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.

Ajit Pai in 2013
Ajit Pai

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with [Posted] or [Pulled] in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

December 17[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 December 17
Law and crime

December 16[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 December 16
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Politics and elections
Sports

RD: Sharon Laws[edit]

Article: Sharon Laws (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [1]
Nominator: BabbaQ (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.

 --BabbaQ (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose far too much of it (e.g. results of races) unsourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Heinz Wolff[edit]

Article: Heinz Wolff (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): (BBC)
Nominator: Mjroots (talk • give credit)
Updater: Black Kite (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: Some attention to referencing needed. Mjroots (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Looks well sourced now. Black Kite (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support a few tweaks from me, and the missing ref. Great Egg Race! RIP. This is now good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, his death was covered, with some vintage BBC footage, in the BBC News at Ten tonight. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

December 15[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 December 15
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and medicine
  • Child sexual abuse in Australia
    • A 17-volume report detailing children's experiences of sexual abuse in Australian institutions is published. It concludes that the issue is systemic and "not a case of a few rotten apples". It contains 189 new recommendations, for a total of 406. This report finalizes a five-year Royal Commission inquiry. (Ten News)
  • The most recent U.S. government statistics show a marked increase in the yearly number of deaths by drug overdose. The number for end May 2017 is 66,324, up 17% when compared to the previous 12-month period. (U.S. News & World Report)
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports

December 14[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 December 14
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

[Posted] Net Neutrality repealed[edit]

Article: Net neutrality in the United States (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States Federal Communications Commission votes to repeal Title II Net Neutrality rules.
News source(s): NYTimes, Ars Technica
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I know this is strictly how Internet communication is handled solely within the US (and expect !opposes on that), but given the importance of the US's tech sector on the Internet globally, this will have impacts on global Internet systems. Masem (t) 18:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Support on notability This is all over the news and will have ramifications not just in the US. However, the article has many missing references so it's not ready to post. Davey2116 (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Even though this is U.S. specific, the amount of media attention both online and offline surrounding this particular event has been astronomical. It's hard to go anywhere without hearing the words "Net Neutrality" in any context.--WaltCip (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in agreement with the above statements. I do think that, especially with an online website like Wikipedia, this is a very important ITN topic, though I would add another source for confirmation. Otherwise, it's ready to go. Thanks, User:ST15RMwikipedia 19:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per the above. I've added Ars Technica as another source for confirmation. Thunderforge (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think it should be necessary for me to go into detail on why the repeal of net neutrality in the United States is a highly notable story. This is an unprecedented change in FCC policy. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. This comment should not be considered a support or oppose; I get that this is exploding in the news and affects many people directly or indirectly, but is this that radical a change in policy? The current regulations were only implemented a few years ago and this change merely reverts back to the prior policy. Someone will likely sue in an attempt to stop it, states are trying to pass their own net neutrality laws(which the FCC is also trying to stop) and it will almost certainly be changed once a Democratic president is in office who can tip the balance of the FCC. Just some thoughts. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
It's not that radical a change in my opinion, but the reaction across the Internet has been monumental, on levels of SOPA.--WaltCip (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Without going deep into the history: while the repeal is revoking the 2015 order, there had been various regulations in place that enforced net neutrality since at least 2010 (around the same time we started hearing providers wanting to make fast-lanes for traffic); the 2015 order came by because courts found that a previous FCC order that enforced NN was improper, so the FCC then raced to correct that with the 2015 order. This is effectively the first time that there has been no net neutrality protection on the US internet infrastructure while internet providers have been pushing for tiered services. --Masem (t) 21:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
This is my last comment here since Wikipedia is not a forum and the request has been posted, but in response to 331dot the idea that this only goes back to 2015 is a complete falsehood. This goes back to 1996 where lawsuit after lawsuit from 98 to 02 to 07 to 2010 to 2011 to 2014 all pushed the FCC towards writing net neutrality into law. The principle behind it is as old as the internet itself. You're right that there will be lawsuits, but it's absolutely "radical." BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pull CN tags all over the place. Is anyone actually reading these articles before piling on support? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It has 260 unique sources and a C class rating. Even with its CN tags, it's unquestionably a well-sourced article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "C" class? Really? Well it's got serious referencing issues and should not be linked on the main page. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Note that it has not been checked against B class criteria. Note that out of all 5 presently featured news articles, C class is the highest rating of any primary link with two of the five being start class. Note that the 15 CNs are in an article with 262 unique sources and 340 separate citations. It's undeniable that this is a well-sourced article and it's quantifiable that it's both better sourced and an equal or better class than the other present news articles. With regard to all of our established criteria, you simply have no argument here. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • CA's opinion is the one that usually holds sway around these parts, but your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. GCG (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've eliminated nearly all unsourced content from the article, so this problem should be solved. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Not solved. ITN doesn't rely on some wikiprojects quality evaluation applied at some point in the past. ITN has it's own guidelines (which perhaps you've not bothered to read) which state "Updated content must be thoroughly referenced. As with all Wikipedia articles, citations must be to reliable sources.". The target article is objectively missing references, which makes it objectively inadequate for the main page, which makes it objectively necessary to pull until it's fixed. Cross posting this to WP:ERRORS and pinging @Jayron32: and @Stephen: in the hopes that one of them can take a look and pull as necessary. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't know, CA, your own citation says "as with all Wikipedia entries" which implies an idealized state for the whole of WP, not a higher standard for ITN. It also also also says that "Articles [with] 'orange'- or 'red'-level tags...may not be accepted for an emboldened link" which seems to imply that those without serious issues are not automatically disqualified. GCG (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Disney buys Fox[edit]

Articles: The Walt Disney Company (talk, history) and 21st Century Fox (talk, history)
Blurb: The Walt Disney Company buys assets from the 21st Century Fox valued at roughly $52.4 billion
Alternative blurb: The Walt Disney Company announces it will buy most of 21st Century Fox's entertainment divisions, valued at roughly $52.4 billion
Alternative blurb II: The Walt Disney Company announces intent to buy most of 21st Century Fox for $52.4 billion
News source(s): The New York Times, BBC
Nominator: Cambalachero (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Clearly a historical event for Hollywood. Cambalachero (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose since (despite the breathless reporting) it hasn't actually happened. When you read the actual announcement, all that was announced today is an agreement in principle subject to shareholder approval from both companies, legal clearance in the US, and regulatory approval in every market in which the companies operate (e.g. most of the world). The deal is also predicated on Fox's bid for Sky being successful, which isn't at all certain (the British government have already vetoed that deal once). ‑ Iridescent 13:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose but if this acquisition goes through, which it probably will under this administration (but who knows anymore?), it should be posted. This would be one of the largest acquisitions of its kind, and it has the potential to completely reshape the media market in the USA.--WaltCip (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Since ITN precedence has established that we post these mergers at the time of announcement, rather than execution, support.--WaltCip (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support In terms of importance and size, this is a major buyout that affects much of Hollywood. In terms of timing, we have discussed business deals before, and its been determined that it is the point of announcement that is the point where ITN is appropriate, as that's when it is actually covered the most; the actual act may be a short blurb in newspapers when it happens but nowhere near the volume of coverage on the point of announcement. Yes, there are things like US regulatory actions that could stop it, and in those same discussions, if that stoppage is considered significant, that itself could be another ITN. --Masem (t) 14:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Significant news, quality articles. As noted by Masem, the time to link an article on the main page is the time when people are actually reading about it outside of Wikipedia. Since this is true now, it makes sense to post it now. --Jayron32 14:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Typically with business transactions the announcement gets far more attention than the actual close of the deal; that point would get called stale and not in the news if we waited, resulting in no business news on ITN. We should do this now. 331dot (talk)
  • Support per Masem. There will be a much louder chorus of "now is not the time" if we try to post this when the deal closes. GCG (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Blurb needs work though; technically this is a merger. "Buys assets" underplays that less than a third of the existing company will be spun off. GCG (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I've tried an alt blurb; we know Fox would keep its news side, but its hard to present a short blurb with calling out the exceptions. "most of Fox's entertainment divisions" is about the best summary that implies the news stays with Murdock. --Masem (t) 15:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
That was why I wrote "buys assets from the 21st Century Fox" instead of "buys the 21st Century Fox". It left it implicit that Fox still exists after the deal, which is about some of their assets, not about the whole group as such. However, the alt also seems fine, and I have no problem with it. Cambalachero (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This is a significant event in entertainment and business. It has the potential to have major impact on entertainment consumers, and not just in the US, with assets in India and the UK, notably, included. As far as the blurb is concerned, it is true that Disney is acquiring 21st Century Fox, though the news business will be spun-off prior to deal closure. --heat_fan1 (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Big news if it takes place but too much presumption that this will actually happen. As another user said there are still many hoops to jump through and many areas where the deal can fall apart. 208.74.36.138 (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Note: This user made only 2 edits in wikipedia (unless it's a regular user who forgot to login in; in that case please do so and sign as needed) Cambalachero (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
If this falls apart or is blocked in the courts, that would likely merit posting. If it closes, it won't make the news. The time to post is now. As noted below, there is discussion about this somewhere. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Last place I can find is in 2015 here [2]. --Masem (t) 17:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment we've established that the announcement is the time to post business deals. Could another "regular" dig up the discussion at Wt:itn? It's been weeks since I've been at a computer... --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@CosmicAdventure: I found Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 49#On when to post business announcements... and Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 53#Business deals: post them when they're announced or when they're signed?, both confirming that posting when it's in the news is the right time.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
That's them. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicAdventure (talkcontribs) 17:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Biggest news in the entertainment business for years. Announced now, it's appropriate to post now. Radagast (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Masem. Davey2116 (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per above.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per above. -Thunderforge (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks like we now have an article for the Disney acquisition of 20th Century Fox: Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney. Could we make this the bolded article? Mz7 (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
    It’s tagged. 08:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen (talkcontribs) 08:03, December 15, 2017 (UTC)
  • Pull since Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney is the only reasonable target article. If that's not worth posting because it's tagged or whatever, then the entire item shouldn't be there. Banedon (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
    • At the time this was posted, that article didn't exist. --Masem (t) 18:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
      • I don't see why that's an argument for not pulling this. Circumstances change, we change accordingly. Banedon (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
        • We can't !vote on something that doesn't exist. The individual articles were appropriately updated when this was posted. --Masem (t) 18:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
          • That brings to mind an old issue never resolved. What if an article is fine when posted and then rapidly becomes non-fine? Standing policy appears to be "do nothing" in which case ITN becomes even sillier than it already is. Someone complains about [citation needed] tags, easy, remove everything that's tagged. Once the article is featured, restore everything. Banedon (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
        • I don't see why it's an argument to pull. ITN requires a reasonable update in a target article, not a brand new target article that might not survive AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment what is really problematic here is that the published blurb states "... announces that it will buy most of ..." whereas the reality of the situation is that it has announced an intention to buy, and nothing more. The dithering over whether it should link to one article or another is all very well, but until the blurb's false certainty is resolved, this is just rearranging deckchairs. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

