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

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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

Headers

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with [Posted] or [Pulled] in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

Voicing an opinion on an item

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

Please do not...

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


Suggestions

January 18

Portal:Current events/2018 January 18

January 17

Portal:Current events/2018 January 17
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
  • Fake News Awards
    • Donald Trump tweets a link to the Republican National Committee's "Fake News Awards", won by ten stories and tweets he considers false. CNN is the night's big winner, with four. The link also honors ten ways the President "has been getting results" thus far. (Politico)
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

January 16

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: Tyler Hilinski

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)

[Posted] RD: Jo Jo White

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

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

RD: Oliver Ivanović

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)

January 15

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

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)

[Posted] RD: John Spellman

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

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)

Rappler

Article: Rappler (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Philippine government cancels the operating 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
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)

[Removed] Remove ongoing: Iranian protests

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

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

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

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

RD: Dan Gurney

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)

[Bumped] Bump: MV Sanchi

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

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

[Posted] RD: Jean Porter

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

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

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.

January 12

Portal:Current events/2018 January 12
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Keith Jackson

Article: Keith Jackson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN, LA Times
Nominator: Davey2116 (talk • give credit)
Updater: GreatCaesarsGhost (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.

 Davey2116 (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I've added {{cn}} tags. The "notable broadcast" section is unsourced listcruft. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks for the CNs. Did what I can with notable broadcasts, but some of these are probably specious on the notability claim ('03 OSU/UM?) and can probably be dropped. GCG (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article has been sourced good enough, with few cn tags though still present, it has been approved greatly. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is so filled with trivia it's hard to cite (e.g. that a sample of his broadcast was used in a TV mini-series seems non-BALASP). I think it's plenty good enough now. GCG (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per GCG. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Tone 11:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Dipak Misra

Domestic manoeuvering, re-nominate if anything tangible occurs. Stephen 23:16, 15 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: Dipak Misra (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Four of the senior-most judges of the Supreme Court of India call an unprecedented press conference to air their grievances against Chief Justice Dipak Misra
News source(s): Times of India
Nominator: Force Radical (talk • give credit)
Updater: Denzy (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I suggest that we keep this open for a week (despite near unanimous Opposes) or so during which this issue should be resolved and a blurb can be posted if there are any repercussions.(At the time of writing this the BCI has talked about fastracking ansd resolving this - 11:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)  — Force Radical∞ ( TalkContribs ) 11:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I have to support this one. Unprecedented event in India. Article is referenced and ITN ready.BabbaQ (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose If this does end up with any action again Misra, that's the point to post, but right now it is just accusations being made and which have been denied. Not appropriate for ITN. --Masem (t) 15:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Masem. If Justice Misra were kicked off the court that would be blurbable. Sca (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. While I can see why this was nominated (imagine US Supreme Court justices publicly criticizing Chief Justice Roberts For misconduct) we don't post accusations. I would support posting his removal or resignation. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This kerfuffle seems noteworthy enough to post at some point, involving as it does the seniormost judges of the world's numerically largest democracy. I'm not sure this is the appropriate time or the appropriate blurb, though. Vanamonde (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - post when ramifications occur, rather now at the onset of internal political/judicial squabbling. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Indian domestic issue for now. If something were to come from this, however, that's another story. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 04:22, 14 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.

[Posted] RD: Doodhnath Singh

Article: Doodhnath Singh (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Times of India, The Tribune
Nominator and updater: Skr15081997 (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: A well known author and recipient of highest literary honours of two Indian states, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh whose combined population nears 300 million. Skr15081997 (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose - article is in an utterly torrid state at the moment. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
How is it in a torrid state? Sentences cited and paragraphs organized. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Nominated for AfD, littered with red links, overly reliant on one source, poorly organised and too short. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Wasn't nominated for AfD then, red links can easily be removed and aren't really a problem Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Structural problems have been broadly resolved, so will move to weak support. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - short article perhaps but seems RD ready. Cited and paragraphs organized indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Lead can be expanded to improve the short article status. Support Article has been fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Though short, the sources are adequate –Ammarpad (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Article has been nominated for deletion by another user. Perhaps close this nomination now and wait until consensus reaches to re-nominated if not deleted. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: AfD discussion has been closed with the consensus to keep the article. --Skr15081997 (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Work for medicaid requirement

closing per WP:SNOW. Good faith nomination, but there's no way this would ever be posted. --Jayron32 04:36, 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: Medicaid (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Trump administration will allow states to impose work requirements in Medicaid.
News source(s): NYT
Nominator: 107.77.219.218 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Pretty big deal. 107.77.219.218 (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting this domestic policy adjustment. This is not USApedia. 331dot (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose ITN generally does not post adjustments to domestic policy. This is not an exceptional case. —LukeSurl t c 00:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per 331dot/LukeSurl. --Masem (t) 00:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all of the above. SamaranEmerald (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't support or oppose, but, isn't opposing just cause this is related to one country against the rules? Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. CherryPie94 (talk) 08:16, 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.

[Closed] US to quit nuclear deal with Iran within 120 days

WP:SNOW — Almost almost total opposition to posting a political event not due to happen for three months. Sca (talk) 22:11, 12 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: Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (talk, history)
Blurb: ​US to quit nuclear deal with Iran within 120 days
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Count Iblis (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: "US President Donald Trump will approve the Iran nuclear deal only one more time before abandoning it if it is not changed, White House officials say." But the deal cannot be changed by the US, so it's the end of the nuclear deal. Count Iblis (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The deal will still go for 120 days, and this is Trump pushing the EU to make the necessary changes he wants otherwise, the US just drops out. This is not a groundbreaking change in the status quo; it would be either if the EU does make changes or when the US actually drops out, either which may or may not be ITN depending. (And of course, Trump could go back at the end of 120 days and sign a new extension) This point is not an ITN point. --Masem (t) 19:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing of significance has actually happened... yet. If/when it does we can revisit this. I suggest the OP withdraw this as it has no chance of being approved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support notable development. The target article needs some minor fixes though. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:5CA7:5D90:A6D6:B313 (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • wait until it actually happens --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting speculation, and renewing the deal is keeping the status quo. Trump also denies making comments that are on tape, so it is difficult to believe what he states; he might likely change his mind again. If he actually does pull the US out of the deal, that would probably merit posting. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose what a "shithole". Seriously, let's post this when it happens, as a lot of what Trump says is utter claptrap. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose jumping to instant conclusions is pointless. This will not happen for another 4 months and you disregarded the chance that Trump may reconsider the decision before then. Kirliator (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for 120 days. At that point the status quo will either change (and it will probably be ITN-worthy) or Trump will have changed his mind (and/or denied that he changed his mind) and the status quo wont change (and it probably wont be ITN-worthy, but I'll reserve final judgement on that). Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 12 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 11

Portal:Current events/2018 January 11
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports

[Closed] RD: Robert N. Clayton

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 16 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: Robert N. Clayton (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): UChicagoNews
Nominator: Count Iblis (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.

 Count Iblis (talk) 16:24, 16 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.

[Posted] RD: Edgar Ray Killen

Article: Edgar Ray Killen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY 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: Good riddance – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support but the "see also" section needs serious trimming, and since when did we ever "see also" a non-existent article? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I trimmed it. Good call on that. I don't know who added a red link, and one line without any link at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. One of the most reprehensible figures in US history, his death should be shouted from the rooftops. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - RD ready.BabbaQ (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC).
  • Support Article is ready to go. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 04:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

References

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

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


Return to Fuhz Home - This article covering Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates is enhanced for the visually impaired.
This page uses content from Wikipedia. Original artice from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates
The text of this Fuhz article is released under the GNU Free Documentation License

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!

Privacy Policy - Latest Page William Tragni SCAM