This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

Aretha Franklin in 2009
Aretha Franklin in 2009

How to nominate an item

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC.
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

Headers

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
  • Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...

  • ... add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  • ... 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.
  • ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  • ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  • ... oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)


Suggestions

August 18

Portal:Current events/2018 August 18
Disasterd and accidents

2018 Asian Games

Article: 2018 Asian Games (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Asian Games open in Jakarta and Palembang, Indonesia.
Nominator: Hddty. (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: The opening ceremony will begin at 12.00 UTC. Hddty. (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Just need several additional sources for "Venues and infrastructures" section and a single source will probably suffice for the "Calendar" section, and then you have my vote.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I am specifically talk about the lack of sources in the tables in the sections I mentioned. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there any chance it's marked as Ongoing? --Angga1061 01:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angga1061 (talkcontribs)
I don't see why it shouldn't have a blurb first. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb An important sporting event. Regards, theTigerKing  02:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

August 17

Portal:Current events/2018 August 17
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Imran Khan

Proposed image
Articles: Imran Khan (talk, history) and Prime Minister of Pakistan (talk, history)
Blurb: Imran Khan, former cricketer and chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, is elected Prime Minister of Pakistan
Alternative blurb: Imran Khan is elected Prime Minister of Pakistan
Alternative blurb II: Imran Khan, aged 65, is elected Prime Minister of Pakistan
News source(s): Al Jazeera
Nominator: SheriffIsInTown (talk • give credit)

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

That was different, he is elected prime minister today. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Was there any chance that from the July election that Khan would not have been elected now? We treated the July election as ITNR. --Masem (t) 22:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@Masem: Yes, there was a great chance that he would not have been elected. His party had a very thin plurality, it went a lot into building a coalition. For example if MQM-P would not have decided to support PTI and few independents would have supported the parties in opposition and opposition have been intact then there was a great chance that Shehbaz Sharif might have won. At the time of July election, it was not clear which way MQM-P would go. Also, after July elections, parties in opposition formed a Grand Alliance, only right before the election of prime minister, one party split up. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Just trying to make sure, this was an unusual case in that there was a good chance that he would not have been elected? (To compare, while the US elects the president in Nov, he's not inaugerated until Jan, and there are things that can happen, like death, that could disrupt that, but nearly no legal process (short of Bush v Gore) that could disrupt that, so we announced the US president in Nov. Obviously if something changed in that rare case, we'd likely post it here. I want to make sure we're talking a similar type of case here, this being a rare alignment of conditions leading to this point. ) --Masem (t) 23:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Of course, we could always consider each case on its merits rather than having to Wikilawyer everything into neat shoeboxes. In the case of the recent US election/inauguration, despite not being an American myself I argued strongly that both were necessary for ITN due to the global coverage and the expectation of our readers to find appropriate links on the main page. I know you and I respectfully disagree on that issue Masem, but sometimes there is room for flexibility anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
If my years growing up in Canada taught me anything about this system, Khan was all but certain to form a government. The Dutch(?) or some Baltic country went like a year and a half without forming a government. This isn't news. Sorry. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── MQM-P and his PTI were bitter rivals before the elections. It was well after a couple of weeks after the election when they decided to vote for him. There was a talk that if they did not support him and if he could not sway independents, he would not win premiership. US case is different, it is almost set in stone on election night who is going to be president come January. That was not the case in Pakistan. This guy had a 22 year old political struggle. There were a lot of players involved which included judiciary, military, and intelligence agencies. There was a thought that Shehbaz Sharif might be more suitable to these powers as Khan might not prove as much subservient as Sharif. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose we don't need to post this again. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@Power~enwiki: There is a difference between his party winning a thin plurality and him being actually elected prime minister. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment None of the above matters. This is a separate WP:ITNR than the ITNR for the general election. Only thing that matters is if the article is good enough. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
This is not ITNR. 331dot (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
My mistake. I now see the distinction made between head of state and head of government. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This was the most likely outcome. If his party was not put into government, that would have merited posting. 331dot (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above comments Regards, theTigerKing  02:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This was the most likely outcome. If his party was not put into government, that would have merited posting. 331dot (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
331dot, I know it doesn't much matter in practice in this instance, but you've got two identical votes showing here, which 'looks all wrong', so perhaps you might remove one of them, please.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose After election it was quite clear that PTI'll form the next government and Khan'll be its head. I know there was a thin plurality but still 116 seats is much more than PML(N)'s 64. Yeah if PML(N) had formed the government that'd have been surprising and we could've posted it just like how PTI formed government in Punjab despite securing less seats than PMLN. We cann't post a news saying "the leader of a party winning 116 seats (that's 33 more than 2nd party in the list) has been elected PM", as it was most likely, but we could've posted a blurb stating the "2nd most successful party's leader has been elected PM", as it'd have been surprising. Amirk94391 (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@Amirk94391: And, yet Khan got 176 votes while 172 were required hence my point that if MQM-P's four votes and just a couple of independents were not there for him and if current opposition had a united candidate which they had until two days before premier's election then Khan would not have won. I know it is not surprising but this guy is striving to become prime minister for last 22 years and finally becoming a prime minister in a country where change does not happen too often is incredibly important news. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @SheriffIsInTown: As per section 91 (4) of PPC (a bit eleborated here) if no one secures 172 votes there should be a round two between top two contestants of first round and the winner of round two'd become PM regardless of weather he/she received 172 votes or not. So even if Khan hadn't secured 172 votes he was still most likely to become PM. Moreover there was never a fight for government formation in centre. What you're saying is that if Khan wasn't supported by allies of PTI and some independents he would never've became PM. Well from my elaboration of Section 91 above it is clear that only PTI candidates alone could have elected Khan as PM in round two as opposition was divided. Amirk94391 (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

August 16

Portal:Current events/2018 August 16
Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections
Sports

(Posted) RD: Yelena Shushunova

Article: Yelena Shushunova (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post
Nominator: Fram (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism 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. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Olympic gold medalist in one of the main events, early death. Needs more sourcing, but shouldn't be too hard to finish Fram (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose just looks like that last para of the opening section of the "Senior career" section that needs refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Now fully sourced and in more objective, neutral tone. Support as ready. MurielMary (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Nice work on this one; seemed miles away yesterday. ghost 16:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

(Needs attention) RD: Michael Persinger

Article: Michael Persinger (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CBC
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism 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. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article overall well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted blurb): Aretha Franklin

closing per law of diminishing returns. Discussion is becoming less useful by the second. --Jayron32 11:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed image
Article: Aretha Franklin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Singer-songwriter Aretha Franklin dies from pancreatic cancer aged 76.
Alternative blurb: ​Singer-songwriter Aretha Franklin, dubbed "The Queen of Soul", dies from pancreatic cancer aged 76.
Alternative blurb II: ​American singer and songwriter Aretha Franklin dies aged 76.
News source(s): AP
Nominator: strikerforce (talk • give credit)
Updater: Ritchie333 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Muboshgu (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism 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. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American singer / songerwriter StrikerforceTalk 14:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on sourcing issues. When she was in the hospital earlier this week I did check the state of her article and there's several unsourced paragraphst throughout which persist today. --Masem (t) 14:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
    • No more para without citation.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I think that for an RD the article is sufficiently sourced. Were someone to request a blurb that might be something different, but the RD is certainly worthy of inclusion in the RD section. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
    • No, we tend to have high standards for RD articles. Right now, I see a couple of sections without references, which is a no-go. List of singles and filmography are also unsourced. Needs some work, but it will probably not be difficult to find sources. --Tone 14:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Well sourced for a RD. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose multiple paragraphs with no references.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
    • No more paragraph without citation. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The overall state of the article is good, although additional work and referencing are always welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose some contentious claims without any references, simply not the stuff we put on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait. This deserves to go on the main page; hopefully by the close of play today, we can get the article appropriately copyedited and referenced. I had intended to get some book sources and take the article to GA at some point, but unfortunately I never got round to it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Now Strong support for blurb - whole article is referenced. Also see RIP Aretha Franklin: Five ways the Queen of Soul made history for more convincing arguments about blurb. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait until the article is fixed, then add quickly because this breaking news that will most likely remain in the news for some time. It would just be wrong if we were the only people who threw her death under the bus. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD and blurb, well-sourced with 107 citations. Gamaliel (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Emphatically Her article will always need work, and even after it is posted, it could change. This is NO REASON to withhold listing her in In The News. List her now. - Haxwell (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb pending improved sourcing. Aretha Franklin is a cultural icon and worthy of more than an RD mention. Kurtis (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb assuming we can get our act together. A plea from bus-drivers everywhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD, looks good enough as it is. However I oppose a blurb because this is an old person dying of natural causes and her influence on the world was far smaller than the Mandela / Thatcher standard we should apply per WP:ITN/DC. Modest Genius talk 16:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I thought we were supposed to evaluate their influence in their field. It's hard to overestimate her contribution to soul music.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thatcher couldn't even sing. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
As I write, the front page of BBC News has live reactions to Aretha's death left, right and centre. This is not just your typical musician's obituary. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Purely from a factual standpoint, this isn't "an old person dying of natural causes". She had pancreatic cancer. StrikerforceTalk 16:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Is cancer not natural? Modest Genius talk 16:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, cancer is one of the main ways that old people die and as much as it's tragic, there's nothing unnatural about it.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Sorry to bring up ITN's dirty little secret but Franklin IS on the Bowie level in music. Certainly more of a major influence in music then Carrie Fisher or Paul Walker were in acting. GuzzyG (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
GuzzyG Fischer and Walker were not old people who died of natural causes; their deaths were news themselves. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
None of those should have had blurbs IMO. Modest Genius talk 16:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Good thing the decision-making process here is based on consensus and not on opinion.--WaltCip (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
"Consensus" is often just an aggregation of opinions though. Particularly so at ITN which lacks almost any policy or guidelines to support our recommendations.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. Feel free to continue discussion about converting to blurb. --Jayron32 16:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)*
  • Comment I've added a suggested blurb. StrikerforceTalk 16:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb with caveat that list of number one r and b singles and filmography need referencing. A blurb is warranted given her influence in her field. It is a vital article level 4 the same as Margaret Thatcher so a blurb would be appropriate. Capitalistroadster (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I just found a citation that mentions Franklin's 1962 album The Tender, the Moving, the Swinging Aretha Franklin as having reached #69 on the Billboard Pop albums chart - specifically, the Clinton Digital Library. It doesn't seem to have gotten its information from Wikipedia. Even so, would anybody consider this to be a reliable enough source? Kurtis (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. It appears to be maintained by the Clinton Presidential Library, which is managed by the National Archives. StrikerforceTalk 16:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Period. Does this even need to be explained??--WaltCip (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, with following text: "Singer Aretha Franklin, dubbed the Queen of Soul, dies from pancreatic cancer aged 76." - Haxwell (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb She was a local singer. Except USA nobody around the world knew her. she had no world impact stastically speaking.
  • Support blurb "major transformative world leader in their field" per WP:ITNRD.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb not Thatcher or Mandela caliber. Not seeing this even in the US Top 20 at Google News. This is exactly what RD is for. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Top story under Entertainment at Google News. [1] StrikerforceTalk 16:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, under the "entertainment" section. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Top story on BBC News, The Guardian, The Independent. LaserLegs I'm going to wager you a tenner that when I go to the newsagent tomorrow morning, Aretha will be on the front cover of every broadsheet newspaper. (And she's not British). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
But will she still be there the day after tomorrow? Doubtful. Poor old slow print media. So slow. So old. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
And it's not often the BBC Radio 4 6 O'clock chimes get ushered in by a little prayer. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Prediction confirmed! I didn't think all the tabloids would follow suit, but despite The Sun being desperate to stick the knife into Danny Cipriani, every national British newspaper (including the Financial Times and the Daily Star) has got Aretha on the front cover. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Also front page news for Al Jazeera and Times of Israel. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
She was #9 on the Rolling Stone list of Greatest Singers of All Time and ranked 19th among the Billboard Hot 100 All-Time top artists.
She was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom and was only the second woman to be inducted to the UK Music Hall of Fame in 2005.
--- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb "Top of their field" would certainly apply here. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 16:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per her significant contributions to music, as explained in the above supports. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb hard to think of a more impactful female singer. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Needs Attention there is obvious, overwhelming support for a blurb at this point. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Hey 19, you better think (think). CoatCheck (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Weakest possible oppose to blurb I am not going to stand in the way of a blurb post, but I would like to point out the difference between Franklin and Bowie or Prince is that the latter were still touring and performing and their deaths were sudden, while Franklin was no longer singing, was known to be suffering from cancer, and had been hospitalized earlier in the week, so it was more a matter of when, not if. I fully otherwise see the reasons to post, and given we've been slow on blurbs lately, there's good reasons to use a blurb here. (but keep in mind about the India PM which definitely should get a blurb once to quality). --Masem (t) 17:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
(ec with post) Mandela retired 9 to 14 years before his death and his death was expected. Did we not post that? (I haven't cehced the archives)--- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
We certainly did post and posted Peter O'Toole the same month (aged 81). --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Blurb posted. There seems to be consensus at the moment...  — Amakuru (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-blurb post What about a photo? Are we just waiting for protection? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
    Is the photo above sufficiently free? The licence says it's not public domain in Canada and other places.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure the photo is sufficiently free, it's a Billboard advert photo from 1968 without a copyright notice, making it PD in the US but not elsewhere. You could try File:Aretha Franklin on January 20, 2009.jpg, which is a US government work and is PD, full stop. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
File:Aretha Franklin on January 20, 2009.jpg and File:Arethafranklin.jpg and File:Aretha Franklin.jpg are all free to use, but may not be up to quality standards of the main page; no picture may be better than a bad one. Others all seem to suffer from the copyright issues noted above. --Jayron32 17:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the first of those is too bad; it's a professional shot and wouldn't look out of place on a main news ticker, in my view. The other two, definitely not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Support image File:Aretha Franklin on January 20, 2009.jpg or File:Aretha Franklin 1968.jpg Haxwell (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Guys, consensus or not, this was posted before the referencing issue was fixed. In any case, I won't contest it, I will just remove the cause of death, since this is not the main focus here (we'd mention an accident but not an illness). --Tone 17:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Alternate blurb? The current is "American singer-songwriter Aretha Franklin (pictured) dies at the age of 76." Would there be any objection to changing it to "American singer Aretha Franklin (pictured) dies at the age of 76"? Two reasons: (1) Although she wrote some songs, her notability comes much more from her singing than her songwriting. (2) The term "singer-songwriter" implies a tradition and a way of working, as our article on the topic indicates, that does not really fit for her. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I would object. She has hundreds maybe thousands of credits on Allmusic.com for either composer or composer/lyricist or both or just lyricist. She was a singer-songwriter. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
But her article calls her a "singer and songwriter", which is not quite thing as "singer-songwriter" - that is used for an artist who almost exclusively performs their own material.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Paul Erik and Pawnkingthree. Though mass media does often confuse the two, there is a difference between a singer-songwriter and somebody who writes and sings their own music. Singer-songwriter is a style/approach espoused by figures like James Taylor, Bob Dylan, Tracy Chapman etc Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
In any case, if the issue you raise is related only specifically to the term "singer-songwriter", I would be ok with "American singer and songwriter Aretha Franklin...". Otherwise, we are perpetuating the same 1960s B.S. to lessen the contributions of the primary artist, especially women artists. She wrote or contributed to the writing of many of her songs. Give her the credit she has earned and has been recognized for. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree. Not sure "singer-songwriter" is appropriate. Also unsure about "pianist". But maybe further discussion is better placed at Talk:Aretha Franklin? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
(ec) I hadn't thought about User:Coffeeandcrumbs's point about what we might be perpetuating. So then yes, I think "singer and songwriter" on the main page would be best. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
So can we now go for Altblurb II? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
But per User:Tone's comment above, I would leave out the cause of death. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. In no way significant to her notability. But am wondering about "soul singer and songwriter". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Franklin (1967)
  • PP comment – It would seem more relevant to her career to use the photo from 1967 (right), when her "signature song" (per our article) Respect hit the charts, or the 1968 mug accompanying this nom (above).
    Also, instead of the rather generic "singer-songwriter," how about "soul singer" – ?? – Sca (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
No objection to "soul singer". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Please see discussions above regarding images. Neither the one used in the nom, nor the 1967 one you mention here are suitable for posting on the main page because they are tagged as without a copyright notice, making them public domain in the US but not elsewhere. Also, there seems to be consensus above not to remove the term "songwriter" from the blurb due to her large number of composition and songwriting credits. We could perhaps go with "sould singer and songwriter..." though?  — Amakuru (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
That would be soul singer and songwriter. Sca (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • support for blurb. A soul and music icon. I'm glad it was posted quickly.Johnsemlak (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per LaserLegs. A death should make the main pages, not just the entertainment pages, to be a blurb. Banedon (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support for rd, neutral on blurb. I don't believe that entertainment figures are to be considered as influential worldwide as figures such as Nelson Mandela or Stephen Hawking, but I'm also not certain that they necessarily need to be in order to warrant an ITN blurb. However, I also don't feel that I'm very qualified to speak of how influential she is or is not, so take this with a grain of salt. If possible, I would change the infobox picture to one of the photographs of her in the 1960s as these are more relevant to her career than the one of her at the Obama inauguration, but I understand that copyright may prevent this from being possible. I agree with the decision to exclude the cause of death, as it is her life that made her death notable, not her death itself. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 01:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull/Oppose blurb Where were other admins looking when someone posted this as a blurb? I am pretty sure we have an established tradition of only posting deaths of Mandela-size figures to the ITN, and this person is sure as hell isn't, neither by the importance, nor by the number of views of her page before her death. Very disappointed in a yet another example of heavy American/Western bias on Wikipedia. Sad. Openlydialectic (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull/Oppose blurb I find it extraordinary that a blurb was posted at 17:17 UTC, only 3 hours 11 minutes after the item was nominated, especially when her death was already on the main page under Recent Deaths. It wouldn't hurt to wait a bit longer to allow all Wikipedians a chance to comment on the nomination, particularly those in Oceania/Asia where it was nighttime when it was hastily posted to the mainpage. Chrisclear (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Chrisclear Arbitrary minimum discussion times have been suggested before but never gained consensus. We usually get criticism that we are too slow to post things. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
331dot I didn't explain myself properly the first time. What I meant was that I don't believe there was strong consensus to post this at 17:17 UTC, and the simple way to resolve that would have been to wait a while longer, to allow consensus to form. I can understand posting an article for a truly influential dead person like Nelson Mandela, but for someone like Aretha Franklin whose influence was smaller, and where consensus had not been formed, it would have been better to wait longer than 3 hours and 11 minutes. Chrisclear (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
No, not really fair enough. It was already main page news across the globe and had a consensus to post a blurb here. No question about that whatsoever. Would it have been better to wait 4 hours? 6 hours? 12 hours? You can't please all the people all the time, but if you want a minimum waiting time then propose it, but this decision was beyond question at the point it was posted, not a problem at all. We've gone beyond the Mandela requirement and have done for some time (since people like Debbie Reynolds have been blurbed). And as yet, I've seen not one single reader question the decision to post a blurb. So it looks like Wikipedia got it 100% right on this occasion. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull/Oppose blurb Not a world transforming figure therefore doesn't merit a blurb. Never even heard of her before she got hospitalised recently. 39.57.133.182 (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
You never having heard of her doesn't mean she was not highly influential in her field, which I believe you would discover in doing research about it. Many media outlets would disagree with you, based on the reporting and her Presidential award she received. 331dot (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd never heard of the Ponte Morandi until last week (and I've worked on quite a few highway and bridge articles myself) but I didn't see much call for pulling that.F Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Maybe you work in health insurance? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Bing! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The article received a million views in the days leading up to this nomination being posted. It will be interesting to see what the pageviews are for yesterday, when they come in - I wouldn't be surprised if they topped a million on their own. Also, can we leave out the calls of "bias"; remember that the article has, in part, been improved by a shout out on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, whose very raison d'etre is to help counteract bias (in this case, bias against women, and especially black women). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Aretha Franklin is still on the front page of the BBC and NYTimes websites, a day after her death. These are online news mediums and not the "old slow print" that LaserLegs was bemoaning with Trumpian rancor. This is a death that is making the world slow down and catch its breath. Posting it as a blurb was the correct decision. Not posting as a blurb would have reeked of systemic bias.--WaltCip (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "A death should make the main pages" and indeed it has, across the globe! This underpins the posting of a blurb to be exactly the correct decision. And a belated well done to everyone concerned in bringing the article up in quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. The AP source used as the reference above clearly says A professional singer and accomplished pianist. Aretha was the Queen of Soul music, known mostly by her big voice. Out of her 20 number-one R&B songs, she only wrote two ("Call Me" and "Daydreaming"). That's not enough notability to call her a songwriter. I'd say soul singer is a better description. Bluesatellite (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted RD, ready for Blurb) RD/Blurb: Atal Bihari Vajpayee

Proposed image
Articles: Atal Bihari Vajpayee (talk, history) and Prime Minister of India (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Former Prime Minister of India Atal Bihari Vajpayee dies at the age of 93.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism 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. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former Indian Prime Minister Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Under his leadership india had kargil war.India also had it's first Nuke test which has changed India's position on the world completely.Sir Joseph (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Some sections are not referenced at all. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, Oppose RD given quality standards are met. He served 3 times as Prime Minister of India. Ask if you would post Obama/Bush as RD or Blurb and figure out how much systemic bias exists if its the latter and this death is not. 155.64.138.81 (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Point of order did the RD option exist then? Hard to imagine Ford would qualify under current standards. Do we intend to blurb the death of every head of state and government if the country is big enough? Do we go by population, geography, or GDP? This could get out of hand quickly. ghost 17:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on sourcing. I would say that death of one that served as the effective head of state for the world's second-most populous nation probably should get a blurb. --Masem (t) 15:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
As your actually supporting to add the nominations to the blurb. You must actually write 'support' rather than 'oppose'. Please correct the mistake at the earliest. Adithya Pergade (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Working; I hope to address the referencing issues soon. And for the record, I agree, the subject definitely deserves a blurb. MBlaze Lightning talk 15:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb pending referencing issues are resolved. 39.57.133.182 (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support for a blurb once current issues with referncing are resolved. For those who don't know, Prime-Minister of India's the "real" leader of India, and this guy served as one for a total of 7 years. I wouldn't expect problems with getting a blurb once one of the former US presidents die, and India is a country with 5 times as many people as there are in the US, and since it's a democracy, all of the adults there elected him to his post. So he definitively deserves a blurb, more so than the singer whos death is currently featured on the ITN (with a photo too!) Openlydialectic (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb/RD I agree with the above statement, as a leader of world's largest democracy that too a developing country with a lot of problems, a person is entrusted great burden perhaps more than any other country and a person must be remembered for the same. I ask the administers to take a decisions taking a clear perspective of his legacy. Adithya Pergade (talk) 06:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb/RD basis prominence of the subject. Considered one of the best PMs India ever had. --User:WoodElf 07:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. This PM was not a world transformative leader or tip-top in their field like Margaret Thatcher or Nelson Mandela. I'm not certain every US President would necessarily merit a blurb; we didn't have RD for Gerald Ford or he might have been put there. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
If your argument is that you're citing an established practice, then I am sorry but we just posted a blurb AND a picture of some random American singer nobody's heard about outside of the US (her article before her death was visited on average 2-3 times less often than the article about the Indian PM), so no, I don't think your argument works. On a side note, didn't we post a blurb about Fords' death? Openlydialectic (talk) 08:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
RD did not exist at the time of Ford's death, I believe Ford would not get a blurb today(nor every US President). If you were to research her, you would find that the description "some random American singer" is grossly inadequate. But you are entitled to your opinion. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
"we just posted a blurb AND a picture of some random American singer nobody's heard about outside of the US" - would you like it if I opposed this because of "some random former politician who nobody outside India has ever heard of"? Keep the discussion on sources and page views, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I would if you cited your arguments for that statement. I cited mine - the importance of her post and the number of views her article had received. Openlydialectic (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
*Point of order A person cannot be judged on how popular they were nor were they internationally honored and were praised in history or civics text books but rather on what work they have done, how did their decisions and doings influence the surroundings and the future and being leaders how did they protect the interests of their citizens. Hence I would ask all the debaters to not make baseless statements just to prove their point. When it comes to the subject we are discussing, our statements must be strictly guided on the legacy of the person in question . If anyone does not approve of Aretha Franklin being on the blurb then they must oppose the posting of the blurb on the place so provided [ [en.wikipedia.org] ], This is not a platform for anyone to oppose her being on the blurb. Adithya Pergade (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The above point of order seems to rather miss the point. Nobody is using this item as a platform to oppose a blurb for Franklin. One or more editors is using her blurb as an argument for Vajpayee to be given a blurb, which seems a perfectly legitimate argument to make (regardless of whether one agrees with it or not, or has no opinion on the matter), even if some of the wording used may understandably be seen by some as somewhat injudicious.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb A notable head of state of the largest democracy. In office during india's nuclear tests.SaurabhMittal523 (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
He was not head of state, the President of India is head of state. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Don't fret over semantics: the president of India is a ceremonial post. The Prime Minister of India is the person in charge of the country. Openlydialectic (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
You may call it "semantics" if you wish but the fact remains that this individual was not head of state, but head of government, two very different things. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@331dot: Prime Minister is de facto head of state in India While President is de jure like Queen & Prime Minister in Great Britain.-- Godric ki Kothritalk to me 10:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
This isn t the place to argue that point, and it isn't pertinent to this nomination. I was simply correcting the OP. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality - article is full of [citation needed] tags. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb The former head of government of the largest democracy, who played a big role in letting MNCs (Multi-National Companies) into India, Pokhran-II, and the Kargil War is important enough to be featured. Besides, where would India be without him?RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb American singer and songwriter Aretha Franklin's had no international deplomatic ties or connection meanwhile 3 times PM of indai is getting reject here! this is pure bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.233.52.254 (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Singers and politicians are two different fields. There is no requirement of international ties to be posted here; if there were, very little would be posted. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I am amenable to supporting an RD (I have no opinion on blurb), but I'm sure as heck not supporting anything that's covered in {{fact}} tags. Fix that first, and I'll revisit it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb As he is a prominent and one of the best prime ministers of India.-- Godric ki Kothritalk to me 10:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Needs improvement for RD as there are numerous {{cn}} tags. Oppose blurb; he was PM of India for 6 years, but did not have major worldwide influence and falls short of the Mandela/Thatcher threshold we apply. Arguments that he was one of India's 'best' PMs are subjective, meaningless, and not part of the criteria at WP:ITN/DC. I don't think Franklin should have had a blurb either; pointing at that is just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so very unconvincing. Modest Genius talk 10:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@Modest Genius: How can you say that he did not have major worldwide influence? Pokhran-II conducted in his prime ministerial reign after which many countries of world imposed ban on India. Also Kargil War happen in his reign.-- Godric ki Kothritalk to me 10:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose At least 19 {{Citations needed}} tags and two whole sections tagged with {{Refimprove section}}. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. It appears the blurb supporters are focusing on the size of India. That's fine; but lets take that to it's natural conclusion - post all Indian PMs, US Presidents, paramount leaders of China. No big problems there. Next comes Indonesia, Brazil...queue the crickets. Leaders of certain countries (G8 comes to mind) will have a greater potential to impact the world, but these positions should make the holders blurb-worthy per se, as this opens us up to clear bias toward the US, UK and India (i.e. the home countries of the bulk of our editors). ghost 11:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • On notability grounds, this should be a blurb, especially considering Franklin's position there. Vajpayee was Prime Minister, for several years, of a country of over a billion people. Note that that was one in every six persons on the planet, not to mention India is a significant global player. A huge deal. ITN on the the English Wikipedia tries to avoid bias towards the English-speaking world, and excluding such a person on notability grounds would be terrible. Posting should still be subject to quality assessment though. --LukeSurl t c 11:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I knew that was going to happen. Vajpayee was not a pop singer, Franklin was not a prime minister, there is no comparison there, none, none at all. (I opposed a blurb for Franklin, btw). --LaserLegs (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb not Thatcher/Mandela. Oppose RD on quality. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • not Thatcher/Mandela

/Franklin* --Openlydialectic (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Meaningless I'm afraid. Didn't Debbie Reynolds and Carrie Fisher already have blurbs? And Prince? And Bowie? And ... and ... and ... ? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
This'll happen every time we burb a death, for the next few weeks there will be "Well we did a blurb for X, therefore we must Y and Z". FWIW I don't think Prince, or Fisher, or Bowie or the fast and furious guy should have had blurbs. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb He was not only a 2-time PM of the world’s largest democracy, but was instrumental in making India a nuclear power, of which there are only 9 of in the world. EternalNomad (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I've dealt with the two orange-tagged sections. There's now about a dozen {{citation needed}} tags, but that's not an insurmountable task. --LukeSurl t c 13:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb on improvement..three time prime minister definitely qualifies once article is dealt with cn tags..The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Slightly Oppose Blurb, but strongly encourage current editing so it can make RD ASAP. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose still not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Many citation tags remain.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment added some cn tags - when you see a whole paragraph, with one ref at the end, and the last sentence appears to be an aside to the rest of the paragraph, you can generally assume that whole para is not supported by the ref and needs to be checked. I don't have time today to check this whole thing, before we rush this "OMFG VIP not a singer also India has a BILLION PEOPLE" article to the main page, could someone please check it in detail? Or not, I've been told such practice is obstructive, maybe it's a waste of time. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
    • The article is also full of flowery garbage like "major achievement was a significant expansion" and "army units were swiftly rushed into". Needs a copy edit too for MP. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article has several citation needed templates. On the other hand, one of the famous PM of largest democracy definitely deserves blurb, so once the sourcing issue is resolved, a blurb should be posted.Amirk94391 (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
    • "PM of largest democracy definitely deserves blurb" - why? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Because random American singers and former presidents had theirs, and most people here are tired of Western-centric bias on wikipedia. Openlydialectic (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
        • I think it's been adequately demonstrated that your ongoing use of the word "random" with respect to Franklin is completely at odds with the mainstream press around the globe and the strong consensus here at ITN, so if you want people to take you more seriously, you should refrain from continuing to make such assertions. And if "most people here are tired" then there are plenty of other Wikipedias that are desperate for attention, and other projects altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll say this once and then hush up - we are all concerned about bias. But has it occurred to you that "that other nomination" is also a stand for systemic bias against women, and particularly against black women? Now, if you can clear down the remaining tags, I think having an RD is reasonable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Do you think its a coincidence that most of the blurb supporters are members of WP:IND or IPs? Bias is about thinking outside of one's own sphere, wherever that is; not just the U.S. The rules say "major transformative world leaders in their field." Ask yourself: who were the most trasformative living statesmen on August 1st? How about singers? It's not even a conversation. ghost 16:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@GreatCaesarsGhost: I am not Indian, and have no bias towards India at all. I didn't even know this guy existed before he died. Openlydialectic (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Because he sparked a nuclear arms race in the Indian subcontinent and then made peace talks with Pakistan; so he actually made a lasting impression in his field and the impact of his actions was not limited to his country. Also, is it just me or do musicians (English language ones) have a relatively low bar for getting a blurb? 1.39.159.71 (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator's rationale. Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 16:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Question is there a tag for "weasel words" (if that's even the correct term)? The article is full of historic this and significant that it reads like a puff piece from the guys personal publicist. Remove or tag (and if tag, with what)?. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb except for article quality. The so-called "Thatcher/Mandela standard" is way too restrictive; with regards to some of the discussions above, I think every former U.S. President should qualify for a blurb, and so should this prime minister of India. Davey2116 (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – all the energy spent in debating whether or not to post a blurb would be better used ensuring that the article is up to standards... otherwise, it won't even make it to RD and this will all be moot. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
    @FlyingAce: I was actually going to make the identical comment to this one an hour ago! It's quite comical the way they're arguing over which of the two options to use when we can't use post anyway because of the article quality. I've been trying to fix a few of the refs myself...  — Amakuru (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD - OK, I've fixed all the remaining citation tags in the article, so seems ready to do now and I've already posted it to RD. As for whether it should be blurbed, I'm a little unsure if there's a consensus yet for that so the debate can continue here now. I'm inclined to support it myself, as he was leader of a major nation for quite some time, but then again I can see the "slippery slope" argument if we are to consider deaths for all possible leaders of all G20 countries as blurbworthy.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Australian prime ministers typically don't get the blurb treatment. Data on other nations in recent years is quite scant - there haven't been that many deaths of longish-term leaders in recent years. The last Indian was ages ago in 2004, pre-RD days, and it did receive a blurb, but in a template with only three items... one of which was the Queen's Christmas broadcast to the UK. Sounds like a slow news day. IK Gujral only got an RD in 2012, but then again he was PM for less than a year so clearly less notable than Vajpayee.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
We blurbed a German Chancellor who didn't even get a blurb at the de wiki, to my knowledge no POTUS has died since RD was created (and I'd oppose blurbs for Carter, Bush Sr, Clinton and probably Obama). --LaserLegs (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - I'm leaving for the night now, but on reflection I think I support a blurb for this PM. Although not necessarily a household name in the western world, and perhaps less global reach than Thatcher, Mandela (and Carrier Fisher/Arethra Franklin?) I do think he was a very important figure in the world's second most populous country and from a WP:WORLDWIDE point of view we should respect that. If this later leads to a glut of similar nominations in future, then we can always rethink this benchmark. Wikipedia is a work in progress and nothing is set in stone.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Final Comment (I promise) these ESL articles get the worst grammar, and that's one of the things that keeps them off the main page. "The UPA Government on 1 July 2013 accepted before Supreme Court that National Democratic Alliance Government led by Vajpayee has developed half the roads in last 32 years in their 5-year term." WTF? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you should fix those then? You had spent more time typing this comment here than you would have spent correcting those spelling problems. Openlydialectic (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb The funeral possession was attended by the heads and representatives from various countries [commentaries running from elsewhere]. The entire Indian political class and the famous were united to offer their condolences and saying their final goodbyes. Tributes pouring in social media was similar to the ones we had seen when Steve Jobs or Former president of India - APJ Abdul Kalam [infact I had nomiated his passing away as a blurb and could see similar opposition commentary running at that time, but was ultimately posted as a blurb then] passed away. The guidelines are quite clear - The event must be notable which had been in this case. Let's not comment on, if his passing away was as noticeable as of Nelson Mandela or Thatcher. He was quite popular in the subcontinent and has contributed significantly to Indian polity. Not every Indian leader will make it to the blurb [IK Gujral in the past]. If we are looking into posting of RD posting in the blurb, we definitely should not consider the "size and scale of India". Not every leader conducts the nuclear tests every day. His death has been covered widely by the foreign media as well. If the article is fixed, we should consider it for blurb now as many oppositions above were based upon on poor references and citations which looks ok now [Not sure, if they are coming back to change their voting status again].

Regards, theTigerKing  02:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Support blurb. This assumes that the quality is sufficient; I've not looked at the article, so I'm neutral on that side of things. This person was the head of government of one of the largest and most influential countries in the world; by what kind of standard is he less deserving of a blurb than some singer? If any standards (other than article quality) make him unworthy of a blurb, it's time for a serious revision of the standards. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. While it has been argued that the article deserves a blurb simply by virtue of him having been PM of India, please note he was PM during a particularly significant period in modern Indian history. India carried out nuclear tests under his tenure, declaring nuclear capability, fought a major war with Pakistan, came close to another war which could potentially have been nuclear, had a commercial aircraft hijacked by terrorists. President Clinton's visit was the first state visit to India by a US president in 22 years. All of these can be categorized as major international events. In addition, economic reforms accelerated India's GDP growth, paving the way for greater influence in world affairs. There is sufficient rationale for a blurb here. In addition, most of the citation issues have now been resolved, in case that is the primary concern.  Shobhit102 | talk  03:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurp Not a quality article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numancia (talkcontribs) 03:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb in principle (I leave article quality for others to judge). At least to me, being PM of India for over 6 years seems an adequate reason for a blurb. Some claim he shouldn't get a blurb because he allegedly is not in the Thatcher/Mandela class. I disagree, even if we have to accept the Thatcher/Mandela standard (and I'm not clear why we should have to, nor am I all that clear that such a standard has any objective meaning). Measured by persons ruled multiplied by years ruled, I have every reason to think that he actually affected the lives of far more people than either Thatcher or Mandela (and that's without even asking what presiding over India becoming a nuclear power has done for or against the security of the entire human race). Tlhslobus (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb on significance. I'm still working my way through the article, but the event is significant enough to post a blurb. We've posted, among others, Leonard Cohen and Aretha Franklin in the not-too-recent past. Vajpayee was the effective head of state in the world's most populous democracy. More importantly, unlike I. K. Gujral (mentioned above as the only other Indian Prime Minister to have died in recent years) he was more or less re-elected; which is to say he wasn't a consensus candidate from a minor party in a coalition government, but a leader re-elected more or less in his own right in what was then the largest election in human history (no, I'm not going to provide a source; every Indian general election is the largest in human history, thanks to its large and growing population). What's more, he was a founder member and the first president of the Bharatiya Janata Party, and played a large role in its predecessor the Bharatiya Jana Sangh; the BJP is India's ruling party today. All in all, an influence certainly as large, probably far larger, than that of any musician or film star we have recently posted. Vanamonde (talk) 05:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) 2018 Asian Games

Premature, games start on the 18th, please re-nominate then. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2018 Asian Games (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
Nominator: Angga1061 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Multi-sport event; first time held in two cities, only second time held in my hometown country, Indonesia. Angga1061 09:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Premature: the opening ceremony is not until 18 August, however article is well written, so will support when the games start. Note: Asian Games is not ITN/R. --Danski454 (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 15

Portal:Current events/2018 August 15
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: John Shipley Rowlinson

Article: John Shipley Rowlinson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator and updater: HaEr48 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism 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. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: British chemist with significant contribution to science. HaEr48 (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The personal life section is far too trivial (maybe a specific climb could be cited?), but nothing to keep it off MP. ghost 11:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to me. Nice to see chemists on the main page. shoy (reactions) 15:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Good to go.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

RD: Ajit Wadekar

Article: Ajit Wadekar (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism 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. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former India Test and One Day International captain Sherenk1 (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

(Removed) Remove from Ongoing: Carr Fire

Article: Carr Fire (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Nominator: Spencer (talk)

The most recent prose update from Carr_Fire#August is from 5 days ago; without continuing substantial updates, this should not remain on ongoing. SpencerT•C 02:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I think we could replace it with Mendocino Complex Fire, which is bigger and still partially ongoing. Then we can remove that when it's contained. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove adding any other fire should be a separate nomination and not tucked away in the removal of this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. It was more of a passing thought than a serious one. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
FYI, according to CalFire, the Carr Fire is 65 percent contained but still draws 4,000 firefighters. Sca (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - while still ongoing, there are no longer sufficient significant updates to merit this remaining up. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove If the article isn't being updated, it isn't eligible for ongoing anymore. --Jayron32 15:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove - A majority of the fire is contained.--WaltCip (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove - still burning, not getting updates, not in the news. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove - Agree that the topic is getting stale. Jusdafax (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Removed Stephen 00:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

August 14

Portal:Current events/2018 August 14
Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Morgana King

Article: Morgana King (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): LA Times, WA Post (original reporting)
Nominator: Strikerforce (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism 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. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Longtime jazz singer also known for roles in The GodfatherStrikerforceTalk 16:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - She actually passed away in March, but it is only now being confirmed publicly. Forgive me if this nomination is gravely in error, given the circumstances, but I didn't see anything in the RD guidelines that specifically covered a situation like this (unless I just completely missed it). StrikerforceTalk 16:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Washington Post was the first to report that she had died in March but no one reported it until this week. Just a death that slipped through the radar, it seems. Using the date it was first reported is an acceptable practice as long as we're clear there was no coverage back when she died (which I cannot find). --Masem (t) 17:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
    That is exactly what the NYTimes says as well including giving credit to WashPo. --- Coffeeandcrumbs
  • Oppose I can't read the source and the article doesn't cover why we didn't discover her demise until some five months later, but in any case, the article needs works on referencing. I think it's a legit nomination by the way, as long as the death hasn't been reported in the interim. Perhaps RD needs a clearer guideline to cover this scenario. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Ponte Morandi collapse

Articles: Autostrada A10 (Italy) (talk, history) and Ponte Morandi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Ponte Morandi, a major bridge near the northern Italian city of Genoa, has collapsed with 'dozens' of casualties reported.
Alternative blurb: ​Morandi bridge, a part of the A10 motorway, and about 100 metres tall, collapses and kills tens of motorists.
Alternative blurb II: ​A portion of the Ponte Morandi motorway bridge near Genoa, Italy collapses, killing at least 22 people.
News source(s): BBC News
Nominator and updater: Hektor (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: This is a major collapse. Hektor (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Support on notability. Oppose on lack of content - literally all there is a the moment is a single sentence that gives less information than the blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I've taken the liberty of rewording the blurb. There's work ongoing at Ponte Morandi to get it up to date with news of the collapse, so it should be much more informative shortly. Prioryman (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and Oppose per Thryduulf. Also suggest blurb need a little rewording before posting. -- KTC (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article expansion/sourcing has taken place since the nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is improving, and of sufficient quality to feature. Major bridge collapse with a fair amount of casualties. Mjroots (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Details/update are appropriate at this time. Added Alt2 to be more straightforward blurb. --Masem (t) 13:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Significant. Article looks good. Marking as ready. Mamyles (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting Alt II – Muboshgu (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Battle of Ghazni

Articles: Battle of Ghazni (2018) (talk, history) and Ghazni offensive (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Afghanistan, hundreds are killed as the Taliban seize most of the strategic city of Ghazni and the surrounding province.
Alternative blurb: ​Afghan and NATO-led forces continue to battle the Taliban in the strategic city of Ghazni.
News source(s): NYTimes, CBS, Reuters, BBC, PBS
Nominator and updater: Monopoly31121993(2) (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: This is a major battle and is being reported as such by all accounts. Ghazni is Afghanistan's sixth largest city and nothing on this scale has taken places since the Battle of Kunduz (2016), two years ago. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I have adjusted the blurbs. There may be room for more improvement. IMO, calling the city "historic" was not necessary just in this context. I would also suggest finding more sources beside Long War Journal. The reference section lacks variety. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Death and transfer of territory are routine in warfare. Is the casualty rate here especially high, or are we putting weight on the strategic part? If it's the latter, I think we need to meet a very objective standard in applying that value. It tends to raise more questions than provides answers (strategic to whom or to what goal? According to whom? How many cities are so designated?) ghost 12:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I've updated the article with the latest information today. Yes, the casualty rate here especially high here. No other battle has reached this level in a long time.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Saw it dominate news for a while. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - This should be posted now since it will be old news in a couple of days. It's also uncommon to have news from this region, most Afghanistan news is about Kabul.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - A milestone in the long conflict. Jusdafax (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the original blurb. Article has come along nicely since I noticed it doing NPP. This particular region of the country hasn't seen much conflict in the last couple of years, if I'm not mistaken, so I'd consider this newsworthy. StrikerforceTalk 19:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment We have competing articles about the same subject. I have noted the second article - which was actually the first created - in the nomination. I've started a discussion on the Talk of the editor that created Ghazni offensive to try to reach a consensus on a merge. StrikerforceTalk 20:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I've now migrated everything worth migrating from Battle of Ghazni (2018) to Ghazni offensive. It should be all set.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Gigantic news, arguably the biggest victory of the terrorists in the 17-year long conflict Openlydialectic (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The combined article is well sourced. The story is news worthy. I prefer the original blurb. Altblurb doesn't say anything notable. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted original blurb. Sam Walton (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Sam Walton: I'm confused about this. The blurb was outdated pretty much by the time it was nominated here: the article states that the Taliban withdrew from the city on the 14th. How did it get posted as such? ansh666 20:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

August 13

Portal:Current events/2018 August 13
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

RD: Jim Neidhart

Article: Jim Neidhart (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: GreatCaesarsGhost (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism 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. See also WP:ITNRD.

 ghost 18:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now; too much of the article is unreferenced. Aim for 1 per paragraph minimum, with contentious statements given special attention. Also, several of the accomplishments section lacks refs. --Jayron32 18:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose horrible article, needs complete overhaul, nowhere need ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
comment - Calling it a "horrible article", is a bit of a stretch. The article does need some more sourcing, however. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article got worked on, now ready.LM2000 (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    Still whole paragraphs unreferenced, inappropriate for a BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Looks like at least one reference per paragraph now. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Too late to post?LM2000 (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

RD: Somnath Chatterjee

Article: Somnath Chatterjee (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Times of India
Nominator: Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism 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. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Noted Parliamentarian elected Ten times and Former Speaker of Lok Sabha Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  • With your MOS:SOB, that sounds like quite a title. 159.53.78.142 (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose at present, as the article is in dire need of more references. Vanamonde (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Vanamonde The article needs some updates.I have added some references. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose early sections have unreferenced paragraphs. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

August 12

Portal:Current events/2018 August 12
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

PGA Championship

Article: 2018 PGA Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, Brooks Koepka wins the PGA Championship at Bellerive.
News source(s): NYT [2]
Nominator: 75.188.224.208 (talk • give credit)

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 75.188.224.208 (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose headings and a few words for round summaries are there but inadequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This isn't far short. Expand the round summaries to a full (referenced) paragraph on each and it would be postable. The 'field' section is a complete mess, but that was also true of 2018 Open Championship. Modest Genius talk 10:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

RD: Samir Amin

Article: Samir Amin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [3]
Nominator: Soman (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism 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. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Reknowned Marxist theorist and economist Soman (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose whole biography section is unreferenced, and more uncited material follows that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Parker Solar Probe

Article: Parker Solar Probe (talk, history)
Blurb: NASA launches Parker Solar Probe which will study the outer corona of the Sun.
Nominator: Tone (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Launched today. The article needs some updates, but launching new spaceprobes is ITNR. Tone 08:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  • The probe is not ITNR until it arrives at its destination. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
    • You're right. But it is an interesting story nevertheless. --Tone 09:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
      • I didn't claim otherwise, only commented on the ITNR aspect. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 331dot.--WaltCip (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, I was not supporting or opposing, only stating that this is not ITNR. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is well written article already. But I will assist with improvements. The first spacecraft to fly into the low solar corona. Unlike most probes this one is headed straight into the sun. The scientific application for the data collected are innumerable. The article is well sourced and very informative. The probe will not reach the first of its several destinations until the end of September. We should post the launch and post arrival to Venus as well on September 28 (ITNR). --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - The article is indeed well-written and sourced, and covers a major scientific first, the extremely close-up observation of our sun. Global significance, and ITN-worthy. Jusdafax (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

August 11

Portal:Current events/2018 August 11
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents
  • The death toll from heavy floods that triggered landislides in Kerala, India, which started on 8 July, rises to 37. (India.com)

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: V. S. Naipaul

Article: V. S. Naipaul (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): VS Naipaul Nobel prize-winning British author, dies aged 85
Nominator: Ihcoyc (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism 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. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Nobel Prize winning British novelist of Indian extraction. Article would appear to be reasonably referenced but for the bibliography, which probably could be moved to a separate list. We tend to drop the ball on subjects like him. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Support, with the obvious qualifying comment: calling Naipaul a "British novelist of Indian extraction" misses the fact that he was born and raised in Trinidad and Tobago (as were his parents) and that he wrote extensively about Trinidad and Tobago and the Caribbean. Guettarda (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • A belated support. Bibliography now referenced and rest of article was in reasonable shape. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Have added refs to the bibliography. yorkshiresky (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article now in suitable condition, marking "ready". SpencerT•C 18:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support indeed, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I am working on fixing some pesky errors in citation but this is more than ready to post. Question: Is there a possibility of a blurb. His significance in the literary world seems very huge. I have seen several books dedicated solely to reviews of his work (more than those listed on out article and there is the nobel to boot. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I would say probably not. Blurbs are extremely limited. Was he the greatest author in a major genre, or among the top five living authors last week? ghost 12:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Kerala floods

Article: 2018 Kerala floods (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 79 people have died and nearly 85,000 people have been displaced due to heavy rainfall in Kerala, India.
Alternative blurb: ​More than 100 people have died in devastating monsoon floods in India's southern state of Kerala, the worst in almost a century.
News source(s): Zee News
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Blacku22 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Naveenpf (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Article still developing. All five gates of Idduki dam were opened. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Support notable Openlydialectic (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article needs expansion; too short in current state. SpencerT•C 19:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Copy edited the hook. Story seems ITN noteworthy. No opinion on the article yet.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support but the article can use quite a lot of work. I wouldn't link it from anything at the current state. Juxlos (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub. Browsing "in private" with no tracking history or other suggestion engines influence, I'm not seeing this story "In the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
    It should be noted that this is one of the top stories on the Times of India: [4], which is the world's largest circulation English Language newspaper. --Jayron32 17:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
    Times of India is focusing India-centric news? I'm one voice, my feed shows a stolen plane in Seattle, a shooting in Canada, the Turkish economy, but no floods in India. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
    All news is "X"-centric, where "X" is where the news is published. Just because you don't live there doesn't mean it isn't important. Your personal experience in the world is not universal. --Jayron32 12:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    "Just because you don't live there doesn't mean it isn't important." The section is "In the news" not "Recent disasters which I think are important". Agree 100% with the rest of your statement. Let's not clutter another nom with this discussion, if you think I'm wrong to check that a nom is "in the news" (insofar as I can) and leave feedback to that effect, please ping me on my talk page or open an RFC at WT:ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    I don't think it's important. I have no say in the matter, and hold no opinion. The Times of India does think it important, which I confirmed. They are a genuine, reliable, major news source. --Jayron32 16:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article is in no condition to appear on the main page. Large sections unreferenced, large amounts of grammar and writing issues, in some places semi-incomprehensible ("Heavy rain in Wayanad makes big disasters and Ghat road smashed"). Some content copied verbatim from sources. [5] Black Kite (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It's actually getting worse - "In addition to the second installment of Rs 80.25 crores of SDRF" - what's SDRF then? And a whole unsourced section has now appeared. Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Initially I opposed because the article didn't met ITN-standards (quality wise) but now it has been improved and I think it should be posted citing to the massive media coverage the news is getting from across the globe.Amirk94391 (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support only if the article is improved. The subject is worth posting. The article needs to be improved to post to the main page. If the orange tags are fixed in due time, consider this a support !vote. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 21:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the Carr fire displaced 38k people and is posted to Ongoing. Since this displayed more, why shouldn't it be posted also? Banedon (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
    • The population density of Kerala is 2200/sq mi, the population density of Shasta County, California is 46/sq mi -- it seems obvious that the Indian state would have more people displaced. Interestingly, the huge disparity in populations serves to highlight the devastating impact of the Carr fire on Shasta County, CA (whose total pop is only 180k). --LaserLegs (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Is the impact of a fire measured by how large an area is burned or how many people are displaced? Banedon (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose for now, it looks much improved based on the above comments, but the "Responses" section has quotes with no sources. That needs fixing. If that is fixed, consider this a full support. --Jayron32 17:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
"Heavy rain in Wayanad makes big disasters and Ghat road smashed." The grammar in these ESL languages... --LaserLegs (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
As good as many DYKs loaded for the main page that I see. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support 75 people died in a week . [timesofindia.indiatimes.com]
  • Support. I've just spent some time tidying the article and adding a load of citations. It's now mostly cited and looking in much better shape. As the worst flood in Kerala in nearly a century, and very much 'in the news', I think this is worth placing in ITN. Pinging opposers LaserLegs, Black Kite, Amirk94391, and Jayron32 for 2nd thoughts. Sam Walton (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Someone created the "Relief aids" section: " Businessmen to various film actors from the South Indian film industry have donated to the CMs Relief Fund." --LaserLegs (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The article has now national importance an i support to be published under the news. The article has currently provided with inline citations and improved. So i support this nomination now.-Jinoy Tom Jacob (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Added alt blurb. Removed material which was not sourced. Sherenk1 (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Should it be added as ongoing, since the floods seem to still be occuring? CNN --- Rotruthseeker (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment - And after the floods are over should it then perhaps be added as a full blurb? If it's added now with the August 11th date the article will have the last position in the news list and not last very long. ---- Rotruthseeker (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The article need more dates as to when the events actually happened. Stephen 03:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Cites all looks good and is a good to go now. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Cites all looks good and is a good to go now. I fixed some minor reference formatting. GTG. 7&6=thirteen () 14:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Opposition was about article quality, which seems to have been addressed. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - certainly worthy of inclusion, but I should just point out that the blurb was not written in the correct tense. ITN blurbs are written in the present tense. I have updated it to read Heavy rainfall in the Indian state of Kerala causes more than 300 deaths, with an additional 200,000 people displaced. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) 2018 Horizon Air Q400 incident

Consensus against posting. Mjroots (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed image
Article: 2018 Horizon Air Q400 incident (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A Bombardier Dash 8 aircraft (pictured) is stolen from Seattle–Tacoma International Airport, United States and crashes, killing the pilot.
News source(s): (BBC News Online)
Nominator: Mjroots (talk • give credit)
Updater: Bohbye (talk • give credit)
Nominator's comments: Unusual incident, not the run of the mill plane crash. Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is perfect DYK material. Once it's expanded beyond the current stub state. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fully agree with The Rambling Man Openlydialectic (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - seems more apt at DYK. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is interesting, but not the sort of thing for ITN, more along the lines of DYK material. SamaranEmerald (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous – sgt snow. Sca (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Bernard Burke

Article: Bernard F. Burke (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism 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. See also WP:ITNRD.

  • Weak oppose three dab links need addressing and the proseline is frankly despicable. Otherwise just about passable. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The chronology is totally fucked. Every sentence is true and verifiable but jumbled together it becomes nonsensical. I tried for a full hour to descramble it and I have a headache now. His biography jumps back and forth entire decades with no logic. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @Coffeeandcrumbs: Just to say thank you for your edits, and sorry for causing you a headache! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Takeshi Onaga

Article: Takeshi Onaga (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [6] [7]
Nominator and updater: HaEr48 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism 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. See also WP:ITNRD.

 HaEr48 (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Weakish support brief, not brilliant, but adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the article is okay. The person was a standing governor of a large province in a large country. so quite notable. Openlydialectic (talk) 07:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • What are "Japanese neocons"? Can this be either explained in the text or linked to a WP page which explains? MurielMary (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
    I have wikilinked it to Neoconservatism in Japan. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to go. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted (8 August was the day he died). --Tone 08:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: