Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/March 2018

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

[Posted] RD: Margarita Carrera

 * Oppose One of the main references is a WordPress.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Problem solved.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. The bio needs expanding. The bibliograpy is unsourced. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll try to improve with local sources. –FlyingAce✈hello 17:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose "selected works" is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Newbie question – would adding the ISBN be sufficient, or do we need a RS stating these works were authored by her? I am honestly not sure about the correct way to source lists of works. Thank you! –FlyingAce✈hello 16:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, ISBNs are usually considered acceptable from a verifiability and RS perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. I do realize that the existing sources are problematic as well – I'm currently looking for better sources to replace the Wordpress blog. –FlyingAce✈hello 16:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I have sourced her works, replaced the Wordpress ref with more reliable sources, and cited most of her awards (and removed the ones I couldn't find a RS for). Would you mind taking another look? –FlyingAce✈hello 21:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thanks, FlyingAce. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Peg Lautenschlager

 * Oppose electoral history section has no refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi The Rambling Man, I have now added reliable references for these results - Dumelow (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good enough for me now! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support g2g. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Chris Edwards

 * Weak support references aren't well written and some are out of order, but it's good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Looks OK now. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 19:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] 2018 Land Day incidents
It seems like an entry of some kind for the 2018 Land Day incidents would be in order, if anyone can come up with a suitable blurb. 89.240.143.247 (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support this has been trending on social media yet failing to break any mainstream news (how curious) but it's a significant clampdown and attack. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Possible blurb Clashes kill 16 at the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip. 89.240.143.247 (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Added  Nixinova   T   C  01:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - per TRM, and support proposed blurb, which I find to be phrased quite neutrally. I’d support a mention of the now 17 Palestinian protesters that died, actually, but this blurb should be acceptable. Jusdafax (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment this can't go up with a list of the dead. That's silly. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Referenced. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - It's an important event. Oranjelo100 (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would clarify 16 (now 17) Palestinians died so no one concludes both sides sustained the same casualties. Other than that, I support - this major event and don't find the dead to be "silly".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support َA major even with significant toll in a day. Moreover, as per TheGracefulSlick, the blurb needs to include 16 Palestinians! -- M h hossein   talk 06:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. This is actual news, as opposed to whatever this ridiculous cricket ball-molestation story is.  Sandstein   10:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean the biggest story for years about the second-biggest sport in the world? Black Kite (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The one that's no longer in the news, that's right. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think needs to stop being a dick here.  His edits are becoming disruptive here and if they continue I will seek for him to be topic-banned.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. All over the news, will run for a while. Black Kite (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is level 4 edit protected or somesuch, I've asked that the list of victims be refed or deleted but it's gone no where. Maybe someone here with the right barnstars and flags can go and clean that up so we can post it. Without that section it's easily as long as the slew of other irrelevant disaster stories which are routinely posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is an unsourced paragraph, in addition to the above mentioned issue with the victim list. When those two issues are resolved, I support. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried to add some citations and fix the raised issues. -- M h hossein   talk 20:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is fixed. I now Support as it's ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I still don't think a list of the individuals is encyclopedic but it's refed so support GTG --LaserLegs (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Blurb suggestion: Clashes kill 17 Palestinian protesters and injures 1,416 others at the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip. -- M h hossein   talk 20:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll add that as an altblurb for an WP:UNINVOLVED admin to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I fixed that suggestion to something that might be acceptable in written English and moderately future-proofed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Another possible blurb Clashes kill 17 Palestinians and injure more than 1,400 others during protests at the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip. Suggesting this form because Israel would strongly dispute the claim these were all merely protestors, and is accusing the majority of the dead of terrorism. -- BobTheIP editing as 89.240.143.247 (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Lots of people involved; newsworthy.  Nixinova   T   C  21:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 2 & 3 - I'm amazed this hasn't been posted yet. No need to whitewash this. The fact that the people killed are Palestinians needs to be in the blurb. --39.57.233.22 (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment anyone here to post this? It's been ready for a couple of days now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Alt3.  Spencer T♦ C 19:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * not 3: I would leave out the number injured because it is not independently verified, and including it supports the Hamas POV. OtterAM (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Excluding it supports the IDF POV. Here is the thing, it's cited to reliable sources. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Win Myint appointed President of Myanmar

 * Conditional Support-Head of state changes are important, no matter the importance of the country, should be posted once the article is no longer a stub. Awestruck1(talk) 22:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment- I would support it, but the article is not good enough. It's a stub or a start at best.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's long enough, but it needs sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are 5 cn templates that must be fix them. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * cn resolved, though it was a bit uncomfortable to use Sputnik News. Juxlos (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Per BBC, this should be under 28 March, when the MPs elected him. Added altblurb for clarity. Brandmeistertalk  07:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per . Some extensions needed. Juxlos (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the ITNR is for the article about the election result. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Bill Maynard

 * Oppose Needs more sourcing mainly towards information regarding his career.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Poor quality, undersourced article. Television and Filmography section is completely unreferenced. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

[Updated] Update on Russian diplomat expulsion story

 * Support - yes we should. Expanding the blurb to include the Russian retaliation makes sense, and this expansion is clearly notable, representing escalation and development to an already listed item. Stormy clouds (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Bump as combined blurb, something like "Russia and over 20 countries expel each other's diplomats in response to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal", perhaps with the Reactions to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal as a new target. Brandmeistertalk  13:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe this should be moved to Ongoing. Natureium (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Update and Bump My gut says this may be winding down so I don't think ongoing is the optimal course. But who knows. This has already gone on longer than I expected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support updating without bump So long as it's on the main page, it should be up to date. However, it's still second on the ITN list. By the time it is pushed off, it should be done. I don't feel that it's necessary to keep having the latest news on Russian international drama posted and bumped to the top of the main page every time something happens, but with all of that being said I still agree that this is an important story that belongs on the main page because of its unquestionable impact on global diplomacy. I also support the phrasing in Brandmeister's proposal as the nominator did not provide a proposed updated blurb. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb update The current blurb has a few days still, so adding this makes the most sense rather than a new blurb. --M asem (t) 18:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Update and bump agree with Brandmeister. Banedon (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support updating without bump - Agree with the update, but no bump is needed per BrendonTheWizard. Jusdafax (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Since there seems to be consensus for doing so, I have updated the blurb but not bumped it, as suggested. Think I did it right. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Egyptian Presidential election 2018

 * Oppose According to the article, the winner will not be announced until 2 April, assuming there is no run-off. TheMrP (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait until formal announcement on April 2 as noted in article.-- Jayron 32 03:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support- A new president in such a country such as Egypt should be posted Awestruck1(talk) 22:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well of course, but it’s ITN/R, so we’re looking at article quality. To me it makes no sense to post this until results are confirmed on April 2. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - Confirmed by Economist as well Sherenk1 (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose obviously. The second sentence of the lead says "A runoff, if necessary, will take place 19 April to 21 April outside the country and 24 April to 26 April within the country.". So this is clearly not ready.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per ITN/R. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. The election article is not updated fully and has no post-election section. In particular, The Guardian source above is commenting on the high proportion of spoiled ballots. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Still not ready, see above comments. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Emiliano Mondonico

 * Support Looks good. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment coming up to being ready to post for 24 hours now. Anyone here?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. If an admin could doublecheck that I did it right, I'd appreciate it. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * All fine. And congrats on becoming an admin ;) --Tone 18:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Pope says there is no Hell

 * Comment. I honestly am not sure about the merits of this at the moment.  But skimming the Newsweek piece, the Church is stating that it was not a formal interview but a private conversation and is challenging the accuracy of the transcript. Either way, this isn't the Pope making a formal declaration of Church policy/teachings. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. This is not an ex cathedra pronouncement and it changes no doctrine. I may withdraw this. However the Vatican's response is not really a denial. They play this game whenever this Pope puts his foot in his mouth by issuing a non-denial denial. "Well he may not have been accurately quoted... blah blah blah." -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also a fair point. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Rusty Staub

 * Oppose Some sections of the article have less than three citations. Overall yes it's not in bad shape, but there is room for more citations (plus I'm not sure if this is a merit for the nomination but the article does have a very few bare URLs that wouldn't hurt to clean up). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose not the greatest article, and a few citations missing, but not far off. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] 2018 Valencia, Venezuela fire

 * Support - short but sufficient. High number of deaths.BabbaQ (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - but it needs expansion, as noted. I just rated it as a “stub.” Jusdafax (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose clearly not suitable for main page, a handful of sentences, barely a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not currently of sufficient quality but there's a lot more in the Guardian article, so expansion is possible. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub. What, beyond the death toll makes it notable? It'll probably be out of the headlines by morning. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Sufficiently developed. - Sherenk1 (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I’ve been adding a bit. It’s now a “start” class, and I’ve rated it as such. Jusdafax (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Article has been expanded.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support- This fire made major news for many reasons, such as corruption, etc. Awestruck1(talk)10:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have now added a “Background” section and upgraded the article class to C. Jusdafax (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Article has improved, and the story is getting significant coverage - was front page of the New York Times today. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thanks everyone who improved this. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd like to ask for a change in the blurb, the official death toll given by William Saab was 68 deaths, like BBC, CNN and ABC reported, I'm not sure why the Guardian has a different figure. Here are other sources that show the same official estimate: --Jamez42 (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've edited this. I don't know where the 78 figure came from. The Guardian now seems to state 68 too. Thanks for commenting. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment "A fire" can't kill people. Please fix the grammar of this blurb. — Hugh (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it can. We use regular English here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Clément Rosset

 * Oppose on quality The list of works in French will need sourcing. If we take the bibliography out, the article is woefully short, and really needs some expansion to get past a stub. This might be a language barrier issue. --M asem (t) 13:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bibliography needs sourcing and the article is basically a stub. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per both above. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment User:LouisAlain improved the bibliography. We don't have a rule against stubs, do we?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In_the_news: "Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items. Stub articles are never appropriate for the main page." This includes RDs as well. Looking at Rosset's article, there isn't sufficiently comprehensive coverage of the subject's work as a writer and philosopher (there are only 4 sentences dedicated to that).  Spencer T♦ C 02:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:LouisAlain: Would you like to help with this please? It would involve translating the French text.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Sir Eric McClintock

 * Support looks okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not sure it's ready, let alone "Ready!!!!!!!" On a quick scan, the article looks well enough sourced but it is still very short, as it was the last twice I looked. Personally I like two different reviewers to check, though I know other admins differ. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Short but meets RD requirements. Pawnkingthree (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Short but well referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Galaxy seemingly without Dark Matter

 * Support Dark matter is 85% of all matter so this is.. interesting. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose "appears" and "little or no" render this DYK material. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Agree with TRM, this is probably better suited for DYK although I am not sure if there are enough information at the moment to expand. Alex Shih (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on merits, though I haven't had a chance to look at the article quality. This is in the news and I think fits points 1 and 3 of the purpose of ITN.  GoldenRing (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - certainly significant, but I agree with TRM and Alex Shih that this is probably better suited to DYK. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support Interesting and noteworthy. The blurb does not sound news-y, and if this were good to go for DYK then I would tell them to go there. But I support it on its merits per GoldenRing. talk to ! dave 12:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose it’s a single paper, and may be overturned. With the “appears to” it makes little sense to report it as fact. Juxlos (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose While astronomic topics are a welcome addition for ITN, this appears highly speculative and will be impossible to prove out in any real time scale. --M asem (t) 13:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support if areas of concern are fixed. I support this based on merit, but I do agree with the oppose !vote rationale that DYK is more fitting. Blurb should be modified if added into ITN, as Juxlos pointed out that "appears to" heavily implies that these findings remain early and speculative rather than confirmed and objective. It is also worth noting that this blurb puts both in-text links in bold; the primary article for this ITN submission should be bolded, and all article links should simply be non-bold links. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thanks for all the replies, and especially all the suggestions to take it to DYK. I've never done a DYK before, and I'm finding all sorts of potential banana skins when trying to prepare this one for nomination there, such as whether what is currently a Redirect to a section of another article will do (seemingly not), and whether, despite TRM's comment above, 'appears' and 'little or no' are incompatible with "The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change" (from here), and whether it is problematic that the 'little or no' is another editor's paraphrasing of the Nature paper, whereas the cited BBC article just says 'no', and so on. So I've decided I would probably prefer to leave any DYK nom to some editor more familiar with that process than me (and find some simpler case for my first DYK nom some other time, if ever). Meanwhile I was thinking of withdrawing this nom here due to the DYK suggestions, but as DYK also seems problematic, and as there have so far actually been 4 support !votes (5 if you include me, as against 5 opposes), so that it is just possible (tho seemingly unlikely) that a consensus for posting could yet emerge, I've decided to leave any decision on closing this nom to others. Thanks again to all, and regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Re DYK, redirects are out and the entire article, never mind the hooky section, is far too short for DYK at present. If it could be expanded I see no reason in principle why it should not be acceptable there. You can always write a hook that quotes someone; that will remain true (ie that s/he said x) even if the opinion subsequently turns out to be incorrect. (Which is the line the BBC report has largely taken.) Espresso Addict (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the helpful info (but see item 3 in my comment below). Tlhslobus (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * 0) As I don't expect this nom to succeed, this comment is probably mostly 'just for the record' and/or 'just for future reference', etc
 * 1) Bold Links: Per Brendan The Wizard, I've changed the blurb to just one bold link.
 * 1b) Currently that is NGC1052-DF2 because, being short, it has no Citations Needed issues, etc
 * 1c) However if Dark Matter is deemed (now or later) to be of adequate quality then I would marginally prefer it to be the bold link, as somewhat better serving ITN's stated purpose of giving readers the background to the story, so I've added this as altblurb1
 * 1d) But actually WP:ITN is currently a bit ambiguous about how many bold links there can be, tho the '(s)' in "with an emboldened link to the updated article(s)." (here) appears to imply that one can have more than one, so if a posting admin wants to bold both articles (in the unlikely event this gets posted), please feel free to do so.
 * 2) Re-wording: Due to various objections above about 'appears' and 'little or no', I've re-worded the blurb as: Astronomers report that galaxy NGC1052-DF2 has no detected dark matter. (This is repeated with Dark matter bolded in altblurb1, per item 1c above).
 * 2b) However I've left the original wording as altblurb2, as I think the original wording is actually much better. As far as I'm concerned, objections to 'appears' and 'little or no' and objections like "it’s a single paper, and may be overturned" and "With the “appears to” it makes little sense to report it as fact", etc, are dangerously misguided. With science stories, the only thing we should normally report as fact is that scientists have published something. Anything else tends to mislead our readers about the inherently speculative and reversible nature of Science, thus encouraging Cargo Cult views of Science. It has also led us to mislead many of our readers in practice (even if in theory we can always arrogantly blame them for their 'ignorant misunderstanding', etc), and perhaps also unnecessarily damaged our reputation, by posting stories like Dua's layer without qualifying words like 'possible' (for all except that story's last day at ITN). And it comes from a mindset that would prevent us reporting many of the most important results in Science (such as the Michelson–Morley experiment, and Eddington's 1919 General Relativity test, etc), initially (and wrongly) because they might be reversed, and later (and rightly) because they were no longer news.
 * 3) DYK v ITN: Despite above suggestions, I no longer think this is suitable for DYK, as, among other things, it would seemingly require questionably moving an article section to become a new article, and then padding it out with unencyclopedic waffle to fill the size requirements, etc. Meanwhile I think it remains entirely appropriate for ITN, for reasons well stated above, especially by GoldenRing (for which many thanks).
 * 4) Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, if that even carries any meaning given my perceived inconsequential status. I would like to at least thank Tlhslobus for the hard work and determination in bringing this article to discussion. As little as a year ago, this page was highly informative with genuine discourse from international viewpoints.  I could always count on it to educate me regarding various news items with commentary from those more familiar with the events than populist news outlets.  These days, sadly, it degenerates far too quickly into passive aggression and nasty attitudes.  It's neither enjoyable nor educational when that happens.  There also seems to be far too much weight given towards pointless sporting events, but that's only my opinion.  I come here for the education, not the drama, and not for its value as a sports almanac. 165.225.0.85 (talk)
 * Thanks for your kind words and your support, 165.225.0.85. Incidentally, if you're worried about your perceived status here, the quickest way to improve it is almost certainly to create a user account for yourself. It's free and all you need is an e-mail address (and you can then click on 'Create account' at the top of this page). Anyway, thanks again, and regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: To say that a galaxy "has no detected dark matter" is poor grammar. "Scientists are unable to detect any dark matter in galaxy x" would be an improvement. — Hugh (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Bobby Ferguson

 * Support I see no reason not to post. Article seems ready.BabbaQ (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced. Marking ready. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support: Not exactly sure about the importance but it's not a reason to oppose. Article is sourced and ready to go; however RD slots are currently filled with very recent entries, so ideally this should wait for another two days. Alex Shih (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. Important enough, managed second tier English football team, far more notable in the world of sports than most college basketball coaches.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment 14 hours later ......... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 21:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Peter Munk

 * Support but only when the entire article is referenced. As of now many sections are almost without references.BabbaQ (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've made some edits to reference the unreferenced sections. Should be good to go. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 21:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for late reply. I see that the article has been posted. Good work!BabbaQ (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

*Oppose until orange tag issues are fixed. Challenger l (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? You'd hold this back based on a tag added 30 minutes ago because the lede isn't long enough?!? ITN has become a bureaucratic red tape these days. Article is fine. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 20:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 22:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. Glad the issue was an easy fix. Challenger l (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Smith and Warner sacked from international cricket

 * Oppose – It wouldn't be cricket to post this. Sca (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I've boldly tweaked the nomination because it didn't have a highlighted article in the blurb suggestion; looking at possible targets those on the athletes are both high quality articles which have extensive writing on the specific subject of the blurb. Given that we have good articles, and that this is a highly publicized story in the world wide press (even in cricket ignorant America, broadcast news like NPR is giving the story prominence).  Quality articles?  Check.  Currently a major story?  Check.  -- Jayron 32 16:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There are actually three cricketers banned. Cameron Bancroft is less high-profile but it still seems odd to omit any mention of him. I think Australian cricket team in South Africa in 2017–18 may be a better target article - it meets the update requirements.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would rather highlight and bold the three cricketer articles rather than the article you suggest because that article has major ommissions in its prose; basically there is no prose OUTSIDE of the ball tampering issue, which is a major WP:UNDUE issue; there should be summaries of all of the tests in sufficient detail, and basically its a few tables and three paragraphs on the ball tampering. At least the three cricketer articles are sufficiently detailed.  I'd actually rather do that... I have tweaked the blurb to include all three names.  -- Jayron 32 17:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * N.B. Cameron Bancroft (not Cameron Bancroft) has been banned for only 9 months, not 12. 86.170.155.164 (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So fixed. -- Jayron 32 17:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I know little of cricket, but this seems to be unusual and a big deal. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There have been several previous incidents - see Ball tampering - but this seems to be the biggest in terms of media reaction and severity of punishment.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support and it has the advantage of being relevant in parts of the world that are often less covered, let alone in a single line (E.g, Europe [UK], South hemisphere (Aus.), Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) and the Carribean (West Indies). Sorted! —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 17:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Athletes are suspended and/or fined all the time. Not making sports headlines (maybe cricket headlines but where do we draw the line). David_Warner_(cricketer) has a number of CN tags and unreferenced claims. Steve_Smith_(cricketer) as well. Before we gasp "A BILLION people in India watch cricket (I surveyed them all myself) this is BIG NEWS" at the very least get the articles cleaned up. If you need me to go through and spam them with CN tags, please, LMK. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not just improve those articles? How often does a Prime Minister like Malcolm Turnbull get involved? 86.170.155.164 (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is now a separate article for this incident (Australian ball tampering scandal), Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 18:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - This is massive. High-profile athletes being suspended for a very long time over what is essentially cheating.--WaltCip (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support it would be nice to have some good news stories at ITN and this certainly one of those. Plus it's been mainstream news since it broke and it continues to get worse for the Australians, so we should certainly be posting this.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Athletes are suspended all the time for improper activities (cheating, doping, etc.); this is nowhere close to a scope or scale that I would consider front page material (something akin to the Russia doping issue that led to their inability to participate in the Winter Olympics under the Russian flag, that's severe). The fact that those accused admitted to it, have taken the penalties and/or resigned makes this a relatively not-notable event that could possibly fail NEVENT (eg merged to Australian cricket team in South Africa in 2017–18 where there's already a similar section). I mean, we did not (wisely) post Deflategate, despite the fact that involved high-profile players and involved a handful of trials (whereas here, guilt has been established). Yes, its news from underrepresented countries, but let's keep the larger purpose of ITN in mind here. --M asem (t) 18:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no way this would fail NEVENT. The amount of coverage generated means it would quickly overwhelm the article on the tour and raise UNDUE concerns, as Jayron32 notes above, so it has rightly been spun off into its own article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A burst of short-term coverage and no longer-tail coverage would fail NEVENT/GNG. That's a core element of WP being NOT#NEWS comes into play, we're looking for news events that have a longer-lasting impact. If this event started a large investigation into cheating in cricket, then perhaps the article is justified, but right now, with all those involved having asserted their guilt and taken the punishment, it seems like the end of the story here. Its still enough to include in a more notable standalone article. --M asem (t) 18:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't a burst, this has been massive news for days and will continue to be so while the fallout is analysed, it'll no doubt have an impact on the way in which the ball is inspected and treated by umpires, and is very much not the end of a story. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support This is huge - the Australian cricket captain is arguably the most high-profile sportsperson in the country and he's been banned for a year for cheating.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Big news right now, biographies updated, etc.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per WaltCip. Huge impact on an international sport, I'm even seeing it in my news feeds here in the U.S. Davey2116 (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt 2 I don't particularly find this very interesting, but it dominates Australian news (even saw one article say the cricket captain is the second most important person in Australia, after the prime minister), and it's not mine to judge what should be interesting to Australians. Banedon (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What even is this sport? Trivia.  Sandstein   20:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What even is this !vote? Absurd. Cricket is far more global than (say) American football, or ice hockey, or college basketball...   The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly care about the nomination but that is patently false, TRM. You might be right about the American-style football bit, since that is primarily played in the US, but ice hockey and basketball? First, "college basketball" is not a sport, but a level to distinguish between professional and amateur. I know you know this, but I thought I'd point that out for others. Basketball and ice hockey are international sports which are played at the Olympic level and cricket is, well, not. It's mostly popular in the UK, the Indian subcontinent and Australasia, but that's about it. — Moe   Epsilon  22:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You forgot about Southern Africa (Zimbabwe and South Africa where coincidentally the cheating happened) and the English-speaking Caribbean (Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago, etc.). Gizza  (t)(c) 22:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment clear consensus to post now, so good to go, marking as ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. I've not bolded the tampering article for now, first because I think "scandal" is a poor choice of title & second because it has no lead and thus is confusing if you have not been following this. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment both articles have unreferneced paragraphs. I don't know what "On 6 September 2017, while playing against Bangladesh at the Zohur Ahmed Chowdhury Stadium, Chittagong,he became the sixth Australian player to score back-to-back test hundreds in Asia after Allan Border, Bob Simpson, Damien Martyn, Mike Hussey and Michael Clarke." means but it's unreferneced. If you're going to pile on "support OMG big news" could you at least take a cursory glance at the article? This is absurd. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The target has been changed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks TRM. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Kim Jong Un visits China

