance for a blurb. His death merited only a short mention on the main BBC TV news tonight, late into the programme, and behind a lengthier piece about OJ Simpson getting parole. BencherliteTalk 21:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, Per Bencherlite. – SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted as RD only. Clear consensus against a blurb. Mz7 (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD with image - b/c an unexpected death of a prominent figure in his/her field, but not a transformational figure, imo, so I would oppose blurb. Christian Roess (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD with image - he had global outreach as a prominent musician. starship.paint ~  KO   01:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. Nowhere near the world-changing influence we should require for a blurb. RD is fine. Image choice depends whether we have any better ones for current blurbs. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Nowhere near the level of importance to music as David Bowie or Prince. Oppose image unless there are no blurbs and no more recent RD entries that have suitable images. The ITN image should always be related to the most recent blurb for which a suitable image is available, or if and only if no blurb has a suitable image then the most recent RD to have a suitable image should be illustrated. I oppose all exceptions to this ordering. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] HIV/AIDS

 * Oppose the report clearly shows the trend has been downward for many years now. This is good news but more DYK than ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support. While a mere report, it does seem to be hitting news outlets and the fact that this involves a well known disease which gets much attention and funding leads me to come down on the support side. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would suggest leaving the attribution, otherwise it just seems like a random opinion. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I think an ITN blurb needs to reflect the addition of at least a new paragraph of information, rather than simply a change in some numbers - for me this helps distinguish big events from incremental changes. At present 's updates are in the latter category (and even those have presently been reverted due to reference-breaking technical issues in the article). --LukeSurlt c 10:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If we featured the death tolls for major diseases every year in ITN, it would be a constant stream of them. Whilst the fall is welcome, this report is not an event of major encyclopaedic interest. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not convinced Yes treatment for HIV/AIDS has become way better over the years. The price is also coming down. So not unsurprising that deaths have dropped. HIV/AIDS is now a chronic disease. The fact that rates are likely going to rise because the US is pulling back from supporting aid for these medications in the developing world is likely more newsworthy IMO. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for your bizarrely off-topic anti-American soapboxing. μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per Modest. Not surprising. Sca (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose a good statistical trend, not a newsworthy breakthrough. μηδείς (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose As others note, a good trend but not an eridcated virus yet. --M ASEM (t) 19:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Indian presidential election, 2017

 * Support Not sure if I can vote because I'm the updater, but the article is well sourced at this pre-results stage and I will work on the article when the results become known. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem with you giving your views on something you updated. Many people do the reverse(give their views then update). 331dot (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose not ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Article doesn't adequately explain the system to an uninitiated reader. "" is confusing to me. --LukeSurlt c 07:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've fixed this to my satisfaction now. --LukeSurlt c 11:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * As an event listed on WP:ITNR, there's no need for support/oppose votes. However, I agree that this isn't ready for posting yet. The article has a bare minimum of prose, and leaves the non-expert reader scratching their head. I certainly struggled to follow it and remain rather mystified. Surely the election of such an important office deserves more than 250 words of explanation? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also I've added a simpler altblurb. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The article will need a table of the actual results now that they've been announced. --LukeSurlt c 11:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a table with the "headline" results. --LukeSurlt c 12:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. The article is now adequate for posting. --LukeSurlt c 13:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly much improved. Before supporting I would still like to see some discussion on the selection of candidates, their campaign positions, and the inline tags addressed. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The inline tags are now dealt with. --LukeSurlt c 16:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Because this was an indirect election by already-elected people, and the ruling coalition was always going to get their candidate elected there wasn't really a campaign with positions to discuss. --LukeSurlt c 16:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood, but they surely said *something* about why they wanted to become president, if only while seeking the nomination from their parties. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. An important event that has enough information to be posted on ITN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.122.133 (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Full Support: The results has been declared by now and Mr. Ram Nath Kovind won the election with 65% of votes. I think now, its the time to be posted in ITN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.58.91.110 (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak support Minimally sufficient in depth. It would be nice if the election, results, and reactions had more context and depth, but it's probably enough.  If the article were expanded some in those areas, I would shed all reservations.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. The article looks fine. India is a huge country both in terms of landmass and population.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficiently referenced and expanded. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Can we replace the image of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva with one of Ram Nath Kovind to convey with the latest update. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Done This may take a few minutes before the update appears. I've noticed ITN is not always super fast in reflecting the latest update on the front page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You just have to purge the main page. It take 2 seconds to do manually.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I do that routinely. For whatever reason my updates still seem to take a few minutes to show up on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] John McCain

 * Strong oppose. Sad for his family but this is not significant at all on a global scale. If/when he dies, we'll post an RD.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Tragic, but not globally significant. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 06:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the death of a parliamentarian (who wasn't head of govt or head of state) from natural causes would rarely, if ever, be a blurb. Even less likely for such diagnoses. --LukeSurlt c 06:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * He wasn't just a Senator, he was the guy Obama beat to become President. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So losing a Presidential election is a ticket to having one's medical diagnoses posted to ITN? Would that be the case worldwide? 331dot (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose and I'm thinking of a parallel universe where ITN emphasized article quality, with the only other requirement being if the event is covered in the news. We would totally be posting this then. Banedon (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So you actually support this, then? I just want the real answer. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I opposed it. If I support, it'll be highlighted as such. Banedon (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose posting a medical diagnosis of a notable person(while sad); if we posted this, we couldn't say no to every other one, turning ITN into a medical news ticker. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Blaoui Houari

 * Support Article well sourced and I do believe (can be wrong) that size of the article does not matter as long as it covers the basic notability of the subject. I believe that the article did cover it well, though a little expanding wouldn't hurt. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, a bit short, but finely sourced. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 05:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, too short and bare-bones. 1779Days (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weakest support barely above stub but on a relatively niche subject so it would be unforunate to penalise it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support It is short but covers the basics adequately enough and I see no referencing issues.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Red West

 * Support Article looks solid. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I've added a reference to the one uncited statement there was. Marking as ready. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 20:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Russian hacking scandal

 * Strong oppose It has been going on since Nov, and is a story that is being pushed by the media that is hostile to Trump. (and I myself do not care for Trump, but I absolutely detest how the media's behaving in all this). It's all still allegations, nothing has been verified, and what is "news" (such as the recent bits about Trump Jr's meeting) is very much hostile. If there is a point where the situation is resolved, then we can post it, but definitely not now. This is the type of topic that WP does not do a good job at covering per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT, and definitely should not be ITN ongoing. --M ASEM (t) 18:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Nothing new under the sun. Potentially "fake news"! POV-pushing. If anything comes out of the investigation, perhaps we could post it--but right now nothing's happening. It's just clickbait and fundraising malarkey.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a very real and important story, in spite of all of the attempts to discredit it, but it could be continuing in this manner for a long time, probably too long for ongoing. If and when we start getting closer to impeachment, or charges against Kushner/Manafort/Flynn/Don Jr./etc., I could support a blurb or ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Why is this getting nominated now? Instead you should have participated in the earlier discussions when it was actually relevant and timely. Also I do not agree that this wouldn't be the content that WP is doing a good job at - it's better than all the news organizations that I know of in properly and neutrally informing the public about this and there are several measures for protecting against misinformation and the like such as the levels of page protection. Also I'd oppose inclusion as Ongoing instead of a shortly appearing, elaborative and non-implicative blurb at the time that it's most appropriate. This time is over now. --Fixuture (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

This should be reopened. One might argue whether this should get posted or not, but at the least the discussion should have remained open for a reasonable amount of time. This topic is in the news, globally, with new developments emerging in the last few days. Which indicates that notwithstanding a previous nomination (a while ago it seems), this (re-)nomination had merit. Deserving of a serious discussion (i.e. not the shrill nonsense by Zigzig20), not a closure after just 77 minutes. Poor admin decision. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:BC43:B2E7:865E:F5E7 (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I wouldn't have mentioned it except that I'm new at this. I ran a few searches of the archives and turned up nothing. Where can we find articles that have already been turned down for ITN? When was the last time this article was turned down before this iteration? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The last time was May, about Comey's firing. The search box is in the expandable box just under "Suggestions", though I think hiding that box is not helpful, it should be visible. I will see to fixing that. --M ASEM  (t) 21:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You can find them in the archives. Here: 1, 2, 3. Concerning early closure I agree with that and here I suggested establishing a minimum amount of time nominations are guaranteed open debate. (Maybe you can get this going?) While there might sometimes be good reasons for early closure such as saving time and efforts of people and preempting canvassing or alike I don't think they outweigh the benefits and need for proper discussion-times (even if that's just 1 day) − especially when considering ways short open-discussion-times could be exploited or result in biased outcomes and ways we could manage problems such as parties canvassing participants (I'm not implying that this would be a major problem as of right now). --Fixuture (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As I've just posted to the talk page here, minimum discussion times have been rejected in the past. If a user new to the discussion believes in good faith that the nomination merits posting, they can reopen an discussion like the above.  You are again seeing a problem that isn't here as far as I know(with regards to canvassing for a brief discussion). 331dot (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The box specifically says "The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.". So no, discussions cannot be reopened or at least that is very strongly discouraged. Specific to this nomination, I would hope that the closing editor will reopen and allow the discussion to take its course, all given that this nomination has merit and deserves consideration. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Chinese-American student's 10-year prison sentence in Iran

 * Oppose foreigner imprisoned, seemingly unfairly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I also saw it in the news, but it does not seem important enough for ITN. Besides, the Iranian court has allowed him to appeal the sentence, so it's not the final verdict. -Zanhe (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not unusual at all; the only reason to post this is to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The RS I cited did not wait for us to "right wrongs" and why do you think this is not unusual? CNN suggests this is somewhat unusual!Zigzig20s (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * CNN can publish whatever they want or advocate for whatever they want. Iran is not a fan of the US and detains Americans not infrequently. 331dot (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How many are there? CNN suggests there are only 3 plus Xiyue Wang. If you are able to provide us with a reliable third-party source on the number of US citizens currently detained in Iran, please let us know. Facts please?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean in general. 331dot (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sorry. These links are about the two Namazis and Shahini (who are counted in the CNN article), and the journalists were released (also mentioned in the CNN article). If there are only three US citizens currently detained in Iran (including Xiyue Wang) and only a fourth one awaiting appeal, it's not "not unusual".Zigzig20s (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean that in general Iran is quick to detain Americans, not just at this specific time. There was the 10 US sailors a few years ago, and I think some British ones before that. If you see it as unusual,  fair enough, I don't and have nothing else to add. Thanks 331dot (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose because the article is barely a stub, and honestly might not survive an WP:AFD. The story, however, is making headlines and is as notable as any other. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:CosmicAdventure: Can you please expand it? Wikipedia is a collaborative work in progress.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I read the nom articles, I don't contribute to them. The reasons are none of your business. If there is some WP:ITN/MINIMUMPARTICIPATION I'm missing, please let me know. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No but anyone is welcome to expand articles. If you think it's too short, you can expand it. Or someone else will. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Unless the event is leading to a serious diplomatic crisis between the US and Iran. STSC (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] 2017 Venezuelan referendum

 * Question. The article states that the referendum is "unofficial"(which suggests the government is not involved) but it was authorized by the National Assembly.  Do you mean that it is "nonbinding"?(as in only advisory)? 331dot (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * There was a similar question in the talk page of the article and it's something that needs to be clarified in the content of the article, something I'd like to help with both in the Spanish and English versions. In short, it is binding for the opposition controlled Assembly but nonbinding for the government, including the Executive, Judiciary and Electoral branches. Opposition spokespersons argue that article 70 of our constitution states explicitly that a "popular consultation" is a method of participation and that citizen decisions are binding, and that the consultation is organized based on articles 333 and 350, which calls upon civil disobedience. However, government officials dismiss the consultation, even going as far to call it as a "poll", and have defined it as a plebiscite that is not in the constitution and that the last time a plebiscite took place was under the dictatorship of Marcos Pérez Jiménez. The binding status of the referendum is part of several arguments made by government and opposition alike and is an example of the current polarization that the country is going through. The Constitutional Assembly won't be cancelled, but the National Assembly will continue to organize protests and legal actions based in the results. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose The plebiscite went 98% against Maduro. That's a sure sign of an invalid result. Especially because Maduro's vote on July 30 will go 98% in favor of him. We posted dissolution of the assembly in March. We also posted and pulled an item on protests in April. There's a story to tell, and it probably belongs in ITN, but not sure this is how we will frame it. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose lost me at "unofficial". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The popular consultation went 98% because it was summoned by the opposition, but it doesn't mean it is an invalid result: it was supervised and assisted by several Venezuelan NGOs, a commission of five former foreign presidents and five rectors of different universities. The only reason it's "unofficial" it's because it wasn't organized by the Electoral branch, but international reactions and petitions to stop the Constitutional Assembly, including from the UN and the European Union, prove its relevancy. In any case I understand it may not be the best way to portray the current situation in the INT and it may be better to wait until the July 30 election. I'd like to suggest the article is included in the current events portal if possible. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support the concept, weak oppose this nomination - Venezuela's going through a defining moment in its history, so I feel something from the ongoing crisis should be on ITN. This, however, is skirting the edge. It's an unofficial referendum, the voter sample is clearly extremely biased, and the turnout is less than 25% 40% of the total Venezuela population. I would prefer to put something like 2017 Venezuelan protests in ongoing, but that's unfortunately not going to happen. Banedon (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Striking 25% since it's clearly wrong (thanks Jamez42). 40% is much more respectable, but still not sufficient. I might consider supporting if it's 51%. Banedon (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I dislike posting a comment for the third time because I feel I'm overdefending the nomination, to put it in some way, and that it may be annoying, but as a Venezuelan I think this is a landmark event and it would help to illustrate the evolution and the future of the crisis: After announcing the results, the National Assembly declared that today it would start nominating new judges for the Supreme Court and create tomorrow a new "government of national unity" (I apologize for the Spanish sources), asides from summoning a national strike this Thursday. Of course, these events don't have an article on their own and would need to develop a whole new series of events to deserve one, like the new opposition cabinet, for instance. Maybe the blurb could be changed accordingly to mention the events and said article; After the unofficial referendum in Venezuela, the National Assembly names new judges of the Supreme Tribunal and creates a new government, for example.


 * I also wanted to clarify that only 19,805,002 persons of the population are in the Electoral Registry of Venezuela, or in other words, the people that are allowed to vote, including being over 18 years old and having a Venezuelan nationality. In an official election this would mean a 39% turnout. Although low, this is more than half (53%) of the voters that participated in the last elections in 2015 (14,385,349 voters), almost as many votes received by the opposition that won the election (7,728,025 votes) and more than the votes received by the opposition candidate in the last presidential election (7,363,980), even though there was only a third of the voting centers of an official election, the electoral campaign didn't have any exposure in the television or radio networks and that the referendum was organized in two weeks. Once again I'm sorry if I'm being too insistent in any way, I understand that there are reasons to disregard the results and there's still a week left to see how events develop, but the most important part of the referendum is that it marks a new phase of the protests and the crisis, the so called "Zero Hour". --Jamez42 (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - I think as things develop, we will see a more notable event in the news. Though this drew plenty of international attention, it is so controversial and unofficial that there will always be those skeptical of the event.-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 03:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is all rather complex and took some time to disentangle, but as far as I can tell this poll isn't recognised by anyone except the opposition and won't lead to any concrete action. The wording and turnout sample are clearly highly biased. This is obviously part of a power struggle within Venezuela; that may well be worth posting at some point, but this poll isn't it. The article doesn't really help to clarify the situation for readers unfamiliar with the story, and promoting it on the Main Page would be a POV nightmare. Maybe if/when the new constitution is put to a referendum, or enacted without one, we could feature the story in ITN. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius - an unofficial referendum that changes nothing shouldn't be posted. BencherliteTalk 21:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

RD: Nar Bahadur Bhandari

 * Oppose mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Still almost entirely unreferenced. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Summer X Games 2017

 * Oppose I looked back over previous such articles (last year's doesn't exist) and discovered that the event was rated of "low importance" to the Dallas Texas wikiproject. If that's the case, I'm not really sure why it would be of sufficient importance to the English-speaking world to feature amongst the top five news stories across the globe. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Much as I hate to disagree with you, TRM, I don't really see why the Dallas WikiProject's view of a previous event's importance has any real relevance here. Link to Winter Games discussion. BencherliteTalk 08:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If such an event is considered of little to no importance to the host US state city, I'm not sure why anyone else would be bothered. That we don't have an article for the last running is somewhat indicative, and as such I oppose based on the low importance of the event. I didn't see it anywhere near the BBC Sport homepge (for example) whereas I did see Wimbledon, British Grand Prix, Tour de France, Mayweather/Connor, Teat cricket, women's Euro 2017, US Women's Golf etc...  And fewer than a quarter of the medal recipients appear to be notable enough for an article.  Is this really significant?  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Dallas is a city, not a state. A lot happens in a city, let alone a state, and it's no particular surprise to me that it's of low importance to that particular WikiProject. After all, WP:LONDON has assessed the Boat Races 2017 as "low importance" but that's equally irrelevant. Your other arguments about notability of participants, level of coverage etc are stronger, so focus on those! BencherliteTalk 09:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I don't need any further focus on this story though. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Which edition has Dallas Wikiproject? This event has never been held in Dallas. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant Texas. All the same to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ireland and Belfast. All the same, right?--WaltCip (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you say so chief. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Texas is the #2 US state by land/population and bigger than 5 Englands. Is it that hard to recognize it's stativity? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that even a thing?! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, but Texas's statehood is. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No doubt. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Texas secession.--WaltCip (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Great moves, lonely star. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's less likely than Basque independence, Catalonian independence and maybe Argentine Falklands though. Anti-EU parts of your nation becoming a full UN sovereign and giving the nukes and security council seat and part of the military to the rump UK might be more likely​. I don't think Texas is going to become a sovereign nation again. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh well! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose(and I'm not convinced the winter ones merited posting) This event is owned and was created by ESPN to generate ratings and competitors participate to win money aside from medals. It's basically a TV show like American Ninja Warrior; they have these every year unlike other multisport events(and these are not mainstream sports but "extreme" sports). 331dot (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article is sufficiently comprehensive, well written, and well referenced. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I do not see the significance of this in the larger scheme of things. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 16:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Regardless of it being the highest level of event for these sports, if we posted the highest level of every minor niche sport, ITN would be overrun. Also, it hardly appears to be covered in mainstream media. Black Kite (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not enough influence and coverage in mainstream media. -Zanhe (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Black Kite - sports not prominent enough for ITN, coverage lacking too. BencherliteTalk 21:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: George Romero
Director that brought us the zombie movie genre. --M ASEM (t) 22:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Major influence on the horror movie genre. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Article quality not up to par; orange tag present. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the orange tag was added after I nom'd this, though I don't disagree with its concerns. --M ASEM (t) 00:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support There were only two CNs left. I added some citations, not sure if they are up to snuff. Can someone take a look? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * At a quick glance, the Books and Awards and nominations sections are in need of proper references. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you; tagged those. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Should we make sure he's dead for good first? He might arise and start attempting to eat our brains ... Daniel Case (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The wet blanket mods would never go for it...but we should list him in the recent undeaths.2602:306:8046:7B0:184B:9417:2DF5:4525 (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per notability. Additionally, he died more recently than the other names in the "Recent deaths" box, having passed on the 16th, while the current most recent passing shown in that box is Martin Landau, who died on the 15th. – Matthew  - (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability is not in question. See above: Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hm. Well that's a bit silly. – Matthew  - (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I addressed TRM's notes. Can one of the vet's recheck the citations? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The sections "1970s-1980", "1990s", and "2000s" are still predominately unsourced. --M ASEM (t) 13:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This is a very well sourced article for a man who is extremely notable. 1779Days (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * : He is notable no doubt but the article still needs sourcing from the 1990s and I believe 2000s subsections in the Career section. Some entire large paragraphs don't even have sources. That shouldn't be an issue though since this man is heavily well known finding sources shouldn't be an issue, but the article is in not the best shape for posting due to lack of citations thus why adding refimprove template for the 1990s and 2000s section was needed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality There are sections (mainly 1990s and 2000s) still very unsourced with chunks of paragraphs that go unsourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Update / continued support: As the page stands at the time I am writing this, the article seems fairly well sourced. The 1990s and 2000s sections seem to have been corrected, and I've cleaned up said citations to prevent link rot. The page does not appear to be significantly subpar. So can we do it now? – Matthew  - (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted BencherliteTalk 23:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] New Doctor

 * Support Subject to her article being sourced and all BLP issues addressed.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Significant milestone in entertainment news. Show is known worldwide and has aired for decades. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, big news. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 16:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Yes, entertainment news is typically not ITN, but DW has international appeal, and this being the first female in the lead role is unique. --M ASEM (t) 16:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Not every recasting of a notable role would merit posting, but this role has such wide notability and is so long-running that this sort of change meets the bar IMO. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No way this rises to global significance. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 16:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Global significance is not required; if it were, very little would be posted. I also disagree with your premise, Doctor Who is known worldwide, and I say that as a non fan. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

*Neutral - leaning on the fence here. Yes, this is big news and will have significant worldwide impact. However, one could very reasonably argue that, if this were posted, the fact that Game of Thrones is back again tonight would also be of note and worthy of a blurb given its worldwide impact. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support – Riding a very fine line with WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and/or WP:ADVOCACY; however, it is indeed true entertainment news is almost completely exclusive to awards and deaths. Doctor Who has a large global fanbase and this appears to be a significant change of pace for casting. This appears to be part of the ongoing trend/push for prominent female roles in TV and movies rather than something novel or unexpected. Long story short, I don't see any harm including this but am a bit hesitant with singling out this one show. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasons above and article quality. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose A woman being cast in the typically male role? It's still a TV show. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The news about the lead role in a TV drama is hardly significant news. ITN is not a tabloid. STSC (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither are The Guardian, The New York Times and TIME.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're missing my point... Have they put the story on their front page? ITN is on Wikipedia's front page, for God's sake. STSC (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, take a look here, where you'll see she's very much featured on the front page of 85% of all major British newspapers at least. The Rambling Man (talk)


 * Support but blurb should note she is the first woman in the role. This is an internationally watched and very popular and long-running show, and this role always attracts scads of media interest when it is periodically recast. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: nowhere near global media coverage. A re-casting in a TV show isn't front-page of Wikipedia noteworthy.    Dr Strauss   talk   17:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Neutral, leaning support: I pretty much echo Cyclonebiskit's views.  Notability is fine but the blurb needs to be worded carefully to avoid WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.    Dr Strauss   talk   18:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Perfect for ITN - big news and many people will be coming here to find out who Jodie Whittaker is. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * People can and will find her article whether or not it's linked from the front page. That's not a reason to post this. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. See In the news, point 1. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - entertainment news is popular for sure, but in the big scheme of things, it's simply too trivial by ITN standards. -Zanhe (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose ITN is not meant for BBC casting press releases. This is the equivalent a sci-fi version of James Bond. Over the past two decades, only two have officially played Bond yet this is the fifth person to take this role. Quality-wise, her stage and radio credits are unsourced. Half of her filmography is also unreferenced, since her BFI page does not list minor roles or short films. And a pitiful one-line update sums up this event: Whittaker becomes the 13th person to play popular TV character, also happens to be first female. Woo? Fuebaey (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose both on merits and article quality. This is far below the level of importance we generally look for in nominations. This ranks right up there with the latest updates from "Game of Thrones." And as noted above there are some significant shortcoming in the article, including glaring gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Pawnkingthree.  Rami  R  19:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support since the series has global appeal, and she is the first woman to play the role. This is Paul (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support the BBC's flagship television series; normally not newsworthy but the fact someone female will be playing the role is, for whatever reasons, huge. It would be completely ridiculous not to include it, especially as the article is decent. Aiken D 20:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose As much as I like Doctor Who (though I'll admit I'm behind on the current season), I don't see how this is significant enough to be on the front page. That said, if it does get posted, the blurb should mention that this first female Doctor Who otherwise the blurb doesn't make sense unless you're familiar with the show.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A minuscule percentage of the human race/English-speaking world/Wikipedia readers watch Doctor Who or care about this topic. Even as a viewer of the show myself, I have no interest in seeing this story here. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's the case with 95% of what we post. So this amounts to not liking the idea of posting this. 331dot (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose strictly because of article quality. Filmography is unreferenced. Otherwise I'm fine with this going up. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Disposable entertainment news getting undue attention because the show's carrier is also a news behemoth and can thus use its news outlet as an instrument for promoting the show. The chief reasons given for posting this appear to be that Doctor Who is very popular, and that a female was cast - but so what?  This is so far from being a milestone for women that nobody is even bothering to seriously argue that, which makes this no more significant or interesting than who gets cast in Game of Thrones, Star Trek, Star Wars, or any other wildly popular entertainment franchise. - Lvthn13 (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If we were to post this, casting changes at the CCTV New Year's Gala would deserve to be made an ITN/R. Considered the most popular TV program in the world, its average audience of 700-800 million dwarfs the 10 million for Doctor Who. -Zanhe (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is posted I'll go ahead and make the nomination. Banedon (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Disappointing to see pointy threats just because you don't like a potential posting. The two programs are very different. 331dot (talk) 02:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm equally disappointed you're calling it a "pointy threat". It's like saying anyone who opposed the RD reform should not make any RD nominations of people who would've failed the old criteria, or it's a "pointy threat". Have you ever considered that I'm going to nominate this for ITNR because I value consistency? Banedon (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Then I take you at your word but I call them as I see them, as we all do. "We must post X because we posted Y" is a poor argument unless you support your proposal on the merits. 331dot (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Believe it, I've done this before . Banedon (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - By virtue on the number of comments this has received. Clearly, no one can claim that this is not notable after this. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That must be one of the most ridiculous justifications I've heard for an ITN nomination. -Zanhe (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Zanhe. Unexpected casting decision, but fleeting and niche in global affairs. Brandmeistertalk  00:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I suspect most people don't even know what Doctor Who is, let alone care who is acting in it. Banedon (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence for your suspicions? That seems to be another argument that boils down to IDONTLIKEIT. According to Doctor Who the show "has been broadcast internationally outside of the United Kingdom since 1964"(how many programs can you say that about) and that it "has been or is currently broadcast weekly in more than 50 countries"(contratry to your "most people don't know" argument) 331dot (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Read the article. "At the time of Season 19's broadcast in 1982 the show was being watched by a global audience of 98 million, 88 million in 38 foreign countries, and an average of ten million in the United Kingdom." Then compare world population. I can support this if we set some kind of arbitrary standard on number of people affected, and that number is greater than 10 million. But we didn't post the iPhone 8 release (~300 million active iPhones) or Windows 10 release (1.25 billion Windows machines in the world). These two events also reached every country in the world, much more than Dr Who does. Comparatively, this is insignificant. Banedon (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm biased but I'm seeing few policy based arguments in opposition(some opposition on article quality). 331dot (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've been watching this show religiously since 1978. I cried when Sarah Jane Smith Died, and Romana I.  But it's a SHOW.  We don't do cast changes at ITN. μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A casting change in a TV show is not INT worthy material. Nsk92 (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand both sides. I do understand and see the significance of Doctor Who having its first female Doctor especially seeing how the series itself is a cultural icon, but I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) this is suitable for Wikipedia: In the News since it is a show after all and it is a casting change in summary. This is, me personally, seeing a show being nominate for a possible blurb in Doctor Who. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As per above comments. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - An announcement about cast change on a TV show does not qualify as one of the top half dozen news stories in the world. I also suspect newsworthiness is mainly limited to majority-white, English speaking countries, of which there are only a handful. Adpete (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Almost half a billion people live in "majority-white, English speaking countries".  Rami  R  09:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose the only people this is really "news" to are those kinds of people to whom we should not be pandering. This is a perfectly logical sequitur in casting these days, and as we all know that Doctor Who is an alien and regenerates periodically, this is of no real newsworthiness other than a "oh?".  Perhaps try for DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I love Doctor Who, but in no way do I think we should start posting casting decisions and other entertainment news to ITN.  Dragons flight (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If we post first female in a particular fictional role, then would we post the first black, Asian etc. in a typically white role? It's not real news. Jim Michael (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It depends on the role(as is the case with any posting here). If Idris Elba were cast as James Bond, I think that would be big news and merit posting. Some very few roles have the interest and widespread knowledge to merit this sort of attention. For not being "real news" this is making news. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW you can expect me to nominate the casting of the next James Bond, regardless of who they are. --LukeSurlt c 10:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to debate that here- I understand doing so but I probably wouldn't support it unless it was a first of some kind(like Elba or even a woman). 331dot (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and ironically it easily meets the WP:RY guidelines for inclusion in 2017! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you work that out? Casting decisions are never featured on RY articles.Jim Michael (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It meets the criteria. Globally significant event covered in at least three continents.  Bingo.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not - it's by no means globally significant. As you know, the 3CR is only part of the inclusion criteria. 2017 in British television is its proper place. Jim Michael (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's the minimum requirement, not "part" of it. And yes, globally significant, Doctor Who is broadcast globally, the story is being reported globally, RY here we come! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And if that were the case, why isn't "January 26 – Scientists at Harvard University report the first creation of metallic hydrogen in a laboratory.[4][5]" just listed in the 2017 in science article? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Filmography (including television, stage, and radio) is now fully referenced. Pinging, , whose !votes were partially based on this issue. --LukeSurlt c 10:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I resolved to nominate this before the announcement happened. I think James Bond and The Doctor are the two regularly-re-cast roles for which the casting is significant enough for ITN regardless of who takes the role. --LukeSurlt c 10:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Pawnking and LukeSurl, it easily falls into the criteria as far as ITN's purpose goes, and there are very few famous creations which continuously get recast *and* that recasting makes significant headlines. James Bond, Dr Who and Batman/Superman/Spiderman being the only ones off-hand I can think of. Dr Who being the only one where that recasting is actually part of the character background itself. Many of the oppose votes above are just 'its not significant enough' which when faced with the many articles around the world covering it, is laughable. Its TV, and its pop culture, but its clearly in the news and of interest to a significant number of people. My question to the above oppose voters (excluding those who have quality concerns) is where were you when the Turkish March for Justice was approved? An event that is largely insignificant to anyone outside Turkey or who is not of Turkish heritage. That you feel the need to deny so strongly its significance, clearly indicates the opposite. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unexciting casting decision in a long-running television programme. That's fine for the tabloids and rolling news channels, but has no real long-term encyclopaedic impacts. ITN is not a showbiz news ticker. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be interested to know if you would ever support an entertainment news story for ITN? This is receiving coverage way outside tabloids and rolling news channels, and we would not be fulfilling the role of a showbiz news ticker but be "helping readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" which is part of ITN's purpose. Many people who have heard that a female Doctor has been cast may not know much about Jodie Whittaker or even recall her name.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I find it difficult to imagine an entertainment story that is truly "news," and not press release. The ouster of the head of Disney, maybe? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Can I propose that the article update has to be more substantive than the blurb itself to warrant highlighting it? "Oh, they cast a woman as DW? Let's read more about that...Oh, there's nothing more to read." GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a few lines - I will try and expand it more. She's just given her first interview since the announcement.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Wimbledon 2017

 * Support, not too bad. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 16:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose on lack of prose. While not every match needs a blurb, I would expect these two specific matches have some prose for them. --M ASEM (t) 16:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Men's Singles final also notable as being a record 8th win for Federer. Dramatic when Cilic broke down and had to take a medical break. Both finals were decisive straight sets wins. So maybe an enhanced blurb would be justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would support if the blurb just concentrates on Federer's record 8th title at Wimbledon (beating Pete Sampras' record). STSC (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: I propose an alternative whereby Roger Federer is the linked article and, as says, note that he's won in 2017, thereby surpassing Sampras.    Dr Strauss   talk   17:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: Notable because he's set a new record by winning it for the eighth time. This is Paul (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose the target articles appear to be simply tables of results. Where are the summaries of the finals? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't write them yet? 109.144.210.225 (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I "didn't write them yet" (sic). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - ITN/R. If the event articles are too barebones, we could highlight the articles of the champions. Garbiñe Muguruza is not well referenced, but Roger Federer is a GA. -Zanhe (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's allowable but only once Mururuza's article is up to scratch. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So is it "up to scratch" yet? It has no templates or tags on it. 109.144.222.11 (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The '2017: Wimbledon champion' section - which is the update - has only one reference for five paragraphs of text. I'm amazed this is still awaiting decent article updates six days after she won. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Martin Landau

 * Oppose on quality Woefully undersourced. --M ASEM (t) 01:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a big issue but I had posted the nom under the 16th because the news was only just announced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We generally put the nom on the day of the death, even if the news was delayed a day or so; only if the case that the death was purposely kept quiet by family until they had their chance to mourn or pay respects do we then post on the day the news broke. --M ASEM (t) 01:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Ready. I've removed the unsourced roles.  If anyone has a problem wit this, they should add specific CN tags.  Otherwise Landau is quite legendary as a character actor and the lead of Space 1999. μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree that pushing the filmography to a separate page to ignore the sourcing issues there, particularly with how short the bio is and there's no SIZE issue, makes this ready for posting. I expect the filmography to be reasonably sourced. (eg ) --M ASEM (t) 04:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article has been updated and sourced well enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll

 * Support When I first saw the title of the nomination my immediate reaction was that this was about 60 years stale. However I have been pleasantly surprised with a well sourced and very interesting update to an article that was already both detailed and in reasonably good shape. There are a handful of spots that could use a cite but not enough IMO to stand in the way of posting. Good job to the updating editors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait Technically coverage started on July 6 (from USA Today) so this could be considered stale, but also as the USA Today article points out, this is unpublished research, so there's no peer-review confirmation. --M ASEM (t) 02:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see this as of sufficient significance and it is unpublished research. Neljack (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment on "unpublished research": It is true that the findings of the genetic studies are not yet available nor peer reviewed, but the basic facts in the update are observational.  In this environment where humans cannot live because all of the biosphere except the air is contaminated with radiation, there is a flourishing marine ecosystem.  The evidence is not only the observations of the researchers, it has been broadcast on PBS and substantiated by photographs in some of the noted links - this Radio New Zealand article includes a 12 minute interview with Stephen Palumbi and a series of photographs.  I have yet to add this reference to the article, but I plan to later today (irrespective of how this ITN nomination turns out).  Claims about how the ecosystem manages to be healthy in substantial radiation would need publication and peer review, I agree, but that the apparently healthy ecosystem exists despite the radiation is an observation that is substantiated, in my opinion.  EdChem (talk) 03:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Some recovery of corals was reported already in 2008: . Brandmeistertalk  07:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Interesting, but not a news story in the usual sense of the term. More of a feature. Sca (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I stand by my support but if it doesn't make it at ITN I'd definitely suggest sending this up as a DYK nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Question what did we learn from Bikini Atoll that we didn't already know from Chernobyl? Banedon (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * SupportProfoundly interesting information and article is well sourced and update. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is a nice story but it's not really something I'd expect to see on the top five or six global events covered at ITN. It's not so much an event, more a confirmation of what we probably already knew, and has been known for a while, so I'm not even sure of its "newsworthiness". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted as blurb] RD: Maryam Mirzakhani

 * I lean towards RD only. Dragons flight (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - Would prefer blurb rather than RD for being the first female to win Fields medal. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb - Article is fine for RD posting. I don't think this needs a blurb, as the Fields medal is not the same as something like the Nobel, and we should avoid focusing too much on recognizing "first X to win"-type importance for blurbs, if that's the only reason to have a blurb. --M ASEM (t) 14:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - Fields award. while important, lacks the recognition of the Nobel prizes. RD exists for a reason. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support either of RD or blurb. We should really promote RDs rightaway, as soon as there is consensus for an RD listing. RDs may still be later turned into a blurb as soon as there is consensus for that as well. Can't believe discussion on blurb-or-not is holding up a plain RD listing. --PanchoS (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The Field's medal is essentially as prestigious as the Nobel Prize for other subjects (the Abel Prize is comparable, but is awarded more frequently than the Field's medal). Combined with the fact that she is the first and only female mathematician to receive the prize in 80 years, and the fact that she died very young and while still very active, I am inclined to support a blurb. EternalNomad (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support a blurb, given the significance of the Fields Medal and the fact that she was the first woman to win one. Howver, no-one has written a blurb so I support a RD. Capitalistroadster (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD for now; discussion for blurb still open.  Spencer T♦ C 23:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. As I have previously stated, I believe blurbs are only called for if there is–or there could be–an article on the death, such as Death of Osama bin Laden. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, wrote blurb I would not go as far as to say that they must need an article on their death to deserve a blurb. Given the magnitude and uniqueness of her achievement, and her young age, I'd say she deserves a blurb. I furthermore posit that opponents should reflect on the well established documentation on gender bias and editing on Wikipedia before making reflexive statements and keep in mind WP:AVERAGE. --Varavour (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb This is what the RD section is for. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb First female Fields medalist is a highly important milestone in mathematics. This is also notable as she won the Medal so recently, so her name is recognizable, unlike a Medalist from the 1970s or something. Johnny3887 (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per EternalNomad. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 02:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment A lot of people above are saying that the Fields cannot be compared to the Nobel (for which Liu Xiaobo was just posted). However, since there is no Nobel for mathematics, there is virtually universal agreement that the Fields is the 'Nobel for mathematics'. I would go further to say that it is more prestigious, because it is awarded four times less frequently and also has an age limit of 40. Johnny3887 (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Moved to blurb per (weak) consensus above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I really caution about using weak consensus to move an RD to a blurb; we already had RD, so it should require a stronger consensus to make that a blurb. --M ASEM (t) 03:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - first woman to win the prestigious Fields Medal, which says it all. And she died so suddenly so young. -Zanhe (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - because, in general, I think EternalNomad has made a convincing case (above). That is, I lean more toward posting this as a blurb. Christian Roess (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb a mathematician few people have heard of won a prize few people have heard of and has pushed off the Battle of Mosul (2016-17) which is still getting updates. Absolutely absurd. The quest to find some way to bicker about notability is bringing back the same problem RD was created to solve. It needs to stop, now. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb these cavalier postings are beginning to undermine the purpose of such blurbs. This death will be easily covered by a couple of sentences and have no ongoing ramifications whatsoever. Pull it back to RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (post-posting) Support blurb - untimely death of an extremely significant person in the field of mathematics. As others have noted, the Fields Medal is comparable to a Nobel Prize in terms of its prestige. Being the first and only female winner is a big deal, and her death at such a young age is a very (sadly) newsworthy event. I have a feeling Fields Medals wins have been in the blurb before, and this is a bigger story than a Fields Medal win. Adpete (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (post-posting) Support blurb - Definitely notable enough for Blurb. Untimely death that has been covered nationally and internationally.
 * Support blurb belatedly. Thank you to the posting admin. Very sad to lose her so young. RIP. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb post-posting support. The possibility of purging a previously published post is a poor basis for berating a blurb. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 16:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - (post posting support). Besides the many other good reasons already offered by others, the claim above that the blurb should be pulled because "her death will have no ongoing ramifications whatever" (presumably a Crystal Ball is the Reliable Source for this prediction) appears to be wrong already - The Guardian is reporting (here) that, contrary to normal practice, Tehran state newspapers are carrying large pictures of her without a hijab on their front page, and that the relatively liberal President Rohani has tweeted a similar picture of her, while 60 Iranian MPs have called for a change in the law so her daughter can visit Iran without hassle (the daughter has had problems because her mother was married to a non-Muslim). And that's just Iran. Others have said her impact for women in Maths is likely to be comparable to Marie Curie in other sciences (though, given our well-known gender bias, I suspect there'd also be plenty of opposition here to a blurb for Marie Curie if she had died today).Tlhslobus (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If she is really that important, why is her article barely of size for posting to the main page? This is why the RD was perfectly fine, we have very little beyond "only woman to win the Fields" as a reason for a blurb, and that's a really bad reason for posting.  This is what concerns me more is that we're posting something that, while of sufficient sourcing quality, fails the expected level of detail one would expect for a person that supposedly has great reknown. Maybe it could have been improved, I don't know, but it should have been before elevating an RD to a blurb. --M ASEM  (t) 04:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:Systemic bias. When Chinese architect Wang Shu won the Pritzker Prize, he did not even have an article. It was posted to ITN regardless. Non-Western topics are seriously underrepresented on English Wikipedia. -Zanhe (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are going to be articles that can probably be expanded for non-Western winners of international awards like this. RD is a means to not worry about getting these up to GA-quality or the like so that we're not ignoring such deaths. But when we are talking about blurbs, that's a much higher metric that has to be reached, and a woefully short article - which probably can be expanded readily with her winning the Fields, moreso about her death, should have been done before a blurb was considered. --M ASEM  (t) 05:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur; there is far too much focus on the importance of the subject and not the quality of article in general for blurbs. There is only one comment on the quality of the article pre-blurb posting that called it "pretty-good." GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. Tragic as her death is, this is exactly what we have RD for. This is not a world-changing event with massive implications; instead it is the unfortunate death of a notable person. Ergo this should be on RD, not a blurb. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] 2017 Temple Mount shooting

 * Oppose Not seeing which part of this is noteworthy. 2 fatalities (please do not include perps to goose the body count) in this area does not seem especially unusual. Is the Mufti's directive or Israeli response unusual? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems of sufficient quality. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Violence in a known area of high violence (Ala mass gun shootings in the US). Per BBC "Forty-four Israelis and five foreign nationals have been killed in nearly two years of such attacks. At least 255 Palestinians - most of them attackers, Israel says - have also been killed in that period, news agencies report. Others have been killed in clashes with Israeli troops." I don't see what makes this any different. --M ASEM (t) 13:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not a significant shooting incident. STSC (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Article quality is good. Shooting has recieved coverage in national and international media. And has already lead to restrictions and political comments. To say that it is insignificant is just wrong.BabbaQ (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Business as usual in the ongoing conflict in that region.--WaltCip (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - highly symbolic location, strong repercussions. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:7C67:D283:1D5F:7E42 (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose pretty routine, doubt it will have any significant impact. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 16:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:ROUTINE, WP:NOTNEWS. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  17:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Evidently this editor has not read WP:ROUTINE, WP:NOTNEWS - closing admin should discount this vote. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:7C67:D283:1D5F:7E42 (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support This is an internationally covered incident that is on the front page of most newspapers' websites. Our article is in good condition. Mamyles (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose It's possible this could escalate, but at the moment we are talking about two people murdered in a part of the world where religiously motivated homicide is sadly routine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - par for the course. To feature this would amount to WP:UNDUE, something we should avoid in a topic so inflammatory. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - moreover, only the second alt blurb would be considered factually accurate given agreed upon convention per death tolls. Perp deaths do not count. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Corrected. --Jenda H. (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Strongest support possible - Holiest site in Judaism, third holiest site in Islam further more holiest site of Five Eyes countries. As well, Jumu'ah prayer at Al-Masjid al-Aqsa was cancelled because of entry restrictions by the Government of Israel. Worldwide coverage. 65.95.136.96 (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Another relatively minor hate crime in Israel. Sca (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not convinced the location outweighs the low death toll and the frequency of such incidents. Neljack (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - per Ad Orientem. Christian Roess (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as sadly routine. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per IP and ongoing coverage . It's also an international incident which should count for something. Banedon (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Shoud we open this now? This is not just going away soon. Mayor international development. --Jenda H. (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This nomination is almost stale (it will be automatically archived in less than 12 hours) so I suggest reopening at this point will be essentially pointless. However, if there has been significant related development that has occurred after the nomination was closed, then I suggest starting a new nomination for a blurb or ongoing might be fruitful. I have not looked at the story or article so don't currently have an opinion about whether I'd support or oppose such a nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Abdul-Rahman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

 * Support RD; article is relatively brief but seems adequately sourced. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Calibri font in "Fontgate"

 * Maybe Panama Papers case is/will be notable enough for a nomination. But ITN is not the right place to highlight this detail. --LukeSurlt c 18:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose perhaps DYK, but certainly not ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Reluctant oppose. Strongly recommend DYK, unless we've seen this before. ... and what's Sharif doing with a cocktail anyway?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a trivial allegation in the grand scheme of things. Both articles also draw attention to Wikipedia's article about Calibri, which suggests a danger of self-obsession if we post this. BencherliteTalk 21:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The Calibri finding is not a trivial allegation but a vital piece of evidence; the investigators actually concluded that the document of "2006" was forged based on that finding. STSC (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * By making the blurb focus on the font issue, you are trivialising the story. And as Banedon says, this isn't the end of the line anyway. BencherliteTalk 07:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The wording of the blurb is fully based on the sources; the sources just highlight the surprising Calibri finding in the scandal investigation against a head of state. That is not "trivialising", and it's newsworthy. STSC (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If anything about this story was to be posted - and at present you are the lone voice here - it should be along the lines of "In the Panama Papers case against Nawaz Sharif, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, a court-ordered report concludes that his daughter falsified evidence to the Supreme Court", or "A report commissioned by the Supreme Court of Pakistan during its consideration of allegations of corruption against the Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, concludes that he and his family cannot justify their income and assets", or something like that. Absolutely no mention of fonts, because that obscures the conclusions. But these blurbs simply ram home Banedon's point that this is not the end of the story - it is not the Supreme Court finding corruption or forgery, but a step towards possible outcomes. BencherliteTalk 08:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the points above, but this is a case where I really wish DYK could accept these type of once-in-a-while oddities of interesting but trivial stories regardless of the article's age. (a type of blurb you read and have to double take to see the humor or irony of it) --M ASEM (t) 00:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose feels like this is an incremental piece of news. If this leads to a verdict in which this is the crucial piece of deciding evidence, then sure. As it is it's not the end of the story; certainly it's possible the court finds Nawaz Sharif not guilty in spite of this. I don't think this is appropriate to ITN (yet). If there's a verdict that specifically mentions this, then I'll support. Banedon (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted as Blurb] Death of Liu Xiaobo

 * Article needs updating and sourcing (four "cn" tags at present). RD, certainly, when article is in better shape, but not presently convinced of blurbability. (edit conflict as I was in the process of nominating this for RD but EternalNomad pressed "save changes" before I did...) BencherliteTalk 13:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD (but oppose on present article quality), Neutral on blurb  The RD is obvious but too many CNs floating around in the current, article. I'm not sure on the blurb. The fact that he had just been released from prison about 2 weeks prior due to having terminal cancer might make this a blurbable story, but at the same time, this isn't a former world leader or the like who's death is going to be recognized in major fashion across the global. --M ASEM  (t) 13:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To expand, on reading the NYtimes obit, it is rather important to recognize that he was still a prisoner, only released on medical parole and effectively under close guard while they tried to treat him. I would support a blurb that addressed that facet, and not just that he passed away. --M ASEM (t) 14:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose not ready for RD yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Highly prominent figure, "China's most prominent human rights and democracy advocate" as the BBC describes him, extensive worldwide coverage of his death (current main front page story of the BBC for example). --Bjerrebæk (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That may depend where you are: I'm UK-based and the BBC News website's main story here is a Theresa May interview; the Charlie Gard story is also on the top row, with Liu Xiaobo on the left on the second row of stories. BencherliteTalk 15:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Article quality is not horrible, but it needs some work before we can post this to the front page. There are some gaps in referencing and there is an orange tag that will need to go away. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb RD is what this is for, RD is fine. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb, once the article issues are addressed. A notable figure, but nowhere near the world-changing standard we should apply for blurbs. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. At the very top level among his field, and even if not, his death seems to be notable itself. Top news from what I see. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, once the article is properly cleaned-up. An international pro-democracy icon, whose death is being covered as such. Nsk92 (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Both the individual and his treatment by authorities in the period leading up to his death are highly notable.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. The death of a Nobel Laureate prisoner of conscience in political custody, certain to attract world wide discussion, makes this story worthy of a mention above RD. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - Just RD is fine, let him quietly rest in peace. STSC (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - that's what RD is for. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:4485:289:24C1:749C (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as I would for any Nobel Prize winner. Connor Behan (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Any Nobel winner? Every dead physicist, chemist, writer etc who won a Nobel prize deserves a blurb? That's far from being the current view. BencherliteTalk 21:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * True, the argument I gave is not good. The fact that he received the prize while in prison was what made it unforgettable though. Connor Behan (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, considering he died in prison and never received his prize. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 20:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment it's about the ninth story on the BBC homepage. It's really not going to create a Death of Liu Xiaobo article, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - Nobel laureate status does not guarantee a blurb. Given that the entire European Union was awarded the prize, awardees die daily. I don't think the news worthiness of his death given his imprisonment separates him from the crowd either. Fails to qualify per the self-imposed Mandela-Thatcher-Kohl paradigm. Firm support for RD, however. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We're in the minority, but I'm with you. In an RD world, my blurb bar is exceedingly high. German Chancellors and Chinese dissidents don't top it. Neither did Carrie Fisher or that dead boxer. We have to stop with the "Posted X, therefore we should post Y" --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What you are saying is clearly that you don't want to post any death-related blurbs at all, not even for the most notable politicians on the world stage. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For God's sake, he wasn't a politician. STSC (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And nobody claimed he was. But the editor above claimed that not even Merkel, the world's (or at least the western world's) most prominent leader as of 2017, would qualify. If not even Merkel would qualify, I don't know of any politician who would. So the issue appears to be a general opposition to posting death-related blurbs at all. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Mandela and Thatcher: Iconic leaders known worldwide well after retirement, state funerlas that generated days of news, subjects of major motion pictures. That's my bar for politicians for example. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thatcher does not rise to the level of Merkel and never did. Nobody called her the leader of the free world or the western world's most important political leader. Mandela's main claim to fame was his Nobel Peace Prize for his anti-apartheid activities, not his later service as president for five years in a country that is a small player on the world stage. Liu, like Mandela, also received the Nobel Peace Prize. So he could be said to be the Chinese equivalent of Mandela. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Uhm, Mandela had the whole first black president of post apartheid South Africa and "Father of the Nation" thing going for him. Merkel is still alive, I have no idea what your problem is there. Thatcherism vs Merkelism? Doesn't seem to be a way to compare. Anyway, I don't mind that Xiaobo pushed off the staggeringly irrelevant rugby game, but the whole point of RD was so that obit blurbs wouldn't push off stories for things that are actually happening. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "In an RD world, my blurb bar is exceedingly high." I'm of the exact opposite opinion. In a paradigm where everyone gets an RD, a blurb is how we can indicate a notable passing. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support blurb 100 times more important than Carrie Fisher and the other nobodies that got posted 172.56.6.25 (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not so. (Just to make it clear, I support as well, but for the circumstances surrounding the death, not the importance of the person.) I would hardly call Carrie Fisher, David Bowie, Prince, Nelson Mandela, and Margaret Thatcher "nobodies". See Google results- | about 7 million for Liu, | about 40 million for Fisher, | about 50 million for David Bowie, | about 15 million for Margaret Thatcher, | about 36 million for Nelson Mandela, | about 28 million for Prince. See also David Bowie discography, | this, and 92 kB of readable prose size for Nelson Mandela, 63 kB readable prose size for Margaret Thatcher, and 57 kB readable prose size for Prince, versus 25 kB for Liu. These people were definitely not nobodies. -A la d   insane   (Channel 2)  16:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb And there are still some CN tags that need fixing before posting to RD. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - very important figure. Award/prize winner. Top field.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. Mostly because it becomes non-neutral to omit the information that he died from cancer in custody. 112.65.190.108 (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb very prominent Chinese figure. starship.paint ~  KO   02:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, he is only the second person in Nobel history who has died with his prize uncollected. The most recent Nobel laureate to die (before Liu) appears to be Alexei Alexeyevich Abrikosov (a Physics laureate in 2003) on March 29 of this year; he was aged 88. So this is by no means a 'common' occurrence, especially considering Liu's much younger age. Johnny3887 (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb it's not an usual death of a Nobel laureate. He died in state custody, and it's the first time a Nobel Peace laureate died in custody since Carl von Ossietzky died in 1938 in Nazi Germany.--Stevenliuyi (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Death show's great significance with his death being in custody while being a Nobel Prize winner and article has been in good condition upon his death. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggest immediate post to RD, discussion on blurb can continue. Nobody seems to be complaining about the quality of the current article, and nobody disputes that his death isn't a significant news story. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted as blurb, as per the majority of people in this discussion. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality

 * Support - was going to nominate this. Large protest on a topic which Wikipedia famously stood for a few years ago. In the news rather prominently. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support except please include the Internet Archive (pictured) in place of Amazon. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Not a question of being in the news, and while US-centric, adoption of a non-Net Neutrality stance here will slowly affect the rest of the world. But we're talking a single day of protest which amounted mostly to companies reminding their readers to submit comments to the FCC to state their urge against their new rules. Contrast that to SOPA where many many websites blacked out making them unusable, a much more pro-active stance to demonstrate the resistance against SOPA. The issue on Net Neutrality is less about free speech compared to SOPA, and more about dollars and bottom lines. --M ASEM (t) 01:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The fact of the matter is that this simply did not generate as much Internet buzz as the SOPA protests.--WaltCip (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Perhaps worth consideration if this law is actually passed.  Spencer T♦ C 23:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Notable news with significant press coverage. One might argue that it's US-centric however due to three things it also has a global angle which imo is sufficient here:
 * It was called the "Internet-Wide Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality" with "Internet-Wide" implying also non-US citizens to participate; which at least some have done
 * Due to the global nature of the Internet unneutrality of it in any country can have effects also on citizens outside the US. This is by the communication and content from US citizens and potentially companies available/present on the Internet and due to potentially influencing the ways multinational corporations and other nations act on this issue.
 * The protest also reached out to citizens of other countries due to the way those (most?) companies participated (such as by showing a banner to all site-visitors regardless of country).
 * While it did not generate as much buzz as the SOPA protests it did gain quite some attention & coverage which should be enough for posting.
 * However I oppose both blurbs and suggest to remove all specific company names as ITN is no advertising space and as (as of right now) it's hard to best assess which of the many to name (e.g. their impact/reach of participation).
 * --Fixuture (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Chuck Blazer

 * Support satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I concur with the Rambling Man that this article has sufficient citation and is in good enough condition to be adequate for RD Harambe Walks (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted BencherliteTalk 13:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Lula da Silva sentenced

 * Support on principle, oppose on quality The conviction/sentence of a previous head of state in a large scale corruption deal is clearly material for ITN, but I'm a bit worried about a number of paras in da Silva's article lacking sources, and I would also hope that we could feature Operation Car Wash but that has a few cn's floating around too. --M ASEM (t) 18:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cambalachero (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, definitely a notable occurrence. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 18:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose several paragraphs missing citations --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Note that I had previously removed some tagged unreferenced parts, and a user restored the unreferenced info in the meantime. Cambalachero (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits; unusual for someone of his position. 331dot (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support very notable. --Bruzaholm (talk) 10:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, despite the inevitable appeal. I've not assessed the article quality. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose he's not going to prison, appeal means he's out now and will be for some time. Once he's sent down, then it's a story. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support By the time he starts his sentence, this will be "old news." This is the correct occasion to report the story. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The point is that he may never start his sentence. He's nowhere near a prison right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In the past for any major story about a court case, it is always been the point of conviction and sentencing that is used as the ITN point, regardless of conditions of the sentence, the potential for appeals, etc. We know he's probably not going to see a prison cell, but he has been labelled guilty by the court, and that's the element of importance for ITN. --M ASEM (t) 13:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I get all that, the point remains that he is not in prison, will not be going to prison in the near future and may actually never go to prison. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The point remains that the blurb doesn't say he's been imprisoned. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it also doesn't say that he's been allowed to remain prison-free indefinitely until such a time any appeal is heard and found against him. It doesn't even stop him running for President again!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Should he be in jail with no chance of appeal? I'm sure a lot of us would agree with this stance, but unfortunately, between how justice systems work, as well as how politics at this level works, that's not happening. We can be bitter about that, and feel he deserves more retribution, but putting aside that POV, he was labelled guilty of corruption charges and was to be imprisoned. Doesn't matter what happened after that point, the former leader of a major nation-state being convicted of a serious crime is what fits ITN. --M ASEM (t) 14:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't follow, I'm not arguing anything about the rights and wrongs of the case, just that the blurb is incomplete, he has appealed, is not in prison and may never go to prison. That's all. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a long explanation make the blurb too long? Cambalachero (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Objections understood, but the mere fact that a widely known former head of state (of the largest country in South America) has been convicted/sentenced is prima facie significant. Sca (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The conviction of a former head of state makes this ITN worthy, even if the inevitable appeals are still to come. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Larsen Ice Shelf

 * This is sufficiently notable. Larsen_Ice_Shelf needs a little more text on this current break-off, and needs to reference news articles from this month (current reference is from January). --LukeSurlt c 12:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is adequate for posting now. --LukeSurlt c 14:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support One of the largest ice shelf ever recorded being monitored for a long time now. Very notable 45.72.139.154 (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong support Notable, global news. It is also very significant, affects many and is getting much press coverage. Instead of "sq km" maybe write km². I also added some sources including one which has a photo of the actual breakoff. --Fixuture (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I had seen concerns of this in the weeks prior, but since authorities agree it's broken loose, this is the point to post. --M ASEM (t) 13:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Very strong support - More people need to be paying attention to the effects of climate change on this planet.--WaltCip (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not clear that this particular breakoff is linked to climate change − or at least: that it's caused by it. Dr. Daniela Jansen, the glaciologist from the Alfred Wegener Institute who discovered the break, suggests it might have to do with climate change though. But as said that's not clear and the news articles linked above also make that clear. --Fixuture (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong support. DS (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. An important and rare event.  However, I also find myself unimpressed with the somewhat disorganized wall-of-text in the relevant part of the article.  While I don't think it should prevent an appearance on ITN, I would encourage someone to work on improving the prose, especially with an eye to the big-picture organization and flow.  As a first thought, it might be helpful to a create separate section for the iceberg formation event and separate that from the general physical characteristics of the larger ice shelf.  Dragons flight (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support it's in the news, update is what you can expect for a piece of floating ice, article is ok. Yawn at the editorializing here though I'm sure more than a few readers cared about Gagnam Style so lets not decide whats news for them. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. A pic in the ITN box would be nice. --Tone 14:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. The largest iceberg in years. This image or an updated version might also be useful. 123.165.170.148 (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately at a 100px, those labels would be lost. ESA has a really good image but ESA's work is generally not free license. NASA has the next best image, released today that shows the full crack, but the image would need to be refined better to make it clear at 100px. --M ASEM (t) 14:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Larson_c_crack_nasa_worldview_20170712.jpg (I messed up the name but have requested the move at commons) is a good image for this. --M ASEM (t) 14:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, one moment please. --Fixuture (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC) So now I've uploaded File:Larsen C breaks.jpg. I'll try to modify it for a proper picture if nobody else does that. Another thing people could do would be to clarify the copyright of this timelapse gif "Monitoring the rift". You'd probably need to contact the Swansea University for that. --Fixuture (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC) So now I've also uploaded a few modified versions under "File history" of c:File:Larsen_C_breaks.jpg. (Not sure if it's possible to set a default image for it; if it is please set the 1st or 2nd image as default.) Maybe you can use one of those version as the image shown in the ITN-tile. But due to the small size of the tile the current image is probably a better choice. --Fixuture (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The scientists reporting this go for 5,800 km2, which I think should be the level of precision we go for rather than 6,000. Regardless, the number should have digit grouping IMO. --LukeSurlt c 14:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also 5800 sqkm will yield 5800 sqkm which is preferable to how the units are currently written. --LukeSurlt c 14:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 *   QUESTION: Do "strong support" or "very strong support" count as more weighty, i.e. having more votes, than just "support" – ?? Sca (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the consensus is that strong supports count as 2 votes and very strong supports count as 3 votes.--WaltCip (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I weight them as roughly 1.5, and 'weak' !votes as 0.5, but I don't think there's ever been a proper discussion or real consensus. The quality of the argument counts for more than putting 'strong' in front of a !vote. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it just means that the participant is more firm in their support due to what they asses as good reasons. If you use "strong support" too often and(/or) without a firm backing/rationale you could potentially decrease the weight of your vote by a bit and certainly "strong support" would be assessed as just your 'ordinary' support. I'm not sure where WaltCip got that from: pretty sure that this is false. --Fixuture (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I made it up.--WaltCip (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 *   Seems to me the adjectives are merely emotional embellishments. One user, one vote – or half a vote in the case of a "weak" support or oppose. Otherwise, it would be like the old Tammany Hall slogan, "Vote early and often," no? Sca (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

First Chinese military base abroad

 * Support. Quite a significant story. 123.165.168.245 (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Yeah, significant. The blurb needs some wikilinks though. STSC (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - significant development. Article is short but well referenced. I've bolded the main article in the blurb, which needs to be trimmed to focus on the main development. -Zanhe (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose the quotations in the references for the article are longer than the article. If the article is expanded, this can be posted but at present it is too thin for the topic. BencherliteTalk 07:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per STSC & Zanhe. There aren't too many countries with such bases. Banedon (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article is too short.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in principle as a substantial geopolitical development, and I've added a better blurb. However, the article is woefully short at present. It's going to need some significant expansion to get into postable shape in time. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Gangnam Style usurped on YouTube

 * Oppose – Sca (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per nom's first two sentences. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose It was bound to happen, and something is bound to surpass See You Again. Add that as numbers that can be gamed by users (F5), it's not necessary that impressive a feat. It's a possible thing that would make for good DYK for either article but I don't think either could qualify due to age/non-newness. --M ASEM (t) 00:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support not convinced by oppose rationales. 2.9 billion views is tremendous (for comparison world population is ~7 billion) so it's hard to see this as trivial. While it's probable that eventually something will surpass See You Again, so what? The record lasted for five years, which is not a short time. If anything I would support making this ITNR. Having said that I think See You Again should be the bolded article. Banedon (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too easy to game those numbers, and if the nominator says it's trivial...... 331dot (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose maybe suitable for DYK but certainly not ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose relatively easily breakable tech/website "record".  Spencer T♦ C 04:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose You had me at "trivial". – Muboshgu (talk) 04:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

 * Comment. So the story here is that a charitable foundation is going to raise money for a charitable cause? Isn't that what charitable foundations typically do? 331dot (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose business as usual. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose If some dollar figure was put forth that was record-breaking in terms of size, that might be something, but this is what charities do otherwise. --M ASEM (t) 13:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Bill Gates gets a tax writeoff. What news?--WaltCip (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose because there is no meaningful update I can see. Maybe try again after the summit. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Promotional material, not really ITN-worthy. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

[Ready] Terrorist attack on Amarnath Yatra

 * Support on significance: I was considering nominating this myself, but won't have the time to see it through. The article has problems, though. Too many accusations from policemen and involved individuals, too much coatracking of past incidents. Also, as with any article about a terrorist attack, I'd like to see coverage from media sources outside that country; those within get caught up with the general hysteria all too quickly, and start throwing around statements which mean little. This is particularly true of conflicts in south Asia, and within those, of Kashmir. Vanamonde (talk) 05:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Insignificant incident of regional conflict between India and Pakistan. STSC (talk) 08:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So, terrorist byproducts of an international conflict are notable when they occur in Europe, and not when they occur in South Asia...why exactly? Vanamonde (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not about where the incident occurred. My point is that a relatively small-scale incident of a regional conflict would not be significant on ITN. STSC (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Knowing that's an area of high violence, I am a bit concerned that there are no major world sources (BBC, NYTimes, AP, or Reuters) reporting on this, telling me how much of a change this is from the status quo in the area. --M ASEM (t) 13:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * BBC, NY Times , AP , Reuters GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Article could use a bit of touching up, and I'm not 100% for sure that this rises to main page significance, but I did see some major world sources do an article or two on it (I'm not exactly sure who since I saw them on Apple News (maybe the Washington Post and Reuters?), but I could probably hunt down links if anyone wants), so I don't see why not assuming Vanamonde's concerns with the article are rectified. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 14:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I think there is a danger in conflating the various incidences of violence in this part of the world. Military-on-military violence is one thing, security forces killing protesters is one thing. Direct killing of civilians, especially in these numbers, does not appear to be ordinary. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - religious motivations were sufficient for 2017 Finsbury Park attack, the same should apply here. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Mongolia presidential election

 * Oppose - "Battulga Khaltmaa" article still has a number of issues to be resolved. STSC (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] C-130 Hercules crash in Mississippi

 * Only as a comment, but nothing necessarily opposing immediately, we generally do not post accidents involving military person while in the course of duty, which this fully appears to be. (There was a military plane accident a month or so ago but that included families of military people, so that was appropriate). Right now there's not enough to know if this is a special unique story here. --M ASEM (t) 04:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This may even be subject to becoming a redirect per WP:AIRCRASH. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Tied with a 2016 air ballon crash, which we posted, as the deadliest domestic aviation disaster in the United States in the 2010s decade. 140.207.23.32 (talk) 07:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Military crashes don't tend to be considered in the same way as civil crashes. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose; accidental crash of a military aircraft that may not merit its own article. 331dot (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose 16 people is not very much, and it was an accident. Who cares?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Though this is not ITN worthy, there's no need for this kind of sentiment. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose no lasting impact. Banedon (talk) 07:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It would be significant news if that happened in a battlefield. STSC (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Tragic, but not particularly significant. I'm also not certain that the article itself is necessary. ZettaComposer (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Nothing significant about this crash except the comparatively high number of victims. Sca (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A tragic event of course but described by the military as a "mishap" so doubtful there will be lasting significance.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per above. Not questioning the tragedy, but this story is not a civil aviation crisis. It is the death of active combatants, which is not particularly noteworthy. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Liu Xiaobo

 * Oppose will be listed at RD assuming quality of article is good enough if/when they die. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? STSC (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK,... are you a comedian by trade? STSC (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, why do you ask? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * ITN has never posted stories along the lines of "X is seriously ill". If Liu Xiaobo dies from this illness, then an appearance at RD will depend on the article being in good condition (I spot four "citation needed" tags already). If he recovers, then all well and good. So it's an oppose from me too. BencherliteTalk 11:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not because a RD place has been reserved for Liu, as if a place in ITN now would be wasted. The story about Liu has been sensationalised by the media; there's no need to repeat it on ITN. STSC (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, I don't follow the first part of this. Nothing is reserved for anyone: RD exists for recent deaths, and ITN never posts "critically ill" people.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Liu Xiabo is currently experiencing multiple organ failure so not quite sensationalised. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bencherlite. Wait for RD.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose the posting of a change in medical condition of someone. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Anton Nossik

 * Weak oppose citation needed in there. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Added citation and article looks well sourced enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted, although I think using "Biography" as the name of a section in a biography article is discouraged, this is not an issue that should delay posting. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just for the record,, I've used "Biography" and seen others do it frequently too. Most often in biographies that are too short for any other sections but long enough for a lead; less often, but still regularly, in longer articles in which "biography" is separated from things like ideology and influence. There's a good many FAs and GAs that use this structure. Vanamonde (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Brexit may never happen

 * Strong oppose and recommend speedy close. If Brexit never happens, we'll post that, but this is purely a speculative article. --M ASEM (t) 22:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While I would dearly like it if Brexit were never to happen, it will happen unless Britain actively uninvokes Article 20 (probably not correct terminology). We would obviously post that, but this is speculation and we essentially never post speculation of any kind on ITN - we post when something happens (or, less often, when something predicted or scheduled to happen doesn't happen). Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Article 50, but I'll endorse the sentiment. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose per above. Also open to speedy closure. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Battle of Mosul

 * Needs some updates (infobox etc.) but otherwise support. There is a yellow-level tag on the top but it is not problematic at the moment (long article). --Tone 15:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Altblurb suggested. Considering the vast size of the article, and the fact that it has dealt with an ongoing war where facts are somewhat sketchy, we should be forgiving when it comes to tags and the like. --LukeSurlt c 16:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on the principle of the topic, but boy does that article fail WP:NOT/WP:PROSELINE in how it is written. We shouldn't have day by day summary but described broad pictures of the events (eg taking historical context like the Normandy landings). I doubt that that can be fixed in reasonable time, so consider this only a light oppose !vote only that I think we can definitely do better, but not to take away from the ITN timing. --M ASEM  (t) 16:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. I see there were some updates. --Tone 16:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ya'll got suckered by an Iraqi politician; the battle is not quite over. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some cleanup operations but I'm not seeing any RS disagree with this stance by the Iraqi PM. --M ASEM (t) 01:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * After you chumps posted, 'Al-Abadi said the battle is settled and the remaining pockets of ISIS are encircled in the last inches of the city," the statement said. "It is a matter of time before we declare to our people the great victory."' Suckers. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Per the article, they have forced the remaining ISIS to about 50-100 homes that they still need to defeat and rescue the hostages, but the implication is that the number of ISIS left in the city and the number of allied troops they have stationed, there is no way that what's left of ISIS there can retake the city in the near-term. It seems a fairly reasonable ITN point (particularly since they don't know exactly all the places ISIS may be hiding in the city or nearby, and its impossible to prove they got every last one of them). --M ASEM (t) 03:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You are justifying a bad posting, making yourself look both biased and foolish. Never trust politicians. This Iraqi fucker just raped the truth, and you are helping him gouge out your own eyes. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the blatant BLP there, even if it were the case that the battle was long from over, we're attributing the claim of victory to the Iraqi gov't, which all other western RSes also report without question. Is this their version of "Mission Accomplished"? I don't know, but the media doesn't seem to think so. --M ASEM (t) 13:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no BLP violation possible here; this page is not indexed. I'll reiterate, politicians are self-serving scum who can never be reliable sources. I hope you fools have learned your lesson. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP applies to any Wikipedia page, including this one. --M ASEM (t) 23:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Pathetic. You are willing to use wikilawyering to make yourself feel better for having believed a lying sack of Iraqi shit. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Question why would this not be appropriate for ongoing but is appropriate for a blurb? Banedon (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Because nothing was being updated and it wasn't ongoing news. At this point I just assume all your posts are going to be POINTY. LordAtlas (talk) 06:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah I confused the reasons behind this article's removal with the one for Syrian Civil War. On the other hand your constant POINTY baiting is aggravating and beginning today I'm not going to read anything you write. So long. Banedon (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing event: Battle of Raqqa
Comment - this has already been placed on and removed from Ongoing. (no reflection on the nom, just merely pointing it out) Stormy clouds (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you remove the blurb from the above template it will properly format as an ongoing item nomination. --LukeSurlt c 10:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] March for Justice (Turkey)

 * Support on principle (100,000s rally is a good size to be notable). I'd recommend if you can get a map of the march, as well as adding some background to the event. --M ASEM (t) 23:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there is a (free map), if there are sources for the route I might be able to make one. I'll look into it. Seraphim System ( talk ) 00:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a preliminary map it's not free but it's a start, and it clearly follows major highways (E80 and E89 from Google Maps). --M ASEM (t) 00:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I used a basic one from NTV as a source, it just shows the provinces they passed through. We can't really use google as a base map, as far as I know, and I've never been able to download that large a map from OSM so I just use an outline, like most of the maps I've seen in our articles. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 04:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment "March for Justice" seems like a potentially misleading term. Can I assume that there are others who don't consider this march to be "justice"?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's the name of the event. --M ASEM (t) 01:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And if the KKK called their recent march, "March for Justice", Wikipedia should use their name in Wikipedia's voice?  Without quotes?  Without attribution? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, quoting can't hurt, but it's a fact it would be called that, that's something we can't question even if it is "wrong" from a majority view. Attribution is not required. --M ASEM (t) 01:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Insofar as we are required to follow WP:RS, this March has been compared to Gahndi's Salt march and the term has been accepted by the vast majority of sources, aside from Daily Sabah which is a staunchly pro-government paper. This is sourced to mainstream media sources like Guardian, Reuters and Washington Post (which we do not usually treat as biased sources that require attribution.) Quotes from Ak Parti officials have been included in the article, and attributed. WP:NPOV requires that we follow the majority view of WP:RS. Anyway, I have added a map and expanded the background a bit. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 01:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. The past seven years have seen dozens of protests involving hundreds of thousands or even millions of people. Spanish anti-austerity protests, Brazilian anti-corruption marches, Occupy movement, Montreal, Wukang, and practically every country in the Middle East come to mind. Therefore, more information is needed to establish the notability of this one. How does this compare to the Catalan Way or Baltic Way for instance? Also, I've removed the [New] tag because it's not really one of the tags we use. 112.65.191.171 (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * IP please read the criteria before commenting, as it is pretty explicit that this kind of thing is not grounds for exclusion. Seraphim System ( talk ) 05:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The quality of the article is not up to par. My biggest concern is not notability per se, but whether the article is clear enough to establish notability. Gezi Park protests is a good article to compare it with. The article needs an infobox. I've suggested an alternative blurb II. 112.65.191.171 (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please understand that your removing the tags looks extremely suspicious, and looks a lot like abusive sock puppeting, not to mention you should not be editing my posts at all, so I am replacing the tag. Please do not edit my posts in my the future. Since you presumably have an account and are an experienced editor who knows about which tags are regularly used here, maybe it would be better to strike your above comment and post while logged in. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 05:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyway, per the good advice above, I have added an infobox to the article. I also do not mind the alternative blurb that is proposed. Kilicdaroglu is a central figure in today's news stories, but I was considering the 2016-17 Turkish Purges article as a possible secondary article also. I think they are both in fine shape, and either one would be acceptable, as is the change to "protest march" per above comments. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 05:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose, I have several problems with this article. One, it seems awful short for ITN. Two, I see some POV problems in the infobox ("Diverse group of Turkish citizens from different political parties and religious backgrounds" vs. "Ak Parti" seems to suggest everyone in Turkey is resisting the government). And "'Hundreds of Thousands' to one million" participants is a very wide range. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 05:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding expanding the article, I can certainly expand it more, but I don't really think it is necessary because it covers the main issues. Longer doesn't make it better. It is possible that I can add some content about AkParti's responses to balance the article. As for the content in the infobox, that is what the WP:RS say. I can't really do anything about that. One of the last articles by Carlotta Gall reports "hundreds of thousands" and then says that the police are reporting 1 million. I can remove the one million if that would improve the infobox, as both Reuters and Gall seem to be going with the hundreds of thousands figure. As for "diverse citizens" that is what it was. Basically everyone in Turkey, who isn't Ak Parti (or their supporters) is resisting the government. The only thing tilted about it, is that the press is reporting that some Ak Parti members may be supportive too. One of the emphasized points of the protest was that there was no clear party affiliation. It wasn't only CHP, and HDP was not mentioned much. MHP was not mentioned much. This is how the WP:RS have reported it - I could follow Gezi and say "Informal, including political officials and ordinary citizens" - I don't really think it's necessary to oppose over any of this, these are pretty minor details and we should be trying to improve the article and get it posted—considering the uproar around here when Wikipedia is blocked, I was really expecting more support for hundreds of thousands of people protesting for free press and free speech in an authoritarian country where it is very dangerous for them to do so. I've already worked in all of the suggestions other editors made above ,and I can definitely work with you as well to address your concerns. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 05:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I updated the infobox, I will try to expand the length to at least 1500 words, I just ran DYK check and you are right, it is still rather short. I hope you will reconsider opposing. Seraphim System ( talk ) 06:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

In response to I have expanded the article (it is now over 1000 words, and I am still working on it). While reviewing the national press sources I did find out that MHP/Devlet Bahceli had supported AKP, at least during the early stages of the March. I have added this to the article, and I have also updated the infobox to reflect this. I hope this addresses some of the issues that were raised above. I am sorry if the article wasn't up to standard when I first posted, I am still very new to ITN and I hope that my inexperience won't be the cause of a very significant historic event being excluded from ITN. I will certainly keep improving the article based on the comments that I receive here. Thanks, Seraphim System  ( talk ) 08:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This has received significant global coverage. The article is of adequate size and in decent shape. I'm not seeing any glaring gaps in referencing. Is there room for improvement? There almost always is. But I think this meets our quality standards for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Masem, although I'd argue that the absolute numbers isn't as important as the relative numbers vs. the country's population. A 10000-man protest in Iceland should be more significant than a similarly-sized protest in the UK. This shouldn't matter though, since relative to the Turkish population (~80 million) this is still pretty big. Banedon (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted a slightly modified version of the original blurb, because highlighting one individual's name seemed questionable in the circumstances. Further discussion is welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] World Heritage Sites

 * Oppose UNESCO is doing it's job, it's not news. (IIRC, the bigger news item out of UNESCO's recent actions was not declaring the Great Barrier Reef as a in-danger site, which surprised many, but still not ITN). --M ASEM (t) 13:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I think this is worth posting, given that 1) it's an international agreement involving multiple countries 2) getting listed as a world heritage site leads to a tremendous increase in tourism for that region 3) at once a year, it doesn't happen that often. Would still prefer to see a blurb that treats all eight new sites on an equal footing, although I guess if some people are very concerned about article quality then it should be easy to skim the articles for each site and pick the best ones. Banedon (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] 2017 G20 Hamburg summit

 * See below for previous discussion, and see the discussion to remove this from ITNR. 331dot (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The previous discussion took place at a bad timing, while the conference was still ongoing and had no good blurbs. Furthermore this is a new discussion here. Also in that other debate people oppose due to rationales such as "'Some people go to a meeting' is not news" which I addressed above and some only opposed the blurbs and the state of the article both of which should be good enough now. In addition that discussion for removal, which incidentally was created after this nomination and which only has a small circle of participants thus far is not yet closed. --Fixuture (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The ITNC was posted on the last day on the summit, maybe a few hours before it was officially over. It definitely wasn't too early and there was plenty of time to digest what resulted from it. --M ASEM (t) 02:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * An event's presence on the ITNR list is not a guarantee of posting; it only means that the merits are not in dispute. It can still not be posted for any number of reasons, such as consensus changing. 331dot (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest that if you have specific accusations to make about undisclosed paid editing or bias or any of the other items from your laundry list, that you do so in the proper forum with any direct evidence you have. General requests are unnecessary. 331dot (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * What TRM said. The reason the previous ITNC wasn't posted was due to the lack of anything of significant action/resolve from this particularly G20. --M ASEM (t) 02:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is addressed in my nomination-comment above:
 * please also consider that even if you subjectively consider the results to be slim the conference itself as well as the slimness of the results and those slim results would definitely still be notable enough
 * If in your opinion the outcomes of the meeting were slim that's no reason to not include it. A clear indication of notability and significance despite of any perceived (and potentially biased) slim outcomes was the intense press coverage.
 * --Fixuture (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The degree of press coverage is not a metric we use for inclusion here, otherwise, every other ITN would be a Trump-based topic. Yes, G20 was well covered, but there was very little of any new global-affecting results that fell out from it; it was still a Trump-centric coverage from the press due to the meeting with Putin. --M ASEM (t) 02:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, so we disagree on the level of global-affecting results which I seem to assess higher than you even though I wouldn't consider it particularly high either. But as stated earlier even if that level is low that lowness itself is a global-affecting result. I don't see why the focus of press reports would be a reason for non-inclusion. And related to that we could decide for a blurb that does not highlight anything and jsut informs about the meeting having taken place. --Fixuture (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Unless you have direct evidence of undisclosed paid editing or a COI of a specific user or users I call on you to withdraw your accusations. I have no COI with this issue and I find the suggestion that I or others here do, without evidence, to be offensive. 331dot (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not have such evidence and very likely never will. However I also did not make any accusations - I just expressed doubts about the policy-compliance and decision-making-process-integrity and asked for everyone to comply with the policies. Sorry if anything of it sounded offensive - it wasn't meant to be provocative but to improve this debate's neutrality, validity and fairness. --Fixuture (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:AGF. Unless you have evidence of a problem you shouldn't preemptively request that people comply with policies that aren't even at issue. 331dot (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say, the event should be mentioned because of the leftist riots in Hamburg alone. But alas, it's probably the reason it's not.--Adûnâi (talk) 06:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to propose a blurb focusing on the riots, please do so, instead of attacking other users with unfounded accusations of bias. If you would review the discussion, you would see that's not the reason at all. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose as noted before, nothing significant has taken place, already today's fish and chip wrappers. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose horse is dead, and flogging it with bad-faith accusations of state-sponsored interference in Wikipedia will not change that. BencherliteTalk 13:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

RD: Nelsan Ellis

 * Support It's not the longest article but it covers the essentials and is well sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Per Ad Orientem. I was actually not expecting the article to be in as good of shape as it is for such a young and up-and-coming actor. Rhodesisland (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose a few inline [citation needed] and a filmography bereft of references, particularly bad when some of the appearances don't even have an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is too short, only 549 words. Can it be expanded beyond stub length? If not, maybe it is not suitable for ITN. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 10:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's been Start class since 2014, and has just been raised to C-class. The length looks adequate to me.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Length is fine, it's the width that's the problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, other editors here told me the articles have to be much longer then what the main page says, because they won't be posted otherwise. I had to expand to almost 1500 words! Seraphim System  ( talk ) 21:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll reiterate, length is fine, it's the width that's the problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the problem with the width? It has an infobox, it looks fine on my display. It would be nice if the template could be removed also. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 21:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's the quality I'm referring to. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I would be willing to strike my oppose and support but I agree with above comments that there should be some improvements to the article first, in particular the prominent template and the many citation needed tags should be addressed before posting. Seraphim System ( talk ) 20:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 British and Irish Lions

