Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/May 2017

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

[Posted] RD: Fred Kummerow

 * Support Referenced and interesting.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Though it's getting a bit late for this, is it not? Vanamonde (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Serviceable article, adequately sourced, relevant facts accurately cited. Christian Roess (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , can we get this posted? Neutralitytalk 15:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Ad Orientem: I don't see it?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't either and I have already purged the ITN template cache twice. I've seen this happen a couple times before where the update seems to be in limbo somewhere and it took quite a while to appear. Unfortunately my command of tech probably peaked in the mid 1970's so I can't offer much help here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah... it has appeared. Not sure if someone else did something or my most recent cache purge finally nudged it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I see it too now. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I wonder where we could find a picture. Perhaps his employer could upload one on Wikimedia Commons?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

[Posted to RD]: Jiří Bělohlávek

 * Support As long as someone adds a source to when he was at the different institutions, I think it looks good. LordAtlas (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Article is well sourced and updated enough to meet requirements. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose lead too short, otherwise half decent. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment should be listed under 31 May. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * - Moved to correct date. Expanded blurb - please review and see if worthy of the removal of the poor blurb tag. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The lede currently has the phrase "and led the Czech Philharmonic Orchestra in 1990, a role he would serve for several decades" which makes no sense. It is also verging on puffery. If you want this to be posted soon, you need to address these issues. Vanamonde (talk) 10:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * - thanks for the assistance. That culprit sentence has been altered and fact-checked to comply with Wikipedia norms. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - Notable person, worthy of RD. Article could do with work, but seems well-sourced and of a suitable length. Need to act fast if this is to be posted. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support now that lead has been expanded. Good enough to go I think.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. -- Jayron 32 13:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] 2017 Sri Lanka floods

 * Comment - Already nominated below. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Kabul bombing

 * Strong support. As the creator of the page, I'm surprised it's been 4 hours since the attack and no one has created a page yet. Clearly deserves to be on Wikipedia front page. Ethanbas (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit: OK, I've added virtually all the information there is about the attack so far. Other editors will add stuff when I wake up, and then this should be quickly moved to ITN. Good night for now. Ethanbas (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose at present. The story is obviously ITN-worthy, but the article is completely unusable in its current state. &#8209; Iridescent 08:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment definitely ITN-worthy but a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Definitely however requires a bit more info. Hazara Birar  (Talk) 08:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on importance, oppose on article depth. Currently people will learn almost nothing more from the article than the blurb, and not all of that is significant. Thryduulf (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment article is less stubby now. I have tweaked the blurb per house style. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support now - the article has adequate coverage of what little is known now. The blue tag at the top alerts readers that the article will not have the complete picture (as the story is still breaking). We can rely on editors to update this as the reports come in. --LukeSurlt c 12:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support  - good sources. updates will of course be made.BabbaQ (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've changed the blurb to say "diplomatic quarter" rather than single out the German embassy, as otherwise it could be read as implying the casulties were all at the embassy itself.--LukeSurlt c 14:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Pretty hard to ignore this one. Sca (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article in decent enough shape to post, knowing the event is still ongoing (and is the type of mass-casualty event clearly ITN). --M ASEM (t) 15:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Significant that the attack took place in the heavily fortified diplomatic quarter.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Kinda short but will be expanded, and strong enough to be posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 16:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Cyclone Mora

 * Oppose for now – This is a run-of-the-mill storm for the region. Bangladesh/Myanmar regularly see very deadly storms (re: Cyclone Nargis in 2008 with >100,000 deaths) so less than 10 deaths falls far short of notability in the region. Additionally, the article quality is not up to par. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as process of getting updated needs to be completed before we can reasonably assess quality and significance. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge with 2017 Sri Lanka floods, as this storm already killed hundreds in Sri Lanka and causing worst disaster since tsunami in 2004. --Jenda H. (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Cyclonebiskit. Also oppose merge for several reasons. One, the cyclone itself did not make landfall in Sri Lanka, but the progenitor system affected the island nation as the floods started on 24 May yet Mora developed 26 May. The developing cyclone would be difficult to distinguish from the monsoon itself, which frequently causes flash flooding. The Sri Lanka floods article contains one citation from BBC (which I cannot access, and unfortunately cannot assess) stating that the deadly floods were triggered by both the cyclone and the monsoon. Again, the definition of which is which becomes ambiguous. Two, the average reader could be confused about whether the cyclone proper made landfall in Bangladesh or Sri Lanka, since a combined blurb would indicate more deaths in Sri Lanka. I support in principle the Sri Lanka floods on its own (nominated below), but as of now both articles are in very poor shape, with insufficient referencing. 183.184.108.45 (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If we were to have a blurb, the [[2017 Sri Lanka floods should be the target as the death toll is nearing 200 which is a significant number. That article is well-sourced and rated as a start class. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted to RD]: Manuel Noriega

 * Support blurb when ready Extremely important figure in not only Panamanian history but US history as well. EternalNomad (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Significant cleanup needed Some sections entirely unsourced, and one orange tag on it, plus several CNs. --M ASEM (t) 05:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm working on cleaning this up; given the significance, it would be a shame if we didn't post anything. I think a blurb may be justified in this case. Any help would be welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment For those like me who don't recognise the name, he was "military dictator of Panama from 1983 to 1989, when he was removed from power by the United States during the invasion of Panama.". Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I've worked on this a fair bit, and though it's not fantastic, citation issues have been addressed, and main aspects have been covered. since you folks have looked at this once already, thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I haven't actually looked at the article in any more detail than to find out who he was. If I do so later I will likely have an opinion but I don't currently. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A "recent deaths" entry seems appropriate to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * RD only – Noriega was 83, and his days of notoriety were three decades back. Sca (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD without prejudice to a blurb later should consensus develop in that direction. -- Jayron 32 14:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb I don't think every despot requires a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Seems more appropriate for RD.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb; RD is sufficient. Not a world-transforming figure or tops in his field, just a two-bit dictator/CIA operative/drug trafficker. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] British Airways Disruption

 * Comment - There is a bit at British Airways covering this. However, I would prefer to see a well written, separate article on this (see talk:British Airways). There has been massive coverage of the event worldwide and there are a wealth of online sources available to use to create an article. Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - lots of people were disrupted, no-one died, that's the key to the story, risk averse business does the right thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose How does this differ from this? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. Not a serious matter in the long run. --M ASEM  (t) 19:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Snow close per above. Eugεn  S¡m¡on  19:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - rather unusual in terms of length and impact. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:14FC:D57D:7249:B712 (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the sort of nomination where quality and depth of coverage on Wikipedia would have been a pre-requisite to seriously considering, though even then it would have faced an uphill battle. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Muboshgu. Very common and annual event. 183.184.108.45 (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John Noakes

 * Oppose Article is a total BLP mess of unsourced claims and not remotely ready for the main page. &#8209; Iridescent 10:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Several refs added since Iridescent posted and looks good to me. yorkshiresky (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - there's one unreferenced paragraph, but that shouldn't be a barrier to posting. Mjroots (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still too many unreferenced claims.Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose the after Blue Peter section needs refs for this BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Only the first para needs a ref. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Appears to be adequately sourced now. Marked as ready. Black Kite (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Cannes/Palme d'Or

 * Comment Both film and festival were bolded in 2014. I've put some effort into making The Square (2017 film) more wiki-worthy. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - definitely for ITN. In my opinion Ruben Östlunds name should be highlighted as well as the winner.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support but only highlight the Festival per ITNR. Neither the film nor director article are really long enough to be front page material and I don't think we want to start a trend. Linked is fine. --M ASEM (t) 02:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose at the moment. Even the festival article has practically no prose in it at all.  If we're going to reject sporting events for the same reason, we do need to be consistent. If we're going to post this, bold the film, because it's currently the better article of the two. Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As I understand Cannes, that unlike a sporting event or something like the Oscars, there's not much of a single "ceremony" to this. The Festival occurs over several days, and then there's a final awards presentation, which is not broadcasted or the like, so that there is really nothing to recap. I would totally agree if there was a major ceremony to be seen by millions through television, then we'd absolutely need some type of prose, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. (I also spot checked a few previous years and none have any significant prose since there's less ceremony and more just documentation of events. --M ASEM  (t) 23:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support first blurb after reviewing festival article, I think it's of sufficient quality, and certainly at least as notable as 89th Academy Awards, which being American, got to the Main Page without question. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted per convincing arguments that there isn't really much content that can be written about this event. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Irkut MC-21

 * Support The article is acceptable. Explains all the development that leads to this maiden flight. --Dura-Ace (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless there's an explanation of why this is significant. We posted that Chinese airliner, but that was because it was China's first large-size civilian aircraft to go into production; United Aircraft Corporation (who made this one) and its predecessors have been building civilian airliners for decades and there doesn't appear to be anything ground-breaking about this particular model. &#8209; Iridescent 11:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The aircraft is viewed as a competitor of both Airbus and Boeing and generally I think maiden flights of every new passenger airliner are newsworthy as this is one step closer to their introduction into civilian service. Brandmeistertalk  12:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Iridescent. I'm not seeing how this is significantly different to the Airbus A320 Neo, Boeing 737 MAX, Bombardier CSeries or Comac C919 that it is intended to compete with? I disagree that maiden flights of every new passenger airliner are newsworthy (and would oppose a nomination to put them on ITNR) as there are so many different airliners being produced for different segments of the market by competing companies that most are not notable outside the industry. The Comac was significant because it was China's first, the A380 was significant as it was the largest ever, similarly I'd have supported the 747 and Concorde had ITN been around in those days. The first solar passenger airliner will be notable, as would the first twin-fuselage or flying wing airliners (if they ever happen). The first flight of an aircraft from a country that doesn't currently make airliners may be, depending on the exact circumstances. This one though seems just run-of-the-mill. Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't see how this aircraft is revolutionary or otherwise groundbreaking(as opposed to the Chinese plane).  Russia already makes airliners and this doesn't seem to have different notable technologies. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support' - Maiden flights of new major airliners are not common occurrences. Article in pretty good shape. Mjroots (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Are they covered as such outside of Russian state media and trade journals? 331dot (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * FlightGlobal has covered it, per link in the nom. They are in UK. Mjroots (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a specialized trade publication and not general media. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Reuters is UK based mainstream media. Mjroots (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per Iridescent. Let Yakovlev et al. buy their own advertising. Sca (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The same could have been said for Comac, Boeing, Airbus or Bombardier.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - I looked around and saw enough coverage to support this.  . It's the same article by AFP, but the outlets that chose to use it are diverse. Banedon (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose As noted above, this is nowhere close to Russia's first commercial airliner compared to the China one. --M ASEM  (t) 02:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. It is as relevant as the C919 : it's an all new design (with a tech specificity : 1st large narrow-body with out-of-autoclave composite wing, more disruptive than C919), the C919 isn't china's first airliner (after the Y-10 and ARJ-21), and established airliner-developing countries had their recent airliners firsts in the new : B787,A350, Cseries. Airliners first flights aren't common (perhaps 3-4 new designs emerge per decade), not overwhelming ITN. Twice in the same month is very uncommon. perhaps reconsider, Wikipedia shouldn't appear anti-russian, this one should be treated equally as the C919 (it is in specialised press and news agencies) --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing anti-Russian about my position, but thanks for extrapolating to that. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd have opposed all three of those as well (I might have been persuaded on the 787 if the blurb had explained that it was the first composite material aircraft). But thanks for the insinuation that I'm opposing because I'm racist, that makes me feel all warm inside. &#8209; Iridescent 08:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't take it personally, it's Wikipedia that appear to support more a Chinese airliner than a (more technically innovative, if anything) Russian one, not any of you. The point is, if the C919 passed, the MC-21 should as well. (NB: The 787 wasn't the first composite aircraft).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So you mention both of us by name, accuse us of being "anti-Russian", and then tell us "Don't take it personally"? Since TRM is topic banned from insulting other editors, I'll do it for him: go fuck yourself. &#8209; Iridescent 08:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you out of your mind? I said "Wikipedia shouldn't appear anti-russian", because noting the C919 and not the Irkut seems giving more importance to china than to russia. I pinged you to reconsider, not the most insulting thing to do. Personally I don't really think either one will be successful outside their homecountry and aren't the most noteworthy planes, but if one is enough, the other should be too.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from using inflammatory phrases Marc, I'm as far from anti-Russian as you could get. It'd be better for you to strike that meaningless accusation.  Just because we posted A, it doesn't mean we have to post B, and it certainly doesn't mean that makes us anti-B.  Thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I never accused you. I really don't think you're pro or against russia.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I also ask you to strike the accusation/implication. I am not anti-Russia. I feel this nomination is not appropriate for posting due to the reasons I stated and still believe so.  I weigh each nomination on its own merits.  Precedent does not always play into it.  331dot (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I never accused anyone. Tell me where I accused someone? I'm not gross or crass.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You pinged several users including me and then stated "Wikipedia shouldn't appear anti-russian". To the people you pinged it sounds like you are saying that we are anti-Russian. I didn't say you were gross or crass, but you are clearly implying something, perhaps unintentionally. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I pinged you and the others to "perhaps reconsider" (in light of arguments balancing the previous), not implying anything. Fact is, if the C919 is noteworthy for WP but the MC-21 not, it could appear WP:biased. WP:ITN have to accept critics on content, it's different than personal attacks. If someone believes it was personally directed, perhaps it is time to take a step back and separate oneself from this kind of editorial work.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 331dot, I would just leave this as it stands. Mr Lacoste will not apologise or redact and this conversation will go on ad infinitum.  I have experienced it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So I should let people insult me?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not insulting you, simply telling you how your statement was received. However, I will not say any more about this on this page.  I still encourage you to retract your statement. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't insulted me, Iridescent did. My statement wasn't offensive and you don't have to take any offense. I'm sorry if you did.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your listing of the technology but it's technical evolution rather than revolution. My opposition is entirely due to the reasons I stated above, please do not read anything more into my motivations. Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree it's not revolutionary, but it should be treated equally with the C919.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh. Why? Britmax (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it's no less important.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Those opposing (most of them at least) are saying it is less important, because it is not Russia's first domestically produced airliner and does not seem to have revolutionary technological advancements that are groundbreaking in the industry. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I heard that and replied the C919 wasn't china's first airliner neither, and with even less advanced tech.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not another airliner story. I'm sorry but I just don't see the significance of this.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – Inappropriate personal squabbling. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Schapelle Corby

 * Oppose. If "her release and deportation have been reported on by world media", it's certainly passed me by; likewise, I can see nothing in the article, let alone the blurb, to indicate why this event has any significance at all other than to her friends and family. "Foreign national gets deported after serving their time for a felony conviction" is such a standard practice, it's more noteworthy when somebody doesn't get deported on their release (Learco Chindamo is the case that springs to mind). &#8209; Iridescent 22:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support since it's been reported so much. To answer Iridescent, "Her story captivated Australia, hogging headlines and prime time television for months, and initially putting strain on diplomatic ties between Australia and Indonesia" (quoted from Reuters). That may have been years ago, but people now clearly still care, given the coverage. Still only weakly support because it does seem rather local and not likely to have lasting consequences. Banedon (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How does being in the news a long time ago translate t obeing in the news now? LordAtlas (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you click the link? Also, searching for "Corby" on your favourite search engine should turn up lots of recent results. Banedon (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose This seemed to be an expected result once time was served, so the process just being followed is not ITN. --M ASEM (t) 02:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons stated by Masem. If this tabloid story is published on ITN, then the next logical step would be to have the Kardashians as an ongoing item. Gfcvoice (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Disagree that this is "tabloid" news, but it is unsurprising. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, especially as her prison sentence ended over three years ago; the mere fact of returning to Australia is not ITN-worthy. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Sabzar Bhat

 * Oppose, article is a four sentence substub that says absolutely nothing about the subject other than his birthplace, his job, and his place of death. &#8209; Iridescent 09:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Iridescent. The article is nowhere near substantive enough to be on the main page. Kurtis (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Iridescent. If any interested editors can work on the article and get it into shape before it becomes stale, ping some of us opposing here and we'll reevaluate it. Rhodesisland (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose on top of all that, it's an orphan. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is just not up to scratch.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

2016–17 Cupa României

 * Oppose I would only support the FA Cup here based primarily on the fact it's the oldest club football competition in the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Question Is there any plans to add a sport news section on the main page? Eugεn  S¡m¡on  20:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm aware of. It has been subject to occasional discussion, but usually at this time of year when lots of leagues, cup competitions etc are coming to a conclusion all around the same time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that sport events deserves a separate section on the main page, with many sport competitions to be highlighted there. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  20:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not notable.LordAtlas (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it is notable per Wikipedia policies, but this is an ITN discussion. Black Kite (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose discussions of notability are irrelevant as the article has almost no prose. -- Jayron 32 14:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

2017 FA Cup Final

 * Weak oppose article isn't good enough in the match summary area. Otherwise I agree it's reasonable to equate this competition to the Superbowl or the IPL finals.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As above: this is a famous cup and it is seen around the world. However, the summary looks more like the summary of a summary you see in the lead, not what's expected of the main section. Harambe Walks (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose deciding which association football tournaments meet ITN notability is essentially a subjective judgement call. As much as we can make semi-objective statements of the form "X is older, Y has more TV viewers, Z has more money involved", it's essentially a matter of opinion to what extent these criteria matter and where the "bar" for posting even is. So, for me, the only English tournament that I think should be posted is the more prestigious Premier League, but, eh, your mileage may vary. --LukeSurlt c 21:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * One fact that might be useful to know is that winning the FA Cup only qualifies the victor for the UEFA Europa League, which is, by construction, inferior to the UEFA Champions League in all respects. --LukeSurlt c 21:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Are there other domestic cups which enable qualification to the Champions League? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. The Champions League is all league winners. The FA Cup is quite probably the most prestigious domestic cup competition in Europe, but really it's all about the leagues. Champions League qualification is probably a big reason for this. --LukeSurlt c 21:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. In America winning the league is not as important as winning the post-league playoffs. If a team thinks it has the best seed in the tournament in the bag they might even replace star players with substitutes. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Different system. The FA Cup isn't a playoff for the league, it's an entirely separate tournament. --LukeSurlt c 00:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the question by The Rambling Man, as far as I know LukeSurl is correct that no other domestic Cups will qualify a team for the Champions league, but it is definitely incorrect to say that "The Champions League is all league winners" - for instance England will have 5 teams in it next season, but only Chelsea will be the league winners, and Manchester United will be there despite failing to qualify via the premier league.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The question was rhetorical. The point being why is it important what winning the FA Cup represents in that sense?  It's a non sequitur. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Technically, the Champion's League IS "all league winners" PLUS other successful clubs that were almost league winners. There are also winners from every league so it's still correct in a sense. LordAtlas (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It may arguably in some sense be technically correct, but it still seems thoroughly misleading, perhaps especially in the context of the question it was trying to answer. I guess with a little imagination one might also argue that 'technically', for instance, being 3 places and many points behind Chelsea really does make Liverpool 'almost a league winner', but then with a little imagination one can probably argue almost anything is 'technically' the opposite of what is normally understood. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Quite frankly I'm amazed we're even having a debate over the notability of the final of the oldest, most prestigious and high-profile domestic cup competition in football. For years this was the biggest game of the year and the only game shown live on TV in England. It may have lost some of its lustre in the Premier League era but it still attracts huge attention. The quality of the article is fine, it's in the news, it should be posted.Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * comment add record-breaking wto blurb What a game! Wenger saved his head! Lihaas (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. We could also include that it's Wenger's seventh - that's a record for a manager.Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support – The Bounder (talk) 07:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – FA cup is notable. BabbaQ (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LukeSurl. This is association football - there are lots of competitions. If we feature this, what about the EPL, Bundelisga, La Liga, Champions League, UEFA final, etc? All these competitions end roughly around now. Sure, this may be the most widely-followed cup competition, but it's still one of many. With so many competitions in this sport ending around the same time, I think we should be selective about which to feature. We chose EPL + Champions League (they're ITNR), which is fine and sufficient. Banedon (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment There has been no dispute that this competition is the biggest cup competition of all. To answer the points about ITNR, the reason that this isn't on ITNR, in my opinion, is due to legitimate concern over whether there is space for the FA Cup given the crowded schedule of potential postings a week before, therefore the decision needs to be made on a case-by-case basis. In this case, given that none of the leagues were posted for quality reasons, and given that the oldest story (a sporting story, I might add) is over a week old), I think those circumstances lend themselves to posting on this occasion. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per my comment, as unlike the Premier League season, this is sufficiently updated with prose. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't see any justification for having two English football competitions. I regard La Liga, the Bundesliga and Serie A as more important. While it is probably still true that the FA Cup is the biggest domestic cup competition, it is not as big as it once was. Neljack (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think we are going to get two English football competitions. It looks like none of the league articles are going to be posted (as StillWaiting says, there were quality objections and most of them are stale now) so if we're going to have a football story on ITN it might as well be this one.Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We are almost certainly going to have a football story on ITN, because the Champions league final on Sunday is ITN/R, and is far more notable and prestigious than the FA Cup, which is a very good reason for NOT posting a story on the FA Cup.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all, particularly in light of the comment you struck out below! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The Champions League final is in two days; if we're going to have a cup final, it should be that one. (It's not too WP:CRYSTAL to assume that the CL will be ready for posting almost immediately; as the most important annual sporting fixture in the world, it will have huge numbers of people working on it and will be brought up to standard almost as soon as the final whistle is blown.) &#8209; Iridescent 12:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment People should stop opposing just because other things exist. I thought we were supposed to judge based on quality and notability. What's with all the nonsense comparing different cups, leagues, and so on? The best solution has always been to make a sports section but still everyone refuses. LordAtlas (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per TRM, the match summary is of insufficient depth. If that were expanded, one could consider my vote a full support.  -- Jayron 32 14:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose: First, barring a highly unlikely lack of article quality, we will quite rightly be posting the Champions League final on Sunday Saturday per ITN/R, so two soccer stories in 3 days is too much. And second, there's also a WP:BIAS issue in posting two English domestic soccer competitions in about a month (I'm assuming the Premier league winners got posted per ITN/R) and nobody else's domestic soccer competitions, many of which are objectively far more significant than the FA Cup. (I've removed my second objection - to my surprise it seems nobody could bring the Premier league season article up to the quality required to post it per ITN/R; but my first objection seems sufficient). Tlhslobus (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's not a good reason to oppose. We post all the Nobel prizes in quick succession for example (assuming quality is sufficient).  We don't just post one of them and forget the rest because "five Nobel stories in five days is too much".  There are well known seasonal peaks and troughs in stories such as these, the end of the European football season means major European league and cup competitions are concluding.  This is the oldest association football cup competition in the world, opposing it "because another soccer story might be posted in a few days time" is not a suitable argument at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comparing global ITNR events like Nobel Prizes to a local non-ITNR event like the FA Cup does not seem to be comparing like with like. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure it is, your argument distils to "we've had too many stories about X, we shouldn't feature another story about X regardless of the notability, history and quality of the article." But never mind, it's too late now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, as you say, it's now too late for the FA Cup anyway. But in case my above mistake misled anybody, the Champions League final is on Saturday 3rd June (NOT Sunday). Tlhslobus (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Gregg Allman