December 13[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 December 13
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports

RD: Pat DiNizio[edit]

Article: Pat DiNizio (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USA Today
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: Smithereens vocalist Pat DiNizio. Seems like yesterday.

  • It seems like yesterday because it was yesterday. Neutral as the filmography still needs to be cited, even though it's not the primary focus of his career.--WaltCip (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - CN tags and if possible, maybe an expansion on his early life can be provided seeing there are multiple obits. Since filmography and discography doesn't have to be cited, it shouldn't be factor. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Dan Johnson[edit]

Article: Dan Johnson (Kentucky politician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times
Nominator: Davey2116 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Acdixon (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: Due to the highly unusual nature of the death, I would also consider a blurb, since Slobodan Praljak got one a couple of weeks ago.  Davey2116 (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  • RD only. Praljak was front page world news, this isn't. Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I see. I have now stricken out the suggestion. Davey2116 (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Stub.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Still a stub. Could use expansion during early life and early career. The primary focus of this article appears to be his short tenure of office and his suicide.Support Article fixed and well expanded w/ well sourcing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

December 12[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 December 12
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Health and environment
International relations
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports

[Posted] RD: Alessandro Kokocinski[edit]

Article: Alessandro Kokocinski (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Tuscia Web
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.

 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] United States Senate special election in Alabama[edit]

WP:SNOW. There is no chance this will develop enough consensus to be posted. --Jayron32 15:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Strongly concur with the above close. I was just about to do the same thing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2017 (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.

  • Oppose ITN isn't really the place for local politics – NixinovaT|C⟩ 05:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • SNOW Oppose Of course. No, it may signal the Trump backlash, but it's not ITN material. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as per above. A regional election that doesn't even nominally change the balance of power in the chamber to which the elected person will sit. --LukeSurl t c 05:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Nope We have firmly established that local elections are not ITN material. EternalNomad (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


@User:Stephen I would like to appeal your closure on the grounds that it is invalid to refer to this as a "local election". A Federal election for national office is hardly "local". In addition, in January 2010 the Massachusetts Special election and its ramifications were considered to be worthy of inclusion in ITN. I'd argue that further discussion should be allowed before closing this.SecretName101 (talk) 07:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Checking the 2010 case, that was when the Democrats lost the supermajority, which had significant consequences. In this case, the Republicans still keep the majority, as noted above. --Tone 07:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support this is major international news (Independent, BBC News, New York Times, Times of India, Sydney Morning Herald). It's been the top story on BBC News for the past 24 hours, and I can't ever remember an election in Alabama getting that amount of coverage in the past. Far from being "local politics", the wider world is seeing it as a de facto referendum on Trump's style of leadership - given it was him and Steve Bannon who were the vocal minority to get behind gay-bashin' Roy Moore. (I have re-opened the discussion so people can elaborate on this, and would recommend people focus on what reliable sources are covering over their personal opinions of what they would like to see). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Incidentally, your source selection is a form of cherry-picking because these stories are specifically on the "US" sections of the respective international news sites, which by definition focus specifically on US-based stories. You have to take a good look on the SMH or Times of India sites before you can locate coverage of this election, and even then, the primary focus is on Trump who seems to be compulsory clickbait material.--WaltCip (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose It's clickbait, but still local politics.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
It's not local politics in Britain, India or Australia - so why is it headline news there? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
If it gets to Main Page could we use a picture of the horse, please? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
It was only published in the international press because of it's sensationalistic. Did we post about Britney shaving her head or Macron's dog peeing? See this, this, this, this, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't recall that being the front-page news headline for two days. As Moore appears to have refused to concede (presumably on the assumption that God will fix the recount), the story is far from over yet. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Lap dogs are people too, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
It's a local election in one state. It's not significant. The media want ad revenue, but we don't, thank God (pun intended).Zigzig20s (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I doubt the BBC want 'ad revenue'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Widely reported internationally. Its a local election, with national significance, and international coverage due to the people involved. I also second the horse request. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - no different to a shock by-election result in the UK, and I wouldn't expect that to be published. Optimist on the run (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Top news on German Radio. The world speaks about it, - it would seem strange not to mention it. ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A straightforward "surprise result in local by-election in which the candidate from the party who traditionally dominate the area lost because of personal controversy" story, and as such no different to something like Richmond Park by-election, 2016 which we wouldn't have dreamed of posting. ‑ Iridescent 12:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Much as I think Zac Goldsmith is a spoiled brat and a nasty piece of work, I don't really think that's there's any equivalent in the UK - the best analogy I can think of is if UKIP put up Jayda Fransen as a candidate for some hypothetical Clacton by-election on a ticket of deporting all Muslims and re-introducing the death penalty and was leading the polls, only to be beaten by a Corbyn-supporting Labour candidate. It just wouldn't happen. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how "Extremist candidate doesn't get elected" is ITN-worthy, even from the US. All this demonstrates is that polls aren't relaible - something that has alreasy been shown in recent years, on both sides of the Atlantic. Optimist on the run (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment this wasn't any old by-election and the US Senate isn't any old legislative body. False equivalences are silly. If itn had run the election it would have been "snow close Alabama is a red state, don't waste time considering". Thanks for reopening. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The subject is in the news and the articles have been thoroughly updated, so the criteria for posting are met. I wouldn't support this if it weren't reported internationally, as Ritchie333, Only In Death, and Gerda Arendt attest. Davey2116 (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Davey2116.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • No, no, no, no, no!!! - No election of this sort in any other country would make it to ITN. The only reason this is getting attention is because of the amplified media attention over the GOP candidate. The GOP hasn't even lost their majority in the Senate!--WaltCip (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongest oppose As pointed out, there is no change in the majority leadership in the Senate, so this is not ITN material. Those claiming that its being massively covered should be reminded that ITN is not a news ticker and we are more careful as to what stories better represent a global encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 14:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:In the news#Significance :"Opposing a specific story merely because one opposes all stories of that type (such as elections, or sports, or disasters) do not often generate agreement from the community.". I am supporting it because it has had significant coverage in multiple, independent, worldwide sources, and nothing else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Supporting because it has multiple global coverage is effecting asking us to be a news ticker. ITNCs do need wide news coverage to be posted; just that some degree of news reporting is observed. But we do not use the measure that "covered internationally" as a posting rationale. --Masem (t) 14:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
But is that not how Wikipedia works full stop? WP:GNG - "significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources". You can't just make up criteria based on your personal opinion and expect everyone else to fall in line with that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Let's just abolish all the constitutional amendments after the 10th - "that would eliminate many problems". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
ITN does not work off GNG rules, its a much narrower criteria for inclusion to avoid being a news ticker. (And even with the GNG, which looks for enduring coverage rather than a spike, that means that even a burst of international coverage doesn't assure an article. Though for this special election article, its notability is not at issue). --Masem (t) 14:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose As much as I like the outcome, it's still not ITN material for the above reasons. Especially that this doesn't change anything relating to the Senate majority. †dismas†|(talk) 14:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The Senate majority has been halved, to it's smallest possible value? Many commentators are saying that this is quite significant. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Halved, but they still have it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