 * Oppose If the meeting info is only one line on the page I don't think this should be posted. Is "China–NK" relations really the best article to use here? – Nixinova ⟨ T | E ⟩ 03:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not opposed in principle, but the update is a single uninformative sentence. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Espresso Addict; I am not opposed to this in principle. However, this does not offer the user with any meaningful or substantive information about what the context or significance of this story is; the purpose, outcome, or impact of the meeting are missing. However, if more information is offered than simply stating the meeting is taking place, I may reconsider my !vote based on the new information. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose World leaders meet everyday and it must be covered by media. Not ITN worthy . –Ammarpad (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose In the grand scheme of things, this is a routine meeting, even if it is Kim's first venture outside NK. The blurb is extremely uninformative. talk to ! dave 11:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ammarpad and per Dave. Also, contrary to nom's claim, we've no way of knowing whether there's anything 'momentous' about this visit. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Just showing the flag. Main point of interest is his ornate VIP train. Sca (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Fabiano Caruana qualifies for World Chess Championship

 * Oppose a good DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I disagree this should be posted now. On the contrary, as the World Chess Championship is WP:ITN/R the nomination should be done once the match has taken place - if the quality is there it will be posted.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course an ITNR event should be posted. Having to also suffix one of the first 2 blurbs to "Magnus Carlsen wins" would probably make that blurb too long so it really would be posted now or never (unless the underdog wins) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added an ALT2, as I don't think either ethnic-themed hook is reasonable. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, we'll post the winner of the tournament if the article is up to scratch, but otherwise this is just trivia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree. Probably important enough for Portal:Current events, but not here. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. We can post the winner of the world championship when that happens (it's on ITNR), but merely qualifying for it is far FAR too minor for ITN. Modest Genius talk 19:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Multiple Oppose per TRM. However if she he wins I will happily support posting that subject to article quality. On a side note we don't generally put ethnicity in blurbs. He's American. That's about as far as I'd go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * He, not she. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It certainly would be notable if a woman had qualified for the World Championship, but we're still waiting for that.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * He's a citizen of both the US and Italy but moot point as this is snow close. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Footnotes to chess history. Post championship results. Sca (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose qualification is not worthy enough to yield a blurb, wait for the actual results of the championship for that matter. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Zeke Upshaw

 * Support Looks to be ready for the main page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note I don't really have any knowledge of notability for US sports, but this is another example of a biography that was only created after the subject died. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The article cites multiple sources of significant coverage from before his death, most of which have his name in its title.—Bagumba (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not the point I was making. He appears to have only played college and minor league basketball; all the references - bar possibly one - are pretty routine sports reports and transfer news etc. So the question remains - is he notable? Given our very comprehensive coverage of popular sports, I'm always very wary of suggesting an RD for someone who didn't have an article before their death, and indeed recently most examples of this have been turned down. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Indeed ready for main page.BabbaQ (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD - Notability was established upon death, not prior to.--WaltCip (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am taking no position on this and may post it based on article quality. However as questions have been raised over notability I have requested a 2nd opinion at WT:SPORTS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * He appears to fail WP:NBASKETBALL as he has not "won an award, or led the league in a major statistical category of the NBA G League" - merely appearing in a minor league is not sufficient.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that WP:NBASKETBALL is not met. I estimate it would have had a 50-50 chance of surviving at AFD (based on GNG arguments) if it had been created before his recent death. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose based on the fact that he doesn't meet the notability criteria. Tragic as the death is, that's all his Wikipedia notability amounts to.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose would have not qualified for an article under either GNG or NSPORTS prior to death. --M asem (t) 19:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as not meriting an article, his tragic death non withstanding. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per above. We should probably edit the RD criteria to state that articles created on death are not automatically entitled to an RD airing (where quality is sufficient); there's a covert "notability is supported by survival in mainspace for a few months" clause in there. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Sergei Mavrodi

 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks fine.–Ammarpad (talk) 07:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - ready for posting, as the article is fine. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 09:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Expulsion of Russian Diplomats

 * Comment - Sergei Skripal and Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal don't show that either have died, so attempted murder, not murder.  Ravensfire  (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, corrected.--WaltCip (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose More fallout/continued action over the Skirpal poisoning. We don't need every major action that happens. --M asem (t) 13:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb on the 18 countries doing it as a joint response. --M asem (t) 16:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Another trail of now banal story. Not ITN worthy at all. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Britain expelled diplomats too, and I don't think that was nominated. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It was both nominated and posted, but the UK has a lot more skin in the game here than the US that their response makes sense to cover, since the incident happened on their lands. --M asem (t) 13:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Of course, as indeed this directly involves the UK, that was a worthy update to post. This is oddly delayed (well, we can guess why it was delayed) and doesn't merit posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Changing to support alt blurb. This is a multinational coordinated effort, not "Trump being Trump". That makes it more significant, even if the guy I heard on NPR called it more "symbolic" than a threat leading to war. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Target article orange tagged, lots of proseline, no meaningful update. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment As mentioned above, when the same exact thing happened in the UK literally twelve days ago I guess it means more than it does here. This kind of crap is why The Boat Race is on the main page and when it comes down to it, major college-level American tournaments have twice as much opposition. Every time I hear cries of US systemic bias, I laugh a little knowing exactly what goes on here. — Moe   Epsilon  14:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm usually the one beating that drum the loudest, but the UK reaction is bigger news than this, I think. Save that energy for the NCAA basketball finals next weekend. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to waste my time next week when I'll see literal oppose comments consist of "We don't post the results of The Boat Race on the Main Page, do we? Oh, we do? Fancy that." — Moe   Epsilon  14:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Target article does not mention the expulsion at all. Last information in the target article is from March 1, 2018 and does not mention the information in the blurb.  -- Jayron 32 14:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb which highlights Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal which is of sufficient quality, and has been updated as of March 26. -- Jayron 32 16:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not just the U.S. doing this, a whole bunch of NATO countries (and the Ukraine) are expelling Russian diplomats. Why is this proposed blurb focused only on the U.S.? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are now 18 countries (including the US) expelling. This is gross, so I've added altblurb. Brandmeistertalk  16:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This I can support. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support for alt blurb only. If passed this will be the third time that this article will be posted on ITN in a relatively short period of time. That would normally cause me to oppose. But this is a huge story that continues to evolve in dramatic ways. I am not sure there is any precedent for this kind of mass expulsion of diplomats from so many countries. Article quality is decent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * NPR this morning said the last time such a number of diplomats were expelled from the U.S. was 55 Soviets during the Reagan administration (1981-1989 for those who don't recall). – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Were there a wave of supporting expulsions from other countries? -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * They did not say. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait this is barely discussed at the target article, and Russia's reaction hasn't happened yet. It might be better as "Ongoing" rather than a blurb (for the third time this month, as Ad Orientem notes). power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 16:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ongoing linked to Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal might be good. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Enough focus on the poisoning, plus this retaliation is just symbolic, especially if you do it after UK as a gesture. -- QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 16:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'll put my full support behind the altblurb. The blurb I proposed was just what came up in my news ticker, so I put it up there, assuming that it was notable because it's President Trump doing this.--WaltCip (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a comment towards WaltCip, but this is something I noticed is that many news stories are making this "Trump" related ("oh, and there's some EU countries doing it too" as an afterthought), when the actual news is that the US is doing this with their NATO partners. Perfect example of media bias to watch for at ITN here. --M asem (t) 17:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb (or ongoing would also work). This is NOT a Trump story. I cannot think of the last time eighteen different countries all expelled diplomats in a coordinated protest. Yes it's follow-up from the Skripal case, but it's generating headlines and that's as big a diplomatic response as you can get without imposing further sanctions. However the article needs to be adjusted to reflect that this was an international move, with the US as just one of the countries involved. I also suggest an additional anchor or section link on 'expulsion' so readers get taken straight to the update. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Question so where is the update in Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal? --LaserLegs (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * At the end of Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support alternative blurb. This doesn't need to be US-focused. Natureium (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trump blurb, dozens of other "diplomats" were expelled from many other countries too, this isn't about Trump for the love of God. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, and support alt blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb it's an international action. Banedon (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb - bigger than just Trump, but worthy of ITN. Retitled, and marked ready. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin - It probably doesn't bear mentioning, but the consensus here is to post the alt blurb and not the main blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm ambivalent about posting yet another blurb about this event; ongoing seems a better place for it. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally I’m ok with ongoing but the consensus for the alt blurb seems clear. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Ongoing - Oppose blurb & alt blurb because the article doesn't tell us which 18 countries expelled how many diplomats individually. The update is insufficient. --39.57.172.141 (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb support indefinite ongoing posting instead of arguing over every dimension of the case, which will clearly take long time before it cease appearing on news ticker. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 09:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Should we include a link to Reactions to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal? FallingGravity 18:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] 2018 Kemerovo fire

 * Support as long as the page is expanded Tragic and extraordinary incident. The article needs a bit more meat to it though. talk to ! dave 08:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support subject to extension same as above Juxlos (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub. The maps use flames to pinpoint the location, which ... come on. Adding maps and a wall of reactions from various people does not count as expansion in my book. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The way the maps are presented is, uhh, new. Juxlos (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support subject to extension per above. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support This certainly deserves to be featured, but it needs to be expanded. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Conditional support. It's a significant fire. 2607:FEA8:1CDF:DF8C:50E5:7067:2619:6BB9 (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good enough now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Prose has doubled in size in the previous 7 hours. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 20:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support once it gets cleaned up, work which I may well contribute to. Three hundred dead, at least? Blocked exits? The fire alarm switched off by security? These things have gotten fires on ITN with far fewer casualties. Daniel Case (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Addendum I was taken in by some unsourced info added by a new editor whose Russian-language summary claims that the real death toll is much higher, a rumor that may well be true and has been repeated on comments sections elsewhere but ... we have to stick with 64 for now. Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted with edited blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Should we mention that 2/3rds of the casualties are children? -  Floydian  τ ¢ 18:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jules-Aristide Bourdes-Ogouliguende

 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Referenced. Sufficiently good overall.BabbaQ (talk) 06:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. It would be useful to have a reference in the article to his death, as well as the death date. The one linked here gives 26 March, while the article states 25 March. ETA: I have changed the date to match the Africa News source & others online, but worry about time zones. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 11:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jerry Williams

 * Question is this a reliable source? The discography section has this as its only basis.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is an official site for charts in Sweden used for basically all Swedish singer articles. It has not been an issue in previous noms. Otherwise I could remove the sections all together if it is an issue.BabbaQ (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If it is official, I would have no objections. It looks kinda cheaply made and unprofessional, which is why I asked.  Just raised an eyebrow for me; it could be reliable, but being unfamiliar with Swedish music press, I thought I would follow up.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you OK with them or should I simply remove the sections all together for now. I take any advice.BabbaQ (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (e/c) See Record charts, these kinds of questions are frequent, so this page covers such queries. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed the sections all together for now. They were filled with red links anyway. I will probably return the sections later on with better sources for each song. The rest of the article is referenced. BabbaQ (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This would not be an acceptable solution for quality concerns for RD posting. If the person is a professional musician, I expect to see a list of songs/albums they have been on, and lacking that, this article is incomplete. We can't sweep sourcing issues under the rug like that. --M asem (t) 14:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You are probably right. I returned the sections, added a second source. The sources for Discography are now sufficient. BabbaQ (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Article is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – not a great article, but good enough. /Julle (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 11:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Pakistan Super League

 * Weak support There's a minimal prose summary in the target article. Would prefer some expansion, but will not hold it up over that issue.  Still, more would be nice.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability. Sorry but the PSL is not the top domestic cricket tournament, or even the top domestic T20 league - that would be the Indian Premier League, which is on WP:ITNR. If we posted this we would have to post the equivalent T20 tournaments in Australia, England and the West Indies, which are of similar prestige, which would make five blurbs a year. I don't think that level of coverage for just one of cricket's three major formats is justified. Let's stick to just the most prominent domestic T20 tournament, which is the IPL. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I always check |2018_NCAA_Division_I_Men%27s_Basketball_Tournament|The_Boat_Race_2018 Wikipedia article page views for questions about "notability", at least when ITN is concerned... – H T  D  13:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the interesting link, HTD, tho see my Comment about it below.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fake news - pageviews does not equal notability. Please see WP:TOP25. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per - this is not the most prominent cricket league, nor does it have the prestige for an English speaking audience of similar contests in England and Australia. For analogy's sake, we post the Premier League in association football, but not La Liga or the Bundesliga. I find this to be a similar situation, where we should stick to posting only the most prominent event - the IPL. Stormy clouds (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Modest Genius. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Incidentally, it's perhaps unfortunate that we are ignoring this while posting The Boat Race, which has far fewer viewers, at least year-round (thanks for the above stats link, HDT), and which has also been mentioned in support of I-forget-which other nomination in recent days, but if that's a problem, it's a problem with ITNR, to be discussed there rather than here.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not due to viewership, but recognizing that we only consider the top events of a specific sport as ITNR so that we have better diversity of topics. There are a multitude of cricket top-tier events so we've had to limit those, whereas the Boat Race is pretty much the only top-tier rowing-related event outside of the Olympics. --M asem (t) 14:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, Oxford v Cambridge is clearly of a much higher standard (and clearly also more diverse) than the non-ITNR World Rowing Championships . But as already mentioned this discussion belongs at ITNR, not here (I just mentioned it here as a sort of reply to HTD's above-mentioned stats link).Tlhslobus (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But thanks anyway, Masem. I'll probably have to see if there's a barnstar for adding to the gaiety of nations through surreal humour that I can award you for this, as well as your Post-posing comment the other day, for which thanks again .Tlhslobus (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oxford's Law: As a sports-related ITN discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving The Boat Race approaches 1.--WaltCip (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The Supreme Cabal hereby indefinitely bans WaltCip for a wickedly POV Oxonian violation of the copyright of Cambridge's Law . Thanks be to Godwin . Tlhslobus (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have consistently opposed including the Oxbridge Boat Race on ITNR, but been in the minority every time. I would be happy to support a removal proposal. Regardless, it doesn't really have any relevance to the PSL. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Far fewer viewers? We don't do ITN articles based on page views, that's what WP:TOP25 is for.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Moreover, page views, as demonstrated by the Signpost Humour article, are misleading, and some very poor quality articles attract massive amounts of views. ITN enshrines quality as well, and posting on pure popularity would remove this aspect of the criteria. Plus, ITN would just be a list of the newest films released. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Modest Genius and last year.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose PSL is still nascent compared to other major cricketing tournaments, simply not important considering the range of affairs. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 18:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Time to close? per WP:Snow - it's currently 5 to 1 against. (At least closure should stop me trying to move the above discussion on to Gamaliel's wise or blasphemous reference to a 'canoe race', and in a non sports-related ITN discussion too, thereby grossly and shamelessly violating the above-mentioned Oxbridge's Law WaltCip's Law .) Tlhslobus (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: André Bourbeau

 * Support - Short but sufficient. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support agreed, it's weak but okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

[Removed] Remove 2018 UK higher education strike from ongoing news
This has had little media coverage in the UK; I would imagine most people don't know it is going on. It is certainly not notable to a global audience and looks completely silly next to the other ongoing news articles. I can't see that it has too much notability beyond its newsworthines. Moreover the article is pretty poor and lacks balance and neutrality. Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article seems up to date, the event is still ongoing, and I'm not really seeing that it's "pretty poor" or "lacks balance and nutrality [sic]". Perhaps you could clarify your objections? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still ongoing and continuing to generate significant coverage (it took a matter of seconds to find new articles about it from the Guardian); it has become the largest strike the UK's higher education sector has ever seen. I see no particular reason to remove it, and saying it quote "looks silly" is an IDONTLIKEIT argument. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Lying as it does at the intersection of education and economics (and health care, although this particular strike does not directly relate to that sister issue), it does have significant relevance to a global audience. The details may be UK specific, but the friction point itself is symptomatic of broader issues which are currently sweeping much of the western world. The UK's choices in this will have broad ramifications. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not seeing anything about this whatsoever on the entirety of the BBC News page. Is there something I'm missing? Does BBC not think this is a big deal?--WaltCip (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind BBC serves content based on geolocation from your IP. This is usually not a good test of how important something is. --M asem (t) 13:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * They're actually forbidden from making the domestic page available internationally because of the television license. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * for that statement! That would be extremely surprising and inconsistent with other BBC output (e.g. radio & TV). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * That's... rather counter-intuitive. Well, I'll take everyone's word for it in terms of its notability.--WaltCip (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * With a UK IP address I can see no links to it on the front page of BBC News, no obvious coverage or media. I watch BBC News everyday and have seen no mention at all of it.  Industrial action these days tends not to get much media coverage; the only time it may is if it creates widespread inconvenience such as tube/train strikes.Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * comment - The article has numerous pictures of strike supporters and a great deal of material relating to that side yet little content and no pictures representing the other side. That to me suggests it is lacking in neutrality.  Of course there are articles in the Guardian; this is broadly their coverage however finding articles in newspapers and on the internet does not mean it has significant enough coverage.  Has in the past week (if at all) the issue featured prominently in a popular newspaper, on television news, on the BBC News front page; I doubt it, let alone it having international noteworthiness.  Industrial disputes do not make big news these days and this one is no different.  It being the 'largest strike in UK higher education' doesn't really give it any great weight.  Saying it 'looks silly' is not an 'I don't like it argument'; I am just pointing out the absurdity of having a relatively trivial article such as this one next two two articles of major offensives with international coverage.  I have a UK IP address; scanning the BBC News website, the Sun, the Mail and the Times I can see no prominent coverage.  In fact besides this link it is necessary to search under specific terms to find link to it on the internet. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove. According to the article and the UCU website strike action finished on 20 March. I know negotiations are continuing, but right now no-one is on strike. Iff further rounds of strikes occur we can reassess, but right now having an article entitled 'XXX strike' in the ongoing section is misleading if no strikes are in fact going on. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The article says the union has a mandate for further strikes next month so it’s inevitable there will be more. The dispute itself is definitely still ongoing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Inevitable' is way too strong - the two sides appear to be close to a deal, so that seems more likely than further strikes. Assuming that more will be announced at some unknown time is WP:CRYSTAL. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Remove per Modest Genius. Banedon (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support removal, per Modest Genius. The event is no longer in the UK press that I see, and while the article is still being worked on, editing has been pretty slow over the past few days. Until consensus to remove develops, or the strike restarts, I have changed the wording from "strike" to "dispute" for accuracy. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove that's the reasonable action. It has run its course and is no longer ongoing./–Ammarpad (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal Reading the article, it appears that there is still ongoing, active news regarding the strike; there's expected to be more information over the next few days (March 28 is a date mentioned for next major announcement from the negotiators, according to the article text). Given that, and the article is actively being edited, I see no good reason to remove it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove per nom and per ModestGenius.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove per nom. "The strikes might continue" is not a valid reason to keep a dormant news item up on the main page, especially with as limited coverage as there is. Collective bargaining is always an ongoing process, no matter what field it occurs in.--WaltCip (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove I'm unsure why this originally was posted on ongoing, instead of a blurb a month earlier, since the strike had already finished on 20 March. Personally, I don't understand why a labour strike over pension rights in one domestic industry would ordinarily be ITN material (consider if it had happened in America, for example) though I will concede that the staggered approach - 14 days over the course of a month - to the action gave their cause, and the disruption to students, optimum media coverage. Which I suppose is what strikes are meant to do. However, coverage since then has barely registered, as shown by the (non-news) references used to support the proseline added. Piecemeal negotiations about whether a deal can be reached (think Brexit) or whether further strike action is warranted over the next few months isn't what I consider blurbable material or adequate incremental updates for ongoing. Fuebaey (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove - per WP:CRYSTALBALL and the end of the event. We removed the Austin Bombings as soon as he died, same goes here. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 18:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove - per Modest Genius. Jusdafax (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Qantas

 * Oppose I don't see how this is very important, considering there have been even longer non-stop flights. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 10:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Response Maybe, but not between Australia and Europe. Also, The Guardian's article doesn't share your view - it says that "...the first commercial passenger jet journey direct between Australia and Europe ... has been described as a “game-changer” by some in the aviation industry." Bahnfrend (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if I was in the industry I'd say it too. I'm obviously not claiming this isn't unique but it's still the second longest no-stop flight in operation and there's been flights with 15k+ km non-stop before, which leads me to think it isn't an achievement, just that Qantas decided to do it. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 12:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment where is the update? Significant milestone. Longest_flights --LaserLegs (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Lacks broader significance in the Big Scheme (although I'm mildly surprised it hasn't happened before ). Sca (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good faith nom but this is basically a back page news and trivia item. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's a unique nomination, but its arbitrary at best. Sorry, but this turns me off. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not arbitrary, when this flight returns early tomorrow (UTC) Europe to Australia will be the 30th and last combination of non-Antarctic continents to be done (and I checked the long ones both ways to ensure wind allows nonstop both ways) This will be a historic moment in aviation. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really “historic”. It’s been done before in longer distances as on of the above users noted. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose more of a DYK but I'm not sure there's a suitable article for that, since most will fail DYK's arcane ruleset... sorry.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose The first non-stop flight from the European continent to Australia is certainly an interesting milestone, and it would be refreshing to post something other than international turmoil. I'm open to the idea and I applaud you for finding a unique item in good faith, but I don't think this is significant enough to feature. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Arnaud Beltrame

 * Oppose tagged and under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:The Rambling Man: And now?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fix the bare URLs and we're on. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:The Rambling Man:Done.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - tragic news. Good to go. Stormy clouds (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can anyone add an "early life" section and chronological order please?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Never mind--I did.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've also added more references. More than ready.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Bill Lucas

 * Support: No issues for now. 2601:2C0:4700:4A9A:D9F0:6CCB:624F:6279 (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: - sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support yup, been ready a while now. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is linked wrong at the main page. It does not direct to Bill Lucas.BabbaQ (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. ansh 666 19:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] March For Our Lives

 * Comment Sources can't seem to agree on the size, one says in a caption "hundreds of thousands" across the globe another of your sources say "tens of thousands" across America, assuming both are credible statements a majority of marchers would be outside of "America", just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.150.255 (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose In the past we have almost always declined protests involving domestic political issues unless they were extraordinarily large, which this really wasn't, or there was some other factor that makes them unique. Protesting against (and for) guns is as normal and American as hot dogs and fireworks on the Fourth of July. There is nothing here that warrants mention on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe you are mistaken about the magnitude of this multifaceted campaign. Sca (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Define "extaordinarily large", please. This doesn't qualify? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Typically in the millions. This is simply the latest in a seemingly endless series of protests since the Clown in Chief got elected and it is pretty run of the mill in terms of size, maybe even on the small side. Most of these, with the exception of the Women's March, which did number in the millions, we declined. Almost all of them got a lot of short term news coverage. If are going to start posting these kinds of things, I could easily see a lot of nominations of this sort coming in. Unless of course this is one of those America is special kinda noms. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just going off of Timeline of protests against Donald Trump, I don't see anything as big as this, aside from the Women's March, of course. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That article looks like an anti-Trump WP:COATRACK and seems to list almost every gathering no matter how trivial that garnered even a mention in the local news. I suspect it was created in response to this archived RfC that put restrictions on what protests could be listed at Protests against Donald Trump. Even though I may not like it, I can read the score and this is going to get posted. But my oppose stands. [ Saluting the flag as the ship goes down. ] -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This doesn't have much to do with Trump; these kids just want sensible gun laws. – Nixinova ⟨ T | E ⟩ 22:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * PP Support Striking my oppose. I am satisfied at this point that the news coverage warrants posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Major protest in the U.S., with worldwide satellite marches. Very much "in the news", which is allegedly our purpose here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support this is a global protest, which has been top of my "local" news since it started several hours ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As usual, what's top in "your" local news is worthy of posting. How unsurprising. It's not top in mine but I guess that doesn't matterManish2542 (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't follow you at all, but I don't care either. Go and pester someone who cares what you think.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Truth hurts, I know. At least now it's clear that the sole condition for something to be worthy of featuring on wikipedia's main page is whether or not it is in "your" local news. Nothing else matters. Thanks for clarifying things Manish2542 (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you just don't get it. Nothing hurts here, the sooner you realise this is a website, the better.  Go and pester someone else now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Globally covered and is a major ongoing protest in the U.S. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per all of the above. The protest have been the talk of the news for the past few days.  Even if the protests yield little effect on gun control, they are still getting widespread coverage. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Rather unprecedented for something like this. Amazing how it took this school shooting in particular to bring the gun control movement to the forefront.--WaltCip (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article ... it's got to be a WP:MOS vio with all those sections with one line each. The DC rally needs a real prose update, the rest of them I think could be consolidated into a table, and if attendance numbers are published, added to the table. It's in the news, so as always, I support. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Dominant where? You might be quite surprised but the world doesn't limit itself to the US. And calling it a global event in the blurb is a sheer lie.Manish2542 (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – All mainline news sites tell of hundreds of thousands of protestors across the U.S., not only in Washington, D.C., but also in scores of other cities nationwide. (Even in the small, rather remote city where I live thousands showed up, chanted and marched.) In addition, there were supporting demonstrations in Europe. This is different, and it's not going away. Sca (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - we posted the Women's March, and I view this to be of similar significance and importance. Dominant media story for days now. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There are lots of demonstrations taking place worldwide... What are you talking about? – Nixinova ⟨ T | E ⟩ 00:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - per Stormy clouds, among others. The only thing I'm not sure about is whether this is merely of similar significance to the Women's March, or whether it's of greater significance. Either way I supported then so I should logically also support now.Tlhslobus (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Stormy cloud, Sca, etc. Insane that 20 minute canoe race makes it to ITN but this does not.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment does the article really need the maps? power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support well over one million have protested nationwide, including 800,000 in Washington. It makes just the Washington march the third largest protest in American history alone, surpassing the Million Man March (which had at most 800,000 people, despite its name). Half a million more people have marched in this than in the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. To quote the former Vice President, this is a big effing deal. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted I am both involved and opposed, but consensus is clear beyond any reasonable doubt. If any admin objects feel free to revert. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posing oppose on quality I wouldn't recommend pulling, but I really have to think that an article that is effectively WP:PROSELINE is not our best work. It would have been better to have this tabular, after a brief introduction as well as a summary after the events were over to estimate the population. I do think the activity is ITN material, just that the article, plainly, sucks in quality terms. --M asem (t) 00:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe worse, there were 11 CNs (Citations Needed) when I looked shortly after it was posted, and there were still 11 CNs when I looked a few minutes ago, 12 hours after posting. (And I suspect several citations don't properly support the text, tho I haven't really checked). I should probably have supported on principle, but temporarily opposed on quality. Last night I spent 5 to 10 minutes looking for supporting citations for the French planned marches (after first finding nothing re my native Ireland), and could only find one from ABC for something having taken place in Paris, which is not quite the same thing as a citation supporting a plan, and in the end I decided to go to bed, and I'm not sure I want to spend time on it today (per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO if necessary). Maybe the CNs will get fixed as Americans wake up today, though they weren't fixed by them yesterday evening. Maybe temporary pulling would encourage fixing, but I'm far too cowardly to suggest that (though perhaps somebody a lot braver than me might). Tlhslobus (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, is the above and/or below Post-posing (instead of Post-posting) a deliberate or merely Freudian slip, but an amusing one, perhaps suggesting that most of us supporters are merely poseurs too busy Virtue signalling to bother with irrelevant details like article quality ? Guilty as charged, at least in my case . Tlhslobus (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My error, was not deliberate. --M asem (t) 14:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Post-posing support - This has recieved world wide attention. Is the main news on every media service right now whether we like it or not.BabbaQ (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Modification I'm not against posting the blurb but why "around the world"? This is mainly an american-centric event and the "planned" rallies that took place outside the US barely mobilised people there. The blurb should be modified to "major rallies in the US".Manish2542 (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That may be a legitimate point but it probably belongs at WP:ERRORS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Recent BBC article says: "With events not just in the US but as far afield as London, Paris, Mauritius, Tokyo, Stockholm, Sydney, Geneva and Berlin," . One of the things that is notable about this protest is that it has spread beyond the national boundary. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As noted above, there were supporting demonstrations in Europe – Paris, Berlin, Hamburg, London – and elsewhere. "Around the world" does sound a bit hypey and POV, though. Possible replacement: "Hundreds of thousands of protesters participate in March for Our Lives rallies for tighter gun control in the United States, with supporting demonstrations in Europe and elsewhere ." Sca (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ERRORS. ERRORS.  ERRRORS.  And "elsewhere" is hardly encyclopedic, is it?!!  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Having done a little more online research, I agree re "elsewhere" (see change above), but otherwise I don't understand your comment at all. Can't you see that I'm basically agreeing with Manish2542's objection to "around the world" – ??? – "Errors?" – baloney. Sca (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

  In NYT's pictorial series "Photos From the 'March for Our Lives' Protests Around the World," nearly all are from the U.S. Exceptions include Paris, Berlin, Hamburg and Bogotá, Colombia. Thus in this case too, "around the world" seems an exaggeration, and I tend to agree with Manish2542 on this point. Sca (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem. Wikipedia steps into the political propaganda arena with this news item. Also contrast, the 10 million in London alone for the Protests against the Iraq War. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 15:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, that's protesting a hot war with bombings and boots on the ground. Somewhat of apples to oranges considering that this issue would otherwise be purely domestic.--WaltCip (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The anti-Iraq War protesters in London were 1 million, not 10 million.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is a very politically charged topic with a lot of pro and anti propaganda surrounding it. I've read numerous dubious claims that that range from a few thousand supporters to millions of supporters showed up (clearly the reality is somewhere in between). What makes this protest different from others around the world such as the ones happening in Catalonia? Also, this is a very US-centric topic, I question its worthiness of international interest to begin with.Spoonlesscorey (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * P.P. Support - International news, participation by numerous nations (More nations had protests than expelled Russian diplomats), and we're not funded by the NRA. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 18:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Far and away the No. 1 Eng-lang story for several days. Gun control, or the lack thereof, remains a hot topic in the U.S. and Europe. That it's "politically charged" is obvious, and only enhances its significance. Sca (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Lys Assia

 * Support - Short but sufficient. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support -No issues. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] The Boat Race 2018

 * Support - The article is in very good shape and the race is very traditional. --SirEdimon (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - FA or not, is a varsity between 2 British universities covered almost exclusively by British media really ITN-worthy? Juxlos (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not at all "almost exclusively" British media, but we have this every year, and that's why it's ITNR. If you don't like it, and this is also an annual issue, go seek it being removed from ITNR.  That you'd deny a sporting event that's witnessed live by a quarter of a million people, has a heritage dating back to 1829, features international athletes and is broadcast and viewed globally, plus with an article that's already good to go, makes me wonder what your "IDONTLIKEIT" vote is worth here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest reading the ITNR talk page logs. This specific race has been the subject of much discussion, but in the end, it is the highest level recognized competition in rowing in the world with a large enough interest (in the millions). --M asem (t) 20:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Pretty sure we don't have to worry about the quality of the article here (though I spot checked to make sure :) --M asem (t) 20:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Well-recognised event. talk to ! dave 20:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Ready to go. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Massive kudos to TRM for getting this article up to quality standards so quickly.--WaltCip (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Seconded. That was some top tier editing. Sublime work. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Carcassonne and Trèbes attack

 * Oppose - even if it is a terror attack, it is too small to merit posting. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as "The Islamic State released a statement calling him a "soldier of the Islamic State", and French president Emmanuel Macron called the attacks an act of Islamist terrorism." means that has been confirmed as terrorism to an extent that authorities find satisfactory, as well as claimed; "too small" is objectively meaningless and doesn't determine notability, while on the other hand, "He swore allegiance to the Islamic State and demanded the release of Salah Abdeslam, an Islamist accused of involvement in the November 2015 Paris attacks" makes this event notable as a type of attack with demands and conditions for hostage release that had never been made before in Europe by the IS. LjL (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Has been in all international and national media today. Article seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's just too small scale for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support While this incident has resulted in less fatalities than we usually post, it is prominently in the news. The article's quality is also pretty high. Half of our current blurbs occurred more than a week ago. Mamyles (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support it's in the news (that shooting in Afghanistan is not, BTW), article is decent. ISIL will take credit for mild food poisoning, no need to mention it in the blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral This event has already generated several responses from prominent world leaders, which demonstrates worldwide significance. However, events just as worthy of featuring have been rejected.BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This was the first deadly terrorist attack in Western Europe in several months, and is being covered internationally. EternalNomad (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support an unusual terror incident in Europe. Certainly more newsworthy than than the regular school shootings in America.  The Rambling Man (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * An unusual bombing incident in the U.S. gets opposed, and this gets supported. Because the American terrorist is white? General anti-U.S. bias here? I'm genuinely curious. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Domestic terrorism vs international terrorism, most likely. --M asem (t) 01:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems to me to make little difference. In these two examples, one is a Christian extremist and the other is a Muslim extremist. One resulted in three dead, the other resulted in four dead (including the perps). I'm still at a loss. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would have supported the inclusion of both based on what you've described. Terrorism is terrorism. The article you were referring to appears to be more ready for featuring on the main page than this one with the amount of fatalities the event caused being nearly identical and the number of injuries caused by the other article being greater, so I've demoted my response to neutral out of a desire for consistent standards. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's anti-US bias, mostly. The US rarely calls white terrorists "terrorists" which doesn't help. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Domestic terrorism with little effect where the assalaint had already been killed within shot time, not ITN worth. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, but I completely agree with Muboshgu and BrendonTheWizard. We should post this one, but we should also have posted the Austin bombings. There is a clear double standard here that needs to be addressed. Davey2116 (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose- small-scale shooting incident, besides the blurb is too long. - 58.27.134.33 (talk) 08:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb or something similar that mentions the police hero. It's this self-sacrificing heroism that seemingly makes the event unusual, exceptionally newsworthy, and ITN-worthy. (Please note that I support posting even if I don't get an altblurb). Tlhslobus (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We generally do not call out acts of heroism in blurbs (since what is a "hero" is going to be very subjective). A police officer putting his life before others is part of their job. --M asem (t) 12:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be inappropriate to use the term "hero" in an alt-blurb. Yes, the police officer was heroic, but that is not the story here, really. To some, (they are wrong, but they exist), the terrorists are heroic for their actions. Stormy clouds (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * He's called a hero by the French President (among many others) and by a very large number of Reliable Sources in their headlines and their texts, and it is in quotes in the altblurb. Wikipedia goes by what Reliable Sources say, not by what a few terrorist supporters may think. And his heroism is what makes this story interesting to readers. Omitting it will disimprove the encyclopedia, contrary to WP:IAR and the related 5th Pillar of Wikipedia, WP:5P5, by causing the story to be missed by many readers (unless one thinks that causing readers to miss a story somehow improves Wikipedia), tho many (but fewer) will probably still come anyway because they already know about his heroism and want to read about it.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

184.151.37.41 (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as others mentioned, had this been in the US (or the middle east or africa or the rest of the world really) it won’t receive support. Juxlos (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Except it wasn't in those places, which is kind of the point. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it was in those places shouldn't be a factor; terrorism by fair-skinned non-Muslims is still terrorism. The opposition to posting the Austin bombing cited relatively few deaths, which is the same in this situation; the only thing that changed is whether or not it was motivated by Islam. Wikipedia's standards should be objective and not subject to one's POV. While I do believe that the Carcassonne and Trèbes attack is worthy of the ITN section, I can't bring myself to support one being posted and not the other. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also others said that before there was any mention here of a police hero, so it's at least possible that might have made a difference to their view (because I entirely agree that without the 'hero' angle this would not be ITN-worthy, at least in my view - indeed I wouldn't be involved here without it). Tlhslobus (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A reminder: We did post the Austin bombings, they were only posted to ongoing, rather than a blurb when the situation ended. --M asem (t) 12:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We did, but we didn't. It got on ongoing with some thinking it was an inappropriate decision based on the opposition that did exist, then when it went up for a blurb it got shot down hard, even though it differs little from this story. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We really didn't. I agree with Muboshgu; it wasn't accurate or appropriate to place it in the ongoing section, and the only reason why it was placed there was because of the speedy closure (<1 day of discussion is rather quick to deem it infinite) where the opposition cited reasons that seem to be generally overlooked during this discussion. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The police officer who intervened in the attack has now died. This makes the attack notable for several reasons, with five dead including the perpetrator:
 * This is the deadliest terror incident in France since the attack in Nice.
 * If this had happened in any European country other than France, it would almost certainly be posted.
 * If it had occurred in France pre-2015, it certainly would have been posted.
 * Support – Per Nomad, TRM, although it looks like consensus may be elusive. Agree that the death of Lt. Col. Arnaud Beltrame heightens reader interest. Sca (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually we may be not necessarily be too far off 'consensus' as understood in these parts, as I currently make it 10 to 5 in favour (and 3 to 1 in the last 4 !votes, the ones since the hero cop got mentioned here) and though it's not supposed to be a vote, assessing admins have sometimes been known to deem 2 to 1 a consensus by supermajority, especially if support is moving in the right direction. At any rate that's a question for them to decide, not us. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted. There appears to be a reasonable consensus. Black Kite (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Zell Miller

 * Sourcing needs work, but the article is in decent shape. Hopefully it will be good in a few hours. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 16:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Referencing is actually dreadful. I had intended to nominate this when I caught the breaking news of his death but one look at the article stopped me in my tracks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right, the "Senate" section is more than I can fix now; if nobody else gets to it I'll try in a few hours. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I took a hatchet to the unsourced material in that section. No cn tags remaining, but somebody else needs to review it before I'd support posting. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Much improved but still a few gaps. I have added tags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Question: do we think the 2004 RNC bit is WP:UNDUE? I mean, I vividly remember watching him challenge Chris Matthews to a duel on live television, or say he wish he could. But, with the value of 14 years of hindsight, I'm thinking it should be trimmed a bit. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably a matter for the talk page. I think merging into a single section on the 2004 election and reducing it a bit is called for. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 16:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article overall well sourced and has improved. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article is pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Well done to everyone who worked on it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Antigua and Barbuda general election, 2018

 * Oppose Stub article with no global coverage and I'm not confident it's publicized enough. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 12:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - here is an article from the UK on the election telegraph and one from Yahoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by WTKitty (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose for now Agree that the article is too much of a stub to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is a stub and, with the due respect, A&B General Elections are not worldwide important.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - See WP:ITN/R, elections in sovereign states only depend on the quality of the article. WTKitty (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Although I was initially inclined to support it, the article does appear to be very short and would need a lot of work to be featured in the news. I wouldn't say that it's not important enough to be featured, but the article does not provide information more in-depth than what is provided by the blurb summary. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Wayne Huizenga

 * Support - Article is good enough and Huizenga was a high profile businessman. SirEdimon (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is in good shape and ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Article well sourced. g2g. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support anyone working this pages at all at the moment? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Trump announces tariffs on China

 * Comment. I am not formally expressing a view on this, but I think until the tariffs actually take effect this will have a tough time being posted. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the trickle of tariff threats are barely news enough for Portal:Current events, and Trump tariffs doesn't mention this latest one yet. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 21:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tariffs are far too common between countries (not just US) nowadays. These feel no different .--M asem (t) 21:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but wait till actually enacted, per previous nomination. I don't agree with Masem's reasoning - if this goes ahead, it's a trade war between the world's two largest economies. Banedon (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in principle per Banedon's reasoning (i.e. wait until actually enacted). Also, is the term "Trump tariffs" one in widespread, actual use outside of WP? I see instances of the use of the words "Trump" and "tariffs" adjacent to each other but not "Trump tariffs" as a standalone term to refer to the proposed tariffs. I might be wrong, though, as I haven't looked that carefully. Chetsford (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There's limited discussion on Talk:Trump tariffs regarding the name; American tariffs are normally referred to as being named after a person (Smoot-Hawley tariff), there's no clear common-name, and it is descriptive. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Makes sense! Thanks for the edification, power~enwiki! Chetsford (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 *  Comment Oppose – I suspect there will be many more disruptive edicts by DT, and I doubt this one is really ITN, but we shall see. Sca (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose not a Trump ticker and this may be of mild interest to a handful of people, but it's hardly something I'd expect to see in a encyclopedic selection of news articles for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I feel like we need a SNOW clause specifically written for Trump-related ITN noms given the disproportionate amount of media coverage he receives by virtue of his notoriety.WaltCip (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per TRM. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 12:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Kabul suicide bombing

 * Oppose on article quality. It's a stub and will need significant expansion before it could be posted to the main page. Will happily reconsider on improvement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support It's not FA but it is passable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait 24-48 hours and see how this develops. A terrorist attack in an area of frequent terrorist attacks and war might make news initially but drop off the headlines quick. 331dot (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Question if we're not posting a serial bomber in a place where bombings are rare, why post a terrorist bomber in a place where bombings are common? --76.122.98.135 (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The same reason we post school shootings if they have high body count. Juxlos (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Could you point me to the minimum deaths criteria? I can't seem to find them. --76.122.98.135 (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s nowhere, but it’s a general perception. Juxlos (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait article is a couple paragraphs, not sufficient. Juxlos (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I've expanded it somewhat, though it's still a bit short. It's being reported across the globe, and it's well referenced. Vanamonde (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub, of which about a third is not actually related specifically to this attack. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I think the article is in a decent state now and deserves to get coverage, considering every attack in a third-world country that gets unnoticed (but this one is still well-covered by news sources). --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 12:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still a stub. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Short but just about enough there now.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, article is in good shape and I don't see any other issues with it. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's less than 250 words of readable prose. We don't post stubs to the Main Page.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is close enough by my count, so it has my support. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Opinions now? --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 19:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The article has been expanded and now looks good enough to post. Mamyles (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ready -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good to go. -58.27.134.33 (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The article has been greatly improved. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nearly 18 hours since this was marked ready; anyone? I've voted here and worked on the article, else I would post this. Vanamonde (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Disclaimer: I am involved but this doesn't look controversial and it's been sitting for way too long. If any admin disagrees feel free to revert. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Kuczynski resigns

 * Support This is a very important political fact, especially in South America.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Gaining globe coverage and I believe his failed impeachment was covered here at ITN. Resignation is huge especially since he offered to do so to prevent a second impeachment vote. Huge story. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Article quality is not impressive for a head of state and referencing is weak. That said I do think it is acceptable, if barely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose article still claims he is the incumbent, so is he or is he not president? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Where in the article claims that he is still incumbent (so I can fix it)? He's not president, he's out we're just waiting for his VP to be sworn in. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why ask me when you know you've fixed it? How bizarre.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought the issue was within the text section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on principle, oppose on quality The article on him should include what role he is believed to have in Operation Car Wash, which is not mentioned at all on the page at this point. But this is clearly an ITN-worthy nom. --M asem (t) 22:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment please note that his resignation will need to be accredited by Congress, and that won't happen until tomorrow so this needs to wait until tomorrow evening. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support post now, update later. Banedon (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Several sources indicates that the peruvian congress just accept PPK resign. Here:1, 2 and 3--SirEdimon (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * support came here to potentally nom and its itnr as head of state change. Tomorrow he will be replaced by VP Martin Vizcarra.Lihaas (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support good enough article and notable news. Juxlos (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – Head of state and head of government. Article seems OK, although it doesn't really explain why he resigned – but the details are murky. Sca (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The resignation of a head of state in a strong presidential system of government is significant Chetsford (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: MPs Kenji Fujimori, Bienvenido Ramírez, Guillermo Bocángel, Carlos Bruce (also a minister), and Mercedes Aráoz (also the Deputy Vice President and the Prime Minister of Peru), are expected to be impeached/dismissed by the Congress within the next hours due to this Kenjivideos scandal. ★ Iñaki ★    (Talk page) ★  22:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support-Head of state resigns over contoversy is important, should be posted Awestruck1(talk)10:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This is major news and the article is adequate. Natureium (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go. Pinging some uninvolved admins, as this has been ready/attention needed for quite some time now. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting And I'll go through the process of changing the image to get Putin's ugly mug off the main page. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Image changed to File:Fotografía Oficial del Presidente de la República del Perú Pedro Pablo Kuczynski.jpg, which seems more appropriate to me than that above image of him on the telephone. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The image does not show for me. --Saqib (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Coz it has been deleted. samee  converse  18:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Austin bomber blows himself up

 * Support Pulled from ongoing and not put in a blurb? Seems irregular to me. Major story that has dominated U.S. news (and been in news across the globe, not that that's necessary for ITN criteria) and has now reached its conclusion. Article is in good shape, and was just on the main page. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, not without precedent; this was recently pulled from ongoing after few hours of posting and opposed to be converted to blurb even though most of the blurbs then were older than it –Ammarpad (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak weak support I feel this was a domestic violence situation, equivalent to why we don't post shootings in the US. However, I recognize that "targeted bombing by shipped package" is a novel metric that made this significant ww news moreso than other facets. --M asem (t) 17:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose IMO, this was never an ITN-level story. Lepricavark (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. How many times is this same story going to be discussed? An attack that caused two deaths (plus the attacker) and no wider reaction is not a major enough encyclopaedic event to merit an ITN blurb. If we posted every terrorist (or criminal, if you prefer) attack in the world that killed two people we would have hundreds a year, maybe thousands. See List of terrorist incidents in March 2018 just as an example. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are mostly (or all?) one-off events as opposed to somebody working over the course of weeks, for one thing. Most of those appear to be in war zones while Austin is not in one, for a second. Nobody says we can't be nominating and posting Boko Haram or whatever else. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support it is an unusual and for that reason it has made headlines and is ITN worthy. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:ADD7:661C:B5A0:D000 (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * support CLEARLY been in the news this week. Further if attacks with barelycasualties and teachers protests in London are notable. This is far above noteworthy-ness. Still, it is not clear that it is 100% over yet either.
 * btw- clearlylocal sources are going to better (and there are other articles too).Lihaas (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Some perspective would be useful here. Only two people (plus the suspect) have died, so the story isn't worthy of a mention on In The News. Just because the mainstream media likes to hype up a story does not mean Wikipedia should mirror that by posting it in the ITN section. Chrisclear (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The blurb does not state the country in which this event took place. Chrisclear (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Lepricavark. This does not warrant a blurb. I do think pulling it from ongoing was premature since the case is still very much open and there are a lot of details that are still emerging. But since it was done, it's time to move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support In principle I agree with Modest Genius; however given that this was posted to ongoing, its conclusion should also be posted as a blurb. Banedon (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is newsworthy, but not newsworthy enough for the main page. This was largely a local event. Natureium (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the event is not frequent, the event is being compared to that of the Unabomber with global coverage -> BBC, Le Monde, The Japan Times, Times of India, Sydney Morning Herald, etc. This event is newsworthy due to its coverage and side not it's not everyday a serial bombing case lasts this long or occurs frequently here in the U.S.. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Opppose Doesn't appear to be particularly ITN-worthy; if the method had been a gun or a knife it would never have appeared here in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But it wasn't a gun or knife attack. It was homemade bombs. Why compare to other stuff? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * if the method had been a gun or a knife it would never have appeared here in the first place. What kind of argument is this? "If it hadn't been newsworthy, it wouldn't have been newsworthy"? --Calton | Talk 13:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – So he decided to go out with a bang. At this point it seems rather anticlimactic. Sca (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The arguments in favor are a lot stronger than the arguments against. It's a rare event that is still in the news and so warrants a blurb; the story was already judged to be ITN-worthy. I would've also been okay with leaving it as ongoing for a couple of days. Davey2116 (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The claim that it was already determined to be ITN-worthy is extremely debatable. I continue to believe that there was no consensus in the original thread, and there is clearly no consensus for posting here. Lepricavark (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose the bombings killed 2 and injured some. If this was a school shooting, it would be an overwhelming oppose. Juxlos (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. It's not some sort of numbers game, it's about impact: by the mindless bean-counting argument on display, John Lennon's murder wouldn't have counted because, after all, it was only one death. --Calton | Talk 13:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * How many world-famous icons of popular culture were killed in these attacks? If it's zero, your argument is invalid. The lack of impact is precisely why this shouldn't be on ITN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per most of the above users, a local level incident with casualties only reaching the single digits almost never makes the ITN bulletin, while there are some past exceptions, roughly 90% percent of the time attacks like these do not make the cut. Kirliator (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose considerable overhype is written all over this nomination (alongside irony), all because of a series of attacks that were relatively minor in size. SamaranEmerald (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, partially because the article at the moment seems to be uncertain about labelling the attacks incidents of terrorism (we all know what they would be called if the bomber weren't an American...) and also because given that we've already posted the bombings themselves to ongoing (and then removed them) I would want to see a lot more coverage for the attackers death to post that as a blurb in and of itself. Vanamonde (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

[Pulled] Pull: Austin bombings

 * Don't pull entirely. Take it out of "ongoing" and make it a blurb. Something like: "The Austin bombing suspect is no more. He has ceased to be. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Move to blurb per Muboshgu.--WaltCip (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait There are a lot of details that are still unreleased. I am fairly sure this will be in the news fro a few more days. Once things have quieted down we can pull it. Opoose blurb. Not important enough for that level of attention. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The suspect is dead, the case is closed. Any further details are purely ancillary.--WaltCip (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What if he had accomplices? What if there are other bombs out there that haven't yet been found? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And what if the Fed raises interest rates? What if Trump is found to have colluded with Russia? What if the world ended tomorrow? It's not the job of ITN to predict what may or may not have happened, and use said prediction as the basis for notability.--WaltCip (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb Even at the peak of the bombing it wouldn't have been posted if it were nominted for blurb and only marginally gained support for this ongoing posting. In addition, I Support removal from ongoing since reasonably it is no longer so with the death of the suspect. .–Ammarpad (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't just pull something from ITN because it is resolved. By that logic we could pull every blurb currently on there because those stories are resolved. It's still in the news, because the suspect has been dead less than 12 hours. It was a mistake to pull the U.S. federal government shutdown blurb and we should not be making that into standard operating procedure here. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * While I mostly agree with you, the situation is a bit different for ongoing; however, the criteria here is that the article is still receiving regular updates with new information, and it seems likely that that will go on for a bit yet, so I'd weakly oppose removing this at this point. GoldenRing (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, we do pull ongoing items when they're no longer "ongoing". That's common. Removing " blurb" may be less so, but this is not blurb, it is something posted while it is ongoing..and wouldn't hurt if it is removed when it is no longer ongoing. Nonetheless, I can agree with you that it is too soon to be removed now. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair point re: pulling a blurb vs. pulling ongoing. Still, it seems to me ongoings often become blurbs when no longer "ongoing" without discussion necessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's not notable enough for a blurb then why do we bloody have it up there as ongoing??--WaltCip (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Because when it was nominated, editors were trying to compare the significance of this to the Unibomber, which was crystal-balling the event. It was simple domestic racially-motivated terrorism, which, given that this is the US, is not something we would have otherwise posted if we knew the facts beforehand. --M asem (t) 15:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Pull. The event is over and an attack with two deaths (plus the attacker) is not significant enough to merit a blurb. I'm puzzled as to how this made it into the ongoing section in the first place, given the amount of opposition it received. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Pulled, as suggested. It is not ongoing anymore, it can be considered as a blurb, if a consensus is reached. --Tone 16:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Peter George Peterson

 * Support No issues. Looks good. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks fine. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T♦ C 17:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Katie Boyle

 * Weak oppose a handful of unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support There are unreferenced claims, but not too much. Support Article in overall good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There is precisely one unreferenced sentence. It could probably be deleted without detracting from the article, but other than that it's good to go., does the article now pass for you? Mjroots (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Two actually, I referenced the one in the prose, the book is still unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * & : I fixed the sourcing issue by adding an obit source and replaced a dead link. Seeing the sole issue has been addressed. Marking it ready. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Northern white rhinoceros

 * The male rhino is already in RD. It's not yet the extinction of the species, as sperm samples were taken and an IVF programme is planned with the surviving females. The chances may be slim, but let's not WP:CRYSTAL. If/when the species goes extinct would be a better time to post this as a blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose it is a sub-species, not species, that is on the verge of extinction; add that the RD of Sudan is better suited as an entry, we should cover that instead. --M asem (t) 14:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per both above. RD works for now. The blurb implies that extinction is inevitable, which, due to IVF, may not be the case. --LukeSurlt c 14:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all of the above. Python Dan (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The RD is sufficient. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD is sufficient. Lepricavark (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Abel Prize

 * Yeah, getting the necessary level of referencing in Robert_Langlands is going to require some serious mathematical understanding. --LukeSurlt c 11:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have posted about that on the talk page, hoping to resolve it, but now looking at how it was added. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We should really mention the Langlands program in the blurb, as that's what he won it for; altblurb added. Unfortunately that article is in an even worse state for referencing, so we're a bit stuck without an expert. The rest of Langlands' article looks OK, it's just the research section that's problematic. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Even with a bit of basic understanding of modern algebra, I tried reading even the lowest-level summary of the Langlands program and while I understand where its going, nowhere close to understand the levels of detail that are necessary to explain it at a basic level; its not the type of thing I can even see an easy layman's version coming about, outside of being towards a grand unified theory of everything. --M asem (t) 14:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above on the need for an expert to clean up the articles. I'm in favor of including "Langlands program" in the blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment the research section, which was the only problem, has been improved from its former zero-source state. Courtesy ping . –Ammarpad (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to oppose until someone can explain his research section in more layman terms. Not talking about dumbing down to simple.wiki prose here. I don't think it's an unfair request to write in a way a non-expert mathematician (yet average adult, native English reader) can understand. Fuebaey (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's cutting edge math research in an area where most of the concepts aren't even introduced to students until postgraduate studies. The idea that most of this is every going to be presentable in layman's terms is pretty unrealistic.  WP:ONEDOWN would suggest shooting for something like the level of someone with a BS in Mathematics, but even that could be quite challenging at times.  About the best bit of a lay description is already offered by the intro of Langlands program: "In mathematics, the Langlands program is a web of far-reaching and influential conjectures about connections between number theory and geometry."  But trying to really explain what they are talking about isn't going to be possible at a lay audience level.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Langlands' article is now in good shape. I still think we should include "Langlands program", to if anything give the reader a sense of how groundbreaking his work is. As a non-expert, I first heard about the Langlands program when the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem was announced. Davey2116 (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This article has been fixed reasonably as the main problem was the too technical research section. Simplifying this pioneering, doctoral-level work beyond that so as to be comprehended by all English speakers is tantamount to Lying to children and means it will never be posted. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The biography still has swathes of unreferenced text. Stephen 23:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not perfect, and not cited by evry single word, but it pass the point of reasonable article. Can you point out 'the swathes of unreferenced text'?. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is much improved. The research section is indeed impenetrable to non-mathematicians, but I doubt there is much that can be done about that. The bigger problem is that there are still entire paragraphs with no references. Either add citations or cut them completely, then I think this could be posted. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have fixed that and added more content and references. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted, just squeezed it in as the last item. Stephen 22:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Nicolas Sarkozy arrested

 * Comment. I would note that there is a difference between being arrested and charged with a crime and being detained for questioning, this seems to be the latter, at least right now. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Convicted, yes. Charged, maybe probably not. Arrested, no. -- KTC (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - long standing consensus is that we post convictions. Mjroots (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would note that on rare occasions arrests do get posted, such as with El Chapo in 2014. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is not a case like El Chapo where the subject had been wanted for some considerable time. In those cases the arrest is newsworthy rather than, as here, the allegations but BLP considerations rightly mean that we don't post for just allegations. Also I think that being arrested for questioning is less significant in a civil law system such as France than in a common law system like the UK and USA (but having written that I'm now less certain than I Was). Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I do think that the arrest of a former head of state on charges related to their own election to office might merit posting(Sarkozy is being investigated for allegedly accepting illegal campaign contributions) although right now he is just being questioned. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose until convicted of something. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:BLPCRIME - for the same reason we don't have a nomination for Ant, but not Dec, despite being plastered over the tabloids. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Is a former President not a public figure and covered by WP:WELLKNOWN?(genuine question) 331dot (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, good point well made (for those watching at home, here is an important lesson as to why you should read policy instead of just quoting it with what you think it says) - nevertheless, until there is an actual conviction, I think we should err on the side of caution. There's plenty of mud thrown at Trump, but not much has been proven yet in a court of law, for instance. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I do agree that posting now is not appropriate(count that as a formal oppose). 331dot (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose The only time I'd think we'd post the arrest of a leader is if it was while they still held office. Otherwise, as pointed out above, we'll wait on the conviction itself to post. --M asem (t) 14:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per most of the above. If he were still president I would probably support on the basis that sitting presidents being arrested is pretty unusual. But he is not in office. And last I looked he has not actually been charged with anything... yet. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose this would be more suitable for the future conviction... if it occurs. Kirliator (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ayaz Soomro

 * Comment it only needs one support from an admin who judges it meets the quality required to post, regardless of where the individual is from. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally I generally tend to look for comments (not necessarily supports) from at least two people other than the nominator before posting, but that's not a policy requirement. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support just above stub, but just above is enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - I have expanded it considerably. A national level lawmaker died while in office. --Saqib (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article is sufficient for RD. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Cambridge Analytica

 * Oppose It's yet another facet of the investgation of the election. --M asem (t) 06:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, but, I mean, 50 million users is pretty significant if you ask me. That said, if anything were to be posted, I'd probably use a different (and shorter) blurb to take note of the general incident. Master of Time   ( talk ) 06:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose keywords being "will seek a warrant". It's a long way from "will seek a warrant" to "have received a warrant" to "have found something" to "have concluded that Cambridge Analytica has used the personal data of 50 million Facebook members to influence the 2016 US presidential election" to "have enacted ____ as punishment". When we get to the last step, then we can reexamine. Banedon (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think that, once the warrant is served, this would be very much worthy of revisiting. However, as of now, a person announcing their intention to maybe do something at some point in the undetermined future may be a little too much on the edge. Chetsford (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There's no there there. Not an actual finding of fact of election tampering.--WaltCip (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose at least until formal charges are brought. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Incidentally, a fall in stock price is meaningless. The market volatility is at its highest that it's been in years. The stock is just as likely to recover once the market-timers stop panic selling and buy back in within a few days.--WaltCip (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support dominating the news since this weekend, decent article. --76.122.98.135 (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * IP user, we don't generally post allegations or investigations. Formal charges, maybe; convictions, likely.  But not every step in the process. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was "CosmicAdventure" (scrambled my password to enforce a wiki break and then lost it ... oops). It's in the news now, the article is decent now, post it now. #twocents anyway. --76.122.98.135 (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment This is one of those cases where it will be WP:Crystalball up until the point that it's stale. In two years, FB will have gone the way of Myspace, and this is why. The warrant is not the issue, it's Facebook obscene breach of trust. GCG (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is angle I was going for. Maybe someone can help write blurb from this viewpoint. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We need FB or a gov't doing the "action" in the blurb I think; we can't say "A whistleblower says..." Perhaps "FB acknowledges the unauthorised disclosure of data on 50 MM users to CA...blah, blah" GCG (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose no charges have been brought yet. I don't believe we ever post investigations before they yield actual results. Lepricavark (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Keith O'Brien

 * Oppose tagged. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OpposeNeeds more sourcing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Sudan (rhinoceros)
Comment I just got an edit conflict trying to post this here! Most statements in the article are referenced, but I haven't explored all the cites in detail. Will try to do some more cleaning up tonight. Ackatsis (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. The article is in a good shape. --Tone 08:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That rhino got onto the RD ticker pretty darn quick.--WaltCip (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What's your point? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to get an animal posted to RD without at least one person making a sarky comment.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In this case, the posting is justified. Thankfully, this issue does not come up very frequently. Lepricavark (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I make a simple observation and people think I'm either being snarky or hiding some subtext. I'm not. I'm just surprised at how fast it got onto the main page, animal or not.--WaltCip (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? It was of decent quality and that's all that's required to post an RD, right?  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly; yet somehow we struggle to get the Grammys up there for lack of quality.--WaltCip (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it tells its own story, people are correctly more interested in the destruction of a sub-species and less interested in a navel-gazing exercise in self-indulgent bullshit that is meaningless to anyone bar the recipients who sell a few more albums. It feels like the right way round to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry I misread you WaltCip. Now I'm going to try and get Bento the Keyboard Cat up there too...--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should specify (rhinoceros), because right now on the main page, it looks like the country of Sudan died. Natureium (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And how, pray tell, does a "country" die? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's exactly why it looks like a hoax. Natureium (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a hoax, ITN doesn't do "hoax". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What ITN does doesn't matter when it comes to what it looks like. Natureium (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like a hoax unless you're incredibly naive, we assume our readers have a level of competence too. Where are all the complaints, or where are all the memes that suggest "Sudan (the country) has died"?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like an error; I wouldn't be surprised if someone who knew nothing about the machinations of WP posted on WP:MP/E about this. — Hugh (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone already did—and they were called an idiot by our friendly editors. Natureium (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No they weren't, try to stick to facts. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "You would have to be an idiot to think that a country had died." It's right there on the Errors page. — Hugh (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to demonstrate that there are no friendly editors? Natureium (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I'm trying to demonstrate that people stick to facts before making personal attacks or fake accusations. WHat are you "trying to demonstrate"?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We've been in this situation before where the name of an animal matched that of a well-known person, but we did not add the disambiguation since hovering/clicking the link took you to the animal, not the person. This is following that practice. --M asem (t) 18:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This should read Sudan (rhinoceros) or at least Sudan (rhino). Come on. — Hugh (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Normally it wouldn't be an issue, but given that the country of Sudan actually split in two a few years back, some readers might very well be confused. Lepricavark (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Countries don't "die", we need to assume our readers our competent enough to understand that. If some of our users don't get that, well that's another thing altogether, WP:CIR covers that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realised until today how difficult it must be for some editors of Main Page sections such as ITN and FA to envisage how text might read to the uninitiated. Expecting competence should not clash with, for just one policy example, MOS:EGG. — Hugh (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be EGG if there was any such concept of a "country dying". And there isn't.  So this is a gross waste of time.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I had to click the link to figure out what "Sudan" meant. It hurts nothing to add (rhinoceros). --76.122.98.135 (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This has to be one of the sillier and more trivially solved arguments I've ever seen on WP. — Hugh (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguator added, enough people are genuinely confused about this, and no good argument not to do this in this one case has been presented. Fram (talk) 08:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted to Ongoing] Austin package explosions

 * Comment - is this intended as an ongoing nomination? Currently, it is an RD, which is not apt. I would support an ongoing nom. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry this is my first time nominating, ongoing is fine. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 20:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support- this is a recent event, should be posted in the news, the event has already passed through, Awestruck1(talk)20:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose too small-scale an event to qualify for either ongoing or a blurb. Lepricavark (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support for ongoing, it's clearly being reported around the globe and is most certainly unresolved at this point. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are multiple problems with the nomination. (1) No blurb has been suggested. (What is an "Austin package"? In what country is Austin located?) (2) The article does not provide any prose/proof explaining how/why the bombings are connected to each other. (3) Only two people have died, so the story isn't worthy of a mention on In The News. (4) I don't see how this can be an ongoing item, unless the nominator has inside information about similar bombings that are planned for the future. Chrisclear (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Global coverage and is ongoing seeing that it is unsolved. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't understand that logic. Suppose this was posted as an ongoing item, does that mean it would remain an ongoing item until the case was solved? Chrisclear (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It would remain an ongoing item while there were significant developments and regular updates.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Appears to be a domestic situation, not related to international terrorism. --M asem (t) 04:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem, local issue, the bombings themselves are also unpredictable. SamaranEmerald (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL. We don't know if there are going to be any more explosions.--39.48.73.97 (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose too local right now Chetsford (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Another explosion has been reported at a nearby FedEx facility. This is becoming a top story in the news and a lot of readers will be looking at Wikipedia's "In the News" section for a link to an article. --Tocino 10:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - As per above post. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Opppse local bombing, many of them happen around the world daily. This didn't rise to the level that can merit Ongoing posting. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, this is a well-developed article on a topic that is in the news. The investigation is ongoing, not necessarily that there will be more explosions, so ongoing makes sense and isn't CRYSTAL. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the interval at which the attacks occur is unpredictable, unless the perpetrator(s) is/are caught, these attacks may continue indefinitely as far as some above users have noted, which is why this nomination is a victim to WP:CRYSTALBALL. Kirliator (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Lepricavark. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support 2/3 dead, 3/4 injured and the person is on the loose. We posted the washington area shootings a couple of years ago. This is similar. Believe we also posted an attack in London with injures and no deaths (or maybe about the same). Although Sunday's was a trip wire appaerently, so maybe change the title.Lihaas (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – not similar in scale to the DC sniper. This could possibly be national news, but not important enough for the main page. Natureium (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per most of the above opposers, the attacks are a small-scale issue that is too small to be noteworthy on ITN. Python Dan (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - another explosion in the region, this continues to dominate in media, even receiving radio attention in Ireland and appearing on Sky News. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Tocino. It's a big story getting updates very consistently over the past week. Davey2116 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Developing story which is getting widespread coverage.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose this series of events is notably overhyped, while it is getting international coverage, its largely a local-sized series of unfortunate events (pun not intended). 161.6.7.130 (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As a complete outsider, this has all the hallmarks of another Unabomber, so I'm not sure it's about "unfortunate incidents", more about "traps designed to murder innocent people", but your mileage may vary. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing this is getting international coverage. While I do agree with some of the opposition that the media outlets are indeed overhyping this issue, and that it is [at the moment] small/local scale; the fact is this series of attacks has been going on for over 2 weeks now and it has attracted attention similar to the Unabomber as TRM mentioned above, which makes it fit perfectly for Ongoing criteria.  The article itself is short, but also straightforward and clean. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing Yesterday I couldn't decide if it should be a blurb now or wait until the perp is caught (they found the Unabomber, they'll find him/her). Given that yet another package has exploded and people are on edge, ongoing is appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted to Ongoing Stephen 22:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There was clearly no consensus to post this. Lepricavark (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 10 support and 12 Oppose and we still posted. Disclaimer: I supported posting it. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Opposition to posting a blurb is different from opposition to posting to ongoing. Master of Time   ( talk ) 05:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is also not a straight vote. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Pull - My count is 12 Support votes (incl. the nominator) and 12 Oppose votes. There was no blurb MoT, so everyone who voted Oppose actually opposed posting to Ongoing. 39.48.37.7 (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Discussions like this are not a straight vote, but a weighing of arguments as well. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It's no longer ongoing as the suspect has apparently blown themselves up. Pull. WaltCip (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Which will create more interest in the story. Seems odd to remove it when our readers will be looking for it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But the suspect is dead, meaning that the bombings have stopped and that the story is effectively over. No longer ongoing.--WaltCip (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] First self-driving car fatality

 * I'm pretty sure someone has already been killed in relation to a self-driving vehicle before this happened. How many specific scenarios are we willing to post blurbs for? I can't say I support this one. Master of Time   ( talk ) 08:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But those people were inside the car and actively participating in the test. Elaine Herzberg was outside it and effectively uninvolved. Banedon (talk) 08:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think the fact the victim's article is heading for deletion says it all. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While unfortunate, this is being reported as a relatively minor story. I also think long term this will just be a footnote in the history of autonomous cars; few people (unfortunately) will know who this person is.  Most people don't know who the first pedestrian killed by a regular car is. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Cars with drivers kill hundreds more on a daily basis.--WaltCip (talk) 11:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose It was more a matter of when there was going to be a self-driving car-related fatality, the industry never claimed perfection. This happened to be it, but it came as no surprise. --M asem (t) 15:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are huge numbers of people killed by vehicles every day; the fact that this particular vehicle was more automated than previous ones makes it a piece of trivia. I would suggest DYK instead, but the article looks like it fails WP:BLP1E. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Road deaths are a common occurrence, and it was inevitable that someone would eventually be killed by an autonomous car. Also, the proposed blurb stating that the pedestrian was 'uninvolved' is inaccurate. The town's police chief | has said that an initial investigation indicates that the crash was unavoidable, caused by abruptly stepping into the street. Mamyles (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: David Cooper (immunologist)

 * Weak support just beyond stub, but sufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article is short, but no major problem to prevent RD posting. –Ammarpad (talk)
 * Support - Ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article is well sourced, but merely passes stub level. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As with other stubs nominated for RD, I believe there should be some coverage of what the subject accomplished in his/her professional life, and this article describes Cooper as an "Australian HIV/AIDS researcher" first. Aside from noting that he diagnosed "the first case of HIV in Australia", there is no description of what he researched within the field of HIV/AIDS (e.g. discoveries, confirmations of other findings, other results). For example, this could include Cooper's research on pre-treatment prophylaxis, development of therapeutic regiments, etc. I'm not saying that information in the article (generally professional appointments) aren't important, but for me the article has inadequate depth to merit RD posting.  Spencer T♦ C 21:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support It is adequate for RD. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Vanamonde (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Russian presidential election, 2018

 * Comment. I think it would be OK to write a blurb now as no one thinks anyone other than Putin will win. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ve added an altblurb. —LukeSurlt c 18:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Rather than try a WP:IAR oppose based on the fishy nature of the vote, disallowing of Alexei Navalny's candidacy, etc., perhaps we can add something to the blurb about it? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In the past we have refrained from any editorializing when posting even the most flagrantly bogus "election results." -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed; we do not make judgements about the validity, fairness, or legitimacy of the election, that's for the reader to decide. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not saying this to be pointy, but ITNR thinks the election of a head of state is notable, but that is based on the notion that an election is a choice by a populous. There is a threshold of corruption where the preceding cease to be an election in the conventional sense of the word, and what happened in Russia today certainly exceeds that threshold.GCG (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's most certainly not based on any such assumption. That's plainly incorrect.  We report the facts, and it's up to article writers and third-party sources to provide the context.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This is ITNR and marking as such. Banedon (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the results are declared "officially", plus since when has anyone on God's own Earth referred to Putin as "Vladimir V. Putin"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I just took the middle initial out. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Bravo! No wonder I voted for you to become an admin! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose in addition to needing the "official" results, I want to see something in the article about the alleged voter fraud. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is notable because he's the head-of-state of a nuclear power, not because of it being a fair election. If this were Uzbekistan, I'd be inclined to IAR oppose it, but once the results are official and the article is updated it has to be included. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added the "fourth term" to the altblurb, just for the record. Brandmeistertalk  20:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per IAR. It's hard for me to believe that this was in any sense a fair election.--WaltCip (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support fair or not, an election is an election and a head of state is a head of state. If anything, the ITN would read "Vladimir Putin is still President of Russia, as everyone expected". Juxlos (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support it's ITNR, article is in good shape. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:D447:384A:ABF0:BBE9 (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a section Reactions missing, usually we have some domestic and international reactions to the election when we post election articles. --Tone 20:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Juxlos. I think those opposing this because the election wasn't fair clearly have a point. This is a result of a presidential election in a sovereign country, which is listed as a recurring item and, like it or not, it has to be posted once the official results come in and the article is sufficiently updated. The discussion on modifying the blurb to include the rumours on electoral fraud is relevant and should be carried out separately from any vote count.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment if official results are expected in the next 3-4 hours, I'd like to wait for them. If they won't be available for several days, this is probably ready to go.  The lead section needs copy-editing and expansion, the rest is fine. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * RT (a reliable source for the official election results) says 80% of votes are in, and Putin has 76% of the vote. . power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – Details aside, this is global news. Suggest Alt2 as a more logical word order. Sca (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: I reworded the Alts, removed Alt1 - "elected to a fourth term" is not global English. Black Kite (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on decades of newspaper editing, I must strongly disagree with this unilateral deletion of another's proposal. Replaced blurb as Alt2 once again.
 * Fine, put it back. I can assure you that "elected to fourth term" would be up at WP:ERRORS seconds after it was posted, though. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Go fly a kite. Sca (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - this is ITN/R, so ethical qualms about the legitimacy of the election are irrelevant for notability grounds. Maybe we have a combined blurb with Xi Jinping - in "democratic" despot news, both Putin and Xi are (shockingly) re-elected. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Second this. The first option seems the best if combinated with Xi. Also btw, there was no corruption, 80% of complaints were 100% fake, and a couple thousand Ukrainians couldn't vote because of the police. w umbolo   ^^^  21:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL, got a source for that claim? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "State TV channel Rossiya 24 reported earlier there were complaints of violations but many were 'fake'." (Al Jazeera) w umbolo   ^^^  22:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * OMG are you serious??? Russian state-owned media says there was no fraud, so you accept that? That's like believing there was no Russian collusion in the U.S. election because Trump tweeted "NO COLLUSION". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "OMG" are you really an admin? Remain calm here, please. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm an admin. And you've been de-sysop'd. So STFU. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not for much longer! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd have to take notes on your behavior to really see how one goes about losing adminship. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You're way ahead of where I ever was at your stage. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) RT claimed this. Do you think it is reliable, since you already said it publishes reliable election results?  w umbolo   ^^^  22:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * RT would be reliable for a statement that the Russian government claims there was no fraud, and little more. This discussion would be better held at Talk:Russian presidential election, 2018. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment We have posted w/o any editorial comment some of the most corrupt and patently fake elections ever staged. We are likely going to do the same for the reelection of the President of China whose manner of election would probably make Stalin smile. There is no question that this whole thing has been rigged from the word go. And yes that needs to be in the article before I will support it. But not in any blurb on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with presenting a short blurb without the fraud, and that the fraud needs to be mentioned in the article. I started a talk page thread there about it. I don't know exactly how to write the fraud section that the article needs to be complete. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – Significant news about the reelection of a major world figure in a major country. I would change alt-blurb II to say "his" fourth term, though. Master of Time   ( talk ) 22:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's missing info about alleged voter fraud though. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, I never actually considered the Russian elections to be free and fair, but that's not a reason to oppose the mention of it in the ITN section, in my opinion. Master of Time   ( talk ) 22:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying the article shouldn't be posted. I agreed with Ad Orientem above in that we should post it, but we should post a complete article, which means not posting it until the allegations of fraud are included. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment what said.  All of you whinging about "corruption" should look closer to home, and accept that Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, merely to report what has actually happened.  Where did it all go so wrong for so many of you?  Incidentally, refusing to post this until some kind of "fraud" section is added to the article is bullshit, and pure systemic bias, arguably worse.  We post per RS, so as and when we have consensus to post based on the results, that's what we do, we don't wait for admins who don't like the result to declare their own posting criteria, that's complete and utter bullshit.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We post updated articles, that means articles should be relatively complete. Without fraud allegations, this article is missing significant context. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The allegations seem to be primarily coming from western press at this point, not internally to Russia (contrast to the last US election where it was definitely internal). At this point, external allegation are not needed. If there does come internal allegations raised, that can be added, but it is not necessary for an ITNR posting, and like TRM, I have a great concern a number of editors are seeing the requirement of having them as righting great wrongs. We are not in that business. --M asem (t) 22:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Golos is internal, and they're reporting alleged violations. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Once WP:RS are declaring results, this should be posted, we don't need to wait for some "admin" version of the "truth", perhaps these "admins" should step aside and allow others to make judgements here, the kind of judgements we expect from our admins, not those which are personal and against the principles of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) Even with that, because WP handles news of allegations carefully, I would only expect initial mention that there might be allegations. It would be irresponsible of us to try to document a full allegations section until Russia's election organization can actually comment on it. Initial statements would fine, but they are not necessary to consider this article complete for ITN posting. --M asem (t) 22:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to remind everybody that, apart from the technical ability to post things on the front page (and the obligation to assess and act according to consensus when doing so), admins don't have any special powers here. People unhappy with the content of the article would be advised to add referenced content, or discuss the flaws of the article on the talk page. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted with minimal blurb. Worldwide RS are reporting it, we can't editorialise. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably time to change the image too... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I vote the one with putin on a horse with his shirt off. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I've added the infobox image from Putin's article to CMP, just need to wait for KrinkleBot to weave her magic. Black Kite (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Image switched. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. De facto uncontested elections, nobody is surprised, why is this news? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As to why it is news, you will need to take that up with the news media; here at ITN we do not editorialize or make judgements about the validity, fairness, or legitimacy of elections. That's for readers to decide for themselves. This event is what passes for an election in Russia. That's all we are interested in. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Pull until the article sufficiently covers the allegations of fraud. We don't editorialize in ITN blurbs, but we also shouldn't post articles that are missing important information. Lepricavark (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Right now, there's claims of ballot stuffing and the like, and that's in the article as well as the election committee's response that there was no major incidents they had observed yet, but there's no formal claims or allegations that we as WP can rightfully justify a complete section on and stay within NPOV. There will likely be more in the next several weeks, just as there was with the US election, but for ITN, the article properly covered the key event. --M asem (t) 14:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep feel free to embellish the Reactions section which is already quite descriptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Four whole sentences. It's a wonder you don't split them off into a separate article and then nominate it for FA. Lepricavark (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you need to (a) calm down and (b) retract that, or else I'll have to get you a saucer of milk. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought you saved your vague, empty threats for admins. Lepricavark (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, disruptive and bad-mouthing editors in general. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you meant 'people who disagree with me', but have it your way. Lepricavark (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You're not making sense I'm afraid. There's a huge difference between disagreeing with someone and just making stuff up about someone. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said, have it your way. Lepricavark (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Post-posting comment – How about we add the phrase "yet again" to the current blurb? Very journalesey. Ha. Sca (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion has probably run its useful course and can be safely closed. Any further objections can be made at ERRORS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Li Ao

 * Oppose for now. There are referencing gaps and several CN tags.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Contrary to what the nominator says, this is neither well written nor well sourced at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Mike MacDonald

 * Support Decent article, good to be posted. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Solid article, sources plentiful and proper. A few red links, but all seem properly sourced. Challenger l (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Xi Jinping reappointed president without term limits
Nominator's comments: Significant change in way of governing in one of the most significant countries now. More from The New York Times on why this is a big deal. Feel free to add more blurbs and suggest alternative target articles as the current one is not detailed starship.paint ~  KO   09:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Name: Chinese presidential term limits removed
 * Date: March 11
 * Alternative blurb: ​The National People's Congress removes term limits for the President of the People's Republic of China (incumbent Xi Jinping pictured)
 * Alternative blurb II: ​The National People's Congress removes term limits for the President of the People's Republic of China, with Xi Jinping as the incumbent president.
 * Alternative blurb III: ​At the 2018 National People's Congress, the Chinese legislature removes term limits for the President of the People's Republic of China (incumbent Xi Jinping pictured)
 * Sources: BBC,CNN, Reuters
 * Conditional support Widely covered and highly notable, might very well not have more Chinese presidential succession for a while. Article needs significant extensions though. Also blurb feels a bit long. Juxlos (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Change to Support focusing on the presidency instead of the meeting per below. Juxlos (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality - article tells us nothing more than the blurb and is almost as long. The reason your struggling with the blurb is we can't say what RS are saying per WP:crystalball. The part we can say doesn't feel all that newsworthy. GCG (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The PRC is free to use its legal processes to change its laws about how long the President serves whenever it wishes. This will have little effect. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would add that this legislature is essentially a rubber stamp body anyway. If Xi didn't want it, they wouldn't do it. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * With the exception of Mao Zedong, the term limit seems to be obeyed in general. While the body may not exactly be a proper democratic one this still implies a major event in Chinese politics. If Trump even formally proposes doing this it will be all over the news in a heartbeat. Juxlos (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI the US President has no formal role in crafting US Constitutional amendments. He can't push one through Congress (2/3 vote needed) or through the states (3/4 of the states). He can propose whatever he wants but it's unlikely it would happen. I believe he has joked about doing something similar to this Chinese action. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Notability wise, support. I'm seeing this development in multiple news sources. This was also in the news a few weeks ago when it was effectively passed by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, but in terms of the encyclopedia, the official change to the Constitution of the People's Republic of China is what we want to mark. When evaluating this, we can't use the same criteria as that we would evaluating a development in a Western democracy. In China power happens through closed-door meetings and not by elections, and this is one of the most significant occasions. I've suggested a shorter alt-blurb. Article will need some work. --LukeSurlt c 14:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. It's a stub and will require significant expansion before we can seriously consider posting to the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on notability as above; I was thinking about nominating this when the news first broke but knew that the response would be 'wait until it actually happens'. The article should be expanded. Davey2116 (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * President of the People's Republic of China might be a good target, as the news is really about this post rather than the meeting. --LukeSurlt c 19:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support this saw coverage before the congress even happened (e.g. ). I'm for targeting President of the People's Republic of China as that's the position that's actually affected. Banedon (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - switched the target article. starship.paint ~  KO   08:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There was an uncited section, now fixed. Juxlos (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, still opposed. The new target has only a brief mention and offers no more information than what is in the blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support in principle, oppose on update. A historically significant change to one of the world's most powerful offices. However unless I'm missing something President of the People's Republic of China has just two sentences on the change, that say nothing more about it than the blurb does. I think we need a full paragraph of cited update somewhere before posting. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The difficulty of using President of the People's Republic of China as the target is that it's not really the place for an extensive commentary on recent events, especially when these events now mean there's an absence of a particular aspect of the position. --LukeSurlt c 12:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but that's currently the bold link in the blurb. If there's a better location for an update, that's fine. We do need one somewhere. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support in principle. If allowing presidency for life in the most populous country and second-largest economy in the world, which directly impacts 1.4 billion people and has large potential to affect international relations, does not merit a blurb, then I'm really wondering what the political news should be concerned with to get included.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I think there is a lot of support in principle because this is a huge power grab for Xi. However, he is only the third leader of China since the President role became synonymous with the supreme leader, and he is just now entering his second term. The narrative that he is becoming Mao-like or ruling for life is highly speculative. GCG (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nominal or not, it’s still the head of state position, the same way we care about the Queen of the United Kingdom. Juxlos (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Reluctant oppose as it's a significant story that is getting coverage, but neither proposed target has been sufficiently updated - the 2018 Congress article is still a stub and there has been a mere two line update to the new target that tells us little more than the blurb.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * - involved in the previous nomination on March 11, which was a change to the constitution, but 6 days later we have a re-election. Several opposes due to state of target article but the target article is now different. starship.paint ~  KO   03:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - in case the ping didn't go through as per below. starship.paint ~  KO   13:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. I didn't get a ping even though I see you tried.  Anyway, I don't think the blurb needs to mention term limits or lack thereof, which is a separate issue from who the President is(even if the legislature is just rubber stamping the choice of President). 331dot (talk) 07:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Is this really an indirect election to make this ITNR? The election was squaring from those already sitting in the national congress in contrast to, eg, the US's electoral college. Normally Election ITNRs point to an election article, (and the winner if that article is in good shape), but clearly there's nothing close to that here. I am not saying that there is not something to put to ITN here between the combination fo the term limits and this recent "rubber stamping" by the congress, just that I don't think we should consider this ITNR. --M asem (t) 13:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know their system; is the Congress even given more than one candidate to in theory choose from?(even if Xi winning is predetermined) Even if Xi is the only option, could they in theory not choose him? It would still nominally be an election for head of state (again, even if the result is predetermined) 331dot (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - each of the 2,000+ delegates gets a yes/no vote. Xi got all 'Yes'. His Vice President got 1 'No'. starship.paint ~  KO   13:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose Several gaps in referencing though the article is not in horrible shape by any means. Once remedied Weak Support on merits. I do think this meets our ITNR criteria although the election is obviously a sham by any normal standards observed in the democratic world. Also I favor the alt blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Conditional Strong Support - as per above, reference gaps here and there. Once fixed, principle is that this is the head of state of the most populous country in the world. Juxlos (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Since China has removed the term limits, this is not a direct election, thus it is not ITNR.--WaltCip (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Juxlos and Ad Orientem. Jusdafax (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Obvious oppose ITNR here applies to the election as target article, we don't seem to have one, so this is invalid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. I've already supported the introduction of the rule without it being invoked, so this formal application is additional justification for my previous vote.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2018 National People's Congress, the 'election' article, is a stub. Stephen 03:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support after the cn-tags are addressed. I think setting Xi as the target-article is fine. Davey2116 (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but oppose on update. 2018 National People's Congress is barely above a stub and has literally one sentence on Xi's re-election. Xi's own article has one sentence on the removal of term limits and one sentence on the re-election. We have the same problem as before: the update gives no more information than the blurb. If/when there's a substantial update somewhere, with multiple paragraphs of referenced prose, then this can go up, but not before. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius - the target article is a stub.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but 2018 National People's Congress isn't a reasonable target article right now, and 13th National People's Congress is even worse. Could Xi Jinping be the target article?  The alt-blurb is significantly better than the initial, longer suggestion. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 17:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Ireland win Six Nations

 * Is just winning the Grand Slam on ITNR? They won the Six Nations a week ago.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This nom is for the Six Nations as a whole. We wait until the tournament is concluded. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose until improved. Compare 2016  where the item was nominated in a state similar to the current one but was not posted until there was prose on the actual games themselves. (For some reason, this seems not to have been posted - or even nominated - at all in 2017.) There are also a number of uncited statements. Black Kite (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Needs update. Now is the correct time to nominate this, but at present there are only three sentences of prose in the article about the results of the entire tournament. The rest is all build-up, tables and team sheets. This needs a few referenced paragraphs describing the progress of the tournament. 2016_Six_Nations_Championship is an excellent example, though it doesn't need to be quite that detailed to be posted. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] 2018 UMBC vs. Virginia men's basketball game

 * Strong oppose One underdog victory over a top seed in a non-final elimination game is not ITN, and even the game itself shouldn't have an article. --M asem (t) 03:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose We should post the tournament's conclusion, possibly with a mention of this game. It's the championship game that we're waiting for. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Portal:Current events/2018 March 16 is the appropriate page for this type of news story, and it is already included there. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - It's enough of an uphill battle just getting the championship result posted. It's also meaningless. No one except die-hard fans of UMBC will remember this as a particularly notable sporting achievement, when as stated above, the focus will be on who wins the entire tournament.-WaltCip (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We don't usually post specific games in larger tournaments, only the result of the tournament. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just wonder, seems the account is only created to make this nomination. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Adrian Lamo

 * Support Nice article. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Indeed nice article. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Added support. Ready to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - per above supports. Jusdafax (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good to go, do we need to wait any longer? Anyone out there?  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support everything is well sourced. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Louise Slaughter

 * She's one of my personal favorites, and I may devote some time to getting the article up to speed, but my main point here is that the article is not yet up to speed. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support and ready Did the first comment make me too WP:INVOLVED to post this? It's ready now. Great job to everyone for improving this BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose unreferenced material, tables aren't in chronological order, etc etc, lots of work to do here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the tables? They don't look as nice as the ones at Susan Collins, but reverse-chronological is pretty normal. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether it's "pretty normal" or not, it's not acceptable. Show me an encyclopedia that lists events in reverse order.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've had that same argument on election pages in tables that list polling, and have often found myself in the minority in hating reverse chronology. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's just unacceptable, so until that's fixed, and all the unreferenced issues, this is a definitive no. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong about this, but isn't there some coding wizardry you can add to a sortable table so it defaults to showing a certain way round? Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There sure is, but the default should be chronological. That needs re-work.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed it - now in chronological order. One of the very few things that Visual Editor is useful for. Black Kite (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Reverse chronology is the standard on many of these pages. Is that being a no-no codified anywhere in MOS? If so, would be nice to fix up some of the tables like Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2015, Opinion polling on the Donald Trump administration, Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, Opinion polling for the Russian presidential election, 2018. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Manual_of_Style/Biographies would be the place to include it for biographies. I don't think there's an MOS sub-page relevant for the "Opinion polling" pages, which have problems beyond their ordering.  power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, how many encyclopedias are publishing reverse-order information? None is the answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's so obvious, it should be easy to find consensus to state that in the site policies. The section of MOS:BIO currently says Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order. Exceptions to this rule may be apply to lists of works, such as publications or other media productions, where the most recent may be listed first, as well as for distinctions such as orders, decorations, and medals. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, how many encyclopedias are publishing reverse-order information? None is the answer. I've already challenged this absurd MOS exception.  Time we all started acting like we're building a real encyclopedia, not a tabloid.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Too many gaps in referencing. The whole thing with the tables is not a deal breaker with me, but yea, they look weird. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is down to one citation needed, which I've started a discussion about on the talk page. The article probably needs two more copy-editing passes before being "good". power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I've resolved the last CN tag, and am happy with the article quality now. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support not seeing any more issues with this. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - ready for posting. Good work.BabbaQ (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Article has been improved greatly. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Blurb: Marielle Franco

 * Support Highly relevant news. 189.40.83.173 (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb per the fact it's dominating Brazilian news and led to tens of thousands of protesters taking to the streets. Banedon (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Strongly relevant. She was a human right defender and city council. Today, after her murder, theres a massive people spreading fake news and lies about her at social networks. This is a important channel to keep the truth alive.
 * Support - led to huge protests. Article is ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose only on quality Just looking through the BBC, there are good reason why authorities believe this was a targeted assassination, but the article on her does not go into those. I think that needs to be added to understand this being ITN a bit better. I fully agree the item is ITN-worthy, just not article quality. --M asem (t) 15:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The article was recently expanded to include that information. Also, some other news: Wall Street Journal, St. Louis American, ABC News, New York Times, Blavity and Financial Times. RedUser (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Perfect, all good now for me. Support. --M asem (t) 00:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Mateussf (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC) Highly relevant indeed.


 * Support Relevant persona in the current political scenario - has drawn attention by the circumstances of her death: humans right activist and city councillor target of assasination after denouncing transgressions during military security forces intervention in Rio de Janeiro. Has been target of a smear campaign in order to supress public outcry. Freedom of press and in defense of liberty demands this article to feature on Wikipedia frontpage.187.61.197.239 (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I can't add more information but i couldn't endorse more.2804:14C:5786:855C:1118:8A44:A873:3025 (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support A human rights activist gunned down at a young age and has tracked global attention. With article in good shape. Marking ready. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - article is ready, story is clearly worthy. Stormy clouds (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Strongly relevant, especially in the situation of a military intervention in Rio de Janeiro and current political events on Brazil. Waltercruz (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Carlton Gary

 * Weak support there are two permanently dead refs in there which needs to be addressed before this is posted, otherwise it's in good order. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the dead links- Dumelow (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * support - ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks fine. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Slovakian Prime Minister resigns

 * Oppose for now. Fico's article has not been adequately updated to discuss the circumstances of the fall of his government. This is even more important than normal given the rather sensational blurb. Pellegrini's article is only a half step over a stub and will require significant expansion before it can be linked on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on principle, oppose on quality ITNR transition of a world leader, but as noted above, we really need more about why Fico's resigning. --M asem (t) 00:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * it seems like someone got around to updating the article, with a subsection on resignation. Juxlos (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fico's article looks better. The other one is still in need of drastic improvement though. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support on the merits due to the reason for the resignation (though this is not ITNR as this is head of government not head of state). 331dot (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Masem. Banedon (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose looks like a big publicity issue, perhaps we can publish the new leader per ITNR, but this is titivating and nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on circumstances of resignation, but wait till new government is formed. This is Paul (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait until Government is formed, then run a modified hook like Peter Pellegrini becomes Prime Minister of Slovakia after Robert Fico resigns the post. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Tom Benson

 * Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support -needs come cleaning and more references. Should be posted after adding new references Awestruck1 (talk) 22:38,15 March 2018
 * Oppose The 'Saints relocation controversy" section is way too long and is rightly tagged for WP:UNDUE. That needs to be resolved.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Miami bridge collapse

 * Oppose Just a small bridge. No long-term impact.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "...killing at least six people." That's a long-term impact.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A new bridge, using a relatively new construction method, will likely have a long-term impact.  Sounder Bruce  20:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If it is a new construction method, glitches or problems are to be expected. It doesn't mean this accident will be the death of this method. I don't think we even know if the accident was related to the construction method. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose trivial accident, if this had occurred anywhere else on planet Earth it would be universally greeted with "meh", so ... "meh". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose certainly a tragedy, and brand new bridges are not expected to fail, but the death toll is too low for ITN. Lepricavark (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support – making international news; new construction method lends to greater notability than an old decaying bridge collapsing. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - unquestionably sad, but I don't feel that a sufficient number of people have died for this to merit posting. If it happened elsewhere, it would likely not even have an article - we must avoid bias, even if it means letting nominations like this fall to the wayside. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this time. Tragic, but not generally significant enough based on what we know now. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose although undoubtedly a tragic event, it is ultimately a minor accident at best, the bridge was also not fully completed according to the article provided. SamaranEmerald (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. –Actually strong oppose, if it means anything. Relatively minor incident at unfinished bridge. If it were not in the US, it may not even get article talk less of going to main page. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Pile on Oppose At the risk of sounding callous; things break and people die. We just can't post every fatal accident that garners some short term, even if sensational, news coverage. Although there is no written rule, in my experience accidents with low death tolls usually don't make it onto ITN. Our motto is not "if it bleeds it leads." It has to bleed a lot. Prayers for those affected... Kyrie eleison. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Number of fatalities isn’t currently large, but nature of the incident and fact that it was a new structure sways it for me.yorkshiresky (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above opposers, arbitrary at best, bridges especially new ones tend to have problems within days after they open, take the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge for example, it had problems almost immediately after it opened, and as a result it collapsed several months later. Kirliator (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Toys R Us

 * Strong Oppose: No sources given. Also, this is just a company about to be liquidated. This is not CompanyPedia. 2601:2C0:4700:4A9A:E1AA:FC3B:E64E:EACB (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose It is big news here in the States. But companies go broke all the time and we are not talking a mega bankruptcy here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Just a side effect really of the biggening of the online shopping industry especially by mega-retailers like Amazon. More businesses will be sure to follow suit. WaltCip (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I personally find this to be sad news, but it certainly does not rise to ITN level. Lepricavark (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'd consider a support if/when they actually closed. A few years ago HMV claimed it was closing, and never did. Aiken D 07:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose just another company whose business model didn't move with the times. Already fish and chip paper.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose routine business action. As I understand it(at least in the US) they are not totally going out of business yet, just closing a bunch of stores. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This does not interest the majority of people, even within the US. Natureium (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose No international significance, not the kind of thing we usually post on ITN and no reason why this is exceptionally different. AusLondonder (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that this does not merit posting, but "international significance" has never been required for any ITN posting; if it were, very little would be posted. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Slovenian Prime Minister resigns

 * Support Article looks to be in decent shape though I might suggest waiting until we have a successor announced as we usually post the outgoing and incoming at the same time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait per Masem below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait articles are fine but we should post it when his successor is sworn in – Nixinova ⟨ T | E ⟩ 00:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Conditional wait not entirely sure. If it’ll take a few months for his successor to be decided then post but if it’s within a week or so then might as well wait. Juxlos (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * also he’s still formally prime minister if I’m reading this correctly


 * Wait Per Reuters, he will hold the post until the new gov't forms. --M asem (t) 00:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Conditional Oppose Sad to say, but the last time I heard about Slovenia was with regards to Melania. This news item may be too myopic?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait for the election (which is ITNR) to post something about this. There doesn't seem to be a big scandal here, he resigned after the Supreme Court annulled the results of a referendum he had championed and ordered a new vote. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Inatan (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You think whether or not there is a big scandal is relevant to whether or not this should be posted on ITN? Banedon (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It is better to wait until the election here. He resigned a couple of months before the regular election would take place, and the resignation is being interpreted as a strategical move in view of tensions in the coalition and some other cases, such as the referendum being overturned. Cerar will remain acting PM until the election so there is no major change expected. --Tone 20:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Man and I was hoping we can have “Slovakian prime minister resigns” and “Slovenian prime minister resigns” next to each other on ITN. Juxlos (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] UK Expels 23 Russian Diplomats

 * Wait I'm tempted to say this may be better for ongoing, as each element of the tensions rising here is not going to be ITN itself (we can't post every incremental update), but it is a major breakdown in relationships between the UK and Russia. --M asem (t) 14:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, now we have something here. Support.--WaltCip (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My intial reaction after seeing BBC's "to expel" headline was also 'wait,' but evidently they've been given official notice – they just have a week before they have to say "До свидания." – Sca (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support A major escalation. I think the expelling of diplomats is blurb-worthy and I would prefer this to merely adding it on Ongoing.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ongoing the death blurb just expired off, pop this down into ongoing (now we have a free slot) and let it die off naturally. --173.38.117.77 (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support next logical stage but a real degradation in relationships between the two countries. Good job the rest of Europe sits between the UK and Russia...... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, good thing we're in a formal union with those countries so they can back us up. Oh, wait..... <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support – A big step all right (and May also revoked an invitation to Lavrov). – Sca (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I fin it unusual that this wasnt mentioned already, even before the expulsion of the diplomats. Dahn (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It was. However it just got bumped off the ITN bar with the posting of Stephen Hawking's death. That blurb only addressed the attempted murder, not the most recent and rather dramatic developments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support International news with a major case of excrement hitting fan that has not been seen since the Cold War. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Post to ongoing - You don't need a crystal ball to know that this whole thing is going to be in the news for at least a couple of weeks. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 18:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait Russian Ambassador Alexander Vladimirovich Yakovenko is not expelled yet. If he is, then this would mean something huge. For now, I’d hold off. Juxlos (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. It seems to still be developing, and currently receiving a large amount of media attention. Natureium (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the diplomats actually leave (i.e one week from now). This is what we've been doing by precedent. Banedon (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What precedent is that? I don't recall the last time we discussed posting the expulsion of diplomats. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, but we had lots of nominations not posted because it "hasn't happened yet", e.g. your Kim-Trump meeting nomination. Banedon (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, this has happened. The named diplomats have to leave the country.  I'm not sure what happens to them if they don't but I'm guessing it involves arrest. So you actually support this but oppose it for consistency? 331dot (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is for consistency. It's not that the diplomats don't leave the country, but rather that the UK can change its mind. Again, this is using previous arguments for not posting XYZ per WP:Crystal and all that. Banedon (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. Major escalation in this dispute. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Major international kerfuffle involving the use of a nerve agent in Europe with long term consequences. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Is "formally" necessary in the blurb? zzz (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Still favor posting, but would add this note of caution: Looks like the Russians are getting ready to play (surprise!) tit-for-tat. If they do, that could be added. Sca (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Routine. You periodically expel spies to disrupt their network-building efforts.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Expelling diplomats is not common. The mass expulsion of more than 20 is w/o recent precedent. You would have to go back to the dark days of the cold war to find something like this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: I would have posted this, but I'm not seeing language in the article to match the blurb. Perhaps something along the lines of "After Russia refuses to cooperate with the investigation of the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, the UK expels 23 Russian diplomats as undeclared intelligence officers."  This matches the language of news sources, c.f. .  Accusing Russia of Murder does not appear in reliable sources as such.  This seems to have the support as an article worth the main page, but the blurb needs to be nailed down better.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * “Their response has demonstrated complete disdain for the gravity of these events,” May told MPs. She said: “There is no alternative conclusion other than the Russian state was responsible for the attempted murder of Mr Skripal and his daughter.” -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you can make that language more explicit in the article, I will post this. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Added alt blurb as a back-up. Brandmeistertalk  23:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted The altblurb. I am more comfortable with that language.  In specific, the changes to the article do not reflect the sources still.  I'd rather the Wikipedia article directly quote May than paraphrase.  For material this sensitive, it's important we speak in the voice of our sources, and not in Wikipedia's voice.  "Formally accuse" is not language that appears in the sources.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I too like the altblurb, but wonder if the phrase "by a nerve agent" will be readily understood. Would "by a nerve-acting poison" be better, perhaps? Sca (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, would "with a nerve agent" be better? Sca (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't know if we want to amend the blurb or not but Russia has announced it is expelling 23 UK diplomats (and some other actions) in retaliation. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jim Bowen
Parking this here for now. I suspect people will oppose, because the article is not in a good shape. However, we got Ken Dodd improved to be posted, so I think we might be able to do it again. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Subject to improvements, etc. And a speedboat for anyone who brings it up to scratch. But only if you live in Tamworth.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support subject to improvement S a g a C i t y (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Pending those last couple of citations being added. Miyagawa (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support referencing has now been improved. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Great job by Ritchie in bringing the article up to scratch. Now sufficiently referenced.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Super, smashing, great <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted blurb] Stephen Hawking

 * Support blurb Absolute no-brainer. EternalNomad (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb One of the most famous people, let alone scientists, in the world. And a tragic loss for mankind. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb No need to argue this; absolutely yes – Nixinova ⟨ T | E ⟩ 03:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb with tears. Davey2116 (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb No doubt. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Not even a question. What a loss. GrossesWasser (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per MAINEiac4434 and Davey2116. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  03:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support blurb One of the most influential and iconic scientists of this era. I couldn't believe the news when I just saw it on Facebook. Every morning   (there's a halo...)  04:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Blurb This is definitely a no-brainer for a blurb (in addition to the !votes above), the article is strong shape. --M asem (t) 04:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Just piling on. Passes the Bowie/Mandela/Prince standard. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd also support adding a photograph of Hawking. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. The infobox image (File:Stephen Hawking.StarChild.jpg) is appropriate and nicely framed at thumbnail size.  Sounder Bruce  04:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is some necessary cascading protection for main page images that I am not 100% sure how to do, but this is clearly a move to make. --M asem (t) 04:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed on an image needed. RIP starship.paint ~  KO   05:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support without a doubt. Lepricavark (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the image should be posted too. Our admins watching this should help. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting very strong support: very strong support, yes, I also feel the image should be posted as well. --Titodutta (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting very strong support. Of course. Double sharp (talk) 07:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - A true icon of our era. Kurtis (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Beyond the event horizon support - What more can one say? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * PPSS unequivocally blurb-worthy. RIP. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Much like WP:RFA, it's not often that the entirety of ITN can come to an unequivocal 100% agreement on something, but I think here there is a clear unanimous consensus. We've got our blurb and our image; we can probably just close the discussion at this point and leave it at that.--WaltCip (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment "In rare cases, the death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb.". This was one of those "rare cases". Good post. --76.122.98.135 (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This should be noted as an example for the guidelines. Juxlos (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Post Post Support - As per everyone else. It’s almost impossible to find a media that doesn’t show this as a headline or at least first page news. Juxlos (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Post-posting support. But it seems this was 17 minutes from nomination to posting. Is this a record for ITN? And for ITN article quality assessment? And for articles where the nominator writes 'Article is in good quality, but does need a bit of spotchecking.', where nobody else commented on article quality except the poster, and where the infobox was not (and still is not) even flagged as updated? Was such haste necessary or advisable? Or does it set a worrying precedent? I understand, perhaps mistakenly, that it was concerns about haste like this after the death of a revered figure that lead the Catholic Church to invent the post of Devil's Advocate, so might ITN benefit from something similar? (Please don't bother answering any of these questions here, as I'm only asking them to provoke thinking on the matter, and this is probably the wrong place to discuss them further, and anyway I'm not really interested in discussing them myself as this comment is hopefully just a one-off breach of my decision to try to stay away from ITN). Tlhslobus (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is a former FA; even thought it was delisted in 2014, I know people have kept a close eye on it so I wouldn't have believed it any worse than B-class at any time - I suspect other people knew / felt the same and hence insta-supported. PS: I await Donald Trump's reaction to Hawking's death with interest. Just sayin'. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a shame though that an article about such an important person is not a FA or at least a GA.... Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 12:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The Donald has just tweeted that he is bigly saddened to learn that Wikipedia has posted the death of a character who once appeared in The Simpsons, but unsurprized as he always knew Wikipedia was Fake News. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Figures.... <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Almost. That's a parody account. Although it says something that in this day and age one can easily believe that the US President could have said something like this. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 12:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The fastest posting to ITN was Hilary Putnam's RD, back in March 2016. That took only 11 minutes. In that particular case, the article was featured, and the new RD criteria were in place, so it did not take long for a consensus to develop.--WaltCip (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Post Posting Support The very definition of a blurb-worthy death. Front pages everywhere, transformative.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted to Ongoing] 2018 UK higher education strike

 * Oppose blurb - coverage is almost exclusively by British papers. Neutral for ongoing. Juxlos (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Added a few links to sites outside of UK inc. Singapore, China, Cyprus, Ireland etc.Stinglehammer (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seems it as in the news in these countries 2-3 weeks ago... 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:55D4:F543:6342:97DA (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you login, please? Hard to argue with an address. Article did not exist 2-3 weeks ago. It exists now. Strike escalated on Tuesday this week when long hoped-for resolution, after 6 days of talks at the Acas conciliation service, resulted in an 'overwhelming' rejection by university staff. This rejection of the Acas agreement hardened the two positions, exposed deep divisions between the two sides and escalated the strike so that it is now set to continue for another 14 days; doubling the strike and doubling down on its effects as the new strike days will take place in the important April to June exam period. The elongating & escalating of the strike happened this week with resolution seemingly a long way off. That's why nomination was put in.Stinglehammer (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not everyone has and wants an account. Unneccessary opening statement. Propose you retract. As for your argument. Not sure I am convinced, as you offer an interpretation using dramatic words. I checked the Guardian. If an important turning point, I would expect a British newspaper to offer extensive coverage. Nothing off that, even taking into account that the Russia news dominates headlines. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:55D4:F543:6342:97DA (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry,I will retract of course. Wrongly assumed after your first Oppose comment I was discussing with a random IP address that hadn't read the nominated article or the thread discussion. Which after discussing the nomination for so long got my back up. Apologies again. Will moderate my comments in future. As to the substance of your point, it depends what you mean by extensive coverage. There has been sustained coverage from Guardian, Times, BBC, Times Higher Education, Independent etc. over the last 3 weeks which includes coverage of the rejection this week. Given BBC, Times & Guardian etc. have covered in number of articles over the period and ITN has not covered at all, I propose there is case for inclusion now strike is entering an escalated 2nd phase.Stinglehammer (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Union strikes are not the type of thing that makes good ITN stories. --M asem (t) 13:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't this dealing with "the appropriateness of topics in general rather than the specific story"? This strike affects university staff at all UK universities established before 1992. 64 of them. Not a one-day strike either. Looking at a period of twenty-eight days of sustained striking now that talks have broken down. Strikes can be extremely newsworthy: (timeline of strikes). Stinglehammer (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not to make it too trite, but I'd call this a "first world problem". Yes, a good number of people (profs, students, supporting staff) are affected, but we're talking about being inconvenienced over labor issues. It's the same reason we don't post when winter storms shut down airports and cause extreme disruption to traffic in the US - its not a significant long-term issue. Add that this is stale news - the strike has been going on for some time, and this is an arbitrary point to announce it. --M asem (t) 13:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The dispute is about the future of UK higher education and how it is funded so it does indeed have longterm significance. The strike has resulted in a stalemate between the two sides grinding an important sector to a halt, a sector with international significance. Why are we equating this prolonged sector-wide strike with a one-off weather/transport issue? Not the same. The plane crash reported on ITN is a one-off event for that matter so why are we covering that? Hardly stale news either when after protracted talks the agreement has just been rejected in the last two days and a further 14 strike days are to go ahead now as a result, effectively doubling the strike and doubling down on its effects. Not arbitrary if you take that as your ITN blurb.Stinglehammer (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - UK education system grinding to a halt as classes cancelled at 60+ of UK's oldest universities for an extended period from February up to (potentially) the June exam period is entirely worthy of ITN. Thousands of university staff and students all affected in the stalemate. Stinglehammer (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A bunch of students can't go to class. It may be mildly disruptive, but it's not especially significant or lasting in any way.--WaltCip (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "bunch" is way too blithe. 126,000 students have asked for their fees to be returned so far and that's before exams have been affected and standoff is now an entrenched one with goodwill of staff now permanently eroded. That will be a longlasting effect of the dispute for years to come and difficult to recover. Strike is also seen as emblematic of wider discussion on the future of higher education. e.g. BBC article - "The more you talk to people, the more they understand what the big issues actually are. Yes it's about pensions but, fundamentally, its about defending higher education against further cuts and marketisation." Ergo, the scale and nature of the dispute is historically notable for ITN.Stinglehammer (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb Nomination is stale. This has been going on since February. Neutral for ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, ongoing since February. Has it featured in ITN in this time though? News from yesterday is that after 6 days of talks, an agreement has been rejected yesterday resulting in further entrenchment (and 'bad blood') in addition to the prolonging of the strike with a further 14 strike days now looking likely to take place in the important April to June exam period unless a mutually agreeable way forward can be struck. Stinglehammer (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. The blurb is too convoluted; if posted, it should be simplified. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added shorter alternative blurb above. Stinglehammer (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Good article, in the news not just in the UK (it was on Democracy Now!) and we are not USApedia anyway.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We should be careful not to end up as UKpedia too. Banedon (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." - Passing of Ken Dodd and Jim Bowen is very UK-centric for instance. Compare with universities which are international by their very nature.Stinglehammer (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. We would post the passing of Ken Dodd and Jim Bowen regardless of their nationality under the current ITNRD criteria.--WaltCip (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Point I was making this idea of "only relating to a single country" is not one ITN is supposed to go in for per the guidance page. Beyond that, the point is the UK Higher education sector has international relevance. The Bowen/Dodd point was just a throwaway followup as you can't get more 'UKpedia' than Ken Dodd and Jim Bowen.Stinglehammer (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose local news, plus it's just a strike per WaltClip. Compare e.g. the London underground, how often does it go on strike? Banedon (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Bizarre idea to compare it to some other completely unrelated entity, you might as well compare it to the French or the NRA. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, this is a total false equivalence. Not the same at all. Half of all UK universities and some of the oldest in the world (inc. Hawking's alma maters Oxford and Cambridge) have ground to a halt in a stalemate with its staff which looks set to continue into pivotal exam period and have repercussions for sector for years to come in terms of the 'bad blood' that has been engendered. By same token, the Italian elections could be considered 'local' news... but it has international significance. UK higher education has international significance likewise in its students, staff, teaching & learning, research & development etc. Stinglehammer (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If we accept that UK higher education has international significance because of international students and staff, then most things have "international significance" since in the globalized world we live in someone is bound to be international. That Hawking's alma maters are involved is irrelevant - Hawking is also only one person. To argue that Oxford and Cambridge are independently notable is another thing, but that's still a stretch; there are plenty of other notable universities (e.g. Harvard, MIT, Tsinghua, UTokyo ...) that are not on strike. Banedon (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Again this is a false equivalence. There are plenty of places where there are no elections, where there are no plane crashes, where there are no sector-wide education strikes. But where there are this is news. I mentioned Hawking because he is included on ITN and he is one man, as you say, albeit a giant in his field. He has thousands of colleagues who are similarly respected internationally, working at extremely notable institutions like Oxford, Cambridge and over 60 others where they have ceased to work and look like they will continue to be on strike for a prolonged period. This is crippling for the sector; an important sector in the UK and abroad. Therefore this is news.Stinglehammer (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support I think this story is very relevant, and highlights the depth of problems in UK Higher Education. Jason.nlw (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This story is highly relevant to a valuable UK industry, as well as relevant to current UK politics and to plans for the restructuring of UK higher education. The story is also relevant globally, and of particular interest to the US, where historic K-12 teacher strikes have been ongoing. Karengregory (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This is clearly important news. It's obviously of greater interest to those in the UK, but I think we all need to be informed if such a large scale strike is happening in any country in the world. NavinoEvans (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Large-scale strike affecting multiple universities. The Times's note on its significance is enough to make me support. talk to ! dave 13:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The fact that a million students across more than 60 universities are directly effected by the strike and the rarity of action on this scale demonstrates quite clearly that this is a significant story. It is the biggest strike in the history of UK higher education. The top 20 universities internationally includes Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial College London, University College London all of which are impacted by the strike which should soothe any fears over whether this is of international importance. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I will look to the support rationales in this ITN nom the next time we're talking about whether or not to post an ITN about NCAA basketball.--WaltCip (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I should be delighted to take part in that conversation. Please do leave a message on my talk page when it becomes relevant. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The two subjects are not comparable, so to attempt to chill the discussion over this nomination is completely misleading. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose unclear why this should be posted now, and not when the strike began. It's not like anything important has happened in relation to this strike in the last few days. The blurb says it all, "continues into its fourth week with potential further disruption set for April to June". 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:55D4:F543:6342:97DA (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the article's section on the Acas agreement onwards which makes it clear that there are indeed important recent developments. The talks are important because it effects whether there will be further strikes.Richard Nevell (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure did that. Also read the section that came after the Acas section? Looks like this "important" agreement was rejected just a few hours later. Must have been an important development, indeed. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:55D4:F543:6342:97DA (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, in fact it sounds rather a lot like news to me. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Talks went on for 6 days. Acas agreement was rejected overwhelmingly by university staff across the UK when it was put to them by representatives the next day. Time for decision is not relevant - the rejection of the agreement is all. Shows the depth of feeling and that the employers' position did not go anywhere far enough. Thus deepening the divisions between the two sides and causing deadlock for entire sector until situation is resolved.Stinglehammer (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support This is an important and escalating story. As strikes enter their fourth week between 14 and 16 university campuses have been occupied by student solidarity groups, supporting staff and protesting marketising of education. This story speaks to a wider narrative around the UK HE sector and to student-led protest (national walkout day in the US yesterday for example). I think the summary needs to be updated to reflect the increasing direct action from student groups. Ammienoot (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral for Ongoing, which seems a more appropriate place as it has been, well, ongoing since February. There doesn't seem to be a pressing reason to post this as a blurb right now.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support for ongoing, clearly no real clear blurb here, but this is an ongoing issue, and now there's talk over students suing for recovery of their fees, this is a really big deal right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Alt blurb - Talks to end the 2018 UK higher education strike collapse resulting in up to 16 university campuses being occupied by student solidarity groups in escalating dispute.Stinglehammer (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Alt blurb. Significant story with bigger implications for pensions regulation and students' rights. Zeromonk (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Significant and large scale strike affecting multiple UK universities, with additional student occupations of University property having been announced over the last few days, including the University of Glasgow yesterday. Lirazelf (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment On a historic note, this would be the third UK story in a row at ITN. Brandmeistertalk  10:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. And obviously you'd normally want a wider spread of world news featured but passing of Stephen Hawking, the poisoning and the historic nature of the UK higher education strike are all huge stories with wide implications. Stinglehammer (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, a lot of people in the UK speak English, so why not. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Just giving this thread a bump as the article has been significantly expanded and a new image gallery added. Think it looks good. Stinglehammer (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just sifted through the BBC website and the NYT World section and I'm finding no mentioning of this particular story (but plenty about Brexit).--WaltCip (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not really comparable to the shutdown, is it? That lasted, what, two days?  This strike has been ongoing (and still is) for five or so weeks, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yet much like the shutdown, it has essentially disappeared off the news cycle. Might have something to do with that independent committee that was formed yesterday to address the issues, but even before then, the news simply stopped.--WaltCip (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, if this has been ongoing for five weeks, how is this not considered stale? If it's ongoing, post it as ongoing. Not as a blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment this has been ready for quite some time now, is there any good reason it hasn't been posted? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, but neutral for ongoing. It's a large-ish strike and disruptive to students, but doesn't have the long-term encyclopaedic impact required for ITN. This is an argument about pension provisions; whichever way it's resolved isn't going to fundamentally change the UK higher education sector, let alone anything beyond that. (Disclaimer: I know many people involved in the strike, which is also affecting my own work. If anything that should bias me the other way.) The article does seem OK and there are lots of small updates rather than one big event, so I wouldn't be opposed to listing this in ongoing, but it's not blurb material. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Alternative blurb - ​Talks to end the 2018 UK higher education strike collapse resulting in up to 16 university campuses being occupied by student solidarity groups in escalating dispute. - This was the alt blurb based on rejection of the Acas agreement last week. Might need to come up with alternative blurb again as we're almost a week past the rejection. Support for ongoing as a minimum. NB: It might change the H.E. sector because a different funding model is required to break the impasse. Ultimately we don't know what the end result of the strike will be on the higher education sector but we do know 14 further strike dates are to be announced this week; doubling the strike period and doubling down in its impact by affecting the important exam period.Stinglehammer (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * NEW ALT BLURB - 14 further strike days at 65 universities to be announced this week in escalating 2018 UK higher education strike. Open to other suggestions. Stinglehammer (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Stale - The oldest entry on ITN is now newer than the date of this entry.--WaltCip (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is still ongoing news and news that ITN could & should absolutely have covered. I don't see why this was delayed. The blurb was posted as ready for several days last week. I propose this is either posted as ongoing or we wait a day until the news covers the announcement of the 14 more strike days. When it will still be news of "the worst industrial action at universities in modern times".Stinglehammer (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You may want to re-nominate this as ongoing then before this drops off the queue, which it will do at 00:00 GMT time tomorrow.--WaltCip (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted to Ongoing, and if there are any significant events a renomination would be in order. Stephen 22:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] 2018 Sukma attack

 * Oppose as of now due to quality (as mentioned by nominator). Weak Support on notability. Juxlos (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅, the article can now hopefully be judged above stub-level. 39.48.144.155 (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Change to Support - good enough now. Juxlos (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This expansion has been reverted - apparently the IP is a ban-evading sock.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh well, revert then. On an unrelated topic, how do I strikethrough? Juxlos (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Use and . --Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Could the name of the police force be spelled out in the blurb?  It was not immediately obvious to me what "CRPF" means. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose As I write this it’s still a three line stub. Not convinced about significance either. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Trump sacks Tillerson

 * Oppose - Trump's cabinet has been a revolving door since his inauguration to the point of being almost as typical as sunrise and sunset. Rex Tillerson's sacking is neither unexpected nor overly significant.--WaltCip (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And its placement on BBC, I think, is immaterial. I'm still of the belief that the Russian poisoning is a non-story.--WaltCip (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe revise and check your logic - this does not make you look like an intelligent person. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:188B:D30F:20F4:98AF (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Dismissal of a leader's adviser under conditions like this is not ITN type material. --M asem (t) 14:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral on inclusion, but if used, the verb "sack" in the sense of "fire" or "terminate" (an employee) is less common in the US than the UK so we might want to rephrase. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose John Magufuli sacks George Mkuchika, would it get posted? I think not. The BBC isn't above regional bias either. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  15:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think this should be posted either, but I think we both realize that US politics have a far greater global impact than Tanzanian politics. Lepricavark (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That is true. How about Putin sacking Dmitry Medvedev? That would have a slightly higher chance of being posted, but still not much. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  18:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose as a simple personnel change, and it is true this wouldn't be considered for most other countries. I have added a blurb with US terminology (fired) 331dot (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support making headlines, decent article. We can talk about "other countries" when "other countries" currency is used as a global trade standard, when "other countries" have military bases in 180 countries and fleets of ballistic missile submarines, when "other countries" engage in nuclear brinkmanship with North Korea. The sudden departure of SecState is a big deal. The false equivalences are comical. --76.122.98.135 (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Systemic bias is not comical and something we should take seriously. This is not the pro-USA Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This also was not sudden and was long expected. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, you don't fight "systemic bias" by suppressing stories from countries you consider to be over represented. It was long speculated, not so long expected, and it's not common for a sec state to go mid-term. --76.122.98.135 (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * IP editor, have you tried Conservapedia? You might be more at home there. Here at Wikipedia, though, we don't post stuff like this. And if we post every tiniest thing about a certain country, then you do counter the bias by "suppressing" stories- there are too many countries in the world to do that for, ITN would be flooded. You may even consider starting a wiki at Wikia, where all United States-related news is posted. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  17:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The snottiness is unwarranted. The IP has a valid point about comical false equivalences, even if I disagree with his support for posting this. Lepricavark (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the snottiness. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  19:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose ministers get sacked all the time, no reason in particular why this is special. Unless something huge follows, but that’s WP:CRYSTAL. Juxlos (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment As a result of the dismissal CIA director Mike Pompeo was nominated as new Secretary of State and in turn Gina Haspel was nominated as new CIA director. This would be the first female director of the agency, and her nomination is also controversial due to her involvement in a torture site and the 2005 CIA interrogation tapes destruction. I would recommend to change the blurb, but it may be too soon to nominate this.--Jamez42 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support So this which makes global headlines doesn’t get posted but the election in Tuvalu does? 172.56.7.104 (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * General elections of all sovereign States are on the recurring events list. Routine dismissals of officials who serve at the pleasure of the President are not. If you feel elections should not be, please propose their removal. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The last sec-state dismissed mid term I think was Haig back in the 80s, I didn't look to see how frequent before that. Not exactly "routine". --76.122.98.135 (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose, local politics. If we posted every time a cabinet-level official was replaced in every large country ITN would be a continual stream of them. We stick to heads of state, and sometimes heads of government. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support more important and more impact than most of the stuff we post on the mainpage. What the IP above rightly said, the false equivalences are comical indeed. Either this is an encyclopedia and we evaluate events based on their importance and impact. Or we are not, and we just keep shoehorning the usual fare of disasters, elections and sport events into the mainpage. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:188B:D30F:20F4:98AF (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not unexpected, and while we can figure what this means for things like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (R.I.P.), we'll post that when it happens. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, "sacking" is not terminology we use in the U.S. unless we're talking about football. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose yet another Trumpism, local politics, not important, not the last of these kinds of things. Suggest this is closed with extreme prejudice.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Then why did you not close it just yourself as SNOW. Would have been more constructive than posting a worthless oppose that does not provide a single valid reason? 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:188B:D30F:20F4:98AF (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Go away "IP", or log in, or do something constructive. I offered a perfectly apt oppose, "local politics", of no interest to anyone outside the Trump administration and, curiously, a handful of IP editors here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not going away, but maybe you can. National, not local politics, and please note the instruction above "Do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country". Utterly worthless oppose, as I said. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:188B:D30F:20F4:98AF (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Trump appoints Pompeo as Secretary of State. There can't be two at the same time. If anything, Haspel's appointment as the first female director of the CIA may be notable.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Utter local US politics and Trumpic drama. Ministers/secretaries are appointed and sacked all the time around the world. Their appointment is explicitly at the whim and pleasure of the master they serve, who can hire and fire at any time and such events are generally not ITN worthy at all. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose typical political drama. Political figures below the top come and go all the time around the world. ZettaComposer (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. As many sources point out, this signals the start of a far more confrontational foreign policy. Count Iblis (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

[Removed] 2018 anti-Muslim riots in Sri Lanka

 * Given that this was posted more recently than 2/5 of active blurbs and within minutes of a third, could we move this to blurb? GCG (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably should have always been a blurb ... however per WP:USGOVERNMENTSHUTDOWN we now pull blurbs for events that have concluded, so .... neutral. --76.122.98.135 (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove per 76.122.98.135.--WaltCip (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove, but re-post as blurb per GCG and 76.122.98.135. Davey2116 (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support removal from ongoing / Oppose blurb One of the reasons this was posted in ongoing in the first place is that it was too stale for for ITN. The riots and their coverage began quite a ways back. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If this were "converted" into a blurb, it would be dated from the start of the event, which would be older than the oldest item. --LukeSurlt c 16:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've not looked into the current rate of updates, but if this has stopped being ongoing it should be removed entirely, not upgraded to a blurb. The original discussion very specifically formed consensus on an ongoing posting, not a blurb. Besides, moving to a blurb would create a bad precedent for circumventing the original consensus that way. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove - this was too stale for a blurb when originally posted. Now that it is entirely complete and over, a blurb listing is even more redundant. Time to remove it, I feel. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed from ongoing Stephen 22:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Nikolai Glushkov

 * Oppose on article quality. Huge CN for claims surrounding his death which are a serious BLP FAIL. That needs to be fixed PDQ or I am going to remove it. Beyond that some of the sources are Russian and we need to have a close look by someone familiar with Russia and the current state of affairs there to determine their reliability. No, I do not regard Russian sources as presumptively reliable. Too much is going on over there. And lastly the article really needs a lot of copy editing for better reading. I am having a hard time figuring out the plot to the backstory which sounds simultaneously bizarre and slightly incomprehensible. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed the BLP vio. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Which has subsequently been fixed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Craig Mack

 * Oppose Poor sourcing and some word choices would be formalized. Main issue is sourcing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unsourced statements and parts of the article are not written in an encyclopedic tone. Quality is not there yet.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Oskar Gröning

 * Support - I agree with Masems assessment. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Kyrie eleison. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] US Bangla Airlines Flight 211

 * Support - Due to number of fatalities. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Per above. Article is a bit short but it should expand in the next couple hours as info comes. Juxlos (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Question what, beyond an unfortunate death toll, makes this notable? What are the minimum deaths for notability? --76.122.98.135 (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no formal minimum, but commercial airline crashes with two-digit death tolls are almost automatically notable and postable. Brandmeistertalk  13:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - apparent high death toll, article in fairly good shape with no referencing issues. Mjroots (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - High number of deaths. Good shape article.BabbaQ (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Sad accident. Article looks short but adequate and is decently referenced. I did add a CN but it's not enough to hold up posting. I also updated the death toll in the blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support high death toll, article is sufficiently ready. Lepricavark (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted This does not appear controversial. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Ameenah Gurib announces her resignation as President of Mauritius

 * comment change in head of state is ITNR so a new pone will get posted but I imagine she will be acting till then.Lihaas (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The Presidency of Mauritius appears more ceremonial than of a true leadership position (the PM is the leading state official there), this might beg the question if this should be considered ITNR. --M asem (t) 13:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The Prime Minister is head of government, not state. We should expect an "acting" President to take over, which would not be ITNR. The replacement being elected or assuming office would be. I still think we should be using the yellow-shaded from here for ITNR, but that idea was shot down. GCG (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As a matter of practice we have generally posted changes in head of government as well as head of state assuming that the article is up to scratch. In any event this is ITNR. I have added a couple CN tags but the article is not in bad shape overall. Fix those and I would think this will be postable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support resignation of any major post, even if wields less power than other positions is signifigant, especially if there is a scandal, which there is. Should be postedUser:Awestruck1(talk) 20:22. 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support According to ITNR only the succession of head of state is ITNR; however I would still post now and update blurb when a successor is determined. Banedon (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose because this is not ITNR, we must consider the merits. As this a ceremonial position, and the reason is run-of-the-mill government graft, this is not noteworthy. given historic precedent, a successor may take weeks to assume office.  GCG (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If that happens, I would still rather post this and the successor assuming office. Banedon (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose plenty of unreferenced material in here, whether it's ITNR or not, it's not close to being posted in its current state. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ken Dodd

 * Oppose The article is in a terrible shape unfortunately. Aiken D 07:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Enthusiastic support A huge improvement, well done. Aiken D 19:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The quality feels very light m'lud ... unsourced sections, images dropped wantonly in the article without a thought for context, questionable layout and flow - in short, a total disaster area. :-( <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support I see the issue template but look at the article without snap judgements: I really don't see the issue. Not every assertion is referenced but we do not have huge tracts of unreferenced text (especially when implied references are included - not every reference needs a ref tag) and the article is reasonably well developed. Remember we do not require FA standard here. 3142 (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we all know we don't need FA quality here, but since this is a BLP, referencing for pretty much every claim is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Given we are discussing a recent death BLP by definition does not apply. 3142 (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, BLP applies to recent deaths as well(for about a year I think). 331dot (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Plese read WP:BLP before making false assertions. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between a false assertion and an honest mistake. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't start again 331dot, you're already close. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I've done a cull of the photos. There are now four (in appropriate placing) Infobox, one of his statue in the honours section, and two in the comedy section (one with his signature tickle sticks, the other from earlier in his career). The others were either unflattering or un-necessary (repeat of the statue, his house etc). If I have time later I will look at the sources. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Everything is now sourced - I've got citations where I can and anything left over wasn't a deal-breaker so I removed it. Combined with OID's reorganisation of the article, I think we've actually done it. - do you want to revisit your oppose? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article is much improved.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent work to get it up to scratch. yorkshiresky (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Great work on improving the article! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Great work there - I was going to help when I got home from work, but it was already done. Black Kite (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Togo D. West Jr.

 * Support - Indeed, ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Karl Lehmann

 * Came to nominate him, pleased it's done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have now tried to improve the article and every paragraph should be referenced. I would appreciate some copyediting for language, and otherwise that people now start evaluating the article. It is still somewhat thin considered that this guy had a real career with real influence and I'll try to expand it somewhat more, but hope it can get posted within reasonable time. Iselilja (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

RD: Hubert de Givenchy

 * Support High profile, with probably sufficient sourcing. Brandmeistertalk  20:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good to be posted. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - one CN which I added and cannot source, but otherwise we are good to go. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Very slight oppose Few CN tags, noting hard to fix up. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Millie Dunn Veasey

 * Support god enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: George A. Sinner

 * Support – Good article, well sourced. – Nixinova ⟨ T | E ⟩ 23:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - well referenced. Ready for RD. -Zanhe (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Martin Shkreli

 * Oppose Not significant.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I was actually earlier in the process of writing up an ITNC about this, but realized that at the end of the day: it was only for 7 years, and it was nothing to do with why he's notable, being the phrama pricing issue (this was due to fraud from his earlier investing position). --M asem (t) 21:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose in summary: somebody deeply obnoxious is sent to prison for a short period. Not ITN material.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not related to his notability. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Hell no, this guy's mostly notable for being a dick on social media and it's not like that's rare. Juxlos (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose minor criminal case in the global, overall perspective that ITN takes. —LukeSurlt c 22:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Winter Paralympics

 * Support - Is a major sporting event. BabbaQ (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality is sufficient. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - this is an ITN/R nomination, so there are no notability issues. Article quality of the main article, which we should post per the precedent set by the Winter Olympics, is fine. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Major event, article is good. – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 18:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. I also tweaked it to remove the big whitespace. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted to Ongoing] Ongoing: Afrin operation

 * Support Article quality is sufficient (a few minor WP:PROSELINE issues, but not distractingly so) and well referenced, article is comprehensive, event is ongoing, and article is receiving regular updates. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Jayron32. A situation with major international implications. Jusdafax (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Bernardo Bernardo (actor)

 * Oppose until the article is expanded. Three sentences on his career is not sufficient. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:9812:AD74:9650:415A (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is not in the best condition, needs significant expansion before being posted. 161.6.7.1 (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Stub article with problematic sources. Challenger l (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Trump and Kim agree to meet
Wait until they actually meet in 2 months. SamaranEmerald (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This mere announcement is unprecedented (unlike tariffs which nations are free to do). Even if the meeting does not occur, this announcement is a high point for relations. 331dot (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have to agree. No opposition to posting this now, and I'd probably post it twice (now, and when it takes place). --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support pending article update, per 331. zzz (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait If the meeting still happens in May, consider this my clear support for that ITN item. But plans to make a meeting in 3 months - a lot can happen. Let's hold off and avoid the CRYSTALBALL issues. --M asem (t) 02:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait per Masem, this nomination is already falling under the influence of WP:CRYSTALBALL, anything could happen between now and then. I will support the nomination for when the meeting actually occurs, but until then, it is best to wait until it actually happens. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait per above. If/when this meeting actually takes place I think it will be ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait premature nomination, this is undoubtedly ITN worthy, but only when it actually happens. Kirliator (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait still speculative at this point; who knows what nefarious intentions Kim has in mind? EternalNomad (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Nefarious intentions" are irrelevant. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - the announcement is already historic, even in the case this should not happen. Yes, sometimes announcements are newsworthy. Whether it happens in May or not, it will have a impact, more so than the usual ITN fare of bus accidents, fires and terrorist attacks. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:9812:AD74:9650:415A (talk) 06:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait per all of the above minus zzz, widespread coverage yes, but premature in nature. Until this meeting is occurs, it is overhyped at best. 161.6.7.1 (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose which is really what all the wait votes mean, we're not keeping this nomination open for two months. Let's see what happens, if it happens.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it is being appreciated how significant this is. This is one occasion where the announcement is significant as this sort of thing was avoided by US Presidents since the Korean War. It isn't "premature" to announce a future meeting when it is the annoucement that is notable.  This is essentially the high water mark of US-NK relations and it comes so close to when war was being threatened months ago.  The mere fact that the two men have announced that they want to meet is very significant, even if the meeting does not occur. This is being covered worldwide as significant, Le Monde, Irish Times, India, and many others. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Editorial discretion might be prudent here. There really is no doubting that the story is international in scope, and diplomatically, this would be a huge deal - if it wasn't for who the two leaders are that are making this arrangement. One of the two leaders is frighteningly unstable, and the other has a tendency to change their mind on an almost predictable basis (I'll leave it to your imagination to figure out which is which). The more significant story will be if the meeting actually occurs. As it is, this is not Nixon going to China.--WaltCip (talk) 11:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also worth considering that this is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper, so if you look back in time, do you honestly think you'll find discussions or entries where people agreed to do something that might lead to something in the short-term future? Or do you think you'll find the records reflect things that actually happened?  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. If/when this meeting actually happens it might be suitable for ITN, depending on what arises from it. But simply agreeing to meet in a few months time isn't historically significant. Make a new nomination when the meeting occurs. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Since the closure with the editorialising note about some of us simply "not appreciating" the historic nature of this has been restored by an involved admin (thanks for watching!) then it's important here to note that no-one here suggested that the agreement wasn't notable and no-one here said they didn't appreciate its potential significance, but please don't editorialise when closing your own nominations. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] US tariffs on steel and aluminium

 * Comment. This isn't a certainty yet, it goes into effect in 15 days, legal challenges are expected and Congress will attempt to stop it. 331dot (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd still say post and update blurb if Congress stops it. Waiting for something to really happen is to me similar to not posting the Cuban missile crisis until either side actually launched missiles. Banedon (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying don't post it per se but we will look silly if we post this and the next day a court halts the move or Congress repeals it. 331dot (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is just like the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * While I do think this is notable, I'd wait for it to actually come into effect first. Master of Time   ( talk ) 01:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait until it goes into effect in 2 weeks. SamaranEmerald (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose at least for now, this will likely be challenged by numerous entities within the next 14 days before it is put into effect, if it overcomes all that outrage by then, it will be good to go. 161.6.7.1 (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Question has similar actions happened before were tariffs have been posted to ITN? This is out of curiosity. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose more whacky thinking from Trump, and certain to be challenged all over the place. Wikipedia doesn't need a Trump ticker. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - The backlash by other countries barring trade with the U.S., if that happens, might be of considerable notability. Right now, though, the news media has it right in that this is not in effect yet.--WaltCip (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article has not been sufficiently updated (at least according to the giant orange-level tag at the top). -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is an internal tax affair at present, and thereby lacks notability. Article quality is insufficient, and notwithstanding this, we should refrain from posting until the law takes effect (the whole updating a blurb which was rendered obsolete will, by precedent, likely not fly). Stormy clouds (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait - not 100% certain. Further discussion should be after it's on paper and not on Twitter. Juxlos (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Wilson Harris

 * Oppose as noted, currently still not up to scratch. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ron Franklin

 * Support sufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support looks ready. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted to Ongoing] Sri Lanka riots

 * Support - Well referenced. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The article has a couple tagged sections of almost unreadable text. Jusdafax (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Conditional support - subject to someone with the ability to write something legible in English touching up the whole article. Juxlos (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointers Jusdafax and Juxlos. I've made some changes to the article. Hopefully that's better. Reh  man  11:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There are still some minor grammar issues, but I guess it’s good enough now. Change to Support Juxlos (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I strongly support on significance and quality, but there's a lot of "who did what to whom when" going on in the talk pages, so I'd advise we proceed cautiously. Upon first glance, the article is well written and sourced, and seems to carry a neutral voice. The article title would be problematic *if* there is equal blame. GCG (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment this should be under 6 March as that's when the state of emergency was declared. Otherwise, this should be ongoing because the riots have been happening since the end of February.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support I've been through the article once and worked over some of the prose. It isn't our best writing, but at the moment I'm not seeing egregious neutrality or verifiability issues. "weak" because I'd prefer the writing to be improved further. Vanamonde (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support for Ongoing per TRM. I do think this passes on both quality and the importance of the story, but it's been going on for a while. Realistically it's stale for the ITN sidebar. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – I haven't seen much coverage on major news sites. After searching awhile, I found an unnarrated video on BBC, dated March 7, under the headline "Buddhist rioters dispersed in Sri Lanka." Seems to be over for now. Sca (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A brief Google Search gives links from almost all major international news outlets including Al Jazeera, Reuters, etc. Juxlos (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Article is comprehensive, well written, and well referenced. Well done!  Agnostic on blurb vs. ongoing, but the quality is good enough for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Clear reports have been provided by the international news sites such as BBC and Al Jazeera on the tense situation which has been spread between Sinhalese Buddhists and Muslims in Sri Lanka. Abishe (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ⇒ Among major English-language non-aggregation news sites, seems to be mainly Reuters. Sca (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support ongoing - per TRM, I feel that ongoing is preferable to a blurb in this case, and have no concerns vis-á-vis article quality or notability otherwise. Stormy clouds (talk 17:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing per above, but I'd support a blurb if the consensus does. Davey2116 (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing after reviewing all the sources I can find, my early concerns are assuaged. GCG (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing the suggested blurbs are abit of a jumbled collection of different claims, I suggest to avoid an blurb conflict, this nomination should be posted as ongoing, after all we did this with the Iranian protests earlier. SamaranEmerald (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing – Agree with previous posts regarding ongoing. Sca (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted to ongoing Stephen 03:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove ongoing as riots were over and curfew lifted. Gfosankar (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Pritzker Prize

 * Support: Per ITN/R. TIL about that award. Article is just long enough. Juxlos (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose with regret. The Pritzker Prize article is an FL and has been updated, but Doshi's article is simply not good enough.  The only way this could feature in short order would be if we switched targets... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Reynaldo Bignone

 * Support Article is of sufficient depth and well referenced. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - sufficientt article. Thanks for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John Sulston

 * Support Referenced and interesting.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support only objection is to the use of the Daily Mail reference. Otherwise good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support replaced daily mail source. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Sam Walton (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] [Posted] Sergei Skripal (Russian Spy Poisoned)

 * Oppose Premature I think. He and his daughter are still alive (though critical condition), they're not sure what the poisoning agent was, and the media is quick to draw parallels to Litvinenko. --M asem (t) 16:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support now that its confirmed it was a nerve agent (not a random environmental thing) alongside the responding officer being ill with the same. --M asem (t) 18:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait - If either dies, then it would be worthy of a post (possibly blurb) -  Floydian  τ ¢ 16:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Several EMTs were injured, and one remains in hospital. I think the premature train is pulling out of the station. GCG (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The only thing about the EMTs I can find is from the BBC in that 3 were treated for potential exposure; 2 were cleared, one still remained under testing 3 hr ago, but they certainly weren't "injured". --M asem (t) 17:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait until one of them dies per above.--WaltCip (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Whether they die or not makes no difference - the poisoning itself is a big enough story. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support it's been confirmed that a "nerve agent" was used. This isn't run of the mill stuff by any means and regardless of whether the pair of them are still (barely) alive and whether or not parallels have been drawn to Litvinenko (how accurate!), assassination attempts of a known foreign spy on British soil, along with his daughter, is certainly worthy of posting.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This could be about to turn into something quite serious. I would imagine the government will be under enormous pressure to respond, especially since it is not the first instance of this kind of thing by (almost certainly) Russian operatives on British soil. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Realistically, what are the geopolitical ramifications of this likely to be?--WaltCip (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't know, do we? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Made some small tweaks, but all good in general. Not something I'd ever expect to happen in Salisbury. ! dave  18:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - articles are of good quality, the story is dominating the media at present, and given that there was clear and malicious foul play, this is a geopolitical issue regardless of whether or not they die. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Might it be useful to add that a nerve agent was used, now that it's been confirmed? Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd support, media seem to confirm. If they determine the specific substance, this could be updated further. Brandmeistertalk  21:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose this isn't getting major coverage globally. It's there if I look for it, but otherwise it's drowned out. For example even BBC's World page currently has "US softens stance on metal tariffs" as the headline, followed by "Florida gun law moves step closer" and then by "Assad's forces push deeper into enclave". It's especially ironic since this apparently happened on Sunday and there was no coverage until now. Banedon (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's because for the BBC, it's not "world news", it's local news. It's the main story on the front page. Isa (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's still a sign that few / no other countries care. I learned about this story because of this nomination. I also read related stories because of this nomination, and if it continues to generate stories they are not showing up on my newsfeeds either. Banedon (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * reminder: do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And it's been headline news on that front page for the past four days. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I still fail to see what consequences are likely going to come about for Russia, even if it were determined that the operative who poisoned him was on Putin's payroll. Perhaps an ambassador might be pulled out of the country, but nothing with any actual long-term significance. Feels like government shutdown-esque media hype.--WaltCip (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Who knows what the consequences are going to be? I don't have a crystal ball.  But the use of a nerve agent against individuals in a high street setting in the UK is definitely significant.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that something like this might have had greater consequences during or before the Cold War era. As it is, this isn't exactly the shooting of Franz Ferdinand.--WaltCip (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure no-one is comparing the possible consequences with the outbreak of the First World War, but the story was posted on its merit, not on the plethora of possible actions that may occur subsequently. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Peter Nicholls (writer)

 * Oppose Article is barely above a stub, would need to be expanded to better demonstrate his life's work. What is there is also poorly referenced.  If expanded significantly and fully referenced, that would get my support.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anything in the criteria that articles for RD must be of a certain length (here assessed as Start-class), so sorry for that. There seems to be some coverage of him from the 1970s and 1980s (like this full-length article) but mostly offline it appears. I'm not sure that I can fix it with the sources I can find but someone else might be able to. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 14:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The purpose (in part) of ITNC is, and I quote, "To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events." (bold mine) There isn't enough information in this article to qualify as "quality".  There's large gaps in his biography.  It is no where near comprehensive enough to be a quality article.  Since you think this person is important enough for recognition here, I'm flummoxed as to why you would then want to specifically refuse to improve the quality of his article, that you would want to tell the world that he's not worth writing a decent article about him.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood. I'm all for writing a quality article about him and I wish someone would. I just said that I am not able to do it because most of the sources that apparently exist are offline and thus outside my reach. I'm not an expert on ITN and just by reading WP:ITNRD I did not see any requirements that a certain quality was required. Which I apologized for. Since WP:ITN/A says Nominations with "fixable" opposition (e.g. the nominated article needs more references) should be allowed to remain open, I don't think I should withdraw this, should I? Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 16:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you're fine to leave it open. Quality issues can, of course, be fixed by anyone with sufficient interest in doing so.  There should be no rush to close nominations.  (I'm not in favor of closing them unless there's outright disruption anyways).  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support I’ve tidied it up a little and added a few lines and some references. It is on the short side but I think it’s adequate. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I added some more material to better cover his non-science fictional work, and cleaned up the references a bit. It's not our best article, but I think it's good enough, now. /Julle (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support Good job all who worked on expanding this. It's still short, but now more comprehensive of his professional work.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] 2018 Antonov An-26 crash

 * I fixed the link. Haven't looked at the article yet so no comment on that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is a stub right now. Willing to re-assess when the article is in a well-developed state.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that there was some discussion about posting military planes crashes regarding 2017 USMC KC-130 crash. --Jenda H. (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's not get hung up with "military = less notable". We do post military aviation accidents, such as the 2017 Myanmar Air Force Shaanxi Y-8 crash. In this case, we have a large enough death toll that we should be leaning towards posting, subject to article quality. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:AIRCRASH is an essay not a policy, so editors should feel free to apply their own judgement. My take: apply it as a negative weight on the notability, such that the acceptable level of quality is a bit higher. GCG (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The Myanmar crash was posted because the casualties includes people beyond the military (in that case, family members). If it is only military personal in a military plane, that's generally not very notable for ITN purposes; it's tragic, but we've considered that "in the line of duty". --M asem (t) 03:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose unlikely to have lasting impact, and the coverage I saw of it spend more words not on the crash itself, but rather Russian involvement in Syria. Banedon (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. At all. – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 23:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support - when article is expanded beyond a stub. The crash is certainly notable enough for ITN. -Zanhe (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Unfortunate to be sure, but of only passing significance – mainly (as Banedon  notes) due to Russia's involvement in the Syrian War. Sca (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - article not in good enough condition to post. Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support once made more neat-article is important but is stub. Needs to be cleaned and posted. User:awestruck1 (talk) 20:14 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the victims are exclusively soldiers. Soldiers die in war, especially while in active duty. Therefore, the crash is less notable, and 39 fatalities (a relatively low count for plane crashes which permeate into the news cycle) only compounds this in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Paula (1876 barque)

 * Forgive me if I'm being dense, but what is the significance of this? &#8209; Iridescent 19:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The 132 years between the bottle being dropped and its discovery. Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that it happened in January and did not receive much immediate fanfare suggests to me that it's not a very big deal. Lepricavark (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason for the delay in reporting was that an intensive investigation was carried out to confirm the provenance of the bottle and the message it contained. Mjroots (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose To my surprise this is actually getting some, albeit limited, news coverage. However I think this is more DYK material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this is a fun story, but its not really of great significance. As the article was created today, this would be a good nomination for DYK. --LukeSurlt c 20:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose – I did read the story (on BBC), but must agree with previous two posts. Only a curiosity. Sca (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note - I've undone the closure, as it was far too premature with 3 hours discussion and 3 !votes. As such, I will offer no opinion on this piece. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 14:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought it was closed too quickly as well. Sca (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Trivial, not significant news, an interesting little factoid that would fit nicely at DYK as said above. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unusual but trivial discovery which has no lasting encyclopaedic value. The article on the ship didn't even exist until yesterday. If this was a person it would fail WP:BLP1E, as it appears to have no notability whatsoever beyond this single bottle find. Take this to DYK, it isn't ITN material. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - take it to DYK, as this item is far more suitable there. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Shammi (actress)

 * Oppose Several problems here. There is a "close paraphrasing" tag that has been at the top of the article for four years, and a watermarked image. Maybe these could simply be removed, but the article is also under-referenced, and the sources that are there look weak - blogs, gossip-type sites and a heavy reliance on Rediff.com (is that a reliable source?)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Pawnkingthree – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 19:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] USS Lexington (CV-2) wreck discovered

 * Support. The article is a FA and the update is sufficient. --Tone 09:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Fine article, subject is historical and internationally notable. Good nom. Jusdafax (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Indeed, FA article. Updated. Ready for posting. Perhaps including the person who discovered it Paul Allen in the blurb.BabbaQ (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - article in excellent shape and updated. Mjroots (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I'm not convinced that finding the wreck in itself reaches the level of significance required for ITN, but the article is an FA, likely to be of interest to readers, and we're going through a slow news period. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Personally I'm a sucker for sunken-wreck stories & pix, but agree with Genius that this one's significance in the Big Scheme is doubtful. Titanic and Bismarck were big finds of famous ships, but with advances in undersea technology discoveries of wrecks has become almost commonplace. Sca (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I read this last night, and feel that given that it was purposely scuttled (only now affirming where it came to rest) and that Allen's Vulcan project has had a string of successful finds, this might not be that big of a discovery as being made out. However, I do weight the fact that the article is FA and is being covered by the news. --M asem (t) 14:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's hope the the billionaire runs out of ships full of dead men to exploit soon. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Uri Lubrani

 * Support Short but adequate. Decently sourced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - indeed, short but sufficient. ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – Well sourced. – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 04:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Trevor Baylis

 * Oppose for now. Too much is uncited or with unclear connection to source material.  I've done my best to tag the biggest problems with CN tags.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) Oppose Several citation tags and other unsourced statements that will need to be referenced. (By the way this is not the current England cricket coach who I first thought of when I saw the name).--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Too many cn tags – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 04:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , and, I think I've now got the sourcing covered. The article is still far from perfect, but if you could take another look to see if it is acceptable for our purposes here, that would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Article looks fine now, certainly good enough for RD. Nice work ! <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Rock on.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support definitely up to mark, marking as such Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Russ Solomon

 * Oppose Too many unsourced statements.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Italian general election, 2018

 * Wait until we get the seat numbers, otherwise the result is incomplete. The article looks good, well referenced and with plenty of prose on the campaign. I'd go with blurb 1. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The article now has seat numbers, so I think we're good to go. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Post now and update the blurb as more results come in. Banedon (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Multiple tables do not have a clearly cited source. Others need to be filled in. I have also added multiple CN tags. The article is not in horrible condition. But it has some gaps in referencing and there are a few too many sections in need of being updated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Conditional support tags seem to be mostly on non-controversial statements and I've filled in some. But the tables do need some filling. Juxlos (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support It has 113 citations, enough. The big news are already confirmed, the rest of the tables can be filled when the final results are in (for example votes cast abroad counted etc.) --Pudeo (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - per Puedo. Ready for postingBabbaQ (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The article has been improved greatly. The tables have been filled (I've added the updater). Davey2116 (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - good work on the article, less delighted with results. But, I mean, has the right-wing every failed Italy?. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of the tables still lack clear references. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: William McAlpine

 * Are we truly going to use the full title of nobility on the main page?--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sir William McAlpine would suffice, although the honorific could be dropped. Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Honorifics are handed out liberally by governments of all stripes. I see no reason for us to use any of them. Vanamonde (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This one was not handed out by a government, though. For some reason baronets have the "Sir" in the article title while mere Knight Bachelors, such as Sir Roger Bannister, do not.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lots of unsourced material and not a huge amount about his life except for a too-big section on his railway hobby which takes up half the article. Black Kite (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] 90th Academy Awards

 * Support, when ready. © Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 04:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. This is in WP:ITNR 184.153.25.119 (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Yearly ITN event 05:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Jusdafax (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support once article is ready. Lepricavark (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Lot of useless support !votes above; one section is tagged This section contains information of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter.. the box office section looks like it needs a few cites or atleast one more. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Relevant discussion on whether to keep that tagged-section is currently taking place at Talk:90th Academy Awards. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't see any tagged sections (maybe this has been fixed?) or any other problems that should preclude posting. Looks fine to go up. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article is ready; sufficient prose and no tags.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I modified the blurb to mention that the movie won 4 awards in total, this was kind of a standard practice in past years. The orange tag is back in the article although I thought I found a good solution to the issue. --Tone 15:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Tripura Legislative Assembly election, 2018

 * Comment the background is going to have to be expanded substantially explaining the significance of this election. I don't consider the population of the affected region when reviewing noms. It's either "in the news" with a "quality update" or it isn't. --76.122.98.135 (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose State of Tripura has a population of 4 million - if California or Central Java (pop 39 and 33mn) flips from their traditional parties, while pretty safe to say will be more significant, it would still be a regional election and hence not ITN-worthy. Otherwise, every ITN would be regional elections. Juxlos (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is a state election, so isn't significant enough for a broad audience of readers. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I'm not necessarily opposed to posting regional elections; in particular, I feel quite strongly that we should post the more significant domestic elections from countries with large populations. This particular one doesn't quite fit the bill, though. It's a very small state, which has frequently voted very differently from the country as a whole. The election to post was that of Uttar Pradesh, about a year ago; that state is more populour than all but a handful of countries, and the election made the news for the particularly strident views of the new chief minister. Vanamonde (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sub-national entity, no wider implications, routine politics. If we posted this we would have to post a continual stream of state and mayoral elections. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is too parochial. Lepricavark (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Davide Astori

 * Support Nice article. Referencing is better than what we typically see around here. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support yes, per above. Tragic.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - very sad news, but the article is in good shape. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Sad story. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Sobering news. Lepricavark (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Could someone post this please? It's been sitting here marked Ready for well over 19 hours with unanimous support. I can't post it myself as I nominated it! Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just post it. Unanimous support, plenty of it, non-controversial.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I thank the admins for this slight delay; whether intentional or not it allowed Quini to be on RD for a few hours at least.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Vanamonde (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] 2018 Baku fire

 * Comment this should be moved to 2 March I believe, since that's when the event took place. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: Article is a bit on the short side, but it’s good enough and decently referenced. Juxlos (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Two small inline tags, but promptly fixable. Brandmeistertalk  18:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Short but sufficient.BabbaQ (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Articles looks fine, though short. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Lin Hu (air force general)

 * Support Looks short but adequate. Decently sourced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: David Ogden Stiers

 * Oppose most of the career section is unsourced. Aiken D 17:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Aiken D. Referencing is not up to scratch. [A sad loss. Memory eternal.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Roger Bannister

 * Oppose pretty much all of it's unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the text appears to be verifiable from his 1955 autobiography, I can only do a spot-check on Google Books but if anyone's got a copy, that ought to be able to do most of it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I am currently updating its citations and referencing, and have added a number more in-line citations, starting with the section on the sub-four-minute mile. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait Bannister is well-documented in sources, so we should be able to fix it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per The Rambling Man, but happy to support if it's fully referenced, which as Ritchie333 says, shouldn't be too difficult as a well-documented person. Aiken D 13:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Still opposed, unless the unsourced parts are removed. Per Joseph2302, it would probably work to remove them. Aiken D 18:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support It's up to C-class, and he's a very important figure. p  b  p  13:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The class of the article is not relevant; no admin would post this in its current state of referencing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose mostly unreferenced with multiple large sections entirely unreferenced. Hope it can be referenced Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This should additionally be moved to 3 March 2018, as family sources have confirmed (via news articles) this date (cf. ). — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Stormy clouds (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose many unreferenced sections. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppoze due to lack of referencing. However, there may be a case for a blurb given rating as a vital article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb the referencing looks to be getting better, and a RD listing is obviously necessary once that's up to snuff, but I oppose a blurb. Bannister's fame far exceeds his importance, and he was 88 when he died. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I hoped people would come forward, but there are still too many unsourced statistics in the article, so it's obviously not happening. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment A number of sections have now been updated, but it would appear that a lot of the unsourced items in the biography are from Bannister's book, of which I do not have a copy to verify; I'm trying to do what I can from other sources. If there are any particular items that, if they had citations, people would then be happy it is sufficiently referenced, please tag them or let me know on my talk page. Thank you — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There's now a lot more citations for the article since its initial nomination and objections; at the time of nomination, there were a couple of dozen citations from about as many references, and there are now more than 60 citations from 42 references. Given Bannister's milestone and the improvement in the article, I think it would be fair to list in RD. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There are still numerous uncited paragraphs. And the legacy and memorabilia sections are almost entirely uncited. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Most of the content is well sourced. If you removed the unsourced content, this article would be good to go, so if it bothers people that much then just remove it. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Kenneth Gärdestad

 * Support looks adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Very well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Video Assistant Referees in association football

 * Oppose Instant replay been going on in Major League Baseball and the National Football League for a few years now, didn't get nominated here. I don't think it's significant enough – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Association Football (AKA Soccer) is not first sport to utilize such measures. As Muboshgu notes, both The MLB and the NFL, as well as car racing in general has already implemented this technique well before association football has, and thus is nothing new.  It will also most certainly not be the last sport to do so as well.SamaranEmerald (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's already implemented in football, so this isn't that big a step. And in any case, I doubt it would ever rise to the level of the significance of events we normally post at ITN.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Relatively minor change in sporting rules. Maybe if keepers are no longer permitted to use their hands, that would be post-worthy.  Spencer T♦ C 21:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - brilliant news for fans of some teams, and association football is the world's leading sport, but I don't feel that it rises to a significant enough level in terms of rule changes, particularly as financial constraints mean that it will not be implemented universally. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Billy Herrington

 * Support I deleted a few unsourced categories. Looks fine to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops, missed where it was included inline. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose until those cn tags are addressed. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose unreferenced videography, several unreferenced sentences. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Good quality article. Well known figure in many parts of the world, especially the United States, Japan, and China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wessex 95 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - notability at recent deaths is not a concern, only article quality is. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - referencing issues abound, particularly in videography, unfortunately. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM and Stormy. Referencing needs work. I have added a few tags. Also I'm not sure how "in the news" this is. I did a search and the only reference to his death came from the one Chinese site. We generally require some mainstream news coverage when considering RD nominations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Vanessa Goodwin

 * Support Short, but good enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - short, but sufficient.BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support barely above stub standard, but what's there is fair and square, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article notes that she had a ~10 year long political career, but aside from mentioning which post she was elected into, doesn't describe any work she did while in those positions. For example, this news story mentions "most recently she began an overhaul of Tasmania's prison service and courts system". I would like to see more specific content like this in the article. Until then, I think the article does not have coverage of sufficient depth for RD.  Spencer T♦ C 21:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, it did have all the hallmarks of a stub+. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Brandon Jenkins (musician)

 * Support Seems good enough, but there's some ugly proseline. "In 2003, Jenkins moved from Oklahoma to Austin, Texas, where he lived until 2015." Fascinating!  GCG (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support  No big issues, good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support concur with the above, it's grim but good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] 2018 Ouagadougou attack

 * Oppose for now, article is a stub. Let us know when it isn't anymore.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs expansion also A number of troops and police officers have been wounded but no civilian casualties have been reported so far. and only appears the gunmen have died so also oppose on notability unless something else happens Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * update/comment Changed the blurb and also reorganized the article into sections. Certainly has more than a minmum update to go.Lihaas (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Major event and article has been cleaned up. Added altblurb. – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 05:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article greatly improved now. Note that, It was opposed first when it was something like this. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support much improved Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - per above supports. Jusdafax (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support just about good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article is pretty good, especially compared to its initial state when this nom was temp-closed. Davey2116 (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go, vastly improved over the state of the article when I temporarily closed, and it is certainly notable enough to merit posting. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – Good 'nuff for a blurb. Sca (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)