 * Support, primarily because I am The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Aha! Of course! Christian Roess (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Lord you were born to be :) -  Floydian  τ ¢  21:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, did a (fairly quick) scan through the article and it seems to be in pretty good shape. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – And we should all give a listen to Blue Sky here.
 * — Uh, well, okay, maybe Ramblin' Man would be more appropriate in this case. Sca (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm No Angel? -- Jayron 32 12:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, good enough shape. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 23:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, no orange tags and only one citation needed tag, and an important figure. His death does seem a bit similar to David Bowie... -A la d   insane   (Channel 2)  23:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I fixed one CN about the band not working with Gregg again. There's one lingering CN about his father moving to Vanleer in 1945 - the date is not clear, but he was definitely a resident there as he was murdered there in 1949. As that's a minor point that's not critical or contentious, this is well sourced and ready to go. --M ASEM (t) 23:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Another day, another music legend gone. Kurtis (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Zbigniew Brzezinski

 * I'd support RD if it weren't for the fact that the "National Security Advisor" section is completely unsourced at the moment. Mélen  cron  04:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb Very important Cold War figure, massive news coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.97.220 (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * While this may be true, we are supposed to focus on the quality of the article, not the importance of the person.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 06:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Importance is relevant if we are discussing a blurb. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose in current state Many orange tag sections and citation needed tags scattered throughout. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose significantly under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb This should be posted, and there is nothing wrong with supporting a blurb, (which I think is unwarranted (old person dies) in this case). But Gestrid's comment that we are not to focus on the importance of the person in regards to possible blurbs is baseless.  RD was never meant to exclude blurbs for persons of importance. μηδείς (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposing the blurb (which I would be in favor of, if not for the citation problems mentioned here). I'm reminding them to  base their arguments off of article quality, not importance of the person, as the notice just above my nom comments says: [T]he nomination of any individual human [...] with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 14:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – Some stories characterize him rather narrowly as national security adviser to Carter, who served just one term. But Brzezinski was a prescient voice for reasonable, realistic foreign policy for four decades, and was widely admired – not least for his eloquence, despite his heavy Polish accent. On that basis I could support a blurb, but I recognize this may be a U.S. point of view. Sca (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And hey, he gets a blurb on Finnish Wikipedia! Sca (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb I think his notability is very far from meriting a blurb and his death seems to be quietly reported in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Extremely poor referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Top guy but this article is a horror show in terms of references.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Sri Lanka Flood

 * Oppose – Stub. Sca (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Article has moved to start class. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - to quote the article, "631,346 people are affected". Banedon (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I've updated the article, and I'm going to make a bold move and mark this Ready (with two supports, no significant activity on this nom, myself as the most recent updater, article expanded far beyond stub, updated to standard, and no outstanding oppose). It can replace the Minya attack blurb at the very bottom. 183.184.219.162 (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Good job to everyone who worked on this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jim Bunning

 * Oppose for now. Serious gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Should be sufficiently sourced now. Please let me know if you see anything amiss. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Looks good. Ready to go now? Rhodesisland (talk) 10:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Muboshgu. I checked it over, and the sourcing seems sufficient now. Christian Roess (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Denis Johnson

 * Support Not the longest article but it seems to cover the essentials and it is adequately referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per AO, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support and Needs Attention. Looks good and I think it's been sitting as ready for a while now, I think. Rhodesisland (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * yeah, you got that right, it's been sitting awhile. Christian Roess (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just 23 hours, these admins have weekends too you know! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I know. Bless their little hearts... Christian Roess (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 03:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Attack in Egypt

 * Support. Unfortunate escalation of violence outside the Sinai and Northern Egyptian regions. Currently working on updating the article.  Spencer T♦ C 15:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Supportarticle in reasonable shape, no tags. I have added a pro-forma blurb, but it can obviously be improved. μηδείς (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support article is expanded and sourced sufficiently for posting, and the event is clearly notable for ITN's purposes. --M ASEM (t) 17:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: article in good shape, working to add more references and content tomorrow. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 19:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Marked ready given support w/o opposition. μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Update - Egyptian warplanes struck militant camps in Libya, apparently belonging to the Shura Council of Mujahideen in Derna, in response to the attack. Obviously a notable development and the article (probably the blurb too) should be updated accordingly. Won't be doing much about any of this these days, unfortunately. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – No. 1 on many major media sites today. But the Egyptian attack on "terrorist training camps" in Derna, Libya, doesn't belong belong in the blurb, especially since there's little word yet on results. Sca (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - as Manchester was posted, this must be put up as soon as possible to avoid bias. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Must be posted as significant news. Sca (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Strongest support for altblurb - per all the above. 65.95.136.96 (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted with edits. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] New WHO Director-General

 * Weak oppose WHO doesn't have the same influence as the UN (where we would have the election of the new DG as an ITNR), and so this seems less impactful. I would also note Adhanom's article has some sourcing issues throughout and needs to be fixed up. --M ASEM (t) 19:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – WHO lacks requisite notability. Sca (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am assuming this is a joke. Because claiming WHO lack notability is laughable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. While the World Health Organization is an estimable and important international agency, in the big scheme of things it lacks the significance of the U.N., the EU, NATO and other international agencies wielding political punch or moral authority, such as the Holy See. – Sca (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Neutral: Margaret Chan was a high-profile DG (SARS, swine flu, ebola...) so the position's not that obscure. But Tedros's article is a mess. In principle I'd love to see it there, but I don't think it passes muster. Moscow Mule (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The specific person who leads the WHO has little effect on its mission.  It isn't a government or even a deliberative international body like the UN Security Council or General Assembly. Just where I live if one were to go on the street and ask people who the head of the WHO is, they would probably respond with "what is the WHO?".  331dot (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per . The WHO are certainly notable, but I'm not convinced this is such a big world role that it warrants inclusion in ITN. Obviously the article would have to be better as well. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose no where near as important as a departmental or ministerial appointment in an actual nation-state, and we do not post those at all. μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ezekiel Anisi

 * Oppose - Article is essentially a stub. Politician never attained a Cabinet position or large role in the PNG government, and is therefore lacking in international importance, and shouldn't make it to the main page. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article is brief but well-sourced. International notability is no longer a requirement for RD. EternalNomad (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support EternalNomad has it spot-on. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

RD: Noel Kinsey

 * Very weak oppose first para of his career section lacks refs towards the end, otherwise it's a touch brief but ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Taiwan

 * Oppose I think this is becoming relatively common due to LGBT agenda, but there's also a procedural issue: the parliament will still have to amend existing laws or pass new ones and "it's still unclear how far parliament will go". Interestingly, last year's poll showed 56% of the Taiwanese were against it. Brandmeistertalk  10:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Due to LGBT agenda"? What do you mean by that? Black Kite (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Brandmeister has a userwhatsy on his userpage that says "This user believes marriage is between one man and one woman." So I'm guessing that he means what you think he means. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As someone who openly supports the LGBTQ community and has several friends who are not cisgendered, I can admit there is a certain bias on Wikipedia towards the left-wing views of non-heterosexuality. Some of them are most definitely warranted, but I've always disliked how any opposing viewpoint are condemned as phobic; how there is almost no weight given to the considerable conservative voice that exists. In my opinion, shaming one's views on the issue is still a minor personal attack. Please do not shame the opposing viewpoint, we are a neutral forum. -  Floydian  τ ¢  01:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No-one is shaming Brandmeister for his views on LGBT matters. I'm shaming him for the biased editing evident from the comment "due to LGBT agenda". --Mkativerata (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the potentially pejorative use, in what way is he wrong? It's literally an agenda the LGBT have in order to fight for equality. LordAtlas (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would you ignore the potentially obviously [fixed it for you] pejorative use? --Mkativerata (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Because he wasn't factually wrong in his statement. Stop personal attacks. His/her supporting of man/woman marriage in no way demonstrates they've done any editing on Wikipedia in a biased manner. We could likely say the same about you. LordAtlas (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to see a real personal attack, keep posting silly things and I'll happily show you one. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And now you are threatening people. LordAtlas (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No-one's shaming his views, just the unnecessary way that the pejorative phrase "due to LGBT agenda" was shoved into the sentence. It would have been perfectly fine without those four words - inserting your own biases into the conversation is just being a dick. Black Kite (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I'm open to posting this if and when the Parliament of Taiwan acts. First in Asia = significant. Until then, all the New York Times says is that the ruling "paves the way for Taiwan to become the first place in Asia to recognize same-sex marriage", noting that the Parliament has two years to act. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support it's in the news now. That should suffice. In the same way we posted the results of the Brexit referendum even though it wasn't constitutionally binding and it was months before it actually happened. Also, as Mkativerata said, first in Asia = significant. Banedon (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Banedon. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose (weak) - The problem is that nothing has changed. LGBT still can't get married in Taiwan. Additionally, do we consider Taiwan a country or part of China? LordAtlas (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose This particular battle in the culture wars is over and has been for quite some time. Legalization of homosexual marriage was news for a while but it has become fairly routine. Someone ping me if/when it's legalized in Saudi Arabia or Russia and I might consider supporting that particular blurb. But I think we have reached the point where each country that legalizes it no longer warrants a mention on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Asia has been a rather conservative region on LGBT rights (only 21% in mainland China think homosexuality is morally acceptable) so the legalization of same-sex marriage in the first Asian country has major significance. EternalNomad (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been legalized though. LordAtlas (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support A very high and cornerstone achievement for the LGBT community. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as, unlike in other countries, this Supreme Court of Taiwan ruling doesn't actually change the law. It is the actual change in the legality of same-sex marriage in Taiwan which would be a good ITN item, not this intermediate step. If we do post, we should be careful not to imply there has been a law change in the blurb, as most folk will likely assume the Taiwanese Supreme Court has similar powers to the US Supreme Court. --LukeSurlt c 07:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose primarily as that this only clears the way to allow legislation to allow for same-sex marriages (they are still illegal, the court is only ruling that is a right and thus force a change in law). I would agree that the first Asian country to actually pass same-sex marriage rights will be likely ITN. --M ASEM (t) 16:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - arguments about how this only paves the way for future events are insignificant, as the precedent set before is that these events are reported upon when that transition becomes possible. Trump's election victory was reported in November, even though the legislation states that he didn't win until December. Ditto for Brexit. Besides, this is the first time it happened in Asia. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - it doesn't matter when the parliament passes the law, the end result is evident. Same-sex couples can be registered based on this ruling if the parliament fails to meet the two year deadline. As User:Banedon has mentioned, we have posted it at the time of Brexit way before it happened. Pratyush (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lots of countries allow same sex marriage. This isn't anything new anymore.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support although weakly, since I do oppose further such postings in the West as commonplace, and am not sure that this is a final step. But if it is going to be posted, it should be posted now. μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Marawi clash

 * Support - seems like a escalation of violence in the region.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for Now - story is definitely news worthy, and has enough international ramifications to be placed on ITN on the main page, but the article needs further development and the addition of more sources (the third source is currently used four times at different points of the article. Stormy clouds (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - article has been vastly improved since earlier comment, and is now fit for posting. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support article seems well developed (for a new story) and well referenced. -- Jayron 32 11:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've suggested an alternate blurb, because readers unfamiliar with Mindanao are not likely to know where Mawari is (and may even mistake it for Malawi). I've also noted that the Current Events posting states that martial law was declared for the entire island of Mindanao, that's an island of 20 million+ people. Which version is correct? (Finally, I should note that the "Islamist" mention might not be controversial, and perhaps it is even worth mentioning that Maute are an ISIL faction.) 171.117.186.105 (talk) 11:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Updated the alt-blurb. Also note that Duterte has 48 hours to submit a report to the Philippine Congress, which can vote to suspend the action, or uphold it and extend it if necessary. If the article is ready, I suggest posting on about 25 May. 171.117.186.105 (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * support Looks pretty well developed at this point.©Geni (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Roger Moore

 * Oppose for now. I see similar problems to my nomination of Nicky Hayden yesterday -- lead too short, a number of paragraphs unreferenced. (Unfortunately I don't have time to work on either right now.)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to sourcing, not only in paragraphs but the filmography too (but that latter one should be relatively easy to fill out). --M ASEM (t) 13:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. As above: there are to many unsupported statements at present. - The Bounder (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose The lead is good, but the article needs sourcing especially in the filmography section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article could do with some work, but appears lengthy, written within the Manual of Style guidelines and well sourced. He is very notable; notable enough that he deserves an RD on the main page while these issues are fixed in my opinion. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now' Referencing is very poor. Far too many gaps to even bother with CN tags. I have attached a ref improve tag at the top. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose until we get more citations into the article where they are needed. Daniel Case (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose regretfully. I'm counting over a dozen uncited paragraphs and many uncited sections completely. This shouldn't be hard, but with no experience in actors, movies, and what we consider reliable in that regard, I do not feel capable of fixing this properly. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  00:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not good, if Roger Moore don't appear in RD section. It's unexpected that this article was not developed. <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b> Spider-Man  01:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And, the nominator is The Rambling Man who always encourages high standard of referencing for RDs and ITNC. <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b> Spider-Man  02:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed I do, thanks for pointing that out. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong support. The article's citations have improved dramatically since yesterday. At the moment there are two uncited sentences remaining. I do not know how to find references for these, but in the worst-case scenario we can probably these comments until suitable references can be found. How long does the lead need to be? It's a good summary I think. 171.116.245.37 (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This is more than adequate with regard to info. I've seen far lesser known people with far smaller articles in significantly poorer condition that get a mention on the main page. He died two days ago, how long does it remain recent for? I can't believe we judge if someone appears on RD when we don't know when someone will die. The point is that he has died and people will be looking for his page, and the fact that his name isn't appearing before now is shameful. He is one of Britain's most recognized actors and played arguably the worlds most well known character a record 7 times, and we can't even list him? We can't make sure all bios are in perfect condition in the unlikely event that they will die today or tomorrow. The point is being missed here. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  08:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The merits of posting Moore are not at issue any more, as anyone with an article now merits posting to RD. No one said the article needs to be perfect before or after his death, but it does need to be improved to have sufficient quality to feature on the Main Page of one of the most popular websites in the world to be seen by millions of people.  If you feel the issues have been resolved, then say so and if an admin agrees they will post it.  It isn't that complicated. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * By the time it's improved, his death won't be recent anymore. This is my point, and the point that is being missed. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  10:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I get what you are saying but this is not a news ticker. It is a way to highlight articles that readers may be interested in, and as such those articles must be in decent shape. Articles that are not ready to be posted shouldn't be posted.  Instead of criticizing the nonposting, you could work to improve the article so that it is ready for posting.  You don't seem to dispute that it needs work- if you feel the issues raised have been resolved, please say so. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it needed work; I've supported it going ahead as it is. Why isn't anyone opposing it helping to improve? His article actually has more sources than the other 4 people on RD main page at the moment. It's not a perfect article, but it's not as bad as everyone is saying it is. I think it's okay for main page. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  10:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Support. The article is even now seen by millions of people, most people don't get to the article via the Main page of the English Wikipedia, they simply google him. I think it would make the Wikipedia look more ridiculous in the eyes of most readers if it ignores Moore's death on the Main page. The article is not perfect, but good enough for the main page. Support --Clibenfoart (talk) 09:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - improvements has been made. The article belongs on RD.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Commone Several CNs still floating about, unsourced paragraphs, and the filmography is unsourced. --M ASEM (t) 13:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - this isn't FAC, it's not even a blurp. The article doesn't need to be perfect.  Rami  R  14:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Looks adequate for RD to me.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 14:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - there is consensus to post ( EDIT: if the issues causing opposes have been addressed [edit added: 16:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)] ), but before I do this (unless someone else does it first), does the refimprove tag needed to be removed and have the issues causing that tag to be placed on the article been addressed? Carcharoth (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The issues about referencing have not been dealt with. There's about eight or so unsourced paragraphs that include subjective language that absolutely need sourcing ,along with two CNs, and an entire unsourced filmography. The tag needs to stay, and this still is inappropriate to post in this state. --M ASEM (t) 15:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur with Masem. Sorry, this article is still well below acceptable standards for linking on the main page. Also we do not post articles with orange tags and yes the issues need to be resolved before it can be removed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Was in the middle of taking a closer look. I wouldn't put it as strongly as you both do (have clarified my earlier comment), but I agree that further work is needed. But not rushed work obviously, which is why I can't do it right now. Carcharoth (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I stand by my oppose vote. There are still too many unsourced statements.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment -I've added several refs, hopefully this will address issues raised above. yorkshiresky (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nearly ready Yorkshiresky and others are commended for fixing up most of the reference issues here. I spot three places that I just placed specific CN tags for that are subjective statements that need some type of sourcing, but once those are done, this is ready. --M ASEM (t) 15:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment have added refs or removed the subjective statements as I couldn't find any reliable sources to back them up. If someone else finds them, please reinstate though they're less than crucial to the overall story of his career. yorkshiresky (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 16:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

RD: Dina Merrill
Oppose unless the referencing is actually sorted out. There are entire paragraphs here that don't have a single source. &#8209; Iridescent 19:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Manchester explosion

 * At the time that I write this it is very unclear what has happened and we cannot assess for ITN/C. --LukeSurlt c 23:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait for clarity on what happened so we can actually write a blurb, but given the BBC confirms deaths, regardless of what happened (unintentional or not), this looks like it should be posted. --M ASEM (t) 23:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait. Far too early for even an article, let alone an ITN posting. There are no reliable sources currently giving any information about cause. If this turns out to be accidental then it may or may not merit posting, but it's much too early to know. Thryduulf (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait. The media is reporting at least twenty people are dead and hundreds injured so significant event whether or not terrorism involved. Article is currently a stub but appears well referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where this figure of 20 has come from? It's not on the BBC, Manchester Evening News, been confirmed by police or any other reliable source I can see. Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait This will be posted as it's obviously huge news whether it's terrorism or an accident, but wait until there's actually enough information to write an article properly. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Terrorism is part and parcel of living in a big city. Riley Cohen (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't know whether it is or is not terrorism yet. If it is, then it would be the first bombing incident like this in the UK for years - possibly since the IRA in the 1980s or 90s. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you mean specifically a bombing during a concern? Because otherwise, the 7 July 2005 London bombings weren't exactly small... LjL (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support There is sufficient information to describe the scale. This attack is, terrorism or no, much larger in scale than the attack on Westminster that was on ITN - and even potentially larger than the attacks in Paris. Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is entirely speculation at this point. We shouldn't add this into ITT until there are concrete facts.--v/r - TP 00:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 19 dead and ~50 injured according to local Police as of 01:19AM BST, being treated as terrorist attack until known otherwise --Gxrneyme (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as there are enough solid data now to make the article, while still somewhat stub-like, more than just speculation, and also of rather obvious importance. LjL (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, we know enough about the incident now to post to ITN. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 00:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: This is a confirmed death count of at least 19 and 50 injured, and classified as a possible terrorist attack. This is major news. <span style="font-family:Segoe UI, Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; padding: 2px;"> Ete ethan  (talk)  00:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Notable due to high death count, which has now been confirmed. -LtNOWIS (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Enough information has been posted and the article is being frequently updated. Very high death count at a public center. Random note: Can someone please post the RD tag for Jacque Fresco. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support We now know enough about the incident to post this.Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There is an image of the Manchester Arena available to use, I've added it to the nomination template. Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally we don't post arbitrary images of such locations, we post images of the events themselves. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Per this comment here, I have removed the above image and restored the previous image of the Iranian president. If anyone strongly feels we should include the above image (which incidentally is not even in teh article itself any more), then please say why here. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see there was a dicussion at WP:ERRORS regarding this, and it seems there was some agreement that having the Iranian president next to this story wasn't a good idea. It would be helpful if discussions could be held in just one place, otherwise it's confusing to know what's going on! Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Change Blurb I feel like it should be added that Daesh have claimed responsibility for the terror attack, especially as that allows a link to a well-formulated article, and a possible change of image to solve the aforementioned Islamophobia concerns. The death toll also appears to have settled at 22 dead (excluding the perpetrator), so this could also be added. Amendments as per this source BBC Stormy clouds (talk) 4:18 pm, Today (UTC+1)
 * They claim responsibility for absolutely every random act of violence that can't be absolutely proven not to be connected with them; including their claim would be to give them hugely undue weight in the absence of any evidence to connect them to the attack. (This being a British article, it would be "Islamic State" or "ISIS", not "Daesh", in any case.) &#8209; Iridescent 16:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur with Iridescent. ISIS is not your run-of-the-mill terrorist organization. Their modus operandi is latching onto every thread of connection to their organization, no matter how tangential it may be. For all we know, the bomber could have just gotten the idea to do this from reading a blog.--WaltCip (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I fully agree with you. I do not think that ISIS co-ordinated the attack, but are rather opportunistically jumping on it for PR. I believe that this is what occurred in most of the terror attacks perpetrated lately in Europe. However, this is an encyclopedia, and if reputable sources like the BBC are reporting on their 'claim' to responsibility, is it not worth mentioning? I mean, there is no evidence to show that they weren't responsible either, so in the limbo that we are faced with, is it not better to go with the trustworthy sources, especially as ISIS/Daesh's actions are of international relevance? Stormy clouds (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how Wikipedia works; we give due weight, not every claim. If there isn't already, there will no doubt soon be a conspiracy theory in circulation that the Tories arranged for the attack to take place to shift the focus of the election from social care to security policy, and the BBC will report on that as well; that will be no more appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia's main page. &#8209; Iridescent 18:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Very well then, understood. Previous comments struck off. Thanks for the assistance. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment please remember that changes to posted blurbs etc should be listed at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

RD: Nicky Hayden

 * Oppose lots of work to do here with this BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to lack of sources (some paragraphs completely unsourced) and an inadequate lead. I'm happy to change my vote if these are addressed. Spiderone  19:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Euroleague

 * Weak support prose summary is adequate at best. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] IIHF World Championship

 * Oppose tabular stub without prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It now has a paragraph of prose describing the game, but is a little short on references. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. A helpful editor has added more prose and references. I think this now just about meets our minimum quality - it's three referenced paragraphs plus a couple of tables. Could others take a look please? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good to go.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Don't want to delay this more than necessary, but 2017_IIHF_World_Championship_Final needs a reference or two for the information in that section.  Spencer T♦ C 01:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done, cited to the official results list. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 17:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

La Liga

 * Oppose - Citation issues. Also dont understand the significance of the event. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Soccer is the biggest sport in the world, and La Liga is one of the biggest leagues.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support on notability. Association football is the world's most popular sport, club football is its core, and La Liga is arguably the "top" domestic league right now in terms of where the best players play. I would suggest combining the three European association football items into one blurb that expands as each article becomes ready. (P.S. While I've supported EPL and the Bundesliga, personally I will probably lean oppose on Serie A as I think it's just below the notability threshold) --LukeSurlt c 15:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's lucky the Champions League final is later this year (June 3) or that'd have been in there too. Black Kite (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose until I see some effort to summarise the season in a few paragraphs. Perhaps we need an "Tables of stats In The News" section.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on notability per LukeSurl. Having the Premier League but not La Liga on ITN/R looks rather like systemic bias. Neljack (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNR is always keen to receive new nominations. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, the last time La Liga was bought up at WT:ITNR the response was "get it through ITNC first". --LukeSurlt c 07:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Bundesliga

 * Support on importance as this is a major league. Big money and wide media attention. (I'd also support La Liga on the same grounds. ) I've added an alt blurb that simply runs with the main result rather than players' retirement. --LukeSurlt c 07:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Adjusted, we don't add years into such blurbs. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose We currently have three nominations for the end of a season of sports. Such seasons are obviously based on the climate seasons and that's presumably why they are happening at the same time.  Reporting such events is like reporting the start of the school year or Christmas.  These get news coverage every year but it seems routine, contrary to WP:NOTNEWS. Andrew D. (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It sounds more like it would be an option to combine these somehow, saying something like "a season of various sports have come to an end" or something. ~ Mable ( chat ) 07:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's a perennial debate. It would be unwieldy and cause problems down the line when it dropped off, making ITN too short.  It's a pity these aren't given proper consideration as we have plenty of "stale schlock" to move along.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Combining association football domestic league blurbs could be an OK approach. In general however, though many major leagues do end at at this time of year this doesn't mean they're not individually important. --LukeSurlt c 07:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess something like "In association football, Chelsea win the Premier League while Bayern Munich win the Bundesliga." wouldn't be too bad. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose no prose, just a lot of tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Andrew. La Liga or Serie A are at least equally strong and picking only Germany looks too arbitrary. I think 2017 IIHF World Championship should be posted instead as a more important sports event. Brandmeistertalk  09:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In answer to your note about "only picking Germany", that's only happened because no-one has nominated the Spanish or Italian leagues. That's easily solved. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, are Spanish and Italian leagues coming to a close right now too? Because the Dutch one finished last week as well. It looks more and more like we can just say that a lot of association football leagues have come to an end >.> ~ Mable  ( chat ) 10:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a winter season game and most (if not all) major European leagues conclude before the Champions League final. But primarily we need these articles to be of sufficient quality. They are certainly "of interest to our readers", most likely articles they'd be looking for (see WT:MAIN for evidence).  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting country-level competitions is generally a Pandora box for me. There are too many of them and posting those not listed in ITNR would enforce editorial bias and potentially clutter the main page. Brandmeistertalk  11:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well that ship sailed when the Premier League was approved for ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In which case we should probably remove the NHL's Stanley Cup Final and the NBA Finals, as there are global competitions in those sports which should by your logic be posted in preference to national competitions. I use those examples because in at least one of those sports there has been explicit consensus at ITNR to do the precise opposite and put a national competition at the fore – explicit consensus that a competition's global stature is the important thing, ahead of the question of whether teams from all over the world can participate. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well it is WP:EN, the Premier League is more likely going to be of significant interest to an English-speaking audience than the German/Italian/Dutch top divisions. I doubt anyone would complain if WP:DE favoured theirs... Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's more the case that the EPL is the most popular league in the world. If we're talking exclusively about English speakers then that would be Major League Soccer obviously.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To be really nitpicky, if we're going by "highest number of English-speaking soccer fans" Nigeria Premier League probably wins, although most Nigerians are far more likely to follow an EPL team than their local team. &#8209; Iridescent 19:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * [citation needed]. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – Lahm announced his forthcoming retirement 3 1/2 months ago. Sca (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that he didn't actually retire until the end of the season. The announcement and the actuality are different things.  Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand highlighting either Lahm and Alonso's retirement on ITN. Neither is mentioned in the Bayern's article or the Bundesliga and it just looks like we've cobbled two independent facts together. It's not say the level of Ferguson's retirement a few years back, or something sudden like Rosberg's a few months ago. If we're going to pick a fun fact out of the conclusion of a sport season make it that Bayern have won five consecutive league titles, or that recently promoted Leipzig finished second, or that Hoffenheim have improved and Wolfsburg are facing relegation. Not all of that is summarised in the article, even though it should be. Fuebaey (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We're not going to highlight those retirements, not ever. Just focus on the alt blurb if it helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not notable enough. Not 'In the News'. Posting this would result in too many football stories. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, this would result in this article being posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per LukeSurl. As for those who argue that posting this will result in too many soccer stories, I think we have to acknowledge that it is, by some distance, the world's most popular sport. Neljack (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Ringling Bros. Circus

 * support obviously passed the test of time and finally folds.Lihaas (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support upon update; end of a very long-running business/entertainment form that had a notable cultural impact. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – It was the greatest show on Earth! On a more serious note, it was a long-running organization with a strong cultural impact and it's a B-class article. Everything looks good. ~ Mable ( chat ) 19:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose tagged for more references needed in the (perhaps not really needed) "Ringmasters" section. Not good enough for main page now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support After some good updating and sourcing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The blurb claims that the circus was founded in 1871 (146 years) but the article doesn't agree (apart from the infobox, which isn't sourced), unless I've missed something. According to the article Castello and Coup's circus started in 1870, Barnum lent his name to it in 1875, it then merged with Bailey's (which had started as the Cooper and Bailey circus "in the 1860s") in 1881, and then merged again with Ringling Bros. in 1919, Ringling Bros. themselves having started in 1884. Where is 1871/146 years coming from?  (Even without that inconsistency, it's only been "Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus" since 1919). Black Kite (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The BBC article has the 146 numbers, dating it from Barnum's original show he started in 1872 (only until 1875 did it get the more familiar name). --M ASEM (t) 22:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It'd be good if it was made clear in the article, though - the timeline there is really unclear. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per TRM. One of world's longest running acts. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose this looks like a national circus, performing mainly in the US. I am not convinced it's international enough for ITN. Banedon (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's the Microsoft Windows of American circuses. The Intel desktop of U.S. circuses. The Boeing of American circuses (back when Airbus wasn't important) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * On the other hand Windows is run on ~90% of all computers worldwide, Intel is in almost all desktops worldwide as well, and Boeing's aircraft are used by all sorts of airlines around the world. These are all international companies. Is there some kind of indication that this circus influenced other circuses around the world? Banedon (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If ITN was limited to events with international scope, very little would be posted. This is news outside of the US. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. All six of the current blurbs would still be there. Government change has international consequences. If this nomination is interesting to only those people in the US who care about circuses, then I'll stick to weakly opposing it. Banedon (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though I would support the end of any long-running business/entertainment form that had a similar impact regardless of nation(assuming news coverage was the same). It doesn't harm readers to actually learn about something they might not have known before, if it had the cultural impact this did. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support on significance. A national institution founded by the legendary figure P. T. Barnum, and a very sad day for the USA.  FWIW the unreferenced Ringmaster section appears blank to me, but apparently contains a broken table with actual data.  It isn't displaying in my browser  Perhaps the best thing for the moment would be to comment it out. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment this item is featured on the BBC mainpage, the UK version, so it appears to be of interest internationally. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as significant and encyclopedic. I am also having the display issue with the "Ringmasters" section, though I'm not sure a list of them is really necessary for the article.128.214.69.207 (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the tables are badly formatted, they should be moved to the talk page awaiting re-formatting and referencing before being re-inserted. There are, however, a few more [citation needed] tags (hence, I guess, the tag at the top of the article) which should be fixed before this is posted.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Best approach would be to remove the unsourced list from the article. It wouldn't be particularly essential content even if sourced. --LukeSurlt c 07:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Seeing as the list is already hidden anyway, it is apparently not important enough to show in full. I believe we have a guideline against hiding content like this? ~ Mable ( chat ) 09:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Citation issues Sherenk1 (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on significance but oppose on current state - 10 "citation needed" tags (including the first four paragraphs of the article) mean that the orange-level tag is justified, so it can't be posted without these issues being addressed. BencherliteTalk 12:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Honestly the best time to post this would have been when their retirement was announced back in January.--128.227.136.203 (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Then it was said the best time is now. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We can't "post it in the past", and at least this time, it's actually "in the news" as I noted above. This is precisely the time to post it, as long as it's fixed up to standard, there's no doubt about that at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose purely on article quality, but support on principal. This is a significant news item that for a change doesn't involve politics or a body count. (Note: I'm not online much at the moment due to some family issues but I trust TRM's judgement on this matter and if he concludes that the article is acceptably referenced my Oppose may be disregarded.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have tried to hit up on the CNs, and at least resolved the date issues (1871 is the right year), but a lot of those CNs need some expert sources, and while there's dozens of books on the circus, there's only so much I can do through Google Books. I doubt I can do much more to get to ITN quality here. --M ASEM (t) 22:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

English Premier League
{{ITN candidate }}
 * article      = 2016–17 Premier League
 * blurb= In the English Premier League, Chelsea win with a record 30 wins
 * altblurb     = Chelsea win the English Premier League with a record 30 wins during the season.
 * altblurb2    = (removed}
 * altblurb3    = In association football, the Premier League season concludes with Chelsea winning the title.
 * altblurb4    =
 * sources      = BBC
 * updated      = Yes
 * updated2     =
 * nominator    = torqueing
 * updater      =
 * updater2     =
 * updater3     =
 * ITNR         = yes
 * nom cmt      =
 * sign         = Torqueing (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Grudgingly support as there's no obvious issues, although I'd expect the article to be much better than this near-stub. It needs a less misleading blurb, as that "record" is a lot less impressive than it sounds. It's not "most wins ever", it's "most wins in a 38-game season", but the EPL has only had 38-game seasons since it was reduced to 20 teams in 1995–96. &#8209; Iridescent 16:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a different way to word this blurb? It is grammatically incorrect in American English and looks weird. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Altblurb2 created to attempt to counter that problem. Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's still grammatically incorrect (or correct, depending on your side of the pond) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is, isn't it? I'll remove that then. Black Kite (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wearing my full American badge on this, but would it not seem more appropriate to say "The Chelsea F.C. wins" or "becomes"? I'm aware the FC part is implicit but the verb tensing seems really off just using the singular name and a plural verb. --M ASEM (t) 18:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's always going to seem "wrong" to one group of English speakers or another - "Chelsea FC wins" sounds as jarring to me as the plural verb does to you - altblurb3 does fix that though. Black Kite (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you ever said "The Chelsea F.C." in the UK, someone would probably confront you. It's "Chelsea".  We know its context, so we don't need all the grammar nonsense.  We also reserve the right to use Chelsea in singular and plural, so you'll often see "Chelsea win" and "Chelsea wins"...  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, no team ever won 30 games in a 42-game PL season either, (92/93 to 94/95), so it is actually correct. But the blurb is awkward, so I've rephrased it as altblurb (and altblurb2 to fix the win/wins issue). Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I've put in altblurb III which avoids mentioning the 30 wins, and instead runs with the fact that the league concluded (which is the dateable news item, as Chelsea actually secured the title a while back). Also it's necessary to bold link 2016–17 Premier League which none of the other blurbs currently do. --LukeSurlt c 18:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That also clears up my issue on the Chelsea subject/verb apparent mismatch I noted above. 3rd blurb looks fine. --M ASEM (t) 18:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Õppose – the article currently looks out of shape. It's 80% tables and has very little prose. If it does get improved, I'd say alt blurb 3 looks good. ~ Mable ( chat ) 19:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per what TRM wrote just over a week ago. What update is there to read? Chelsea won the title by beating West Brom? That's stale. Come back with a season summary (Man City's decent start, Chelsea's turn in form, Liverpool tripping up in Jan, Tottenham competing for the title, Arsenal missing out on CL, relegation battles, etc) and I'll reconsider. Fuebaey (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support See below. Comment I'm unsure which article to read for this nom, as several have been suggested.  Perhaps agree on a blurb first?128.214.69.207 (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Only one target has been properly suggested, namely 2016–17 Premier League. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Changed to support. It's ITN/R, well laid out and referenced.  There's more prose dedicated to team rotations and stadiums than to the games themselves, and I would have liked a summary of some of the notable games played, or links out to those games that have stand alone articles.128.214.69.207 (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Until there is a serviceable season summary in the article body. AIR corn (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If (when) that happens would support Alt 3. AIR corn (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Far be it from me to stick my beak in to a sport I detest, but why is the infobox for this so bloated? I thought infoboxes in general were meant to sum up the key facts/overview of the page. Being a common oik, everything below top goal scorer should be collapsed IMO.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with that - many of those "record" fields do not seem like essential "at a glance" things that infoboxes are supposed to be limited to. Like "lowest attendance"? Really? --M ASEM (t) 13:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, that may be an issue with the project's infobox, but it's certainly not for debate here. If all we can find wrong with an article at ITNC is a bloated infobox, we'd be laughing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose if writers of season articles cannot be bothered to provide even a brief text summary of the season, then I cannot be bothered to stick my neck out to fight their corner. There are plenty of people in parts of the world that only became civilised relatively recently who cannot understand the Premier League's inclusion at ITN/R, and using ITN/R to post articles like this is hardly likely to help sway them. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Indian Premier League

 * Comment I suspect the better target is 2017 Indian Premier League Final which will need a prose update once the final has taken place. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'm not sure it is notable enough. Sorry, we can't go posting the domestic T20 leagues in every major cricket-playing nation. If we post India's equivalent then we would also have to post those in Australia, Pakistan and maybe the West Indies too, all of which are just as high-level and prestigious. I don't see why the IPL is more notable than the others. If this is posted, it will open the floodgates for at least five stories a year. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't oppose it for that reason, as it is WP:ITN/R. The only valid opposes are on article quality. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Basically, the idea behind ITN/R is that certain iterations of the same event are so similar to each other that it doesn't make sense to post it one year and not the next. So if you think the IPL as a whole is not worth posting, then don't oppose here, propose removing it from ITN/R. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 16:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * An oppose argument, however, may be valid per se, regardless where it's posted, as it would be the same at ITNR talkpage. Brandmeistertalk  17:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ive updated the result and right article above. Feel free to close/merge either one.Lihaas (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment - Just wanted to address this comment, since I disagree that other domestic T20 competitions are on the same standing as the IPL. The IPL receives more media attention globally than the domestic T20 competitions in Australia, Pakistan, or the West Indies, and attracts the biggest international players and the highest contracts. On any scale I can imagine, it easily outranks all other domestic T20 competitions, and its posting does not imply that the others should also be posted. (And I'm saying this as an Australian.) -dmmaus (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – for the same reason as the English premier league: it's all tables and almost 0 prose. Stub-class article is in no state for the front page. ~ Mable ( chat ) 19:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're looking at the wrong article (unsurprisingly, as it was linked wrongly) - it's 2017 Indian Premier League Final. Black Kite (talk) 07:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right. The article on the final itself looks a lot better. I change my vote to support. Article on the league itself can still use a lot of work, though. ~ Mable ( chat ) 07:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment updated the blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support match summary added. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is in good shape. The topic is in ITN/R and is one of the world's largest domestic competitions in any sport. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Looks acceptable. AIR corn (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Chibok schoolgirls kidnapping
The article says they were released on 6 May, as reported e.g. by The Guardian itself on 7 May here. So this is stale. The development on 20 May simply seems to be that they were reunited with their families. BencherliteTalk 12:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Svalbard Global Seed Vault

 * Comment, articles such as this one should be the type of article featured under "today's featured article". --Fixuture (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is like the recent story about the island covered in plastic waste. It's not really anything new and is a type of story on a slow news day to draw attention, but not a fundamental shift of anything for ITN's purposes. --M ASEM (t) 16:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Question - how is this ITN/R? Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it is, and have removed it. Possibly just copied over. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - had some of the collection been lost I think this would be postable. As it is, it's a near-miss that hasn't compromised the vault. --LukeSurlt c 17:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Board of directors approve reasonable upkeep with a long-term perspective? μηδείς (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I support Fixuture, "today's featured article", and in the news ... prokaryotes (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose a really interesting development, but one more suited for DYK over ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. This is not the usual ITN story, and it's of particular interest to survivalists. The withdrawal of the seeds in 2015 during the Syrian Civil War was another interesting development. Svalbard is a true multinational collaboration, but unfortunately our article doesn't have a good list on which countries' governments are contributing parties. I'll send Statsbygg an email for clarification. 171.118.54.104 (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Why is this even being discussed? Without wanting to state the obvious this (routine) development isn't even mentioned in the target article. &#8209; Iridescent 14:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose.  Seems to be more media hype than anything major.  Spencer T♦ C 14:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] President of Iran

 * Support, but Iranian presidential election, 2017 is the bold article for this, not Hassan Rouhani (I've edited the template). That article is OK, but will need a little polishing in the results and reactions sections. --LukeSurlt c 09:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment No claim is made about any story in ITN being "top news".  ITN serves to highlight articles that are about subjects in the news, which the contest was.  Anyone wanting to see something posted before now could have nominated something at any time and worked to convince others of its merits. Sometimes we have slow periods, especially for scheduled events, it's just the way it is. ITN is not meant to be as responsive as a news ticker, there is a project for that.  Sometimes we have to wait for something to happen in the world. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Should be OK when the election article is complete (only partial results so far, although the result isn't in doubt) and tidied up. Can I suggest we don't post the image (at least for a couple of days), because we've only just put Cornell there and it's not a particularly interesting image of Rouhani anyway. Black Kite (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Mug shots, by their nature, are almost never particularly interesting. Their function is to show the subject's face, period. Sca (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, notable national election. --Fixuture (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As elections for head of state are on the recurring items list, as indicated in the template, discussion on the merits is not required; the discussion should focus on the quality of the article and agreeing to a blurb. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a head of government, which is subject to debate on the merits. --2602:306:8046:7B0:F57C:6731:7E1A:A8F8 (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support looks very good to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, a top world news in recent days. GTVM92 (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - As per above ones. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted (without the image, for reasons mentioned above - I would suggest the image is rotated back to Rouhani in a couple of days if no other suitable image arises on an ITN story by then). As usual, if another admin disagrees with that feel free to change it. Black Kite (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support and thank you to User:Black Kite for posting the news. I most definitely Oppose Black Kite's decision to wait a "couple days" for an image of Mr. Rouhani. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should use the Rouhani image now - it's an adequate illustration of the top-line blurb. --LukeSurlt c 14:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support for the image - Inline with comment above - Sherenk1 (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Will swap once KrinkleBot protects it on Commons.  Spencer T♦ C 15:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You can always copy it to enwiki and protect that in the meantime. Black Kite (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Wayne Walker

 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Could an admin post this before it goes stale? Thanks.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted after confirming quality. --M ASEM (t) 14:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Cancer antibodies

 * Oppose This doesn't seem to be in the news – if you search for the keyword "antibodies", you find another story about a potential vaccine for Ebola. And, as this just seems to be a single study, it's not enough per WP:MEDDEF. Andrew D. (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Primary source discovery; in a mouse model.  Spencer T♦ C 15:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose no target article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose no article. A link to the appropriate section in Antibody might be better, but as nominator stated it's just a single sentence right now.128.214.69.207 (talk) 07:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Somebody should make an article on latency-associated peptide, though. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We already have an article on the corresponding gene, TGF beta 1. Narayanese (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted]: RD: Jacque Fresco

 * Support decent article, no glaring issues. Good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 36 hours later and ..................................................................................... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Roger Ailes

 * Support mostly well referenced and comprehensive, a few cn tags but nothing that is contentious enough to keep off the main page. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Jayron; gossip around this corner of the Hudson Valley had it that his resignation last year was just as well because he was very sick, something that was never disclosed publicly, and didn't have too much longer to live anyway. Seems now like it was true. Daniel Case (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article reads with an overly negative slant at the moment. The BLP has an irregular structure, bordering on disorganised - with one sentence paragraphs (Book, CEO of Fox News sections), coatracking Fox News issues that have barely anything to do with Ailes, links back to the same article (both in Criticism section) and proseline (Sexual harassment allegations and resignation section). That's not to say we should remove it entirely, but instead the issues in the centre of the body should ideally be merged together and rewritten to provide an overview. Fuebaey (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to trim whatever criticism you deem undue and then discuss its possible re-inclusion on the talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 *  Conditional Support for RD and maybe a blurb There is an unsourced paragraph in the political consulting section that needs sources before this can be posted. Concerns over political bias, unless it's really gross probably should be addressed on the article talk page. I am not wild about the article but I think that once the CNs are fixed this should be good enough. Beyond which Ailes was arguably the most powerful man in the television news industry for decades. That may be enough to justify a blurb. He was certainly a far more consequential figure than Carrie Fischer or Debbie Reynolds. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Ad Orientem: There is no more uncited content.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support once citation tags are fixed. It seems balanced to me. A Roger Ailes bio without due focus on sexual harassment would be like an OJ Simpson bio without due focus on Nicole Brown. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD only – no blurb. Of little significance outside the Trumpenproletariat. Sca (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? He was the principal architect of the largest media/news empire in the United States. The right leaning coverage, which he directed, almost certainly was a significant contributing factor in the impeachment of one president and the election of two others. The impact of this man's work has been absolutely massive and will likely continue to be for years, if not decades to come. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Incertum quo fata ferunt. Sca (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ego callidus loqui Latina.--WaltCip (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2017
 * ''Et ego nesciebam Hispanica est. (UTC) Sca (talk)
 * Heh. Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Too much WP:proseline and also agree with most of Fuebaeys other comments regarding article quality. AIR corn (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD only. Not really that notable. He's not Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner. Posting this to ITN would further push us into the territory of "all that matters is what relates too Trump." -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 20:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Support for RD. Article quality may be improved (like any article on Wikipedia), but he was definitely notable (not just in America, but also internationally) and it would be a mistake not to post it.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What would be a mistake would be to post it with unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no more uncited content.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support RD - He was significant in his field, and his death came not long after a major scandal that erupted last year, but I don't think Ailes is a culturally significant enough figure to warrant a full blurb. That being said, an RD entry is a no-brainer for me. Kurtis (talk) 01:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD. BLP was in good order yesterday (tense excepted), and still is.  Oppose blurb, for the reason that he was an old, retired man dying of natural causes.  Is there anything any article quality reason that this hasn't at least gotten to RD?  As to the "slant" in the article; I personally have a negative view of Ailes, and reading his article yesterday softened that somewhat, especially the details about his family life and disease.  Could this not be posted to RD and then as a blurb (if consensus developes)?128.214.53.104 (talk) 07:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD on article quality - there are 6 explicit [citation needed] tags and at least a couple of other claims missing citations and I didn't look in great detail. Oppose blurb per the IP immediately above. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Thryduulf: There is no more uncited content.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support RD There are a few citation needed tags, but the vast majority of content is cited and we do not require articles to be perfect. Mamyles (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't require perfection, but we do require sources for the biographies of the recently deceased featured on the main page. Thryduulf (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose this is a WP:BLP and it has over a dozen [citation needed] tags. We're not German or French Wikipedia, we have standards.  Please uphold those before supporting a really poorly referenced article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:The Rambling Man: There is no more uncited content.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Certainly not while the article is in as terrible shape as it is currently. BLP applies to the recently deceased. Black Kite (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Black Kite: There is no more uncited content.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose struck, though I'm still not massively happy about that enormous sexual harassment section, which could surely be trimmed a bit. Black Kite (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to trim it as undue.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Article is now well-referenced. Kudos to those who have made the improvements. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ready Fully cited and ready to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T♦ C 15:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Could we please add his picture instead of the Iranian president's on the main page?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * i don't think that it is possible since he is on the Recent Death section and does not have a blurb like the President of Iran does.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

RD: Reema Lagoo

 * Oppose Referencing issues need to be fixed first before posting on main page. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose too many reference tags. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unreferenced. Perhaps the nominator could fix this with obituaries?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted to RD and to image] Chris Cornell

 * Support Article is rock-solid, well referenced, comprehensive. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers Jay. I've been adding a ton of sources to various parts. If anyone spots anything of concern, let me know and I'll try to get a ref.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I spot check about a half-dozen paragraphs without an inline sources sprinkled throughout the article. That's the only thing that stands out. --M ASEM (t) 13:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support admittedly without reading the full article, but what I did read was in great shape. Seminal figure in prototypical American artistic movement, suddenly dies while still performing and in the midst of an active (if not quite at-peak) career.  I think this is a stronger case for a blurb than George Michael or Carrie Fisher et al.128.214.53.104 (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Him and Roger Ailes on the same day ... always interesting the juxtapositions these celebrity deaths create. Wonder who'll be the third? Daniel Case (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support for a blurb - Given sudden unexpected nature. As mentioned above, Cornell completely overshadows the (IMO) rather minor contributions of George Michael. He is the principal songwriter of a band that launched an genre of music that dominated the rock music scene throughout the 1990s and 2000s. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  20:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support a blurb given that we have confirmation his death was by suicide (making it comparable to Robin Williams), rather than from a health complication. --M ASEM (t) 21:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. I'm not sure you can compare this individual's influence and longevity to Robin Williams, or even Carrie Fisher.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb unexpected death, middle of NA tour, hugely influential still-active front man for three megabands. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (Detroit Police spokesman) Woody said there has been a high level of interest in the case from abroad. "We’ve received calls from London and from several other countries as well that are expressing their condolences". μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - A very significant figure in contemporary music for almost three full decades. Soundgarden alone was among the most popular music acts of the 1990s. Kurtis (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb A notable musician in his genre, certainly, but I don't think that is enough for a blurb.Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. He was not at David Bowie's level. Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair, if we take Bowie as the level for a blurb we'll probably hardly ever post another musician again. I can only think of a couple of living musicians on that level. Black Kite (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As it should be. It's not meant to be an obituary section. Very few people should ever be listed. LordAtlas (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is where thinking about the blurb as a news story (which is gaining legs now that preliminary ruling of his death was by suicide, while he was in the middle of a tour, making it a tragic story), rather than a simple obit, might help, instead of just asking how important the person was. In contrast to something like Thatcher or Mandala where it wasn't so much that their death by natural causes was the news but that figures that made a stark impact on the world and that millions came out to pay respects to their passing; our posting of those blurbs (before RD was established) was more reflective of that news-ness rather than just mere importance. --M ASEM  (t) 23:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with LordAtlas. On average we should be posting a blurb for one musician every couple of years at most. Bob Dylan and Paul McCartney would very likely get my vote for a blurb, Andrew Lloyd Webber might, Cliff Richard probably would. People who have made a very substantial impact over a very long time. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In what way is this death important then? Then we get into important to whom. Then we get into Americans vs non-Americans. LordAtlas (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is, after all, "In The News". You effectively have two "levels" for blurbs - people whose importance is such that their deaths are automatically worldwide news (i.e. Mandela), and those on the next level of notability down whose unexpected or sensational deaths produce extensive headlines. Cornell is an edge case, I think; every single worthwhile news service has this story as a major one, it's whether that pushes the story into blurb territory. (Edit: US bias is irrelevant here; Cornell's fame was worldwide, not parochial). Black Kite (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Bob Dylan and Paul McCartney would be very obvious blurbs as opposed to simple RD entries; the enormity of their influence on popular culture cannot be overstated. However, I would not personally use them as benchmarks for deciding if an artist's death merits a full blurb. My view is that although Chris Cornell is decidedly not on the same level as David Bowie or Prince, I do think he is notable enough as an artist and a cultural icon to warrant more than an RD. His impact on the burgeoning grunge movement in the 1980s was almost genre-defining, and it resulted in a countercultural movement that essentially ruled the charts for at least half of the following decade. Kurtis (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Question why do so many musicians make ITN? Prince, Bowie, Bob Dylan & Paul McCartney referred to by Kurtis above, etc - if we care so much about music, what about artists, scientists, authors, and so on? Banedon (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * They will if its high profile enough. Stephen Hawking would be an obvious yes. We aren't here to right wrongs. LordAtlas (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't so much about righting great wrongs as it is about bias. For example, you mention Stephen Hawking. Why Stephen Hawking, instead of: Ivar Giaever, who won a Nobel Prize which Hawking has never won; Martin Rees, who holds a public science office; Juan Maldacena, who wrote one of the most highly-cited papers in all science as recently as 1998; or Alan Guth, one of the initiators of the field of cosmic inflation? All these blurbs with musicians seem to be at their core "I have heard of ____", which is a sign of bias. Banedon (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's just how the world works, isn't it? Why are you so hurt if they don't appear. They aren't high profile. The news might not care about them. Wikipedia is not your pet project to showcase your personal values. You just should your bias against musicians in favour of who you think is important. Good luck with all that. LordAtlas (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Very well then: oppose blurb - no demonstrated blurb-worthy impact. To change my mind: cite some objective measures by which we can indeed say he's a great musician, and demonstrate that other musicians do not satisfy those measures. Banedon (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You are under the impression that I disagree with you. I don't think he deserves a blurb either. Since you asked a question instead of voting like you were supposed to, I felt obligated to reply. You chose to be pointy. LordAtlas (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you've never seen people ask questions in ITN  , I would suggest you lurk more. Banedon (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb - His name is neither Mandela nor Thatcher, and I don't think suicide should be considered a blurbworthy criterion.--WaltCip (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not just because he committed suicide, but that he committed suicide while he was still a leading member of these bands and while on tour. It was the suddenness of it, similar to Robin Williams. It makes the death unusual which has been a factor in death blurbs in the past. --M ASEM (t) 15:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support blurb This is bigger news than Salvador Sobral winning some obscure music contest. Sobral gets blurb+picture, but Cornell gets just a passing mention at the bottom? Come on guys. 211.202.2.34 (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The above comment should be enshrined and thrust in the face of anyone who dares assert that there is no U.S. systemic bias on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? Because Cornell was American? I don't get it. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it has more to do with describing Eurovision as "some obscure music contest". Kurtis (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Right I've gone massively IAR here, and this is what I've done; there's a decent number of people here who think Cornell needs a blurb; I don't necesarily agree with that, but what I do agree with is that he's clearly more important than the (barely notable) winner of the Eurovision Song Contest, so I've replaced the image. I realise this is going out on a limb, so any admin who thinks I'm being a dick is welcome to revert me.  Let's face it, sometimes the ITN image might better come from RD - that would certainly have been the case recently when people were complaining about Sergio Garcia's mug being on the main page for two weeks!  I hope that this is a good way of negotiating between a "blurb-that-almost-got-consensus" and an "image of someone almost non-notable" - let's face it, the Eurovision blurb is still there. Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * - that's brilliant and a really nice touch. Thank you. And a massive thanks to everyone and anyone who's been working on his article in the last two days. To say I'm shocked and saddened by what has happened is a massive understatement. Thanks again.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong. User:Black Kite does not get to make up rules unilaterally. ITN rules are carefully negotiated between all kinds of sometimes-opposing parties. WP:MP/E has been scrubbed, and then refilled with error reports. Address them please. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what was "wrong" by me saying "that's brilliant and a really nice touch". Don't come here with a chip on your shoulder, which is evident from your other comments in this section.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Brilliant! a great compromise solution, we should do this more often. The picture will let readers who only look at the blurbs realize there is some coverage and will find the name. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting an image of a recent death entry certainly caught my eye. That face staring at me made me think his death had a blurb, of course. Tricky, tricky. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD image placement. A savvy move indeed, and it showed sound judgement. Also, this move could be a good alternative & compromise option to consider in the future. Nice job. Christian Roess (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose image. This discussion is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Mr. Cornell does not belong in the featured position and Mr. Rouhani clearly does. I think you've gone crazy. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ditto, for obvious reasons. (See WP:MP/E.) – Sca (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If there is consensus to change it, perhaps you could ask an admin without mental problems to do so then? Black Kite (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Every living person has mental problems. No excuse. User:Spencer has this one, thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of us even have metal problems. Sca (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You say "Mr. Cornell does not belong in the featured position," but you don't present your reasons why he doesn't belong there. Until you do so, your "oppose" image vote cannot be taken seriously. Christian Roess (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure it can. Because it was so obvious per In_the_news which says, "In most cases, the picture is posted for the topmost blurb which has an eligible picture to go with it." -SusanLesch (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Susan, your reaction, as if Black Kite broke Wikipedia is overwrought, and your "embarrassment to wikipedia" and "I think you've gone crazy" are clearly not called for. Also, at the time the question was, was it reasonable to replace the Eurovision contest winner with Cornell.  Clearly it was, and there was support for it outweighing yours and Sca's objection.  But framing this as Rouhani vs. Cornell was absurd, since at the time of Black Kite's action, there was no blurb for Rouhani yet.  Are we now not going to post any images at all, since 'in the future they will be replaced? μηδείς (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for every little thing I say, but you guys appear to have been out of control as evidenced by no corrections to your comments above. A photo of Mr. Cornell was up for five hours. The last two of those hours he should have been replaced. Congratulations to Mr. Rouhani on his election. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "You guys"? (Me and the Russians?) "Out of control"? What, did I post in ALL CAPS in the wrong section?  Please stick to facts, and leave me out of any imagined conspiracies. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "You guys" referred to you, User:MZMcBride and User:Christian Roess, because you are the people who were discussing how "tricky" and "brilliant" and "savvy" you found the image of Mr. Cornell to be. My mistake, Mr. Cornell was pictured for closer to 15 hours. Your comments of approval were made long before I read them (I saw them after a Rouhani item had been added), and that might explain our difference of opinion--I found three or four people who appeared to be going rogue. Several other people reported this as a main page error. A rule change is under discussion, as it should be. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ok, well that's cool. Thanks for sounding reasonable here, using "facts" and "evidence" to make your points, instead of "opinion." - Christian Roess (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Donald Trump disclosure of classified information to Russia

 * Wait So far most of Trump's gaffes don't, of themselves, seem to merit mentioning yet. Wait until impeachment or something like that.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is a endpoint here of this story, the potential about impeachment, but until that's reached, this is all political mudslinging. We avoid that at ITN, and per RECENTISM should not be writing much about it. --M ASEM (t) 02:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose if Trump gets impeached, let's run that story, otherwise not actually that interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose It's only a speculation with no official confirmation from the White House. We are here to discuss something that really happened and not political campaigning launched by the media. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose More mudslinging. It's also a logical fallacy as the President has broad authority over handling and disseminating information. Namely he can reclassify or authorize disclosure at his discretion.  President Obama shared similar data with russia to combat ISIS.  It's not a novel act.  --DHeyward (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

RD: Rhodri Morgan

 * Oppose a dozen or so unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Plastic on Henderson Island

 * Oppose certainly interesting, but more from a DYK perspective. The story begins and ends with a load of junk on an uninhabited island.  If the consequences are that we stop using plastic, stop discarding it overboard ships etc, then we have a news story.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well that's a point, however you only describe one kind of news story. This is also a story that's in the news right now. And where does it say that stories such as this one can't be featured in the section (why)? Also: there will probably never be such news as that happens gradually and such incidents and findings are the only ones getting into the news. Wikipedia has a unique opportunity and responsibility to feature exactly such truly significant news which is relevant to the entire Earth population which, despite of that, is still relatively unaware of it. --Fixuture (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia has no "responsibility" of such at all. Please see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, alright - but that wasn't my main point here. For the guideline: I think that it applies less for the selection of In the news items than any other Wikipedia content mainly as there are many, many things in the news. Also the responsibility I was speaking of here is to not "leave out" important candidates which could be featured as they meet the criteria of having significant reporting etc. --Fixuture (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, but my personal oppose applies still, this is a "sad-but-true" story that has no real relevance other than to be "interesting" in a kind of DYK manner. If the story was "After 37 billion tons of plastic was discovered on Henderson Island, the world stopped using plastic" then I'd buy in, but right now it's just "lots of trash found on island, sad face".  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose on same points at TRM. It is not like the island suddenly had millions of pieces of plastic trash on it, it was just a report that fixed an estimated value at some point. The problem still exists, and the fact that news are picking up on it now (a month after the journal article was published, begging if this is a stale story) makes it feel like a human interest story rather than breaking news. --M ASEM (t) 20:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See my reply above. Who said that this section is just for breaking news? --Fixuture (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, breaking news in currently in the news. This stale news is currently not in the news. LordAtlas (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Opppose This is just another, it depends where you look story. For example, the Antarctic Ozone Hole was found--wait for it--the year we first launched a satellite capable of detecting it.  It might very well have existed for a billion years.  Same goes with this island?  Have we surveyed every island in the world for plastic waste?  Was there some event associated with this?  Or is it just that someone has published a paper? DYK is even a stretch, since there's no proof that no island has worse garbage. μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please at least read ozone hole before believing the bullshit that the ozone hole might've always been that way since 1 billion BC. It says "G.M.B. Dobson (Exploring the Atmosphere, 2nd Edition, Oxford, 1968) mentioned that when springtime ozone levels in the Antarctic over Halley Bay were first measured in 1956, he was surprised to find that they were ~320 DU, or about 150 DU below spring Arctic levels of ~450 DU. These were at that time the only known Antarctic ozone values available. What Dobson describes is essentially the baseline from which the ozone hole is measured: actual ozone hole values are in the 150–100 DU range." Satellites of course weren't even invented yet in 1956. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well the blurb could be changed appropriately if you don't like the highest density part. It could also be made clearer that it's only the highest density of what has been found so far. This is simply news on a report that showed the graveness of plastic pollution. It's a major issue and there aren't many such news so I don't know why it shouldn't be featured even though it's not a candidate that's as obvious to get featured as some others (but it's still more notable than sport events). --Fixuture (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please drop the "still more notable than sport events" thing, that's irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I agree with TRM; while this is interesting, it isn't groundbreaking and is unlikely to be a turning point in trash reduction; the Great Pacific Garbage Patch isn't going anywhere. 331dot (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support we have stuff like discovery of new elements on ITNR, even though discovering those is "just" a matter of having powerful-enough equipment. In the same way discovering a new Solar System planet, a new hominid, etc, would all be worth featuring. Why not this? Especially given the abundance of coverage. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you under the impression that something new has been discovered on the island? Stephen 04:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you mean "we didn't know this existed, but now we do", then no. If instead you mean "we didn't know the extent of this, but now we do", then yes. Banedon (talk) 05:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Reading the scientific paper that was published in April, there were already similar studies done on two neighborning islands in 1991 (all part of a group of islands far enough away from any type of human habitation that all debris accumulation can be attributed to what is carried by ocean currents), and this only showed an exponential trend from there. So there is nothing new here, in both discover and extent. --M ASEM (t) 05:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Took a look at the paper as well. It says there's an increase of 200–2,000×. That should still be significant - 25 years ought to be sufficient for the original trend to fail, as it eventually must, since otherwise plastic would eventually cover the entire Earth's surface. Banedon (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The topic is in the news and there was also another recent story about the contamination of sea salt. But note also that Boyan Slat's Ocean Cleanup project is also in the news, having attracted good funding – see the Weather Network, for example.  So, we can report not just that there's a problem but that someone is doing something about it.  This would be better than running stale schlock and same-old sports like the Eurovision Song Contest and Kentucky Derby.  Andrew D. (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Interesting but not newsy enough. Sca (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

[Removed] Remove Turkish purges from ongoing

 * Remove almost no action on the article text in over a week. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove Ongoing is expected to have near-daily news stories of large interest, that's just not happening here. --M ASEM (t) 13:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Removed. --Tone 14:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

RD: Javier Valdez Cárdenas

 * Strong support – Came here to nominate this myself. Widely one of the most prominent Mexican journalists of his generation, and a leading figure in investigative journalism. Expert on the Sinaloa Cartel and an author of several Mexican drug war books, founder of newspaper Ríodoce, and CPJ International Press Freedom Award recipient. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 04:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder, for RD the discussion should focus only on the quality of the article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My bad. Will remember this moving forward. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 12:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. I did a quick clean-up. A bit short, but looks referenced.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. Very short article - not much more than a stub. Absolutely no information on his life from graduating from college until 2003. I would like to see this fleshed out more before posting.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

(Posted as RD) Ian Brady dies at 79

 * Oppose. "Terminally-ill man dies of old age" is the very embodiment of "inappropriate for a blurb". Unless you're seriously claiming that he passes the "comparable to Mandela in terms of importance" test? ‑ Iridescent 21:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I'm a little surprised that he doesn't have his own article, surely GNG enough? An RD listing would be sufficient for this individual.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support for RD only. He doesn't have a standalone article, but there is no question that this is going to be in the news in the UK. He is one of the most infamous man in Britain. Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Iridescent plus no stand-alone article. No importance outside of being a murderer so I don't think a standalone article is warranted... not entirely familiar with WP:BIO guidelines, however. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * He obviously meets GNG. But right now we have a section of Moors murders that covers his existence.  That'd be enough for an RD listing I suppose, but this is unusual.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A while back I did propose invoking WP:IAR and creating separate biographies for Brady (and Hindley) to make the Moors murders article more about the crime and less dominated by his biography, but the discussion fizzled out, and this is such a sensitive topic it couldn't be done in fast-time. ‑ Iridescent 21:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose both blurb and RD. The article itself is not news (it happened in the 1960s), and he is not sufficiently notable to have his own article.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI, there is a long-standing consensus (2009 onwards) that Brady and Hindley should only be covered by means of an article about the Moors Murders. BencherliteTalk 21:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair, but given we have standalone stubs about college basketball coaches, I'm perplexed as to why Brady doesn't warrant his own article by now (Hindley too) given the vast amount of coverage independent to the murders. It's somewhat anomalous that the UK news websites are all leading with Brady's death (and his refusal to expose the location of the last victim), yet Wikipedia doesn't deem him notable enough to have his own article or even note his death as one of the most notorious murderers in British history.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change over time. Would suggest that if anybody wants to turn both redirects into full articles there should be a prior RFC, widely publicised to gain concensus. Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Straight oppose Not notable enough for a biography? No RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read the comment above. This individual is responsible for the death of at least five children.  I'm perplexed as to why there's no article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're trying to bait me with that "college basketball coaches" crack again, aren't you? AfD said merge, so no notability, no RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly notable, and yes, RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb A despicable creature, yes, but hardly a major world leader in his "field". That being said, given the amount of coverage he got over the past several years, I think he does deserve a standalone article, so an RD is fine if the article is of decent quality. EternalNomad (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion was closed at this point by with the comment "Closing. No support at all for a blurb. Not eligible for RD as there is no standalone article. Let's not spend more time here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)" BencherliteTalk 23:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Post-close Support for RD per IAR. This is an obvious case of someone who more than merits their own article but for pragmatic reasons had the bio folded into the main story of the murders. Further this is an FA article, which I would think we would want to promote on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Reopening given that there are three calls on WT:ITN for an IAR exception to any apparent need for a separate article (given the circumstances in which the individual article about Brady was folded into an FA-standard article about his crimes) and that half an hour of discussion is insufficient in such circumstances. BencherliteTalk 23:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD, consensus that this individual should only have his biography within a larger (in this case Featured) article does not preclude it from being posted as a recent death. We don't need to legislate for such unusual cases.  Stephen 23:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Post posting support That's a brave decision, and one I agree with - I have long been astonished that Brady and Hindley do not have individual articles - they are probably more notable than 99% of all of our biographical articles. If they were recent murderers of such ridiculous notoriety as these two, the articles would have been created in a flash.  For those outside the UK that are not familiar with the case, I would point you towards this - at the time their crimes were seen as so heinous that they were world news, not just in the UK.  And this is a Featured Article - we need more stuff like this on the Main Page. Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Post posting support for RD As I note in the separate talk page discussion, the RD criteria are not meant to be exclusionary, just a guarantee of RD posting if they are met. That gives consensus-driven or WP:IAR-type room for notable cases like this when some but not all criteria are met, where we have other policies in place like BLPCRIME that are meant to avoid the glamorizing of serial killers, but yet still would be a notable name and clearly appearing in the news to qualify for a mention on the RD line. --M ASEM (t) 00:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support for RD clearly IAR applies here.Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Noting that I do not object to the reopening and posting with the IAR rationale. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose blurb, support RD - Certainly not worthy of blurb, but RD is fine. Neutralitytalk 01:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support of RD - much as I dislike giving this heinous individual publicity, the fact remains that his death is in the news and widely reported. Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support of RD echoing much of the supporters above, and to reiterate my astonishment that these individuals do not have their own articles when individuals like Martin Bryant, Anders Behring Breivik, Said Al Nasr, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Can all individuals opposing on notability grounds just put a sock in it? You know absolutely nothing about this mans evil legacy, by the looks of things. Stop skim-reading articles and making snap judgments - don't have enough info or insight to vote? Then don't vote. "Doesn't have an article" is not a valid argument. "He was an old man" is not a valid argument. Stop it.--81.153.7.114 (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Evil legacy' hyperbole much? He murdered 5 people. Not even particularly notable within his field (of murdering). Mass shooters in the US seem to manage that on a monthly basis. Its obviously a big news item in the UK, but its hardly of worldwide general interest. 'Old murderer dies in prison'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think maybe the choice of children as a target, the sadistic details (which I will leave you to read about) and half a century as a high-profile prisoner count for more than body count. If we're playing death count Top Trumps here, then that makes Brady five times as notable as Lee Harvey Oswald, which is clearly not a well-supported opinion. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. A high profile individual, although not for the right reasons of course. But it's headline news nonetheless. I predict that he will get the "death to funeral" front page coverage that we usually apply as an indicator of blurb-worthiness, at least in the UK. (Though perhaps it is of less worldwide significance, I grant you that). &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD only - Brady's death has received a moderate amount of news coverage and it is reasonable to assume that linking to the section of the Moors murders article that discusses Brady in the recent deaths line will "help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". However the bar for a posting blurbs for individual deaths is high—especially for deaths from natural causes of elderly persons—and Brady does not meet that level. --LukeSurlt c 09:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD By posting this, we are automatically violating the rule that requires a person considered for the RD section to have Wikipedia article. Furthermore, a deletion request concluded with a consensus that the person did not merit a separate article and it was eventually merged to Moors murders.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is why IAR was invoked and noted here. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Then, we should consider creating a separate article anew. I guess re-evaluating his notability after almost eight years might change.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * By all means, but that's really nothing to do with ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no rule that requires a person considered for the RD section to have Wikipedia article. The only rule is that someone who has one is automatically eligible. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You may want to re-write WP:ITNRD then, because it currently says "An individual human, animal or other biological organism that has recently died may have an entry in the recent deaths section if it has a Wikipedia article that is" and "Regardless of a blurb or a "recent death" listing, the article on the person in question must still comply with article requirements". All the wording clearly indicates they should have a stand-alone article. You can argue its not required that they have an article, but the above certainly reads that they should. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, those guidelines are only to guarantee automatic inclusion, and they do not exclude RDs that do not fit those three criteria. That's why we still have consensus-driven discussions that can evoke IAR for a case like this where there's agreement the death is ITN, but we don't have a standalone article for other policy reasons. --M ASEM (t) 13:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thats the relevant section of ITN that defines what a RD should have. If there is another page somewhere that has different criteria for what a RD requires, feel free to link to it. But WP:ITNRD as written states a RD subject should have an article in quite clear writing. If you want to IAR it, then you are a)accepting it is a rule that you believe should be ignored, b)you need to make a credible argument that by ignoring the rule the encyclopedia is improved. If Ian Brady is featured on the main page or not has no bearing on the quality of the encyclopedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, ITNRD does not say that. It says that a recently-deceased person may have an RD if conditions X, Y, and Z are met. It does not say that RD will only include persons that have met X, Y, and Z. These are sufficient but not necessary conditions for an RD posting. I do agree that we really want to avoid posting RD when these are not met, but that's why we have consensus building and applicability of IAR in a case like this. --M ASEM (t) 15:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Pull – Dying in hospital at 79 of "a lung and chest condition" (Guardian) isn't big news, even if the deceased did murder children half a century ago. Sca (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This was posted as a RD, not a blurb. Since when has the age and cause of death of an RD subject been relevant?--[ure[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Notable people dying of old age is exactly the reason RD exists. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not getting pulled. When the death of someone is the top story in a major country (and it's still getting stories now - BBC ) as well as being news elsewhere (Fox News Ireland Switzerland) then I think we can safely say that this person is more notable than the vast majority of people we feature at RD. Black Kite (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And by searching in other languages I have found wide references, not limited to El Pais and Le Figaro. This is definitely In The News. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

[Removed] 2017 Venezuelan protests

 * Keep -  . Banedon (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Are any of those events added to the article? If the answer is "no" my vote will be to remove until such time as you have added them to the article in question.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Always thrust the duty of updating the article onto someone else, eh? Banedon (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly interested one way or the other. Since YOU want to see it kept on the main page, it's YOUR responsibility.  I'm not trying to keep it on the main page, so I have no interest in updating it.  If you don't want to update it, don't be surprised if it is removed.  I'd be quite happy for it to stay if it were updated, but it also doesn't bother me to see it removed.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly interested one way or the other either. However, YOU claim to have our readers' interests at heart. But YOU also refuse to update this, even though it's already on the main page, and instead YOU are here lecturing me instead of pushing this through FAC. Some altruistic Wikipedian YOU are. Keep this up and we'll see each other at ANI. Banedon (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCOMPULSORY is required reading here. You're asking Jayron here (for example) to read up and get to speed about a topic that others clearly have already done, when Jayron might feel their volunteer time is better spent elsewhere. You might have a point if it was a simple update (for example, sourcing one floating CN in a RD candidate), but as ongoing, we're talking a continued commitment to improve, and that is absolutely not required nor expected of an editor. --M ASEM (t) 00:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * NOTCOMPULSORY applies to me, too. If you replace "Jayron" in what you wrote with "Banedon", your comment could have easily been pointed at him. Banedon (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is the person who voted 'keep' without updating accusing another person of shirking duties? You want it to stay? Update it. Simple. I'm just going to call out this SJW mentality of "I don't like this / I want this so do it for me" style of commenting. Enough of Banedon's seem to follow this pattern. LordAtlas (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, I'm not particularly interested one way or the other. You are acting under the assumption that I really want it to stay, which is incorrect. You want to remove it? Do it, what are you waiting for? Banedon (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Then why vote for it to stay if you aren't interested? As a non-admin, I fail to see how I could do that and as someone who doesn't care I've not chosen to vote. LordAtlas (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Because I think it staying would have been helpful to the main page, and because TRM's original rationale for removal is demonstrably incorrect. As for why I would do this without really caring - well, I hope you've learned something new today. I'd go further and say that most people who vote at ITN don't really care. Objections happen but are uncommon, e.g. you don't see Medeis or Sherenk1 complaining about how the 2017 Mastung suicide bombing was posted. Banedon (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCOMPULSORY does apply to you; no one is saying you're required to do anything. Just that unless and until the updates are made (by someone) this will be removed from the main page.  You don't have to do anything, it's going to be removed.  And that's fine.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment so the article hasn't been updated, therefore it should be removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove. The only actual update to the article (as opposed to formatting and layout changes) since the 13th has been to add "During another national sit-in on 15 May, two were shot dead in Táchira; 17-year-old Luis Alviarez and 32-year-old Diego Hernández." with a citation. Whether the events are ongoing or not the article is not being updated. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

RD: Brad Grey

 * Oppose awards unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but needs referencing for the awards won (both in the table and the text), and for the list of movies released during his tenure, before it can be posted. ‑ Iridescent 21:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in principle is pointless, this is RD so it's all about the quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's verbal shorthand for "only a minor issue that needs addressing not a complete rewrite"; the awards are all high-profile so they shouldn't be difficult to source. (The "movies released during his time in charge" section being unreferenced is less of an issue, given that the dates in question are sourced and we know when each of these moves came out.) ‑ Iridescent 22:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

RD: Jean Fritz

 * Oppose it doesn't even say she's dead, it's mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Adendro train derailment

 * Weak support. It's not the most significant of rail crashes, but hitting a house is unusual and we do appear to be in a slow news period. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – We have been in a slow news period for some time, but IMO that's not sufficient reason to post a comparatively minor event. Sca (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support per Thryduulf. Unusual for a train to hit a building, but not completely unknown. Mjroots (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There was another accident around a same time when a tour bus rolled off a cliff in neighboring Turkey, killing 24. It looks like we won't be posting that one. 171.118.58.73 (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We can't post anything that doesn't have an article. Mjroots (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There are three basic requirements for every ITN posting (1) evidence that the event is in the news; (2) a new or updated article on the English Wikipedia; (3) a nomination on this page. That we did not post something that fails to meet those three criteria is not a reason to oppose a nomination that does. In the case of the bus crash you mention, no nomination has been made and I can't see any mention on Wikipedia (but I've only had a brief search). Thryduulf (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree we don't decide based on how previous incidents were treated, but I still don't see this as particularly significant, and coverage appears to be minimal. (I found only one other story, from AP). Sca (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If that's the criteria, why don't you guys go ahead and !vote on the 2017 Mastung suicide bombing ITN nomination below? Instead of just ignoring what actually fulfills the criteria. If this isn't systemic bias, I don't know what is? - Mfarazbaig (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Sca (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. No notable global news. Insignificant. Also I agree with Sca. --Fixuture (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's not that this event only relates to one single country. It's that this event doesn't even resonate in said single country.--WaltCip (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I know nothing about the safety of Greek railways, but this appears to be a minor accident regardless. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose too minor to be posted (and we aren't in a slow news period, given the most recent blurbs). If there is some kind of national outcry or lasting impact, then maybe. Banedon (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Minor event. Only three people died. Should there even be an article about this? How many tens of thousands of train derailments have there been since trains were invented?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose tragic but not blurb-worthy. Neutralitytalk 01:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I too wonder if there should be an article on this accident at all. It doesn't seem to have much impact on the world other than to the people directly involved, and with "only" three deaths, that simply aren't that many people. It is an unfortunate accident, but not a particularly notable one, let alone ITN-worthy. ~ Mable ( chat ) 11:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * As a side note, this may be of interest to people in the above discussion. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Our Lady of Fátima and the Children

 * Oppose - Although it was in the top news for a little while, I don't understand the significance. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Canonizations are notable and this is quite a well-known case. Update looks sufficient. Brandmeistertalk  11:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Relevant to many readers. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose purely on article quality. Too many unsourced claims. Otherwise Support on the notability of the topic. This is a big deal in religious news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support if the majority of the [citation needed]'s would be replaced with appropriate sources. I think the article is of good quality and I'm sure these things can be fixed. It's very close to appropriate quality for the main page in my eyes. The impact of this canonization is, as written by those above me, easily high enough for ITN. I do wonder if the blurb is too clickbait-y, thought the altblurb is definitely better than the original in that regard. ~ Mable ( chat ) 16:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point on the blurb. I removed the "shepherd" part from the alt blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Article quality is currently up to my personal standards, but those seem to be a bit lower than those of others, so take that as you will. My support-vote stands. ~ Mable ( chat ) 11:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is internal to a particular religion and there are many religions in the world. Banedon (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ironically, we don't have a "please do not ... ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single [religion]" guideline. Banedon (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So you are opposed to posting any news dealing with religion? Interesting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * When it affects only one religion, yes. This isn't even one religion - it's a branch of one religion. I am not an expert on Christianity, but I do wonder how many Protestants, Anglicans, etc, care about whatever Pope Francis does. Banedon (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You could use the same argument against any topic. For example, the Kentucky Derby is a particular event in a particular sport but there are many other sports; the Wannacry worm affects a particular operating system but there are many other operating systems; and so on. The idea that news isn't significant because it's about some particular thing or field is absurd. Andrew D. (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I had second thoughts about this after thinking about it for a bit too. Even though this is internal to one branch of one of the world's many religions, there are roughly 1.2 billion Catholics in the world. That's bigger than the population of most countries and almost certainly bigger than e.g. tennis players (and there are several tennis tournaments on ITNR). However given that canonization is not a one-off event, I think this should be something that should either be on ITNR in which case they're all posted, or not in which case none of them are. King of Hearts said that before I did. I'm striking the oppose and am effectively neutral. Banedon (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, per WP:CREEP and WP:IAR, we not supposed to invent rules to try to cover every situation. The fundamental issues at ITN are whether we have an article of adequate quality about a topic which is in the news in a significant way.  I nominated this topic because it appeared on Google's list of top 10 world news.  I wasn't sure what it was and found that we had some articles about it.  We should not need to get into theology and philosophy to determine that this is enough.  ITN is routinely stale because of all such fussy pontification and pettifogging.  We should not be making such a big deal of it because people read these articles in large numbers regardless.  We therefore have no significant role as gatekeepers and so should just focus on keeping ITN reasonably up-to-date with what the world's media are reporting as top 10 news. Andrew D. (talk) 08:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a different project for that, see Wikinews. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Our article about WikiNews says that it "has sunk into a kind of torpor; lately it generates just 8 to 10 articles a day". ITN has managed to post just 6 articles in the last week .  The Kentucky Derby took place 9 days ago and so it's not really still in the news, is it?  This is not quality, it's quietus. Andrew D. (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not long to go before you can contribute to WikiTRIBUNE! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I would agree with that, but until then, we're constrained to act within the status quo. Banedon (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support A pretty good fraction of the world's population is Catholic (1/5 I think?) and a canonization is notable, just like said above.-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 01:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Are Catholic canonizations inherently notable enough for ITN? Then propose to add it to ITN/R. Otherwise, I don't see why this is more important than any of the other canonizations that took place. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  ♠ 04:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is unusual for children to be canonised because of the requirement for heroic virtue. Andrew D. (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose simply based on what King of Hearts has just noted, there have been numerous canonisations during Francis' tenure thusfar, to cherry-pick this is undue. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, ITN posted the canonization of Mother Theresa last year. I suspect that one of the important factors will be the news coverage of any such occurrence - most canonizations don't get the coverage of Mother Theresa or the Fatima children. BencherliteTalk 08:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and I think comparing the notability of Mother Theresa with this guys is chalk and cheese. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Chipping in: is this particular canonisation receiving widespread media attention? I saw something about it on BBC Online over the weekend, but I'm a news junkie interested in religion so I'm not a good case study. There is a decent argument that it's an unusually media-friendly story, but has it permeated? Incidentally, I'd strongly oppose ITN/R for all canonizations. Most pass entirely un-noticed in "the news" - even to a news junkie interested in religion. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure about whether to support or oppose this, but just mentioning this for relevance since nobody has brought it up. May 13, 1917 is the date of the first reported Marian apparition of Our Lady of Fatima. May 13, 1946 was when the vision was recognized by the Pope. May 13, 2017 is thus exactly the 100th anniversary of the apparition, and I think the timing of the canonization is intentional. 171.118.58.73 (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be a good DYK or OTD hook, but isn't really relevant to ITN. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The anniversary was planned, as numerous sources make clear. For example, USA Today, "Today, Fatima attracts between 5 million and 6 million pilgrims a year, making it one of the most popular shrines in the world. The largest numbers come on May 13 — the anniversary of the first apparitions. Pope Francis’ visit will coincide with the 100th anniversary of the apparitions."  The fact that it's a big-deal centenary, rather than just some routine church bureaucracy, adds to the weight of the story. Andrew D. (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's nowhere to be seen on reliable sites now. Indicative of its transient and passing interest.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm torn on actual notability for ITN, but it's currently irrelevant because there are still too many unsourced statements and citation needed tags in there. Black Kite (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality grounds - too much unsourced stuff. Neutralitytalk 01:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Snow oppose per TRM and Black Kite. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Belt and Road Forum
Note this will occur on May 14. Muzzleflash (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please provide news stories to indicate this is in the news.331dot (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * People's Daily, Reuters, Christian Science Monitor, Forbes], Associated Press. Muzzleflash (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose opening ceremony of a minor diplomatic chit-chat seems irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If anything notable is agreed at the forum then nominate that when they agree it, but there are many international forums of all sorts and we don't post the opening ceremonies of any of them as a rule (even the G8 forums only get one blurb). Thryduulf (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, barf, honestly, neither belt and road nor the forum are notable enough to post. Mélencron (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I'd not heard of this and the article and blurb could use work to explain that this is a revival of the Silk Road. But it seems quite a big deal in geopolitical terms as more evidence of China's growing influence.  It's certainly in the news -- see the BBC and FT, for example.  And it's certainly more significant than the Eurovision Song Contest with its ridiculous yodellers and dancing gorilla. Andrew D. (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support when article is improved - It is top news on BCC. Also good number of countries are involved. However neutrality issue needs to be resolved in one of the articles. And more information needs to be inserted. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Citation issues as well to be resolved. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment it's only the fourth news story on the BBC World page, behind that "ridiculous" Eurovision Song Contest! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's breaking news as, when I found the BBC article, it was only 25 mins old. When I go to a news aggregator like Google, and tell it to list the top world news stories, it currently gives:
 * James Comey
 * Donald Trump
 * Cyber-attack
 * North Korea
 * China
 * Emmanuel Macron
 * Ransomware
 * United Kingdom
 * Fátima
 * Silk Road
 * Andrew D. (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Don't want to directly argue about whether this is worth inclusion even though I am nominator but want to comment about uninformed comments made by some who oppose. This is by no means a "minor diplomatic chit-chat" or one of many similar international forums. This is China's biggest long term international project one with the explicit intention of creating an alternative world order and this forum is the first big one to launch this initiative or effort at another world order. So criticisms along the lines that this isn't notable is totally off. I'm disconcerted to see so many people who don't put in the time to research what they are commenting involve themselves in these discussions. Without informed participants this system of discussion to determine news headlines can't work well. Muzzleflash (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If the article contained this information in detail and more fleshed out, it would be easier to make an informed decision. Otherwise, the current state of the article does this nomination no favors. Not saying you don't have a point, but the quality of the article can go a long way in showing notability of a nominated item.  Spencer T♦ C 13:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Expanded to note significance based on media portrayal. However, I think the fact that a single country's project is attracting 29 heads of government/state (this is not some international organization forum like UN General Assembly or G7) should alone indicate unusual diplomatic importance. Muzzleflash (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Notable global news. I also wouldn't call it "a minor diplomatic chit-chat". And certainly more notable than sport events. The article needs to be expanded but it's of sufficient quality & length to post. --Fixuture (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the nomination is to post the "opening" of a "conference" in which we have no idea what will happen. Whether that's more or less notable than "sport events" remains to be seen.  Even the massive Chinese announcement today barely made the primary news outlets main pages... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "barely made the primary news outlets main pages" -- "Behind China’s $1 Trillion Plan to Shake Up the Economic Order" was a front page article in the New York Times. That's just one example of what looks like a lot of coverage. It's hard to have high quality discussions and a good process when opinions are offered that are plain wrong. Muzzleflash (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And now? Are these "proposals" in the news?  Is the opening ceremony of this "get-together" in the news?  Is there anything else to report besides the Chinese claims of mass spending?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The proposed news item is the Belt and Road Forum. The blurb can be simply revised (these kinds of revisions I believe are routine) if the opening ceremony is not the appropriate framing and instead the whole event should be focus. In any case I am not dwelling on whether this item should be included or not. My issue is with the quality of your participation. The assertions you have made aren't true and are readily found to be untrue with a bit of research. You've said that this was minor diplomatic chit-chat and that it has barely made the primary news outlets. Clearly this is treated as a big event and has received a lot of coverage (for example the New York Times front page on the day of or day before the event). Whether the pledges of the event come through is besides the point. The problem is that you are participating without being informed and that is highly frustrating to others who are putting in the effort. It is discouraging to put in effort with a nomination if someone who just shoots from the hip with any assertion can put an end to the proposal. If this is reflection of your level of conscientiousness in other discussions for proposals then you are not making a contribution to a process that functions well. Muzzleflash (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support in principle but oppose as written because of the global & international coverage (not so much in the Anglosphere, but that's why we have systemic bias). The current blurb I don't agree with though. We could target Belt and Road Initiative once something happens. Banedon (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I favor posting actual events, like a Moon or Mars landing, not talks about such plans. I've actually worked onarticles regarding the rail connections between Russia and China, so I find this of interest, but paper is paper, and air is air. μηδείς (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless something happens - ITN has moved away from "big conference opens" or "big trade fair opens" blurbs, towards looking at what actually happens at such events. BencherliteTalk 08:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Eurovision Song Contest 2017

 * Oppose This event has a poor reputation now and seems less significant than other reality-show song contests such as American Idol, X-Factor and the rest. One might as well report whatever singles are charting but my impression is that that scene is quite moribund now since the death of the 45, Top of the Pops and other 20th century staples. Andrew D. (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This is listed at WP:ITNR, so it's probably going to be posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just beat me to saying it; if you feel it does not merit being on the ITNR list, please propose its removal. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:CCC, WP:IAR and WP:NOTLAW are policies and so trump a feeble guideline like ITNR. The Eurovision Song Contest is a laughing stock – low-grade tabloid news contrary to WP:NOTNEWS, which is another policy . Andrew D. (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If that's all the case, then it should be easy for you to propose its removal and get consensus for it. Good luck to you 331dot (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would note the irony of you citing the fact that policies are not law to say that ITNR policies/guidelines should be ignored per the policies you cite. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and essays are a sprawling, illogical mess and I try to avoid getting sucked into that morass per WP:NOTBURO and WP:NOTFORUM. Our key principles are well-summarised at pages like WP:5, WP:TRI and WP:SIMPLE.  If people think the Eurovision Song Contest has merit, they should please state their case rather than trying to fork the discussion.  As and when we have a conclusion, ITNR can then be updated to reflect it.  This is the point of WP:NOTLAW, "written rules themselves do not set accepted practice". Andrew D. (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ITN/R is both written and accepted practice for ITN. For foreseeable events, it serves a very good purpose of disassociating the notability discussion (which can be had, at length, at any other time of the year) with the time-sensitive article prep. As discussed here, disputing ITN/R items when they appear at ITN/C is unnecessary and disruptive. --LukeSurlt c 08:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ITNR is a guideline and so says itself that it is subject to commonsense and exceptions. I have cited multiple policies in support of my position.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Guess I should support to counter that above. This is ITNR. Argue that case elsewhere. — foxj 09:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment/support - as nominator. And ITN/R. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but wait until the winner is known. The article is in very good shape as usual.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as noted by Kiril, the article (as always) is in excellent condition, something Wikipedia should be proud of generally speaking, and this is definitely something our readers will be looking for, so the opposition is completely misplaced. Last year's article drew around 3/4 million hits in two days, so to make claims that this isn't as significant as X-Factor (sic), really aren't relevant.  Our readers are looking for this.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted without bolding Sobral; it is not customary to bold winners of events, whether it's elections, sports, etc. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  ♠ 01:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As per earlier years the winners name should be bolded. It has been done consistently. --BabbaQ (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should discuss why ESC is an exception? -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  ♠ 09:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just bolding the event seems fine to me - that's the story rather than the performer (who in all likelihood will fade back to obscurity in short order). --LukeSurlt c 09:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Ransomware Infection

 * Support Huge news. Article is in decent shape. (I added a blurb since there was none specified.)-Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral as we have generally not posted large scale hacks (eg the 1B Yahoo! account one) and this is a much smaller scale, but at the same time, this was a proactive attack rather than simply data/identify info, so there's a more immediate impact. --M ASEM (t) 02:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support & comment: we didn't post the 1B Yahoo! account one as we posted the earlier 500M Yahoo! breach. Furthermore I don't think both breaches can easily be compared in severity (as of right now) as both attacks' ultimate damages aren't clear. --Fixuture (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. International news with real consequences in many countries. By the way, someone named Kurt Knutsson who was on Fox Business blamed it on last month's Wikileaks document "dump"--perhaps this should be mentioned in this article, if there is an RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - now apparent that this in not just an issue affecting the NHS. Lead story in many news sources, article at an acceptable standard. Mjroots (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I was actually gonna nominate it myself once I thought the article had reached the accepted standard for ITN. Someone just beat me to it.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 05:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  ♠ 07:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support. Big story, decent article.Pawnkingthree (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Nodosaur fossil

 * Oppose The discovery of the fossil (Back in 2013) would have been the proper point for ITN. It going on public display is not really a ITN-type story. --M ASEM (t) 22:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The miners who discovered it, and even scientists, most likely didn't realize the extent of preservation they were dealing with, given that the fossil was inside a 15,000-pound chunk of rock that shattered while they were lifting it, and it took them years to unveil the osteoderm hidden underneath. That is probably the reason why this story didn't get much attention in 2011, so obviously it wasn't nominated here on ITN back then. I've modified the blurb to emphasize the fact that this was the first time it went on public display. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose this should say it's the first time the fossil has ever been on public display (since most of the intervening years were spent on restoration work). Even then though, I am not convinced it is at ITN level - it is after all only one kind of dinosaur, and coverage looks pretty scant. Banedon (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above. The first time on public display is not really an ITN story unless the object in question has been notably not on public display for a couple of decades at least, or it is truly the first of it's kind by which I mean more than just the first of this species of one specific type of dinosaur. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Mauno Koivisto

 * Oppose very much under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ely Ould Mohamed Vall has 20 references and made it into the RD line. He was president of Mauritania from 2005-2007. Koivisto has 19 references and even a picture. Not much difference from someone who was on the RD line last week in terms of references. 1779Days (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not about the absolute number of references, it's about ensuring that BLPs are properly and comprehensively referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ^ What he said. This is very much lacking in references - whole paragraphs have no references. Oppose BencherliteTalk 21:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To be more specific, his life between post-Second World War and the end of his presidency (1945-1994) in this article is mostly unreferenced. Obits might be able to fill in some gaps and, as a public figure, there'd be book sources about his presidency or biographies about him by now. Fuebaey (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Mastung suicide bombing

 * Oppose - If we see the list of terror incidents in Pakistan this year itself, it is sadly quite common. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article good quality and covers all the bases.  Spencer T♦ C 14:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb, while terrorist attacks in Pakistan are not uncommon, this seems to be an assassination attempt. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good to go, serious incident, suitable article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose If anything, we should just have an islamist violence ongoing section at this point. We ignore the use of the third largest bomb ever killing almost 100 people (if not more) but post such routine massacres weekly?  Damnatio memoriae would be a better policy than immortalizing mass-murderers. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, it was three supports plus the nominator when you removed the "ready"tag, which has now been replaced once again, simply delaying the posting by 24 hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Per RM. – Sca (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. Marking as Ready. Mamyles (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. BencherliteTalk 12:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Premier League
I think it should be posted now if the article is ready. Chelsea have clinched the title--that's the notable news event. I support on notability grounds when the article is ready for posting.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose just look at last year's article to see a decent summary, nothing of that sort exists in this stats "article". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggest we wait until the end of the season on 21 May. Chelsea will be awarded the trophy on that day, and we will also be able to include the relegated teams in the blurb.Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think ITN ever posts who's been relegated from the Premier League, or indeed from anywhere else. Waiting for the formal trophy presentation or confirmation of all the relegated teams is unnecessary. BencherliteTalk 07:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I won't object if it's posted now but football is about both ends of the table you know :)Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's indisputable that Chelsea are the victors, but the article needs an update, vis-a-vis last year's version. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry Rambles, but I dispute it. I believe they're owned by some Russian guy, so this is obviously fake news.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Francesco Schettino

 * Oppose posting the status quo (the verdict being upheld) as well as the mere start of his sentence.  331dot (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nomination per 331dot. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose not really news, the criminal remains the criminal. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose not ITN worthy.Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn, as consensus is reasonably clear so no need for others to spend time on it. Thanks.   Murph 9000  (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Mark Colvin

 * Weak oppose a few unreferenced claims in this BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support following improvements, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support more references now added - well-known and respected broadcaster and foreign correspondent in Australia with international connections including both sides of family JennyOz (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

RD: Geoffrey Bayldon

 * Oppose mainly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment If every entry in that "TV and film credits" section needs an inline citation then that is a Herculean task that I for one I am not going to volunteer for... --Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment convention is that a bluelinked credit serves as verification. Just need to sort out the redlinked ones. Mjroots (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, lazy convention is that a bluelink verifies, that, of course, is completely fallacious as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Many of those blue links don't even mention Bayldon let alone have any reliable sources verifying his appearances.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Bahamian general election

 * Comment Could you please reference Perry Christie? There are also red links in the article.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: The Hubert Minnis article needs some prose update about this election. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. The article of both men have been updated, and I also suggested an alternate blurb. 183.184.157.140 (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - but another blurb as suggested above.BabbaQ (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support and good to go, but please, please, please pipelink The Bahamas without a redirect. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. EternalNomad (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. BencherliteTalk 07:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Qian Qichen

 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support No problem here.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

RD: Christopher Boykin

 * Oppose until GNG tag is resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Almost all the sources are about his death, so even though the GNG tag was removed, I'm not convinced it would survive AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I hadn't thought of that until I read the sources, 95% of which relate to his death. Borderline insignificant and probably AFD-worthy unless proven otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] James Comey firing

 * Oppose unless Trump is impeached over this matter. The head of the FBI serves at the pleasure of the President and the official reason isn't nefarious(even if the timing and unsaid reasons might be). I've nevertheless suggested a blurb with "fired" as that's the typical American term. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's big news because of all the conspiracy theories. This is an encyclopedia so I think we should avoid promoting this kind of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think this is a very minor event, magnified by the sensationalist media. We are not USApedia. Someone lost their job, but who cares? If something significant comes out of the investigation, perhaps we could post something about it, but it is too early to tell.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, and additionally because this is unsurprising. This guy was on thin ice with every player in the 2016 election; with Clinton for going public about classified emails on her personal server and failing to pass on espionage cases against Trump to the prosecutor, and with Trump for failing to pass on cases for the former and for making ambiguous statements regarding the latter.  It's almost like he wanted to get fired.128.214.53.104 (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This is currently the lead story on the major English-language news websites outside the US, with unusual levels of coverage (eg, banner headlines, multiple follow up stories, etc). I'd usually not support an item like this given the risk of being US-centric, but the level of coverage is very significant. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support because of the international interest as noted by nomninator and Nick-D (not that this has any chance of being posted as any story with a connection to US politics is shot down by the "USApedia" crowd.)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you feel this way. Please assume good faith. We do post US stories when they seem significant, which does not appear to be the case here.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Let's be honest; if Clinton were President, he'd be fired anyway.--WaltCip (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - Every analysis agrees this is saber-rattling, and certainly not a "final" result of the prior Russian hacking claims and the Hillary Clinton email controversy alongside other partisan politics. At the same time, while we can factually report on the firing, there is no way under RECENTISM we can write a neutral article on this (everyone is throwing a zillion reasons for the firing into the ring), which is why we are exactly not a newspaper for this very reason, and why we have to look past "its front page headlines in every newspaper" for ITN posting. --M ASEM (t) 13:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Domestic politics story not of interest to most people outside the USA.   Gfcvoice (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The blurb doesn't really explain what a "FBI" is, and what country it relates to. Gfcvoice (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure the wording on the blurb ("sacked") or the alternative blurb ("fired") could easily be understood if that person reads English as a secondary, or even tertiary language. Emphrase - 💬 | 📝 13:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Proposed a more neutral blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And added another as while I don't think this should be posted, a significant part of this story is that this was Trump's decision. --M ASEM (t) 13:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * At the Justice Department's recommendation. There's too much nuance to just attribute this firing to Trump's whim.--WaltCip (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I was trying to be clear that this came from the executive branch; as I understand it, Congress through checks & balances can also impeach/remove the FBI director. --M ASEM (t) 17:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support This has been the lead story on the television (local & national) news, & has been widely considered not only to be a surprise but to have ominous timing as this firing came as Comey was leading an investigation into Trump/Russian connections. (Note how the letter firing Comey mentions the former head of the FBI denied Trump did anything wrong three times. The lady protesteth too much.) -- llywrch (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The latest in the endless series of "Trump did..." nominations. And again, we don't post ordinary political stories from any country other than elections. If he is impeached I think that would have to be posted, but as of right now there is not even a credible claim that he has done anything illegal. I would point out that we avoided posts about the former South Korean President's troubles until she was actually impeached. What we have here is a media firestorm, largely manufactured by a nakedly hostile press. And I say that as someone who detests Donald Trump and (almost) everything he represents. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I really think you are downplaying the significance of this. The FBI director being fired whilst actively investigating the US President is unprecedented. It is not an ordinary political story, nor is it manufactured by the media.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – This event is getting widespread coverage, but it doesn't pack the significance requisite for ITN, and outside the U.S. this story will fade quickly. (For some Americans of a certain age, it does smack of 'Trick' Nixon's infamous firing of Archibald Cox (1973), which led to his downfall, but the circumstances are quite different.) Suggest close. Sca (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest we WP:SNOW close this. It's an internal political post with no major international consequences. Yes it's making headlines, but we can't go posting blurbs for every comparable post around the world. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "International consequences" are not a requirement for posting. Besides, Russia. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose We're not going to post every step of Trumpgate. Wait for the impeachment of Donald Trump. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing to neutral. This is majorly "in the news", even though sometimes ITN doesn't post news. Dismissal of FBI Director James Comey is also a pretty decent article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This is obviously a pivotal moment in the Trump story, reminiscent of Nixons Saturday Night Massacre. This is the top story of my local non-US media. I have sympathy for the people who say we should not post *everything* from internal US politics, but this is the make-or-break point, and we should post this. Thue (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To draw comparisons to the Saturday Night Massacre is pure partisanship. For one thing, it's not even the same thing. An FBI director firing is not unprecedented; Bill Clinton did this in 1992.--WaltCip (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes but Clinton was not under investigation at the time so there was no suggestion of a conflict of interest.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Trump is not under investigation now, per the letter. Or are you suggesting Trump lied? Can't imagine. *snicker* --WaltCip (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. ITN is becoming one of the worst WP:IDLI and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS venues on the encyclopedia these days. I hear the thing about us not being a celebrity news ticker, and the value in covering less well known stories from around the world, but when something hits the headlines of all the major outlets around the world, and is new and unexpected, we should generally always be posting it. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really: There are primarily two reasons that this is not an appropriate story to post. First is that it is the type of story that we as an encyclopedia are not equipped to or don't cover well in the immediate time frame due to issues outlined at WP:RECENTISM. It is a fact he was removed, and we have brief reasoning in the dismissal letter, but every news and political analysis is throwing speculation at the true reason, which is something that, if we ever know, it won't be for months or years from this point. As such, we have to be aware of the media spectacle on this situation and how that impacts neutrality and permanence of information from an encyclopedic view. Second is that we really strive to avoid posting the same topic multiple times over, and this is just a long string of stories tied to Trump's election. We expect many many more, and this is a case of we must be necessarily selective to avoid ITN becoming the Trump-ticker. If this were to follow the pattern set by Nixon, then the larger story would be the potential impeachment proceedings, which clearly is much more of a world-changing event. But we don't know that, CRYSTALBALL and all. Hence its better not to focus on a midpoint of unknown consequences that has a very limited effect on the world; coupled with the first point about RECENTISM, we need to stay out of this day-to-day. If you want news, don't use Wikipedia for it. --M ASEM (t) 18:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't usually post government managers being fired. This is not even a cabinet-level post, so I do not believe it reaches the significance level required for an ITN blurb. We would, of course, post a successful impeachment if it comes to that. Mamyles (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This oppose seems unconsidered. This is Trump firing the person investigating Trump, which is an obvious conflict of interest. Yout "oppose" only cites "government managers being fired", which suggests you are entirely missing the point. Thue (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a disingenuous objection. Were the head of MI6 or the Russian Federal Security Service fired without warning in the middle of investigating a high-level government official, that would make international news, even here in the rather insular USA. And last time a high-level official was fired during a similar investigation was during Watergate, which led the impeachment & resignation of the US President. This is a significant step towards that event. -- llywrch (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTALBALL.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is unreasonable or disingenuous to advocate that we refrain from posting until or unless an individual is convicted of wrongdoing. Leadership changes occur often in government agencies. The significance of this story is not that the FBI director was fired, it is the accusation that the president fired him in retaliation. Mamyles (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting any one of the proposed blurbs, which only mentions the FBI firing but not that accusation, is only telling half of the story. And it would be premature and possibly a BLP violation to accuse the president of corruption in a blurb, given that no one has been charged. Mamyles (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Fake news!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose After reading the other comments here and watching the press briefing and the justifications of the firing I really don't see the legitimacy of the conspiracy that would make this event worth posting.75.73.150.255 (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

RD: Robert Miles

 * Note a fair-use image has been added to the infobox of this article. I have disputed that fair use rationale. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose on abuse of non-free image alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean the seven citation needed tags and specifically marked weasel words aren't worthy of opposition? You're getting soft ;) Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll get on to that once the image is excised! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The image is gone, but the article is clearly in no state to be posted. This is one of those I'd have a go at, but it's past midnight here - sorry. Black Kite (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The image is back. It has been nominated for deletion at Files for discussion/2017 May 11, but seems likely to remain in the article until that concludes, by which time this nomination will be stale. I wont withdraw it just though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] South Korea election

 * Note this is WP:ITN/R - I've adjusted the template to note that. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The "Registered candidates" section needs referencing and it will need some prose about the results when they are in (the polls don't close until 11:00 UTC). The "Nominations" section would benefit from improved formatting and some prose in the "Opinion polling" section would be welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Official results still coming in, but reported exit polls are showing that, as expected, Moon has won by a substantial margin. I've suggested a blurb. --LukeSurlt c 13:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As we are in the Fake News Era, I think we ought to wait until the official results come in before posting.--WaltCip (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that each "Candidate" subsection needs expansion for this, at least a paragraph or two establishing a short BG on the candidate and the platform/party/whatever they ran under. Just supplying a picture looks like a lack of effort here. --M ASEM (t) 13:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I will note again: while this is ITNR and the results are well sourced and established, there is very little about the candidates or the issues (outside of this resulting from the impeachment). Stats are great, but we need context too. --M ASEM (t) 01:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Given the recent international coverage of North Korean activities and the impeachment of South Korea's previous incumbent, I think this is appropriate. From what I see, the article looks substantial enough as well. South Nashua (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Added image and altblurb for consideration. Neegzistuoja (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Included image is now nominated for deletion on Commons, as cropped from an image that belongs to Yonhap and is not freely licensed. Revent <b style="font-family:comic sans ms;color:#006400">talk</b> 23:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The electoral commission has confirmed the result (CNN). There are numbers in the results table in the article, but no reference for these. CNN cite their two-decimal place percentages to the National Election Commission but it doesn't look like these numbers have been published yet on the English language Electoral Commission site.
 * Also the article suffers from the "opinion polling bloat" (a term I've just coined) that afflicts many election articles. It contains inordinate quantities of data on opinion polls, which may have been interesting for persons trying to prognosticate the result over the past few months, but are much less interesting now the actual results are in. Much of this could be split off into a new article or even simply removed. --LukeSurlt c 09:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * With some WP:BOLD use of collapsed tables I've tidied up the opinion polling section. --LukeSurlt c 14:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support given the international attention about the impeachment of the former president. Emphrase - 💬 | 📝 13:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Moon Jae-In.jpg is CC0 and should be adequate for illustration here. --LukeSurlt c 14:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but due to a request made to me by someone else to look at it, that image is now also at DR. There CC-0 license is not evidenced by the source of the image, and appears invalid. Revent <b style="font-family:comic sans ms;color:#006400">talk</b> 22:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It is certainly notable, especially as today's e-mail newsletter from the Council on Foreign Relations suggests he is 'Open to Visiting Pyongyang,' which could change many things. But Moon Jae-in has too many "citation needed" tags for now. Feel free to ping me when they have been fixed, and I will probably support this nomination.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Conditional support for alternate blurb, which is IMO more readable. High profile election on the heels of a presidential scandal and under the shadow of (yearly) nuclear threats from the north. Conditional on others deeming the article worthy of linking, though it seems ok to me. ansh 666 05:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. This is an important election with enormous consequences for the world.  I don't understand why this wasn't on the front page ages ago.  --Bowlhover (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So, is this good to go? It seems there has been quite an improvement since I've last checked. --Tone 01:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The article is outdated, claiming votes are still being tallied.--WaltCip (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a national election for a head of state and satisfies WP:ITN/R requirement. I updated the summary and the results sections to make the information more reflective of the present status including the final vote tally. I will try to update the vote tallies for candidates from 'minor parties' over next few hours, but I believe this page is of satisfactory status to go onto the front page. Sydneyphoenix (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I see that most of "citation needed" tag on [Moon Jae-in]] page have been addressed. The official results will likely take weeks or longer to be updated on English version of the electoral commission website; if desired we can organize a full breakdown of results from the Korean version of the electoral commission website. I see that the opinion poll section has already been tied up, thanks to User:LukeSurl. There are paragraphs for major parties' primaries including the credentials of the candidates that ran in the primaries; I arranged the list of the candidates in these primaries sections to make them easier to read. I would argue that the detailed information regarding the candidates can be deferred to the pages dedicated to these individuals. Sydneyphoenix (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, election article seems good to go but the article on Moon himself is still littered with tags. Any chance that native Korean speakers/editors might be able to help resolve some of these issues? Mélencron (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted with the syntax of the alt blurb (so it doesn't look just like the French blurb right under it), but without his party as I don't think it is typically included for presidential election postings. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  ♠ 06:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Basuki Tjahaja Purnama

 * Support as well-covered, encyclopedic, and an actually well-written and -referenced BLP. There's an article for November 2016 Jakarta protests.  It might have a non-bold place in the blurb.  That this has happened in the nominally secular Indonesia has given this a special kind of saliency.128.214.53.104 (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose BLP is written in odd mixture of tenses, several unreferenced claims, the sentence will be appealed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * An "appeal" is ex post facto in Indonesia. Subject is in custody and serving the sentence as of now.  This isn't a case where he gets to lounge around on leave and groups of lawyers have at it; he's been sentenced and is serving that right now.128.214.53.104 (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm fully aware of how appeals work, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose I didn't get a sense of the larger international context from reading the article on him. Also just removed some POV language, which isn't a deal breaker, but is a concern. South Nashua (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose In the lead paragraph is "Basuki is recognized to be a clean politician, with a strong stance against corruption and his straight-talking style" - sourced to ... an Australian student newspaper. Large amounts of poor English and grammar. "Awards and Achievements section" mostly unsourced. A number of other statements unsourced too.  In no way fit to be linked at the Main Page. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that this is simply an individual being found guilty of a crime which is written into law in his country. The longest sentence he could have received was five years.  This is unremarkable, perhaps another DYK possibility.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, purely on article quality. It needs some general cleanup and a little more sourcing. However this is significant news. Appeals are almost routine in major criminal cases and have never stopped us from posting convictions in the past. If the article can be brought up to scratch this should be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose While it's very tragic that he has to go to jail for this, I'm not convinced that this is internationally-significant enough for a ITN blurb. I guess the reason it's in the news is the sensational aspect of a Muslim country jailing a Christian governor for blasphemy.. but that's not good enough for Wikipedia's ITN. He's a governor, not a head of state, and I'm sure more than a few governors are being convicted around the world. He's also a lame duck at his point, having lost the election and with a few months before his term ends. And in the grand scheme of things two years—while really tragic—is a relatively short prison term (I hope I don't sound cold-hearted when saying that!). HaEr48 (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Homo naledi

 * This dating is extremely sketchy, and if it is true, it means that Homo naledi had no input into our DNA. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This is a fascinating discovery, and the article gives a pretty good overview. The researchers used six different methods to establish the dates. TimidGuy (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support interesting discovery. definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Okay, so you guys never listen. This "news" is of a previous scientific dating being disputed. What makes you think this new date is correct? Scientists reported the previous date, and you would have breathlessly said, "fascinating", "interesting discovery. definitely for ITN" like little parrots. This story is an embarrassment to science. Putting it on the Front Page of Wikipedia is likely to turn out to be an embarrassment too. Keep in mind that the original discovery was posted to ITN in 2015. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Making ad hominem attacks really bolsters your argument. Killiondude (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but I can see his point. This is only a new dating, and only "suggests" coexistence with homo sap - it doesn't look like front page news to me. Black Kite (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the first and only dating of Homo naledi. Previously, what we had were just age estimates based on the morphology of the fossils. The dating just reported was obtained using 5 different techniques carried out in multiple laboratories, with all the results being fairly consistent. The most critical datings were based on blind duplicate samples dated in different labs. It doesn't represent an ideal situation with easily datable volcanic deposits or coexisting fauna, but it is definitely not "extremely sketchy". WolfmanSF (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * From what I've found, this is the first time the actual team doing the research has published their dating results in serious academic journals. I'm not sure what previous dating you are referring to... maybe you can give a reference because the research team has specifically stated that they've taken this many years to publish their results because they wanted to be extremely thorough. Regardless, thanks for everyone's consideration. Marc Mywords (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Opppose per Abductive. This is a debate that will not be settled over night, and has not been settled by this one paper. μηδείς (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the extensive and careful work by multiple labs that has gone into the reported dating, there is little likelihood of the general conclusion being greatly modified by future reports. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The blurb is wrong: the reported date (about 235,000 years old) is Middle Pleistocene, not Late Pleistocene. Ucucha (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks and feel free to edit/update. Marc Mywords (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support This is a fascinating finding because it shows an archaic-looking small-brained Homo species coexisting with much more modern human relatives and possibly modern human ancestors as recently as a quarter of a million years ago, not long before the time our own species first appeared. How they thus coexisted is a mystery. It indicates the diversity of recent hominins is considerably greater than most suspected. The only other indication we have of such a small-brained Homo species being alive so recently is the finding of Homo floresiensis in Indonesia, and these creatures went extinct when modern humans arrived, so there is no indication of prolonged coexistence in that case. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. As far as I can tell, Abductive is just wrong here.  This is the first time any physically derived date for these samples has been published.  Previously, there had been speculation based on their anatomical resemblance to other species that these samples were likely to be a couple million years old, but there was no measured date to support or refute that assertion.  Now that we actually have information about their age, the result is surprising and important for what it suggests about the history of early human relatives in Africa.  As with any science, it is possible the authors may be wrong, but I don't see that as reason to withhold this.  The evidence presented is reasonable, credible, and not disputed by any similar measurements.  As important, the article seems to be in good shape and this seems like a story that would be of interest to ITN readers.  Dragons flight (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Added shortened altblurb. Fuebaey (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support for blurb. Very significant discovery and the article is in good shape (although it probably needs to be expanded further). This is the type of notable global news that this section is made for. --Fixuture (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I did expand it a bit. To summarize, the arguments of the two opposing votes reflect a misunderstanding of the situation. The newly reported dates are the very first dates reported for this fossil find and there is no major controversy around them. The late dates for such a small-brained member of our genus represent a truly stunning finding that is "at odds with previous thinking about human evolution." WolfmanSF (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Posted alrblurb. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hanford tunnel collapse

 * Oppose Interesting, but not a big news story. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. It's a featured article, plus the tunnel is one used to store radioactive plutonium, a leak of which is not reported often. Admittedly, it's not a very big spill. 183.184.157.140 (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb. It's a FA, but would personally like to see more news references and a more detailed update on this event in the article. Fuebaey (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Black Kite. Yes, they had to rush to take steps to fill in the collapse and minimize radioactivity leakage, but as it was already a site isolated from the public, it posed very little threat to anyone beyond workers already there and who were evacuated immediately. A cautionary tale but not a major event. --M ASEM (t) 23:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Gran Apache

 * Weak support article needs a couple of tweaks, but otherwise is well-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am more than happy to perform those tweaks if you could share them? With your eye for spotting weaknesses perhaps the article can benefit from your input?  MPJ  -DK 22:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I did a little copyediting. I'd also be happy to fix any other concerns brought up. Nikki  ♥  311   23:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Gholamreza Pahlavi

 * Oppose honours section mainly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Honours section has been referenced and the article is in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support and marking ready, good to go. BencherliteTalk 21:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] France election

 * Support. Macron won.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Regardless of whether or not this is an ITNR item, this election is big international news, given its effect on France's ongoing membership of the European currency union. Gfcvoice (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support pending update of course. EternalNomad (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Large-scale coverage of election and current Brexit negotiations make this significant. Johnsnoa (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as this is important for the EU's future. AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support pending official confirmation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI. Le Pen conceded. No reason to wait.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Given that Le Pen has called Macron to concede, I see nothing wrong with putting it up as soon as possible. --Joshualouie711talk 18:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Sam Walton (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Macron image added above - does this ITN item warrant the posting of his photo? Gfcvoice (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably, if nothing else the previous image has been there for nearly a week. Sam Walton (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the image should be put up. Would it be better if there's one where he's facing the text? Nohomersryan (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please remove the picture of the snooker player. Add Macron's.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Why don't we add this picture instead please? I think he looks better.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * On Macron's talkpage, User:Mélencron suggested black-and-white would be a problem. Do others agree with him?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Rais Khan

 * Weak oppose Sourcing is mostly complete, but uses Youtube videos directly which can be unreliable. If we can get reliable secondary sources as replacement, I would support this. EternalNomad (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Replaced the 1st YouTube link, supported the 2nd with a secondary source. No secondary source found for the third but the video confirms he performed in the PTV show. Request to reconsider vote. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose lead needs expansion, otherwise it's good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support not the most sparkling article, but good enough for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Marking it as ready. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Kentucky Derby

 * The result needs a narrative and some referencing of that large table. Stephen 05:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Added Jlvsclrk (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support looks good now. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Question. I believe we only put the horse's name and the jockey's, but not the trainer? 331dot (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted the blurb as it is. Easy enough to remove the trainer's name if we decide we don't like it. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: FWIW, it being a Pletcher trained horse is kind of a big deal because he was something like 43-1 going into this Derby and so actually winning another one (while tying the record of D. Wayne Lukas for the most Derby starters) was kind of a big deal.   Montanabw (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Pletcher's article is a bit poor though, lots of unsourced material - wouldn't be good enough to link from the main page for RD, so best to leave it. Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Buhe (politician)

 * Support short but fully cited, and further details about his life might be difficult to come by (at least in English), given the part of the world we are talking about. BencherliteTalk 17:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Bencherlite.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Afghanistan–Pakistan military conflict

 * Oppose It did make the headlines in the two countries, but it isn't the first time such skirmishes have occured. As the Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes page shows, cross border exchanges are always deadly.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 05:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've updated the article's details further with a decent selection of references, and have reconsidered my vote. The alternative blurb looks fine. Changing to support.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - from what Mar4d wrote, this incident is significantly deadlier than the last, which left 2000 people homeless but apparently didn't kill anyone. Besides, it's been three months since the last incident. This is a conflict between two nations, making it an international incident worth posting (especially since it is headline news in two countries!). Banedon (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support looks like a possible storm in a teacup (albeit with diplomatic sabre waggling) but certainly a reasonable article and certainly in the news, and certainly of interest to a large number of English language speakers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted with a different blurb that avoids mentioning specific casualty numbers, seeing as each side disputes the other's figures... BencherliteTalk 18:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Pull Absurd. Nine dead in border skirmish of decades old civil war is posted when 94 dead using third largest bomb ever is dismissed as unimportant?  Absolute bias. We don't even have four supports here. μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So because something you wanted posted didnt happen, you want this pulled... why? And i realise that i am supposed to assume good faith and all but this is just borderline trolling. How about you step back, leave the bomb be and take this as something entirely different, which it evidently is. This is just you not liking it and nothing else. A border skirmish between two sovereign nations in my oppinion, and that counts for nothing in the grand scheme of things, certainly is scores more important than some bomb dropped on a "random" hillside. 91.49.79.251 (talk) 08:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Look again - there ARE four supports (albeit one of them is "weak").--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support posting - conflict between nations, international incident status and by that worthy of posting.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - Article quality is sufficient for main page. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

RD: Adolph Kiefer

 * Oppose one section entirely unreferenced, other uncited claims too. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose more citations needed in every section except "Early life and education". Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ely Ould Mohamed Vall

 * Support looks just about passable, brief overview of his life, pretty well referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks OK to me. More about his early life wouldn't go amiss but what's there is good. Marking as ready. Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good condition for posting. Someone please post this ASAP. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted BencherliteTalk 05:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] South Asia Satellite

 * There are on average about 100 satellite launched each year. What is special about this one? Stephen 07:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @Stephen As I understand it, this is the first communications satellite where the owner won't charge other users for use—instead it's a gift from India to its neighbors/an effort to force India's neighbors into a dependant relationship (delete to taste). If the notion of "communications infrastructure as a public good" goes on to become A Thing, this may be hailed as a defining moment by future generations, but that's very much crystal-balling at present. &#8209; Iridescent 07:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The reasons why the launch is special include (but is not limited to) the following:
 * 1) it is launched by a great power
 * 2) it is (reported to be) a landmark event in the Indian space program in terms of its:
 * a) domestic development ("The South Asia satellite weighs 2,230 kilograms and is carrying 12 top-of-the-line communication transponders, making it India's most significant space project since February's record-breaking launch of 104 mini satellites with a single rocket." CNN)
 * b) regional significance ("In a first, India's space agency launched a satellite Friday to provide communications services to its neighboring countries."CNN),
 * 3) its geopolitical implications ("There is no doubt the country is actively trying to counter China's growing influence over its neighbours through this satellite." BBC), ("Experts say the move is also designed to counter China's growing influence in South Asia." CNN)
 * 4) its financing in terms of its:
 * a) payment requirements ("This 'gift' from India has no parallels in the space-faring world. All other current regional consortia are commercial for-profit enterprises." BBC), ("...it's the first communications satellite not to charge for use," User:Iridescent)
 * b) burden distribution relative to the number of beneficiaries ("The South Asia satellite, funded entirely by India, was announced several years ago with the intention of serving all eight members of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)." CNN)
 * 5) its distinct potentiality ("The new satellite will provide telecommunications, disaster management and weather forecasting services, among others. A satellite focusing on disaster communications could be particularly beneficial to South Asia, home to about a quarter of the world's population and prone to tropical cyclones, heat waves, earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides and floods." CNN)
 * If the winner of the 2017 World Snooker Championship can get a spot on the ITN template, then surely this news item can/should too. Blagamaga (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - From the "gift" viewpoint Sherenk1 (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, in case my comments above didn't make it obvious. India alone has launched well over a hundred satellites this year alone, and there's nothing obviously significant about this one. While it's the first communications satellite not to charge for use, it's certainly not the first provider of free satellite services—GPS and GLONASS have both been operational for decades, for instance. &#8209; Iridescent 09:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as a notable event, geopolitically and otherwise. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As indicated, this satellite does not seem to stand out enough to warrant posting; free satellite access is not new, nor is a country trying to influence other countries to be in its orbit of influence, or to keep up with other countries doing so. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Per above especially the geopolitical aspect of it. It isn't just about India providing free stuff that is at issue here. Wingwraith (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as excellently argued by Blagamaga. I don't agree with everything - e.g. #1 is arguable as can be seen from the great power article, 2a is also arguable since it sounds like a domestic Indian achievement without international significance. But the remaining points are quite convincing. This has international implications and geopolitical importance, which is good enough. I would go with Alt 3. Banedon (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Satellite launches happen all the time. If we post this, it will open a floodgate of other satellite launch nominations. Besides, there is a duplicate article (GSAT-9) apart from the target article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfarazbaig (talk • contribs) 17:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose another satellite.... they all have reasons to exist, this one is nice, and well suited to DYK, but not ITN.  I'm not seeing it major on any of the main news websites I regularly visit, so I'd argue that this isn't really even in the news.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Irisdescent and TRM - not notable enough for ITN.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - International implications. The article looks good. Definitely for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Statin/cholesterol

 * Oppose - Reliable 3rd-party source coverage needs to be demonstrated. ITN typically doesn't post wonky scientific studies unless they've received media coverage to demonstrate significance and notability.--WaltCip (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Media coverage in the fake news era cannot possibly be more reliable than positive comments on the research article in the same or other journals, like this one. Count Iblis (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Question if the Nocebo effect is so notable now, why isn't it an article, and why isn't it the target of this nom? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a nocebo article. Andrew D. (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So if it's the real target of this nomination, why isn't it linked and/or the actual target? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose the abstract from The Lancet also says, "Moreover, some patients with SAMS might be able to tolerate a lower dose than the dose that leads to SAMS, longer dose intervals, or an alternative statin." In other words, statins do cause muscle pain, and the nocebo effect is only one factors of many. μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per WP:MEDDEF, "For biomedical content, primary sources should generally not be used." Andrew D. (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Primary source research. Even if covered in media, not a review. And I'm sure Pfizer, Servier and Leo Pharma, who funded the research, would love to have more people on statins.  Spencer T♦ C 04:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sounds like the material is too esoteric to be included...although FWIW I am sure that the study is important as it is published in the Lancet afterall. Wingwraith (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] 2012 Delhi gang rape

 * Oppose. Granted, this was a high-profile case, but "court upholds sentence for murder conviction" is utterly routine. Besides, the source you cite states that The four men still have the right to file a review petition in the Supreme Court, so this is just one stage in the sentencing process, not a final sentencing. &#8209; Iridescent 11:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Iridescent ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Come back if/when they are all hanged. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose death sentences, and them being upheld, is not newsworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Death sentences are simply too common to be featured in ITN. EternalNomad (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait death sentences my be common, but stories as notorious as this are not. How many executions in the US make headlines in non-English language papers in India?  This horrific crime and its aftermath were news around the world for days. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Comac C919

 * Support The C919 first flight is a major event in aviation. flightglobal's paper was only announcing the date, it did not take place at this time but 1 hour ago: . It isn't china 1st airliner since the Y-10, the Comac ARJ21 was. It took the sky but hadn't landed yet  --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC) (note : flightglobal ref updated)
 * Support given that we posted the aircraft carrier, we should post this. Banedon (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support this is significant because China wants geopolitical influence in the air transit infrastructure of other countries - the article on the earlier Comac ARJ21 has possible operators in Laos, Myanmar and Congo. -- Callinus (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – There seems to be some debate about how "Chinese" it really is. Guardian notes that "the C919 features German landing gear, Franco-American engines and an Austrian interior." Perhaps "claimed as" should be in the blurb? Sca (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's "Chinese" insofar as it was designed in China by the Chinese, and assembled in China by the Chinese. No major aircraft manufacturer uses parts only from one country. Mjroots (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Then the blurb should say "the first Chinese-designed and -built airliner. Sca (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. This is significant. 118.81.59.238 (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready. Mjroots (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Altblurb, offered above. Sca (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Altblurb tweaked, it was not the first per discussion above. Mjroots (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, only six Comac ARJ21 regional jets have been built, whereas according to Reuters the much larger C919 has 570 orders from 23 customers. NYT calls the C919 "the first Chinese-built passenger jetliner," which may not be entirely accurate, but it seems to be the first one aimed at the global market. CNN terms it "China's first big passenger jet," and says "with the C919, China is aiming to become one of the world's top makers of large commercial aircraft." How about inserting "large" in the altblurb? Sca (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good. I recommend the original blurb over the alt blurb. Mamyles (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

RD: William Baumol

 * Everything looks great, except the entirely uncited 'Major publications' and 'Positions and awards' sections. This should not be posted until the sections are sourced or removed. Mamyles (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I will support this once the "Positions and awards" section has been turned into prose and referenced.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support Positions and awards must be referenced, when done it has my full support. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] U.S. House passes AHCA legislation

 * Oppose good faith nom. First we don't generally do domestic political posts for any country other than the ITNR stuff. But this has only passed the House of Representatives. It hasn't even been discussed in the Senate. I doubt I would support it even if it passes the Senate in its current form, but this is like nominating the World Series after the second game. Come on! -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as it's not of international relevance and as it has only passed the House of Representatives. --Fixuture (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Not signed into law, still need to go to through the Senate. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The House bill is already dead, as the Senate has said they are not going to take it up  and will write their own bill instead.  Also, this sort of domestic political/policy matter would not be posted if it were from almost any other nation. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose This won't pass the Senate. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Puerto Rican government-debt crisis

 * Oppose' as insufficiently updated. As far as I can tell, there has been only two sentences of update in this long article, one each at end of the lead and the end of the last section, both simply saying "this happened". While there is a lot of background, anyone wanting to know more about the bankruptcy itself will not be educated by the article. Thryduulf (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The article was extensively updated late last night. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Extensively" and "sufficiently" are not synonyms. It does not contain the material that I would be looking for if I came to the article from an ITN blurb - specifically what the effect of declaring bankruptcy is and what it means for PR, its government and population in any of the immediate, short, medium and long term. There is plenty of background on the long term reasons why it has happened, that part is fine, but the article tells me nothing more about the current news story than the blurb does. Why was it declared today? What difference does it make? It doesn't even tell me whether it has any immediate implications for people living there, let alone what they are (if there are any)? Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Puerto Rico is not a sovereign country. That makes this internal to the US. Banedon (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment When the Netherlands Antilles are dissolved in October 2010, we posted it. The Netherlands Antilles was not a sovereign country, and after dissolution Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten and BES islands are not sovereign countries. That made it internal to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, but we posted it. 222.10.11.169 (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't reading ITN during 2010, but if I get the article you link correctly, there was also an independence referendum in the Netherland Antilles. That makes it fundamentally different from this nomination. Banedon (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose without prejudice unless the situation develops. Per my comments a couple of months ago regarding the Renewable Heat scandal bringing down the Northern Irish government, if this escalates to the level at which the Puerto Rican government becomes so dysfunctional that the US is forced to impose direct rule and administer PR as a de facto colony just to keep the lights on, that would be a significant enough development that it would be perverse not to post it regardless of its only affecting one country, especially since that one country houses 40% of en-wiki's readers. However, things don't appear to have reached that stage yet. &#8209; Iridescent 12:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Iridescent; I don't think this is postable yet, but it could be if the situation deteriorates further, as Iridescent suggests. 331dot (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, purely on article quality. There are orange maintenance tags that have to be resolved before this could be posted. This is the largest, by far, government bankruptcy in the United States. The previous record was $18 billion (Detroit). PR owes over $70 billion in actual bond debt and an addition $50 billion in unfunded obligations. The effects of this are likely to be enormous and are certain to send shock waves through the bond markets. The fact that this primarily involves the United States is not a valid reason for opposing (see "Please do not..." above this section). -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per my above rational. The maintenance tags have been removed and the article appears to be in good shape. (There is a single CN tag but that's not enough for me to withhold support.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose numerous maintenance tags.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed all of the orange maintenance tags because there was no explanation on the article's talk page, and it is unclear what content those tags were challenging. Mamyles (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I'm satisfied with the article quality. While this week's update is just a few sentences, there is a sizable section dedicated to 2017 developments that adds sufficient background. Mamyles (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support newsworthy regardless of "sovereignty" and half-decent article too. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Newsworthy indeed and the article appears to be in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Most of what is said in the article is months of lead up through 2017 and then a few sentences of the news in recent days. Also, it seems like this news is more directed towards the US audience, reading in one article where people were more concerned about other states being affected and the retirement plans of Americans being ruined. However, no one really seemed to care about Puerto Rico specifically. Kinda sad.-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 23:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Newsworthy, which is why the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal put the story on their front-pages today. This was the significant event in the crisis.  It was proceeded by a long series of small events and it will be succeeded by a long series of small events.  Regarding future escalation to "direct rule", the federal Oversight Board already has been given ultimate control over PR's budget and bankruptcy filings, which many readers may first learn from the article.  The Blurb is accurate, although the defaulted bond value is $74B, PR's total obligations are $123B.  The bond markets are international, and the bankruptcy will have international consequences.  While the article is far from perfect, it could use more eyeballs, and the time is now. Lord Monboddo (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * NYT and WSJ are also US newspapers, no? Given that the event is internal to the US, it's not surprising that they're front-page on US newspapers. If it's front page on, say, a Venezuela newspaper, then that's something. Banedon (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * From the blue section near the top of this page... Please don't 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. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That sentence has never made sense to me. If I oppose something because it is internal to the US, I'm effectively also opposing it because it lacks international significance. It is the same argument, worded differently. But if I phrase it in the first way, I get people citing this sentence at me, while nobody does if I phrase it in the second way. Go figure. Banedon (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Does Djibouti have a newspaper? Maybe we can use them as the benchmark for international significance.--WaltCip (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be French, coastal, tropical, small country, civil law, theist, UTC+3, Sunni, Shafi'i, xeric, isomegathermic African bias. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. This affects a larger population than the Detroit bankruptcy, which we posted. 183.185.229.2 (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The bankruptcy of a territory of several million people is pretty notable in my book. Neljack (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Revise posted blurb. Puerto Rico is by law not allowed to declare bankruptcy.  Yes, it's totally bankruptcy in all but name, but officially it's debt restructuring under PROMESA.  Suggest "Puerto Rico undergoes a debt restructuring similar to bankruptcy" instead.  (See this NY Times article as a source: "The coming court proceedings will not be formally called a bankruptcy, since Puerto Rico remains legally barred from using Chapter 9, the bankruptcy route normally taken by insolvent local governments. Instead, Mr. Rosselló petitioned for relief under Title III of the Promesa law")     SnowFire (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You raise a fair point which I had considered yesterday. The problem is that almost all of the reliable sources are using the word bankruptcy to describe this while throwing in a line or two as a sort of disclaimer regarding the technical language of the law. Perhaps we could add "de facto" before the word bankruptcy.
 * I've put in a new blurb. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:ERRORS would be the best place to suggest a new blurb and offer further comments on an issue with the wording.  Spencer T♦ C 04:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

RD: Daliah Lavi

 * Support. The first part of the article is fairly well-referenced. "Filmography" lacks any references, but I'm sure a lot of the movie titles with articles will be referenced enough to show she was featured in them. 118.81.59.238 (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose tagged and barely above stub-level. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

RD: Abdullahi Sheikh Abas, MP and Minister for Public Works and Reconstruction, Somalia.
(For different versions of name please see nomination)
 * I would support this for RD, however there are some uncited statements in the 'Personal life' section. BBC says that 'Mr Abas studied at Kenya's prestigious Nairobi University', which doesn't match up with our article. Mamyles (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Citations needed.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose blurb since he was "just" a member of the government. There are thousands upon thousands of members of governments throughout the world, and deaths aren't that rare. Deaths in a violent incident are rarer, but I still hesitate to say it's at ITN level. Banedon (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose both RD and blurb, article insufficient, tragic death but not notable on its own. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Had this been an opponent of the government assassinating him in a targeted attack I would support the blurb, but this is in effect more of an accident than a murder and likely won't have large ramifications. EternalNomad (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've put in a couple of more inline citations along with an additional reference. As to the confusion over his degree, the University of Nairobi has long had a connection with Moi University, dating right back to the latter's foundation. I'm still trying to nail down the exact affiliation/accreditation relationship between the two though. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as BLP. Article still lacks citations for education and for his work with the UN, amongst others.  Unsuitable for either RD or ITN until these are sourced.  I actually think that the circumstances here might warrant a blurb, but this will go no where without proper citations.128.214.53.104 (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Mishaal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

 * Weak oppose - a few [citation needed]'s and one or two unreferenced sentences. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 07:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ancestry unreferenced and there's a [better source needed] tag on ref 17 which is used to cite some personal life bits and bobs. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. The first paragraph of the personal life section is tagged as needing a better source (it's currently cited to the German Wikipedia), but I don't see this as being particularly contentious and although the German article doesn't have inline citations it does have three book sources which might cover this. It wouldn't pass muster for GA but for RD it's OK imho. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have just trimmed "His manner was reported as serious, quiet, and dignified." from this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Are Datarabia and Fazza reliable sources?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Venezuelan protests

 * Can you suggest a blurb and explain why these should be posted? Merely being in the news is not sufficient. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Something like this: President Maduro has issued a presidential decree creating a 500-member "constituent assembly" to rewrite the constitution despite staged demonstrations demanding elections. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support as ongoing – porominent in international media. --Jenda H. (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for both ongoing and any potential blurb right now. this small infobox update is the only addition to the article in the last week, without a substantive prose addition to the text describing a recent development, there's nothing to post on the main page; ongoing is doubly not appropriate as there are not continuous, ongoing additions being made.  The last major development added to the article happened April 23.  If we were to post this to ongoing, we'd need to see frequent (every day or few days) additions of events which happened over same timescale.  If we were to post this as a blurb, we'd need to see one substantive addition within the past few days.  I see none of that here.  If this is happening in the news, then please add to the article before asking us to assess said article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Venezuela protests are on BBC frontpage right now as well because yet again a protestor was killed: BBC. --Pudeo (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything you just wrote is 100% true. It is also irrelevant to my objection.  I never said anything about the BBC front page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support for ongoing. Massive protests, every-day newscoverage and Venezuela also accounced it will leave the Organization of American States because the international organization criticized its government BBC. Over 30 deaths in the protests so far. The last time this was in ITN (archive), it was pulled out because there was an error in the blurb and not re-added despite overwhelming support. --Pudeo (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as ongoing – Protests which have occurred for over a month are still large and casualties are increasing. Proposals for a new constitution have been made. Rumors are being made of Leopoldo Lopez's health.1 Most information about this is updated in the Timeline of the 2017 Venezuelan protests since we learned in previous articles that the timeline sections of main articles can grow quickly. The article's body does need an update, though.-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 03:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - this event has been ongoing for quite a while and is clearly dominating local news. It has also made international waves as well with items like Venezuela leaving the OAS. Something on this topic should be on ITN, be it as a blurb or as ongoing.
 * It's pointless supporting for blurb or ongoing when the article hasn't been updated, because it won't be posted without it. Jayron noted yesterday that there had been no changes to the article, bar a small infobox change, for a week, and that is still the case. BencherliteTalk 09:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bencherlite and Jayron. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment and article updated: As the Associated Press puts it, "[w ith hundreds of thousands of protesters taking to the streets daily and international pressure mounting, embattled President Nicolas Maduro is doing something that once seemed unthinkable: Tearing up the constitution written by his beloved political godfather, the late President Hugo Chavez]". That's quite the crowd protesting daily for over a month. Also, the article has been updated. Most likely more to come.-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 20:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as ongoing now that article has been updated.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing, and suggest using the timeline page. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted to ongoing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Palestinian hunger strikers

 * I can't even oppose because there's nothing to decide if it needs opposing. What text am I supposed to judge the quality of?  How am I supposed to assess if a Wikipedia article is worth posting on the main page if you can't even point me to text that is supposed to be assessed?  There's no point in assessing non-existent text!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 21:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that this is notable. Prisoners committing suicide is not a rarity, as far as I know. Note that the source cited, Press TV, is an Iranian state-run propaganda instrument and is generally not a reliable source (see WP:Potentially unreliable sources). Mamyles (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Snooker World Championship

 * Weak support Needs a few sentences of prose describing what actually happened in the final. yorkshiresky (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I've prosed the final - can be posted now. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. ITNR, and prose for final is fine. As an aside, discussion for the newest blurb currently on ITN will be archived in 18 hours. The discussion for the oldest was archived nearly ten days ago. So let's get on with it. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is telling when it takes only 3 votes and 8 hours to post a billiards championship that nobody cares about, but an actual newsworthy story about Turkey blocking Wikipedia gets hung up for nearly a week with a ridiculous back-and-forth about "notability". ITN should be dismantled as no longer being relevant.128.227.204.31 (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a "billiards championship that nobody cares about", it's an ITNR item so it's just the quality that needs to be assessed. It's not ITN that needs to be dismantled, it's the community consensus you dislike so much I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "One thing happened I disagree with. Blow the whole thing up"  OK.  We'll do that.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There are some cite tags but nothing too controversial; I'm currently working my way through them.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)