 * Support in principle but the article needs significant update, at least summary of all three test matches. Note: In 2013, some editors opposed to post because they mistook the Lions tour for only exhibition and promotional event. 61.245.25.3 (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support unprecedented result to a major rugby event. This is not an exhibition event. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on addition of text summaries to the three Test matches (the other games don't need them). Black Kite (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support story, on the basis that it's something that has already happened rather than something planned to happen in mid-September. Having occurred in July as opposed to the 27 June is another bonus. Not quite as significant as a nuclear state possessing ICBMs, but then I'm not sure what is, so let's just pretend this is more important. However the sourcing for the prose in the second and third tests isn't sufficient, and there's no prose for the first test. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not at all newsworthy. STSC (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So why is it getting coverage and even post-series analysis in neutral South Africa, as well as coverage in nations that don't play at the top level in rugby like The Netherlands and Canada? Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not ITN newsworthy. STSC (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? You can't simply say that something is not newsworthy without giving a reason - doubly so when it has been demonstrated that it is in the news in countries that take no part in it, and is far more important and prestigious than most sporting events that get posted. At the moment this looks like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT !vote. Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it is relatively not a significant event. Besides, getting mentioned by some little known publishers somewhere does not make it more newsworthy. STSC (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * By "little known publishers" do you mean globally significant publishers like The New York Times, The Times, Sydney Morning Herald etc? Or did I misinterpret your post?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I referred to those news sources given in Thryduulf's comment. STSC (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, but those aren't the only sources. It's a globally noted series.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Whatever you want to call it, this is neither a world championship, nor even a regional championship.  This is still just two national groups deciding to get together and play a series of matches.  I'm sure it is important to the rugby fans in the nations involved, but I really can't see elevating this to the level of ITN.  Dragons flight (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the rugby union equivalent of the Ashes. – PeeJay 23:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. How is this important? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For the exact same reason that the NBA Finals, the Super Bowl and America's Cup are notable. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support on update. More than just two national groups getting together to play a few games. It is the best players from four strong rugby playing nations coming together to play currently (and what has been for a while) the strongest rugby playing nation. Lions tours only happen once every four years, and tours to New Zealand once every 12. It has been dominating the press in New Zealand for months, and will for a lot longer given the results. There is also a lot of history here with the first tours starting in 1888. This one has its own little bit of history as it is the first time since 1971 that New Zealand has not won the series and only the second time this has occurred since the tours started here. AIR corn (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support importance (I haven't evaluated the article). This is a top-level international series that occurs only once every 12 years - New Zealand players will only get to play the Lions once in their career. To put it in a context Americans might understand, this is approximately equivalent to the top ice hockey players from the US and Canada playing as a single team (an even greater honour than playing in the national side) in a series of fully competitive matches (not exhibition matches) against the strongest national team in the world - for the only time in 12 years. Only it's possibly more important than that because of the century and a half of history. Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not denying that die hard rugby fans are excited about this, but as these are just test games, of little significane otherwise. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:AD97:8206:730C:929C (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You appear to have fundamentally misunderstood everything about this event. "Test" in this context does not mean "practice" or "trail run" or something like that, it means "to test the skill", "to challenge" - they are the most significant matches. As for "little significance otherwise", where on earth do you get that idea? The Lions tours are more significant than anything else in Rugby (with the arguable exception of the World Cup). And for the record I'm not a "die hard rugby fan" by any stretch of the imagination - I'm not even particularly a rugby fan (it's been several years since I last watched a match, and even then I didn't watch all of it). Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I was about to say. – PeeJay 23:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support pending update this is easily getting page hits like the America's Cup, no reason to deny our readers the opportunity to highlight things they might be interested in, despite the users here declaring they believe otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Per The Ashes, Boat Races, and various other ITNR things that aren't world championships. LordAtlas (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - The Lions tour is the most prestigious event in the rugby calendar every four years, people start predicting the next Lions squad almost as soon as the last tour finishes, and this Lions team claiming a drawn series against the best team in the world right now is bloody impressive. If Boat Races etc get in, then this absolutely has to. – PeeJay 23:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Boat Race mention, yay!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Dragons Flight, I grant that this captivates the public in countries like New Zealand but it's still only a few of the world's many countries playing non-championship games in one of the world's many sports. Post the World Cup, leave this out. Banedon (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To put this into perspective Super Rugby, a championship competition involving the Southern Hemisphere and Japan (which is ITN/R), is paused and largely forgotten about to accommodate this non-championship series (three tests and seven other games against some pretty decent provincial teams). As far as rugby events go this is second only to the world cup, some might argue that it is even greater given its history. AIR corn (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose since it ended in a draw, it is not significant because no one won. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 10:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's MORE notable because it was a draw. LordAtlas (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to say I agree with above comments that the significance of that is likely to be lost on anyone without a specialized interest in this topic. If ai ubderstand the above discussion, your point is that it is more notable because the team is so good that they should have been pwned. Its still a draw. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 11:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's maybe a very British thing, but an honourable draw is actually something to be celebrated, rather than ridiculed. Perhaps history is on our side.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Rugby already has an astonishing 6.25 events every year on ITN/R. American football only warrants 1 post a year, despite a large and rapid audience. Association football gets <5, and its the largest sport in the world. You'll never satisfy everyone, and you shouldn't index the number of posts directly to the following of that sport,  but you can't keep saying "but THIS one is really big!" It strains credulity. El Clásico is big. The Game is big. Let's limit ITN to biggest.GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, this is rugby union, which has 4.25 events per year. Rugby union is a global sport, American football is a one-country sport.  Association football has one pan-continental contest, the World Cup.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No strong opinion on this nomination, and I do see your point. However, you can't lump together rugby league and rugby union - they're two different sports. They have less in common than, say, Canadian football and American football. You're doing the equivalent of combining tennis & badminton here. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as one of the most prestigious events in rugby. Article looks fine.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment this is a great example of the "big divide", there are plenty of support votes here and well-reasoned arguments to post this, yet we won't post it because others don't like it or don't get its cultural significance. With so many supports, this should be posted.  Let's start making ITN more relevant to our English speaking readers and less divisive to prove points within Wikpiedia policy (which our readers couldn't give a shit about).  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Look, sports don't fit cleanly in ITN. One could argue that sport, like weather, is not news at all because it is periodic- why report who won when someone always was going to win? I would argue that no one who cares about this event (or any of the sports results that make it to ITN) will be coming here not knowing the result. I think we should post a lot more sports results, or none. It would be nice if we could have a civilized conversation about how to best handle this at ITN, but literally 20 minutes prior to this post, you rejected the "cultural significance" of American football because of the oft-repeated lie that it is a one-country sport. You are correct in that we are quick to reject the significance of events that are not significant to us, but you do so in support of an event that is culturally significant to you, and while insulting that which is not. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how stating that American football being a one-country sport is rejecting its cultural signficance or being insulting. I watch the Superbowl (after the event so I can fast forward through the adverts) and fully grasp its cultural significance (just look at the wardrobe failure debacle).  But I am unaware of all those other countries playing with top-level American football teams who then play against one another in a world championship (for instance).  Please let me know more about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a straw-man argument and you know it. Canada, Mexico, and HELLO! the UK all have viewership in the millions for American football, but that is utterly beside the point. We need to have a standard by which persons who are not culturally impacted by an event can objectively evaluate it's significance. We don't post an event because it is watched by millions of people in dozens of countries; every ManU match meets that. There has to be a standard, and we already have one: it's notability, AKA uniqueness. The logical rule to apply to sport is to only post a select number of premier level events. Otherwise each new nom will be supported by it's fans and only opposed by those who "don't know what they're talking about." Masem rejected my oppose as ill-informed. IT WAS ILL-INFORMED. I have no idea which rugby UNION events are the biggest. But I do know there is always a limited number that can be considered premier, and we already have 4+ in ITN/R. Is this one bigger or smaller than the other 4? How many events can you have of one sport before you must acknowledged the reduced significance of some of them? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a strawman argument. I'm not seeing any premier worlwide American football competitions.  That's a fact.  If you don't like the ITNR rugby union events, nominate them for removal from ITNR.  The community was in favour of this story, so that's obviously why it was posted.  End of story I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you choose to exclude the Super Bowl, there is no worldwide American Football competition. The community was not in favor of this story; it had differing opinions that Masem reasonably adjudicated (with an rationale and through explanation). I don't object to any of the ITN/R Rugby Union items. I objected to THIS item for the very specific reason that as the number of stories on a single topic increases, the notability of each item definitively decreases. We address this very cleanly in American Football in particular, because of the clear supremacy of the Super Bowl. But in my opinion, we should not post more stories on a given sport because there is ambiguity on which is the premier event. I think most would agree with that, but deciding where to draw the line is difficult when each event on its own is significant. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The Superbowl is a domestic competition. A popular one, but still a domestic one.  Don't forget that ITN is here to provide items that may be of interest to our readers.  This clearly is, which is why it has consensus and why it was posted.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Posted While there are a few opposes, some of them are not valid (eg misunderstanding that "test" here is not the same as a preliminary match, that a "tie" is a non-result, or the confusion between rugby league and rugby union) . Also persausive is the arguments of how infrequent this event is and how other rugby events are put on hold to allow this event to happen. --M ASEM (t) 18:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * While I support this and commend your reading of the discussion, it is still not sufficiently updated with prose to be posted. I was working on it, but do not really have much time to edit here at the moment, so am hoping someone else interested in this topic will be able to help. AIR corn (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I was about to say the same thing. There are three tests; none of which have a prose summary (of what happened during the match). Note that neither the Stanley Cup (NHL) or the NBA Finals were posted last month for the same reason. If consensus is now that stats and trivia are all that's needed for a sport update then I would expect more similar nominations in the near future. If not, I wouldn't be surprised if there were calls of bias from the other side of the pond. Fuebaey (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I've added short prose summaries of the Test games to the articles. Black Kite (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

 * Weak weak oppose Partially on the situation: only 133 member countries voted, and those that have major nuclear weapons programs (US, Russia, most NATO states, etc.) did not participate. As the treaty only affects those that sign on to it, this will not affect the major problems in the world (read: North Korea). However, it is a positive step and to this end, if the article was in better quality to make sure these distinctions are made and noting which countries did not participate, among other details to note this is more "ceremonial" in the sense that few nuclear world powers are participating, then I would think it okay to post. --M ASEM (t) 22:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me through another !vote out there: Wait until the necessary 50 member-states sign it which then actually puts it into effect and makes it legally binding. This will be starting around Sept 20 when countries can sign onto it. Reading the articles, I get the impression that if they get the 50 member-states to sign on, it might coerce the bigger players to consider stepping onto it, but all recognize NK is going to be the last country to abide by this. --M ASEM (t) 23:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, at present it is in the news - the very new content is most important! Signature is not sufficient, only after 50 ratifications the treaty will be legally binding. This can take up to two years. Then we can put the information on the start page again - for now, please don't let our readers with old news like America's cup finished on 26 June. - By the way, I just updated main arguments of the civil society against the principle of nuclear deterrence defended by the nuclear powers and their allies, as well as arguments related to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Now, the article of course is not excellent (the treaty is 9 hours old!), but gives a compact overview on history, content and discussions. --Jwollbold (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to still oppose on article quality. What exactly the treaty does should be clear (it should be a section unto itself), and the body needs to really include a full list of UN member states and how they voted, because the importance stressed by other !opposes here is the lack of any participation by current nuclear states - the article presently sweeps this under the rug with the last sentence of the lede. I don't dismiss this as purely ceremonial, but this factor about non-participation is very very important to understand that this is not going to be worldwide binding and likely to do little to current tensions with NK for example. --M ASEM (t) 14:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I just wanted to nominate this article too. Brandmeister was faster - which demonstrates again, together with the world-wide press echo (see 3 other recent sources above), the relevance of the news. This is what counts most - in Wikipedia, we don't have to judge if the treaty is effective or purle symbolic (it is not, but a strong impulse towards disarmament and de-escalation of international conflicts; financing of nuclear weapon research and production is hindered, see this comment). In the respective German article, I have extensively described the discussions there. I will extend the English version too, during the next days. Anyway, today the subject is in the news, and we should hint on the start page at our valuable background informations regarding the content and history of the treaty. At least, the positions of different groups of states are listed, as desired by M ASEM . --Jwollbold (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support "The first multilateral legally-binding instrument for nuclear disarmament to have been negotiated in 20 years." (UN)   Moscow Mule (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. A great step towards world peace. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Implacably opposed. Opposed to this for both objective and Wikipedia-related reasons. As far as substantive reasoning is concerned, the actual countries that have nuclear weapons are unanimous in their lack of support for their exctinction, and a majority-of-country position to the contrary is not going to change that. Those countries who have never developed nuclear weapons saying that nuclear weapons should not exist is neither new nor news. Wikipedia-related, if we're not going to post the country far and away most likely to actually launch a nuclear strike when able, successfully testing its first ICBM, with experts based in its most likely target confirming that they consider it a long range missile, then the idea that we post any type of missile or nuclear related story short of unilateral disarmament or nuclear war is utterly absurd. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose This so called treaty is not worth the paper it is printed on and has less geo-political relevance than what I had for lunch. Otherwise what StillWaitingForConnection wrote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * StillWaitingForConnection (even if I don't understand you well) and Ad Orientem, it seems to me that you are superordinating your personal opinion over objective criteria of world-wide relevance. Only one correction: The treaty is not about negating nuclear weapons, but about precise steps towards disarmament. In Germany, for instance, nuclear sharing is in question and disputed among the main parties in the beginning Bundestag election campaign. Hence, no idealistic statement, but a realistic instrument in political debates. Very relevant, as the immediate statement of the US, United Kindom and France demonstrates (see TASS source above). --Jwollbold (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_Nuclear_Weapons, second paragraph. Also in the Netherlands, the parliament urged the government to participate in the negotiations. Hence, the treaty is much more than a paper expressing idealistic wishes, but strengthens and explains the position of groups of the civil society and of political parties claiming destruction of the stationed weapons. A realistic perspective for the next years - we can contribute to democratic discussions by clear information. At In_the_news, the positive criteria help to decide if such discussions are relevant; they deal with the type of media coverage - it is high and deep, since the treaty is adopted. --Jwollbold (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My oppose is a subjective judgement that this particular news item lacks any credible claim to relevance and therefore does not merit posting on ITN. Just because something gets news coverage does not mean it gets posted here. From a diplomatic point of view it has less importance than the Kellogg–Briand Pact, which as far as I am aware the United States has never formally withdrawn from. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please judge after the objective criteria of In_the_news. Good night!--Jwollbold (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The first part of my oppose is objective, and the fact that I have supplimented this with (and clearly labelled it as) personal opinion is immaterial. Zero nuclear weapons states have signed up to this treaty. This is a non-starter for any reason other than to make a political statement about nuclear weapons being an inherently bad thing (a political statement which I happen to agree with, except that Wikipedia is the wrong venue in which to make it). You are accusing me of ignoring objective criteria, and therefore I would simply like to make the point that "nuclear weapons state successfully tests ICBM" – a story which I supported – is in my judgement an objective milestone with greater relevance than "treaty between non-nuclear states to ban nuclear weapons" (which I don't deny is also an objective milestone). StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The countries that actually need to sign onto this treaty, aren't signing onto it. Quasi-symbolic feel-good garbage.--WaltCip (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I think this one is fairly straightforward as all treaties carry some legal weight, and the arguments for oppose seem to be based on things like personal POV that it doesn't count unless such and such country signs it. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 03:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The characterisation is laughable. In a treaty which involves prohibition of nuclear weapons, the lack of anyone who has ever possessed nuclear weapons signing up constitutes more than a bit of a gap. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No one's signing up yet (not open for signature until Sept.), but that technicality aside, South Africa was among the countries voting in favour of adoption. Kazakhstan voted for adoption, too (inherited 1400 warheads after the collapse of the USSR). So, "lack of anyone" is a bit of an overstatement. Iran voting in favour of adoption struck me as interesting: remains to be seen whether they ratify, of course. Moscow Mule (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your first five words would seem to me to sink this nomination. Will consider the rest of what you say at the appropriate time. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't find these arguments persuasive. This doesn't mean a persuasive argument couldn't be made, but so far I haven't seen any. A treaty can certainly have broader effects. For example, one might not be able to travel to the nations that have adopted it. This would be hugely significant, as it seems many nations have signed it. I don't really think these off-the-cuff predictions about international law are credible. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 05:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support: The question is whether it is news, not whether we think it is going to rapidly result in permanent world abandonment of nuclear weapons. It's an agreement endorsed to some degree by more than 120 countries (122 countries in favour, 1 opposed, 1 abstention – of course not counting the countries who were not present) to prohibit nuclear weapons. That's news. (Grammatically, I suggest it should be "The United Nations adopts ...", since the UN is a single organization.) I'll certainly take this over the current ITN main page news of a yacht race and the explosion of an oil truck. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the trivialization of other items, as it has little relevance to your support here. And, given that the "yacht race" has community consensus given its listing at ITN/R, and the "oil explosion" resulted in over 200 fatalities. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the truck explosion accident killed 200 people, which was very tragic, and I'm not saying it wasn't. Around this time of July in 1945 and early the following month, some other things happened that directly killed about a thousand times that many people in the short term, using very primitive weaponry by today's standards. I'm not expressing an opinion about the wisdom of those actions or this one, but they seem potentially rather newsworthy – even if the UN action seems likely to have little near-term direct impact. I'll admit I don't personally do or watch a lot of yacht racing, although I suppose a lot of people find that really interesting and important, and I'll try to refrain from commenting further about that. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support: It is an important issue which has a good article. -- Seyyed(t-c) 05:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly, due to what you have mentioned, this issue should be added to the first page. Please, Imagine the non-slavery states have banned slavery and the slavery ones have opposed them. Do you think it is better to promote the non-slavery position or neglect it?-- Seyyed(t-c) 06:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be promoting any issue or position; WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I know the policies but, we will promote one of these two positions by our vote.-- Seyyed(t-c) 14:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ITN is WP:NOTAVOTE either.--WaltCip (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The issue of boycott by nuclear powers could be resolved by stating how many countries joined, which the altblurb does. Alas one can't reasonably expect that the US or Russia would disarm themselves altogether, especially unilaterally. This has been a problem for decades and reflects their mindsets. Maybe under new future governments this will change, but what's there is there. Brandmeistertalk  07:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as it seems to be a notable international treaty among many nations(even if a lot of them haven't or won't join it) 331dot (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - pure procedure. Having a treaty about nukes where none of the nuclear nations attend is rather pointless. It would be like if us Wikipedians held a conference condemning rogue admins - it is utterly irrelevant if none of the admins in question attend or heed any of our statements. Also agree with User:StillWaitingForConnection that this is the second most important nuclear-related story on ITN/C ( and I opposed the first ). Stormy clouds (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In the introduction, I added three sentences clarifying the relation to the disarmament obligation of the NPT as well as the specific prohibitions. You can see: The treaty has massive impact for signing states, also if they don't possess nuclear weapons themselves, e.g. for transport or assistance like financing or common maneuvers, even more for nuclear sharing as mentioned. Hence, it has also effects on nuclear armed states by inhibiting, e.g., their weapon production or deployment. That is well explained in the last third of an interview for the German television ZDF - I apologize for the translation making it difficult to understand the English original. --Jwollbold (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Even if, against my better judgement, a consensus were to emerge for posting this (there certainly isn't one yet), surely the appopriate time to post would be when countries actually sign the treaty? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The subject's important enough making it eligible for the ITN. Nuclear issues are nowadays making the subject of multiple international controversies including those involving US, North Korea, Iran and etc. I would post it fresh. The alternative blurb is more appropriate, in my opinion. -- M h hossein   talk 16:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The altblurb however is wrong. No country has adopted it yet, that can't happen until September. They have come to an agreement on wording that they can take back to their home countries to get signatures. --M ASEM (t) 00:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if alt1 were accurate, and you have succintly demonstrated that it is not, then the validity of the statement in the original blurb would still be in question. But hey, let's not let trifling things like factual accuracy, or the complete lack of scrutiny of the condition of the article, get in the way of this democratic exercise. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, major advance in nuclear disarmament per Moscow Mule, relevant now rather than waiting for ratification per Jwollbold, and although the major nuclear powers aren't going to sign it, this will reduce their ability to host weapons in other countries (as with NZ's long-standing refusal to host potentially nuclear weapon bearing US Navy ships).- gadfium 20:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Why is there no map of signatories vs. non-signatories in the article? 140.207.161.230 (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Done (w/r/t to states voting for adoption; signatories come later). Kudos User:Jwollbold. Moscow Mule (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - Internationally significant event. STSC (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. the article now makes even more clear that there is strong opposition - the introduction and "Positions" are revised. Regarding your request for explaining the content of the treaty: I prepared the article for the day of signature as well as possible - you will find major subjects in the history section. But I - and nobody else - really didn't have time to restructure the article by introducing a large content section. For now, readers can have a look on the ten small pages of the treaty and read themselves how the few open questions were finally decided (most decisions are already mentioned in the history section and in the introduction). How to procede otherwise? In these days, the treaty is hot news and should finally be placed in the ITN section, instead of one of several old news.
 * One supplementary hint to the political impact of the treaty: The ennemies Iran and Saudi-Arabia voted in favour of the ban - and Saudi-Arabia financed Pakistani nuclear weapons and is supposed to have some control over them! The significance of the treaty also lies in the debates on it. They are real, have high social and political relevance. 122 governments of UN members states as well as many political groups, journalists or scientists believe the treaty has a strong impact on disarmament. We should objectively notice that and give our readers the opportunity to participate in the worldwide democratic debate. I think it is not useful to prevent consensus based on the personal opinion, that the treaty "has less geo-political relevance than what I had for lunch" . This kind of objections has its place in the article, it is not ignored.
 * The discussion here slowly evolved in direction of support. What means consensus in the english wikipedia? Is a single "oppose" vote sufficient to block it, or should we weight the reasons? Really, I don't see strong arguments against the relevance any more. Also, and  could you now resolve to change your oppose to a weak oppose or to acceptance of publication with reserve? I see that also for other news it is very difficult to be posted without such a sense of compromise. Regards --Jwollbold (talk) 12:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Posted. The consensus is leaning toward support. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A fucking disgrace of a post. Even putting aside the question of whether there was vote counting. Even if we put aside the question of whether there was blind supporting on principle rather than looking at the article, even if we put aside the disgraceful, disingenous, downright fucking dishonest attempt to take quite serious neutrality concerns, edit one and a half lines, wait four hours on a Sunday morning European time and while the US is completely asleep, and claim there's unanimous consensus. Even if we forgive and forget all that. THE BLURB WE HAVE ACTUALLY CHOSEN TO POST IS FACTUALLY INACCURATE AND HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS SUCH IN THE DISCUSSION WITHOUT A SIGNLE ARGUMENT TO THE FUCKING CONTRARY.<P>Apologies for holding back. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it doesn't seem quite accurate, although I'm not sure all that cursing and boldface and all-caps formatting is necessary. Adoption of the treaty by member states is not what happened. What happened is the adoption of the treaty by the UN as a text that countries can adopt in an individual basis in the future. I suggest changing "After four weeks of negotiations, 122 out of 193 United Nations member states adopt the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons." to "After four weeks of negotiations, the United Nations adopts the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, with 122 out of 193 member states voting in favour of the proposed text." (Note that the UN spelling of "favour" includes the "u".) I might also suggest dropping the phrase about the four weeks of negotiations, as that doesn't seem so important. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It could be simplier: "...adopt the text of the Treaty...". Brandmeistertalk  16:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems like it suffers from the original problem, since it seems like it might be saying that those member states adopted the treaty. They didn't. They only voted to create a treaty that could be adopted later, on an individual basis. Some of those who voted in favour of the text might not ultimately adopt the treaty. Some of them might have no intention or no plan of adopting it for themselves and may have just voted in favour of the text to enable it to become something that would be adopted by others. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The official UN conference page uses the wording "Treaty adopted on 7th July 2017". "Adopt" is justified, since many decisions were made during the redaction process, which will force the signing states to accept the treaty as it is or to reject it. And please understand: the important news now is the text and content of the treaty, it is a new contract filling a gap in international law and inspiring discussions as well as political decisions. Signature will be important, but it will be a simple factual news, not as complex as the negotiation of the treaty. --Jwollbold (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have no quarrel with the word "adopted". In fact, my proposed revision still uses the word "adopted". But we should correctly describe who adopted it. It was adopted by the UN, not by its individual member states. The current phrasing misrepresents that. No member states have adopted the treaty yet. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with such legal subtleties, but it sounds correct. Hence, let change the blurb to The United Nations adopts the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, with 122 out of 193 member states voting in favour of the proposed text. --Jwollbold (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's good. Vanamonde also seems to support the change, per a remark at WP:ERRORS. I suppose only an admin can actually change the blurb, so we're waiting in anticipation. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The blurb was updated, but someone changed "text" to "agreement". I don't think that's quite right, since it is not an agreement that is binding on anyone at this point. All they agreed about was that the document was something adequate for countries to later agree to, if they so choose, on an individual basis. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The article describes it as "a legally binding international agreement". Stephen 05:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Note This post is currently the subject of a discussion at WP:ERRORS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Leaning Towards Oppose This sounds nice, but if the only nations who signed it are those without nuclear weapons, and the nations with nuclear weapons don't sign it, it seems more symbolic than something with substance. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The adoption of a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons by almost two-thirds of the world's states seems pretty noteworthy to me, notwithstanding who was absent. Neljack (talk) 06:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, third-world countries voted against nuclear weapons that they don't have anyway? Big deal. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 16:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] 2017 G20

