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.

Miguel Diaz-Canel
Miguel Diaz-Canel

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with [Posted] or [Pulled] in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

April 19

Portal:Current events/2018 April 19
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture
  • Prosecutors in Minnesota say nobody will be charged over the death of Prince, who accidentally overdosed on counterfeit fentanyl pills. (BBC)

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Kingdom of eSwatini

Article: Swaziland (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Swaziland's King Mswati III officially renames the country the Kingdom of eSwatini.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: HonorTheKing (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Marking the country's 50th anniversary of independence, Swaziland's King Mswati III officially renames the country the Kingdom of eSwatini. (BBC) --
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Support. Unusual.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Unusal and interesting. But Oppose for now based on article quality. Needs to be fully referenced and updated.BabbaQ (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The nominator's comments say more than the article does. If it's to mark the 50th anniversary of independence then the article needs to be updated to say that. But even if it's updated and referenced, I still don't think it's that notable. It's the whim of an absolute monarch. Has it been recognized by any other government?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. How is this ITNR? 331dot (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • It quite clearly isn't, so I've modified the template.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – It's been done already. Sca (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle an interesting and non-death related story. However, there needs to be a good update... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] New president of Cuba

Article: Miguel Díaz-Canel (talk, history)
Blurb: Miguel Díaz-Canel succeeds Raúl Castro as President of Cuba
News source(s): Guardian
Nominator: Modest Genius (talk • give credit)

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

Nominator's comments: Diaz-Canel was selected as the only candidate on Wednesday and RSs are indicating that he will be unanimously approved by the National Assembly on Thursday (i.e. later today). We should post as soon as that happens, which will be the point he officially takes over. However his article is a bit bare bones at present, with only one sentence of update edit: I've added a short section. Modest Genius talk 12:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I think the article is in a good shape. Ready to post when the handover takes place (ping me). --Tone 13:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Tone 14:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article is entirely inadequate for a head of state. It is only barely past a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a 'Head of state' article guideline, perhaps you could link to it? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
As he is described as "a party technocrat who is little-known to the public" there's probably not much more out there to add to the article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am basing my oppose on past precedent at ITN. We generally have a higher standard for presidents prime ministers etc. But in all honesty I think I would oppose posting this in its current state even if it wasn't a head of state. It is not up to scratch for the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
As Cuba is a sovereign state its covered under ITN/R and so postable as long as the quality is of a sufficient level. The article is shorter than some (given the new President is a relatively unknown technocrat in a single-party communist regime that is not exactly unusual) however it is sourced, contains the relevant biographical info and no glaring errors. Most heads of state have long careers in the public eye before they reach the top spot. Cuba has been about the Castro's and only the Castro's for the last 50 years+. Coupled with the wide variety of sanctions on the country, the lack of information in the western media on other public figures there is also not unusual. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. IMHO an article that can be summed up as "X exists, was born on... was a party technocrat... and is now the dictator err... President of country Y" no matter how well sourced, is not the kind of quality article we promote on the front page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • ITNA is fairly clear about the need for consensus before posting. I fail to see why this had to be posted so quickly before discussion could take place. ghost 15:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm all for speedy admin actions on ITN/R items. --LukeSurl t c 15:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The quality of ITNR items must be discussed at ITNC, as you well know. If it was a GA, sure, but the article is short and lean. Some people may have raised legitimate objection if given time. ghost 16:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support It's ITN/R and although the target article is short I see no major deficiencies.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Agreed, the boring golf club photo has been on the main page way too long! -Zanhe (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

[Ready] Remove from ongoing: Gaza border protests

Article: 2018 Gaza border protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Nominator: LukeSurl (talk)

Nominator's comments: These protests are no longer making headlines. Last activity noted in the article is 16 April, last major protests were 13 April. LukeSurl t c 10:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

April 18

Portal:Current events/2018 April 18
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

RD: Dale Winton

Article: Dale Winton (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (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.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Referencing not up to scratch. Mjroots (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, due to referencing especially of stuff that could be contentious. Aiken D 06:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I've just trimmed the uncited contentious stuff that I couldn't find cites for that were guaranteed not to be a circular citation and referenced everything else. Miyagawa (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - now seems perfectly well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Sufficiently improved.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - improved.BabbaQ (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Trial against president Nicolás Maduro

Articles: Nicolás Maduro (talk, history) and es:Tribunal Supremo de Justicia de Venezuela en el exterior ([[Talk::es:Tribunal Supremo de Justicia de Venezuela en el exterior|talk]], history)
Blurb: ​The Venezuelan National Assembly approves a graft trial against president Maduro
News source(s): ABC NewsVoice of AmericaPanam Post
Nominator: Jamez42 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: I'm not sure if this should be considered for the ITN sections, but I'd still like to open a discussion. Venezuela currently has a de jure Supreme Tribunal, also called the Supreme Tribunal in exile, named during last year's protests, and a de facto one. Not long ago the de jure Supreme Tribunal approved the pre trial of Maduro due to corruption charges realted to Operation Car Wash after a motion was introduced by the former Attorney General Luisa Ortega Díaz, and yesterday the opposition controlled Assembly approved to proceed with the trial with a two thirds majority, legally removing him from the presidency. Although it's unlikely that Maduro will leave the office, the region has showed support of the decision. Jamez42 (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - for fairly obvious reasons we cannot have the target article be in Spanish, or not on en.wikipedia.org. No comment on the nomination thus far however, but without a suitable target article, any further discussion is moot. - Stormy clouds (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose no target article, even the Maduro article doesn't seem to cover this in any detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose As noted by the ABC News article, this trial is mostly symbolic, as those involved have no recognized authority by the current ruling gov't (which I'm aware its the call towards corruption in the gov't that is at issue here). And as this only is a start of the trial, it would be better to recognize when it is over; even if it has no recognized authority, various world leaders may speak towards it and support it. --Masem (t) 17:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional oppose - The news section for en.wikipedia.org should link to another article on en.wikipedia.org. If there was an English Wikipedia article that covers the subject, then I may reconsider, but oppose for now. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Close per WP:SNOW. We will not link an article from another wiki at the main page. And the news is not newsworthy anyway: even if this was a regular trial, we would include it as news when there is a sentence, not when the trial has just started. Cambalachero (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

RD: Bruno Sammartino

Article: Bruno Sammartino (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN, New York Times
Nominator: Spman (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: Legendary Professional Wrestler and Weightlifter Spman

  • Oppose far too much of it is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I added an article from the NYT, which covers his death in a lot more detail than the ESPN one (Sammartino was the guy in New York City for a while). Vilhjalmsson (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
    It's not just the death that needs referencing, it's all the rest of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. Unreferenced, but there's no question about his importance to professional wrestling. Hopefully someone can whip the article into shape. --PlasmaTwa2 23:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this article pretty much needs to be fixed up for this. He's one of the most significant figures in pro wrestling ever.★Trekker (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I feel like the RD boilerplate is not working. Perhaps we need less flowery language? ghost 13:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - a few people are working to source this article, myself included. Nikki311 18:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

RD: Paul Jones

Article: Paul Jones (wrestler) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Charleston Post and Courier
Nominator: GaryColemanFan (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: Famous professional wrestler and manager for three decades GaryColemanFan

  • Support Much like with Samartino I think the pro wrestling project needs to come together here and try to fix up anything that needs fixing.★Trekker (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

April 17

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

Disasters and accidents
Environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports

[Closed] Southwest Airlines Flight 1380

Consensus against posting. Mjroots (talk) 16:38, 18 April 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: Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 (talk, history)
Blurb: Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 (aircraft pictured) suffers an uncontained engine failure, leading to the death of a passenger.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Mjroots (talk • give credit)
Updater: Jax 0677 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Dane (talk • give credit)

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Right, before you all say "only one person died", this is a highly unusual accident. Yes, uncontained engine failures happen several times a year. However, they do not usually end in fatalities. Article is in good shape, well-formed and well referenced. Mjroots (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Rare freak accident that's in the news and has a decent start of an article. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support If this was competing for space among several other concurrent blurbs, the accident is not as bad as it could have been and I would not think it appropriate to post it. However, blurbs are slow right now, so this seems like a good story to keep ITN looking fresh, and it is an unusual accident. --Masem (t) 05:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment correct me if I’m wrong, but if I recall, wasn’t there a similar incident some time back about a year or two ago involving an aircraft in an accident with a single fatality that was posted to ITN? Kirliator (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Agree with above reasoning. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - one person died. Not notable as a result. To say "highly unusual, hence notable" isn't really a tenable argument, viz Man Dies After Getting Head Stuck in Movie Theater Seat. I doubt anyone would say that's worthy of a blurb. Banedon (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. A minor accident with few casualties and no broader implications. Weak opposition only because we could do with some turnover in blurbs. Modest Genius talk 10:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support excellent article a shining example of what recent disaster articles should look like, certainly actually in the news, since WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is a totally made up nonsense number that doesn't actually exist no problem there ... in terms of the made up "broader implications" requirement, second uncontained engine failure on Southwest 737 in 2 years .... interesting. Weak because I still think we over-post disaster stories. --76.122.98.253 (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC) --LaserLegs (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. An unfortunate accident, but a minor one. No foul play appears to be involved, just a random mechanical failure due in part to worn parts. I don't think the slow news cycle is a sufficient reason to make an exception. ZettaComposer (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Things like this happen.--WaltCip (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • That seems like a very odd reason for opposing. Do you have any idea how infrequently, in terms of annual passenger journeys? Because I'm sure we'll soon get some activity over at The Twilight Zone. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Minor mechanical failure, little impact and virtually no fatality. Not really In the news . –Ammarpad (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support First fatality on a US airline since 2009 - these things are fairly rare.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose similar to the nomination made regarding the Youtube Headquarters Shooting earlier this month, this nomination has all ready attracted a number of bias from both sides of the argument, with one side stating this is “unusual” and “major”, while the other arguing that this is “minor” and “short-term”; this is the kind of nomination that spells trouble, especially if it concerns only a single fatality. Python Dan (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • It's not "unusual", it's extremely unusual. And that's not bias, it's just statistics. But as Pawnkingthree, "First fatality on a US airline since 2009" - compare that with.... oh, I don't know, deaths from US gun crime since 2009? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Python Dan, this is an example of when systematic bias put an event at a dangerous level. Besides, as unusual as this accident is in nature, this is nothing more than another aircraft accident. Kirliator (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose minor event, if it led to anything changing in the world of aviation it might be of interest, but I can't see that happening, a one-off catastrophic engine failure is just as Martinevans123 notes really, a chance in a million, and with the number of flights per day, there was always going to be a chance it'd happen some time. And it did. This would be a far better candidate for DYK as how well the pilot did getting such a broken aircraft down without further fatalities. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kirliator and TRM, a minor aircraft accident at best with almost no chance of long-term impact. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 is a major news story at this time, the first death causing American flight in close to one decade, and should be featured in ITN. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I can't help feeling it's a major story because of where it happened. But that's true of so much news. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yep, if this happened anywhere else on planet earth it wouldn't get a sniff, but because it happened in the US (as noted by several supporters) it's more notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Right?? We'd never post a rickety Soviet military plane crashing immediately after take-off! --LaserLegs (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Apple and pears. That crash killed 92, not one, and was one of the worst disasters of the year. This is just a minor accident. So no, we wouldn't post a rickety Soviet military plane which had an engine failure and only killed one person, definitely not. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • If it was a military plane and the person killed on duty, no we likely wouldn't. If it were a commercial plane and it was a passenger, we'd probably would. Unfortunately, I can't think of any close examples to pull from here and searching ITNC isn't immediately providing any results. --Masem (t) 14:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No we would not. A Russian aircraft lands after an incident with one fatality? We'd never post it, never. It would be laughed out of ITNC. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Ok then trm just let me know what the minimum deaths are and we're all set. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No, you missed the point again, you're attempting to compare a hull loss with 92 deaths to a minor incident in which one person died. There is no comparison here, and just because it involved Americans and was in America, it doesn't make it more notable, despite what some supporters have said. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Agreed just because something is not in America does not make it more notable. So just let me know the minimum number of deaths and we're all set. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Time to hat this meaningless and illogical repetition I think! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think we should avoid posting aircraft disasters with low death tolls, otherwise, ITN would be flooded with such nominations. SamaranEmerald (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Freak accident. Although one passenger died, it's of scant broader significance. Sca (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

    • The vast majority of low death toll aircraft disasters don't get posted. However, a lack of deaths does not necessarily mean a lack of notability. IMvHO, the unusual circumstances in this case merited a nomination. Mjroots (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Also we generally only post commercial aviation incidents or where a larger number of civilians were involved. Incidents involving cargo planes, military planes, and private aircraft typically are not considered ITN with common sense exceptions. --Masem (t) 13:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support mostly due to the exceptionally-good article. It is in the news, so it does fit the criteria. Davey2116 (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - minor incident in terms of fatalities. Any lasting notability or impact will arise due to potential changes in airline policy, but to post on these grounds would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. If the crash is truly so intriguing, take the (admittedly excellent) article to DYK. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Oppose At the risk of sounding callous, things break and people die. In the grand scheme of things this is a really minor accident. (Thank God.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as noted above, a minor incident with probably very little lasting impact. Lepricavark (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Airplane accidents are not uncommon, even in the US, and often result in more deaths than this. Though airline accidents are rare in the US, in my opinion that distinction does not increase significant enough for a blurb. Mamyles (talk) 15:33, 18 April 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] RD: Barbara Bush

Article: Barbara Bush (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: EternalNomad (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: Former US First Lady. EternalNomad (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Strong support. Just confirmed that she has indeed died at the age of 92. I would also weakly support a complete blurb as this is a very significant death given the impact that Mrs. Bush had on many issues and topics. 66.31.81.200 (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Sadly oppose Such a beautiful and very heartfelt passing, but the article needs source work. I'll wait til the obits come in so fix the article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Support RD: Article is in okay enough shape for RD posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
So 63 standard citations and 5 additional references is still considered “needing source work”? 66.31.81.200 (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
When there are unsourced statements, yeah. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Not important enough for a blurb. She was a First Lady. She's no Mandela. She's not even a Winnie Mandela. It's almost ready for RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, Oppose RD, not ready yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too many gaps in referencing. I expect this will likely be cleaned up in short order, but we can't post it until it is solidly sourced. FTR I also agree that although very sad, this is not blurb worthy. RD is fine once it is ready. Memory eternal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Was famous. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 00:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - an important American but not significant enough for her death to be in other than RD. Nancy Reagan was first lady for twice as long and was a little more politically active, and was only in RD, though I think the process was little different then (March 2016). Adpete (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Well... truly legendary and powerful first lady, who called the shots of TWO U.S. Presidents. --Bruzaholm (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Article is in reasonable shape. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb fails the Thatcher/Mandela test. Oppose RD for now, still some unreferenced content. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb fails the Thatcher/Graham/Mandela test. Support for RD once sourcing issues are resolved. Lepricavark (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD but unsure about blurb. It's very sad, and it's certainly significant as she was the only first lady to watch her son become president, but her influence was limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendonTheWizard (talkcontribs) 22:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    • She was not the only First Lady whose son became POTUS. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
      • To be fair, he did specify that Bush watch[ed] her son become president; Adams died before her son ascended to the office. Of course, that's a minor distinction and doesn't really mean much as far as blurb worthiness (blurbiness?) is concerned. Lepricavark (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes, I was referring specifically to witnessing it, but as I specified in my original post I still don't support a blurb. She lacked real influence outside of the US as I said, unlike figures such as Nelson Mandela or more recently Stephen Hawking which absolutely deserved blurbs. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted RD but discussion of a blurb can continue (though I don't think I see consensus). FWIW, to TRM and Muboshgu, I checked the state of the article when you !voted, and I believe gaps in sourcing have been sufficiently covered, hence posting. --Masem (t) 03:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Indeed, the article was improved by the time you posted it. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support, and also weak support blurb. I kind of wish that RD allowed a five-word description of the deceased individual; in that case I wouldn't support a blurb at all. Davey2116 (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • RD is fine, no reason to make this a blurb. Indeed, I don't see any nomination of one. Modest Genius talk 10:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb I don’t think her impact is notable enough to Warren a blurb, we don’t want to be US-centric. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb former first lady of Tanzania probably wouldn't be posted. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - the wife of the most influential figure in the history of South Africa, who had actual separate political impact, did not merit a blurb. Bush certainly doesn't. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Carl Kasell

Article: Carl Kasell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NPR
Nominator: Davey2116 (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: Long-time American broadcaster for NPR dies at 84. Sourcing needs work. Davey2116 (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Support One unsourced statement of questionable encyclopedic importance (a mistaken death report in 2014) that I removed, and everything else is good to good here. --Masem (t) 03:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks ready to me.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 18:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Matthew Mellon

Article: Matthew Mellon (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (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.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - sufficiently referenced. There's one tagged sentence, but it can be deleted if a citation can't be found. -Zanhe (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Short, but very well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - referenced and ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I've dealt with that CN tag, should be good to go now.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 13:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

RD: Big Tom

Article: Big Tom (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Inexorable Existence (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Fernandosmission (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: Irish country music star. Referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose not just reference issues, but the article is a complete mess. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Awful article. Zero biographical information on his life before the year 2000, and the rest is just a bunch of tables.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sadly, article would need an almost complete rewrite before being main page ready. --Jayron32 13:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

April 16

Portal:Current events/2018 April 16
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents
Environment
  • An international team researching a plastic-consuming bacterium discovered in 2016 at a Japanese landfill site announce the accidental synthesis of an artificial enzyme that breaks down plastics more efficiently than the bacterium. The team suggest the molecule could be used for environmentally sound plastics disposal. (The Guardian)
International relations

Law and crime
Science and technology

Sports

[Attention needed] [Ready] RD: Choi Eun-hee

Article: Choi Eun-hee (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Lenoresm (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: South Korean actress. Referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose as noted in the nom, films and awards completely unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    Support good work by Lenoresm. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I have made numerous edits to the article since yesterday and added references for films and awards. Lenoresm (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to go.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - good work by Lenoresm for fixing the issues. Ready for ITN. -Zanhe (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Harry Anderson

Article: Harry Anderson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NBCNews
Nominator: Masem (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: Unfortunately weak in sourcing. Masem (t) 02:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Support I fixed the sourcing issue. Now it is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Confirming that the sourcing has been significantly improved since I nominated it. --Masem (t) 03:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support : I see that. And that is a good work. TDKR Chicago. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 04:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

[Removed] Remove from ongoing: Rif Dimashq offensive (February–April 2018)

Article: Rif Dimashq offensive (February–April 2018) (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Nominator: Jayron32 (talk)

Nominator's comments: I propose to remove the Rif Dimashq offensive (February–April 2018) article from the main page "ongoing" section. First, the offensive is essentially complete, with the government declaring two days ago that the locale was fully liberated, and I don't see that any reliable sources are debating this; indeed reliable sources agree the locale is under full government control. Secondly, the article itself has not received any substantive updates since April 14 either. Thirdly, there is already a blurb describing both the chemical attack and the response, which seem to be where the story has migrated, seeing as the offensive itself has ended. Given those three things, we should think about taking this off of "ongoing". --Jayron32 16:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Boston Marathon

Articles: 2018 Boston Marathon (talk, history) and Desiree Linden (talk, history)
Blurb: Yuki Kawauchi and Desiree Linden win the 2018 Boston Marathon.
Alternative blurb: ​Desiree Linden becomes the first American woman in 33 years to win the Boston Marathon.
News source(s): NYTimes
Nominator: Cellodont (talk • give credit)

Article updated

One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

Nominator's comments: big news for American atheletics, 2nd American woman to win a major American marathon this year Cellodont (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Not to change too much from Cellodont's submission, but as the Boston Marathon is an ITNR, I've refactors this to be more to this point. I would comment that we generally do not focus to much on the first X of a nation to win this type of event (We're a global work), but we certainly can ID the winners, and if either article is in good shape, can make them secondary targets. I will note the Marathon article needs prose before this can be posted. --Masem (t) 19:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • comment I totally agree with the new blurb, go for it. Hope someone gets this done soon, it's relevant/great news for Japan, for the USA, and everybody, really.Cellodont (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)cellodont
  • Oppose Classic example of stub. Mere rephrasing of news piece. This needs non trivial work and lot of actual encylopeic prose before even considering judging its quality. At present, this is unpresentable in every respect. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • comment good point. The 2018 boston marathon article has all the salient info on the race that anyone in the future is likely to be looking for, but it's not exactly a good read as a redirect from the front page. this is big news, though....maybe the blurb should point primarily to Kawauchi's and Linden's Wikipedia articles, and secondarily to the little stub? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cellodont (talkcontribs) 20:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's a stub. A sporting event needs to do better than that. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose nowhere near ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

April 15

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

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

Montenegrin presidential election, 2018

Article: Montenegrin presidential election, 2018 (talk, history)
Blurb: Milo Đukanović is elected as President of Montenegro.
News source(s): Reuters FT
Nominator: LukeSurl (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Results are there, but no reactions and "campaign" section has referencing issues. LukeSurl t c 10:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Hadassa Ben-Itto

Article: Hadassa Ben-Itto (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (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: Israeli author. Article reasonably comprehensive and sourcing appears OK - Dumelow (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - well referenced article, although the source spells her name as Ben-Ato. -Zanhe (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support looks adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

RD: R. Lee Ermey

Article: R. Lee Ermey (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): THR
Nominator: Masem (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.

 Masem (t) 23:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are gaps in sourcing here. --Masem (t) 23:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Indeed. Huge swathes of unreferenced text and the filmography will need sourcing too. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for Referencing - I support on principle as he is an extremely well known actor, but have to oppose due to large amounts of unsourced information. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Subject to improvement. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • A reminder that supports on principle are not useful as quality is the only thing that matters for a recent death posting Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose maintenance tag needs to be addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Sourcing problems appear to be corrected. KVWS 18:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not there yet. Personal life section tagged, still lots of citations needed in the acting career.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Judy Kennedy

Utility of leaving this discussion open any longer has become marginal. --Jayron32 17:22, 17 April 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: Judy Kennedy (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Times Record Herald
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (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: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on notability concerns. A mayor of a population 28k town, the article was created today, and the refs are entirely local and largely obits. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Power~enwiki:: We've had articles that were created on the day of or before being nominated (David Buckel for example) yet they are in sufficient length and well sourced. As for the sourcing, local or obits, they are still reliable and serve as reliable citations for the article. Nobility is not a reason to oppose an article, I thought it was if the article was well sourced and in sufficient length. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Being notable is generally a necessary requirement to have a standalone article. If there are doubts about notability due to only local sources, that's a problem. --Masem (t) 01:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
      • This isn't the forum for determining notability. @Power~enwiki:, either you could nominate it for deletion, or you should not object based on that. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is not really the place for a notability discussion but she would appear to meet criteria 2 of WP:POLITICIAN as a “major local political figure who has received significant press coverage.” The article is sufficiently detailed and the referencing looks fine. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support the article won't win any awards, but it's sufficiently referenced and meets our minimum requirements. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability. We've established that new articles do not receive the benefit of assumed notability because there has been no time for editors to consider it. WP:POLITICIAN says that statewide office holders have notability, but local officials only qualify if they are "major" and have "received significant press coverage." There is zero evidence provided here to this end. ghost 16:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per established precedence regarding notability on RD. Recently created articles formed as a result of an obit tend to be of questionable standard.--WaltCip (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • If there is "established precedence" for this then it needs to be added to WP:ITNRD in my opinion. I see there was a discussion about this a couple of months ago, but it's still not entirely clear where we stand now. Are we saying an article created recently must undergo a notability discussion before it gets posted to RD?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @WaltCip: See the nom for Yang Gui down the page, a posthumously created article that we just posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yang Gui wasn't nominated for deletion. Neither has this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose newly created article has not been touched enough to know whether it can withstand notability test, as they are essential orbits synthesis. Wikipedia should not be solely memorialising people on mainpage and later delete the article because of notability. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - if anyone questions the person's notability, they should just go ahead and nominate it for AfD. Otherwise it should be presumed notable and judged on quality alone, which is certainly good enough. -Zanhe (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support meets all of our criteria, especially as there is no "posthumous creation" exclusion for RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have no idea whether she's notable or not, especially as our editors can't decide on how big a town has to be for it's mayor to be notable (honestly, the AfDs are all over the place), but I'm working on the basis that anyone from the Western world who didn't have an article prior to dying probably wasn't notable, and I don't see any coverage that isn't local anyway. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment the only existing reason this individual wouldn't be a candidate for RD is that she has no article. So the opposers need to AFD it, or cancel. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Muboshgu. Not sure why this hasn't been posted yet, it fits all the RD criteria. (And isn't holding elective office generally notable enough to have an article?) The oppose !voters should bring it to talk instead of here. Davey2116 (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Retroactive strong Oppose The idea that a less than 1-term mayor of a municipality of less than 28,000 people is sufficiently notable for inclusion on RD is patently absurd. I have seen former heads of state passed over for RD for less. The entry should be taken down posthaste, right now this appears to be nothing short of a gross violation of WP:BIAS. --Varavour (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    Varavour We post all RDs whose quality is sufficient. Perhaps the "former heads of state" you saw "passed over" had poor quality articles. If you believe that this individual isn't worthy of an article, that's a different discussion, and you can start that at WP:AFD. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 17 April 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: Frank Skartados

Article: Frank Skartados (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Poughkeepsie Journal
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Deor (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: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support not brilliant but good enough, referenced enough, ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks ready to me -- BobTheIP editing as 92.29.28.146 (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Per above; good article, well referenced.  Nixinova  T  C  03:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Support; as noted on the article talk page I was acquainted with him (and, indeed, I took the picture). Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

English Premier League

Article: 2017–18 Premier League (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In association football, Manchester City win the English Premier League.
News source(s): Guardian, BBC
Nominator: Yorkshiresky (talk • give credit)

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

Nominator's comments: City's fifth title. yorkshiresky (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose needs a prose summary. Right now the only prose is about sleeve sponsorship and who was promoted and relegated last season Harambe Walks (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment do we have an EPL article which has a suitable summary? I would find it quite a challenge to summarise hundreds and hundreds of matches adequately... We don't demand that of Superbowl or MLB articles because they have playoffs and finals, so applying it to a nine-month long season with hundreds of matches seems odd, particularly as, by the nature of this ITN nom, any summary will focus on Man City and ignore the rest of the division. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support a few missing refs about arm band sponsors but I don't care. Going forward, it might be nice to bold the winning teams season article. [1] is a good example -- minus the referencing issues. 2015–16 Premier League has a summary, but generally agree with TRM above. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Question I honestly do not know, is this "in the news" now that Man City has clinched it or in May when all the games have been played? What matters more to fans, the "winner" or the conclusion of the season? --LaserLegs (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    It's news now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Needs at least a basic prose summary of the season. Doesn't need much, a paragraph or two summing up the season would suffice. It doesn't even need to be cited. If this is met you can consider this a support. AIRcorn (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Support Added a very basic prose summary. It is hard to cover all possibilities as every other position could still change before the end of the season. It would also be a pretty boring read if we did. However it is just enough and comparable to other sports articles that have been featured. AIRcorn (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Very list-y.  Nixinova  T  C  03:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I thought we established that league champions are posted at the end of the competition, not at the point of clinching (see Six Nations last month)? I actually prefer the latter, but we should be consistent. ghost 12:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: ITNR explicitly states that events are posted at the conclusion of the tournament, not when leads become unassailable. Given that the Premier League is the only domestic competition on there, we shouldn't have a problem of them all finishing at once. It's unclear to me whether it's better to wait or to post now, but the rules as written are to wait until the final game has been played and all positions are resolved. Modest Genius talk 12:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
FYI: I've enter a nomination to change the rule over at ITNR. ghost 16:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, City are champions, but let's post it when the season is over, because at the moment the article isn't complete. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The EPL is generally posted when the champions are known (see 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 postings), provided a season summary is given (see 2017 nomination) - like in motorsport articles. Of course, consensus can change in this or following cases. Fuebaey (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

RD: Kenneth Matiba

Article: Kenneth Matiba (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Ammarpad (talk • give credit)
Updater: Deor (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: Kenyan politician. Article is not that great (as usual) but it is sufficient. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

RD: Vittorio Taviani

Article: Paolo and Vittorio Taviani (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: AleCapHollywood (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: Referencing issues. Italian film-maker. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose I'm going to say right off the bat that I don't mind him only being half an article, but I do mind most of it being unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Barely any references at all. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Walter Fink

Article: Walter Fink (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [2]
Nominator and updater: Gerda Arendt (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.

 Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] 2018 Grand National

Article: 2018 Grand National (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Tiger Roll wins the Grand National horse race.
Alternative blurb: ​Tiger Roll wins the Grand National horse race in the event's smallest field since 1999.
Alternative blurb II: ​In horse racing, Tiger Roll wins the Grand National
News source(s): Sportinglife
Nominator: Ammarpad (talk • give credit)
Updater: MaxBrowne (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Mobile mundo (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

 –Ammarpad (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support ITN/R, C-class article, looks okay.  Nixinova  T  C  07:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Needs references for summary and all tables. Stephen 07:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Stephen plus no actual prose about the race itself. Nowhere near close. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sports are not news of any significance, particularly obscure ones such as horse racing. Sandstein 16:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    Another pointed and irrelevant comment; this is ITNR, so if you object to its inclusion on notability grounds, do something about it there rather than make such unhelpful comments here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (ec) OK, to my surprise, WP:ITNSPORTS does seem to assume that sports and this horse race are relevant news stories, but on the other hand this is just silly, so I'm abstaining from sports ITNs from now on. Sandstein 16:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Good to know. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The horse races at ITNR are very arbitrary. Nothing egregious, but many more prestigious races (Ascot, Preakness, Dubai WC) missing. Oppose this on the lack of refs. 75.188.224.208 (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know about this race but 150,000 people gather to watch the Kentucky Derby, a two minute race, live every year. hardly "obscure". One man's "obscure" event is another's most important. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, given this horse race is held in "little old England" with a population of around a sixth or less of the United States, and according to the Financial Times, the 2016 race (for instance) had " 70,000 spectators and a global television audience of 600m". So anyone trying to make any point about this being obscure, or not amongst the most viewed or most relevant to our readers is clearly not in touch with the reality of the situation, assuming we believe what at least one reliable source is telling us. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment had to orange tag race overview section. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Why doesn't the horse have a standalone article?--WaltCip (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
    Someone created a stub. I've added altblurb2. Modest Genius talk 12:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The orange tag seems to have been addressed. Marking ready. Modest Genius talk 10:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    I don't know who removed the Ready, but just taking a look, where is the prize money breakdown referenced? I can find plenty of sources to back up the finishing order etc, but not the prizes. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    In fact, this primary source seems to contradict the information currently in the table, so that's a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    The prize quoted there look like the 2017 figures and I'm not sure that's a primary source - this one is the race's official website [3]. I've added a citation to the Racing Post result which confirms the finishing order and prize money. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    Are we really holding this up for a minor disagreement regarding the source for a trivial part of the article? Just delete that column if it's problematic; the article hardly needs it. Modest Genius talk 12:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Still no comments almost two days since the problem seems to have been fixed. Last time I marked this ready it was removed, so I'm marking it [needs attention]. As far as I can tell the issues have been fixed (I don't have access to the Racing Post article but will assume good faith). Modest Genius talk 10:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I've addressed the one CN tag. Looks good to go for me. --LukeSurl t c 10:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 11:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

April 14

Portal:Current events/2018 April 14
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
  • A storm blasts central US with heavy snow, winds, and hail, forcing flight cancellations, creating treacherous road conditions and killing at least three people. (ABC News)
  • The US Navy concludes its investigation into the October crash of a T-45C Goshawk military training jet in Tennessee that killed both on board, concluding pilot error caused the accident. (Navy Times)
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports

[Closed] RD: Hal Greer

Stale. Stephen 04:10, 17 April 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: Hal Greer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USA Today
Nominator: Muboshgu (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: Died April 14, but not announced until April 16, so should it go there? Anyway, the article is far from postable now and may not get there in time. I'll aim for DYK if I can't get it here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 16 April 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: David Buckel

Article: David Buckel (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian
Nominator: Pawnkingthree (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: Prominent LGBT rights lawyer. Article created after death but I don’t think notability is an issue here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support article is okay, notability does seem mostly about the death, but there's probably just enough there otherwise to allow it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Well sourced article with sufficient length for a newly created one. Well done. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I wish new noms would get consistently added at the top. Would make life much easier. -- BobTheIP editing as 92.29.28.146 (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: Reactions to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal

Clear, strong consensus against posting. Stormy clouds (talk) 09:29, 15 April 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: Reactions to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
Nominator: 2.28.13.227 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Receiving daily updates in the news for weeks 2.28.13.227 (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Only a few edits since the first few days of April, and no new diplomatic expulsions have occurred this month. Teemu08 (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not really "ongoing". And this has been posted over and over to the extent it is now banal story. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongest oppose These cruft filled "reactions to" articles are a blight on Wikipedia. And there aren't significant updates meriting ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This was ages ago and is mostly finished.  Nixinova  T  C  20:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose and would suggest merging/deletion of that article back to the main topic. "Reaction" articles should be more than just quote farms which that one is. Reactions should only be included if there's actual "actions" tied to it, just not strong words. --Masem (t) 20:30, 14 April 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: Miloš Forman

Article: Miloš Forman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (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: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Amadeus director. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Support very good article -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.227 (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Very well done on fixing up the article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 18:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] 2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs

Article: 2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A US-led coalition launches a military attack against Syria.
Alternative blurb: ​US and allies launch strikes on Syria chemical weapons sites
Alternative blurb II: ​The US, UK and France have have bombed multiple government targets in Syria targeting alleged chemical weapons sites.
Alternative blurb III: ​The United States, along with the UK and France, bomb multiple government targets in Syria in response to a chemical attack.
Alternative blurb IV: ​The United States, the United Kingdom and France bomb alleged Syrian chemical weapons sites in response to the suspected chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria.
News source(s): BBC among many others
Nominator: Power~enwiki (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Obviously pre-mature to post in its current state, but the title and content should stabilize in a few hours once news coverage happens. The importance should be obvious. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The existing title is marginally better ("American-led" is of questionable accuracy, though "coalition" is vague) and that article was created first; if you don't want to move your contributions to the other article, hopefully an admin can hist-merge and move them for you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Coalition is of questionable accuracy, no news source has stated that CJTF-OIR is involved. News stories throughout the week has shown that the US reached out to UK and France. Nice4What (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Coalition refers to the obvious fact that more than one country is involved. To be perfectly clear, it would be irrational to argue about this much longer; do not disrupt editing by insisting on a content fork. Regardless of whether you are right or wrong about the title, there should be one article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment- Support the first article (2018 coalition military action against Syria) created on the subject as an alternative, as it was created first and has been edited by multiple editors. A merge is also a possibility.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Given this is in response to the suspected chemical attack, it might make sense to combine said blurbs. No comment yet on the article. --Masem (t) 02:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
If there is wording for a blurb mentioning Douma chemical attack, I'll support that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Big news.  Nixinova  T  C  02:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment the article is now move-protected at 2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs, and I believe everything discussed above redirects there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The proxy war escalates. 99.253.147.101 (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb II only. We need to name the three countries if we post this.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
    Just to be clear, I oppose all the other blurbs.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Leaning Support The article is in reasonable shape right now. But might need some update on impact and casualties as detail will emerge. I searched the news sources, there isn't a lot yet. HaEr48 (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, please. Can we have some actual world news on the front page for once, as opposed to the usual fare of obscure sports trophies and vehicle crashes? Sandstein 05:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality Again, reaction sections broken out by country with just statements are not approprate. It can be a lot cleaner and terser here. --Masem (t) 05:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb II only The coalition of countries directly attacking the Syrian government is unfathomably important. Russia has already threatened retaliation, which if possible should also be mentioned. Continue to update this blurb as events unfold; reactions from other major countries in the region could rapidly escalate the situation. I would also like to add that we should not simply refer to the United Kingdom and France as "its [the United States] allies" in the blurb. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Çomment Updated altblurb III ?.  Nixinova  T  C  07:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Alt 3. It has both articles so we can display on ITN and remove the single chemical attack. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment President Trump mentioned France before the UK in his address. Should we do the same?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
For what reason should we order our blurb or write the article based on what Trump said/how he said it? 331dot (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Did Macron support this before May?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Is that why Trump ordered the other countries as he did? Genuine question. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The report I read said that Trump noted it as "Britain, France and the United States", presumably to shift some of blame for the now inevitable slew of terror attacks towards Europe and away from the US. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Nope. "A combined operation with the armed forces of France and the United Kingdom".Zigzig20s (talk) 09:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
NOPE, "The nations of Britain, France, and the United States of America have marshalled their righteous power against barbarism and brutality," President Trump said in an address to the nation from the White House at about 21:00 local time (02:00 BST). BBC. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Either way, see User:AusLondonder's comment below.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I've given up caring already. If we're unable to post this because we can't work out what order to put the UK and France after the United States, I give up. §|The Rambling Man]] (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
User:The Rambling Man: "The French president playing a leading role in pushing for these strikes", circa 3:20-3:25.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Would be highly ironic if the possible starting point of a possible nuclear WW3 weren't mentioned in the In the news category.--Adûnâi (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - with the proviso we use the second blurb. Oppose otherwise. Also wonder if it would be better to mention France second after the U.S. It makes sense alphabetically and France appears to have made a more substantial contribution to the attack than the UK. Weak support because this is just the latest minor instalment in a very long-running war. AusLondonder (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support article is okay, but by no means should we use the term "coalition", it's really just the US, France and the UK. Or maybe don't even mention that, the BBC are calling them "western powers"... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Definitely not "western powers"--too vague. It's the US, France and the UK.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read and then edit the target article then, and email the BBC!! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment if posted, it probably needs to draw in the currently posted chemical attack, i.e. "... in response to the suspected chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria."... We don't need to blurbs about essentially the same news item. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - But I do support TRMs suggestion. No need for two blurbs.BabbaQ (talk) 09:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted using alt blurb 3 as a basis, and combining with previous blurb about the suspected chemical attack. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] April 14th Budapest protests

Not significant. Stephen 22:48, 16 April 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: Hungarian parliamentary election, 2018 (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified

I'm not much of a Wikipedia editor, so I don't know the proper procedure for getting things into current events, but I think tens of thousands of people protesting against election results[1][2] is notable, but I'm also admittedly biased because I think the goings-on of countries that silence their media are important to note in global news. Would appreciate input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:33C0:6A80:5D:8F16:47D9:4ED1 (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Courtesy templetization. Isa (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Not even it's own article.  Nixinova  T  C  07:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose if this was significant enough, per Nixinova, I'd expect to see an article about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 15 April 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.

April 13

Portal:Current events/2018 April 13
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

[Closed] RD: Art Bell

Stale. Stephen 03:18, 17 April 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: Art Bell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [4] [5]
Nominator: Godsy (talk • give credit)
Updater: Derkalurpse (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: The creator and longtime host of Coast to Coast AM, a radio program which now has a cumulative audience of 2.75 million (still significant, but much less than under Bell) and is heard internationally on over 600 radio stations. I am not sure if this meets the requirements to be posted because I have not participated here often as of late. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 16:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unfortunately it’s a very long article with many unsourced statements that will need to be referenced before posting. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per P2K3. Referencing is dreadful. I hope this gets cleaned up so we can post it. Art Bell was a truly iconic figure in the world of weird and fringe. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose tagged. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – If you haven't paid much or any attention to this article aside from now, most of the "dreadful parts" appear to have been POV-forked onto this article from the Coast article as part of an ongoing effort to rid the latter of anything not pertaining to the program's current agenda. Your first clue should have been the fact that the program has been in wide syndication for approximately a quarter century, yet the article lacks a history section. Merely mentioning "East of the Rockies" and "West of the Rockies" without bothering to explain its purpose, namely the fact that the callers in the program's early days under Bell were heavily weighted towards the West Coast (specifically California and Nevada), with Bell deciding to give the eastern two-thirds of the U.S. equal footing with the western third for access to the call-in lines, should be viewed as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE violation. Evidently, judging from how long this has been going on, the community is just fine with a social media site for the program's producers masquerading as an encyclopedia entry. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that this article is unfit to be posted on the main page. I think that's been established.--WaltCip (talk) 11:08, 16 April 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.

[Closed] Kathua rape case of 8 year old

Clear consensus to not post. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 13 April 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: Kathua rape case (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The brutal gang rape and murder of an eight-year old girl has sparked outrage and anger across India.
News source(s): Original BBC article BBC followup
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: DiplomatTesterMan (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: PamD (talk • give credit) and Sachi bbsr (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Brutal rape of 8 year old. Making headlines due to protests for arresting those accused. Also it has "become a religious flashpoint in an already polarised Indian region." Sherenk1 (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb in its current state. Sensationalized language.--WaltCip (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Not an opinion, an actual question: We seem to keep seeing lurid crime stories popping up out of India, and I'm starting to fear the creation a stereotype. I would imagine this sort of thing does happen with some regularity worldwide. In some places it's local news, in others the story is censored to avoid bad press. Might this be a case of selective journalism? Likewise with the public response, which can be both fed by sensationalism and ignored or inflated to serve tabloid purposes. GCG (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I partially concur with GCG's assessment. The selection of ITN stories from India has not been flattering lately. However, I think this is symptomatic of ITN as a whole, as ITN has a very strong bias towards disaster or crime stories.--WaltCip (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This nomination appears to be a case of trying to right great wrongs. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Subject is undoubtedly a vicious crime. But vicious crimes occur daily all over the world. We generally try to steer clear of these kinds of hyper sensationalized tabloid press stories. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Commment The original BBC story has more detail and reporting. Its in Kashmir rather than just 'India' and involves land politics, corruption of officials etc etc. Its not just 'local news'. Rape as a nasty crime is bad enough. Rape used as a terror tactic to ethnically cleanse a region is very different. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Reading through, I understand the severity of the situation in that Kashmir region. But, however, I'm having difficulty trying to determine how extensive these protests are (which is the only reason this should be posted as a blurb per both the news stories and this nom). it's difficult to tell if is tens, hundreds, or thousands of people, and the lack of specificity generally suggests these are small-scale protests, which we generally do not post. --Masem (t) 14:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose While indisputably a gruesome crime, isolated incidents such as this are usually not appropriate for ITN. If the protests became highly violent, or if the crime itself were politically motivated that would be another story, but as far as I can tell neither is the case. EternalNomad (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. We can't go posting every rape or murder conviction, let alone every trial. Horrible for those affected, but sensationalist reporting is not for ITN. This is local tabloid news. Modest Genius talk 18:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose everything that needs to be said has already been said. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:15, 13 April 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.

April 12

Portal:Current events/2018 April 12
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime
  • 2018 Hamburg stabbing attack
    • A man fatally stabs his ex-wife and his one-year-old daughter at a crowded subway platform in central Hamburg, Germany. (Washington Post)
  • Terrorism in Iraq
    • Counterterror forces in Ninevah arrest and charge four suspected Islamic State members over a fatal bombing at a market in regional capital Mosul last year. Separately, authorities discover an unidentified corpse in Mosul thought to be connected. (al-Bawaba News)
    • A mass grave containing burnt bodies is found in al-Tarabisha, Anbar. (Iraqi News)
  • Backpage CEO Carl Ferrer pleads guilty to conspiracy and money laundering and agrees to assist in the prosecution of other Backpage employees, including co-founders Michael Lacey and James Larkin, who were charged with several counts of human trafficking on April 6 after the site was seized by the FBI. (The Wall Street Journal)

Science and technology

[Closed] RD: Zoran Krasić

Stale. Stephen 03:17, 17 April 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: Zoran Krasić (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Novosti
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give credit)
Updater: CJCurrie (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: Serbian and Yugoslavian politician. EternalNomad (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support The article looks good but it's impossible to double-check the references. They're either in a foreign language I can't read, or offline.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per above. The problem here is that unless we have someone who can verify sources, we have a hell of a lot of good faith to assume that those references aren't just completely unsuitable. I'd like someone conversant in the language and who is a trusted Wikipedian to let us know that we're not about to post something horrifically abusive to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - there's no need to fear foreign language sources. Google translate now works quite well and I could easily verify his death and other biographical information from this link. -Zanhe (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    I don't trust Google Translate at all. That's just me. If you found English language information on this individual, hopefully you added it to the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Google Translate is not good enough for publishing, but for verifying information, it is quite useful. -Zanhe (talk) 22:40, 16 April 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: John Melcher

Article: John Melcher (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post
Nominator: Power~enwiki (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: Death of a former US Senator, though not one that's been in the news any time recently. The article currently is almost a stub; hopefully the obit coverage will allow it to be expanded. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Delay posting until Yang Gui gets on the main page in the RD ticker.--WaltCip (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No more need to delay. Yang Gui was already posted (for a short period of time). -Zanhe (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - important politician. Article is fine. Nomination is under the wrong date, but no big deal. -Zanhe (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
moved to April 12 power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support although there is an [according to whom] tag in there which, ideally (especially for a BLP) should be resolved before posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The issue has been resolved. Marked as ready. -Zanhe (talk) 23:45, 14 April 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: