Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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.

Mudflow damage in Santa Barbara County, California
Mudflow damage in Santa Barbara County

How to nominate an item[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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 header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • 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...[edit]

  • ... 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[edit]

January 20[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 January 20
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents

Afrin Offensive[edit]

Article: Operation Olive Branch (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Turkish war planes have launched air strikes on Kurdish positions in northern Syria, in a move likely to cause tensions with the US.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Beshogur (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Mingus79 (talk • give credit) and EkoGraf (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Either we use as blurb or ongoing. Sherenk1 (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

2018 United States federal budget[edit]

Articles: United States federal government shutdown of 2018 (talk, history) and 2018 United States federal budget (talk, history)
Blurb: The United States federal government shuts down after the United States Senate fails to pass a budget bill.
Alternative blurb: The United States federal government shuts down after the United States Senate fails to pass a budget bill.
Alternative blurb II: ​The United States federal government shuts down after the Senate fails to pass a temporary funding bill.
News source(s): The New York Times
Nominator: Shhhhwwww!! (talk • give credit)

 Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Premature They could strike a deal at the literal 11th hour. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    They have an hour. Lol. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    Literally, yes. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I did see we posted the last shutdown in 2013 [1]. That said, there was a separate article for that shutdown, and I see no reason not to expect the same here. Yes, it doesn't make sense to create it until the shutdown is confirmed, but I fully expect that before I could support this. --Masem (t) 04:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support when it happens an hour from now, obviously. Davey2116 (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: I have tweaked the blurb per Muboshgu and Masem. Davey2116 (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Abomination May shut down? This is an internal fiscal legislative matter that would never be published for any other country. It is also crystal balling, and treats "politics" (i.e., there are enough votes to pass a budget, except for the US "fillibuster") as if they were real things, and not power manoeuvres among non-productive (save for hot air) parasites living at public expense. Bring back the house of Hanover! μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    What a classy comment... Were you not the person who recently was up in arms about "using defamatory language against BLP's because doing so is all the rage in certain circles?" I would say calling people parasites fits well into that category...91.49.70.56 (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support When the shut-down occurs; may shut down is obviously not enough, but actually shutting down is. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It's past midnight in DC. They will have shut down now. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 05:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Despite the fear mongering, this only affects things such as national parks, museums, etc. Anything of importance to conducting life continues to operate as usual. This affects nobody outside of America, and very few within America. - Floydian τ ¢ 06:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    • That is true over the weekend, but if the shutdown lasts into Monday it will be highly disruptive. Last time 800,000 employees were furloughed. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 06:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
      • But if I may quote that article: "non-essential" - Floydian τ ¢ 06:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Not just national parks (which actually Trump wishes to continue) are effected. Moody's Analytics estimated that a shutdown of three to four weeks would cost the economy about $55 billion. Lost wages of Federal employees will amount to about $1 billion a week.[179] Goldman Sachs estimated that a three-week shutdown would reduce the gross domestic product of the United States by 0.9%.[180] According to the Los Angeles Times, a two-week shutdown would reduce GDP growth in the fourth quarter by 0.3 to 0.4 percentage points. By comparison, the GDP has grown by less than 2% in 2013.[181] Many programs are affected. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. The two blurbs as provided were incorrect, since the bill that failed was a continuing resolution and not a budget resolution. I struck these and have provided a corrected version. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 06:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - In the news, worldwide. Article improvement and expansion at acceptable levels, with competent Wikipedians at work. Jusdafax (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - major news, shutdown has begun. Article is decent. -Zanhe (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this dominates American news and is widely reported elsewhere as well. Banedon (talk) 10:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Don't see the point of posting pointless political maneuvering of a country which in the end will not result in any extraordinary problems or changes in status quo.75.73.150.255 (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm aware that we posted the last shutdown in 2013, but I wonder if we should be discussing posting this to Ongoing or only posting the end of the shutdown(depending on how long it goes). The longer it goes, the more damage it will do(being the weekend relatively little of the federal government will be open until Monday). 331dot (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Ongoing seems reasonable as the article should be updated as the shutdown goes on; the end may also be more reasonable as only then will we know exactly how newsworthy it becomes. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The term "government shutdown" is hyperbolic. In reality, as discussed above, only some government services deemed non-essential are affected. The government itself and other essential services do not shut down, as the term implies. So if this were to be posted (and I don't think it should be), a better blurb would be "Some non-essential United States federal government services shut down after the Senate fails to pass a temporary funding bill" Chrisclear (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
That is the term both reliable sources and the government itself uses(the White House is trying to term it the "Schumer Shutdown"). 331dot (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
My issue with the nomination is not with the term "government shutdown" per se, but rather the importance of this news item. That is, only some government services deemed non-essential are affected. Regarding the blurb, the phrase "Some non-essential United States federal government services shut down" is more accurate, and helps explains things better to non-Americans who are unfamiliar with the concept of US government "shutdowns" which do not involve the government shutting down, as the term implies. Readers shouldn't have to click on a link to find out that the government doesn't actually shut down during a "shutdown". Chrisclear (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Does ITN even post news anymore? This project is bollocks and its existence could be done away with. It seems like for five or six blurbs at a time, it is consistently a week behind. Anything that is ever legitimately in the news is never on the front page of Wikipedia, and obscure crap like a guy winning a darts contest stays on for ten days at a time. Fifth most popular website on the internet and you guys posture for content on the Main Page worse than the U.S. congress for a bill when all you have to do is just look at headlines. That being said it meets the merits of being on the front page it being, you know, news. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 11:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Moe Epsilon: ITN is not meant to be a news ticker or otherwise updated constantly, but is intended as a way to highlight quality articles about subjects that are in the news that people might be looking for. It also motivates the improvement of articles. ITN does not parrot the press but bases consensus on the merits of the event and quality of the article. If you wish to find or participate in generating current, breaking news, WikiNews is available. No one forces you to come to ITNC if you disagree with what we are about. If you feel ITN should be a news ticker or post subquality articles, you are free to propose that. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The point is, WP:NOTNEWS has been a staple of Wikipedia since inception for creating content and establishing what Wikipedia is and isn't. Despite this, some of the most discussed, heavily debated-about stuff on Wikipedia is what we should feature as 'news' for the Main Page. I don't want, nor should we be a roving ticker of news or try to be WikiNews. Nor, if you're going to attempt news, should we be producing piss-poor news that is actually not news. We already highlight quality articles with featured articles. If the point is attracting editors to newly-created or developing articles, then it doesn't do it's job because we never feature them in time for it being in the news (not to mention, they are usually protected from new editors editing them anyways). What is the point? All I see is endless debate about things a limited number of people care about being presented as 'news' when articles that are actually going to have an audience get attention regardless of whether we consider it newsworthy. We might as well replace "In the News" with "Ten Most Visited Articles Today" and there's your news. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 11:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
You are free to propose that though I think it's been tried and failed many times. Even merely renaming ITN to better reflect that it is not meant to have breaking, current news has been proposed and failed. "Actually going to have an audience" is relative and would preclude the possibility of users learning something about a new subject that they might not have been aware of. However, further debate about the meaning of ITN should take place on the talk page if you are interested in attempting to change what we are about. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Moe Epsilon: Everyone knows ITN is broken. Unfortunately there's no consensus on what to change it to, with the result we're stuck with the status quo. Banedon (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree changes could be made but not that it's "broken", but everyone has their own opinion. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Which I guess perfectly summarizes the U.S. government shutdown as well, I guess. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 11:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Technically domestic, but big enough to have major repercussions. United States federal government shutdown of 2018 appears slim but adequate. Suggest posting as a normal blurb, then consider ongoing if its still occurring when it drops to the bottom of the box. --LukeSurl t c 12:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Floydian amd ChrisClear. This doesn't even affect the majority of people in the USA, let alone anywhere else. Political posturing is not for ITN. Black Kite (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    • This is my concern - this is a combination of the norm of partisan politics ("We won't pass the budget unless you also pass this") combined with the bitter resentment the press has against the current state of the Congress. I'm not dead certain on opposing this, but this is the type of news bias where we should remember that we are not a newspaper in general. Yes, there is a shutdown, but we should wait to see what the effects actually are until deeming it significant. --Masem (t) 16:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We would consider something like he US defaulting on its debt/interest paybacks to the Federal Reserve and other bond holders to actually be significant. The shutdown of a few federal services in one nation for what, according to historical context, will only last up to a couple weeks, does not even compare and should not be considered to be worldwide important. If the shutdown lasts for more than a few weeks, and stories begin to arise of actual impacts from this, then I would reconsider this decision. Otherwise, it's letting our platform be used as free media for congressional members who are trying to make this seem like a big deal. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

2018 Blind Cricket World Cup[edit]

Article: 2018 Blind Cricket World Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: India defeated Pakistan by 2 wickets to secure their 2nd Blind Cricket World Cup title.
Alternative blurb: India defeated Pakistan by 2 wickets to secure their 2nd Blind Cricket World Cup title.
Alternative blurb II: India defeated Pakistan by 2 wickets to secure their 2nd Blind Cricket World Cup title.
News source(s): News18
Nominator: Abishe (talk • give credit)

 Abishe (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment. Typically sports related articles need a prose description of the final match, the article currently just lists results. I would also like to see wider coverage of this, even in just India where cricket is big. I do see the Indian PM commented on this, so.... 331dot (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

January 19[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 January 19
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections

Agni-V[edit]

Article: Agni-V (talk, history)
Blurb: ​India successfully test-fires its Agni-V intercontinental ballistic missle
News source(s): [2] [3] [4]
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)
Updater: 103.248.93.171 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: 75.102.128.35 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Up to ITN whether or not to mention that this ICBM is nuclear-capable. Banedon (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • It's the fifth test occurred so far so doesn't seem that significant. When Agni V becomes operational seems more of an event - The Agni V is expected to undergo a final test later in 2018 before being made operational. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, but I'd also be okay with posting this when Agni-V is made operational, per Galobtter. Davey2116 (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] [Ongoing] Cape Town drought[edit]

Closing for now given consensus against. Re-open when the water does actually run out, as this seems to be the point of contention for most who oppose (myself included). Stormy clouds (talk) 15:32, 19 January 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: 2015-present Cape Town drought (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): Time, ABC
Nominator: Notecardforfree (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: The Mayor of Cape Town recently announced that the City will run out of water by late April. I updated the article, and I think everything is referenced. Notecardforfree (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Indeed ongoing and escalating apparently. Article seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless there's something to indicate that there's any particular significance. While it may be the first time this has happened in Cape Town, water supplies to major cities running low is a fairly routine occurrence; the 2014–17 Brazilian drought and the 2011–17 California drought are probably the ones that will be most familiar to readers, while readers in Australia and the south of England will be wearily familiar with the phrase "hosepipe ban". Besides, this kind of thing generally takes years to resolve as people change their water-use habits, desalination plants and diversionary aqueducts are built, and people wait for the aquifers to refresh. ‑ Iridescent 08:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing as the odds of incremental updates seem remote; I might support posting the actual shutoff of municipal water services (when/if it happens) as that seems very unusual to me. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It is unprecedented for a city of 4 million to be within less than 3 months of having to switch off municipal water. I'm not sure what restrictions were in place in Brazil or California, but this is well beyond a hosepipe ban - that has been in place for ages, with a wide range of severe restrictions and residents restricted to 50 litres of water per day. This has been featured in many international news sources including Newsweek, CNN, Forbes, Al Jazeera, BBC, Daily Mail UK, Time Magazine. Zaian (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support it's clearly notable, but I am not sure about when to post this. Now? Or in April? Or sometime in between? 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B98F:4F80:7AF7:9426 (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose making a claim that may or may not come true in three months time is clearly not something that warrants posting now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose now. ITN is not for speculation - if it happens and/or when some drastic action related to it is taken then that will be the point at which it is suitable for posting here. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose If they do have to announce a drought I would reconsider, but this is primarily a statement to get citizens and businesses into action to help avoid it, and not an actual event. --Masem (t) 14:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Thryduulf and Masem.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I just want to let everyone know that I am still working on this article. It needs a bit of updating with regards to its political impact and I would like to add a graph as well. I am also planning to get an aerial photograph of one of the largest dams to better illustrate this article. As a resident of Cape Town I can say that this issue is still evolving so I would hold off on publishing it for now. I would wait until the taps run dry (day zero) which should be in April some time. If the taps don't run dry at all then I would be very happy.--Discott (talk) 15:11, 19 January 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] New Zealand prime minister announces she's pregnant[edit]

Boldly closing this early per SNOW instead to wait for flurry of pile on. I am afraid, this kind of gossip will likely never get to the main page in the offing–Ammarpad (talk) 02:22, 19 January 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: Jacinda Ardern (talk, history)
Blurb: ​New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announces she is pregnant, with the baby due in June.
News source(s): [5]
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)
Updater: Paora (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Nominating this for Schwede66 on the talk page. Banedon (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. World leaders have been pregnant before. 331dot (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This might have been ITN worthy a couple of centuries ago if we were discussing a queen and possible heir. But this is the 21st century and ITN is not a society page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is not a tabloid magazine. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:13, 19 January 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.

January 18[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 January 18
Business and economy
  • The Emirates airline announces an order for up to 36 Airbus A380s. Emirates is already the aircraft's largest operator, with a fleet of over 100. (BBC)
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Nancy Richler[edit]

Article: Nancy Richler (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): http://www.cbc.ca/books/nancy-richler-author-of-the-imposter-bride-dead-at-60-1.4493933
Nominator: MurielMary (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.

