Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/September 2016

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: Brahim Zniber

 * Weak support not the most comprehensive article I've ever read but referenced and tidy. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] End of Rosetta mission

 * Support Now that it's happened. Not 100% sure "controlled crash" is the right term - it actually descended slower than the lander did, collecting data all the way - and most sources seem to be using "descend" or "land" (although some do use "crash"). Smurrayinchester 11:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as a unique event and a milestone of planetary science. I've added an altblurb, including switching to the 'controlled descent' terminology used by ESA. I've also added an image which would work at Main Page scale. Modest Genius talk 12:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 *  Comment Oppose – If I'm not mistaken, this event was planned all along. Sca (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not exactly "all along". There was no plan for what do at the end of the mission - they originally considered putting it back to sleep for five years until the next orbit. It looks the decision to land it on the comet was made some time in 2014 or so. Smurrayinchester 14:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The article says it "ended its mission by landing on the comet near a pit called Deir el-Medina." I haven't read a lot about this topic, but it's not entirely clear to me whether the vehicle achieved a soft landing or was destroyed. Sca (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: BBC headline: Rosetta mission ends in comet collision. Sca (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 *  Oppose  for now purely on article quality. I'm fine with the rational for the nomination. But there are just too many gaps in referencing in the Rosetta article. These need to corrected before this can be posted. The article on the comet has a couple of spots that could use a cite but overall I think it's good enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support There has been a clear improvement in referencing. There might be a few spots still in need of a cite, but overall I think it's good enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support posting something related to this event, which imo is far more relevant to an encyclopedia than much of what we post here. I agree with Ad Orientem that the comet article is more comprehensively sourced. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, uninteresting. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, using the word "descend" rather than "crash". The event is global news and of high interest as it marks the end of a very major mission and because of the data that may have been collected during this event. ~ Mable ( chat ) 20:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Descend" seems inaccurate. Friday's BBC story said: "Europe's Rosetta probe has ended its mission to Comet 67P by crash-landing on ... the icy object's surface. Mission control in Darmstadt, Germany, was able to confirm the impact had occurred when radio contact to the ageing spacecraft was lost abruptly. The assumption is that the probe would have been damaged beyond use." Sca (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support if the local Philly news radio sees fit to describe this as a crash landing, I think it is both newsworthy and accurate. Under the RD criteria this would be up already. μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't alive, so it can't be a "recent death". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Marking as Ready I believe there is a consensus in favor of posting this and there are no longer any objections based on article quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. I went with the first blurb, as "crash" is used in all the sources I've seen. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – What is a "controlled crash" – ?? Sca (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've clarified slightly. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good summary. Thanks. Sca (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But should 'crash landing' be hyphenated? Sca (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not in the school of English I was taught? Espresso Addict (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well BBC (above) hyphenated it as a verb. But whatever.... Sca (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] 2016 FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup

 * Oppose We don't usually do opening of sports events (the Olympics being an exception). Assuming article quality is up to scratch we will post the winner . -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Add I concur with the comments below. We don't post junior sports events. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose this isn't an Ongoing nomination. Plus it's highly unlikely that we'd ever post this junior tournament under any circumstances.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I thought so, but I expected that the context (first female cup) would have made you consider it.. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it may make others support, but I certainly couldn't support it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, consensus is strongly against posting junior sporting events. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Whilst I oppose this as well, we do post US college sports, what's the difference? Black Kite (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure this is more along the lines of High School and Junior High hence the U-17. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed (which is why I opposed myself), but I bet we wouldn't have posted the U-21 version either (which I would have supported) for the same reason ... consistency is something we need to look at on sporting events. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am less than enthusiastic about posting college level sporting events. But it's not a hill I feel the need to assault and plant the flag on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nor I really ... but the (men's) U-21 World Cup is in 2017 (the women's isn't until 2018), so let's wait until then... Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But as noted, WP:IAR is a policy (!!) no less so whether former consensus or not established that we should not post junior events (just as it established we no longer judge "super notability" of RDs), it is still perfectly acceptable to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. But I take a somewhat conservative approach to IAR. My view is that (with apologies to one of our former presidents) invoking IAR should be safe, legal and rare. I have done it a few times myself. But only in unusual situations where I really thought that an exception to an existing guideline was warranted but that circumstances did not justify changing the guideline itself. Here I have doubts about the guideline. If I was going to go down this path, I'd just propose removing most of the college/university level sports events from ITNR. And if someone made that proposal, I'd probably support it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Me too, but for consistency, with the RD entry below where IAR is quoted as a way of getting out of posting an RD even if it meets the quality threshold, it only seems reasonable to quote it here to note to others that IAR doesn't just apply as and when they feel appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Shirley Jaffe

 * Comment. Good job on the referencing, but I think more detail is needed on her style, works and critical reception before this can be posted. A list of some of her notable works is lacking, as is any detail on her sculpture. Pre-expansion there was a quotation that has been removed, which was useful; I assume this couldn't be referenced? The lead also could do with being a little longer. There's a long obituary in French from Le Figaro but embarrassingly I can't read the technical French. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions - have expanded somewhat. MurielMary (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm prepared to Support now. To the comment below about her death not being in the mainstream news, Le Figaro seems adequate. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak support it seems okay but not really comprehensive. Having said that, it's not a stub, and it has decent references, and is written well.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Looks OK to me. Per preceding comments it could do with a little more meat on the bones but what we have passes muster. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. An unknown artist whose article gets about 5 readers a day will dilute and trivialize the main page RD section. --Light show (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * nominations for RD are assessed on the quality of the article, not the notability of the subject. MurielMary (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "In the news" means widespread/general coverage, not a mention in the subsection of a niche periodical. And, yes, the readership of the Saturday Arts & Design section of the NYT is a niche audience.


 * Oppose no major works or awards. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability no longer a criteria for opposing a nom. Quality of article only. MurielMary (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The revised RD guidelines presumes that anyone with an article is sufficiently notable to be listed on RD. The only valid grounds for opposition is article quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It damn well is a criteria; WP:Ignore all rules is a WP:Policy. How dare you two attempt to stifle debate with your bogus claim? Abductive  (reasoning) 23:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted. I agree that Jaffe is not the most important, notable, or widely reported of deaths, but the community endorsed a quite permissive approach to selecting postings at RD.  Also, her inclusion is far from the least notable or least prominent to be posted since the RFC.  Dragons flight (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] 2016 Hoboken train crash

 * Wait but lean support There's conflicting numbers but all have at least 1 dead, possibly more, and dozens in critical conditions, with the total number injured above 100. This is a significant commuter rail accident but let's make sure the details are firmed up before posting. --M ASEM (t) 14:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I have been following the story closely since it broke, now three dead with the toll likely to rise significantly as dozens are "critically hurt". A significant train accident from the looks of it. Prevan (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait but this is probably going to turn into a support fairly soon. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Switching to Conditional Support. Subject merits a blurb but the article is not yet up to scratch. It needs to be expanded and referencing needs improvement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Not everything is about death toll. There are hundreds injured, that should suffice. Article is still quite poor at the moment, though. Banedon (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support significant train accident - definitely abnormal in the United States. 138.51.138.90 (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wait train crashes that kill 3 1 (as of this post) are not that rare, and unless there's a higher death count or evidence of a crime this rates at about the level of a multiple-car traffic accident. At this point the best place for readers to look is the area news, not a lagging encyclopedia. μηδείς (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - While the level of fatalities appears mercifully low compared to other rail accidents, it's still a grave matter. And there's a wider story regarding the failure to implement Positive Train Control systems under the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. (The US lags considerably compared to Europe in such matters.) AlexTiefling (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Yes, the number of deaths appears low (fortunately!!! And that is the only thing about it anyone should ever say!) And many of the injuries actually appear to be not as sever as first thought. But this is still a major crash. Firstly, as Alex noted, theres the PTC angle. Secondly, the structural damage to the terminal is very large, with a partial roof collapse. And that terminal is a nationally registered historic landmark; the roof itself is actually the first example of the Bush-type train shed, and its destruction, even partial, is notable in itself. oknazevad (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - article now in good shape. Rare for a rail accident to cause such severe damage to a station. Mjroots (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 *  Wait Oppose – Per μηδείς, Daniel Case. – Sca (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. BBC is now saying 1 dead and dozens injured. The article is currently not much above a stub and does not mention the historic nature of the building, nor does it discuss the underlying safety issues. I'm not opposed to posting this (especially as the news it would displace is very stale) but an accurate, non-sensationalist blurb and a reasonably-fleshed-out article are first needed. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * +1 - Ad Orientem (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is headline news at this moment, mainly due to its location, but if I recall correctly, at least two recent railway crashes in Western Europe with multiple deaths/casualties were not posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Searching through the archives, I found Dalfsen crash from Feb 2016 where the train was nearly empty and one death occurred (not posted), Hermalle-sous-Huy crash from June 2016 where three died, 40 injured (not posted), Andria collision where 20 were killed (posted), Amtrak derailment in April 2016 where 2 groundcrew were killed (not posted). There might be more and I do sorta see the comparison simply on the the death/injured numbers that this is nothing like a major incident (eg the Andria one), but there are points about the damage to the historic terminal and the failure of a major safety feature, rather than just human error, that seem to play to this too. --M ASEM  (t) 19:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We also have the Spuyten Duyvil derailment which killed four and damaged the track at a vital junction. But that wasn't posted, given the lack of importance of New Amsterdam. μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To the latter point, unless I'm reading it incorrectly, the train wasn't fitted with the so-called PTC (per the BBC, According New Jersey Transit's most recent PTC progress report, none of the 440 trains on the New Jersey Transit rail line are equipped with PTC, nor have any employees been trained on the equipment.), so it wasn't a failing of a major safety feature, more likely human error. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's human error - but now reading further, it appears that they were originally set to be required by 2015, but Congress extended the deadline to meet complaints by train companies. Now, I know we're not yet at the point to determine if the lack of PTC would have prevented this, so the political failing here is likely a sideline issue, but it could be significant. I would still consider all other factors equal that the damage to an historic building atop the incident makes this more than just another tragic train crash. --M ASEM (t) 19:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, so in summary, it's a single death with some damage to a building and lots of injuries. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as a train colliding with a station is somewhat rare, as is a historic building being damaged in such an accident. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. We are down to a single death. This is starting to look like a lot less than what we originally thought. Yeah there was some property damage and a high number of injured, but we have refused rail related accidents with higher casualties. Issues involving safety laws are extremely common with any transportation related accident. Sorry, but as the dust settles and things are becoming more clear I just don't think this rises to ITN level and posting this would be hard to square with recent precedent. Some consistency in standards would be kinda nice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is certainly big news here in the NY metro area, but I would not see it as ITN-worthy unless we are really having a slow day. Daniel Case (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ITN has been going slow as of late - most of the blurbs posted on ITN have gone stale. 138.51.138.90 (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose There might be no such thing as a "run of the mill" railway accident, but this is certainly one, that whilst tragic, fits the bill. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. 100+ injuries is a significant incident. -- Tavix ( talk ) 01:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - A "run of the mill" raiway accident generally doesn't occur within a station while incurring significant structural damage to said station. -  Floydian  τ ¢  03:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready, overall consensus is to post and ITN is a bit stale. Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not enough notable (maybe important only in US) for posting on the main page. -  Eugεn  S¡m¡on  10:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Black Kite. Tragic, but unexceptional. List_of_rail_accidents_(2010–present) shows the numerous bigger rail crashes, including some in the US, just this year which we haven't posted. Modest Genius talk 12:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There was a significant (non-fatal but multiple critical injuries) crash near Watford Junction a couple of weeks ago on one of the main commuter routes into central London, right at the start of the morning peak period. We're talking 20 miles from the likes of Trafalgar Square, Downing Street, the Houses of Parliament, Buckingham Palace etc. It brought the West Coast Main Line to a near-standstill for a few days, and it remained at a crawl for a while beyond that. A couple of fatalities in that crash would have brought that incident into a comparable bracket to this one. The only other difference being that Hoboken station is, size wise and proximity from the city centre wise, about half way between Watford Junction and London Euston. This isn't an "other stuff exists" oppose. Quite the opposite - I would have opposed the above incident if it were nominated and had a handful of fatalities (though I'd undoubtedly have gotten off my lazy wiki-behind and gotten stuck in on the article). While high profile and tragic, my point is that if we were to post this, I think we'd be opening ourselves up to posting train crashes more frequently than I believe we should be. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Removing the "Ready" at the top. We do not currently have a consensus in favor of posting this item. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting this would set the bar too low for train crashes (1 death + some structural damage). BencherliteTalk 17:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Miriam Defensor Santiago

 * Oppose for now. Article has serious gaps in sourcing and multiple orange tags. Orange tags are a showstopper at ITN. This will require a significant tune up before it can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose how many maintenance banners and [citation needed] tags?? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. As much as I respect Santiago, the article is too messy, with too many gaps and tags and other issues.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Agnes Nixon

 *  Conditional Support While the article is not horrible, there are a few too many gaps in sourcing to post right now. These need to be filled in. Any claims of fact that are not obviously non-controversial need citations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article is much improved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose seriously under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * TRM, are you referring to the paragraphs of prose being under-referenced, or do you think the last two sections (lists of writing positions) need to be referenced?? Thanks. MurielMary (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not TRM, but there are several uncited paragraphs with content that could be challenged; I'll add citation tags. The lists of writing positions right at the bottom don't appear encyclopedic & probably need cutting out altogether. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * What would be really nice is a mention of in what field and why this person is notable. μηδείς (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Re-assessment requested as article has been overhauled. Reply to OK, but as RD noms are not assessed on notability I don't think this is necessary any longer. MurielMary (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 *  Weak oppose  much better but those tenures don't appear to be referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes true, have removed as they are probably unencyclopedic as well (overly detailed) MurielMary (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support all good here, suggest that and  have another look, seems good to go for me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready. Nice work, thanks! Espresso Addict (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] WorldView-4

 * Oppose The delay of a launch due to external conditions (manmade or not) is not really ITN. If it does launch, or if the fires somehow damage/destroy the rocket, that would be different. --M ASEM (t) 17:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Launch delays are far too run of the mill for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest closure. Per AO, launch delays happen almost all the time.  This is in no way more significant than any of the hundreds of others. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per all above. Concur with The Rambling Man as needing closure.Rhodesisland (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] MH17

 *  Wait Oppose – Interesting update but contains little new info; still inconclusive. Sca (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, was going to nominate myself. The Dutch Prosecutor Office's website confirms this and update is there. Brandmeistertalk  14:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not yet conclusive.--WaltCip (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I'm not sure this is adding anything that pretty much the whole world (sans Russia) didn't already know. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * oppose for same reasons that this adds nothing.
 * But lord, ya'll will believe anything the MSM posits, wont you? Meanwhile World War III has now begun in South Asia too...someone should nominate that.Lihaas (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose no actual impact. When there will be sanctions of some sort sure, but until then the conclusion does nothing of substance. Nergaal (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait per Sca, as this story really hasn't reached a conclusion. Russia deny any involvement, Ukraine are happy to see the report.  What changes?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure why everyone is claiming this is "inconclusive". News articles say the opposite. Per CNN: "Speaking at a press conference in the Dutch city of Nieuwegein, Wilbert Paulissen, the head of the Dutch National Detective Force, said there was conclusive evidence that a missile from the Russian-made Buk 9M38 missile system downed the passenger flight on July 17, 2014, killing all 298 people on board." Smurrayinchester 07:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What's inconclusive is, who did it? The Buk stuff has been known for months. (Changed my wait to oppose.) Sca (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've undone Ad Orientem's good faith closure, since I'm not seeing a consensus. "Wait" isn't the same as "Oppose"; we've wound up posting many items for which "wait" was a perfectly reasonable first position (e.g. the Turkish coup). I have no opinion on the nomination yet. Banedon (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose that the Russians were responsible is old news. The lead of the article says that the Dutch Safety Board concluded this in October 2015, and it wasn't even the first to reach this conclusion.  All this does, it seems, is add a bit more detail to the Russian involvement. BencherliteTalk 17:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Max Walker

 * Oppose Target article is almost completely unsourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  sad death but the article needs more references to be suitable for ITN. - Yellow Dingo&#160;(talk) 03:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on lack of citations. Whole sections are unreferenced. MurielMary (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I have fully-sourced the article and expanded the lead, but I do not wish to remove the tags myself. Inviting, and  to take a second look. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed the Ref Improve tag. Unfortunately there is another orange tag there that needs to be removed before this can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose I have no reason to believe that image is usable under fair use. Just because the individual died in the last 24 hours, that doesn't mean efforts have been made to source a free image.  Otherwise, the current orange tag is stupid, the lead is alright.  The rest of the article is mediocre but fine.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support since all concerns above now seem to be taken care of. Connormah (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The article looks ready to me. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted with blurb] RD with blurb: Shimon Peres

 * Parts of the article still require more citations. On the question of whether there should be a blurb, I tend to think that Peres falls just short of the threshold. He was certainly a very important Israeli leader, but I would not say he stands out as obviously more significant than other recent Israeli leaders, such as Rabin, Sharon, Netanyahu and Olmert. At his age, there was also nothing unexpected about his death. Neljack (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh man. This really needs to be posted at least to RD and I think a credible argument can be made for a blurb. Unfortunately, once again, we are confounded by crappy referencing. Sigh... -Ad Orientem (talk)
 * Oppose blurb even with sourcing. I don't think he rises to that level. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb with sourcing Peres was often known as a founding father of Israel, and had huge impact on the entire region. Definitely reaches Lee Kuan Yew level of notability. EternalNomad (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb sigh. I know he's not American, not from an English country, and he only won a Nobel Peace Prize rather than starred in Bicentennial Man. I just think it's sad In the News used to have genuine international stories, and now it's beneath the level of market tabloids. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ITN has its problems but I'm not sure that's a fair shot. The only reason this may not get posted is because of the lack luster quality of the article. ITN is not a news feed. It exists to highlight good quality articles whose subjects are topical by reason of current news coverage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose in current state due to lack of citations. MurielMary (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * A separate article about his death and state funeral could be plausibly be written, so this could get a blurb. (Though I don't really expect anyone to bother, given the woeful state his main article was in, though that's at least improving.)  The way to do get it there is the same way to get it to RD: proper sourcing in the article, not frivolous complaints about other articles that were acceptably sourced. —Cryptic 04:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I think it would be begging for an AfD nom as a content fork and per NOTNEWS. He died of natural causes at 93. And state funerals almost never get their own articles. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that for a blurb to be supported that a separate article on the death/funeral have to be made. --M ASEM (t) 04:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to say that a separate article needs to be made, just that it be plausible that one could be. And while there's no requirement for even that, there's no requirement that I not oppose a nomination for failing it, either. —Cryptic 05:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support on improvements, RD for sure, general support for blurb - Some weak sourcing but this can be fixed. A former elected leader of a major nation should be given a blurb, the nobel prize pushes it further, but I would like to see a better article for that blurb to be supported. --M ASEM (t) 04:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In what sense is Israel a major nation, Masem? It is a mid-size country, albeit one that receives a lot of attention due to its geopolitical situation and controversy. We must be wary of systemic bias. And even in the case of countries that clearly are major nations, I'm not convinced that every former elected leader would warrant a blurb - would you really say that every former Prime Minister of Italy or Japan (and there are lots of them, some of whom held office for quite short periods), and every former President of Mexico or the Philippines, warrant blurbs. That would seem a big change from our current practice. Neljack (talk) 06:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - He was a tremendously important figure in 20th century history. The sourcing issues can be easily fixed. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Update: it looks like several editors have already resolved most of the unsourced statements. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Major figure and internationally known. Article needs some touch up, but nothing major.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * by precedent we posted yitzak shamir (I did the update) and he was head of govt and sate. just reword blurb to remove nobel OR title as its too wordy. (btw- nobel deaths are also precedent here).Lihaas (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. Article seems to be in better shape, includes important historical details, and uses nearly 70 citations.--Light show (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have been adding sourcing as have some others. Happy to try to find a suitable source for anything still felt to need it.  I would ask earlier commenters on sourcing to please re-evaluate and identify / tag anything still needing work.  As for the blurb issue, I'm obviously in favour as a Nobel Laureate who helped to found Israel, was a leader for 50+ years, negotiated their nuclear program, was an instigator of the Suez war, etc.  Have a look at his description in the New York Times.  EdChem (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: Would someone experienced with ITN please see who deserves credit as updaters? Thanks.  EdChem (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to be who has made by far the most substantial updates.  It's easy: I added him to the ITN template above, and then just hit "Give credit".  Done.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I asked specifically because I was unsure whether the 'updater' credit(s) belong to those who post the information updated in the blurb or all updates to the article to make it ITN-ready. Avaya1 did a lot of work after the blurb was posted.  I did quite a bit of referencing, as well as adding material and references on the death, after posting the ITN request in response to well-justified criticisms of inadequate referencing.  Others had already added some material on the death.  Hence my request.  By the way, with "giving credit", does that involve something on user talk pages, as I have had no notification.  Just asking.  Thanks.  EdChem (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support blurb once referencing issues have been addressed. Significant Middle-East politician. Mjroots (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Very long political career (66 years!); probably the last major figure of the Israeli founding generation; Nobel Prize shows international significance. Article needs some work, but nothing precluding posting. Neutralitytalk 07:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted with blurb. Dragons flight (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support of blurb. High international significance, given his impact. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * PP support I don't often lump on, but in this case, a good call. Only issue I have with the article on a quick glance is the massively excessive use of External links.  But meh.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've been working on this article (mainly the section on the Suez crisis) for a couple of years. But as you can see, the referencing and historical sections (aside from the coverage of Suez) are really not great, including some parts I've added today (without access to the relevant books). The only part of the article which goes into real historical detail is the Suez crisis. Today I've re-ordered the lede and added some quotes from Peres (since he is famous for making memorable quotes or bon-mots). However, the article certainly needs a lot of expansion to cover the other parts of his career (the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, etc). Also, not everything in the article is well-cited currently. In terms of the subject's notability though - he is clearly one of the most significant figures in recent history, as evidenced by the fact his funeral will be attended by leaders from the around the world. He was one of the father's of Israel nuclear program, Rafael, the Oslo process, etc. Avaya1 (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Interplanetary Transport System

 * Oppose good faith nomination. Unless I am misreading this, what we have here is the latest progress report on a long term plan to colonize Mars. While the whole thing sounds fascinating, we don't really post these kinds of reports. If/when this thing actually is launched with Mars as its destination, I can all but promise we will post it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - if I understand the sources right, nothing is actually happening yet or will happen for a very long time. It sounds like just plans - intricate plans perhaps, but still only plans. If and when the spacecraft is built and launched, then we can post it. Banedon (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose though we should certainly post the launch in 2018 if it happens. -  Floydian  τ ¢  03:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose; though the first launch of its rocket would be ITNR when it happens. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Leaning support this guy has kept his words in the past so this IS going to happen as long as he doesn't die. Nergaal (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a purely aspirational announcement. We can feature this spacecraft if/when it actually launches. Can't say I'm holding my breath. Modest Genius</b> talk 10:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose until and unless there is an actual launch. -- KTC (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Three-parent baby

 * Tentative support but the article needs some cleanup. This is a big achievement. --Tone 18:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. The article has not been updated since July and does not reflect the story in the blurb. Additionally there are orange tags. The issues reported need to be addressed and the tags removed before we can seriously consider this at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Aside from the issues Ad Orientem brings up, unless I'm misunderstanding something, the BBC article makes clear that this is the first successful use of a new mtDNA-donation technique, not the first 'three-parent baby'. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose accodrind to the linked article this has been achieved in 2000 with Alana Saarinen. Nergaal (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Nergaal. It's incumbent on ITN to avoid falling into pop-science puffery, as in most cases the press release findings tend to be exaggerated.--WaltCip (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Loma Fire

 * Oppose posting the mere beginning of a wildfire, which are quite common in California and the Western US. If there are things like very large scale evacuations, large amounts of damage or casualties, etc., something to hang our hat on, I would reconsider. Reporting on this seems limited as well. I would add Ongoing would only be appropriate if the article gets regular incremental updates that individually would not merit posting on their own, but would collectively. Lastly, the blurb would need to be globalized a bit, many readers might not know where the Santa Cruz mountains are. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Between Santa Cruz and Los Gatos, 10 mi. S. of San Jose. Fairly extensive article here. Sca (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose good faith nom for now, per 331dot. Not at all clear this is going to become a major story. Also the article is a stub and would require significant expansion with solid sourcing to be seriously considered for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Wait ... for now, pending developments. Forest Service lists 25 wildfires in Calif., but the Loma fire isn't among them as of Wednesday morning. However, up to 300 homes said to be threatened. Sca (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is a stub and the consequences are small, fortunately (this says evacuation orders lifted and only 8 houses destroyed). BencherliteTalk 17:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is still a small fire. For an example of a fire that would be ITN-worthy, see 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire. 129.97.118.173 (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Ongoing: Aleppo offensive

 * Aleppo offensive (September 2016) has seen some of the fiercest fighting recently and there are all kinds of diplomatic tensions. I believe ongoing is in place at the moment, since I can't think of a good blurb. There are day-to-day updates. --Tone 13:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Support The article is not very long but it is also fairly new. It's also decently sourced and is, at least for now, getting regular updates. And of course this is major news. So yeah, let's give it a shot and see if it works out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Support per Ad Orientem. Aleppo has been a significant part of the Syrian Civil War. Somebody inform Gary Johnson. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad he's not going to be our President!--WaltCip (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support infinitely more historically significant than the current ITN items "Rugby Championship" and "chess olympiad". 20:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thue (talk • contribs)
 * Support little point in comparing chalk with cheese, this stands out as something which is receiving regular news coverage and has an article up-to-date too, so a few days at Ongoing won't do any harm. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Bill Mollison

 * Support. I don't see any issues with the article. Seems sourcing is acceptable and the article feels complete enough for RD inslusion. Any other eyes looked at it? Rhodesisland (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks solid and decently sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Marked as Ready Normally I'd like more than two reviews before posting an item but it's a weekend and this is near the bottom of the page. I think it's good enough to post. Let's do this before it becomes stale. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. I've left 5 items at RD for now, as it did not overflow the first line. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD:Jean Shepard
Conditional Support Overall not in bad shape. But there are a few too many unsourced claims to post right now. I've added a few CN tags. Fix those and we should be good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * CN tags resolved. MurielMary (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support article in good nick, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] FAST telescope

 * Tentative support. The article says "It is currently undergoing testing and commissioning.". It should be a bit more precise. --Tone 07:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, but please add a link to first light (astronomy) in the blurb. This is a significant milestone in the world's largest single-dish radio telescope, and the best opportunity to feature it on ITN. Telescope commissioning is always a gradual process, taking years to ramp up to full efficiency and operations. First light is the milestone, and that's what FAST has done. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support wooo, USA, USA! Nergaal (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support And this is a blurb that include one of the images of the telescope. --M ASEM (t) 14:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Do we have an image of the completed telescope? All the ones in the article are of various stages of construction, which are rather uninformative views of steel girders. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * At least to me, even the current one at the top of the FAST article gives an idea of the scale of this thing, even if the dish isn't in place. (obviously a completed picture would be better). --M ASEM (t) 20:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Though I wonder why they don't call it the 500AST or the FHMAST.--WaltCip (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. I've modified the blurb to link first light per Modest Genius. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Arnold Palmer

 * Oppose for now. Well this is just a crappy day in the sports world. This should be a no brainer for RD but sadly the article quality is well below community standards for linking on the main page. Referencing in particular is very poor. The article needs a serious tune up before we can post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support pending article quality update - Definitely worth including in RD but I think a blurb may be necessary here. He was a very important figure to the game of Golf and turned it from an elite sport to one the common man could play and enjoy. Andise1 (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support pending significant improvements Far too much unsourced prose for a recognizable figure. I would throw out the potential of a blurb given how much of a role Palmer made on the sport, but the article's going to take a lot of work to just get to RD, much less a blurb-quality article. --M ASEM (t) 01:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD subject to article quality conditions being met. Mjroots (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose probably doesn't need reiterating, but a woefully referenced article for such a golfing icon. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For those users "confused" by my opposition, it is based on the quality of the article. We no longer debate the notability of the individual (nor have we done for a couple of months now).  I understand that many individuals are happy to post sub-standard articles to the main page, but our current ITN guidelines advise against it, hence my decision.  For it to be taken out of context and used against me is really, really low.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now I'll reiterate it anyway, TRM. It's surprising that the bio of such an important figure is in such poor shape, even the day after his death. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems the extent of referencing is usually judged only during RD nominations. Just like Curtis Hanson, for example, Palmer hasn't been orange-tagged before RD nomination. Brandmeistertalk  18:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As the editor who attached the orange tag, I will note in my defense that I never had reason to visit this article until now. And the general condition of articles, including referencing, is certainly a relevant subject when discussing whether or not to link them on the main page. I don't see GA or FA as reasonable criteria, but an article should certainly be decently sourced with no glaring gaps if we are going to promote it to our readers. That is clearly not the case here. And I have a long track record (annoying to some editors) of beating the drum about crappy sourcing on articles. Not too long ago I proposed at the Village Pump that all new articles should be required to cite at least one RS source in support of at least one claim of fact in the article. It was shot down in flames but my point is that concern about poor sourcing is not a new or selective hobby for me. This project claims to be an encyclopedia. But whenever we tolerate articles that are poorly referenced, or all too often articles with none at all, we damage the credibility of that claim. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. My point was really that golf fans who edit Wikipedia should've done a better job on the article of one of the most important golfers, whose article I have no reason to visit. On the other hand, I'm a big fan of baseball and I've had a major part in José Fernández (pitcher), which was in good enough shape to post before I even woke up to hear the news of his death. It's sad to see such an important article (tagged as vital) in such a shape. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. The article seems to have two main areas: one dealing with his early and personal life, popular culture stuff, and the body text which is mostly minutia about his various tournaments. The other, and probably most important sections, include massive and well-made charts of all his tournaments. I think that the charts alone make the article valuable. I scanned the body text and it's mostly trivia about some of those tournaments, so even without cites, the details are not that important. --Light show (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There are around 10 CNs sitting on the page. It's nowhere close to ready. The prose is there but it is not sourced, and that simply does not work for front page posting, even if it just an RD. If it is trivia, then it should be removed (but my read, it is far from trivia but emphasizing key victories he took that led to his success). --M ASEM  (t) 02:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The solution, IMO, is pretty simple. Note Jack Nicklaus's article, which is twice as large, has I'd estimate about 20-times as much unsourced trivia, since the body text is so massive, yet has no CN's. I'd therefore just remove Palmer's CNs for everything equally trivial. After review Nichlaus, I could go through and easily add 75 CNs for uncited facts. Just look at the ends of paragraphs, most without sources. 10 trivia CNs should just be removed. --Light show (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to respectfully disagree with your analysis. What you refer to as minutia are claims of fact that are not backed by citations to RS sources. Some of the tables you refer to are not clearly sourced. There is an orange tag and a plethora of CN tags all over the article. That alone is usually a showstopper here. There is a longstanding consensus that we do not promote articles on the main page that are not in reasonably good shape. And while it pains me to say it, for an article about such an iconic figure, the referencing is shockingly poor. This article cannot be linked on the main page in its present condition. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me re-iterate: the CN tags were added after this RD nomination (likely to push editors to fill in the information). If Nicklaus died today, we would have the same problem with lack of sources. (There's no sign of Nicklaus' article being an GA or FA). Further, we should not be sweeping out that much track of information just because no one interested can be bothered to find the references needed; the information while unsourced does appear factually true and significant towards Palmer's notability, so removal just for posting to RD is a terrible option. --M ASEM (t) 02:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we would have the same problem. Because we do not post articles with crappy sourcing on the main page. I added at least some of those CN tags when I was reviewing the article as part of the RD nominating process. And I will object strenuously to any attempt to remove them or the ref improve tag until those issues are resolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree. But an example of kind of trivia that's tagged is the first one: "His win in the 1954 U.S. Amateur made him decide to try the pro tour for a while, and he and new bride Winifred Walzer (whom he had met at a Pennsylvania tournament) traveled the circuit for 1955.[citation needed]" I mean, that kind of trivia didn't need a tag IMO. In fact the sentence could be removed without harming the article, which I noted, is half the size of Nicklaus's. Another option is for each of us to just pick a CN and fix it. Heck, I can go in there and fix the article but I'd need to get paid double for overtime. What's 2 X $0? --Light show (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to removing unsourced material from the article. I have done it myself a few times in order to get an article up to scratch for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I took care of the CNs, although anyone can review for any errors. I also think a golfing image like this one would look good for the lead. It seems to meet all PD requirements with dates on the reverse. If anyone wants to review it and give the OK, I can upload it to commons. --Light show (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: Mel Charles, who died the same day, and whose RD is posted, received less than 5,000 page views on the day he died, vs. 700,000 for Palmer.--Light show (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Mel Charles' article was up to scratch when posted. Palmer's article is still crap.  I'm not sure what you're trying to say other than we should ignore all the guidelines around the ITN process of posting RDs?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The few early opposers noted the CNs and lack of references. A lot of that has been fixed so the article is worth a quick recheck and some updated ideas about how to get it ready. --Light show (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I just visited the article and added some CN tags. And deleted a piece of unsourced fancruft. The article is in better shape now than it was previously, I grant you. It's not that far from posting, IMO. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Refs to those CNs fixed. --Light show (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Great. I have no further objections. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Arnold Palmer was a major sports figure and cultural icon of the mid-20th Century, not just in golf. I find the linkage between that historical life and the quality of his biographical article here at Wikipedia to be absurd.  This lack of common sense and proportion is just another case of Wikipedia's inability to not distinguish the forest for its own ill-planted trees.Marcd30319 (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. The article isn't brilliant but it meets our minimum standards; we've certainly posted worse RDs. Nowhere near the wide impact required for a blurb though. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There are six paragraphs that lack a single reference, and others that have but a single reference somewhere in the text. Stephen 12:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Support RD He is by far heavily influential in the golf world not only in America but throughout the world and his death is being reported globally. Strong support. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. References have been cleaned up and there's no longer an orange tag on the article. While not FA quality, this is good enough to post. -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Quality is improved. This is postable. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Dragons flight (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Mel Charles

 * Support Article looks solid and reasonably well sourced. The Honours section near the bottom needs a cite and one of the tables is not clear on its source. But overall I think it's good enough to link. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support sources looks ok. good for RD.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support there was one thing I tagged as it was mildly contentious, but other than that, this is exactly what the new RD criteria are all about. Decent article, recent death, no bitching over his notability, just some minor quibbles over some tweaks required.  Excellent.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. So, is it good to go then? Rhodesisland (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Marked as Ready to Post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] [Posted to RD] José Fernández

 * Support blurb This is one of the best players in all of baseball. Truly shocking news that is blurb-worthy. --Tocino 14:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD Blurb Very sad news. The article is solid and well sourced. Given his age, fame and circumstances of death this might be a candidate for a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added a blurb to the nomination, which I support per my above comment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong support for blurb. Internationally notable news. — <font face="Lucida Fax"> Crumpled Fire  • contribs • 14:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb as my preferred wording. — <font face="Lucida Fax"> Crumpled Fire  • contribs • 14:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support RD but oppose blurb I don't think its readily possible to assert a player that's only had 3 seasons as significant to the sport as some about have indicated. The article is not at the level of an FA where I would reasonably consider a blurb. I do recognize the death is surprising so I do see the value of the blurb on that but I don't see enough to consider this a shocking-enough death that will affect the baseball industry (or beyond it) for a blurb. --M ASEM  (t) 14:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Almost all of the sources I am reading are referring to him as one of the top pitchers in the game. He was Miami's ace. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support for at least RD He was one of the top young pitchers in baseball. While his death was tragic and unexpected, I'm on the fence about a blurb. Canuck 89 (have words with me)  15:05, September 25, 2016 (UTC)
 * Support for RD obviously. As for a blurb, I would personally support a blurb due to the unexpected nature of the death, but I do understand this MLB pitcher doesn't quite reach the Mandela-Thatcher status that ITN's regulars seem so infatuated with.--WaltCip (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That "standard" is really intended for people whose deaths are not entirely unexpected and/or the result of natural causes. While we only rarely give a blurb to notable figures who have died one of the generally recognized exceptions is when the subject is extremely well known, often in the top tier of their field, and their death is highly unexpected or even shocking. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted as RD, for which there are no issues. --Tone 15:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support RD, weak oppose blurb The article is in decent condition, so RD is no question.  A blurb would be a case of systematic bias IMO, since other athletes of similar or greater notability who died in similar conditions (such as Estelle Balet, who was world champion the two years before her death) usually don't get blurbs. EternalNomad (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Arguably baseball's most shocking death since Thurman Munson. He was at the time one of the top 10 players in the sport. Major ripples in the sports world, top story in almost every American news website. Prevan (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Massive news story, article looks good. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb – Unexpected death of a star player in a top-level sport. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. As EternalNomad suggests, there is a systemic bias issue here in that we likely wouldn't do this with other similar athletes in other sports.  I suspect few outside of baseball would be familiar with this athlete and his career was not long; despite the unexpected nature of the death, I think RD is sufficient here. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Question I am curious how you reconcile your above comment with your support for a blurb in the case of Jules Bianchi, whose claim to notability was nowhere near as strong as José Fernández? Not trying to be snarky, just wondering. The two positions don't seem to be compatible. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No 'snarkiness' taken. Primarily the difference between this and your example is that injury that caused Bianchi's death was during a competition, while in this case it was a boating accident. If this baseball player had gotten struck by a batted ball and died, that is a rare event that would merit posting(extremely rare from what I am aware of).  331dot (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb As unfortunate as this is, it isn't unprecedented. You don't even have to look back to Thurman Munson or Roberto Clemente; Nick Adenhart and Oscar Taveras died in similar circumstances in recent years. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't compare Fernandez's death with Tavaras or Adenhardt. Both of those players were promising prospects killed so soon, but haven't done much in their mlb careers before dying. Fernandez was one of the best players in baseball when he was killed. Here is a case of a top player dying so shocking and suddenly that an entire sport is in mourning. I can add many links attesting to this fact but I am on my phone so I can't until tomorrow. From what itnc criteria says, if its an unexpected death from a top figure, then it should be posted if the quality is right. This easily qualifies. Prevan (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb fails the "Death of ...." test in so far as in a fortnight, no-one will be talking about this, nor in year, or decade or a century. Not a Bowie, Mandela, not even a Paul Walker even though that was one hideous mistake we should never repeat.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, the readers who care will just be looking for a place to click. To many people, Wikipedia is the place to do a quick lookup of a fact. For example, someone might dimly remember that he played on the same youth team as some other Cuban defector, and just want to get to that article. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Death of José Fernández is a redlink, would be immediately taken to afd if created, and would be deleted there. This isn't close to blurb material. —Cryptic 01:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per above. Wizardman  02:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Quoting Ad Orientem above, "Almost all of the sources I am reading are referring to him as one of the top pitchers in the game. He was Miami's ace." "one of the top pitchers" implies there are other top pitchers, which makes it less appropriate to post this. Can't support a blurb under these circumstances I'm afraid. Banedon (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are going to express an opinion about his significance to baseball, you might want to know at least a little something about baseball. Considered the top league in the world, MLB has only 30 teams hosted in 17 US states, 1 Canadian province, and the District of Columbia.  A clue might have been that "Miami" is not a state.  The state of Florida, in fact, has two teams.   So, no, there is not a comparable player in every state or every country.  At the time of his death he was considered the third best starting pitcher in the MLB  (based on 2016 performance) out of ~150 MLB starting pitchers (and not counting the lower tier of ~200 MLB relief pitchers).  Dragons flight (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Amending the oppose rationale. What you wrote does not change my opinion though, only the specifics. Instead of 50 states there are now 30 teams, which is still a large number; further you write that he is the "third best starting pitcher" which means there are two pitchers better than him, which also does not help the case for a blurb. Banedon (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Volkswagen wins the Ig Nobel Chemistry prize

 * Oppose Fully recognizing the satire of this award, we've already coverd the VW situation on ITN. --M ASEM (t) 01:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support if we can park this until April 1st. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The Ignobel prize is a satirical one, making this hard to post. Banedon (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - don't be silly, unless you'd like to post the similar ones from every other manufacturer from 2017, 2018 ... Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Yahoo! data breach

 * Comment I am not going to vote since I created the article but I will make a few observations. I believe the article is reasonably well written and solidly sourced. The topic is clearly in the news. However while I have hopes of expansion, right now it's still a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * While still a bit brief, the article has been expanded to the point where I believe it is no longer a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support This is important news of direct relevance to a large fraction of the people who will read this as they may have a Yahoo account. Count Iblis (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on improvements Something potentially affecting between 5-8% of the world population is significant. Right now I am concerned with the amount of hyerpbole/"scare" writing in the article but that's just a matter of re-toning what's there. --M ASEM (t) 01:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - it's not the "post me!" kind of news, but it is something, it affects lots of people, and it's also been quite a while since we had a new blurb. Banedon (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb and particularly alt II. Article is slight but contains the basics. The blurb should definitely mention 2014, but I'd hold off on "state-sponsored" till more information is released. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * oppose as its ages ago and "potentially affecting" has no ramifications. (yet)Lihaas (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If we consider where an average story of this type gets coverage (as we have to do with announced business deals being at the point they are announced rather than the point they are completed), the point where a massive data breech like this is at the point of public revealing, not at the point where it happened or the point where damage is done (the latter which would be an extremely slow tail if there is that much compromised). --M ASEM (t) 18:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Major news covered on most mainstream news outlets. Likely of interest to readers. Original blurb seems good.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - possibly the largest data breach in history. Neutralitytalk 18:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Q Is there sufficient consensus to post this? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Post-posting mild support but only because it's a well-written article, unlike much of the dreck that makes its way to the main page. Unconvinced that's in a major story though. Black Kite (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a rather uninvolved and lazy observer of this page, but my observation is that the emphasis, here, is shifting toward featuring quality instead of mere buzzworthiness (though the story should be "in the news", but then a lot of them are). If my impression is right, then I think you should make your opposition against posting dreck be heard, as it is likely to resound among the regular voices heard here. (If, however, you are referring to other things, outside ITN, that make their way to the main page, then ignore this post). ---Sluzzelin talk  00:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Nazi symbology on Blenheim Palace

 * Oppose storm in a tea-cup, not a proper news story. ITN doesn't post "controversy erupts" blurbs or the like. BencherliteTalk 16:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. This is a minor outrage news story, and the weight devoted to it in the Transformers article is probably undue. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom. But yeah this does not rise to ITN standards. It's more of what could be charitably described as Entertainment Tonight fodder. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose something that would be ideal for Daily Mail readers to become fixated and vexed by, but trivial at best in encyclopedic value terms. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott

 * Oppose per my oppose vote at the recently nominated "Shooting of Terence Crutcher" (Sept 16). Another day, another controversial police involved shooting. These things are far too common here in the United States. We did post Ferguson because that was a very rare case with huge ramifications. This is not Ferguson. If that changes I will reconsider. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose all too frequent. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as routine, both the shooting and the riots. Although, if someone were hanging out in front of my home with a gun, I wouldn't describe the police response as "controversial".128.214.53.104 (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't know if I would use the word 'routine' but this is hyped in the press much more than it probably should be.  I don't think declaring an emergency is sufficient to post this; we would need at a minimum Ferguson-scale riots, as Ad Orientem suggests. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait Rioting is entering its second day on this one; the "We posted Ferguson because it went beyond the initial shooting and a short protest" appears to be bearing out in this one case. I agree that we shouldn't post every one of these tragic and horrific events, but this one may yet have legs that others do not always have.  The knee-jerk "we should never post U.S. shootings because Americans are just all murderous gun-toting racist maniacs" response we get to these isn't usually helpful, especially in differentiating between stories that don't have lasting impact on the news cycle and those that do.  This one may or may not; but given that the protests and riots and retaliations seem to be increasing rather than dissipating does mean this bears monitoring rather than merely dismissing off-hand.  We may find that by tomorrow this goes nowhere, but I think we should leave ourselves open to the possibility that if this does reach Ferguson-level newsworthiness, we still consider posting it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Yes, this is another police shooting of an unarmed black man in the U.S., and another shooting in general in the U.S., an occurrence which has now become as routine as Walter Cronkite reporting the number of dead GI's in Vietnam. I'm willing to entertain Jayron's idea that this story may have some lasting, long-term effect, but considering how the last shooting, and the shooting before that, and the shooting before that, and the shooting before that, etc., all had no long-term effect? I'm not holding my breath.--WaltCip (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * HOWEVER, I do think we could make a case for posting this as an ongoing item considering how frequent these stories have become and how there is a central core issue of racism in the police.--WaltCip (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, black policeman shoots an armed black individual refusing to listen to police requests and neighborhood goes crazy. Remind me again which part of this is of encyclopedic value? Nergaal (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Remind me again of a time when being a dismissive prick with a superiority complex was useful? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Careful Jayron, you might get that golden envelope with an invitation from Arbcom if you're lucky...! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's so much more than that. This is just another incident capping off a series of systemic racism from the police against African-Americans. If you're not aware of the bigger picture by now, you never ever will be.--WaltCip (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose This type of event is unfortunately too common in the USA for it to have enough national or international significance IMO, especially given that no one died in the protests. Statewide impact is not sufficient for ITN. EternalNomad (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppoose – Regrettably, I have to agree that this sort of event has become too common in the U.S. to meet the notability standard – particularly when it involves only one person. Sca (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

RD: Curtis Hanson

 * Support, RD classics, article is in generally good condition. Brandmeistertalk  08:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Some of the statements in the prose section need citations and the filmography is entirely unreferenced. yorkshiresky (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks solid and reasonably well sourced. No sources cited for the filmography but all of the listed films have their own article. That works for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose mostly unsourced and not particularly comprehensive; essentially just a list of films that he wrote and directed. Tagged his film career. Body doesn't mention all his awards (see cats/navboxes) and the Oscar isn't even sourced. Fuebaey (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per Ad Orientem. Jus  da  fax   02:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose in current state - many uncited statements. MurielMary (talk) 08:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

RD: Peter Leo Gerety

 * Weak oppose some inline external links and some self-published sources, otherwise ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks adequate without any major errors. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral lean opposed. The article doesn't appear to be in bad shape (i.e. reasonably well written and sourced) but it also doesn't appear to have been updated with anything from obituaries on his death. One reason may be that his death seems to have garnered (at least so far) almost no coverage in the mainstream press. A Google News search yielded exactly one post mortem mention, which I can't link as it has been blacklisted by Wikipedia. I am not sure this is what we could reasonably call "In the News." -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Basic criteria for ITN and BLP. Please provide a source for his death, on this nomination and preferably in the article. Fuebaey (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Added a source here. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 15:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That is the one source I referred to in my cmt. I got a message that it was blackisted on here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Curious. I have added it here and to the article without difficulty. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 16:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Question – Is "Peter Leo Gerety" the subject's common name? As I attempted to point out in this RM, these articles on Catholic bishops appear to have been named without regard for WP:COMMONNAME.  I found nothing in WP:NCP which provides exceptions for subsets of articles to be named according to the conventions of some other website rather than our own policies/guidelines.  There are other subsets of articles for which this same situation applies, such as United States federal judges. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  00:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Newark isn't my diocese and he retired before I was born. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I remember him. I was Catholic back then and he was a very prominent, and controversial, figure in the Church. He was just known as Bishop Gerety. Some of the more conservative Catholics had other names for him, but we won't go there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt have filed for divorce

 * Why did you think this was worth nominating when you knew what the end result was going to be, WaltCip? Andise1 (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:POINT... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I legitimately thought the story was notable. Why WP:POINT?--WaltCip (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you legitimately thought the story would be posted, why did you immediately say in your nomination you knew it wouldn't be? You all but admitted you knew you were wasting everybody's time when you posted it.  If the purpose of the nomination wasn't to get it on the main page, what did you do so for?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In the interest of AGF, I could imagine he believed that it should have been posted, but also believed that the community here was unlikely to accept it. Dragons flight (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Then why waste our time? There's lots of things I think you should do.  It would be beyond rude of me to demand you do them if I knew you either incapable or unlikely to do them. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe, remaining in the spirit of AGF, Walt was trying to use reverse psychology, motivate enough editors to reconsider their instincts and maybe vote yes after all. Or maybe they will next time. I don't see the nomination as a waste of time, nor do I believe it was posted in order to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. ---Sluzzelin talk  18:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Aid suspended in Syria

 * Oppose both proposed target articles. The Syria Ceasefire article is about a different event than the one described in the blurb, it's also titled incorrectly (should be 2016 Syrian Civil War ceasefire, note bad capitalization and vague title in the actual title)  Also, if there are two different events, they should probably be 2 different articles.  The Humanitarian aid article also needs work; it is very incomplete, insofar as the blurb is about a UN-Red Cresent joint humanitarian aid mission that was attacked; the body of the article does NOT cover either organization's humanitarian aid in general, and the body ALSO does not cover the attack (per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize text in the main body of an article, and should not introduce new information).  The event itself is being reported in the news, which is fine, but we have no quality article to direct readers to if they wish to learn more.  ITN's primary mission is to direct readers to articles.  We don't have anything worthwhile yet.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Of the two articles given here I would favour linking the Syrian Ceasefire article, but it's only tangentially related, since the article includes two ceasefires and only the second one is being terminated (it's also orange tagged, too). The September 2016 Deir ez-Zor air raid article would have been article to link, but it's six days since the event and likely stale. Banedon (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing: Syrian civil war
Hi, I think it's unnecessary to include a nomination header for this, but it should definitely go back to "Ongoing": the Syrian civil war. Perhaps more specifically link to the most current section. Greets, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think a blurb is more appropriate. I am currently working on bringing articles up to standard for two blurbs - ceasefire collapses, and UN suspends aid following an attack on its convoy. Smurrayinchester 10:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose last substantive update to that article was a single sentence about the September 12th cease fire. If we aren't updating an article more than once every 8 days, it isn't suitable for ongoing.  Also, I would oppose on quality issues.  The article is poorly written, and needs someone to copyedit the article for tone and style, particularly fixing the WP:PROSELINE issues with the writing.  But regardless of that, an article which has no information newer than 8 days ago isn't eligible for ongoing.  If the article was receiving multiple, rapid updates on information that itself was appearing in the news daily, it would be eligible.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So, let's change something about?! :) -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I oppose a Ongoing template. But support a blurb with an appropriate update of the situation.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Both blurb and ongoing per Jayron32. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

RD: Curtis Hanson

 * Support, RD classics, article is in generally good condition. Brandmeistertalk  08:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Some of the statements in the prose section need citations and the filmography is entirely unreferenced. yorkshiresky (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks solid and reasonably well sourced. No sources cited for the filmography but all of the listed films have their own article. That works for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose mostly unsourced and not particularly comprehensive; essentially just a list of films that he wrote and directed. Tagged his film career. Body doesn't mention all his awards (see cats/navboxes) and the Oscar isn't even sourced. Fuebaey (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per Ad Orientem. Jus  da  fax   02:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose in current state - many uncited statements. MurielMary (talk) 08:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

RD: Peter Leo Gerety

 * Weak oppose some inline external links and some self-published sources, otherwise ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks adequate without any major errors. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral lean opposed. The article doesn't appear to be in bad shape (i.e. reasonably well written and sourced) but it also doesn't appear to have been updated with anything from obituaries on his death. One reason may be that his death seems to have garnered (at least so far) almost no coverage in the mainstream press. A Google News search yielded exactly one post mortem mention, which I can't link as it has been blacklisted by Wikipedia. I am not sure this is what we could reasonably call "In the News." -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Basic criteria for ITN and BLP. Please provide a source for his death, on this nomination and preferably in the article. Fuebaey (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Added a source here. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 15:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That is the one source I referred to in my cmt. I got a message that it was blackisted on here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Curious. I have added it here and to the article without difficulty. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 16:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Question – Is "Peter Leo Gerety" the subject's common name? As I attempted to point out in this RM, these articles on Catholic bishops appear to have been named without regard for WP:COMMONNAME.  I found nothing in WP:NCP which provides exceptions for subsets of articles to be named according to the conventions of some other website rather than our own policies/guidelines.  There are other subsets of articles for which this same situation applies, such as United States federal judges. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  00:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Newark isn't my diocese and he retired before I was born. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I remember him. I was Catholic back then and he was a very prominent, and controversial, figure in the Church. He was just known as Bishop Gerety. Some of the more conservative Catholics had other names for him, but we won't go there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt have filed for divorce

 * Why did you think this was worth nominating when you knew what the end result was going to be, WaltCip? Andise1 (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:POINT... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I legitimately thought the story was notable. Why WP:POINT?--WaltCip (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you legitimately thought the story would be posted, why did you immediately say in your nomination you knew it wouldn't be? You all but admitted you knew you were wasting everybody's time when you posted it.  If the purpose of the nomination wasn't to get it on the main page, what did you do so for?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In the interest of AGF, I could imagine he believed that it should have been posted, but also believed that the community here was unlikely to accept it. Dragons flight (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Then why waste our time? There's lots of things I think you should do.  It would be beyond rude of me to demand you do them if I knew you either incapable or unlikely to do them. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe, remaining in the spirit of AGF, Walt was trying to use reverse psychology, motivate enough editors to reconsider their instincts and maybe vote yes after all. Or maybe they will next time. I don't see the nomination as a waste of time, nor do I believe it was posted in order to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. ---Sluzzelin talk  18:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Aid suspended in Syria

 * Oppose both proposed target articles. The Syria Ceasefire article is about a different event than the one described in the blurb, it's also titled incorrectly (should be 2016 Syrian Civil War ceasefire, note bad capitalization and vague title in the actual title)  Also, if there are two different events, they should probably be 2 different articles.  The Humanitarian aid article also needs work; it is very incomplete, insofar as the blurb is about a UN-Red Cresent joint humanitarian aid mission that was attacked; the body of the article does NOT cover either organization's humanitarian aid in general, and the body ALSO does not cover the attack (per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize text in the main body of an article, and should not introduce new information).  The event itself is being reported in the news, which is fine, but we have no quality article to direct readers to if they wish to learn more.  ITN's primary mission is to direct readers to articles.  We don't have anything worthwhile yet.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Of the two articles given here I would favour linking the Syrian Ceasefire article, but it's only tangentially related, since the article includes two ceasefires and only the second one is being terminated (it's also orange tagged, too). The September 2016 Deir ez-Zor air raid article would have been article to link, but it's six days since the event and likely stale. Banedon (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing: Syrian civil war
Hi, I think it's unnecessary to include a nomination header for this, but it should definitely go back to "Ongoing": the Syrian civil war. Perhaps more specifically link to the most current section. Greets, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think a blurb is more appropriate. I am currently working on bringing articles up to standard for two blurbs - ceasefire collapses, and UN suspends aid following an attack on its convoy. Smurrayinchester 10:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose last substantive update to that article was a single sentence about the September 12th cease fire. If we aren't updating an article more than once every 8 days, it isn't suitable for ongoing.  Also, I would oppose on quality issues.  The article is poorly written, and needs someone to copyedit the article for tone and style, particularly fixing the WP:PROSELINE issues with the writing.  But regardless of that, an article which has no information newer than 8 days ago isn't eligible for ongoing.  If the article was receiving multiple, rapid updates on information that itself was appearing in the news daily, it would be eligible.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So, let's change something about?! :) -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I oppose a Ongoing template. But support a blurb with an appropriate update of the situation.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Both blurb and ongoing per Jayron32. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Philippine Drug War

 * Like you say, it's stale. On significance, this particular story doesn't seem to have that much of an impact, but the entire subject might be worth trying for ongoing again. Fuebaey (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Article seems to be being updated more frequently than the last time this was nominated. However, I still have major concerns over the quality of the article, specifically the quality of the writing lacks a narrative flow, see WP:PROSELINE for a description of the problem.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That article is particularly difficult to edit. There are plenty of Duterte supporters hiding around. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, then, how can we cite it as one of Wikipedia's best articles, and put it on the main page to recommend that readers look at it? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The suggested blurb is not something we'd post on ITN. If individual people are notable, separate blurb or RD. Otherwise, the only was I see this story to be posted is in Ongoing, unless there is a major development that merits individual blurb. --Tone 14:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would support on-going, as it's been in the news for months now, and no sign of slowing down. Article needs work however, and please this is not the first time you nominate an inappropriate or badly researched blurb post. Go through some of the archives and read the main policy page to find out what would be an appropriate blurb or RD topic. Prevan (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * A sidenote: The nominator has been flooding WP:ITN/C and Portal:Current events with items of questionable merit for some time now (primarily, though not limited to, Philippines-related content), the majority of which had been rapidly removed or rejected as they failed notability on sight ("a bird-shaped airport opens", to give just one example, which was fortunately not brought here). Said editor seems uninterested in either mending their ways or discussing in case they object to the removal. I remain cautiously optimistic that a learning moment shall come soon. Morningstar (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Tone. The proposed blurb is tabloid fodder. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose the blurb but support adding to Ongoing. I agree that the proposed blurb sound like a tabloid spam and not notable enough. HaEr48 (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, I am new to this project (ITN) and I only started nominating around a month and a half ago. I haven't been too familiar with how to write the blurb. Yeah. I am going to be more cautious. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Shhhhwwww!! thank you and we appreciate your obvious desire to help improve the project. May I suggest you spend a little time here at ITNC and help review some of the current and newly added nominations? This will allow you to see what other more experienced editors are saying about them and will give you an idea about what we are looking for. But in short, we really are only looking for high quality (up-to-date, well sourced and written) articles about current events that are likely to be of interest to at least some of our readers. We try to avoid subjects that are purely sensational or likely only of a local nature, as well articles that have any significant deficiencies. Orange tags or any serious controversy like ongoing content disputes are usually a showstopper. Thanks again for your contributions and I hope you will stick around to help here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support ongoing - but not the blurb. Ongoing would be appropriate though.BabbaQ (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose eight sentences or so added in the past two or three weeks? Not worth a slot.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not exactly sure what blurb we are analyzing, but there's only about a sentence or so for every "major event" from what I see in the article. Article isn't in-depth enough for ITN standards. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing - I nominated this for ongoing last time, and I still feel it's postable. This just keeps generating news. Banedon (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * News which, apparently, isn't significant enough for realistic updates in the target article, therefore invalidating it for inclusion at Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Rose Pak

 * Weak oppose I didn't get far through the article before I encountered a phrase such as "Pak did never hold ..." which is so clunky I turned off. What happened to "Pak never held"?  Otherwise it looks okay.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed per your feedback. (To the question what happened to "never held": It was in fact the wording used by the cited source. I tried to avoid paraphrasing too closely; but on reflection this is a straightforward expression of an established fact.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support as updater (alongside other editors who worked on the article). Not a generic local politician, but a person who, despite never holding an elective office, had a major political influence on the development of San Francisco over several decades, as informal but very prominent representative of an ethnic community. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support article is well sourced and seems to cover her life fairly comprehensively. MurielMary (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T♦ C 14:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Emmy Awards

 * Oppose for now. For most competitions, a text synopsis of the event itself is usually a minimum requirement.  Right now, no description of the ceremony itself (the event named in the title of the article) exists in the text of the article.  If that can be expanded, this could be posted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see this edit describing the awards, which is similar to the update that was added to the 88th Academy Awards that we posted in Feb 2016. Fuebaey (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Having done the wrong thing in the past should not bind us to doing the wrong thing forever. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between an valid opinion (I personally don't think this has been expanded enough) and an invalid fact (There is no synopsis). Please realise that an adequate update is only one criteria used to determine consensus here at ITN and there was consensus to post the 2016 Oscars, even if you disagree with it after the fact. Fuebaey (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose no critical coverage of the events beyond what I'd see in a stub. This has been on the BBC News front page as being super important (for Game of Thrones of course), but the article text is bland and simply a series of bullet point sentences. Tables are reasonable, whatever, but nothing more than that.  Regardless of things that have been posted (possibly erroneously) in the past, we should not repeat such (possible) errors.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

RD: Mandoza
I am new to Wikipedia and I'm not sure how many things work. I would like to nominate Mandoza who passed away today for the In the news, Recent deaths section. He is a South African musician who released the hit Nkalakatha which is arguably South Africa's unofficial national anthem. This hit helped break down racial barriers. https://www.enca.com/life/mandoza-trapped-by-nkalakatha. His death has attracted vigorous media attention. Ear-phone (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. An obviously good faith nomination from a new editor, regrettably the article is not currently up to standards for linking on the main page. It needs copy editing and greatly improved referencing. Will happily reconsider following improvements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose pretty much per above. An important figure in South African music but the article is simply not up to the required standard. Black Kite (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality; I regret that the article is not up to adequate quality; hopefully it will be improved. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment many more references required, and a complete copyedit, then we can re-review. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] NJ & Manhattan explosions

 * Lean oppose but wait for more information. The NYPD has said it was 'intentional' but cannot yet confirm a link to terrorism.  As (fortunately) no one has died at this time I think that terrorism would be the only way this might merit posting. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would add that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have used the word 'bomb' but it hasn't been described that way by actual officials. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 *  Wait  also leaning towards oppose. We don't know enough at this point. But with no fatalities I'm not sure I would support even if this ends up as a terrorist incident. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. This just doesn't strike me as rising to the level that warrants an ITN blurb. I will keep an open mind if there is some dramatic development. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: I've changed "homemade bomb" to "explosion", as the former is a guess while the later is certain. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  13:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait – Per 331, Orientem. Briefly significant domestically for U.S., but.... Sca (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. "Weak" because the article is reasonably fleshed out.  Spencer T♦ C 15:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Gov. Cuomo has called this terrorism, just FYI .  Not sure it changes my view yet. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Good, high quality article. Worth showing to our readers.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Some perspective is needed here. As mentioned above, there have been zero fatalities as a result of this incident. And only 29 injuries. One strongly doubts that Wikipedia would post an article to ITN about a zero-fatality explosion in an impoverished country in Africa. The article shouldn't get special treatment just because it was in Manhattan. Gfcvoice (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unless there's serious ties with international terrorism, which seems to be how the investigators are looking at it from the BBC article, this is an unfortunate domestic incident with no deaths, so not appropriate for ITN. --M ASEM (t) 18:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose no death and no international (or even national) repercussion so far. HaEr48 (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Gfcvoice and above. - <font face="Century Gothic"> Eugεn S¡m¡on  20:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A sign of the times.--WaltCip (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Page bears domestic importance and it is not suitable for ITN. Nannadeem (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * While I don't think this merits posting either, "domestic importance" is not a valid reason, as stated at the top of this page("Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." 331dot (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it merits posting either, but I'd point out that the story has been top of the news outside the US. It certainly has here. Black Kite (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support given the authorities are saying the NJ military parade route bomb and the NYC devices were made by the same person, and that a note in Arabic was found at one of the NY sites. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We absolutely should avoid the FUD rhetoric at this point; people want to try to connect this to international terrorism but just evidence of a note is far from enough to make that assertion. --M ASEM (t) 02:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The "Arabic note" you mention is not discussed in the article. In any case, why does the language of a note (whether or not it actually exists) at an explosion site matter? Furthermore, why should it matter in the discussion regarding its inclusion in ITN? Gfcvoice (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Revisit

 * I am wondering if this subject should be revisited, given that another bomb was detonated by NJ police last night; there seems to be an active plot against the NYC area. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, wait until more is known. We're not playing the guessing game here. It can still easily be a coincidence. ~ Mable ( chat ) 08:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That'd be a big coincidence- and this is becoming an event on its own, even if this latest one is determined to be separate from the others. The Governor has ordered 1,000 state police and National Guard to NYC today. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Again, some perspective is needed here. There have been zero fatalities as a result of these incidents. And only 29 injuries. One strongly doubts that Wikipedia would post an article to ITN about a zero-fatality explosion or series of explosions in an impoverished country in Africa. The article shouldn't get special treatment just because it was in the states of New York and New Jersey. Gfcvoice (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting that it should get 'special treatment'. I would be more receptive to this if it occurred in Paris, Johannesburg, Taipei, Sydney, wherever.  An event doesn't have to have large numbers of casualties or deaths to merit inclusion, but a large metropolitan area with tens of millions is understandably a little nervous today.  People (including me) wanted to wait until there was more information; there's now more information. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "large metropolitan area with tens of millions is understandably a little nervous today" may be accurate, but this discussion is about the article's inclusion in ITN and not how many Americans are anxious. I disagree with your view that an event "event doesn't have to have large numbers of casualties or deaths to merit inclusion". If Wikipedia is genuine about counteracting its systemic bias in favor of articles about western countries, and in particular, the USA, then this article is a great example of what should not be included in ITN.  As above, I doubt this article would be nominated (in fact, an article might not even exist) if the explosions took place in small African cities. Also I should note that the subject article 2016 Manhattan explosion deals almost entirely with one explosion, and I could not find any information about the specific event you described above. Regardless, this is just a local news story, with a big media circus hyping it up because of the location. Gfcvoice (talk) 09:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I link to the story above. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but this is not "death, disaster, and destruction in the news", this is just In the News.  There doesn't have to be large number of deaths to include something.  You also speak to larger systemic bias issues than just ones we deal with here- unless you want to go to underrepresented areas to sign up Wikipedia editors, there is little we can do about the geographic makeup of them. The way to deal with systemic bias is not to artificially exclude stories, but to include more stories.  I invite you to nominate stories from underrepresented areas.  We've actually made progress in that area with Recent Deaths. Next time I guess I'll just keep my information to myself. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is not "death, disaster, and destruction in the news" - obviously articles about elections and sporting events and scientific discoveries rarely involve death or disaster or destruction. However for events such as those in New York and New Jersey in recent days, something more than 0 deaths and 29 injuries should be needed in order for an article to be posted on the front page of Wikipedia. Gfcvoice (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * They've caught a suspect, a radicalized Afghani, whom they are blaming for all the bombing incidents. I am quite sure we would post it if someone planted Bombs in York and Edinburgh.  The response is also part of the story, and the lack of deaths seems to be sheer luck, since the 5K run in NJ was coincidentally delayed, foiling the bomber's plot. NYT. μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that York or Edinburgh are cities in Africa. Regardless, I thought this section was closed for new comments. Gfcvoice (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * support - per terrorist connection. per coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment 1 The article 2016 Manhattan explosion which the subject of this nomination is now a mere redirect to a different article with a different scope to the original nomination. Should I (and other editors) write in support or opposition again, given that the nomination is for a different article? Gfcvoice (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment 2 This is very messy, it would make much more sense for this discussion to be closed and for discussion to begin about the new article 2016 New York and New Jersey bombings. Otherwise people are just commenting on 2016 Manhattan explosion which is just a redirect. Gfcvoice (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree we should be discussing an actual article and a revised blurb, perhaps dealing with the arrest of the suspect(as the end of this situation). 331dot (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment 3 I agree with 331dot - regarding discussion about an actual article and a different blurb. Gfcvoice (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Bahman Golbarnezhad

 *  Oppose blurb  There is nothing here that even comes close to rating a blurb on ITN.  Weak Oppose RD  on article quality. The article appears decently sourced but also looks like a text book example of WP:Recentism, one of the projects principal plagues. Right now the article is pretty much just about the subjects death. Some balance needs to be established. The problem is if you take out even a little of the death coverage you basically are down to a stub and we don't post stubs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC) [I am changing my vote. See below for full explanation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)]
 * I'm not saying he should get a blurb because he is extremely notable but more because of the circumstances of his death. I agree with you on article quality. - <b style="color:#FFCC33">Yellow</b> <b style="color:brown">Dingo</b>&#160;<b style="color:BLUE">(talk)</b> 04:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:Notable people die under unusual circumstances all the time. We need to exercise some discernment here. Mr. Golbarnezhad rates an article for one reason only, and that is he was a Paralympic athlete. But in the grand scheme of things he was (at the risk of sounding callous about the recently departed) fairly unimportant. I really do not think we should be posting blurbs about people whose sole claim to fame rests on "I was there and I died after hitting a rock." If this were Lance Armstrong, or someone of a similar caliber/notoriety I'd almost certainly support the blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the athlete meets the para-athletes' notability guidelines, which as far as I understand it, require winning a Paralympic medal for inclusion. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that dying during his competition merits him an article, as an atypical event. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'm not arguing that we should not have the article, but rather that the athlete's encyclopedia notability came about through the manner of his death, not through his paralympic career. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If being a Paralympic athlete doesn't confer notability than I'd say this is a pretty clear case of WP:1E and it casts doubt on the notability of the subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support RD First Olympian to die in an event since 1960.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD first olympian who has died during the paralympics/olympic games since 1960.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * RD is clearly warranted here, but oppose on quality as Ad Orientem states above. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD Given the fact this accident have became serious news. Donnie Park (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I have opened a discussion at Talk:Bahman Golbarnezhad regarding some of the concerns relating to recentism and in particular the notability of the subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Straight Oppose I am modifying my !vote after discussion and taking a hard look at the article and relevant guidelines. The bottom line is that this article has problems, at least one of which is not correctable. If an article is short on references, those can always be added. But you can't fix notability. It's either there or it's not. In this case it's not. See the discussion on the article's talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Then it should be nominated for deletion. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually I am leaning towards a merge and redirect to 2016 Summer Paralympics. I think I will make that proposal formally at the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * After lengthy discussions across multiple pages, RS backed evidence of notability has been found and added to the article. I remain opposed but purely on article quality. It's still grossly unbalanced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose based on article quality. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. The article is woefully unbalanced.  If someone could beef up the biography so it covered more than his death, I'd support.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support His death is major event. If not a blurb, then it must be added to RD . I may soon add more biographical information to this article if it helps. Beejsterb (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD per above comments. I believe his article looks good at the moment, even if half of it is about his death specifically. If anything, his death is notable, and that can be enough. ~ Mable ( chat ) 08:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support and marked - has since been expanded and is fully sourced. Fuebaey (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Charmian Carr

 * Support – The article looks decent. There are some very minor unsourced lines, but nothing out of the ordinary. ~ Mable ( chat ) 09:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support There is a single CN tag but overall the article looks solid and well sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. So then, is it good to go? Rhodesisland (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well sourced and good enough for the main page. MurielMary (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted I'm not interested in debate over conflicts of interest, there are four supports here on article quality, I couldn't really care less about any credit, and one RD has been posted that is younger than this one, and had less consensus, so sue me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] 2016 Rugby Championship

 * Oppose on quality. We should have some sort of text synopsis of the tournament, perhaps at least a paragraph or two covering each round.  Right now it's a little background information and a WHOLE lot of tables.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See 2016 Rugby Championship which summerises the tournament to date (note that there are still two rounds and four games to be played). I am personally not a fan of the excessive use of tables, but it is an aspect some editors like to add (if they are a real issue I could try collapsing some of them and see if that sticks). AIR corn (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with tables, but there should also be prose in addition describing the events. Heck, if every major sports news organization can manage a paragraph or two on these events, we can certainly do the same.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support I agree with Jayron32's suggestion for expansion but I think there is enough there to pass muster. And the article looks decently sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Article has all the required information. Tables work much much better than prose here, much more efficient. No need to duplicate. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Decent, sourced article. The prose update is the tournament overview section, as per most sport tournaments that don't have a 'final' match. I'm not sure what more can be added, other than a in-depth prose synopsis of the eight matches that have already been played and the four that have yet to be, but I have yet to come across a major tournament article that does that. Fuebaey (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose the matches that lead up to the final result (i.e. all of them) need a prose summary. Right now it's little more than the blurb and a set of stats.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I have expanded the overview section to cover all eight matches. AIR corn (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted per expansion. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Edward Albee

 * Oppose Article is in poor shape with orange tags reflecting significant gaps in sourcing. It will require substantial improvement before it can be linked on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, regretfully. Incomplete to the point of stubbiness, poorly referenced. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - seeing gradual, but steady, improvements to the article's quality, so we should keep an eye on this. I hope to add my support to this nomination, hopefully sooner rather than later. Christian Roess (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose still not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Shooting of Terence Crutcher

 * Oppose obviously good faith nomination. Another day, another controversial police involved shooting. With the possible exception of Ferguson (my memory fails) we have not posted any of these. I agree with that general precedent. These incidents are too common and not of sufficiently wide interest for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was unaware of that precedent/consensus. If that's the case, I understand if folks decline this. I'd think it's of wide interest personally, but I see your point too.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. You would not have known. But yeah, we don't usually post items that are basically "the latest in a series of..." type stories unless there is something that makes this particular incident really stand out. I do think we posted Ferguson for that reason. But that was an exception based on unique circumstances and far ranging consequences. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose literally thousands of people are shot to death every year in the United States, a high proportion of them are black, a significant proportion are unarmed. Many of them are killed by the police.  Why is this more important than all those others?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted to RD]: Rose Moford

 * Comment. The article is relatively brief & depends largely on a single biography -- could do with expansion from the obituaries. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The article appears solid and well sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per AO. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Tiangong-2 launch

 * The article is in terrible staea. Tiangong program is better. Nergaal (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Weak Oppose Although decently sourced, the article is little more than a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the nomination doesn't explain the significance of the launch. HaEr48 (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Struck my opposition per comments below. HaEr48 (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * All non-recurring space launches are ITNR. Nergaal (talk) 07:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no doubts about significance: "The launch of space stations or major components thereof" is ITNR. --Jenda H. (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong support - I have seen the page-view statistics & size of article; I think this space science Laboratory/technology for astronomy should not be opposed. Nannadeem (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. We posted QUESS. But the article needs improvement. 129.97.118.173 (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose subtract the "See also" section and the "Specifications" section, we have a stub with a single sentence relating to the launch. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments: if subtraction criteria is given weight-age it will be a likewise precedence for ignoring other articles in future. Nannadeem (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

[Removed] 2016 Summer Paralympics

 * Removed. Sorry, I checked the early tables but obviously didn't go far enough. I've removed it. I don't see any point in relinking the overview, as it fails to cover ongoing events. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted to RD]: Rose Moford

 * Comment. The article is relatively brief & depends largely on a single biography -- could do with expansion from the obituaries. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The article appears solid and well sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per AO. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Tiangong-2 launch

 * The article is in terrible staea. Tiangong program is better. Nergaal (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Weak Oppose Although decently sourced, the article is little more than a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the nomination doesn't explain the significance of the launch. HaEr48 (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Struck my opposition per comments below. HaEr48 (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * All non-recurring space launches are ITNR. Nergaal (talk) 07:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no doubts about significance: "The launch of space stations or major components thereof" is ITNR. --Jenda H. (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong support - I have seen the page-view statistics & size of article; I think this space science Laboratory/technology for astronomy should not be opposed. Nannadeem (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. We posted QUESS. But the article needs improvement. 129.97.118.173 (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose subtract the "See also" section and the "Specifications" section, we have a stub with a single sentence relating to the launch. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments: if subtraction criteria is given weight-age it will be a likewise precedence for ignoring other articles in future. Nannadeem (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

[Removed] 2016 Summer Paralympics

 * Removed. Sorry, I checked the early tables but obviously didn't go far enough. I've removed it. I don't see any point in relinking the overview, as it fails to cover ongoing events. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] 42nd Chess Olympiad

 * Support, though shouldn't the blurb note the winner by name rather than the winning country? ~ Mable ( chat ) 20:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Chess Olympiad is a team chess competition in which national teams compete for their countries. We can add picture of the board-one player of the winning team in the open event Fabiano Caruana but it may bias against the board-one player of the winning team in the women's event and current World Women's Champion Hou Yifan.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I wasn't paying attention, it seems. A picture could be pretty cool, though I feel rather neutral on that part. ~ Mable ( chat ) 20:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, seems notable and interesting enough.BabbaQ (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 *  Conditional Support A good topic for an ITN blurb. Article is in overall descent shape but there are some gaps in sourcing. Once those are filled in we should be good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been working on those gaps so that now there are no unreferenced sentences in the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support although I'm not convinced we need "In chess...." given the obvious nature of the tournament per its name, plus the repetitive nature of the proposed hook is disgusting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Marked as Ready -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Question: why not just give "The 42nd Chess Olympiad concludes ..."? Banedon (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. I have slightly trimmed the hook to reduce repetition. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Typhoon Meranti

 * Please link to a couple news sources about this, to indicate it is in the news. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait – Storm is still offshore and effects aren't fully known in the Philippines and Taiwan yet (rainfall still ongoing in Taiwan). Too soon to tell if this is worth posting. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait per Cyclonebiskit. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I think we can now call this a major disaster. I removed an empty section, otherwise the article appears solid and well sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose the blurb is not interesting, the event has really yet to take place. 21:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Uh, did someone accidentally WP:5TILDES? Palmtree5551 (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait and see what the effects are Palmtree5551 (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Four days after the storm, authorities are yet to make contact with the towns of Basco, Itbayat, Mahatao and Sabtang, communities with a combined population of some 14,500. See here:  184.151.37.68 (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - major disaster. BabbaQ (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd be happy to post this, if someone knowledgeable could supply an updated hook. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. I turned round the blurb, as none of the reported deaths appear to be in the Philippines. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Bayer to acquire Monsanto

 * Comment – Significant in finance and maybe ag, but not sure about general notability. BBC, calling it a "tie-up," notes that "rivals, including Dow Chemical, DuPont and Syngenta, all have announced tie-ups recently." Sca (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Too many gaps in sourcing in the target article to be linked on the main page. The Monsanto article is better but still needs some work. And there is an orange tag. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've proposed an altblurb, as the transaction is not final yet, as it needs regulatory approval in several nations. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on improvements - Both are big, recognized companies and the price is clearly significant (and has rather interesting connotations in the bio industry, but that's speculative at this point). As it is a planned deal, this is the right time for ITN. There is a handful of tags on the articles that I see but far from being a sourcing nightmare, so if those can be fixed, this should be okay. --M ASEM (t) 16:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Monumental biz deal between two large companies.--WaltCip (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose the blurb and the alt blurb are saying very different things. And in any case, the Bayer article is poor quality and needs work before it can be accepted as a target article for the main page.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support with a modification to both blurbs. $66 billion is big. The deal isn't concluded yet and "announces it is to acquire" is also slightly off. Something to the tune of "Bayer agrees a deal to acquire Montano" would be more accurate. Banedon (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support with amended blurb #2. The deal is a go between the companies, but it does remain subject to multiple regulatory approvals -- which will probably fall into place but which could take months to sort out. This blurb does not speculate on that outcome, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. (I originally wrote "bought out", but changed it to "acquired". Oh, and I added the necessary references to the Bayer page. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Marked Both mention the acquisition and there doesn't seem to be any outstanding sourcing tags in either article. I will note that there is was a update section tag in the Monsanto article but, having looked at the talk page thread, I've replaced this with an expansion tag. Personally, I would go with the altblurb and not bold Monsanto due to the tag and because the prose update is two short sentences. Fuebaey (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment unmarked. Significant amount of coverage (on Google News) of the likelihood of this merger failing to go through.  The updates on both target pages fail summarily to cover any of this "news" and given the initial announcement was made five days ago, we should expect such news to be reflected.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Gérard Rondeau
Hello. I have created this article, Gérard Rondeau, about a French photographer. He died on September 13th and I was wondering if we could add him to the "recent deaths" on the main page. This is my first attempt at doing this, so please let me know if this should be posted somewhere else. Please ping me when you reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've moved this to the date of death, which is generally how we organize nominations. Could you post some links to news stories indicating this death is in the news?  You may do so as a comment or within the 'sources' line of the template. Thanks 331dot (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, all the in-line references (obituaries) are from major newspapers in France.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying; however it is helpful to those evaluating this to see at least a few of the sources on this page. You can look at other nominations on this page to get a sense of how it's done. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK I added four references/obituaries in the form. Let me know if this works please. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Thanks 331dot (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How long is this supposed to take please? This should be fairly quick to make sure the death is still "recent". (Maybe we need to improve this "recent deaths" feature...)
 * The only real time limit is that it be posted before the nomination falls off this page(in this case, 5 days from now). There needs to be sufficient consensus that article quality is OK, as judged by an uninvolved admin.  I would support this, agreeing with those below that it is adequate. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support The article is a bit on the short side, but I believe there is enough that's it's not a stub and its well sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support now I've ironed out all the major errors. Article is brief but sufficient.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Short but reasonable. Stephen 01:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Sri Lanka is declared malaria-free
Don't have time to format this but malaria is the disease with the biggest death-toll in history, so a populous country being declared free is a big deal. NY Times Nergaal (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as stale, the WHO announced this on 5 September. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is more recent than the oldest entry now. The news picked up just now. Nergaal (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The WHO release was 8 days ago. This entry is stale.  By the way, we unusually have six entries at ITN right now, but only for main page balance.  So we'll go back to our regular five as soon as practicable.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Belated entry. Nannadeem (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Croatian elections

 * Support. But is it stale? 129.97.118.173 (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It probably is now, although there are several items on the template that are older than this. Bit disappointing that one has commented on this prior for roughly three days - suppose it'd be different had I not bothered to source it before nominating. I have nonetheless started a discussion on the talk page to address the lack of commentary on older nominations. Fuebaey (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] HMS Terror found

 * Support. This story is very interesting. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support with improvements. This is the conclusion to the 171-year-old mystery of where Franklin's lost expedition ended up. Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Seems like a big boost for archaeology, plus it's simply interesting - along the lines of Vasa or the Mary Rose. Smurrayinchester 10:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. This is by far one of the biggest maritime discoveries of 2016. GWA88 (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Per comments by Patar knight - Nannadeem (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – There's nothing so captivating to the human imagination as something long buried or submerged. It would be great if a photo could be snagged from Arctic Research Foundation. Sca (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – Big discovery. Interesting story.--Cyve (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but... No question on appropriateness for ITN, but I do note the sources are saying "believed to have been found". Yes, by Occum's, the only reasonable man-made thing that could be in the ice there is the Terror, but they haven't made the full analysis yet (or pulled it out even, if I'm reading correctly). I would recommend a blurb saying "believed to have found" just to be careful. --M ASEM (t) 16:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, no, it has been identified by a peculiar modification, an exhaust vent. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose, because article has not been updated to explain how it was found and what makes them so sure. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  on article quality. I really hate to be a one man rain cloud but the target article is very poorly sourced and needs significant improvement before it can be linked on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The article has been greatly improved. Well done to all involved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – article quality can be fixed. I support on archaeology value and overall importance.BabbaQ (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose article quality must be fixed before posting; otherwise it's a decent and interesting story.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed the article quality issues, and if someone else wants to give a look over and mark this [ready] if they agree, that would be great. Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Full disclosure: William Battersby is my wife's cousin. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Marking as Ready -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted, with a minor tweak to the hook to match the current article. (Edit conflict) Espresso Addict (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Ellen Burka

 * Neutral her article is okay, and lists very matter-of-factly the people she coached, but to truly reflect her influence, it would be good to expand the article to explain the medals and success of her students. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Baracktrema obamai

 * Oppose Regardless of the possible political issues of linking Obama's name to a parasite on the front page, this is a sub-stub article of three lines of text. Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Regardless of article quality, we don't post the discoveries of every species, unless it's significant enough (like olinguito, for instance). Besides, the proper Latin genitive for "Obama" is "Obamae", not "obamai". Brandmeistertalk  19:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per the above but mostly because irrespective of whether it was intended as such, it would be interpreted as a political statement if posted on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose Yes I know this has been snow closed, but, as the article creator, I wanted to go on record in opposition, joining all the reasons given above. CLEARLY not appropriate. Safiel (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Savvy Shields

 * Oppose with warning to nominator: this kind of "news story" is precisely not what ITN is about. This is an encyclopedia, we should be nominating articles with encyclopedic value.  This is not one of them.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose It's 92 degrees and feels like Hell's front porch where I live, but I see SNOW in the forecast. Seriously and without wishing to impugn the good faith of the nominator, this and their immediately preceding nomination appear almost frivolous. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Utterly unimportant news story which 99.9% of the globe doesn't care about. Black Kite (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as a regional pageant. I could see a world-wide pageant as postable, but not a regional one. Banedon (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] US Open

 * Oppose on article quality. Very poor sourcing. Whole sections are without references as are many of the tables. Significant improvement will be needed before this can be linked on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per AO. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - After improvement with proper RS within 2/3 days- Nannadeem (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Norman May
*Oppose for now. A well referenced stub is still a stub, and this article is not comprehensive enough to provide enough information to the reader. If it is substantially expanded, with the same level of referencing, I would support. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support now. Short, but expanded to beyond stub range, and good enough for me.  Good job!
 *  Weak Oppose  per Jayron32. It's a decent stub. But we don't typically post stubs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Fair enough. I will work on expanding it and ping you both in a few hours. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support following significant expansion with good sourcing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose still a stub, not good enough for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment it is still a work-in-progress, but I think it is no longer in stub territory. It looks fairly similar in length to the other articles currently in the RD list. Inviting previous opiners, and  to take a second look. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted short but reasonable. Stephen 01:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted to] RD: Alexis Arquette

 * Comment there's a whole section of that article that isn't sourced at all Palmtree5551 (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  There is an orange maintenance tag at the top and indeed the sourcing is extremely poor. Most of the career section and all of the film and television credits are unsourced. This article requires dramatic improvements before it can be linked on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Looks much better. The film and TV credits could use a source but the essential stuff is sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per AO. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support article has been tidied up and sourced. MurielMary (talk) 09:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There's still a whole unreferenced paragraph, and the lead is far too measly, it doesn't summarise the major aspects of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think everything is referenced now. Had a go at improving the lead too. MurielMary (talk) 10:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support nice work with the sourcing Palmtree5551 (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Marked as Ready, since the article's quality is sufficient. Mamyles (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

[Removed] Kashmir unrest

 * Removed as the article has been subject to edit warring, and is now fully protected with a NPOV tag. Stephen 06:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Statins benefits underestimated and the harms are exaggerated

 *  Weak Oppose for now. This looks like a decent article though there are some gaps in sourcing. I have added a few cn tags. My main problem is that I am having trouble locating any clear reference to this study in the article body. Has it been updated recently? Maybe I missed it. Will happily reconsider my oppose if/when the article is updated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. A quick look at the dates on the two sources and then a glance at the editing history of the article confirms my concerns. The article has not been updated to reflect this study. That needs to be remedied before we can consider an ITN nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose butter vs margarine &c. To aspirin or not to aspirin?  Standard Daily Mail fodder, latest trends....  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, blow-by-blow material does not belong ITN. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above comments; further, next week someone could come out with a study saying that these drugs are more dangerous than thought(just like studies claiming coffee and alcohol are bad for you and then good for you). 331dot (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree with the comments here that dismiss the results published in the Lancet as just another argument in an ongoing debate. It's not, as pointed out here, this is pretty much the last word on the benefits vs. risks debate. Count Iblis (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The idea that this, or any study on a medical/scientific subject is "the last word" is silly. It is the last word until someone else writes more words. All of which said, I am reserving judgement on the subject of the ITN worthiness of this study. Some medical studies really are significant and worth posting, especially if they present ground breaking information that contradicts hitherto accepted science. In the end though, this discussion is academic. There is nothing for ITN to link to. Until/unless that changes this nomination is going nowhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but pretty much the last word on the benefits vs. risks debate is the funniest thing I've read on Wikipedia today. Glorious.  Sadly, not ever true.  But still, I chuckled.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] 2016 O Porriño derailment

 * Oppose Transportation related incidents with single digit death tolls rarely make it onto ITN. They occur almost daily in some part of the world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not in Spain they don't. Mjroots (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Orientem. – Sca (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per Ad Orientem Nannadeem (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait until more details are available. If this had happened in the US and there was a mere sniff of a terrorist involvement, we'd be seeing this up in lights.  Fatal transportation accidents like this do not occur in Western Europe frequently. Half of those with multiple deaths (in 2016) have been posted to ITN, so the precedent is set. A "single digit death toll" is crass and completely bogus, nowhere does it say that a transport accident need involve 10+ deaths to be posted.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, no lasting impact. Barely deserves an article. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Inga Clendinnen

 * Comment. The source given seems to be on her publisher's website.  Has her death actually been reported in the news by sources not directly associated with the author?  Also, neither the source listed here nor the other one cited in the article seems to confirm the specific date of death.  Dragons flight (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. I did a Google News search and with the exception of a single blog reference there were no hits for her name over the last week. This is ITN. A death needs to be "In the News" somewhere. Will happily reconsider if better sourcing for her death is found. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per AO, death not in any real widely circulating reliable sources, article is meh, passable I guess, just above stub, not relevant per se to this debate but the Inga Clendinnen bibliography needs to be merged back into the main article as its an absurd fork. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted after merging back the bibliography, and citing the date of death to, Stephen 06:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Sylvia Gore

 * Support I added one CN tag but the article looks pretty solid and well sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - well sourced and ready article. definitely for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support again this kind of article is a little lightweight but I suppose given the subject matter plus systemic bias, particularly in the earlier days of women's football, sources may be few and far between. Fix the [citation needed] and do a copyedit and this is good to go.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Uncited statement removed. Marking ready. MurielMary (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 06:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] North Korean Nuclear Test (5th)

 * Support once confirmed strike 5 and they aren't out yet. Nergaal (talk) 07:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as this is definitely a significant development. I believe the alternative blurb is more appropriate as there's nothing to suggest this nuclear test is directly related to the G20 Summit. GWA88 (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support article is in decent condition too. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - mildly concerned about the language used in the article (needs some copyediting) but the article is improving quickly so I'm happy to support. Banedon (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 09:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dragons flight! Great to see a fellow Berkeley alum lurking on Wikipedia too. Go Bears! --AsianHippie (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Bert Llewellyn

 * Support.--WaltCip (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I added two cite needed tags but overall the article is solid and well sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support and marked as ready, cn fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Per talk page discussion of Younghusband, is coverage in the Stoke Sentinel, a relatively minor local newspaper, considered sufficient to be "in the news"? I can't find reference to his death on the BBC. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Mentioned here, for example, among the "Headlines from Greater Manchester and east Cheshire". ---Sluzzelin talk  22:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, that wasn't coming up in the (horrible new) search. However, the complete content of the mention is "Former Wigan footballer Bert Llewellyn dies aged 77". Espresso Addict (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] OSIRIS-REx

 * Support. Interesting mission and the article seems good enough, though some parts are a little over reliant on primary sources. Note that ITNR lists the arrival of this sort of probe, rather than its launch, but I think it's OK to feature both - and in this case also the return, 8 years from now. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Added a public domain artists impression as an image suggestion. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support USA, USA! Nergaal (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Almost ready but some more sources needed in the Payload section.  Spencer T♦ C 14:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose is this ITNR? Can you explain why you think this is an "exciting science story"?  If not ITNR, we should wait until this completes its mission, successfully or otherwise; the launch is nothing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in very good shape. I can't think why I wouldn't want readers to know about it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Giraffe

 * Oppose I assume the main giraffe article which talks to just one species needs a rather major overhaul before this can be posted. Despite being an FA, it looks like it hasn't been suitably updated.  Indeed, the last edit summary was It is too early to make this statement. The authors only "we suggest that these should be recognized as discrete species".  So perhaps this isn't even an actual story.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on update. From the Nature news item, this appears to be significant development in classifying giraffes, with implications for conservation. There's a debate about it on the talk page, so hopefully there'll be agreement on how to address the material before this goes stale. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but oppose for now - at least until the talk page comes to a consensus to include this into the article. Banedon (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's no reason not to believe this finding; it has been suspected for many years that some of the subspecies are full species. That's why the study was done. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted now that the articles have settled down and reflect the new information. Stephen 08:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: May I suggest the blurb contain a link to the section where the news item is discussed? Maybe Giraffe? Otherwise it's kind of awkward to click the link from the main page and not easily seeing anything about the four species. HaEr48 (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Prince Buster

 * Weak oppose decent article but more referencing required. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support Concur with TRM's assessment. Overall it's not bad but there are a few too many gaps in sourcing. Fix those and we should be good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment added additional refs, in particular to discography. Hopefully is good to go. yorkshiresky (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This hasn't the most detailed sources of any article I've ever seen but it's been improved well, it's decently sourced, so Posted. So sue me. Black Kite (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Moscow Ring Railway

 * Support as this is definitely a significant news. We don't see re-openings of rail lines of crucial importance for a city's transport and economy that were closed for over a century.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support posting this on September 10 as suggested by the Nominator. The target page is a nice little article, and it seems to be well-referenced. As far as I can tell, *all* the citations are in Russian, but that shouldn't impede support (except for the nomination source, from citylab.com, used above is in English). However, there are a few things that should be looked at, and fixed. First off, there's a "cn-tag" after the last sentence in the second section. I also added a "cn-tag" following the sentence in the "History" section that says Pyotr Rashevsky was the first to suggest construction of the ring, and that his proposal was the contest winner. Another thing: the September 10 opening is only mentioned in the Infobox, and not in the body of the article. Perhaps it should be in the main article (although it does mention that "passenger services expected to begin in the third quarter of 2016."). Also, I think it should be stated in the article (with a citation) that the expected passenger volume will be 300 million a year. That's a significant detail, in my opinion, and adds to the credibility of this being a "blurb worthy" nomination. (Also, I would like to see a reference in here that's from an Engish-language news source --ie., the citylab.com source above--although it's my understanding that utilizing sources other than in English, won't necessarily hold up a nomination from getting into the ITN section). Christian Roess (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Though helpful, sources for an article are not required to be in English. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - it's an update to the transport system of one of Russia's many cities, and Russia is in turn one of the World's many countries. I don't see the significance I'm afraid. Banedon (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Switching to Weak support - still not very convinced but I guess it's something. On the other hand the blurb should not be stressing that the ring used to move freight, since that's not the point of the railway (which is to move people). Going to add an alt blurb, amend as necessary. Banedon (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. While it is unusual for a mainline that carried freight to be converted to rapid transit, it isn't uncommon. One branch of Boston's Green Line was so converted. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – Although I have a weakness for railroad articles, I must agree with Banedon that this footnote to the Moscow subway story isn't blurb material. Sca (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Support (nulla exemplum) The argument that this is not the sort of thing that we would normally post is not w/o merit. But its unusual enough that I am willing to give it a pass with the understanding that this is a one off and we are not creating precedent or lowering the bar for future nominations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current state of the article is not correctly updated, the lead makes no mention of the newly opened passenger service (and indeed directly contradicts the story). The article should be much more clear and detailed about the service change before we direct readers to read it.  Since the article has not been adequately updated, we cannot direct readers to learn about something they can't really learn about from the article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Confused: in principle I could support a major expansion to one of the world's biggest metro systems, but the article currently states that the ring won't reopen for passengers until 2020, and the English-language source you provide put it all at some unspecified point in the future. A hunt on Google News showed no reports of it reopening, just various bits of preparation and suggestions that the 'project will launch' (whatever that means) on 15 September. So is the passenger service actually open yet? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously the mayor was too pessimistic when he was speaking in 2012... Apparently, a greater priority was placed on the project; the September 10 opening date (which happens to be on the Moscow City Day, the annual celebration) is pretty firm now, quoted at the official sites and in the media. -- Vmenkov (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, that's correct Vmenkov, and is corroborated by some of the sources I read today, for example this one: "Moscow expanding subway network intensively - senior official". Hopefully, as the Nominator here, you can help with a few improvements that I mentioned in my comment (below). Christian Roess (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That short article is from 2013 and doesn't say anything about when it will open. 'Quoted at the official sites and in the media' doesn't help much when I cannot find anything to confirm this on Google - please can you provide recent sources with definite dates? I support in principle but oppose on article quality and lack of sources. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm with Modest Genius. Some of the "meh" opposes are pointless and miss the fact that the Moscow metro is a seminal mass transport system, one of the oldest, deepest and busiest in world history, and such alleged expansion is highly significant and newsworthy.  But the facts of the matter appear to be somewhat muddied and unclear.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment my support is a little weaker now that I can see that the target article is missing important info, and maybe there are more important stories out there. Maybe this would be a better DYK candidate. But The Rambling Man is on point here, too. With that in mind, I think there are some things that can be done to get this through the ITN nomination process. For that to happen, both the target article and the blurb needs to be updated so that it will reflect why this is ITN-worthy. Modest Genius's point is exactly correct: it's a major expansion to one of the world's biggest metro systems. That should be kept in mind by the editors who posted "weak oppose" votes above. In my opinion, this is not some kind of perfunctory expansion of just one inconsequential hub of just another metro system in just another city, and in just another country (and so because "all major cities have metro systems that are always expanding, why is this particular story worthy of a blurb?" is maybe one argument, but in this case, I don't think it's a persuasive one). Nor is the result of this Ring renovation going to be just some kind of cursory footnote to the Moscow subway story. But to clear up some of these misunderstandings, then I agree that Jayron32 is right: that the article needs be correctly updated. I'll see what I can do, and hopefully the Nominator will jump in (since the latter editor seems to know the Russian language). Some things to consider:
 * Moscow's metro system is the 3rd largest in the world, after Seoul and Tokyo [source: here] used by at least 7 million people per day. IMO, it doesn't work to compare this to Boston, which services about 1.2 million per day, and that would include unlinked transport services. [source: here]
 * Moscow's Metro stations are located at an average of 1.2 miles away from one another. This means that 22 percent of Muscovites have no rapid rail stations within walking distance. According to city government calculations, once the new circular line is commissioned, the number of residents living far from rapid rail will fall to 7 percent. [source: here]
 * The Moscow Ring Railway will connect with the commuter trains which travel to Moscow’s suburbs and which spoke out from the city center in a wheel formation. People traveling from Moscow to the suburbs won’t need to travel to the city center to connect to their destination subway line. Also, The Moscow Ring Railway runs through largely industrial areas of Moscow, located between the center and outer suburbs. With the appearance of this major new transport route, this now under-used area will receive a boost in development. [source: here]
 * in my opinion, the article has an interesting cultural & historical focus to it, with the sidelights of a certain architectural and engineering impact that could be of interest to our readers. Also, there have been 22,000 workers (and upwards 60,000 people at any one time) involved, specifically in the construction of the 3rd contour in the Ring, which will carry passengers, while the other two rails in the Ring will continue transporting manufacturing and industrial materials, raw goods or otherwise. Christian Roess (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've done some of the suggested updates, and added a recent English source ( http://rbth.com/politics_and_society/2016/09/09/how-moscows-new-light-rail-system-will-make-life-easier-for-passengers_628517 ), which basically summarizes the information published in various Russian sources. (That article mistakenly uses the term "light rail", even as the author correctly identifies the rolling stock as Lastochka, which is a typical mainline railway EMU). Also, had to rename the article, as the city authorities, in their infinite wisdom, have recently renamed the line to "Moscow Central Ring". -- Vmenkov (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted good work on clearing up the confused dates. Nowhere in the ITN rules does it say we can only ever post the first occurrence of something. Stephen 06:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Pulled per WP:ERRORS pending improvements. The link doesn't point to the correct article any more, and the relevant article (Moscow Central Circle doesn't verify the hook and is need of further improvement and sourcing. Black Kite (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Epicgenius completed the partial split of Moscow Central Circle from Moscow Ring Railway, and the original problem can be rectified by switching links. Please note that we post blurbs here at ITN, not hooks, and it is customary to readd the oldest removed blurb when removing a newer one to prevent whitespace from unnecessarily appearing on the main page. Fuebaey (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Re-Posted with a link to Moscow Central Circle now that the page split has been cleaned up. Stephen 01:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] iPhone 7

 * Oppose. I don't see how the lack of a headphone jack is groundbreaking or noteworthy; it's merely a technical choice by Apple.  Product announcements and releases don't generally merit posting for that reason in my opinion, as usually companies generate attention for their products. I would add that I think every release of an iPhone gets nominated, but I don't recall how successful it is in being posted(will look later). 331dot (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose merely a commercial evolution of a decent product. Hardly ITN worthy I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Routine product update. No need for ITN to advertise it for them. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] 2016 Paralympics opening ceremony

 * Conditional Support for blurb. The article is quite brief and needs to be updated with solid sourcing. Also the blurb should not be posted before tomorrow as the event is happening tonight. Support Ongoing as reasonable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait before posting opening ceremony blurb, we need to re-assess the article after all the events have concluded and have been covered. Per Ad Orientem, no issues with pushing it onto Ongoing after the ceremony blurb drops off.   If the opening ceremony article fails to make the quality bar, then we should skip it for an Ongoing listing, assuming the target article is in a suitable condition to do so... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - When the opening ceremony starts.BabbaQ (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting 2016 Summer Paralympics to ongoing, as it is unlikely to include updates on events. Is there an ongoing events article that will be updated? There doesn't seem to be one linked from the infobox. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Presumably the main article would be the one receiving updates throughout Palmtree5551 (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It will rapidly get unwieldy with over 500 events to summarise... Espresso Addict (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's speculation and not important to this nomination. In any case, we linked to Chronological summary of the 2016 Summer Olympics for the Olympics, there may be scope in linking to something similar at Ongoing, should there be an appetite for such an article exist. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And it appears that the 2012 Paralympics had Event_winners_at_the_2012_Summer_Paralympics. While Event_winners_at_the_2016_Summer_Paralympics doesn't exist at the moment, I don't see a reason why that wouldn't be created Palmtree5551 (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a poor example, it's badly named and woefully referenced, so I would say while the principle of having such an article at ongoing is a good one, it needs to be updated and referenced every single day as a minimum. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I got there by going to Chronological summary of the 2012 Summer Paralympics. I agree on the badly named part though that was apparently the result of a move discussion on the article's talk page that was later endorsed on review Palmtree5551 (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support blurb but agree that it shouldn't be posted before the opening ceremony. Support ongoing per Ad Orientem. Palmtree5551 (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb but wait until the opening ceremony article gets updated to a sufficient level. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb and ongoing - agree with Palmtree5551. Banedon (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Question do you guys think this event deserves an ongoing when Euro 2016 didn't get one? Nergaal (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well one could argue that this is a global sporting competition (159 nations represented from all continents) while Euro 2016 was regional (24 nations from one continent). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. It's going to be over in two weeks, might as well. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posting blurb, for which I see consensus. As for ongoing, we can continue with the discussion once the blurb rolls off the MP. --Tone 11:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment If this does go to ongoing, perhaps Chronological summary of the 2016 Summer Paralympics could be used as the article for ongoing? Though at the moment, it appears to be heading in the direction of being a day by day list of summary tables and so it may need some work Palmtree5551 (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: Nigeria conflict

 * Oppose for now. I currently see only one update from the past week (September 4th) and thus not the level of activity I would normally expect from an ongoing post.  Also, the article quality is an issue.  While everything is cited, the quality of writing suffers horribly from WP:PROSELINE issues.  If the narrative could be written in a more natural language, and if the article could show continuous updates with pertinent information over an extended period of time, I would consider supporting this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I already said it needs to be added to (and the source is in the nom). But what of the merits of it being posted?Lihaas (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Now just updating from this week. Done a current update.Lihaas (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The merits of being posted to ongoing are based on the frequency of updates to the article. You've just made it two updates in a week.  That's still not enough.  If you can demonstrate continuous updates on new events for a reasonable amount of time, we can reconsider.  Also, the article has horrendous spelling and grammar errors now.  There is no WAY I'm going to direct readers to an article with statements like " As a consequence its inention for the burnin".  No way.  If we can clean up the article, and show a string of updates showing substantive developments over several days (that is, news from September 8th posted on September 8th, news from September 9th posted on September 9th, etc.) showing that the article is being continuously updated and the news is substantial, we'd have something.  So long as the updates don't feature words like "burnin" and "inention" and show proper usage of commas and prepositions. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Isabelle Dinoire

 * Weak Support for RD - Oppose blurb conditional on improved sourcing. The article is not in really bad shape, but it does have some gaps in sources. On a side note I am not sure this is not a case of WP:1E. But no one else seems to be raising the issue so I won't press the matter. That said, there is nothing here that warrants a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support for Recent Death, but Oppose blurb. ~ Mable ( chat ) 17:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I still support the article for RD, especially after seeing the improvements made today. The delay is awkward, though, so if it is not considered appropriate, that's fine with me. ~ Mable ( chat ) 19:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't think this is eligible for RD, given that she died some months ago. Mjroots (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Uggh. I completely missed that. You are correct this is ineligible. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Reopening nomination per talk page discussion. Belated death announcements have occasionally been posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose poor quality article. I'm not too fussed about the delay from April (although that's quite some delay) since it's in the news as of today.  But lame article means no posting right now.  For the avoidance of doubt, I would only support RD listing and not a blurb, should the article make it up the quality ladder a few rungs.   The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb or RD subject to the relatively minor referencing issues being addressed. Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In my view it is too stale to be a "recent" death and not important enough to merit a full blurb.  Dragons flight (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I understand why the family delayed the announcement, that's not the issue. It's not a great article - it sort of bullet-lists the issues preceding and succeeding the transplant itself, but really doesn't go into the more general background of such a transplant, or touch at all on its significance. Challenger l (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Phyllis Schlafly

 * Comment. Seems generally well developed and reasonably sourced, though a few citations are still needed. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD and possibly a blurb - Once the article is fully up to shape it should be good to go, but after seeing some articles refer to her as an "icon" I am curious if she should be given a blurb. What do you all think? Andise1 (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should avoid drifting into making blurbs for not-unexpected deaths of people who would have merited a place at RD under the old rules. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support RD Article has a few "citation needed" tabs, but nothing that cannot be fixed. Personally I would also like to support a blurb but I think that would be too much systematic bias. EternalNomad (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD/oppose blurb article is of appropriate quality for the main page, but she wasn't a world changer like Prince, David Bowie, Margaret Thatcher etc whose deaths merited blurbs. MurielMary (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. There is not currently consensus for a blurb, but people can continue discussing that if they wish.  Dragons flight (talk) 06:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Hong Kong Legislative Council election

 * Oppose good faith nomination. We don't usually post election results that do not result in a change of head of state/government, i.e. presidents or prime ministers. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But the Legislative Council election does not determine Hong Kong's chief executive, who is not democratically elected through universal suffrage. So that precedent cannot apply in the context of Hong Kong. The election results are quite notable due to the rise of the localist camp in the wake of the 2014 Hong Kong protests, the failed electoral reform proposal, and other political issues. Citobun (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The point is that Hong Kong is not a nation. Given current circumstances, the relevant change of head of state that would be routinely posted is Xi Jinping.  Local elections are not routinely posted.  We did however, post the Hong Kong protests and would likely post similar demonstrations in the future.  Dragons flight (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See my response below. LegCo election is akin to national legislative election while district council is more comparable to your idea of "local elections". Citobun (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Essentially a local election.  If there were renewed protests or some other visible push of independence, then there would be something to consider, but by itself the routine election of a city government doesn't reach the significance needed for ITN.  Dragons flight (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not a "city election" as Hong Kong is a special administrative region, not a city. Hong Kong functions with a degree of autonomy on the world stage, has its own currency, a different legal and political system than mainland China. Not comparable. Last year's district council election was the "local election". LegCo is not a city council. Citobun (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever Hong Kong is right now, they certainly aren't their own country. I actually wish that they were, but just aren't right now.  We don't generally post provincial or state elections either.  If Hong Kong somehow manages to achieve functional independence (e.g. Taiwan), then we would start including changes in the HK chief executive here, but in my opinion China's special autonomous regions shouldn't make the cut any more than the various states, provinces, and territories in other parts of the world.  Also, even for countries, we don't usually post elections when they don't immediately effect the head of state.  Regardless of how the head of state is chosen, it is usually the change in head of state that is posted.  Dragons flight (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I already stated that LegCo is the highest-level lawmaking body, and hence is not comparable to a U.S. state or a city council, so I don't see why you're still insisting on this point. As for the head of state point, why cling to a precedent if it isn't relevant in this case...? It's not a rule and it's not a policy. It's not relevant here. More western-centric censorship at ITN, what a surprise. This is the most notable news of the year in Hong Kong and it isn't enough to make ITN? Blown off as a "local election"? What an utter joke this place is. But I've seen it numerous times before so I shouldn't be surprised. Citobun (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment This is shaping up to be yet another major Hong Kong news story quashed at ITN by Western-centrism. Those of you brushing this off as an insignificant "city election" are either plain uninformed or being deliberately obtuse. I have seen this repeatedly here – shameful and absurd. LegCo is the top-level lawmaking body – how is that comparable to a city council? Citobun (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If I'm understanding correctly, this would be comparable to a state legislature in the US and to my knowledge, we don't post those Palmtree5551 (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with U.S. politics. But in most countries the national legislature makes laws that apply nationwide. However, Chinese laws have no bearing in Hong Kong. It is a separate legal system. Hence LegCo is not comparable to a city council nor a conventional sub-national assembly. Citobun (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I get what the nominator is stating, but this is still fundamentally a subnational election, which is not getting a level of coverage needed for posting.  Personally I don't feel the quirks of how China does things override that. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Regretful oppose Leaving aside the debate on whether it's comparable to a national election of a sovereign state, it's an election for the legislature which AFAIK ITN don't generally post rather than a change of government which ITN does post. You guys can have this fight again possibly next year. -- KTC (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The LegCo election, based on some degree of democracy, is more meaningful than the undemocratic chief executive election. Citobun (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per Dragons, 331. – Sca (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose On article quality only sadly. Hong Kong is a rather unique situation regarding its administration. While effectively a local election this is the highest election for what is a semi-autonomous state. The reason this particular election is newsworthy is found at Hong Kong LegCo candidates' disqualification controversy. The EAC banned 6 localist politicians from running, which has (allegedly) led to 4 'veteran democrat' members unexpectedly losing their seats. In a country that has to dance a fine line with its political relationships with China, this is a big issue for the localists. (FYI the BBC has covered it.) Imagine if anyone elected to the top level of public office in Texas had to first swear that Texas was an inalienable part of the US. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the big problem with the article quality? Citobun (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Philippine Drug War

 * Comment In its current condition the article cannot be linked on the main page. Also there is no blurb here. What exactly are we being asked to do with this? It does not appear to be an event of the sort we post blurbs on. Perhaps after the article is cleaned up it could be nominated as part of the ongoing news section. For now I am going to refrain from addressing the merits of posting this subject since the article requires significant improvement before it can even be considered. At a minimum we do not link articles that have orange tags anywhere in them. That said, I appreciate the good faith efforts of those working on the article and hoping to get it linked at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Uh, this is a nomination for ongoing? Palmtree5551 (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose very poor article, timeline last added to nearly two weeks ago.  Neither fit for ongoing nor a blurb.  The Rambling Man (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose "on or off" activity is not the purpose of Ongoing. It should be for stories that have near-daily major stories and updates, not just a prolonged length but sporatic bits of activity. --M ASEM (t) 04:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment A few days ago I posted a comment on the Current Events portal about this. For months, ever since before Duterte's election, there's been a daily stream of myopic, biased and I suspect politically motivated updates on Duterte and the Philippines on the Current Events portal.  I say politically motivated, because before his election the posts were familiar general election tripe (Duterte is a bad man, The Pope doesn't like him, he will be bad for business, etc.), and only gained the drug war angle after his election.  He is by far the world politician with the most posts on the portal, greatly outweighing his impact on the rest of the world.  I can't oppose this nomination on the merits (because I don't know much about the Philippines drug war, because in my corner of the world it is NOT in the news), but I also can't help but bring up the NPOV and UNDUE attention Duterte has been getting in the CE portal.128.214.53.104 (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In any case, Duterte doesn't seem to be taking the high road. Sca (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Duterte has declared a state of national emergency . Could make a blurb out of that one I think, if there's an article to link. Banedon (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Of note, Duterte declares many things, including hid doubting (and later recanting) of Obama's parentage, which honestly has received more news of this nature. He's a bombast and a demagogue, and says many things.  I don't know that this is much of a development, and anyways I'd look for more reasonable external, unconnected-to-Duterte statements about the merits of this story before posting it merely because Duterte has declared it so.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Reclassification of endangered species

 * Comment makes a nice change to see a story like this, but I'm concerned that the "Conservation" section of the giant panda article is lacking in references. And I would be more impressed if it had gone from Critical to Endangered, rather than Endangered to Vulnerable, but c'est la vie. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support - the giant panda is a national icon, while the eastern gorilla is the biggest primate in the world. The blurb should give both though in my opinion (adding altblurb 2). Banedon (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support first blurb which clarifies that the Panda's prospects for long term survival have improved. Maybe we could add the gorilla. This is the kind of news I would like to see more often on ITN. The article looks to be in overall good shape. Yeah there are one or two spots that could use a source but I think it meets our standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment alt blurb 2 is of no use at all if you (a) don't understand the IUCN terminology and (b) didn't know what they were classified before they were re-classified. And in all cases, IUCN should be linked because it's not a commonly known abbreviation. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Added alt blurb 3 based on a mix of 1 and 2 but also linking IUCN Palmtree5551 (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb 3. It's eiwit the best one in my opinion, though its only weakness is that is doesn't note that the panda is still considered vulnerable. Regardless, I think the blurb is appropriate. ~ Mable  ( chat ) 21:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Great improvements to the blurbs - have just manipulated Alt blurb 3 into a 4th which might be more clear. MurielMary (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Could also link vulnerable species and endangered species if clarification is desired. Amending alt 2. Banedon (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 05:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment: The blurb is technically incorrect and extremely misleading; alt2 should have been preferred. Please see discussion under WP:ERRORS. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Question: Can someone explain why the gorilla is now considered more endangered than the panda, in spite of having more individuals living in the wild (4680 gorillas vs. 1590 to 3000 pandas, according to their articles' ledes)? Or are the numbers now outdated?--Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: David Jenkins (bishop)

 * Support There is one paragraph that needs a source but broadly speaking the article is in good shape and meets the current standard for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Agree it's broadly in reasonable shape; I've requested a few citations. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * oppose hardly top of his field in religion or denominationLihaas (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * FYI, that's not a consideration for RD nominations anymore per the RFC mentioned in the box Palmtree5551 (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For at least a month and a half now, the RD template has said Per this RFC, the nomination of any person with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. which is inline with the linked RFC that ran for a couple of months. Opposition on personal opinions of super-notability are irrelevant.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it means people don't like it. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well that's a shame for them as there was a strong consensus in its favour, as you know all too well. Probably worth trying to get on with the here-and-now rather than continually bemoan that it didn't quite pan out the way you personally wanted it to.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – There doesn't seem to be an issue. Article could use some work, in particular on the "trick of bones" paragraph, but is decent enough and seems accurate. ~ Mable ( chat ) 06:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on improvements - once the citations needed are fixed, looks good to go. Challenger l (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on improvements mentioned above.BabbaQ (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd like to post this, but so far no one has fixed the three "citation needed" problems mentioned above.  If those statements accurately reflect his positions and actions, then that's great.  However, I wouldn't want to post this to the front page if there is a chance of misrepresenting his views on potentially controversial issues (e.g. gay marriage).  So, if anyone wants to provide citations, that would be super.  Arguably simply removing the uncited sentences would also work, though that is probably less desirable.  Dragons flight (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the gay civil partnership was mentioned in the BBC news item; I'll try to dig it out. I'm more worried about the lack of physical body for the resurrection, and the entirely uncited paragraph on his political/economic views. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added/clarified a little from his obituaries. the only thing that I believe now needs citing is his economic opinions, which I am not qualified to judge. Perhaps someone else could decide if this is ready, before it goes stale? I don't think anyone is working on it. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Canonization of Mother Teresa

 * Support, we sometimes feature canonizations of prominent people, and Mother Teresa certainly is one of them. The article is in a very good shape (a delisted GA). --Tone 09:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable and article is in good shape as well - Sherenk1 (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support w/alt blurb. Per the reasons stated above. Widely known, peace Nobel laureate, dead just 19 years ago. The Pope is the office with power to canonize, not the Vatican. Cato censor (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb A significant event that is garnering huge coverage globally. Article looks solid. And it will be nice to post something other than the more usual fare of death and disaster. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb 2 – Some ESL readers may not be familiar with the verb to canonize. Sca (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – but shouldn't Canonization be wiki-linked? ~ Mable ( chat ) 14:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, but why not make the blurb intelligible to the greatest number? Sca (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would hope that "canonization", particularly with the added context of Teresa/Pope Francis, makes it clear what's being discussed here. Sure, it's not a term everyone runs across every day, but it's also not a super obscure word, and the alt is something I'd expect to find at Simple English wiki, not here. The wikilink would help if the term is not clear to the reader. --M ASEM  (t) 17:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would go with "Mother Teresa is canonized by the Vatican", anyway. It's a perfectly fine word and makes plenty of sense in context. Really, if you don't know what canonization is, it is unlikely that you'll really understand how big a deal being declared a "saint" is anyway. We may as well call the event exactly what it is. ~ Mable ( chat ) 18:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support with preference for ALT1. Mjroots (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posting Alt2, perhaps it is a better choice. --Tone 17:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose . She received severe criticism and her article doesn't say why the Vatican discounted it. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Has the Vatican commented on that or are you looking for media speculation about the Vatican? PrimeHunter (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * PrimeHunter, our article says "the Congregation for the Causes of Saints" found no obstacle to Mother Teresa's beatification. I added citation needed and it's still there. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies here as much as at AfD. We routinely post things about events, countries and people we may not care for. The article is extremely well sourced and this is big news pretty much everywhere. If you have a content dispute relating to the article, this is not the right place for addressing that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ad Orientem, the first criterion for inclusion in ITN is "the quality of the updated content". Our article is deficient. (No question this was an auspicious event.) -SusanLesch (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The thing is you've added the tag after the article had been posted, meaning it wasn't considered during voting phase. Brandmeistertalk  20:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Brandmeister, thank you. I added the tag yesterday. With luck, maybe an editor can add to what we have. Peace. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added the requested citation.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mother_Teresa&diff=737753020&oldid=737749821] It was in an old version. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good sleuthing, PrimeHunter! Thank you for finding that. Unfortunately the source doesn't answer the question. BTW, its one sentence on this subject had been copied verbatim to our article. I'm going to retag it and see if we can attract another source. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you are requesting a source for something the article does not say but you would like added. That's not how citation needed works but I have added another citation to support what the article does say.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mother_Teresa&diff=737771510&oldid=737770081] PrimeHunter (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know British sources well enough to vouch for them, but I found a long article in the Telegraph that explained just about everything a person would want to know about the role of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, in layman's terms. I'm satisfied that these questions have been answered. Thank you again for your help, PrimeHunter! -SusanLesch (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph as a traditional (British) broadsheet (in comparison to tabloids) are generally considered reliable, though (in this specific case) with a (varying amount depending on who you ask) conservative slant. -- KTC (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a note for PrimeHunter. Thank you for the correction. It very well may be that I was misusing citation needed, but in this case we had a nonsensical sentence that turned out to be a copyvio. ("No obstacle" hardly follows from severe allegations unless we know that nihil obstat is a Roman Catholic term of art.) Thank you, KTC, I'm glad the source is considered reliable. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Turkish-backed Syrian rebels completely capture ISIL-held territory along Turkish-Syrian border

 * Oppose as cours de guerre. The Turkey-ISIS border is now the Turk(ish-rebels)-ISIS border, which strikes me as only a superficial change.128.214.53.104 (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment wouldn't it be better to seek an Ongoing nomination for all these incremental updates to the ISIL situation? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. The event has already happened, it isn't ongoing.
 * Also, anonymous IP I didn't understand what you meant by Turk(ish-backed rebels)-ISIS border. ISIS has no territory along the border now. Newsboy39 (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ISIS once shared their northern border with Turkey. They now share it with Turkish-supported rebels.  That's not exactly a big change.128.214.53.104 (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a border. It's a control line, area under control of parties warring against the group which is likely to get bigger as war with ISIS continues. Newsboy39 (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The point is that you've made a few very similar ISIL-related nominations lately, most of them have gone by the wayside. If there's so much news coming out relating to ISIL, consider an "Ongoing" nomination if you can find a suitable target article that is receiving substantial and regular updates.  These incremental changes are simply minor steps in the big picture. A bit like Lionel Messi "retiring".  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Didn't the launch of this get posted already? Abductive  (reasoning) 22:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Abductive, only launch of the offensive to capture was posted some days back, but I'm posting the goal has been achieved. Also The Rambling Man, I'll consider posting ISIL-related news in ongoing next time, I didn't oost it in ongoing because the event has already happened. Regardless, do you agree or oppose my nomination? Newsboy39 (talk) 04:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support as its a crucial milestone. It has cut ISIL's connection to outer world, it has possibly stopped any new big refugee influx from Syria as now there is a safe zone through the border controlled by moderate rebels. Furthermore, it has the possibility to house irregular refugees in their own country and potentially this news will accelerate the drive against ISIL. Berkaysnklf (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Jean-Christophe Yoccoz

 * Oppose it's a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As TRM rightly says - it's a stub. A mathematician with a career of 43 years - and he gets a short paragraph. Sad. Challenger l (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've dropped a note at WP:Mathematics in case anyone there can assist in fleshing this out. Between the French & the maths, I'm stumped. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

RD: Jerry Heller

 * Oppose significant proportion of the article is entirely unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are a couple of major sections that need referencing - the one involving the JDL scandal in particular is controversial enough that it might have risked outright deletion without proper sourcing when Heller was still alive (if I remember the bit about controversial material in an bio correctly). Challenger l (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] 2016 Davao City bombing

 * Support conditional on slight improvements. Overall the article is not in bad shape, but there are a few spots where sources could be added. The section on other bombings needs one. The Philippines are not usually in the news for this sort of thing and I think it merits a blurb on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support major event. Death toll on the article is update so make sure it is for the blurb too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beejsterb (talk • contribs)
 * support context and possible repercussions s are huge.Lihaas (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Indian general strike of 2016

 * Oppose article is sub-stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. It's no where near ready for prime time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the article is a stub at the moment Palmtree5551 (talk) 05:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Eileen Younghusband

 * Support no issues for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. AIR corn (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support It's ready to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Hurricane Hermine

 * Oppose There only appears to be one death, the impact outside of the power outage far less severe than it was expected to be from earlier in the week, making it a far less significant natural disaster. The first hurricane to make landfall on FL in a decade is DYK material. --M ASEM (t) 14:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nomination. As natural disasters go this is pretty run of the mill. As hurricanes go this is low grade. No significant loss of life and only moderate property damage, this just isn't big enough to warrant a blurb on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd support posting when it affects the mid-Atlantic. 184.151.61.235 (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose parochial story with no little encyclopedic value, of some blowy effects on a minor geographical region. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Florida's not a minor geographical region. It's bigger than England, Wales and Northern Ireland combined, has 20 million people and chooses the "Leader of the Free World". (Florida's choice was only overruled by other states once in the last 13 elections (1992). Bush Jr. would've never become President if Florida didn't fuck up and let him win the minor geographical region by literally 0.009005%. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Standing ovation for saying here what needed to be said about the 2000 election. And we all know what that moron gave us... --WaltCip (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hurricanes are ubiquitous in Florida though. It's averaged a direct hit every year and a half. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait until full extent of casualties is known. I tend to support most fatal natural disasters with sufficient article quality, but there is far too little information thus far on this hurricane's effects to guarantee its long-term notability. The article quotes a figure of $10 million in damage in one town, which leads me to believe this will most likely end up being ITN-worthy once the dust settles. &mdash; <span style="color:#666 !important;">TORTOISE  WRATH  23:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support While so far it just looks like an ordinary hurricane, this is about to change as pointed out here. It is likely to gain strength off the East coast due to the much higher than average water temperatures there and it will stall near the New Jersey coast for several days, potentially dumping ten inches a day of rain there. Count Iblis (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If it just dumps rain and inconviences the mid-Atlantic, that's still not a news-worthy storm for ITN. And we should wait until that actually happens - hurricanes are unpredictable to an extent. --M ASEM (t) 00:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ten inches of rain, a day, over multiple days could cause catastrophic flooding. If that happens I will reexamine the nomination. But for now Hermine is a nasty nuisance storm and does not warrant attention here. What may or may not happen is for crystal balls and the weather guessers who employ them. We don't use them here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment In response to those who refer to this story as parochial and routine, I would like to quote a recent article by Eric Holthaus on the storm: "Of the 10 or so meteorologists I’ve talked to in the last day or so, none can recall Hermine’s rare combination: a hurricane that has transitioned to a post-tropical cyclone, one that is forecast to transition back into a hurricane and one that will stall just off the East Coast for most of a week. It probably hasn’t happened before, at least going back several decades." Everymorning (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose in support of The Rambling Man. It has good place in DYK. Nannadeem (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - I live in Florida. I was in the path of this tropical storm. We got everything cleaned up within days. This is small potatoes.--WaltCip (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

RD: Jon Polito

 * Weak oppose lead needs improvement, refs need formatting... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, expanded lead and tidied up refs. Let me know if anything else needs done.yorkshiresky (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral good work, many items in the massive filmography have either a red-linked or no-linked Wikipedia article, and aren't referenced. This is seemingly commonplace with actors with such careers on Wikipedia.  I'd like to see each performance referenced reliably (i.e. not to IMDB).  But I also realise that many editors don't expect that quality level to be expected and are happy to take it as read that filmographies can contain anything.  Hence my switch to neutral.  I fully expect to see a few supports from the other side of the Pond in due course, but I just wanted to explain my feelings about the lack of quality in sources.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose on text quality. It seems very disorganised - moves from chronological description of his life to overall comments e.g. born in X, known for Y, then back to education. Also that massive filmography could be better organised, into genres perhaps? MurielMary (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I want to support this, but it does need improvement. The details on his early life are too sparse. Not asking for much, but after the standard born sentence we just have two very short unreferenced sentences about where he went to university (what did he study, what year, did he graduate?) and that he had two siblings (according to the infobox one is wiki famous so should be mentioned). Not worried about the long film credit list and I will work on the prose as I have time, but I don't think it is ready for the main page yet. AIR corn (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. AIR corn  (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Islam Karimov

 * See also below. --bender235 (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This should go up as a full blurb since he was the current head of state and his death will have broader implications. An event on its own. The orange-level tag needs to go away first, though. --Tone 18:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Question on quality: As of right now, there is only one and one  templates left, with more than 60 references. Is the orange tag only removed once they all are resolved? (Ovious support on notability). Cato censor (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * They're both gone now (the and). Narayanese (talk) 07:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. For an article with strong negative claims it seems extremely sparsely referenced to me, with a dependence on a small number of sources. There are also uncited paragraphs including quotations. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I would certainly support an RD here, but that doesn't appear to be what's on demand. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD only — From my point of view Karimov's notability, despite his long (ahem) "reign," doesn't measure up to blurb standards. Sca (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong support blurb Not only was he the incumbent and only president of Uzbekistan, the future of the country is in a state of uncertainty as he has no obvious successor. This is a huge event with major ramifications, more notable than a usual presidential election. EternalNomad (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb As I noted in the now closed earlier discussion, we customarily do blurbs for heads of state/government who die in office. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - The death of a sitting head of government virtually always merits a full blurb. Karimov has been the central figure in modern Uzbek history, for better or for worse. Kurtis (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Very strong support for blurb per above. 184.148.6.185 (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - The death of the president of the most populous Central Asian country merits a full blurb. N ataev  talk 07:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted blurb.  Spencer T♦ C 08:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Long March 4C

 * Oppose On article quality. Lots of sources needed especially in the list of launches section. Also the reference to the event being nominated is far too brief. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe this would be a launch failure as stated on ITNR, if the article is sufficiently updated. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose update is too brief, and the linked List of Long March launches doesn't even have this listed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Amos-6

 * Question. I assume this is not a launch failure(which is listed at ITNR) since it was a prelaunch test? 331dot (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Essentially a story about something that didn't – or failed to – happen. Sca (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate? Accidents/mishaps may also be relevant news, like that of the Challenger or Columbia, even if no people die. I think this explosion is relevant to some extent for a number of reasons, like Facebook, SpaceX, commercial space ventures, etc. Cato censor (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Articles are of sufficient quality, and story is appearing in major news outlets. Would like to see some expansion of the two articles regarding the incident, but I see no reason to oppose posting this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support in the news and has been since it took place, article is adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Per the reasons stated above, in reply to Sca. I have some doubts on grounds of the frequency that SpaceX appears ITN, though. As far as I understand, WP doesn't like to post developments of the same piece of news. Arguably, this is just a step in SpaceX maturing process, and fb will probably have its satelite in orbit at some point in the (not so distant) future. Cato censor (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Mission failed, no injuries. Missiles, especially experimental ones, have been exploding at launch or shortly thereafter for some 75 years. Not much of a story. Sca (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Next day in China. I don't see any difference.--Jenda H. (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Then by all means nominate it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, it already has been! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * support with israeli mention as head of the agency said it was catastrophic and would take at least 3 years for a new one. plus blowing up on the pad in TESTING is unheard of...and musk don't take insurance Lihaas (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 05:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)