 * Ongoing We don't know what the biggest news story is from this conference yet, but it's already significant news. We can make it a blurb once we agree on a blurb. Article is almost ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ongoing. Yes it's ITN/R, but "important people meet" isn't much of a blurb, and the posting of such a blurb will only invite blurb creep without appropriate discussion when something happens that might or might not be worthy of mentioning in the blurb (be that protests, comments by a certain leader, a particular type of agreement, and so forth). Quality wise, I'm aware of the orange tags, but they're indicative of an OCD approach to article development, rather than allowing the article to develop organically. Article content absolutely fine. Swift ongoing with no prejudce to a blurb, with a debate should a particular flashpoint be considered the blurb moment, seems the right approach to me. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Er a two day event is not sufficient for ongoing. A regular nom should be sufficient. --M ASEM (t) 05:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as main page news: "Some people go to a meeting" is not news. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As this is ITNR, the consensus is indeed that "some people have a meeting" is news. For not being news it is certainly in a lot of news outlets. If you don't believe this should be on the ITNR list, please propose its removal. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The idea that the G20 leaders are "some people" is absurd on its face. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Currently the biggest story seems to be the Trump-Putin meeting, but even if not, this should just be posted as a blurb and not ongoing. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose current blurb, oppose ongoing. This is way too short an event for ongoing, and the current blurb doesn't say anything about why these people meeting is important, why they are meeting or anything else about why it is newsworthy. Thryduulf (talk) 09:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As I indicate above, the occurrence of this meeting of 20 heads of state is considered noteworthy itself, as it is present on the ITNR list(where the linked to discussion that added this got unanimous support in 2011). 331dot (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My opposition is to the blurb, that gives no indication of why this is important, not opposition to the event's importance. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose in current state. Article is unready, and the blurb requires amendments . Stormy clouds (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Will support alt blurb, but article is still laden with tags that need attention.


 * The simple blurb is fine. The wikilink allows people to find out details if they wish. --LukeSurlt c 10:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment ITNR but is there any resolution or major matter that was discussed that could be included? I'm not finding anything clear that can be said in just a few words (eg all G19 but the US reaffirmed committment to Paris Agreement, but that's a bit too long winded). The short blurb is okay to post, but it would be nice to highlight a positive result. --M ASEM (t) 17:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Couple of big-name pow-wows but largely a meh outside of the puerile Krawalle in Hamburg. Sca (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. The current alt-blurb is problematic.  Firstly, the article doesn't even discuss the outcome of the meeting / their closing statement.  That needs to be addressed before posting.  Secondly, the prominent inclusion of the Paris Agreement in the blurb is awkward without somehow mentioning that the US refused to join that part of their communique.  The tensions between the US and other countries over Paris and other issues was one of the big narratives of the summit.  Dragons flight (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Those three items were taken directly from their discussion in the closing statement (see source and amend if necessary). Stormy clouds (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

 It's over. As Goethe said, Über allen Gipfeln ist Ruh. – Whew! Sca (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm seeing nothing here of any note, regardless of its status as ITNR, we need to remove it and if no-one suggests such, I'll start a thread tomorrow at WT:ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 05:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment why cant I see DYK on my phone? But really "G20 summit" gives no indication of "why these people meeting is important"? Seraphim System ( talk ) 11:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

 The real story was the idiotic "unfettered violence" of the riots, an embarrassment to Germany, the EU and the West generally. The Summit changed virtually nothing. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I don't object in principle to posting with the altblurb as this is ITN/R, but I would like to see the empty "Refugee crisis" section dealt with before supporting. It's not appropriate for Ongoing, though.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support G20 is ITN/R so I'm not sure why this hasn't been posted yet? Please do so ASAP. I oppose the alt-blurb. --Fixuture (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Xi

 * Strong support - significant breakthrough in particle physics, of major importance and significance. There is an accessibility tag on the target article, but given the subject, I fail to see how this could be ameliorated. Unfortunately, there exists no corresponding Simple English page, so hands are tied. I would propose neglecting it altogether. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not going to !vote on this one since the subject is one where I lack any competency. So I will confine myself to opining that if this is in fact deemed a highly significant event that I would also support ignoring the tag at the top of the article. I also note that the list is FA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * let me try to explain this. There are six known quarks (up, down, bottom, top, strange and charm) each of which has their own antiparticles (antiup, antidown ... etc). Baryons are made of three quarks. Up to certain technical restrictions, any combination of three quarks makes a new baryon, but some are easily detected (protons for example) while others much harder to synthesize (especially those involving the exotic quarks, bottom / top / strange / charm, since they're unstable). This discovered baryon is ccu, which is why it took so long to synthesize. However it's possible to argue that while these missing baryons are hard to synthesize they're certainly expected to be there, and this discovery doesn't change anything fundamental in physics. might know more about this. Banedon (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems to be an accurate description. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose changes nothing, fifth such discovery in past decade, wrong target. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM as well as the fact that there has yet to be peer review of this result. --M ASEM (t) 04:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, on the grounds that the paper has not yet been peer-reviewed. CERN has jumped the gun here, announcing the discovery when the paper has only been submitted (not yet accepted). It's also expected physics so I think the significance is borderline at best, but the peer-review status should be a big red flag for us. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is pretty much becoming standard operating procedure for particle discoveries at CERN. The Higgs Boson discovery was publicized when it was submitted (not accepted).  As was the first pentaquark observation.  As were the Xib*- and Xib'- particle discoveries.  As was the discovery of charge symmetry breaking in B0s decays.  Etc.  Etc.  (Both the Higgs and pentaquark discoveries were posted to ITN, despite the lack of peer review.)  It's not that CERN never waits for a paper to be published.  They did wait to publish the CLOUD experiment results as well as the observations of the light spectrum of anti-hydrogen before promoting those results.  However, we shouldn't be shocked that CERN publicized a new discovery before peer review since they have a long history of doing just that.  Dragons flight (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Ab initio synthesis of horsepox virus

 * Comment - correct me if I am wrong, but this is not the first time smallpox has been synthesized. I have certainly read about the threat of it before from RS's (can't find specific ones). If I am correct in this assertion, I don't see this development as ITN-worthy, and would oppose. Moreover, the first target article is intense, even for someone with a passing interest in microbiology, and is considerably too dense for the main page in my view (hence the tag I added). Stormy clouds (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Viruses have been synthesized before, but they were much simpler viruses, e.g. polio which has a genome that's just 1/30th of the pox virus. Smallpox has never been synthesized, but as the years have passed, it has become much easier to actually do so. Horse pox is the same as smallpox as far as the difficulty to synthesize is concerned. To prove the point that it's now possible to synthesize smallpox in a small lab by a team of people who don't need to have a lot of competence in biotechnology, the scientists chose to synthesize hors pox (synthesizing smallpox would have been illegal, there are obvious biosafety hazards involved here). So, a clear threshold has now been passed, the whole discussion on whether or not US and Russian labs should destroy their stockpiles of smallpox is now moot as it can be recreated quite easily. Kim can do it and even ISIS could do it if they were not in the verge of defeat. More worryingly, it's also possible to create viruses that have never existed before that will cause a global pandemic. Count Iblis (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Count Iblis's argument. Would prefer to bold link smallpox, as well as see more of an update there (will DIY). Banedon (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose things got cheaper and easier to do? Not even sure this interesting enough for DYK..... The Rambling Man (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose While a necessary step towards a vaccine for smallpox, it is not yet a vaccine for smallpox. --M ASEM (t) 04:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If that is your comment, then I don't think you understood the significance of the report. We have an effective smallpox vaccine.  Maybe we could create a better one using similar techniques, but main reason this work is getting attention is not about vaccines.  Synthesizing horsepox from raw DNA and other easily available materials demonstrates a high likelihood that viable smallpox virus could also be synthesized (at relatively low cost) from the published genome sequences alone.  That result significantly increases the risk that smallpox could be developed as a terrorist or biowarfare agent, since the bad actors would not require access to live cultures of smallpox, but could simply build the virus themselves given enough equipment and resources.  Dragons flight (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The researchers are not interesting in weaponizing smallpox; their studies are aimed at being able to create smallpox strains in secured lab conditions so that they can study it and create more effective vaccines, particularly if there are other strains. The news articles on this show no interest in trying to scare people about this discovery. --M ASEM (t) 13:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Bringing the scourge [of smallpox] back would probably take a small scientific team with little specialized knowledge half a year and cost about $100,000." - That's literally the second sentence in the news article linked above. Later in the same article: "But the new work ... is raising troubling questions about how terrorists or rogue states could use modern biotechnology."  No, these researchers aren't trying to revive smallpox, but by showing how easy it could be it informs the bioweapons debate in a significant way.  For my money the potential bioterror implications are the story, and in my reading the linked article seems to agree.  The possible legitimate research uses are rather less interesting.  Dragons flight (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The researchers are aware of the dual-use (for good or for nefarious purposes), but the reason to post something like this is not to be a scare tactic in that one can cheaply make a pox virus. I do note that they have struggled to actually get a peer-reviewed paper as the work itself doesn't seem groundbreaking, only that they found a way to it cheaper. So I'm still opposed to this story. --M ASEM (t) 16:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Joan Boocock Lee

 * Very weak oppose. I'd rather see the career section fleshed out so that it is more in depth than the section about her marriage, but there are no obvious gaps in what is there and, apart from the very last sentence in the marriage section it's all sourced (and that missing citation shouldn't be difficult to find). Thryduulf (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: But Mrs. Lee was known for being the spouse of Stan Lee rather than her small voice roles. Her career is rather limited because she only voiced characters is very few episodes of Spider-Man, Fantastic Four and Iron Man in the 1990s. Her marriage should be larger than her career because there should be more info on her marriage since she was known for her marriage with Lee rather than her career. I'll try expanding the career section but it may not match her marriage section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't see any glaring issues. Rhodesisland (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose a few things are sourced to the non-RS "IMDB". The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Found better source. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support it's not the greatest article in the world but it covers the bases. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Now ready to post.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Vanamonde (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

RD: Card. Joachim Meisner

 * The second and third paragraphs in Joachim_Meisner need attention. --LukeSurlt c 14:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support good to go if the one [cn] is sorted. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape and well referenced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * -Weak oppose. There are a few unsourced statements in the Early life and Bishop sections. Cite or remove those and it'll be ready. Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Cato censor: can you address these issues? With a little work, we can get this posted. Vanamonde (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Hobby Lobby pays $3 Million dollar settlement for artifacts smuggling

 * Oppose good faith nomination. Far too run of the mill for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really, I can't remember another occasion since the Iraq War started where 5,500 stolen cuneiform tablets have been returned. Stolen artifacts are an important issue for many people, and have been since the outbreak of the conflict. Good faith nomination implies I've made some kind of good faith mistake, but that doesn't really make up for the fact that the statement "run of the mill" is patently false (or that you destroyed the subheading with your revert, making this a separate section. I added New because other editors added it to my first posts.) (I see you've fixed the subheading.) Seraphim System  ( talk ) 02:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know who put the [New] in any earlier nomination. If it were at or near the bottom of the page I could understand it but it's not normally done. In any event I am not going to get into a snit over it. Run of the mill is pretty much what this is IMO, which is no more, or less, valid than your interpretation. A $3 million fine for trafficking in smuggled artifacts is not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, certainly from a global perspective. I note that it currently has all of one paragraph and an additional sentence in the main article about the company. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you show me some of these other routine examples of 5,500 artifacts being seized by the United States government? Is there some kind of criteria for how long an update has to be, like the 5x expansion for DYK? Is this some arbitrary rule that we cover terrorist attacks in ITN, but we don't cover artifact seizures because artifact seizures are "too run of the mill." It's unfortunate that more editors aren't involved in these discussions, because it seems like there is a lot of arbitrary POV guiding these decisions of what is suitable for ITN inclusion, like whether a settlement figure is high enough (even though the settlement figure is really not the point here.) Seraphim System  ( talk ) 02:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know if anyone has nominated something like this before. When I am labeling it run of the mill I mean it's a corporate crime story. Corps do worse things almost every day. As for length criteria, as far as I know there is none in writing which leaves it to the judgement of the editors participating in the discussion. I can state that in my experience articles that are nominated that are stub length and relevant updates to larger articles that if they were a stand alone article would be classed as a stub, are rarely posted at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not a "corporate crime" story, it is a story about a seizure of artifacts, in this case a very large one. Usually, this is considered an international crime issue. This is not a common occurrence, though it does happen, and large seizures are a big deal every time they happen. Many scholars and researchers are interested in the outcome of these investigations. In particular, artifacts smuggled from Iraq and Syria have been a point of interest in recent years, and a seizure of thousands (in this case 5,500) is incredibly significant. I'm not sure that a longer add (about the owners and other details from recent news stories) would be appropriate to add to Hobby Lobby, so common sense should prevail here. I will consider this for future nominations since our Antiquities trade article is not in good enough shape to serve as the second article. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 03:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose 3 million is pocket change for what their implicit worth likely is. --M ASEM (t) 02:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it too much to ask that you read the entire blurb before commenting? They have agreed to pay $3 million and forfeit 5,500 tablets. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 02:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's still a slap on the wrist. If there were actual executives from Hobby Lobby going to jail over this, indicating the severity of the situation, that might be something, but that's not here. --M ASEM (t) 03:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't feel this is sufficiently in the news to merit posting(no sources seem to be offered here either) aside from the other issues raised. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not convinced that this story is important enough for ITN, as it seems to be a mere slap on the wrist (and a small one at that). Also surprised that Jesus didn't give them a dig-out in this case. You would think that discriminating against homosexuals would buy you enough brownie points for some legal aid. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

RD: John McKenzie

 * Comment - not sure where I stand at the moment, still checking the references. The problem here is that there's hardly anything here. This article is in some kind of limbo between "stub"↑→ and ←↓"start"- class, without being either one, or the other. Maybe we need to start an RfC about the "class" of article for RD nominations, or something. Christian Roess (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it looks like there may be some inaccuracies which can be fixed: it looks like he made 52 appearances with Dumbarton (not 28, as stated in the infobox). So maybe the infobox needs some citation, too. But I don't follow this sport, so I'm unsure if I'm reading the stats correctly after going thru the references. Also, I would suggest a citation is needed after the sentence that states "during his Partick Thistle career he helped the side to three League Cup finals, in 1953, 1956 and 1959, but they lost on each occasion." But even with these fixes, some expansion of the article is needed before I can cast my "support" vote. Christian Roess (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on the accuarcy issues noted above (but no, we definitely do not need to discuss article classes, they have no governance and are frankly pointless between "stub" and "GA"). The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The statistics in the infobox are based on this source. For the Dumbarton number this is flatly contradicted by this. Not sure how to resolve this. --LukeSurlt c 12:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes only list league appearances, so the 28 figure is correct. The 52 figure includes league and cup appearances.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Daniil Granin

 * Oppose list of works and list of awards unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article has been sourced and I believe it should be good to go. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

[Reclosed] 2017 North Korean missile tests

 * Oppose Sabre-rattling by NK. Standard practice for them. --M ASEM (t) 12:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting saber rattling. 600 miles would not hit Alaska. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That wasn't what was being demonstrated, see David Wright, a physicist with the US-based Union of Concerned Scientists, says that if the reports are correct, this missile could "reach a maximum range of roughly 6,700km on a standard trajectory". That range would allow it to reach Alaska, but not the large islands of Hawaii or the other 48 US states, he says.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – More braggadocio from Pyongyang. Sca (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose – Sabre-rattling. While a missile did in fact launch, the claim that it could hit Alaska is only a theory, as North Korea rarely, if not ever seems to fire its missiles at maximum range.  Keep in mind that some experts exaggerate their claims. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. That one actually worked. Although it's not clear what was inside? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind in the alt blurb: NK says they can hit anywhere in the world, experts think it could reach Alaska, and the actual missile only went about 675 miles. --M ASEM (t) 21:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The trajectory is key here, I think, but yes a few imponderables. Feel free to suggest ALT2. Perhaps that would prove too tortuous? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, this is the first successful demonstration of the capability to hit the US mainland. Trump had previously said that he would not allow that to happen under his watch and yet it has happened. Count Iblis (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Supreme Leader is the best at everything, and he can supremely dominate any country in the world with his enormous arsenal of missiles. This is not news. Bae = All-powerful. Everyone knows that. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness though, this is mere sabre-rattling. If the petulant baby is crying for attention and demanding that we worship him, we can feel free to ignore him. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Another source. Count Iblis (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support it's hard to see this as less significant than some of the things that we've posted in the past month. Banedon (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Opposers fail to convince. This remains headline news across the board. U.S. and South Korean response is notable. Should be posted at once. Jus  da  fax   17:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is the same old bluster, and the same old story, we've been hearing from N. Korea since...well, forever. And frankly, it"s the same-old-same-old we've been hearing from the United States, too. Hey, I used to live in Seoul, so I know. I mean, talk about your "fake news." Alas, this nomination needs to go the way of all flesh. For real. Christian Roess (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Now a United Nations Security Council Emergency Debate? And it's just "fake news", yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Which appears to have happened after every NK successful test launch such as in Feb and Aug of 2016. Again, this is standard reaction all around. (And I'd call this more sensationalist news rather than fake news - it's overblowing the immediate danger by focusing on the prediction a missile could hit the US, where this has actually yet to be shown and that it can carry a payload that survives re-entry). --M ASEM (t) 20:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about "after every NK successful test launch." But your word "re-entry" puts this test into perspective. The "Entry Interface" for NASA's Space Shuttle, for re-entry calculations was 76 miles. But this rocket test reached an altitude of 1,741 miles. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * True, likely not after every test, but they are frequent enough that just because the UN calls an emergency session shouldn't make this specific test more important than any other test. --M ASEM (t) 20:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm afraid so Martinevans123. In my opinion, "fake news" is just the latest "catch-phrase" for what has gone by other names in the past: like, "propaganda," or "spectacle," for instance. And in my opinion that kind of falls under the umbrella of "manufacturing consent"... or the "engineering of consent"...yep, so in that sense: "fake news". No two ways around it. But maybe Masem is showing more discernment here. And so I'll agree that this news is "sensationalist." Christian Roess (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh well, I've said my bit. Of all the "fake news" the Donald might have crowed about, this is not top of my list just yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I hear you, and it's a relentless media blitzkrieg, who has time to sort it all out, fake, real? But I think we can all agree that, when it comes to N. Korea and the U.S., both of their leaders have lousy haircuts. Christian Roess (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Apparently this is a worrisome technological development, but until something happens as a result it's all bluster politically. U.S. options are few. What are they going to do, nuke Pyongyang, 90 miles from China? I don't think so. Thus, in effect it's just more hot air from Kim Jong-un as he plays Godzilla of the Demi-Despots. Sca (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Seriously? We're using the response to the test as a baseline for notability? Nothing's going to be done. Nothing ever has been done. What are they going to do; sanction them? Because that worked so well in the past, didn't it?--WaltCip (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Unmoved by the opposition here. A first ICBM by a confirmed nuclear state - whilst acknowledging that there is no suggestion that they are yet capable of launching a nuclear strike - and over a period of decades North Korea has been considered one of the only countries on earth likely to launch a first strike attack outside of wartime. The question of whether it could hit New York, Washington D.C. or Los Angeles is an (understandably followed) red herring. ICBM is an objective measurement of a missile's minimum range, and a missile considered capable of hitting Anchorage from Pyongyang passes that measurement. All too frequently there is a temptation to post about North Korea, but on an objective basis I believe this is the time where that temptation is justified. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As a slightly pithy though not totally irrelevant aside, our last blurb update to ITN was in June. The nomination for that story is no longer visible on ITNC as it was made more than a week ago. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak support about a thousand times more significant than MOAB which gained a lot of support. It seems very easy to deny the fact that North Korea are now able to strike Alaska, but add this technological step forward to the nuclear testing then we're not far away from that reality.  Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 *  This event is referenced once, in a paragraph to be found 3,165 words into a 7,000-word article. Not what one would classify as user-friendly. Sca (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just for info, it's also now been added at Hwasong-14. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ...from which I've just excised a load of copyvio, so that article is in no state for the main page at present. BencherliteTalk 14:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Although I'm not sure there'll be any rush to fix it now. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Question - this is a genuine question which will shape my opinion on this piece greatly. Even if (and I would still consider it to be an if) the DPRK is capable of hitting Alaska with an ICBM, does this really constitute an escalation. As far as I am concerned, nowhere in Alaska would be a strategic target for North Korea, so they will not waste one of their (relatively few) nuclear weapons on it. Russia also have ICBM's capable of hitting Alaska, but their development was not newsworthy as they would never use one on the state. Is this scenario similar? Stormy clouds (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, is this the first time that American territory is in range of North Korean nukes? I ask considering it is almost twice as far as the crow flies from Anchorage to Pyongyang as it is to Guam. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair questions. NK certainly isn't stuck in the 50s. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In answer to the original question, Alaska is a point of convenience for the media, as Anchorage simply happens to closely align with the distance from North Korea at which a missile is considered an ICBM (>5500km). By contrast, Russia theoretically had the ability to hit Alaska with a nuke years before the first ICBM was launched in 1957, purely due to geography. The reason I support this particular escalation is not so much the practical significance, as much as the fact that it is the only objective opportunity I can envisage (other than a war going hot) at which to post a story on the North Korea situation. I fail to see how it would be in keeping with NPOV to not post North Korea successfully testing an ICBM, but then subsequently post that they have a missile with the range to hit either the capitol or simply somewhere in the US mainland. I make this point because this seems to be the general tone of the opposition. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect some editors might be reluctant to support this in case it lends any credence to the NK regime's propaganda machine. Imagine how much more impact this would have had if there had been no euphoric July-4th-gift-to-Uncle-Sam announcement, and the news had just leaked out via Reuters from Japanese and Chinese monitoring agencies? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Sabre rattling by a country with a half century history of this kind of behavior is not something that warrants attention from ITN. The details may be different but the underlying story is the same. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This is the first ever successful test of an ICBM by North Korea. This is a major game changer as it allows NK to directly attack the US.  To those dismissing this as mere saber rattling or that this has been going on for a half-century, this is different.  NK has never had an ICBM capable of directly attacking the US homeland.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. North Korea successfully testing an ICBM is a historic event and definitely ITN worthy. --bender235 (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

 Suggest close – Fairly even vote split. Getting stale. Sca (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I think we might want to let User:bender235 restore his comment that was removed by an anon IP. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct me if my math is wrong, but 6 of the last 9 !votes are in favor of inclusion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If we are going to upload it, we should at least change the headline so that it is not misleading. Saying that the"ICBM" "can" reach Alaska is often interpreted by most readers as meaning it "will" reach Alaska, and thus would potentially cause another Red Scare like what happened back in the 1950s and 60s.  We should say something more accurate like it "may be able to" instead. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support This is more than sabre-rattling - it is a major development that has made worldwide headlines. Seems ITN worthy to me.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose This nomination is getting really out of hand, I oppose this not because this is saber-rattling (which it is Supporters, get over it.). But also because you all are acting like Pessimists, thinking that "Oh, it IS going to hit Alaska" or "America is doomed". The thing you supporters need to know is that while I don't disagree that this may have been an ICBM, it's standard trajectory was not tested, only estimated and thus is technically still unknown.  While North Korea should not be underestimated, they should not be overestimated either, because their failures outweigh their successes, and they only recently began to succeed in using missile technology.  Martian, I do agree that North Korea "isn't in the 50s", but neither are they "in the present/2010s" either, and you need to realize it too.  Their technology is largely outdated from the rest of the world, including their "allies" in China (not the quotation marks), and it is often said that North Korea's missiles' accuracy is nothing special. I'm against this nomination because of the fighting you users are already doing right now over just one nomination, you all should be ashamed of what you have gotten yourselves into. SamaranEmerald (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have anything to be ashamed of, and I don't think America is doomed. I just think this is a major story in which our readers would be interested. You should stop trying to second-guess other editors reasons for supporting. And I know what pessimism is, thanks.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Politically and culturally, of course it's still totally trapped. That's the real tragedy. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC) "Is there life in Pyongyang?"


 * No consensus to post.  Spencer T♦ C 21:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * (re-opening) As a non-admin in good standing I'm reopening this. With a neutral hat on, clearly this is more likely to not be posted than to be posted on the basis that I'm sure significant weight is being given to the opposition. With a non-neutral hat on I question the strength of the oppose votes, which in the main amount to "yes it sounds big, but this is North Korea we're talking about". Regardless, the decision to close was a needless one. The debate was not bad-natured – it was not descending into personal attacks, mud-slinging, motive questioning, and furthermore was not being disrupted by a particular side. Where loaded comments were made in either the support or oppose column, the bait was not being  bitten by those replying other than to disagree and explain why. Furthermore, the trend of later comments was materially different to earlier ones, suggesting a slight possibility of a consensus to post emerging. This is particularly relevant given that if posted it would have been (and at the current time, would still be) the most recent story. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to revert this since I am INVOLVED, but for the record I disagree with it. The close was good and it was an ADMIN action. Acknowledging NOTAVOTE there is no reasonable likelihood of a consensus coming out of this. You would have to have one or a combination of a massive shift by opposing editors to support and or an avalanche of new support votes with no new oppose votes. Aint happening. Strong support speedy reclose. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Closed There is no chance of consensus to post this emerging before it becomes stale, so there is no point in the discussion remaining open as it takes editors' time and energy away from newer stories and articles that need attention. This is standard practice for ITN nominations where discussions are time sensitive, getting consensus is important, ensuring quality is even more important and eyes are relatively few. Thryduulf (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)}}

2017 China floods

 * Weak oppose unless it gets worse(which is possible); as the Reuters piece states, "Floods kill dozens of people every year in China during the summer rainy season" so this is not unusual. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be useful if you could suggest blurbs when you make your nominations Sherenk1. --LukeSurlt c 11:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Done Sherenk1 (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the source for the '48' claim? The Reuters story says 33. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I had read it online somewhere, cant seem to find the link, reverted blurb to 33. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose At this stage, deaths from flooding in China at this time of year is not unexpected, similar to deaths from torandoes in the US or from hurricanes/typhoons. It's sad news, but also something that does happen regularly. If the floods worsen, then that might be valid to post. --M ASEM (t) 13:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait - I think we should let this one play out before making a decision. At the moment, the article is not of a sufficient quality irrespective of opinions about news-worthiness. Currently 48 are reported dead, and at this level, I would oppose. However, if this death toll rises to triple figures (which it may well) and the article receives significant improvements which I lack the expertise to implement, then I would unabashedly support. - Stormy clouds (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - neither of these criteria have materialised, and I am beginning to doubt the long-term international impacts of this, so I'll oppose. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * subject expert? Banedon (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jack Collom

 * Support all seems in order. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support after removing an uncited and POV comment in the lead about him making "unique contributions", I think this is good to go. BencherliteTalk 10:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Tour de France

 * Oppose. Ongoing was never meant for sports events in progress except for the multi sport Olympics. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 331dot. It's guarenteed an ITNR posting when its all done. --M ASEM (t) 17:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. The nom's rationale is that ongoing would be superior to a blurb at conclusion. I happen to agree with that for this particular event, given the anti-climax that is the final stage, compared to the drama that happens in the mountains and stages that have a major crash in them. Such as today's. But all that said, are we really going to refrain from posting the yellow jersey? Because if not then ongoing + blurb would be the start of a new fad. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Neither of the opposes seem to have reasoning other than "this isn't what we've done before". The nominator's rationale is solid - this is an ongoing event that is in the news with stage-by-stage updates in the articles. The "cost" of using the ongoing section here is slim, this space is literally blank right now. Replacing the ongoing item with the blurb once the Tour finishes seems perfectly fine to me. --LukeSurlt c 16:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue with the Tour de France is that there is only one effective winner, despite there being many segments. It's an extremely long event for all purpose. Contrast with the Olympics where there are numerous events and winners every day, or with FIFA World Cup where there's elimination matches every single day so there's significant complete events to discuss. --M ASEM (t) 17:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Would this set precedent do same with Giro d'Italia, Vuelta a España, Tour Down Under et al? JennyOz (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * None of those events are listed on ITN/R, and they lack the significant international attention and prestige of the Tour de France, so no. They are not news-worthy enough for ITN in general unless something extremely unusual occurs (which would result in a blurb nomination). Stormy clouds (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I don't see what would conceptually distinguish the Tour de France from other multi-day single sport competitions such as FIFA World Cup, America's Cup, Wimbledon, MLB, NBA, or NHL finals, etc.  Once you go down this road, it would seem like there are way too many multi-day competitions that one might similarly argue in favor of putting in ongoing.  For that reason, my preference is to stick with just using a blurb at the end.  Dragons flight (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand your reservations. However, precedence is not binding, and the daily staging of the Tour (which is a solitary event with one winner) demarcates it as unique. I would not necessarily propose the nomination of many of the other events which you have listed as they are often too disparate, and do not receive the same type of media attention as the Tour. Most media treats it as an ongoing affair, and it would also conveniently fill the ongoing slot which is currently vacant. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose For those of us who like the process of WP as much as the result, I love the nom, because I want to see where everyone comes down on this in re: the various norms and policies. But this does not meet the qualifications for ongoing UNLESS there is someone who is going to own it; and post ITN-worthy updates daily. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, not because it is a sporting event, but because the updates will be just filling in the table of who's ahead by which stage. This is not like other ongoing where articles are getting regular prose updates. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Cuz it's a gol-dang bicycle race, gol-dang-it! (And this user goes bicycling almost every day.) Sca (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: I have added some material, including links to this and to previous "ongoing" sports nominations, at WP:ITNR, for future reference. BencherliteTalk 21:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)