 MurielMary (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Please tag them. As I read it, every sentence (occasionally two sentences) has a reference, and it has already been established here at ITN that it's unnecessary for every single sentence to have a citation. MurielMary (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I have changed my !vote rationale. I took a closer look.BabbaQ (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Should now to ready to go. MurielMary (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Stansfield Turner[edit]

Article: Stansfield Turner (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post
Nominator: Ammarpad (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 CIA director, article fairly in good state –Ammarpad (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] 2018 Aktobe bus fire[edit]

Article: 2018 Kazakhstan bus fire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A bus fire in Aktobe Region, Kazakhstan kills 52 people.
News source(s): Reuters, BBC.
Nominator: LukeSurl (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Disasters of similar magnitude have been posted before, and the story has been picked up by various news organisations. As far as I can tell, no article on this existed, so I've created a stub here. I hope posting here might attract some editors to bring it to a reasonable standard. LukeSurl t c 12:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose as stub, and I'm struggling to imagine how much more can be reasonably added in the short term. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose barring the ability to expand this out. This is not an area of the world with great media coverage, so as TRM says, to expand more beyond what's there is unlikely. But I would agree if this can get to a decent size and quality, the incident is of ITN-appropriateness. --Masem (t) 14:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    • It's quite possible to expand with Russian-language sources, for example, as I see a decent coverage there. So pending expansion this is supportable due to sheer death number, comparable with other accidents and attacks we post. Brandmeistertalk 14:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    • While the article has been updated, I have concern about the use of a non-free image for the article. It's not that it is gruesome (there are likely the bodies still aboard but the are not visible) but it's just from this photo a bus on fire. We normally use free images of the vehicle type in question in such accident articles; barring that, no non-free should be used if the scene is as "normal" for the type of incident. -Masem (t) 15:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I tend to agree. I'm not sure what encyclopedic value this alleged fair use adds, after all there are plenty of images of that type of bus and it doesn't take a great deal of imagination (if one hasn't actually seen a bus fire) to imagine what a bus on fire looks like. If it was a really unusual demise (e.g. it was sliced in half by a helicopter rotor blade) then I could see how it would be fair use and add EV, as it stands it's just a bus on fire. If fair use is extended to this, then we'll be scraping Bestgore.com for multiple "fair use" images of multiple tragedies. I don't think that's the right way ahead, so this image shouldn't be in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
        • I was surprised when it was added (the infobox is the only major part of the article that I'm not responsible for), though I'm not super-familiar with fair use's boundaries. I've replaced this image with a map, though I won't personally be formally disputing the fair use of the image. If the editor who added the image decides to restore it, I'm not going to revert it back. --LukeSurl t c 17:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
          • As ITN rarely has to worry about non-free content in the nominated articles (at least, as an issue to contest), we still should be aware this is part of a quality of the article, as NFC is a core content tenet like BLP. We don't want to encourage frivolous use of non-free media. The image would currently fail WP:NFCC#1 (nothing unusual about this accident that a picture of the same type of bus that could be obtained freely could illustrate) and WP:NFCC#8 in that there's nothing documented special about the visual image of the bus on fire. If it image is added back, then this article is not to the quality of ITN. --Masem (t) 17:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
            • I uploaded it under fair use just to be safe bc its a huge piece of news, but I'm pretty sure it's public domain since its from the Kazakhstan government and the extent of use on major commercial newspaper websites, some even without attribution (under the PD-Kazakhstan-exempt tag).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
              • Well sure, if you can prove PD then no worries. Until then, it's not justifiably fair use. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
                • Created a File talk page here. Can someone who knows more about copyright help? I thought it would meet the official document (as it is part of the investigation) parameter and the news parameter, so wan't sure which one it was and din't want to leave uncategorized. I think its better to be too careful than not enough.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – There are fairly complete stories on BBC and Reuters, and other RS stories may be expected due to death toll. Concur with Brandmeister re significance. However, suggest article be renamed 2018 Kazakhstan bus fire. Sca (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The AFP have a bit more info. Would add myself but am likely to be offline for the rest of the day. —LukeSurl t c 18:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I found a computer and added it in. Practically, the article has everything that's currently in the English-language sources. --LukeSurl t c 19:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Indeed, and practically, it's still a stub. That's what I mean. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • There was a more expansive piece from RFERL this morning, and I've used this to expand out the article. I think this expands beyond stub-class and posting should be considered now. --LukeSurl t c 08:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support notable and ready to go. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B98F:4F80:7AF7:9426 (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support – The article is pretty thin all right, but due to number of casualties.... (Repeat suggested name change to 2018 Kazakhstan bus fire.) Sca (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - notability is clear, and the article, while short, is as long as possible. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support-High number of casualties. If it were a crash of this magnitude in a country like France or US, it would by headlines for weeks.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article has been expanded. Davey2116 (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Care to explain why? -Zanhe (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support high death toll. Article has been expanded. -Zanhe (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support from my original oppose. Really good work on the article, creators and editors have listened to the community, it's still a dead end as far as I can tell, nothing fundamental will actually change as a result of this incident, but I acknowledge it's a big death toll and a tragic outcome for a simple bus journey, and was definitely headline news, albeit fleetingly, on even the BBC. Good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

RD: Kashinath (actor)[edit]

Article: Kashinath (actor) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): IB TIMES, The News Minute
Nominator: Ammarpad (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 is being updated, some ancient tags were already attended to –Ammarpad (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose the prose is mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not even going to look at the article when his photo is a screencap and clearly a copyright infringement. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    Well, just tag it, remove it from the article, and then look at the article again! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Lol, so I wonder how you know photo exists, when you can't even look at the article. That aside, now the photo is removed. –Ammarpad (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Well in that case I'll oppose on sourcing. - Floydian τ ¢ 06:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

[Ready] RD: Peter Wyngarde[edit]

Article: Peter Wyngarde (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian
Nominator: MaxDextros (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.

  • Support Our article details the confusion of sources about the subject's birth date. As this seems to be well done, it's good to get this out there to help in explaining the matter to the world. We know from the case of Jimmy Wales that such dates can be difficult to agree and so it's good to have another detailed example. Andrew D. (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. In my view, the whole section on "Birth and family background" fails WP:SYNTH. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Reading that, all the accounts of his life prior to where it can be documented (1946) reads really funny, and I agree feels like synthesis from WP here. I see what sources do talk about this period all state he gave different accounts, so it might be better to reduce that part to less conjecturing. --Masem (t) 15:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not sufficiently referenced, and undue weight placed on the birth and family section. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support looks well referenced and in good shape. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I still see some CN tags, and the "undue weight" issue needs to be resolved before posting.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: the "Birth and family background" has been trimmed. Presumably "undue weight" can be resolved by consensus at the Talk page. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
No more CN tags. Please make your case at Talk:Peter Wyngarde is you still think there is WP:UNDUE for the "Birth and family background" section. Otherwise this could be posted. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE now dealt with. Previous opposers may wish to re-evaluate. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment still the tags (I placed) around the appearances which aren't verifiable within the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Much work has been done to expand the text, improve the referencing, and give greater balance to the article, so removing the tags. Any final requests? Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Mild support ah ga'ahn then. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Switching to Support now referencing has been much improved, including the filmography and TV credits, since I last checked. Great job.Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Great job! Greatly sourced indeed. @The Rambling Man: and @Martinevans123: shouldn't this nom be moved to January 15th as he died on that date?--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    Well, given all three sources used are published on 18 Jan, I'm fine with it being the date of most noted coverage, rather than absolute death date. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    "I said that without moving my lips". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

January 17[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 January 17
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

January 16[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 January 16
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

RD: Kingdon Gould Jr.[edit]

Article: Kingdon Gould Jr. (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Baltimore Sun
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 well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

[Ready for posting] RD: Bill Bain[edit]

Article: Bill Bain (consultant) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Boston Globe
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 well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - article has not been updated since his death to put activities into the past tense. MurielMary (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  • @MurielMary:: Fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    Would you be able to say why? Did you review the article? Are there elements you could suggest need improvement? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    not notable Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    Did you read the notes? 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. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

RD: Tyler Hilinski[edit]

Article: Tyler Hilinski (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Chicago Tribune, LA Times
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: It's a new article. I'll expand it some more today. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Question - keep in mind that NSPORTS does not consider college players notable by default, and if he committed suicide which is the only reason elevating this to notability, that would possibly fail BLPCRIME. --Masem (t) 14:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@Masem: I think I've found enough sources that predate his death to clear the WP:GNG bar. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm with Masem. Those sources seem to fall under WP:NCOLLATH's mention of "game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage." GCG (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that those are routine coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The first of those two links looks like a local news human interest piece that doesn't do anything to establish notability. The second is better, but if that's the only thing you've got that isn't routine (I haven't looked at any other sources in the article) then I'm not sure I wouldn't support an AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, this isn't the forum to discuss notability. If someone wants to take this to AfD, then we can do that, and this nom will be stale here. If nobody does that, we should be judging it here based on ITN/c merits. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The article is new for the purposes of RD, we need to evaluate if it is appropriate. If the article had existed well before this, I'd accept we had this article and presumed it was considered notable. But given the article was created on the news of his apparent suicide, which is something BLPCRIME strongly urges against, we should be evaluating if this is really an appropriate stand-alone topic. --Masem (t) 18:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Notability not established.--Comrade Comrade (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing wrong with the article (in fact far better than the usual stuff that appears in situations like this), but the fact that it was only created on the subject's death suggests that he may not have been particularly notable. The question we need to ask is - if he'd been run over by a bus, would we have an article? One could argue on both BLPCRIME and BLP1E grounds on this one. As regards the coverage, the second link provided above is local coverage of the Cougars (see the top of the page). On that basis - not that I would - I could create articles on half a dozen footballers for my local team that have never played a professional game. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Just a note that per ITN guidelines, opposes based on notability will likely be ignored. The appropriate way to dispute notability is to nominate for AFD. Mamyles (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Opposes on notability grounds are fine if it's a brand new article and therefore hasn't had a chance to be checked for such. That's simple logic. But regardless, my oppose is not "he's not notable", but "I'm really not sure if he is notable, is there anything that could change my mind on this?" rather than rushing straight off to AFD. Black Kite (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Exactly - that's why mine is not an outright oppose, just that on the current basis of "played high-school and some college with not an amazing record, and then appeared to committed suicide" is generally non-notable for WP, but that could be proven out otherwise. --Masem (t) 22:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment ITN is not a substitute for AFD. If you think the subject fails WP:N (or one of it's many sub-guidelines) take it to WP:AFD where it belongs. Being considered for AfD will disqualify the item from ITN and you'll have done your civic duty. The requirements for RD are clear, and opposes for "notability" ought to be ignored by any admin considering the item. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @CosmicAdventure: The point is that we are not sure if the subject fails WP:N, nominations at AFD where the nominator isn't sure tend to be frowned upon, and I (and presumably we) don't want to shut down the nomination if they are notable. Thryduulf (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
      • @Thryduulf: We finally killed "notability" discussions for RD, replacing them with "well, I'm not sure if it'll pass an AFD or not so I'll just raise doubts here" is the same thing. This nomination has been shut down, with two opposes for notability. Either an article fails WP:N or it doesn't, and WP:AFD is the place to find out. I belive you're all acting in good faith, but we simply cannot let RD discussions become AFD-lite. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
        • I completely respect the point here, but I have a different reading. The RFC would seem to suggest there is no longer a difference between ITN-level notability and GNG; if it's good enough for WP, it's good enough for ITN (RDs, that is). I don't believe that suggests we cannot make the GNG argument here. The ITN project adheres closer to WP guidelines than WP as a whole, because the size is more manageable. If an article does not meet GNG, it should not be posted to MP and it should be AFDed, but requiring the AFD is like trying to apply ITN standards to the whole site. AFDs are more work and they opening the nominator to criticism. The effect is that most who don't believe there is notability will just abstain altogether, which is exactly what has happened here: note zero support despite the article technically meeting the requirements. GCG (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
        • RD is based on the assumption that there was an existing article for sometime, thus notability was presumed. This article was created because of the death, so that RD assumption is not applicable. We can evaluate the notability of the topic here. --Masem (t) 14:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    Would you be able to say why? Did you review the article? Are there elements you could suggest need improvement? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    hate American football Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    Wow, okay, so that stands out and we can all remember it next time you make such a !vote! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jo Jo White[edit]

Article: Jo Jo White (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN
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 is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - looks good to go. Stormy clouds (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - RD ready.BabbaQ (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Marking Ready - Agree it is all set of posting. --Masem (t) 14:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. There were two uncited things I spotted, I've fixed one of them and the other is already tagged but it's not contentious and should be easy to source for someone who knows the topic so I didn't think it should stand in the way of posting. Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

New Mormon head[edit]

Article: Russell M. Nelson (talk, history)
Blurb: Russell M. Nelson becomes President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
News source(s): Newsweek, NPR, TIME
Nominator: Fuebaey (talk • give credit)
Updater: ChristensenMJ (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Jgstokes (talk • give credit)

 Fuebaey (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose - a minor branch of Christianity changes leadership. Does not bear any major significance to the greater world and is not ITN-worthy. I would read his novel, though. Stormy clouds (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
You can hardly describe the Mormons as 'minor'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Compared to the three major denominations - Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodox Christianity - yes, they are minor. Brandmeistertalk 10:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Just because it's minor in christianity doesn't mean it isn't without significance. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Weak oppose We did post the new head of the similarly-sized Church of England (Nov '12), so we should tread carefully here to avoid BIAS. This is a sect that has been subject to continual persecution (see vote #1 in this nom) since its inception. I think it would be appropriate to post the head of any church with over 10 MM adherents (subject to ITN and quality, of course). GCG (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
On second look, there's a bit too much uncited to post right now. Two CN tags, a few more graphs with no refs, and the positions section only cite 4 of 12 items. GCG (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • SupportWeak oppose large enough denomination with 15 millionish adherents. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Same as GreatCaesarGhost, reasonably well cited but missing citations in beginning two paragraphs of LDS church service and professional leadership. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I think there are a couple of sentences still without reference, but high enough. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support large enough denomination with 15 millionish adherents indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Galobtter.--Comrade Comrade (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality I'm neutral on this (I see both sides), but irrespective of that, the artilce is missing sources in several places particularly on positions and awards at the end. --Masem (t) 14:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Still neutral on this, but I agree the sourcing is no longer holding this up. --Masem (t) 22:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
      • You don't think 13 [citation needed] tags on a BLP should stop it being posted?? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I have removed a CN tag and updated the announcement of the presidency (the article still stated that the conference would take place on Tuesday). I will try to find sources for the pending CNs. –FlyingAce✈hello 14:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I have added sources for church service and positions – no CN tags remain as far as I can see. @Galobtter, GreatCaesarsGhost, and Masem: would you mind checking if there is anything unsourced that I may have missed? –FlyingAce✈hello 15:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that flips the script enough by my standards. Thanks for your work. GCG (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I have no doubts about the notability of this event. There are a handful of quality issues, but nothing that cannot be fixed with 5-15 minutes of work, and enough editors seem interested that I expect most of these will be cleared up within hours. Inatan (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - setting the bar at 15 million adherents being a sufficient number to post could set a poor precedent, given the fractured nature of just one religious sect. It would be an uphill struggle to argue against posting the mayor of New York on that basis, something which was snow-closed when it last arose. To grant religious stewardship greater significance over political and civic one is a clear invocation of bias and undue weight, and should be avoided. Football teams are also of significance to many, and we don't post managerial changes for them. Nelson has not become a head of state, and should not be treated as one. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The problem with this is we have and will continue to post the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Pope, of course, has a much larger flock, but AofC will get posted because of a strong pro-UK contingent amongst our editors. One voter may abstain from AofC while opposing this, or abstain from this while supporting AofC and claim innocence of bias. But when WP speaks with one voice, it is saying "mainstream church good, cult of freaks bad." 159.53.174.140 (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this is one of the more notable christian denominations. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:48EB:505A:CD60:28C7 (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as this affects 15 million people and is of little to (more likely) no significance outside of that sect. This represents 1/5 of one percent of the population. Likely of no significance outside of The Americas where Mormonism hasn't widely spread. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Stormy Clouds & Floydian. I searched for "Russell" on Google News and all but one of the first page dealt with other Russells. Banedon (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC) Switch to Neutral. Banedon (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Floydian.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per GCG. Davey2116 (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a large enough impact to the English speaking world... seems more like an advertisement for their religion than anything if we posted this. I can't think of how this is possibly news worthy enough for our Main Page when it isn't on any newspaper's front page. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Mormonism is the fastest growing Christian denomination. Of the 15.9 mormons, 8.3 million live outside of the U.S. For comparison, the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria has similar size. When its last leader, Pope Tawadros II of Alexandria, was selected in 2012, that fact was posted to ITN. I think the mormons deserve the same. Nsk92 (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Obvious oppose the quality of the article is insufficient, particularly as a BLP, to go anywhere near the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Oppose Setting aside the issue of quality, religious news is woefully underrepresented on ITN. But even when limited to Christianity (and it is a hot topic of debate whether Mormonism is Christian) their numbers are pretty low. Right now pretty much the only transition in religious leadership that is all but certain to be posted is the papacy (which is ITNR). That needs to change. But a smallish confession of 15 million is not the right place to begin correcting this bias. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Floydian.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support ITN currently announces the result of an election in Northern Cyprus and that only has a population of about 300K. 15 million is larger than most of the countries in the world so saying that this is of no account is to elevate secular politics above spiritual matters and that's not NPOV. But, of course, people are going to read this article in large numbers regardless of what is said and done here. It's Wikipedia and its main page that will look bad -- stale, out of touch and low quality. Andrew D. (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The article is appalling, so posting it will make Wikipedia look bad - "low quality". Out of touch? Hardly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: - *Honest question – how is it "appalling"? I understand there was an unsourced section that was missed earlier, but it has been fixed now. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, when I took a quick look it was grossly under-referenced. Now I've taken a detailed look, it's grossly under-referenced. A BLP with 13 [citation needed] tags is unsuitable for main page inclusion. Still, it doesn't look like we'll have long to wait before we see another near-identical nomination... let's get it better next time perhaps. Plus I'm not sure why we'd consider posting the head of a tiny sect, Pope, Archbishop of Canterbury, Dalai Lama, yes, head of this organisation??? Nope. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, changing to strong oppose. I hadn't realised, but this appears to be more cult than religion, with things like "Mormons also believe that the Garden of Eden was in what is now known as Missouri, and that when Jesus returns he will go there to create the New Jerusalem" and previous "head of religion" Brigham Young opposing black priests, and the "modern" website saying "blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel, [and] God’s ‘curse’ on Cain was the mark of a dark skin". What? I'd support the next top Jedi or the next top Scientologist over this. I guess at least they're bonkers, but honestly bonkers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
They're a little prominent in U.S. history and the non-coastal parts of the West U.S. even today though. The state that last had the Olympics is 60% them (2/3rds practising). Even Manhattan, New York has a Temple. They're pretty prominent for their numbers (though systemic bias would suggest posting all other religious heads of ≥15 million if this is posted (how many are there?)). They're also by far the biggest group that believes Native Americans are Jews. And New Jerusalem is supposed to be 1,500 miles tall, wide and long and you can visit the holiest hectare next to the River Boulevard bus stop sign @ 39.091°N 94.428°W near Kansas. On a c. 1 hectare city block in Independence holiest city in the world for millions of Americans except possibly Jerusalem or Salt Lake City. I think they also believe the Voyager 1 spacecraft will break through a glass-like shell between the God of this solar system and the next one if it gets far enough. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
And one of them almost became President. Kind of sobering in retrospect. 107.77.217.40 (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
what. the. hell. Gents, the largest sect on Earth routinely consume the literal body and blood of their messiah. Many belief systems may indeed be far-fetched when compared to other religions, but it is not the position of Wikipedia to make any claims against a belief system or to editorialize such. Down that way lies ruin. GCG (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I quite agree that the "quality" of the belief system held by members of LDS is no good reason to allow or deny posting this news item. Indeed, it can only be beneficial if more people come to realize what this organization believes in. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • In addition to the quality issues, your argument is not great. From where I am sitting, the numbers are not too large. The proposed target is not going to get near the Report, so the volume argument is not supported at all. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that graph. Not only does it demonstrate that this "notable" sect is somehow less interesting than "Carillion" (really??), it also demonstrates that it's rapidly becoming stale news, and it also demonstrates that the boat was somewhat missed when traffic to this individual's page peaked a few weeks ago. Highly informative. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It is usually the case that ITN lags behind the peaks in readership. That's because ITN/C often takes time to discuss items in the the news and this naturally introduces a delay. Our readers mostly don't care what's happening at ITN/C -- they just see that something is in the news and go straight to the topic. ITN is mostly just for the record and to keep the main page looking fresh. It's not working well because of this slowness. Most other sections on the main page are updated every day but ITN is bizarrely the slowest and least timely section because of these discussions. Andrew D. (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, what the graph demonstrated is that it is, in fact, now pointless to post this story as it's really of little interest to anyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Another day has passed and ITN still has exactly the same set of blurbs. Most of them are staler than this topic and have less readership. This isn't quality; it's awful. Fortunately most our readership doesn't go through ITN. For example, Peter Wyngarde is mired in pettifogging objections here but was read by about 100K people yesterday regardless. ITN should be shut down and replaced by Top read, as has been done in the Wikipedia App. Such stats would give a better feel for what's actually happening. Andrew D. (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Go ahead and propose that Andrew, instead of reminding us constantly that your preference on how ITN should work isn't how it does work. The problem is that people who continually rail against a process yet do absolutely nothing about it are quickly ignored, rightly or wrongly. I think you know what's happening here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Those “pettifogging objections” have led to a much improved, fully referenced article that is now ready for posting. ITN’s purpose is to promote quality encyclopedic content and that is more important than speed. We are not a news ticker, as you well know.Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The article is not that bad of sourcing for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Too many {{citation needed}}s at the moment to post. However notability wise I narrowly come down on the "yes" side. I think I'd be happy to post changes in the top person in other, similar and larger religious groups. --LukeSurl t c 22:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Please note there are now citations for all the cn tags. Bahooka (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article has been improved and now everything has a citation. Elevations of religious figures of similar stature (Archbishop of Canterbury Welby, Coptic Pope Tawadros, etc.) have been posted before. --Tocino 07:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think these points need more discussion. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Funny, I wouldn't compare the election of this man to be on a historical par with the selection of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Mind you, I suppose if your sect or cult or whatever is only so old, you don't have any history to look back on and compare for historical significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Funny, I would have never guessed you'd prefer an Anglo-centric nom. First you bury this in CNs, then use those tags as a rationale for opposing. The refs get cleaned up, so you change your tactic to maligning Mormon beliefs. Then its old news. Then its low page views. Twice you called this religion with half a million adherents on each continent a "cult." I think we know where you stand on this. GCG (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
No, I think you'll find every CN was necessary, unless you don't wish to adhere to WP:BLP. There's no tactic change, I made the comment relating to the absurd beliefs and teachings before the CNs were resolved. The page views were a direct response to another editor today. People have questioned whether or not Mormonism (which says Jesus will return to Missouri when he finally returns) is a cult for decades. Which "anglo-centric nom" did I "prefer"? I'm really excited to hear the response. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Personal opinion of doctrine isn't really relevant to determining if the article is notable enough for ITN. I recommend not discussing it here. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
No, that's a strange point of view. If someone thinks that this group are simply a strange sect then clearly that has an impact on whether or not they believe the selection of their new head of said strange sect should be on the main page of Wikipedia. I recommend it be openly discussed, and that we don't try to close down active debates, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Reminder to Ramblingman: One might argue whether this article should be posted on the mainpage or not. But one can (and is expected!) do so without being offensive. So maybe stop your childish behavior, and start being constructive. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:A998:8BB1:5285:F80C (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what part of any of my responses you would consider "offensive" or "childish". Thanks to the world in which I live, I am able to provide personal comments on how notable this individual is and how notable his organisation is, and how his organisation presents itself, entirely based on evidence from this individual and his organisation's website etc. I don't follow how that would not be constructive. Thanks!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh please, don't play stupid. You know exactly what you are doing. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:A998:8BB1:5285:F80C (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand you at all, other than you are apparently attempting to stop my right of freedom of speech. Please stop attempting to do that as it's grossly offensive and disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
2A02:A451:8B2D:1:A998:8BB1:5285:F80C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside of this specific dialogue and discussion.
Note: The Rambling Man has been blocked multiple times and is under Arbcom sanctions for the same behavior he displays above. Disgraceful. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B98F:4F80:7AF7:9426 (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
No, you are telling me what I can and cannot say about this sect. That is an obstruction of my freedom of speech. That is disgraceful. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not because of the size of the church, which I view as sufficiently large, but because the structure of the faith means that the president has very limited power to effect change. He is not a pope. Abductive (reasoning) 21:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Significant change in LDS Church, which can be considered high profile because of certain adherents (Mitt Romney comes to mind) and the popularity of The Book of Mormon (musical), regardless of membership numbers. Bahooka (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
If the popularity of musicals is a viable rationale for posting, we may make ITN into a news ticker for items relating to the Founding Fathers. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
That was just an example of why the church may have a higher profile and interest by readers that extends beyond just the 15-16 million members. Bahooka (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Why is the "change" significant? What will be different under this "leader"? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I have no clue what will be different. Another minor profile-raising thing: The 1st Mormon "MP" with <2 wives was seated 1903 and the Senate debated the kicking him out vote till 1907. They got more letters than any other debate in the National Archives of a century later (up to 1,000 angry letters/day/senator) and he won cause they couldn't get 67% of 90 votes. The only "MP" before him (1898) had 3 wives and wasn't even seated. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Excellent rationale. You truly swayed me. Comrade Comrade (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
*Support per Galobtter. - We can't all be this insightful, to be fair. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Double oppose per "this isn't the sect leader you're looking for", a tiny bit of research shows that literally hundreds of thousands of individuals in the United Kingdom alone have registered as Jedis. This would make the Church of Jedi larger than Mormons quite easily, and actually many of the beliefs of Jedis seem easier to swallow. So let's accept that we shouldn't be posting new leaders of sects full stop. Unless Yoda gets a look-in. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
But it is time for the Jedi to die... Stormy clouds (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: Above editor voted already once, a few paragraphs above. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B98F:4F80:7AF7:9426 (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Struck my first oppose, reordered your reordering, please don't do that again! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
IP user, in my opinion your posts here border on harassing TRM and I would suggest that you stop. You clearly are not new to this. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's quite something. Looking at all the badgering and name-calling TheRamblingMan, I have the genuine impression that he is the one who is harassing others. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B98F:4F80:7AF7:9426 (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Give me one example of "name-calling", and then compare it to your (ongoing) attempts to silence me. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggest Close I think this has been open long enough, and garnered sufficient participation that we can reasonably conclude there will be no consensus to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Abductive; this leadership position is not like the Catholic Pope. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Note that one editor (TheRamlingMan) has voted three (!) times, and only one of these votes has been striken. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B98F:4F80:7AF7:9426 (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    Feel free to strike any previous opposition I may have overlooked. My "double oppose" above is the only that needs to stand. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I have stricken out another duplicate oppose vote made by TRM. Davey2116 (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Most of the opposers argue that this shouldn't be posted because the LDS church's 15 million followers isn't large enough. However, the ascension of the current pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria (which has about 20 million followers) was posted on November 4, 2012. I'm not sure about the effect of that event on the Anglophone world, which is the argument that many of the opposers are making for this event. Davey2116 (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

RD: Oliver Ivanović[edit]

Article: Oliver Ivanović (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian, CNN
Nominator: PootisHeavy (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: Notable figure within Kosovo who was assassinated. Looks well sourced in most sections, but some claims need sourced. --PootisHeavy (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose 2008-2012 sub section completely not referenced. Four CN tags. Rest looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • oppose, still a few citations needed. The claim that "His maternal heritage is Montenegrin" absolutely requires sourcing or removal before posting. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Shhhhwwww!!: If you could elaborate on your reasoning, it would help those reviewing this nomination. I assume it is related to the citation issue raised by Thryduulf? 331dot (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

January 15[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 January 15
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

RD: Óscar Pérez[edit]

Article: Óscar Pérez (policeman) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN
Nominator: LukeSurl (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: Perpetrator of the 2017 Caracas helicopter attack. Article appears reasonably sourced. LukeSurl t c 11:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - RD ready, but just. The article could benefit from a few more references.BabbaQ (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support but more references wouldn't go amiss - there are some long paragraphs with only a single reference. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Bumping this. A quite extensive article has been created, with lots of info on his death and the aftermath of this. This has been adequate to post for a while now --LukeSurl t c 12:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John Spellman[edit]

Article: John Spellman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Seattle Times
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: Fixed the article and is now well sourced. Article has been updated. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support looks good. 1779Days (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Dolores O'Riordan[edit]

Article: Dolores O'Riordan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, The Telegraph
Nominator: GrossesWasser (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: Necessary nomination and the article seems okay - except for the discography. If we can get that referenced, this should be ready. GrossesWasser (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC) (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Article needs source work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I've worked on it, only two CN tags remain. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Great work! Support from me now. No more glaring issues should be g2g. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Certainly, because of her prominence, the name should be listed under recent deaths on the front page. Trackinfo (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Er, that's not how it works. Either the article is high quality and it gets posted, or it isn't and it doesn't. "Prominence" has nothing to do with it. ‑ Iridescent 19:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
      • That is another ridiculous Wikipedia policy. Timeliness (reporting a Recent Death on the front page) is important here. Withholding the news based on article quality bases the posting on an arbitrary decision by a few bureaucrats. Articles for anybody achieving WP:N are always improved upon following their deaths. It is probably the biggest and best period of time when an article is improved. Sources abound as obituaries are written (and unfortunately copied). Posting the news on the home page attracts editors to the article, incites knowledgeable people to write obituaries and articles that become better sources. THAT is how improvement happens. Expecting it to improve by osmosis before you get around to announcing a death to the world information system is backward logic and counter productive. Trackinfo (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
        • @Trackinfo: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We are an encyclopedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
          • Right, that's why the current news on the mainpage are a mudslide, a ship collissions, a train crash and cricket (!). Very encyclopedic. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:F4F1:9816:F121:9BEC (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
            • Well said by the IP. We are on a page talking about the "In the news" section. That excuse does not fly here. Simply put, whoever controls this page is using their position of authority to control content by means other than news judgement. IF that is by wikipedia policy, then the policy and possibly the people need to be replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackinfo (talkcontribs) 20:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
              • Please read Wikipedia:In_the_news. We strive for quality over quantity. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
                • The article is of more than sufficient quality. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
                  • We need a sufficient quality when it comes to sourcing, writing (length), and image use to be representative of what we expect for good quality articles - it doesn't need to be perfect but we can't have major gaps. The point of ITN is to highlight articles that are good shape that happen to be in the news, avoiding any necessary systematic biases created by the media, as to draw readers that may be interested in the topic to help edit the article. But to make sure that stage is set well, we know new editors copy-cat what is on a page, and thus we look to make sure the quality is minimally representative of what we want articles to end up being. --Masem (t) 21:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Needs work, if no-one else has sorted it beforehand I'll do it when I get home, around 23:00 UTC. I hope 2018 isn't going the way of 2016, music-wise. Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Blurb obviously. Big news, unexpected. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:F4F1:9816:F121:9BEC (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    • No, not "obviously". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb per Trackinfo. She was a giant. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I've also added a ton of citations, removing most cn tags. Only two that I couldn't find briefly Googling remain. I think it's good to go. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Very clearly notable. 2600:387:A:7:0:0:0:96 (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on improvements (but oppose blurb) Judging the history, Maineiac4434 did a good job on the prose, but the "Other Appearances" section is still broadly unsourced and needs to be fixed; that plus a couple CN's stand out. Oppose blurb as while young-ish, this is not creating a shock-and-awe type reaction as when Prince, Bowie, or Robin Williams died. --Masem (t) 21:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The article is getting fixed nicely, just some sections remain. And I've tagged the one about Pope Benedict in 2001, as this is surely wrong. --Tone 21:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I fixed the Benedict one. Can only find evidence of her meeting JP2 twice in the early 2000s, and performing once for Francis in 2013. I can't find evidence that she even met Benedict, let alone performed for him. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
      • OK, so the only thing left uncited is the sentence about her having a "myriad" of hairdos. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
        • Which is sourced by the same source as the rest of that paragraph. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support article has been cleaned up, last cn was just resolved. — xaosflux Talk 22:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support; I guess she couldn't linger. Daniel Case (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support what a shame, a sad loss. Article looks good. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. Nice work with the article, everyone! --Tone 22:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Well done everyone - just got home and thought I'd have to sort this one, it's been done. Great work. Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, great job to those who improved this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: as can be seen by this pageview chart of the current RD's on the main page - this article was viewed by orders of magnitude more than the others, easily showing the importance of quickly bringing articles up to minimum presentation status when they are in the news. Many news outlets were found copy-pasting our article in to their websites, etc - many prior to cleanups. If it wasn't for this INTC nominationwe would have been in much worse shape. Thank you to all the editors that assisted! — xaosflux Talk 00:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Rappler[edit]

Article: Rappler (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Philippine government decides to cancel the license of Rappler.
Alternative blurb: The decision by the government of Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte to end the operating license of Rappler is seen by journalists as a major blow to free speech since the end of the Ferdinand Marcos dictatorship.
Alternative blurb II: Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte revokes the media license of the news site Rappler forcing it to shut down.
Alternative blurb III: The decision by the government of Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte to end the operating license of Rappler is seen by observers as a blow to free speech.
Alternative blurb IV: The decision by the Philippine government to end the operating license of Rappler is seen by observers as a blow to free speech.
News source(s): The New York Times, al-Jazeera, BBC, BuzzFeed, The Philippine Star, Channel News Asia
Nominator: Shhhhwwww!! (talk • give credit)

 Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • What seems significant is “The S.E.C.’s kill order revoking Rappler’s license to operate is the first of its kind in history — both for the commission and for Philippine media,” the note said. and it being called an attack on press freedom. However the article isn't even updated.. Didn't see the update; the issue seems complicated, unsure of newsworthiness. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Soft support maybe with an alternative blurb talking about how this is unprecedented in history? MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While this might be unprecedented in other countries, Duterte's reign in the Philippines has already established itself in the past couple years of being oppressive and dictatorial. It is not especially surprising, therefore, that he would then move to close down aspects of the media that may be critical against him. Comrade Comrade (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on notability Just because it's not surprising doesn't mean it's not news. We post sports results after all. But the article paints a weaker picture than RS do (e.g. the NYT article cited. GCG (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The bolded article doesn't mention Duterte, doesn't mention free speech reactions, and doesn't give any indication on how important or trafficked the news site is. Stephen 03:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not headlining any major news sites I visit. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - no longer in the news, and therefore fails the most important criteria of the ITN process. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article says "Despite the certificate revocation, SEC stated that Rappler can still operate since their decision isn't final", so I'm wondering what the big deal is.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

[Removed] Remove ongoing: Iranian protests[edit]

Article: 2017–18 Iranian protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Nominator: LukeSurl (talk)

Nominator's comments: Although the article still states these as "ongoing", the most recent entry in the timeline is for the 7 January. My guess is the "end" of these protests will be unclear, as they're likely to fade out rather than have an abrupt stop. However, what is more clear is that there is a lack of updates to the article to justify being in ITN/ongoing. The extent of international attention to internal events within Iran is far diminished from when this was placed into ongoing. LukeSurl t c 12:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Time to remove, as there have been no updates to the article. --Tone 13:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as original nominator of the ongoing placement. There will be no fixed end to the protests, but they appear to have died down somewhat. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the article is still getting substantial updates. And it is clearly still in the news, in particular the alleged suicides of protestors that were arrested. Let's reassess in a week or so. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:F4F1:9816:F121:9BEC (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support There is no protests anymore and the issue is not among the main topics of the international news agencies and media. --Seyyed(t-c) 05:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Removed from ongoing as the crisis appears to have subsided for now. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Cyrille Regis[edit]

Article: Cyrille Regis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian
Nominator: Amakuru (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: Just one line so far on his death, but I suppose that's enough?  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • That is ok. However, several paragraphs need references before this can get posted. --Tone 11:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Everything appears to be cited now. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Carillion[edit]

Article: Carillion (talk, history)
Blurb: ​British services company Carillion goes into compulsory liquidation.
Alternative blurb: ​British construction and facilities services company Carillion goes into compulsory liquidation.
News source(s): Guardian
Nominator: Yorkshiresky (talk • give credit)
Updater: Paul_W (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Company delivers services across the UK and overseas. Involvement in high profile projects such as HS2 and Airport City Manchester at risk. yorkshiresky (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • This is all over the headlines here in the UK, but editors in other countries might be better placed to assess its notability in an international context. The update seems sufficient, as Carillion#Financial_difficulties contains the background and Carillion#Liquidation has today's news. --LukeSurl t c 10:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - the bell has tolled. Mjroots (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the company is small. Market capitalization of less than 1 billion GBP in July 2017, revenue of 5.5 billion GBP. A few months ago Disney bought Fox for $50 billion. That's something; this isn't. Banedon (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Disney buying fox hasn't actually gone through; the company still has double the employees as fox news; this affects those jobs, numerous construction contracts such as on hs2 high-speed line etc. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Disney bought Fox studios, not the "news" division or the local affiliates. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I meant 21st century fox for the employee figure Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support Top business story today. The "Blacklisting" section uses primary sources from Carillion, and the acquisitons section could probably use a copyedit (if any section better serves our readers as a list of bullet points, it's a list of acquisitions). Financial difficulties section seems to rely on a single source, the "Construction enquirer". Few CN tags and operations section reads more like "Scandals and Incidents". Overall not bad I guess it meets the minimum. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Top business story in the UK at best. Looking at various finance sites, the top stories as of time of writing are "Euro hits three-year high as Europe leads global optimism" (Reuters finance), "Airbus can't deliver its planes to China" (money.cnn), "Apple’s iPhone 7 Plus was the second-best selling phone in China in 2017" (CNBC), "Amazon’s Grocery Sales Increased After Its Whole Foods Buy " (Wall Street Journal business). Banedon (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm sitting in Atlanta, GA and the location aware Google and Bing news aggregators still saw fit to put the story at the top of the business section. That's good enough for me. There is a whole "Please do not..." above too... --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I agree that taking this from a UK angle, it's a big story, but we have to keep in mind this isn't the end of the company (yet), just its current ownership with the gov't getting involved to make sure its current workers and contracts (most for gov't related projects) continues forward. A lot of companies are close to a similar predicament, and we generally do not post those. The company is not that large on a world scale based on revenues, etc, so financially this is not a big situation either. --Masem (t) 14:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I wonder how many companies with >20000 employees liquidate in a year - certainly aren't swamped with them - and that may atleast break the monotony of sports, disaster, and elections.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Davey2116 (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 21:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support good move despite usual anti-UK bias. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Article still has primary sources in the blacklist section everywhere now. Oh well. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pulled temporarily until issues with sourcing are fixed - Until the cite errors and redlinked templates are fixed, this needs to be off the main page. As soon as that issue is fixed, I'm for posting ASAP. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I've just removed a whole section because it wasn't relevant to Carillion, but only the companies that formed it. There are still half a dozen primary sources in there, but they're nothing contentious and it is of course OK to use primary sources for information about the company itself. I don't see a problem re-posting this at all. Black Kite (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much as always!!! I've re-posted the blurb to ITN. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

January 14[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 January 14
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

[Closed] RD: Dan Gurney[edit]

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 19 January 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: Dan Gurney (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Yahoo News, Reuters
Nominator: PootisHeavy (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: Citations needed on a good number of claims, but notable nonetheless. --PootisHeavy (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support article looks pretty good. Very notable figure in racing 1779Days (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose majority of the article is basically unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:38, 15 January 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.

[Bumped] Bump: MV Sanchi[edit]

WP:IAR Proposal. Bump the MV Sanchi article to top of order (i.e. relist with date of 14 Jan) as the vessel sank today. Posting of the original story was delayed due to the protracted discussion as to whether or not it should be posted. Mjroots (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer Mjroots (talk)
  • Support. I agree with Mjroots. This is a significant development and has caused this story to re-appear in new sources. Blurb should be updated to include the sinking. —LukeSurl t c 13:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    • It already has been Face-smile.svg. Mjroots (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support obviously. Davey2116 (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Bumping. --Tone 17:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Sanchi oil tanker collision should be the bold article. --LukeSurl t c 18:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    • disagree. Mjroots (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Well, yes, it should be. But we're pragmatic, so if it's not good enough, let's go with what we have. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I have to agree with TRM here. The collision article must be the target article as it actually has the sufficient update about this story. That article is not too bad, but its all proseline right now. --Masem (t) 19:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

January 13[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 January 13
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: Jean Porter[edit]

Article: Jean Porter (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter
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 has been updated and is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support I was unaware of the TV Guide filmographies. That could save a lot of headache on RDs here (and WP:RSN seems to be cool with it, if anyone else was curious). GCG (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Insufficiently referenced filmography. Stephen 23:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @Stephen: It was before, but I made it more sufficient now. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
      • The first film I checked wasn't listed in any of the references, nor was her name listed in the film article. Stephen 00:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
      • @Stephen: Fixed it with Hollywood Reporter ref. Her role in the film was pretty small. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted, thanks for the final referencing, Stephen 02:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Doug Harvey[edit]

Article: Doug Harvey (umpire) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Chicago Tribune, Daily Mail
Nominator: PootisHeavy (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: Notable and well sourced. --PootisHeavy (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support I fixed some sourcing issues and I was about to nominate this myself! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and marking ready. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Hawaii missile alert[edit]

SNOW close by nominator. Consensus against posting. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:29, 13 January 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: Hawaii missile alert (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A false alert about a ballistic missile threat is transmitted in the U.S. state of Hawaii.
News source(s): NBC News Mirror The New York Times
Nominator: Kudzu1 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Article is a WIP but news has grabbed international headlines. This sort of thing simply doesn't happen often. The alert specifically stated, erroneously, "THIS IS NOT A DRILL." Kudzu1 (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Interesting, but not ITN material. --Masem (t) 19:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Semes like it might fail at AfD based on WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above and also the article is at AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose should it survive AFD, this is an awesome DYK in the making. Sorry people of Hawaii, hope you're all ok and that no-one died from shock etc.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Would make an interesting DYK, but is not going to remain news after today. – NixinovaT|C⟩ 21:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • SNOW Oppose false alarms are not ITN material. SamaranEmerald (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think it should be deleted, but don't think it merits posting to ITN either. A national false alarm, maybe, but not this one.331dot (talk) 21:39, 13 January 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.

References[edit]

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: