Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/November 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: Jim Nabors

 * Support Article has been updated and sourcing is not too bad for this nomination to be opposed.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The article looks fine.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T♦ C 23:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, several paragraphs that end without a reference, unreferenced discography and filmography... Stephen 23:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Oppose on article quality. It's not awful but it does not really meet our standards right now. Referencing needs work. I'd suggest pulling this pending improvements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There are problems with Nabors being credited as appearing in unnamed episodes or uncredited roles without a further source. Not all of the filmography is problematic when the specific role or episode is identified, but we shouldn't have "varios Carol Burnett episodes".  This is not grounds for pulling; over-all the article is excellent.  It is grounds for commenting out those specific items and adding "selected" to the section header. μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with commenting out large sections. WP:BLP says removed, not swept under the rug. Commenting out bad content so an article can be featured isn't the same as fixing the article. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How in the world do you get from "commenting out those specific items" to "commenting out large sections"? That's a total misrepresentation. μηδείς (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A problem at least to me is that (my impression) Nabors appearances on the Carol Burnett show are recognizable, but weren't trivial/cameo/one-offs, it was just less frequent than "recurring" to be considered within a main credits. Commenting that line to achieve a "quality sourcing" article would be misleading. Whenever these RDs that have unsourced film/discographs are "cleaned" by moving those to a separate page, that's a problem of sweeping a problematic quality issue under the rug that still has to be dealt with at some point. The sourcing has to be done, it's unfortunately more a effort issue than a difficulty in finding sources. --M ASEM (t) 17:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have gone through each TV and film appearance listed and attempted to find a non-IMDB source for the show itself. For the most part that's done, but information on the number of individual episodes he appeared in for each series seems to be only available from IMDB. If this is enough to keep the article from being re-posted then I can only suggest removing the "Notes" column because I am absolutely stumped for finding a RS for that info.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of posting this now, something like this which has a quote from CArol herself commenting on Nabors' frequency of being on her show would be sufficient to source "Various episodes". As more a variety than scripted show, that's fine to me. --M ASEM  (t) 17:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a note with a source that explains he appeared in the premiere episode of each season.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Pull unreferenced discog and mainly unreferenced filmog, not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Pulled until two orange tags are addressed. --Tone 11:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tags as I feel the sections are now sufficiently referenced for an RD.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Very good work, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Reposting. Alex Shih (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jerry Fodor

 * Oppose no prose update on his death, and an unref claim in the biog section. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Prose now updated with The New York Times obit as source. Perhaps you could tag that unref claim?? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support A highly respected American philosopher and cognitive scientist. Article is comprehensive and well written. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. Alex Shih (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD/Blurb: Slobodan Praljak

 * Support, possibly blurb-worthy given the unusual circumstances. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD for now; much more referencing required. Neutral on a blurb; it certainly passes the "unexpected" test but let's get the article quality up to scratch first.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Have added a blurb as an alternative to RD only. Support a blurb. No comment on article quality. -- KTC (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has seen lots of improvement but more could be added, especially regarding the reactions. I think a blurb is better in this case. --Tone 21:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb not so much due to the person but due to the unusual and dramatic death, which is an event itself. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The quality of the article could be better, but the nature of the event is highly unusual. See the recently featured blurb on Ratko Mladić. Inatan (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Normally this would belong to the RD section, but I believe the manner of death itself is unusual enough to merit a blurb. Inatan (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose for now purely on article quality. It needs better referencing and could stand a little expansion, especially about his death. However I Support a blurb in principle given the highly unusual nature of the event. This is pretty much a textbook example of when to support a death blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Looks adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have added an alt blurb. The original is a bit wordy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice rewording. seems to be working on the article right now. It should be ready sometime soon. Inatan (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support alt 2 both to give context over who he is, and because I think past tense is appropriate. Banedon (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just an fyi, on ITN blurbs are written in the present tense. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, but when one event clearly precedes the other, using present tense sounds weird if not outright wrong. Banedon (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support blurb based on the highly unusual manner of death EternalNomad (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Article seems in decent shape, and this definitely qualifies as "unusual manner of death" in addition to being a rather significant war crime incident. --M ASEM (t) 22:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment the background section has two Croatian refs. I'm using Google to translate (not great) and most of it seems ok. I can't find any reference to his being a teacher or an artist in the refs provided. Probably not serious enough to keep it off the main page, but FYI anyway. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It was supported by another previously cited ref in the section, fixed.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "During the war" is more problematic. "Although he did not have any military education, he successfully defended this position from the technically superior forces of the Yugoslav People's Army and the Army of the Republic of Serb Krajina." <-- that's not in the ref (and it reads like it was written by an apologist for Praljak). --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not seeing the fix. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * " Among his decisions, the one to let through the UNHCR's humanitarian convoy for Mostar, which was stopped in Čitluk, was particularly emphasized." <-- also not in any refs --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See edit.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, the refs for "Background" and "During the war" don't support the text. The ref for the bridge says one thing, the article says the exact opposite. I don't have time to tag/dig for sources right now. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "an act that was, according to the ICTY justified by military necessity," is not in the ref. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 01:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I cleaned up a little bit in the "During the war" section, but I'm no so good at prose. Anyway. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all those who worked on the article overnight.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Yokozuna's controversial retirement

 * Question: Has ITN reported similar stories from other sports? I suspect the answer is either never or almost never or not since different standards prevailed long ago, in which case this should presumably be opposed. But if the answer is something else, then perhaps this should be supported per WP:BIAS, also known as WP:WORLDWIDE. (Article quality seems pretty good, at least at first glance). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not that I recall, been hanging around here a few years now. If it were soccer or cricket, it'd probably stand a good chance of going up. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ITN reported on yokozuna Asashoryu's controversial retirement in 2010.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose If Sumo was the most popular sport in Japan (or top 3), maybe. But the global audience is small, and scandal is as much a part of the sport now as it is in boxing. GCG (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Where sumo is in relation to baseball and soccer in Japan I'm not quite sure but it is the national sport and every day of every tournament this year was sold out, so its popularity is not in question. "Global audience" is not an ITN criteria. A yokozuna resigning is big news, and the Harumafuji Kōhei is well sourced and updated. I don't like the POV of "brutal assault" however, so I have provided an alternative blurb.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * According to our article Sport in Japan, sumo was the second most popular sport in Japan this year.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's somewhat specious- it says "favorite sport" but the sum exceeds 100%. Citation is in Japanese, so not sure what it really says. My own (admittedly not RS) googling shows it pretty consistently behind baseball, tennis and footy. I only mention global in light of it's diminished following in Japan. IOW, this is niche everywhere. GCG (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Harumafuji can't remain with Japan Sumo Association because he doesn't have Japanese citizenship, so his retirement means that the highest-ranked wrestler (only 72 wrestlers in over 250 years) has been banned for life. Not same as retirements of Derek Jeter, Kobe Bryant or Payton Manning. Highly unusual event. 61.245.25.7 (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Alt Blurb. The article is in good shape.  This is being covered by worldwide news sources in sufficient depth.  -- Jayron 32 14:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per GCG. – Sca (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now on article quality. Far too many gaps in referencing. This is a serious problem given it is a BLP about a controversial person. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I will work on it.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support on the merits, this seems important to the sport. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support – article is indeed in good shape, and the news seems significant enough. The news is relatively minor for ITN standards, but it still meets three out of four points from In the news. ~ Mable ( chat ) 15:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support per Mable, there are some notable anomalies, but the article and sources about it seem to meet most of the criteria. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support (preferably using altblurb, per NPOV) on notability, subject to quality (which I'll let others decide upon), due precedent, WP:WORLDWIDE (aka WP:BIAS), and for consistency with my earlier remarks, thanks mainly to Pawnkingthree's reply to my above question. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I'm not seeing this "in the news" anywhere (digging up links to WP:RS which published it is not "in the news" to me). Would rather wait for the promotion of a new yokozuna. Two cents anyway. Hurts nothing to post it I guess so weak oppose. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per 61.* and Pawnkingthree. Davey2116 (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm still checking refs, but there are a number of CN tags --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd support this if the article was up to scratch - at the moment, it isn't - there are far too many cn tags. Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * CosmicAdventure, Ad Orientem, Black Kite: I have dealt with the CN tags.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's good - nice work - Support. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Promotion to the rank of yokozuna is ITNR, so I think the unusual cause of early retirement of one is blurb worthy. Have not check and hence have no comment on article quality. -- KTC (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per KTC. Banedon (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Commment: Thanks, Stephen, and great job, Pawnkingthree.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Shadia

 * Support - After improvements only.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't that be 'oppose' (pending improvements)? (Per ITNRD there is no need for support on notability grounds, as it cannot be opposed on notability grounds). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. We need to stop saying "support" when the article is clearly not ready for the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The assumption being that posting admins can't read past the first word? I support "support after improvements" as perfectly logical, and not needing to be struck, as to opposes which are actually "needs improvements" and not real opposition. μηδείς (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. Almost entirely unsourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Only the filmography needs to be referenced now. Is that possible please?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Marked ready. The article is pretty thin for someone her size in the field of Egyptian/Arab cinema, but it's all sourced now. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Vanamonde (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: José María Romero de Tejada

 * Comment: At first glance it looks like it might also need attention from someone who can speak English :) Tlhslobus (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Mount Agung

 * Weak Oppose The article needs some expansion. There is not much there in terms of geological background etc. It's pretty much just some brief history of two eruptions. I don't think the article quality is currently up to scratch for the main page. Beyond which the current eruptions are not especially major. If that changes I'd reconsider. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Leaning support if there is some expansion of the article. The eruption has quite some effects on the transport in the region, tourism, etc. What was the last eruption we posted? --Tone 15:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Pedantic note The proposed blurb is incorrect since (at the time of writing) the thing hasn't actually erupted; the evacuation is owing to concerns that it might. &#8209; Iridescent 15:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Anything coming out of an volcano is an "eruption", ranging from gentle Hawaiian eruptions to apocalyptic Ultra-Plinian ones. What the authorities in Bali are fearing is that the current eruptions are the herald of something that is more destructive. --LukeSurlt c 15:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose, nomination is of good faith, but the article itself still needs some expansion in the section discussing the 2017 eruption before this is ITN material. Will support this once the conditions are met. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now while the evacuation is large, the eruption, at the moment is not “major”. I will reconsider my decision if the eruption does drastically change in the upcoming days, but for now my position is against posting this. Kirliator (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment +1 CN tag in the 1963-64 eruption - The fact that Besakih was spared is a big deal but it needs a ref. Otherwise looks fine to me. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - 2017 eruption of Mount Agung also available, ALT blurb added, image changed
 * Support Tens of thousands of people evacuated. Thousands of people stranded when the airport closed.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, Oppose on quality major evacuation indeed, however the new article provided for both blurbs is only in start-class at the moment. I agree with several of the above users that this eruption needs to be sufficiently updated before it can be posted. SamaranEmerald (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support but only with 2017 eruption of Mount Agung as the target. Article is adequate to post at this time. --LukeSurlt c 23:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support: this is dominating the news that I am seeing. Vanamonde (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Comment/Question: Does this need temporary pulling to fix the Impact section? This has a CN, no citations, and an unsourced 40,000 evacuees claim that at least seems to contradict the 100,000 figure in our blurb and in the Sunday 26th section. (The contradiction is probably more illusory than real, but, if so, the section probably should be reworded to make it clear there is no contradiction, though, if so, I'm not clear on precisely how this should be done). There also seem to be impacts reported elsewhere in the article that are not included in the Impacts section. I feel neither willing (per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY) nor properly able to fix it myself. And quite likely the problem will get worse as the situation develops. But I don't know whether this requires pulling or is just the sort of thing we normally accept in ITN postings about developing situations. (Another alternative might be to re-word the blurb, but I don't know precisely what new words are needed, not whether re-wording would be a good idea or not). Tlhslobus (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The bold link is the eruption article (altblurb 2) I don't see any CNs in there. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * at the time I originally nominated, the eruption article hadn't been created. It was subsequently created and I thought it might make the better target, hence the alt blurb, which was posted with some modification (which I support). Mjroots (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. For mine, see my reply below to CosmicAdventure. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. This was the Impact section of the bold-linked article (including CN) just before I posted my above Comment/Question. And this was the same greatly improved (and now CN-free) section after 10 edits were made to the article in the subsequent 25 minutes by Lintang fajarmaliki and Medeis. My thanks to both of them. So it looks like my comment/question may have proved useful (though it could of course also just be coincidence). Some of my issues remain unaddressed, like the 40,000 v 100,000 and some impacts only being reported elsewhere, such as 5.6 million people expected to be affected by ash only being in the Monday November 27 section. But I now leave it to others to decide what, if anything, should be done about that. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Formula One

 * Support Prose notwithstanding, this article is good enough to post. GCG (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose for now. Article quality seems fine to me, except that unfortunately it seemingly still doesn't meet nominator Modest Genius's own stated quality requirement above: "The 2016 article had an extensive 'season report' section. At least a couple of paragraphs of prose summary will be required before this is postable." (Incidentally, there are also good season reports for 2015 and 2014, and, for all I know, quite likely for earlier seasons as well).Tlhslobus (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: As I'm not competent to supply the seemingly required paragraphs, I've asked for some competent editor to do so at the article's Talk page (Talk:2017_FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship). Tlhslobus (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: while the championship finished a week ago, Hamilton won the drivers' title a month ago and Mercedes the teams' title a week before that. I'd hardly say this qualifies as being "in the news". (Also, I usually do most of the season reports, but I didn't do it this year becauae I've been working on other projects.) Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNSPORTS specifically applies to the conclusion of the event or series. As such notability is not in doubt, it's just a matter of whether the article is of sufficient quality. Modest Genius talk 11:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 105th Grey Cup

 * Support pretty good article. Match summary feels thin on refs, but one of them is a play-by-play published by the CFL so I'll live with it. Sorry, I just can't read sports summaries, they're worse than tech manuals for me. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article is sufficient. -- Jayron 32 12:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added an altblurb that uses our standard ENGVAR-neutral phrasing. Modest Genius talk 14:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The altblurb works for round-robin seasons. The Grey Cup is awarded for winning a championship game, so the cup was literally won because the Argos defeated the Stampeders.  That is different than, say, the Premier League, where the league champion is awarded not for winning a game, but for having the best overall record.  The original blurb is how we usually post definitive championship games/series such as this.-- Jayron 32 15:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But the Grey Cup is the final of the CFL season, so we should treat it the same way as e.g. the Champions League Final (I've not checked how we phrased that). Besides, the ENGVAR issue is down to the the subject-verb agreement: defeat vs defeats, win vs wins etc. I have no objection if there's a better way of phrasing this that avoids that problem. Modest Genius talk 16:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have a preference either, but the wording I used is consistent with the wording used in previous years' blurbs about the Grey Cup. It seems to be the style that is preferred for North American sports as well. -- Plasma Twa  2  23:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support Referencing is a bit thin in the game summary and non-existent in the scoring summary. Those should be easy fixes. Once that's taken care of we should be good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone just added it? Else it's there at the section heading for each quarter. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I added it in response to Ad Orientem's comment. --LukeSurlt c 16:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - the play-by-play supports the text with previously thin referencing and I've marked it as such (I assume the author was using this source). Article seems adequate to post. --LukeSurlt c 15:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Miss Universe 2017

 * Oppose for now, article has orange tag (event no longer an orange owner), and there is no prose summary. The story is top "entertainment news", I'm ok posting it. Treat it like a sports pageant (which we post all the time) and get some prose and refs in there I'll support. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Miss Universe" is really a white South African? SMH — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicAdventure (talk • contribs) 12:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I Oppose posting subjective beauty pageants in general. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, only those contests incorporating objective (i.e. objectifying) criteria should be considered. Sca (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There is no such thing as an important beauty pageant. Modest Genius talk 14:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, lacking prose. On the plus side, there is a nice photo available. On the minus side, add an arbitrary comment of this biased competition being limited to a single species on a single planet in the Universe ;) --Tone 14:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The image is under a deletion discussion at Commons for copyvio. Black Kite (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I hear that, this year, the voluptuous beauty of Miss Sock from Planet Zog was eclipsed only by the tennis-playing ability of Miss Blancmange from Planet Skyron. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose good faith nomination, per above. Beauty pageants are not ITN material irregardless of how slow the news cycle might be. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose although [much] more notable than Miss Earth and Miss World, as MG put it, Beauty Pageants are not important nor ITN worthy. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - no. Just no. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] 2017 Davis Cup

 * Oppose in the present state, there is no prose at all and I even had to check the tables to see who won - I'd expect this to be in the intro for starters. Needs lots of work. --Tone 19:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – It's a list of tables and not an encyclopedic article. ~ Mable ( chat ) 19:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - article quality is non-existent at the moment. Irrespective of quality, I oppose, as it is not ITN/R for a reason. I consider it to be the seventh most important tennis competition, behind the Grand Slams, Olympics and ATP Finals, so it should not be on the main page. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Although one could argue it's the premier men's team event. In any case, it's nowhere near good enough to post at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose good faith nomination. Mainly per the quality concerns mentioned above. I would also add that referencing is is almost non-existent. I am neutral on the merits of the nomination itself given Stormy's observations in the above comment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment In the unlikely event this gets posted, I have re-written the blurb to avoid the usual ENGVAR issues. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Rance Howard

 * Support Nice article and adequately sourced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support no issues, looks good to go. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 18:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Bir al-Abed attack

 * Wait until the article is adequately developed. At the moment it's a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support It looks like it has been developed into a decent start class article and is adequately referenced. That's good enough for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support once once we have more information and article is in shape. This is Paul (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Death toll rising. When posting, the admin will need to check the article for the latest figure. --LukeSurlt c 15:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait for some detail please, when the "Reactions" section makes up half the article, it's not MP ready IMO. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Pending expansion. Toll at least 235, say BBC, NYT. – Sca (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks good to post. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support our article says as much if not more than many of the mainstream news websites which are carrying this on their mainpages, so we would easily be justified in posting it right now. There may not actually be much more to say for a few days while the situation is investigated, so it would be absurd to wait much longer, especially with a terrorist attack of such magnitude. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. The article is sufficient for the time being. --Tone 16:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Emmerson Mnangagwa

 * Comment Mnangagwa's article has some large unreferenced sections. Mugabe's looks fine (I didn't read the whole thing), the coup is orange tagged but can probably be fixed easily. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support subject to referencing in Mnangagwa's article being brought up to standard. Can we unbold Mugabe please? Mjroots (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support subject to above qualifications by Mjroots. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Serious referencing issues. This is nowhere near ready for the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support once article is in shape and better sourced. This is Paul (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Why are there so many votes that read "Support" but actually mean Oppose? I don't want to split hairs here, and I've thrown out an occasional "conditional support" if there just one or two minor issues waiting to be fixed, but as far as I can tell pretty much everyone is acknowledging this article is not ready for prime time. "Let Your Yes Mean “Yes” and Your No Mean “No.” (Matthew 5:37} -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What they're trying to avoid is having lots of opposes showing and then having to go back and re-vote once the issues are addressed. It's a way of showing that the event is important enough to be added to ITN, and it should be done as soon as it is ready, rather than have to wait for initial opposes to be changed. Mjroots (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The subject is ITNR so it's relative importance is not an issue. The only question is article quality. Saying you support an ITNR nomination once the article quality is brought up to speed is just stating the obvious. The question here is whether or not the target article is ready or not. As I noted above I can understand a "conditional support" for articles with just a couple minor quick fixes needed. But that is clearly not the case here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally I think "support" should mean "I think this is ready to post now" and "oppose" should mean "this item is insufficiently notable". Everything else can be said without bold text. --LukeSurlt c 15:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go now. Also, I agree with LukeSurl's suggestion on the use of "support" and "oppose". Davey2116 (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: As this is ITN/R it cannot be opposed on notability grounds, only on quality grounds. So I strongly disagree with LukeSurl's above suggestion that "oppose" should mean "this item is insufficiently notable". (But I have no views either way on whether the article is ready for posting or not). Incidentally, another reason for offering conditional support, especially in the early stages, may be uncertainty as to whether the ITN/R label may be challenged. (A good Wikilawyering case could arguably be made that this should not be ITN/R, as the head of state in Zimbabwe is an elective office and there has been no election; I have no wish to challenge the ITN/R flag, but I strongly suspect such a Wikilawyer would be technically correct). Tlhslobus (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support wow, much improved. Looks like did the bulk of the work. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: (changed to Comment from Temporary Oppose, as I now support it, see below) I've temporarily removed the Ready flag, as it seemingly won't be Ready at least until somebody fixes the two 'Citations needed' that were added by CosmicAdventure, a few minutes before s/he posted the above Support (support which I consequently don't quite understand under the circumstances). Meanwhile leaving the Ready flag there would just waste more time by stopping editors from realizing there was something that needed fixing.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't think they were important enough to keep it off the main page. Statements aren't really controversial, BUT they're not in the refs provided. YMMV I guess. shrugs --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, CosmicAdventure. I'm not sure what YMMV means. I've fixed one of your CNs, but I have been unable to find a source for the other. My possibly mistaken understanding is that unfixed CNs normally mean an article fails ITN quality requirements (plus Referencing Issues are also the grounds for Sherenk1's opposition above). As far as I know I can't remove a CN placed by you. So you either remove the CN, or find a citation (there may be one in some unfree source, or one needing an e-mail address), or one of us (or another editor) removes the unsourced statement (it is of little significance, which is probably why it has proved hard to verify). Assuming a source can't be found, removing the unsourced statement is probably safest, as admins here may not accept quality is fixed by leaving a statement known to have failed to be verified. If you don't fix it yourself, and nobody else does, I'll try to remember to fix it (by removing the statement) before I go to bed in perhaps an hour or two (but right now I'd prefer to leave you or others a little more time to find a source first). Once fixed the Ready flag can presumably be restored. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidentally there's no difficulty in finding a source for the paragraph's first sentence (that he lost to Chebundi in 2005) which I'll add shortly - the problem is sourcing the claim about the Mujuru faction in the paragraph's second sentence.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It adds nothing, I think you could remove that quote without harm. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Done, and I've sourced the paragraph's first sentence, and restored the Ready flag.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, per above discussion. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is ready and above concerns re: sourcing have been dealt with. Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Vanamonde (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Vanamonde. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Miguel Alfredo González

 * Support It could use a little expansion but I think it meets our standards and the referencing looks solid. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Return of Rohingya refugees

 * Weak Oppose I'd like to see this on the main page but honestly it's not getting the level of attention that would justify it. Also the coverage in the article that corresponds to the blurb is little more than a paragraph. Beyond which there are a handful of gaps in referencing, although the article is not in bad condition overall. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As the author of said coverage, is there really anything else that needs to be said. I feel that this is an ITN story that stands on its own regard, and the specified section will likely see little development until the physical repatriation of refugees begins (at which point the world's cameras will undoubtedly be diverted elsewhere.) Stormy clouds (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - Important development. Sherenk1 (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Sherenk1. Davey2116 (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment If that accord has a name, perhaps a standalone article as a target is worthy. Brandmeistertalk  07:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment So Bangladesh is doesn't want them, and is looking for cover for an eviction. Suu is trying to save face but doesn't really seem interested in stopping the persecution. Why is this accord particularly noteworthy? It won't necessarily result in the return of refugees, it won't necessarily stop the killings...GCG (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * On that basis ITN should never report any agreement about anything (no ceasefire agreements, no peace agreements, no trade agreements, no agreements to try to combat climate change, and so on ad infinitum), since every agreement may in practice fail in its ostensible objective.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support: though I'm not terribly happy with the structure of the article, it seems adequate. Vanamonde (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Seemingly potentially far more important than any of the current items showing in ITN (with the possible, but very far from certain, exception of the Zimbabwe leadership change) in terms of how many people are liable to be significantly affected by it. Of course we can't know that it actually will be in practice, but that is probably true of many, perhaps most events we report here (such as almost all the election results we report, probably all the sports events, probably all the astronomy events, probably almost all the terrorist events, and so on). And, as already mentioned above, if we were to take seriously the objection that the agreement may not work in practice, ITN could never report any agreement on anything (no ceasefire agreements, no peace agreements, no trade agreements, no agreements to try to combat climate change, and so on ad infinitum), since every agreement may in practice fail in its ostensible objective. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It might be different if there had already been lots of such agreements in this crisis and they had all failed, but this is the first such agreement in this particular crisis, so to simply assume it's going to fail seems a bit WP:CRYSTAL. (Of course it might be argued in reply that to assume that it might not fail is also a bit WP:Crystal, but I've already in effect mentioned above that taking that argument seriously would prevent ITN from ever reporting any agreement on anything). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Stephen. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

RD: Maurice Hinchey

 * Support after upgrade. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Not ready for the main page. Significant gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unreferenced, and some ref errors too. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go now. Davey2116 (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's not even close to ready for the main page. Totally ignoring the massive gaps in referencing it reads like a tribute page. Bluntly this is going to need some work before it can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - after completed improvements.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

RD: Jon Hendricks

 * Comment. Will need work on referencing before posting to main page. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose large swaths of unreferenced text. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Trial of Ratko Mladić

 * The trial article needs updates if it is to be the bolded link. Use ICTY as the abbreviation in the blurb and add Siege of Sarajevo. --Tone 12:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done a basic update. --LukeSurlt c 12:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support (altblurb2). Global front page news now, highly significant. --Tataral (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Issue with altblurb2 is that Mladić was not convicted of genocide at the Siege of Sarajevo. These actions were ascribed to other types of charges. The acts he was convicted for cover a wide swath of the Bosnian War. --LukeSurlt c 13:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I am unimpressed with the article quality. The section on reactions to the subject's arrest is ridiculously bloated. If you prune that to a reasonable level what's left is really pretty bare-bones. That said, I think it meets our standards, albeit only barely, and is adequately referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits as war crimes convictions especially by an international body are notable. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in principle This is the right time for this to appear in ITN. I think the article can be improved - the trial section seems weak relative to the rest (incluidng the massive reaction section which is generally a no-no). --M ASEM (t) 14:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 *  Support  – (Alt2) - Seems the No. 1 story on most mainstream Eng. sites (and high on other sites, too) . Sca (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * However, I will say that the article is much too heavily larded with flag salad. All those quotes are are six years old. Comments on the conviction and sentencing would be far more relevant. Sca (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Question Whats the right way to tag a dead link for a source, and a "not in source"? There is this dramatic story of his arrest, the first link is dead, the second doesn't have any of the details presented in the article. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you want Template:Deadlink and/or Template:Failed verification. --LukeSurlt c 15:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, those are the ones. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Altblurb3--it reads better, omits Serbia and the implication of collective guilt, and includes the specific crimes. μηδείς (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the blurb should indicate the nationality of the person; altblurb3 simply expects the reader to already know who Ratko Mladić is and which part of the world we are talking about. I believe we always mention the country of a person who is the subject of an ITN item. --Tataral (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If anything, Yugoslav should be enough. There were war criminals on all sides in that war, and saying Serbian in the blurb is inflammatory, it is the crimes (also "genocide" from what I heard on the radio) and not the evildoer's blood that matters.  I'll go so far as to oppose posting with ethnicity mentioned. μηδείς (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That is is "inflammatory" to mention the nationality of an individual who is the subject of an ITN item is complete nonsense. This is basic encyclopedic information. Not mentioning it would be non-encyclopedic, as it would take for granted that all readers around the globe already know who he is and where he's from. Mladić is notable for his role as the military leader of Republika Srpska. Yugoslavia is not an adequate nationality, as it no longer exists. Mladić lived in Serbia when he was arrested and is notable for his role as leader of the military of Republika Srpska; he is widely described in the context in which he is notable as Bosnian Serb. --Tataral (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not about ethnicity, it's about his status as the military leader of Republika Srpska, one of the specific participants in the war. We could just describe him as "former military leader of Republika Srpska." --Tataral (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have a problem with that (Republika Srpska) except that the blurb would be extraordinarily long. See Alternative blurb V.
 * I think there are two fundamental things. At the time of the active fighting, Serbia was part of a rump Yugoslavia still including other nationalities.  There were ethnic Serbs in Bosnia-Hercegovina as well as Catholic Croats and Muslims not identifying as Serb.  There were war criminals of all ethnicities in that conflict.
 * Identifying Mladic by ethnicity is neither relevant to the crime nor neutral. We wouldn't point out that the DC snipers were black, that the Austrian dictator Hitler had shot himself, that the genocidal Georgian Stalin had died, or that the accused in the Trayvon Martin shooting was a "white Hispanic".  I am far from being a Serbian apologist, but we simply don't need to be picking out issues of ancestry when the topic is a moral one which depends on the actor's choice, not parentage. μηδείς (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Alt2 top story in several global news papers and widespread coverage in many others. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 *  Oppose  the article is a mess, no good refs for the arrest details, an impenetrable wall of reactions to his 2011 arrest, the link for the single ref for the defense funding "controversy" is dead. Main hearings sections has random bits of proseline. In the news or not, article is not MP quality. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support thanks to . I still think it has some NPOV issues but it's good enough I think. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ⇒ Getting stale. No longer very prominent on news sites. Withdraw support. Sca (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * At ITN, "stale" means older than the oldest item in the template. This would currently be the newest item. If we abandoned every nomination that hadn't achieved consensus to post in 24 hours we'd hardly post anything.--LukeSurlt c 17:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not what stale means in English, in which this site is written, or in journalism usage. Our readers don't care what it means "at ITN." Sca (talk)
 * Anayway, the article is still crammed with extremely stale flag salad – 20 flags, no less – and editorially it's not up to Main Page display. Sca (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support alt IV important news. 70.50.212.64 (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Important news. Leave the blurb selection to the posting admin's discretion, so long as it is relatively concise. Marking ready given apparent consensus. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Since none of the supporters bothered to read my oppose, I've been forced to orange tag two sections of the article. The refs are broken, plain and simple. All the "important news" in the world can't change that. Thanks to LukeSurl for the work done so far. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per CA, but not far to go. GCG (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've BOLDly commented out the orange-tagged "Republika Srpska defence funding controversy" section as it was non-essential and supported only by a deadlinked reference. --LukeSurlt c 14:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , I hope I have addressed these issues to your satisfaction. The overabundance of flags is annoying, but shouldn't preclude posting now. --LukeSurlt c 14:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * the arrest section still has statements like "The officers entered the village in four jeeps in the early morning hours, while most residents were still asleep" that aren't in any of the refs. re: flags - I agree, though I think you could remove any reactions from outside the Balkans if you wanted it. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * From that paragraph I've removed unsupported content. --LukeSurlt c 15:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. GTG I think. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Posting Alt5. Good job everyone working on the article! --Tone 16:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Still full of outdated comments. Sca (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a convenient Link to the Article Trial of Ratko Mladić, Sca. You can go correct the problems you see without any need for approval in this venue. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You go. Sca (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD David Cassidy

 * Looks like caution may be called for? We've been here before. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * SNOW close as he is still alive. EternalNomad (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to note, he did die yesterday. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

But, and I hate doing this post-closure, should Mr Cassidy ever shuffle off the mortal coil, his article will still need a load of work before it's suitable for the main page. So anyone actually interested in him should start that process sooner rather than later, to avoid disappointment. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Reopened as he has now passed. No comment on quality. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  02:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Significant gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. It looks to me like only the "Portrayals in media" section is unsourced; the rest of the article looks well referenced. And the Portrayals in media section doesn't have anything potentially libelous or controversial. It doesn't need to be featured-article quality, just good enough that it doesn't embarrass us, and I think the article in its current state achieves that goal. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 08:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose "David's parents had decided because he was at such a young age, it would be better for his emotional stability to not discuss it at that time." is unsourced - that's a deal breaker. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose still too much to do despite the warning I gave three days ago... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Rodney Bewes

 * Needs more sources and an update about his death. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support I've cleaned up the article per Black Kite's suggestions. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support and comment - is findmypast a RS (used in refs #4 and #6)?  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Mjroots2 (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose sorry all, two bare URLs and two unreferenced claims in his filmography yet to be fixed up. The general BFI link doesn't cover the latter...  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Robert Mugabe Resigns

 * Support This has been a major, ongoing story for several days now and this development, the apparent voluntary resignation of Mugabe in the face of his impending impeachment, is significant enough to warrent a bump.  Both articles are of sufficient quality and properly updated.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This item should replace the prior Zimbabwe item and be placed at the top. We will also need to do the same when he is officially succeeded. It seems the office is technically vacant for now. --LukeSurlt c 16:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggest …resigns as President of Zimbabwe… rather than …resigns as President of Zimbabwe… --LukeSurlt c 16:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Though Zimbabwe is yet another country where "President/Prime Minister of X" redirects to "List of Presidents/Prime Ministers of X", rather than having an actual article about the office. Failing that at least a redlink would promote creation of an article. (This is just a general grumble, not really pertinent to this nomination). --LukeSurlt c 16:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Easy enough to do "resigns as President of Zimbabwe". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support replacement/bump as above. --M ASEM (t) 16:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Major event of national and international interest. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support replacement of current entry.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Makes sense to update the current item with this one in light of the new development. Regards  So Why  16:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Do we get another jump to the top if he also dies before the end of the week? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support this as a new blurb at top of list, removing old blurb. I did raise this at WP:MPE. Mjroots (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support remove the old blurb, replace with this blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted -- KTC (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * comment not techmicallya coup since he resigned voluntarily in the country while still being constitutional prez, granted chicanery pressure was unusual. That said by billion dollarnoteswill soon have antique value, soo just a quip ;)Lihaas (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Since he only resigned after being taken prisoner by the military, I think we can call this a coup. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, we call it a coup.... -- KTC (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it would be incorrect to call his resignation "voluntary." He resigned as the legislative body was beginning to discuss his removal, and it was clear how the vote was going to go since the ruling party had already removed him as party leader. This coup did not follow the pattern of most such events, because the leader retained his title for a few days - though he had been removed from any real power. Fortunately for him he did not meet the same fate as most leaders who are ousted in a military coup. Neutron (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support any change of government is [almost] always ITN material.Hornetzilla78 (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a change in head of state, which is on the recurring events list, meaning the merits are not in dispute. Changes in head of government get discussed on their own merits(though most such changes are posted with general elections, which also are on the list). 331dot (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - No-brainer. A notorious autocrat who ruined his country. This was long overdue. Kurtis (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As a change in head of state is on the recurring events list(WP:ITNR) this does not require support on the merits, just for article quality. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And the article happens to be of sufficient quality, so my support stands. Kurtis (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, I agree with bumping and updating the blurb. Kurtis (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Terry Glenn

 * Support No major issues. I think it meets our generally applied standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 09:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Della Reese

 * Oppose for now. Exceptionally poor referencing. This is going to take some work to get it up to scratch for the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose tagged, rightly so. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 1I/ʻOumuamua detection

 * Oppose Either stale or incomplete. The last information in the article is dated October 26.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As a note, and to reply to several comments below, I have no problem with posting this so long as the article itself makes it clear why it is in the news now. I'm not particularly opposed to posting major scientific discoveries, it is just that the text of this article makes no effort to indicate why now is why it is in the news.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The key reason it appears to be in the news now is the publication of the Nature paper that documents observations. I mention this only because it was also in the news a few days ago, for the selection of the Hawaiian name (but that's not the point of the ITN/C here), so that people searching for newsworthiness and finding these older stories, they should be aware that was a different facet; this ITNC appears to be slotted in the right place. --M ASEM (t) 19:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but where does the article text say that? What you tell me, here, on this page makes no bit of difference.  What you write, in the text of the article itself, is all that matters.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, absolutely. I don't see the Nature article sourced, or even the references published today acknowledging that publication. That has to be in first. I just want to be clear that in this discussion outside of article quality, today is the right day for this, and just caution those looking into the proper date to be aware of other news-worthy milestones that are not the same as this date (publication of studies in a reliable scientific journal). --M ASEM (t) 20:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have just added in the BBC article published today, and the Nature letter to the article (under "Observations") as to explain why today was important. I do note that the pre-published this 10 Nov, so conclusions by it seemingly were already discussed in various scientific circles, but today's the day that Nature publicly published it. This should now be ready to go. --M ASEM (t) 22:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This was actually nominated back in October, the consensus then was to wait until more is known (e.g. a paper is published). The interstellar status seems much clearer now, however, the question is what new happened recently? --Tone 19:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but the article needs updating first. The problem last time was that many properties were still unknown and there wasn't a peer-reviewed paper. However, one was just published in Nature today. I think this is ITN-worthy, but the article will need updating to reflect the newly-published results (such as the unusual shape) and properly cite the paper, as well as the existing (non-peer-reviewed) MPECs, preprints and research notes. The blurb will need to be crafted to indicate that the results were just published, as there were various interim announcements a few weeks ago. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to minimal coverage (at the moment) on the finding. Kirliator (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Confirmation of this is an amazing event. (orbital parameters get more refined the longer an object had been observed of course, it had to move before you can see the shape of its orbit) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I think that with the Nature paper, we should use the blurb that was originally presented in Oct, this being that studies have identified this as first known extra-solar system asteroid to be detected/measured. The speed in the current blurb has little to do with this. Alternatively, the focus I'm seeing that the object has an extremely enlongated shape is possibly something to focus on. --M ASEM (t) 19:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's elongated cause it's an alien spacecraft.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * At least we have the whales to save us then. --M ASEM (t) 21:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment while I like the enthusiasm of this discovery (and would normally support this kind of nomination), the main problem is that posting a blurb that was initially created more than a month ago is technically stale as Jaycon32 initially stated. Although I do not necessarily oppose the current nomination, I agree with several of the above users that the content of the blurb should be updated before it can be posted to ITN. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OP Comment - I was unaware of the October listing (I don't frequent this page). If anyone wants to offer an alternative blurb, please feel free. Radagast (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - to call this stale is another way of calling the ITN system broken. Back in October when there was more news coverage, some editors argued for waiting on the grounds that no peer reviewed paper had been published yet (or similar). Now there has been such a paper (+ several more preprints), the item is no longer in the news, so now the argument is that it is stale. If we accept this kind of reasoning the only way to feature this is to have a peer reviewed paper being written, reviewed and published within ~7 days - a pipe dream. I suggest an alt blurb saying it's been characterized, since what's so unique about this is not just the interstellar speed (its trajectory is another unique thing, for example). Banedon (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd support Alt1. --Tone 21:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Strongest Oppose no major news network is covering this, likely because they don’t give a hoot about it. 2600:1015:B121:C116:89AD:9FC5:411B:DD59 (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It has just been reported in the last few hours, and I found BBC and Guardian articles rather easily. It's being covered. --M ASEM (t) 21:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Difficult to ascertain intent here, but it is noteworthy that this strongest oppose originates from a IP SPA with only a solitary edit. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * First extrasolar object in solar system (or within 4 light years/25,000,000,000,000 miles actually) That's important. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. A notable scientific discovery; this isn't stale. It takes time to properly report and confirm these discoveries. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Alt blurb that’s more like it. Good to go. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - this is significant scientific news. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment please fix the referencing errors before this is posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Refs fixed, posting. --Tone 22:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. What clinches it for me is the bizarre shape. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support while this object very likely is an asteroid, seeing as this is the first interstellar object to enter the Solar System an be described by astronomers. This is a major astronomy milestone, despite the opposition. SamaranEmerald (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support Being a genuine first, this is a unique never-to-be-repeated event and thus deserves to be in ITN. Plus I strongly agree with Banedon's excellent point about the absurdity of first not posting on grounds that it needs confirmation, but then not posting on grounds that it's stale. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Comment That's no moon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.58.47 (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Comment As someone who is not an editor, but is a regular reader of this page, I must say thank you on posting this. Science-related articles rarely get a chance as the peer review process is slow by necessity.  By the time these are qualified as accurate, they're usually outside of the news-o-sphere.  They are most certainly worthy of encyclopedic inclusion and deserving of dissemination through ITN... even if ITN isn't technically part of the encyclopedic scope of Wikipedia.  But what the hey?  We get "That's no moon" before a single Rendezvous with Rama reference? You're all better than that... 63.224.191.9 (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Elizabeth II

 * Oppose, meaningless anniversary. The place for anniversaries is WP:OTD, not ITN. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree, correct place is WP:OTD. But not sure why you see it as "meaningless". Are you arguing that all anniversaries are meaningless? Even if you see it that way, it certainly is in the news in UK. Not many of those other OTD items are on TV and radio news. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Meaningless in the sense that it has no impact or wider significance. If there was some kind of mass event or demonstration to mark the occasion, that could in principle raise a simple anniversary to an ITN story. But there isn't. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. Well they get some nice stamps. But I agree we're not seeing jubilant throngs on the streets of The Mall. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose outside of what we usually cover here; routine aniversaries can be covered at OTD instead. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support and republican sentiments be damned. Oppose - Not newsworthy per se.--WaltCip (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Awesome news, but not worth posting. The article doesn't even mention this event, unlike her Sapphire Jubilee. ~ Mable ( chat ) 13:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom. Alas this just doesn't rise to the level of warranting mention on the main page. That said it is marvelous news. Many (more) years to the happy couple! -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose royal trivia. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series championship

 * Support This is what one of these articles should look like before main page posting. Sufficient prose summary of the entire season, including week-by-week synopses, everything well referenced.  This lacks for nothing.  Good stuff.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ditto. An exemplary article for sport event. Do we have some guideline whether to include the sponsor name? (Monster energy) --Tone 15:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - article is ready for posting. Remove brand names from the title though - users will know the event well enough, and if they don't that is what links are for. We don't exist to promote energy drinks. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support and I also agree with Stormy Clouds, for brevity of front page posting, the sponsor's name is unnecessary. --M ASEM (t) 16:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No need for the sponsor's name. --LukeSurlt c 17:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed series sponsor from blurb.  Dough   4872   17:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I too commend the authors for detailed prose on each race, which more than makes up from the list- & table-heavy rest of the article. The sponsor's name is indeed unnecessary. Looks good to go. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. Feel free to update the photo. --Tone 19:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Jana Novotná

 * Oppose with regret. Too much of the latter part of the article is unreferenced, and the "personal life" section is a single sentence noting her death. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the minute, as there is too much unsourced content. Paging for cleanup. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support when ready. Well that's obvious really, per RD rules. A part of me thinks this might even be blurbworthy, because she was young, a grand slam winner, and (for me at least) it was a bit unexpected. Probably not quite noteworthy enough, but putting that out there anyway. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm happy to source it. I'll work on it today. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Good job, Megalibrarygirl. It could use a couple more refs in the few lines above 'Later years and death', but it's probably time for a re-review. --PFHLai (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - per improvements.BabbaQ (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Charles Manson
Strongly support blurb - very notable, infamous figure. Article high quality. 1779Days (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As of now, the article isn't updated to say he died. Only the first sentence and infobox are updated, no prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD Mjroots (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Needs Update, but Leaning Support RD, as Muboshgu states, above, the article, although in good quality, has not been updated to reflect Manson's death. Once a decent update is made, then I think its good to go. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was too quick and hasty to support the blurb, as much as I admit I would do so, I find it too simple at the moment to consider support, I'll only support the RD for now. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb, because it says nothing the readership doesn't already know or can't get from the RD listing. His infamy does not change the consensus that unsurprising deaths of old people don't get blurbs. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't change that consensus, but consensus has also been to post blurbs of those who are at the top of their field. Manson was arguably so. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't get your line of thinking here. His death is unsurprising, so it doesn't warrant a blurb? There are plenty of cases in which quite "unsurprising deaths" still more than warrant a blurb. Master of Time   ( talk ) 09:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Support blurb Pending update to reflect death Manson was a infamous figure in America's history and has gained notoriety status. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RB, oppose blurb - There's nothing special about a person dying at an old age, nor is the death having an influence on the world ala Mandela/Thatcher/Bowie. RD is fine. --M ASEM (t) 06:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb As happy as I am that this monster is gone, other than to the families of his victims, I don't think he had a huge impact in any field (whatever that may be), and we all knew he was old and ill. RD should be enough. EternalNomad (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * He was tops in the field of crime, or notorious is the best way to put it. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support RD. Article appears to be in fairly good shape (B-class) and well-referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment What the fuck kind of logic did I read in some comments? It's not surprising that he died, so we shouldn't post it? I forgot the part where we were supposed to surprise our readers of shocking deaths, and not inform them of someone who is particularly notable dying. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  07:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ironically Mandela and Thatcher are older then him and would fit that too, people just see blurbs as rewarding and they do not want to reward Manson. GuzzyG (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support blurb An especially notable death (I don't receive news alerts about deaths very frequently, and I did in this case). Well-sourced, good-quality article. For those of us who were around back then, this is pretty significant news, given the extensive coverage of his murders at that time. Davey2116 (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Merry Christmas, Charlie Manson!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb I do not see why everyone is so against posting a blurb regarding one of, if not the most notorious serial killer of modern American history. This is worthy for a blurb on the ITN bulletin. Kirliator (talk) 08:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. To claim he does not have a field (crime/criminal) that he was highly "significant" in is false. This was a internationally known and reported on figure, objectively he'd get a blurb if he was in any other field. Thus, objectively he gets a blurb, personal moral standing is not a requirement. GuzzyG (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Highly significant criminal, part of US history. Worthy a blurb.BabbaQ (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Death of probably the most notorious criminal in recent history merits a blurb. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose blurb Old criminal dies in prison. News at 11. Nothing notable about the death. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Except for who it was. Manson was not a garden variety thief or thug. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing special about the death. By your logic all RD's would be worth a blurb as they are all notable because of who died. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No, as some people are more notable than others. RD was created in part to get rid of arguments over notability for every single death that was nominated. It wasn't meant to affect the few deaths of extremely transforming figures or those who are at the tip top of their field who might merit blurbs.  Manson was extremely notorious in his field (crime) and is an important part of US history. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well don't argue his RD deserves a blurb because of who he is then. But since you mentioned 'transforming figures or those at the tip top of their field' Manson was well down the list of transforming figures in the world of serial killing. Being neither particularly innovative in the method, nor the numbers. Both prior and post Manson many other killers have been more successful in much more imaginative ways. The only reason Manson is not a footnote is because his targets included the rich and famous. So if you are seriously arguing Manson deserves a blurb because he is a (quoting from WP:ITN directly now) "major transformative world leaders in their field" then you seen many serial killer articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate this conversation but it seems we will have to disagree about the merits of this nomination. If there are other serial killers who merit posting I await their nominations. Thanks 331dot (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS what oher serial killers do to get to ITN are irrelevant. We are discussing Manson.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I quoted directly the part of WP:ITN that is relevant to bumping an RD to a Blurb. If you can explain how Manson is a "major transformative world leader(s) in their field" without comparing him to others in his field, go ahead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb Highly notorious, but looked at objectively his significance and influence is not at the very level that warrants a blurb. Neljack (talk) 08:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems we have a consensus for RD but not yet for a blurb (I am inclined against the blurb myself). Posting. RD for now. --Tone 09:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment  front page on the BBC, Sydney Morning Herald  and the New York Times,  how an American serial killer/cult leader from the 60s gets this level of coverage now and is listed more prominently on these news websites then the Zimbabwe coup, speaks volumes, i get that he is a bad person but bad people get blurbs too. Blame the media. GuzzyG (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Being on the front page of international papers is not a good metric - yesterday for all purposes was an otherwise slow news day, so the most interesting stories bubble up to the top. --M ASEM (t) 15:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait for blurb. If the orange idiots daily tweet storm pushing him off the front page, then that's the end of it. Media coverage is a key consideration for "blurbworthiness" to me. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, one of the most infamous criminals of all time, and the worldwide media coverage of his death reflects this fact. Nsk92 (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - Merely killing people is not a blurb-worthy enterprise.--WaltCip (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose blurb. Nowhere near the world-changing impact required for a blurb. Way below the bar of Mandela, Thatcher etc. I'm amazed that anyone's even suggesting a blurb here. RD is sufficient. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb "Who is the most notable/famous living X in the world?" For any simple value of X, the death of this person gets a blurb. GCG (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as someone who has been infamously linked to 1960s counter-culture, and who was sentenced to death 45 years ago, it's been a long time coming. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per OID - absolutely not a "major transformative world leader in their field" as the criteria demands.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb RD is fine. Manson was just your garden variety spree killer who happened to get a lot of press because one of his victims was famous. There are some infamous killers that I might support a blurb for. But not this one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Notorious, yes.  Globally important?  Absolutely not.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb death blurbs should be reserved for when the death becomes its own story, beyond an obituary, based on the response to the death. This doesn't seem to be meeting the Bowie/Mandela threshold. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb What are this person's "accomplishments" and how is his death of old age at 83 noteworthy in and of itself? μηδείς (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb I find the opposition’s reasoning both cliche and underdeveloped. This is an infamous serial killer we are dealing with, one of the most evil men of modern times.  There is nothing wrong with posting this as a blurb. SamaranEmerald (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Not a comment either way, and mere happenstance given the closure of the discussion, but the news of Manson's hospitalisation was sufficient to place him within the top 10 of last week's Top 25 Report. If ITN exists to make it easier for readers to find items which are in the news, it is perhaps inadvisable to not ponder the discussion further. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The same argument holds for putting his image in the infobox, in case any admins are wondering about that. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Sarcastic comment Obviously it is much more important to have a blurb about who won some car race than the death of one of the worst villains of the 20th century. Neutron (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

RD: Mel Tillis

 * Support when ready obvious shoe-in, but article is largely unsourced and most of his fans will not be in our editor demographic. I refrained from posting this nom myself when I saw the article's state.  My parents adored him, but they were born in the '30's. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose all indiviudals with articles are a "shoo in" if their article is up to scratch. This article is far from it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Pancho Segura

 * Support A refreshingly solid article that is well sourced. My only quibble, and it is not a big deal, is that there seems to be a bit of name dropping in the lead paragraph of the retirement section. I'd suggest trimming that down. But all in all I think it's good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Gillian Rolton

 * Support article updated and well-referenced JennyOz (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T♦ C 01:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

RD: Naim Süleymanoğlu

 * There are a couple of paragraphs and two personal records that need extra citations, otherwise a good article. --Tone 13:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's not close yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

RD: Youssouf Ouédraogo

 * Oppose for now. Referencing issues and the article needs some serious copy editing. It appears that parts of his political biography are repeated verbatim in two different sections. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article is now well referenced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose no details of his death. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just added it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I would still like to see the copy-editing issues raised by Ad Orientem addressed. There is a lot of repetition in the article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose the non-English references should have their language (French mostly) denoted but otherwise it's ok, beside the comment above (!) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Malcolm Young

 * Oppose for now. Poor referencing and two orange tags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Will reconsider if quality improves. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  16:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above, but no issue if the article is improved.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose until quality improves. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support now referencing has improved. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Copy Edit much of the article has to be changed to simple past or pluperfect tenses, it's simply not ready, but an obvious shoe-in once problems are addressed. μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Shoo, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Tow the line, User:Martinevans123 and let him who is without sin cast his pearls before swine. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You've really hit the bullseye there, like a red rag dropped in the ocean. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment So we're clear, "Lil Peep" got this same scrutiny, but Malcolm Young is coming up short, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.58.47 (talk) 04:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Commented Out I have commented out a huge section of text that apparently details every piece of equipment Young ever used. The section was not only unreffed by morbidly obese.  This can probably be posted now after a quick review for style and tense, but is past my bedtime. μηδείς (talk) 05:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Check for Copy I removed a lot of the problematic stuff by outcommenting, but the article should be checked by someone familiar with the subject (I know nothing about AC/DC) for accuracy and proper tense and grammar, then mark it ready here so it can get posted ASAP. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support now, nice work Medeis. That equipment section added nothing. Refs could be a little better, but not a show stopper, nothing contentious anyway. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Quality issues seem to have been fixed. Props to Medeis for taking the lead on that for doing so.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Keystone Pipeline oil spill

 * Note. This leak is in the existing pipeline and not its controversial relative, the proposed Keystone XL. 331dot (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose this doesn't appear to be getting all that much attention. Also the article gives only a few sentences to the incident. Not enough there to put this on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – for now at least. Coverage indicates it's unlikely to have much effect on the issue. Sca (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Support this popped up at the top of my news feed yesterday. The article is pretty good, but the coverage of the incident is minimal. Not much more to say than "it happened, cleaning up now" --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose the article has no issues, but the coverage on major news networks in the U.S. is notably minimal. On the news sources that it does get coverage on, it is usually not the top news story. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is 795 cubic meters, less than 1/3 the volume of an olympic pool, and such small spills are an unfortunate concomitant of construction. Presumably there will be a fine and cleanup and life will go on as normal. μηδείς (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Compared with something like Exxon Valdez this is quite tiny - that lost 10.8 million US gallons. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose While a notable spill, its nowhere close to a major environmental disaster. --M ASEM (t) 02:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose while 210,000 gallons is a large number in terms of gallons spilled, it is relatively small compared to other notable spills (e.g. the one mentioned above). Kirliator (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Flawless Sabrina

 * Support – Article is a bit weak, but everything looks sourced and the article consists of prose. No issues keeping this from reaching the front page ^_^ ~ Mable ( chat ) 13:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] San Juan submarine

 * Wait until they believe that something worse happened to the sub than merely a loss of communications, which is the official position at the moment. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Tentative support - should be posted once declared a loss. Mjroots (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait – Per 331. Premature until fate known. Sca (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait per above. I spent a long time in the Navy and if a ship goes missing for this length of time it's all but certain something bad has happened. But until we know more there just isn't enough to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait until fate is revealed, will likely support the nomination if so. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, waited long enough, good to go. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - waiting makes it seem like if the sub is found, it is somehow a less worthy item. I find that silly. On the other hand, if this is to be posted regardless of what the fate of the sub is, then why not post it now? Banedon (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I'm with Banedon. It's dominated the news all weekend. Article is short, but good enough. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Not just the sub still missing, but the international co-operation to support search efforts, including HMS Protector and elite RN rescue team. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support It's a global story now and will likely remain so whatever the fate of the submarine is. The article could do with a bit of work though. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Story continues to expand. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment this clearly has sufficient support for it to be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait until the whereabouts are known or sufficient time elapses for the Argentines to make a declaration of death. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ⇒ Still not ITN-worthy. Bits and pieces continue to crop up, but the vessel's whereabouts remains unknown. Until it's found, this remains a developing story. Sca (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You're both missing the point, this has sufficient community consensus now. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Rikard Wolff

 * Weak Support The filmography is mostly unreferenced, but otherwise the article looks OK. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have referenced the section now. Can add more sources if needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * General question: I have never seen a ref on a header before, but there's one on the discography section in this article. Shouldn't there be some other format? μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right. I have changed the format.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support (I still wonder if there is a more economical way to do that with a template?) μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Tongan general election

 * Question. Is this news anywhere other than Tonga?  Even ITNR nominations must be shown to be in the news. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Neljack (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Here.BabbaQ (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Article looks a bit short right now. Add a bit of prose and I'd support it. ~ Mable ( chat ) 16:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose this was a snap election held as a political manoeuvre, not a regular election, and the party in power retained the status quo. μηδείς (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's still a general election, just like the last UK one, which was also held for political reasons. If you want to exempt such elections from ITNR, I await your proposal. Until then, this still merits posting. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. General elections for any country should be ITN/R. As for it being a snap poll, they are quite common in countries without fixed terms. In the past year, we have had snap polls in the UK and Japan both of which have been covered. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * General elections are ITNR for all sovereign states. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not a huge deal to me one-way or the other, but this was not a snap election chosen to gauge support for a new policy, but in effect a vote-of-no-confidence which the opposition lost. I could see posting this if it weren't a pro-forma affirmation of the status quo. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The real news behind this would-be ITNR entry is a people's re-election, or affirmation, as you say, of a (Prime) Minister and other Assemblymen dismissed by the King for being a threat to the Kingship, in a recall election initiated by the same King. Bagoto (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Support article is bare minimum. If the PM was trying to claim powers, then a background section ought be added. Elections are ITN/R so we don't end up in endless bickering about whose elections are important. Hurts nothing to post this. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - this is an election of a sovereign country, of course it is ITN-worthy. Whether it is a snap election or called for a particular reason is irrelevant, as others have pointed out. The only question is whether the article is up to scratch. All the numbers are there, which is the (IMHO) is the only essential part, so it should be posted. Adpete (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Cambodia National Rescue Party
PS Alternatively, it could be incorporated into Cambodian general election, 2018, which already briefly covers the series of events. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article has some organization issues, WP:LEAD and WP:SS recommends that an article's lead should summarize while the body should elaborate; and this article seems to turn that upside down; most of the good information is only in the lead, and not expanded on in the body at all. Still, the information is all there, it's well referenced, and this is being covered by news sources.  Secondly, referencing in the article outside of the specific recent news is spotty and not well developed, many sections have either no sources, or have an unclear relationship between the sources and the text.  It would need some work to be main-page ready.  It's not awful, but someone who is knowledgeable about the subject has some work to do.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, anti-democratic moves are common in undeveloped nations. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in principle: I think this deserves in principle to be in ITN per WP:BIAS and WP:WORLDWIDE. This is a very important development for Cambodian democracy, far more important than 5 Australian Parliamentarians losing their seats because of dual nationality which we posted recently. And anti-democratic moves may be common in underdeveloped nations, but then elections are common in Western Nations and we still automatically report on most of them (subject only to quality) per ITNR. Similarly terrorist outrages are common throughout the world, but we still routinely post them at ITN. And so on. Put another way, if the main opposition party were outlawed in a Western nation we would almost certainly deem it notable enough to post, so claiming it should be ignored because it's not a Western nation seems like a classic instance of systemic bias. (And incidentally I'm not sure that there's anything particularly common about outlawing the main opposition party in 3rd world countries - I strongly suspect that it's actually a lot rarer than most of the elections and terrorist outrages that we routinely post). I'm not sure about whether the articles meet our quality standards, though they seem surprisingly good relative to most of our articles on such 3rd world topics, and I'm a bit concerned that demanding the same standards for such articles as for articles on, say, British or American politics, is itself a form of systemic bias.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I oppose this primarily because it doesn't seem to be a big news story, but I agree with Abductive that this is not uncommon.  A western democracy outlawing a political party would indeed be posted, not due to bias, but because it is very unusual(and highly illegal).  A dictator or oppressive government silencing opposition to their rule is hardly unique or unusual.  Elections worldwide are able to be posted, not just those of western countries(even elections widely believed to be rigged or unfair in other countries are often nominated and posted), because the makeup of governments are often a worldwide and national concern. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Anyone who's been following the news from this part of the world will recognise this as the largest political development in Cambodia of the past few years. Hun Sen's crackdown on the opposition has been ongoing for several months. The court decision was preceded by the forced closure of a major newspaper and an amendment to the party law anticipating the dissolution. All this really deserves a separate article to itself, along the lines of 2015–2017 Cambodian political crackdown. That we have only a woefully inadequate article on the party to base the ITN item upon reflects precisely on Wikipedia's systemic bias problem. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Though I would support based on the impact of the news, I simply don't believe the article is of sufficient quality. It has no prose outside of its lead section, and consists almost entirely out of lists. If the article were improved, I would definitely change my !vote. ~ Mable ( chat ) 13:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on quality I think the dissolution of a major party in any country is ITN-worthy, even in dictatorships or repressive regimes. (The only "major" party of North Korea is the Workers Party itself, and a dissolution of the party would undoubtedly be the #1 headline worldwide.) In this case the dissolution of the party is a major development in the crackdown of opposition. EternalNomad (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Question: Is it time to close this per WP:SNOW? While I supported it 'in principle', there has been no unqualified support by anybody, due partly to inadequate quality which seems very unlikely to be fixed (and there has been no support for my tentative suggestion that we should perhaps consider lowering our standards for such 3rd world topics to avoid systemic bias). And there is also quite a lot of opposition on notability grounds too, so that even in the unlikely event of quality issues being overcome there would seemingly still be no consensus for posting. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree per the rest of the explanation. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  16:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What's the Target Article? I can't even judge this as nominated, although am a possible support vote, having seen coverage of this in admittedly unintersted-in-Cambodia-in-general American press. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The two target articles are clearly and explicitly noted in the template, "Cambodia National Rescue Party" and "Kem Sokha".  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I guess that's why they are both bolded. Do you also write reading glass prescriptions? μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I just stick to reading the template. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Lil Peep

 * Support Article quality is sufficient for main page. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Just tried to clean-up the death section, which contained unsourced and poorly-sourced speculation. AusLondonder (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The discography section needs a source somewhere, otherwise it looks ok. --Tone 18:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article has the sourcing good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Lean support. Only quibble is the sourcing of the discography. Capitalistroadster (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment There are a couple cites needed. I've added tags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Copy edit needed I corrected two present-tense problems, then saw the awkward "in his time alive". The article needs clean up, but I am not the one for it. μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ready as of this diff, I have commented out discography not already reffed in text, as well as comment on relation with mother, checked and did very minor copy editting and removed ref tags.  Is ready to go. μηδείς (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. Alex Shih (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Sale of Salvator mundi

 * Needs expansion There are only a couple of sentences dealing with the sale. If that's the reason for putting this on the main page we need to beef that up. Otherwise I support in principal. [I hope that whoever just dropped $450M on that gets their big tax cut for Christmas. Society really needs to support billionaire art collectors.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in Pinciple, but needs expansion, been talking about this in my Art History courses lately. However the section dealing with this is somewhat lacking as the User above states, it needs some work before the ITN can be posted. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Suggest blurb should also link to List_of_most_expensive_paintings. yorkshiresky (talk) 07:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Should indeed also link to List of most expensive paintings, as suggested. ~ Mable ( chat ) 08:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 10:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * post support obviously notable record and "minority topic" for arts.Lihaas (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support it's already been expanded considerable in the past two days, notably with images and sources, but text too. Good choice. Coldcreation (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état

 * Leaning support, lets wait for a few hours on the news cycle to get confirmation from Western media. --M ASEM (t) 06:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, uncertainty is high. Is it a coup? Is it succeeding? Abductive  (reasoning) 07:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if it's an attempt, we did post 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt anyway. Brandmeistertalk  08:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a bit more unusual than Turkey, as (at the time of writing) the military are vehemently denying that this is any kind of coup or that there's been any change of government. noteworthy has obviously happened, but until we know what we shouldn't be posting it. &#8209; Iridescent 08:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well the BBC are reporting whatever it is seems to be successful - so 'attempt' is probably out. It wouldn't surprise me if Grace will turn up dead within a week. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support big deal, and Mugabe's own party have confirmed his detainment. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Mugabe held sway since 1987, one of the longest presidency, this for sure is not small news, more coverage and analyses are surely underway &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Big breaking story, article in good shape.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is fine, the story is developing but the blurb is accurate at the moment. --Tone 10:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * blurb change deceptive to say the country as the article does not mention beyond Harare and no idea of loyalists elsewhere will take some stand. (In principle, support though)Lihaas (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you propose a specific wording you'd like to see? WP:ERRORS may also be a better place to suggest changes to blurbs rather than here.  But either way, you'll need to propose a specific blurb you'd like to see replace this one.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Post-posting comment – From what I've seen ( "Zimbabwe army has Mugabe, wife in custody, controls capital"), the phrase "military takeover of the country" may be premature (per Lihaas). Further, it would be appropriate to mention Mugabe, the world's Zimbabwe's long est -serving head of state, in the blurb. Suggest:
 *   Zimbabwe National Army troops seize control of Harare and place President Robert Mugabe under house arrest.
 * – Sca (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that Mugabe should definitely be mentioned.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not only is that proposed blurb ungrammatical, it also fails to include a bold link to the target article! <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear 'Genius', it is not ungrammatical (unless you're referring to some usage peculiar to British English). Of course the blurb would include a link to the article; I was merely proposing phrasing. I agree with Only (below) that Harare shouldn't be separately linked. Sca (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Proper grammar in any standard dialect of English would prefer the word "and" instead of the comma in your proposed blurb. Your usage is only standard in headlinese.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine w/me – pls see ed'd blurb above. Sca (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but now we're picking sides in the "He said-she said" thing; the Military has explicitly said that Mugabe is NOT under arrest, while others have said he IS under house arrest. The article itself hedges as well, or at least doesn't make it clear.  It states only that Jacob Zuma has said that Mugabe is under house arrest.  That is, the article never says "Mugabe was placed under house arrest".  The article says "Someone else says that Mugabe was placed under house arrest" and those are NOT the same thing.  The second statement of fact is insufficient to assume the first.  I can say the sky is red, and that does not make it so.  We would need reliable, independent sources to confirm his house arrest, and for the article to cite those sources and make an unambigious statement thereof. Without all of that, we can't force the blurb to make claims that the article, as yet, does not.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

In a story datelined HARARE (filed about 20:30), AP says "Zimbabwe’s military was in control of the capital and ... was holding President Robert Mugabe and his wife under house arrest." – Sca (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * → See also DPA (English): "President Robert Mugabe... was under house arrest in the capital Harare after the military took control, plunging the country into political turmoil." – Sca (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's all fine, but it wasn't in the article at the time I raised my objection. Now that the situation has changed, it doesn't look like a problem.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * unblue Harare and link 'seize control'? "While seizing control of Harare, Zimbabwe National Army troops confine Robert Mugabe to his home." - its also unclear if he is under house arrest or protection. The ZNA has been clear its targeting people around him, not him itself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, Mugabe isn't remotely the world's longest-serving head of state; I don't know where you've got that idea from. He's not even the longest-serving current head of state in Africa; Paul Biya and Theodoro Obiang have both been in office for five years longer than Mugabe. If only there were some kind of website where you could look these things up… &#8209; Iridescent 16:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, pfui!) See List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * He's not the longest serving but at 93, he is the oldest.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Guess I mis-remembered a phrase from AP. Sca (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Footnote: Reports on two evening news shows seen here in the U.S. said Mugabe was under house arrest. Sca (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes the BBC have updated since my comment above as well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Needs updating - discussion at WP:MPE please. Mjroots (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like he's about to resign...  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ...or maybe not.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed "needs updating" from the header here as, contrary to expectations, Mugabe didn't resign today. --LukeSurlt c 21:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like he's just lit the fuse over there. The fact that he has been sacked by his party is still a fact that could warrant bumping up. But I see that the thread at WP:ERRORS suggesting that has now been deleted. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Hou Zongbin

 * Support Relies on foreign language sources but that is acceptable. I’m assuming that Sina is a reliable source? Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sina is a major Chinese news site. I've also added a few others. -Zanhe (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Bobby Doerr

 * Comment Sourcing needed in "Early career", "Later MLB Career" and awards, but doesn't seem to be too hard based on what is discussed. --M ASEM (t) 14:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a few since nominating, and will continue to. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And I've commented out a few things I can't easily source. It'd be enough to prevent the article from GA status but sourcing and article completeness should be sufficient for our standards. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article in its current state is fine for the main page. Nothing contentious is lacking a direct cite.  A few cn tags could be put here or there, but I see nothing that should give us pause for posting this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose such a stat-heavy article requires citations for all such microscopic claims (e.g. "His 223 home runs were then the third most by a major league second baseman, with his 1,247 RBIs ranking fifth in Red Sox history.") so until we have them all done and dusted, this is not good enough. Given the mass of baseball stats websites out there, this should be easy.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Jayron32. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, such claims should be referenced Brad, and it's easy enough for you fans to do that. It would be good to see some article edits from some of our overlords, just to reassure us you all remember what you're doing.  This is a good opportunity to demonstrate that, especially as we approach the next Arbcom elections.  So many RD nominations here are given proper treatment, most of them are not about US citizens, but they are worked on hard and earnestly.  Given the propensity of baseball sources, it should be simple to fix the outstanding unverifiable claims.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to repeat a point on which we've disagreed before (and on which you've moved me some distance toward your point of view, but not the whole way), there comes a point where a solid article contains sufficient referencing to be mainpage worthy even though not each and every statement in the whole piece has an inline cite. Consider two versions of the same article. The first contains 10 statements of fact, all fully referenced. The second contains 50 statements of fact, 48 of which are referenced and two of which are undisputed but unreferenced. I would consider the second article to be in a better state; I gather that you do not agree. The ArbCom elections are not relevant here and should not be mentioned again on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid your superficial review is inadequate. It needs more work to hold water, tagged as such.  No reason not to mention Arbcom elections, a necessary requirement of any Arb is an appreciation of what us content creators do, daily.  Some Arbs scarcely make a mainspace edit daily.  Your threatening tone is not required.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "In 1938 he became a regular in a powerful Red Sox lineup..." is a subjective statement that needs a citation (as noted). That's a clear definency and that's one of the one I noted originally. All the other current CN statements are contentious - maybe not BLP level type contentious but clearly language we can't use in WP voice without a source. This is a problem and not representative of WP's best work. --M ASEM (t) 22:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I already edited that subjectivity out. And most of the cn tags. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks like just one (very important) fact to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've commented out all the things I can't find sources for. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Thomas J. Hudner Jr.

 * Support - good to go. --LukeSurlt c 22:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Hypertension

 * Oppose recommendations are not ITN worthy. 2600:1015:B10F:EB1B:5C86:69C0:EB37:52F4 (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose clearly more suited to DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – ditto, suitable for Current Events and DYK, but not ITN in general. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per all above. --LukeSurlt c 23:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Fairly major news.NBC newWashington PostHuff Post Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all of the above, recommendations are not major news despite notable coverage. Kirliator (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support this has been floating around in the press since at least the summer, and DYK would normally be a good place, but this will have rather large repercussions and a lot of interest from our adult readers. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't WP:NOTNEWSPAPER apply here? I might be wrong but I read your !vote as something like "It's been foreshadowed a lot and adults will need to know this". -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  04:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose as two of the above users put it, this is a recommendation, and NOT a requirement. This is the kind of “news” that most people would not generally pay attention to or not care about. SamaranEmerald (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A comment to that - you typically cannot require something in a medical context. For example it might be that a natural birth is dangerous for a particular woman, but a doctor still cannot force the woman to have a Cesarean section. It is not ethical. You can see similar language in medical recommendations. "See your dentist as soon as possible about your toothache if you have a toothache that lasts longer than 1 or 2 days". That's a recommendation, and can only ever be a recommendation, because nobody can require you to see a dentist if you have a toothache that lasts longer than 1 or 2 days. As for how many people care about it, there are hundreds of millions of people with high blood pressure. I don't know how many of those are self-monitoring their own blood pressures but I'd not be surprised if it's substantial. Are you (or your female friends if you're male) for example self-monitoring for lumps in your breasts that might indicate breast cancer? That's based off a guideline too. Banedon (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your arguments are largely correct, but this item does not belong on ITN. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support if the blurb changes to high blood pressure, it does effect a lot of people. Seems pretty arbitrary what we consider suitable for ITN. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 04:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer using “High Blood Pressure” rather than “Hypertension”, largely because the former is more common in the general public. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose high blood pressure is an issue across the world, especially in advanced economies; changing the minimum blood pressure level by a few mmHg isn’t necessarily “small” but it isn’t really “big” either. 161.6.7.1 (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If one believes the sources, this change reclassified 30 million Americans as having hypertension. That should be pretty "big". Banedon (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that what you said technically an opinion, no matter how you protest.161.6.7.1 (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I’ll give it 24 hours, if there is still no consensus to post by then, I’ll re-close it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornetzilla78 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You're being silly, 161. A medical opinion is a professional judgment, not a statement of aesthetic preferences.  This will have a greater effect than current HIV or Hepatitis prophylaxis, and insurance companies will have to absorb the costs, while many lives may be saved.  The rush to close this seems to be based on recentism, not years of supporting research to the contrary. μηδείς (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ...and yet what you said is also a personal opinion Medeis. Opinions ≠ Facts. 161.6.7.1 (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Although I agree with those editors that think this is important, it is not ITN material. Too diffuse in its impact, too arbitrary, and overall not an discrete event. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A recommendation to change a threshold for medical diagnosis in one particular country is not sufficiently notable for ITN. We wouldn't post new guidelines on what counts as obesity, for example. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. More suited for DYK than ITN. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Doctors have been recommending lowering your blood pressure for decades. This does not really differ from medical consensus that existed prior to the adjustment.--WaltCip (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Edith Savage-Jennings

 * Support Short but adequately referenced.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support Quite weak indeed. The article is very short on useful information about her notable work, it asserts rather than demonstrates, which is always a pet peeve of mine; it states she'notable for her civil rights work, then does very little to describe any such work!  Shame, really. I would consider this the BAREST of minimum to be postable, as the line has to be drawn somewhere, but this brushes right up against that line.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support per Jayron, this is just above start class and isn't a comprehensive bio, but it meets our needs, and who knows, maybe having it on the main page will encourage others to expand it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That is my hope as well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 05:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Liz Smith

 * Support, watching extensive coverage of her death on New York City local TV news as I type. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 09:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Kermanshah earthquake

 * Wait Article needs more information (as in expanding). Await for more details to come. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Almost there, could use some detail, and the name is not yet stable. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support It is an important issue, however the article should be improved.-- Seyyed(t-c) 05:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - No doubt. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Just checked the article. It is brief but not poorly written. It conveys all the necessary information. AusLondonder (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is start class and well-referenced. Death toll is significant. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good to go, I've marked as ready and updated the blurb for most recent figures. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 09:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Slovenian presidential election

 * Support - good to go. As it is ITN/R and the update is satisfactory, marking ready. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Removing ready. Just needs a prose update to go with results (with reactions, etc.) and then this will be good to go. All of the background otherwise looks fleshed out and well-referenced.  Spencer T♦ C 18:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is what the Second round section is intended for, or would you like it somewhere else? --Tone 18:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] 2017 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis

 * Oppose - not front page worthy unless there's an actual outcome, i.e. an election called or the Prime Minister of Australia is deposed. Adpete (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not remotely ITN unless there's a suggestion that the government will fall; the governing party not having a majority is the norm in most of the world, and posting this would set a precedent for posting every resignation in the slow drip-by-drip disintegration of the May government in Britain. which I'm not sure is what you want. On a dip-sample of Aussie news sites, this isn't even mentioned on the Daily Telegraph, news.com.au or Herald Sun websites, and while it's mentioned on The Australian and ABC it's well below the fold on both; it also doesn't even get a mention on the BBC's Australian service. &#8209; Iridescent 13:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Support the item is "in the news", article is ok. Lets post the drip drip drip disintegration of the may government. Lets post Trumps rambling in Asia. Lets post the TPP talks. (with quality updates). This is "in the news" not "what I wish was in the news". --CosmicAdventure (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the government falls. ITN is not a news ticker and uses editorial judgement and consensus (as all publishers and media do) to determine what is posted, instead of parroting the press. Wikinews is available for those who just want to post news. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment How is this different to the 27 October nomination that you supported, which also did not involve the government "falling"? Chrisclear (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case a court ordered MPs removed, an unusual occurrence. This case is just a MP resigning, which is more common. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That may be the case, however, the only reason Alexander resigned was because he knew that, if his case was referred to the High Court, he would almost certainly be found to be in breach of s44 of the Constitution. He did not resign for "family reasons" or "health reasons", for example. Although (technically) he was not removed due to court action, the underlying reason is the same as it was for those MPs removed on 27 October. Chrisclear (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I still would prefer that there be an additional hook such as the government falling or even another whole group being forced out. As stated above, this doesn't seem to be big news even in Australia. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was really surprised to see that appear on ITN, and would have opposed it for the same reason I oppose this one. Adpete (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Closing per note above. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Ellyse Perry double century

 * Oppose Just an individual score within one match, which merely improved the third highest by a woman overall from 204 to 213. I would maybe support posting the result of the Ashes series when it is concluded, but not this.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Ashes is on the ITNR list and does not need support on the merits, just FYI. 331dot (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The men’s is, certainly, but has there been a discussion about whether the women’s version is too? Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I did not realize there was a women's Ashes competition as well. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose I might have considered a world record score, but this - as mentioned above - isn't one. Black Kite (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose If it was the highest Test score, or first woman to score 200+, then yes, but in this case, sadly oppose.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Leakage of radioactive materials into the atmosphere in Eastern Europe

 * Oppose, stale, over-hyped news story is stale. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Aductive, event at this point is already Stale. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment stale how? It's in the news right now, today. Right now. Article is no where near MP quality though. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose the proposed event took place over a month ago, thus the nomination is technically stale as the first two users state. Kirliator (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Overhyped" has it right; this is the kind of discharge one would get from a hospital accidentally putting used radiotherapy material into the incinerator or from a routine satellite re-entry, not Chernobyl Mk 2. Even the Guardian—which is usually the first to jump on any anti-nuclear bandwagon going—emphasises that this poses no risk to health. &#8209; Iridescent 13:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John Hillerman

 * Support Article might do with some minor upkeep, but it seems okay for posting. Dellavien (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support not the longest article but it's adequate and reasonably well sourced. Sad news. Like too many RDs of late I can say that I remember him. Memory eternal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support It is not a necessarily long article, but it is also thoroughly sourced and to the point, so therefore the article should be featured in RD. --PootisHeavy (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Marked as Ready -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. Alex Shih (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Liberation of Abu Kamal

 * It is my understanding that Deir ez-Zor was ISIS's last major stronghold in Syria (see 3rd line ). Describing this minor battle in such terms is not accurate. Regardless, Battle of Abu Kamal would need to exist. --LukeSurlt c 12:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Modified the blurb, and yes, we need an article. Which is why I pinged the two biggest contributors to the Syrian Civil War topic. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Telepathy hehehehe, I have been working on an article for the Abu Kamal offensive for the last few hours and will be ready to create it in the next 10 min or so. :D EkoGraf (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And done 2017 Abu Kamal offensive. :) EkoGraf (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice work, as always. Modified the blurb per ITN standards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Updated the article link on the blurb. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - The article 2017 Abu Kamal offensive is short but sufficient. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to be treated by sources as a significant milestone in the Syrian war. --M ASEM (t) 15:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article well sourced and appears to be a very important event in the civil war. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support A major event in the civil war of ITN significance. AusLondonder (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: According to the live map, the Syrian government forces are only in control half of Abu Kamal. Is it really the best timing to post this now? Alex Shih (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: This may have to wait a little. A recent counteroffensive by ISIL saw the recapturing of over 40% of the town (60% according to Al Jazeera). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support it's in the news and has received more coverage as the battle develops. Only reason not to is the potential ISIL counteroffensive, but it's really a great chance to show Wikipedia working in real time since the blurb can be amended as the situation changes.
 * Oppose as written. The article has been updated to cover the point made by Fitzcarmalan, i.e. that it's far from liberated.  Either change the blurb to reflect the reality, or close the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I can close this with a "[Wait]" or "[On hold]" tag in the header. But does it at least qualify for Ongoing at this point? Or was the initiative discarded since ITN/C was linked in T:ITN? I personally don't think we should post this with ISIL fully in control of the town, regardless of how we modify the blurb. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is not a "stronghold," there are no more strongholds. Let's just wait for the end of major combat operations. GCG (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Even when the place falls, it won't be the end of civil war in either Syria or Iraq. It will just be the latest reverse for Isil, a party which has been seen as a largely spent force, at least in conventional terms, for quite some time, roughly since they lost the ITN-worthy cities of Mosul and Raqah (although if and when they are fully defeated conventionally they may or may not then choose to carry on as a guerilla force for years). But there are plenty of other parties still standing (various groups of Sunnis, Shias and Kurds), so that claims that this event is 'significant' seem to be either propaganda or WP:CRYSTAL or both. Put another way, it looks something like that perhaps 5% of the problem last week has become perhaps 4% of the problem this week, entirely as expected, and propagandists are overhyping it as usual, because that's what propagandists are paid to do. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Paris Agreement

 * Oppose The US withdrawal was posted, very properly. This is not major news and the blurb has more than a whiff of WP:RGW hanging over it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is Syria is by itself not a very notable signatory; it is notable only because it is the last country in the world to sign it. But it's not strictly the 'last' country, because the US is rejecting the accord. It's difficult (impossible?) for me to construct a blurb without also mentioning the US. If you can see a way, please add an alt blurb. Banedon (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The only thing that has garnered this any attention at all is that the US remains the last country not to sign. But the withdrawal of the US has already been posted, making this a duplicate post that seems to have no purpose other than to wag our finger at the US for its obduracy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's narrow. We posted Saudi Arabia allowing women to vote for example - something that's already allowed in the vast majority of countries in the world. Similarly we had Germany allowing same-sex marriages rejected because "being the Nth country to allow same-sex marriages in EU is not news" . However where there is a first, there is also a last. If, a hundred years into the future, ___ becomes the last country in the world to allow same-sex marriage / women's suffrage etc, would you consider that news? If yes, then we're in a similar situation (the US is technically still part of the agreement). Banedon (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Allowing women to drive/vote in Saudi Arabia is comparing apples to oranges. And Syria is not the last country. It is the last save one. If/when the US rejoins the accord I will support posting it. For now this is still just wagging our finger at the US (or maybe Donald Trump). We have already posted the US withdrawal. Nothing has materially changed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose The US's withdrawl was the story, not smaller nations signing onto it, even if they make the US the only party to not agree to it. --M ASEM (t) 03:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad and Masem, when Trump announced the U.S. withdrawing from the agreement, it was a big story, but a smaller, less important country signing the agreement isn’t. Also keep in mind that the U.S can not effectively withdrawal until November 4, 2020. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Virginia and New Jersey elections

 * SNOW close. Local elections like this are rarely if ever posted. I would ask the nominator to think about if they would support posting a provincial election in India or Senegal. 331dot (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Roy Halladay

 * Support Wow. Article quality is really good. A few things aren't cited and some one sentence paragraphs need merging, but these minor issues should not prevent posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good enough for me, ready to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Important guy, B-class article, sourced death. p  b  p  21:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article updated and is sourced well enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Well referenced article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Carl Sargeant

 *  Oppose  for now. Poor referencing. Also he has been linked to the ongoing sexual harassment scandal which has all of a single very bland sentence on the subject in the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral The referencing appears to have been fixed, but I remain unimpressed by the article quality. In particular the single almost vanilla bland sentence discussing his being named in an ongoing scandal involving high ranking politicos from both parties in the UK over sexual harassment allegations really bothers me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As no details have been released, I think a "single almost vanilla bland sentence" is very likely all that we will be able to put there for quite some time. Especially given the circumstances of his death. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak support what's there is now referenced but the career section is somewhat lacking. Still, it meets the minimum I think... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support Yeah I'm with TRM. The sourcing is good enough now, though it's not the most detailed article., it's better than when you saw it last. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose There are four cn tags. Article is short but is referenced a majority of it. Get these four tags removed and sourced and it's a support from me. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Nothing left to source (as of this post).  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. A coroner's court has not yet determined a cause of death which, in terms of UK law, is a requirement before a clear cause can be stated in the article. But as he's not going to get a blurb anyway, I suppose this may not matter. The statements used by WP:RS news sources seem to have been respected in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Is Wikipedia, which is based in the U.S., bound by British law? Also, haven't sources reported this was suicide? AusLondonder (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it isn't. But if there is question over legal propriety for the UK, don't expect UK editors to want to contribute to the article or to support a posting at RD. The UK news sources have been careful to add "reportedly", "apparently", etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Adequately referenced and meets the RD criteria.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support No remaining issues from what discussed above. I don't see a problem with how we have worded it as "reportedly took his own life", that's not affirming its suicide, just what is presently the believed cause of death.  (I see there's an ANI opened about this due to an IP complaining about how its worded but I don't think that's actionable at this point.) --M ASEM  (t) 14:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted per clear consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Emmerson Mnangagwa

 * Oppose internal politics. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose much of the target article is poorly referenced or entirely unreferenced. Not main page quality.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Dick Gordon

 * Support - Definitely RD ITN worthy. References could be improved though. But are ok.BabbaQ (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  definitely RD ITN worthy because he is dead and has an article. Article needs serious referencing work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support much improved, really good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I have fully referenced the article. It could be improved, but is okay.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, with thanks to Hawkeye7. Marking ready. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Articles appears to be in decent shape and referencing is adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Dionatan Teixeira

 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Heart attack at 25, huh. Article is sufficient to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support No issues.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. Alex Shih (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: Mansour bin Muqrin

 * Support - Article is quite short but sufficient. Has recieved world media coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - Article is well sourced but needs more information such as regarding his position of Deputy governor and more activities pre-2013 (more coverage on early life, early career, Deputy governship, and death). Support Article has been expanded with well sourced improvements. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article contains almost no useful information about his life. The main body of the article mostly restates the short lead with some extra verbiage and little details.  Needs a lot of expansion to be main page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * update needed This"Mansour bin Muqrin died in a helicopter crash near Abha (ِAl-Soudah) on November 5, 2017 The prince was killed along with seven other officials while returning from an inspection tour according to the Interior Ministry. The Cause was later said to be 'Bad Weather'. [9][10]"is the entire update to the text since April 2017. The lead repeats the fact of his death, and some categories have been added or updated, as well as the infobox.  But the text is insufficient. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Paradise Papers

 * Oppose These documents may lead to court cases or the like, but it doesn't seem like there is anything necessarily illegal happening here (ethically, that's different). --M ASEM (t) 20:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Support the article is ok, but it's all proseline. Has the press not done any analysis on this yet? Leading story in the headlines, it's certainly "in the news". --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I suspect this might well end up being bigger than the Panama papers, but as with that, it will take a long time to analyse it all. Though I have to admit that one of the initial headlines, that Queen Elizabeth ended up investing in an off-licence known for selling cheap booze is amusing. Black Kite (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Whether we like it or not this is major news. Has received coverage all over the worldBabbaQ (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I'm not sure why these have to be "illegal", just simply that the leak is being reported globally, and thus is genuinely in the news and sufficiently notable for inclusion at ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per Masem’s reasonings. This is largely the Panama Papers all over again in general, but I may reconsider once more of these leaks are made public. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Items at ITN do not need to cover illegality, and this is attracting significant attention globally, especially in the quality press. We posted the Panama Papers and this seems to be on a similar scale, the link with the British monarch is interesting. AusLondonder (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: Major international news story involving several high-profile individuals. This is Paul (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. If there's nothing illegal, then it's a private matter and the media shouldn't even be prying. Banedon (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Stupid media, prying into tax avoidance by our heads of state and government! AusLondonder (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it 'stupid', since the media is out to make a profit and as long as it sells, why not. But I would call it 'nosy'. The media is nosy about lots of things (such as the reasons ___ and ___ broke up), but they are private matters, and not things that should be posted on ITN. Banedon (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't see the connection between a celebrity break-up and tax avoidance by public figures, such as Prime Ministers, Presidents and Monarchs. AusLondonder (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * They're both private matters. Banedon (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm obviously not going to change your mind here but I'm astounded that anyone would seriously think tax avoidance by public figures is a "private matter". AusLondonder (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just as astounded you think it isn't a private matter. It's as though you think once a person becomes a public figure, the public suddenly has the "right" to know some (perfectly legal) thing that they don't demand of their next-door neighbour. If the public figure chooses to publicize it then sure, but (s)he should be under no obligation to do so. In the same way Trump hasn't publicized his tax returns and nobody is suing him for it (such a case would probably be thrown out, even). If anything this just makes me more convinced that the media - and by extension the public - should pry less. Banedon (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that, in democratic states, we should expect our leaders to behave in a proper way. That includes not avoiding tax. Because I may not wish to vote for someone who avoids tax, and would be unable to make an informed decision otherwise, I have a right to know whether my leaders are engaging in tax avoidance I'd be imprisoned for. AusLondonder (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's where we differ. I think avoiding tax is fine, since it's legal. You should not be getting imprisoned for tax avoidance either, since it's legal. Anyway this is already posted so no point discussing it further. Banedon (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't drive on public roads, use public transport, or ever need the assistance of the police or fire brigade. AusLondonder (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Rude. Banedon (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * By chance do you identify with the sovereign citizen or freemen on the land movement?--WaltCip (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Masem, Hornetzilla78, and Banedon. Panama Papers 2.0, self-explanatory. Kirliator (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really -- what was wrong with the Panama papers? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * More like self-defeating, given we posted the Panama Papers. AusLondonder (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose major leak, but nothing illegal at the moment, if something illegal does appear within the next few days, then I may have second thoughts. SamaranEmerald (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Illegality is irrelevant; tax avoidance by public figures is in the public interest and this is receiving widespread coverage. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted, rough consensus. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. WP:RS is calling them "Paradise Papers", maybe add to blurb somehow? My blurb writing skills aren't up to the task. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, all over the media and will be for some time. I'm not aware that "this will likely lead to criminal charges" is a criterion for events to be posted on ITN. --47.138.163.207 (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Nothing very unusual here. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support. This is a huge story that will take some time to get absorbed and sorted out. But, it is already clear from the existing coverage and the existing reactions that the story is not going away. Nsk92 (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Sutherland Springs church shooting

 * Wait but generally support With 27 confirmed dead, this is sufficiently deadly compared to other mass shootings in the US. Wait for a few hours to get some clarity on the event. --M ASEM (t) 20:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Can't even go to church any more. Doesn't matter if it's ISIS inspired or a right- or left-wing nut. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support. At the risk of repeating a well-known screed around here, the notability of this event is tempered by its increasing normality.--WaltCip (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The 2017 World Series is a normal event, taking place once a year. It's newsworthy, so it's posted. This is the same, only not regularly scheduled. It's newsworthy, so we should post it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait 1) the article is paper thin right now, 2) motivation is not known. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait I suspect the high death toll is enough to negate the "just another mass shooting in the USA" comment, but we know very little yet. Black Kite (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was actually on the fence ... I feel like Vegas set a new bar for that. I live in Atlanta, so FWIW I'm not some outsider screaming about Americas gun problem. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no, and should be no, "minimum casualty threshold" to determine ITN or not. It should be about news coverage, and I see lots already. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The news coverage is a function of the death toll, though. If a random person in the USA shoots three or four other people it hardly makes it out of the country, because it's not unusual.  This clearly is unusual. Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Three people killed in a Walmart in Colorado a few days ago. The shooter is white didn't praise Allah though so it wasn't "terrorism". --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is stub and we have no reasons to the motive. If it's just another internal gun crime issue, it's not notable, regardless of the swathes of news coverage.  If it's terror-related, then there's a possible option to post.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Motive is irrelevant. Death toll and news coverage remain whether it's ISIL, hatred of religion, a bad breakup, or his dog told him to do it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong, motive is highly relevant. There are mass killings worldwide daily, this is just another one of them until it becomes notable for more than just the death toll. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Their newsworthiness is determined by things like location and death toll. Motive is a factor in that, but not enough of one to throw this one off if it's somehow mundane. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Location: USA, death toll is sad but not unusual if you walked into a crowded place with a semi-automatic rifle. This is modern America, just like how we come to accept the use of car-bombs in Syria which kill 75 people without so much as a sniff of even an article, let alone an ITN nomination.  When the unusual becomes the norm, outliers should be considered.  Is this one?  Perhaps, but so far, only because it happened in America.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, it's still unusual to walk into a crowded place with a semi-automatic weapon and open fire in the U.S. As for other incidents, that's a war zone. Still, create the article and nominate it, and I'd probably support. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's the problem: some people keep telling themselves it's unusual but the statistics don't lie. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Statistics don't differentiate between random mass slayings and issues of gang and domestic violence -- but we do. No comment on this nom, but please understand that as a society we filter out situation where the shooter and victims were acquainted somehow. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * How often do 26 people get shot down going to church? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "deadliest church shooting in US history" this is all you need to know, that such a sub-category even exists tells its own story. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. It tells a story congruent with the purpose of ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Even the "terror-related" thing is a tough one. Some right wing crank gets triggered up and drives a truck into a crowd in NYC and it's called "terrorism" -- but there is no evidence he had material support from anyone. Just some loon who read too many angry blog posts. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, significant casualties, but I suggest we wait until the perpetrator and/or the motive are declassified. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - 27 deaths is a high number of deaths in a shooting. Motivea are irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, at least for now. I disagree that the motive is irrelevant for newsworthiness. A politically-motivated shooting will be of more significance than one motivated by a personal grudge. As others have said, the high frequency of mass shooting incidents in the United States is seeing them become somewhat of a routine event. Having said that, the death toll is notably high. We chose not to post the 2017 Mumbai stampede, largely on the basis of it being a tragic, but common event. AusLondonder (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support on the one hand it's clearly in the news right now and if past events are any indication, the article will improve quickly. On the other hand, this is quite similar to other recent events (the NY attack & the one in Vegas), and both those events have actually mostly dropped off the news. I was expecting more lasting coverage, but apparently no. Banedon (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support once we know more and the article has been expanded. This is Paul (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding notability: Wait per several others above. Regarding quality: no opinion on suitability of posting based on quality of article. ---Sluzzelin talk  22:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Yes mass-shootings are common in the US but 26 people massacred in a church stands out nevertheless and is receiving widespread coverage. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, now the deadliest church shooting in US history. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 00:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, per AmaryllisGardener above. Nsk92 (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

[Ready] Lebanese Prime Minister resigns

 * I'd want this story to also include the appointment of his successor, but as far as I can tell this hasn't happened yet? Has the resignation not taken effect or is the office vacant? --LukeSurlt c 11:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support unusual and notable given the underlying reason; Hariri's assertion that he fears his father's fate, assassination, at the hands of Iran-backed Hezbollah. And yes, he has been succeeded in office according to his info-box.  Given this was a matter of discussion on the radio in the US today, it is hardly an unnoticed event on the world scale. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As of right now he's still listed as the incumbent PM in the infobox. There's a successor in the infobox, but that's for his 2009–2011 term. --LukeSurlt c 11:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose follow the regular route, wait for his replacement. The resignation is meh. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The appointment of a new PM is not ITNR, and likely not ITN per se. The circumstances here, including reactions, are noteworthy. If the new PM was announced, it should be in the blurb, but the posting of the resignation should not be contingent on that happening. GCG (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ready Five sentence, six source update with successor noted given TRM's concern. Blurb could be changed to say he is replaced, but the resignation is the notable news, not that a vacancy was filled. μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed the ready tag. I still support the nomination conditionally, but it seems our article is incorrect in having named Mikati as the successor, and this NYT article says Hariri's resignation has not been accepted by the Lebanese president, and that Hariri may return on Thursday. μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Why hasn't this been posted already? This is a huge ongoing international story, since it looks like Hariri resigned under duress and is being held involuntarily by the Saudi Arabia. There is now also an additional target article, 2017 Lebanon–Saudi Arabia dispute, that could be linked. Nsk92 (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - This is huge geopolitical news. It's been reported that Hariri resigned under coercion of the Saudi crown prince (he announced his resignation in Riyadh and has still not returned to Lebanon), and that Hezbollah has claimed that Hariri's resignation is "declaration of war" by the Saudis. -Zanhe (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Saudi purge

 * Support as nom, a major purge, given the freezing of assets and the downing of private jets by the Crown Prince's reform commission. μηδείς (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to low international coverage,even though Bin Talal is involved. SamaranEmerald (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Low international coverage? How did you figure that? As of this moment, the story is the number one story at the BBC News site, at France24 , at Deutsche Welle; number two story at RAI; it is listed in the top news stories section by the Times of India, lenta.ru,, listed as the top story in the Word section of South Africa's Mail&Guardian ], has an in-depth article by Hong Kong's South China Morning Post, etc, etc. Nsk92 (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 *  Wait  this is breaking news right now. Most of the sources I am seeing are reporting that 11 princes of the Saudi royal family have been arrested along with numerous former ministers. On the surface that sounds like ITN material to me. But I'd like to wait maybe 12 hours so we get an idea of what is actually going on before we throw this up on the main page. Also we need something that is adequately updated to link to. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support It is now clear that this is very big news and while I could hope for a bit more expansion, or even a stand alone article, I think what we have is acceptable. The target article is in decent shape and adequately referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It's now in the New York Times [The Wall Street Journal] [The BBC], and HuffPo. I didn't expect this to go up as quickly as the disqualification of four Australian parliamentarians, and not being a Saudi, I have no personal opinion of the matter. μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait per Ad, until further development and detail is announced which will likely be within the next 12-24 hours. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, but ultimately Wait this initially does look like ITN material, but after reading the provided sources, there is little information as to WHY these Princes and the share-holder are being arrested other than ‘corruption charges”. I am willing to wait for further information to be released, but at the moment, I’m leaning towards opposition for the time-being. Kirliator (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a three-paragraph, ~2400 byte, four-source update of the target that gives multiple sources saying the is a consolidation of power by Crown Prince Salman's reform agenda. μηδείς (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Leaning support, but this is breaking news and we need to wait a bit for things to become more clear. Otherwise it does seem worthy for inclusion. AusLondonder (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll support this when you break it out into 2017 Saudi Arabian purges, list each of the ousted ministers (and many of them blue linked) with whatever the media thinks was the reasoning. Current target article is inadequate. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Who is "you"? You can create that article yourself.  I am not interested in jumping through arbitrary non-guideline hoops for your benefit. The current update is quite sufficient, and the target very relevant. μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in doing the hard work for you. If the article were updated sufficiently, it'd be too big for Salmans article and need to be busted out. I actually read the articles, which is more than some people here, and if that fails some WP:ITN take it over to AN/I. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to be opposed to the hard work of reading the guidelines "a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient" and reading the target article updated with at least three paragraphs and five sources. I'm marking this ready. μηδείς (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's some Faux News copy/paste skills there Medeis, well done. Here is the part that you missed "The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective" and in my subjective opinion enough is listing each individual who was purged and some short bit about their role in the Saudi government. The current update mentions a handful of individuals and not even the #'s. Utterly inadequate. Have a nice day! --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose article update is inadequate, and seems unlikely to be improved. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - Very important. Article looks sufficient - Sherenk1 (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose – will have little effect in the Saudi and International communities. Musharraf Mushroom (talk) 07:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ^Assuming good faith here, but this is the first contribution from this editor. AusLondonder (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I love the smell of spas in the morning. Stormy clouds (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Leaning Oppose I don’t doubt that this is a major breakthrough, but I really don’t see the long-term impact this will have on the both the national and international communities. What I’m saying is this is “in the news”, getting some reasonable coverage worldwide, likely because billionaire Bin Tatal is amongst those arrested, but I don’t think the international community, and perhaps the Saudi community will really give a hoot about this. 161.6.7.1 (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - They have arrested prominent business people. This definitely has an impact. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Doubts are not enough. This is an important event. Article looks ok for posting as well.BabbaQ (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, for certain. These arrests are of a very large number of prominent Saudis: I'd say this has an internal impact greater than that of the Australian MP disqualifications, which we just posted. The section is not quite up to scratch in my view, though, with some amount of puffery with respect to the prince. Vanamonde (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, assuming the target article is in good shape. The story has received major international coverage, and most news sources describe the purges as an extraordinary development. Nsk92 (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems we have a rough consensus to post. Regarding the blurb: it says 11 senior Saudi princes and 38 ministers while the article states over 40 princes and government ministers. I'd like it to be consistent. Also, shall we mention individuals or not? --Tone 17:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * They should be mentioned, too many for the blurb, and apparently actually listing who was pushed out, refed by some WP:RS is "unnecessary". --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean, shall we mention any individual in the blurb or just over 40 princes and ministers? Currently, there is Al-Waleed bin Talal mentioned individually. --Tone 18:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about that too. Bin Talal on his own is noteworthy, but ITN has the whole "we don't post until convicted" thing, so if it does go up, it should probably be just #s. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Posting the basic blurb. --Tone 18:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I mentioned Talal because he is the most noteworthy to anglophone audiences. Although I don't think posting factual information is a BLP problem, I have no objection to his being omitted and prefer shorter blurbs in any case.  There is the issue that some sources are saying only 4 ministers were arrested, the rest removed.  We might want to add "or removed" after arrested in the blurb. μηδείς (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Miss Earth 2017

 * Oppose posting a subjective beauty pageant that has minimal coverage in mainstream media from what I can see. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Ditto. Sca (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Ditto as well, it’s generally the Miss Universe pageant that gets major mainstream coverage in the world, not Miss Earth or Miss World. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - never even heard of Miss Earth, so it does not seem to resonate in the media. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I reverted the closure by Stormy clouds, since they've clearly participated in the discussion. No opinion otherwise. ansh 666 18:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Japan Series

 * Support - Article is in good shape. I think that if we post American baseball tournament results then Japanese baseball should too.BabbaQ (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is ITNR, so it will be posted upon adequate quality. Being Japanese or American is irrelevant. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ITNR only has two annual baseball events: the American and the Japanese. I didn't bother nominating the Korean series when it ended last week. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - article is fine, and ITN/R leads to a fast track. I would personally like an (admittedly unwieldy) amalgamated baseball blurb, as proposed in the second alt-blurb. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support alt I. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Alt.  Spencer T♦ C 04:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Abdur Rahman Biswas

 * Support A somewhat brief article for a former head of state. But I think it meets our standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support It's brief, but a good article for a very notable person. 1779Days (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article could do with some more content given his role but meets standard required. AusLondonder (talk) 07:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - per above. President is notabilityBabbaQ (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is an RD nomination, notability is not at issue. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Posting. --Tone 12:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Aboubacar Somparé

 * Support Was going to nominate the article myself! Article updated and is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - article is in good shape. Marking ready. Stormy clouds (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] New Orangutan species

 * Oppose - support in terms of notability, but oppose give the current state of the article, which is scarce more than stub at the moment. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously we're working on it. We'd love some assistance, thanks. Speciate (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am attempting an expansion, and the above oppose is very strictly temporary. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Article is good now, so support. Stormy clouds (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I've added altblurb II, which is short, uses the common name (which lets the non-Latin fluent reader know its an orangutan), and describes the event an identification of a new species rather than a discovery (the population has been known about since 1997). I think this better describes the event that occurs and is the term the BBC use. I think this is an ITN-worthy event — new mammal species are pretty rare, and great apes are even more interesting. --LukeSurlt c 20:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with your identification point. But I think an encyclopedia can afford a little Latin now and then, even on the front page. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Using the common name is the easiest way to identify this is an orangutan rather than another genus of ape. We could go for ​"The tapanuli orangutan (Pongo tapanuliensis) is identified as a new species of great ape", but this seems a little redundant. --LukeSurlt c 21:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, all Pongos are orangutans aren't they? Every BBC reader knows that, I'm sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose the discovery of a new species is generally CE material, but in single cases is not normally ITN worthy. Kirliator (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What's CE? Banedon (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Current Events? Stephen 22:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support because although new species are discovered all the time, most of those discoveries are insects, and new mammals are rare. Even that does happen, but this 1) is a great ape, humanity's closest relatives and 2) instantly became the most endangered great ape around. Searching for "new species discovered", a generic term, using Ecosia also yields this story as a top result. Banedon (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. A rare event, made much more notabile by being instantly the most endangered great ape. Article brief but in good shape. Martinevans123 (talk)
 * Added an image. The "official" photos associated with the article are CC-BY. --LukeSurlt c 22:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support by the way. I think the article is adequate to post in its current state. --LukeSurlt c 23:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose the discovery of a new species of animals is not covered by ITN/R. If it was multiple species, I would reconsider,but this is not the case. SamaranEmerald (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * News items at ITN do not have to be in ITN/R; this is merely a list of recurring items. Indeed, only one of the current five items is listed at ITN/R. Black Kite (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Good article and story is in the news and has greater public interest than most new species given it is closely related to humans. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Article is in good shape. While it is not uncommon for new species to be discovered in general, such a case with mammals, especially primates is rare.  In addition, we haven’t posted any biological science bulletins for some time now. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - this is a really rare event, and the article is in decent shape now. Black Kite (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not the discovery of a new species, but the decision to classify the long-known norther Sumatran orangutan as a separate species. That's a decision about classification, not the discovery of a totally new population. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a very significant scientific news and nice encyclopedic material.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. I see that there is more or less a consensus that this is a good story. --Tone 09:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Post picture too, please. --Jenda H. (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I think the picture should go up, especially as this is the first item now. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Great Pyramid of Giza

 * Oppose not the first such chamber, and plenty of reasonable explanations already proposed (e.g. reducing the weight on top of the hall below), nothing at all to write home about, could be a borderline interesting DYK but even then it's just an observation without any real new explanation and nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment It is an important discovery (all other "rooms" of comparable size were discovered in the 18th century; smaller cavities in the 19th century; in the 20th century only shafts) but 1) it is not a chamber (I would use "cavity"),   (not sure what "not the first such chamber" above really means, though) 2) the article says very little about the history of the discoveries, so the reader gets no context from the article to make the news important. --WikiHannibal (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose, still dicey as to whether or not a void was found, and empty spaces are by definition not interesting. In other words, people have been hoping for a secret burial chamber, and until a void is found containing anything other than rubble, dust and stale air, it is not ITN material. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment top science story today, but the referencing is a bit thin in a few sections, and there are some CN tags present. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's arguable whether archaeology is a science or part of history (so a humanity). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I would suggest DYK, rather than ITN. Stormy clouds (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Abductive. An empty void isn't notable enough for us, unless it turns out to be full of interesting artefacts. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

"... nothing other than rubble, dust and stale air"? Sounds like an average day at ITN/C. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 NTPC power plant explosion

 * Support - This looks like a significant workplace incident, and the article looks fine, even if it's a bit on the small side. This is a few days old, but if we can come to an agreement quickly there is still some time to slot this in. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Major accident with significant loss of life. While short, the article is adequately sourced and I think meets our customary standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support Just about adequate length to post.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Significant industrial accident and loss of life. Article has room for improvement but it is well sourced for posting now. --M ASEM (t) 20:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Alex Shih (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 World Series

 * Oppose The series hasn't ended yet, so it's premature to nominate this. Chrisclear (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really. The assured event is happening, so this nom gives time for editors to review all the progress so far on the article, sans the completion, to expedite the process. --M ASEM (t) 03:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then where is the line drawn regarding timing of nominations? How far in advance can an article be "OK" for nomination ahead of the event taking place?  Secondly, to the best of my knowledge, there is no tiebreaking mechanism in baseball, and it's possible for games to continue indefinitely, so it's possible that game 7 would not have finished on 1 November, or 2 November for that matter. Chrisclear (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Usually no early than the day of the event and all signs suggest it will happen as planned and that event will then be done and over with. This works well for sports tourneys (in this case, the last game of the series, regardless), elections, and awards presentation. It would be different if we were at Game 5, for example, the series at 3-1, which doesn't mean it is necessarily the last game. --M ASEM (t) 05:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Most of the content is pretty set. The Game 7 content has been updated in real time, and should be ready to be posted not long after the game ends, which will be in minutes (unless the Dodgers rally). – Muboshgu (talk) 03:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And now it's over. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support (and congrats to Houston!) — Blurb should be adjusted a bit though - "In baseball, the Houston Astros defeat the Los Angeles Dodgers to win the 2017 World Series". Aria1561 (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is in good shape. I prefer the original blurb. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Article has good coverage of the series with prose reports of each game and is well-referenced. I support the alt blurb as being in line with the format used for the blurbs in 2015 and 2016 - but it doesn't read quite right. Should it say "in the..." or "to win the...."? --Bcp67 (talk) 08:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. Posting. Feel free to update the image. --Tone 08:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * comment on hyperlink better to link the astros to the current season page. FINALLY...God bless Texas with his own hand/the stars at night are big and bright, deep in the heart of Texas/the yellow rose of Texas is the only girl for me Lihaas (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Is it notable enough to mention that this is the Astros' first-ever World Series win?  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 10:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Response Yes, please! A 55 year-old franchise at that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.175.58 (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really. We don't specify if a championship is a team's (or individual's) first win in other sports, or do any other sort of counting. Exceptions may have been made for record-breaking numbers of wins, but that clearly doesn't apply. That detail can be left to the article. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)