  • Oppose – Though momentarily of great interest in the U.S., it is as others have said essentially a parochial matter that doesn't meet ITN norms. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
It's already been closed once incorrectly; closing again would be inappropriate.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support What do editors here mean that ITN isn't a place for politics? In this particular case we are talking about 25 years since "ruby red" Alabama elected a Democrat, this would easily pass notability criteria. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Assuming that Wikipedia's readers all know about the significance of Alabama in U.S., let alone international, politics is a form of systemic bias.--WaltCip (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on WP:BIAS grounds and the fact that control did not flip. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to be clear here, the story of this nom is that Alabama didn't elect a child molester. That's what you think ITN should post? This is systemic bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    • To avoid the BLP , I do assume you mean "alleged" child molester. --Masem (t) 15:18, 13 December 2017 (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] 2017 New York City attempted bombing[edit]

Good faith nom but this probably could have been SNOW closed. Far too minor an incident. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2017 (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: 2017 New York City attempted bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): The New York Times
Nominator: ST15RMwikipedia (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: This is a recent terrorist attempt, which the media is still discussing. Thanks, User:ST15RMwikipedia 17:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No. This is simply too little of a statistical impact to be included at ITN. On top of that, its only meaningful notability is to New York City, not the United States, and especially not the entirety of the English speaking world. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • From above: "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." – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
      • I do not think my comment in any way falls under that statement, if you read it comprehensively. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Oppose I was glad nobody had nominated this yesterday. One lone idiot who hurt himself more than anyone else. We New Yorkers have mastered the Keep Calm and Carry On attitude of our forebearers. Better to ignore this idiot than give him coverage and potentially inspire other idiots than to give this any more coverage than it's already gotten. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I know I am going against character here (never been accused of being foolishly consistent), but this appears to be the sort of low-level local crime we generally don't post. There was no great conspiracy, no larger plot, no widespread damage. There's no there there on this one. The article itself probably (IMHO) wouldn't withstand an AFD (given the AFD was proposed in a few weeks once coverage died down) and given that, I don't see where this should be posted. --Jayron32 18:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as we don't usually post attempted attacks. EternalNomad (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I was waiting for this to be nominated. The general consensus on ITN is that in order for a terrorist attack to be posted in a major city, there has to be a significant number of casualties. Here, nobody even died. There were four injuries, none of which were life-threatening and one of whom was the attacker. The New York subway system was disrupted - which already gets disrupted on a fairly regular basis anyway due to poorly maintained tracks - and that was it. The news is literally just covering it because it's New York City, Times Square, and ISIS-related. The rest of the world has already moved on.--WaltCip (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • We moved on before the rest of the world. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2017 (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: Ed Lee[edit]

Article: Ed Lee (politician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): SF Examiner, SF Gate
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: I didn't vote for him, but he was my mayor, the incumbent mayor. Needs a little work. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  • The source for the cause of death seems to be former Mayor Brown, with no confirmation by Lee's office. [3] This should be better confirmed before posting. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support pbp 16:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Does anyone else find Ed_Lee_(politician)#Mayoralty to be a bit over-positive? It feels like it was written by a big fan of Lee's. --LukeSurl t c 16:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I added a neutrality tag. Like I said, needs work. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
      • I worked on it a little bit, but I still think it needs a little bit more work. When it's ready, I'll support it. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
        • @MAINEiac4434, 331dot, James Allison, and LukeSurl: I invite you to give it a look over and tell me if there's more NPOV violation anywhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
          • Looks good to me. Support due to the notability of the person who died, the sitting mayor of a major city. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The tone now seems OK. Living thousands of miles away and with limited internet access right now I'll recuse myself from assessing whether the selection of events from his mayoralty is representative. --LukeSurl t c 07:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article well sourced and well updated. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think we need to bury him on the gentrification concerns. It's doubtful any mayor could have made much of a difference. It's mentioned once, which seems good enough. GCG (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Marking ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 15:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

RD: Charles Robert Jenkins[edit]

Article: Charles Robert Jenkins (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Some referencing issues. American Soldier who defected to North Korea. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Your jingoism notwithstanding, we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. RD postings need only verify the quality of the article, not the notability (nor any sort of moral standing).--WaltCip (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on grounds of reference problems. --AmaryllisGardener talk 05:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Sufficiently notable, but there are reference problems per above. Davey2116 (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Issues with the article regarding sourcing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

December 11[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 December 11
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

[Posted to Ongoing] Thomas Fire[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Thomas Fire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Thomas Fire, the largest of an outbreak of wildfires in southern California, becomes the fifth-largest fire in California history.
Alternative blurb: ​The Thomas Fire, the largest of an outbreak of wildfires in southern California, has forced over 94,000 residents to evacuate from Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties.
News source(s): [4] [5] [6]
Nominator: James Allison (talk • give credit)
Updater: LightandDark2000 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Extremely large wildfire outside of the fire season. 1000 structures burned, 8000 94,000 people evacuated, citywide power outages in a ~100,000 pop. city, unprecedented disruption at a major state university, likely catastrophic damage to the nationally-significant state agricultural industry. James (talk/contribs) 16:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose See the previous Lilac Fire nom. Yes, there is destruction and people are disrupted but being the 5th largest fire in CA is not a reason to post. --Masem (t) 16:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Fifth-largest fire in California history is indeed not a reason to post. The impacts of the fire and the fact that they're "in the news" are two reasons to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Adding alt-blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • The reason it is in the news compared to , say, the much bigger fire in British Columbia that is still considered active, is that it is happening in SoCal. Not to try to trivalize it too much, but that's basically making it a "first world problem" because it's affecting an affluent area (LA), rather than wilderness of BC. That's the news bias at work here. --Masem (t) 19:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
      • I'd say a bigger fire burning wilderness is less significant than a smaller fire in a heavily populated area. But you're right that there is news bias. I didn't know about the B.C. fire until reading your post. NPR had the Thomas Fire as their lead story during their Morning Edition this morning. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment since we're getting these somewhat similar "my fire's bigger than your fire" noms periodically now, shouldn't we consider an Ongoing slot for the California wildfires? I mean, this one has seen 8,000 people evacuated, not a big deal.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't be opposed to ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm also with TRM on this. The California Fires have been top news stories for several weeks now, and looks like they are going to continue being so for a while. Rather than the shotgun-scattershot method of trying to get each one up individually, the omnibus article could be a good target for the ongoing section. If we solved the WP:PROSELINE issues with it, and expanded each section to a short synopsis of major points, I think we could use it for ongoing. It's not there yet, but its doable. --Jayron32 19:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
      • With the added bonus of my support, we're getting it rammed down our news throats over here, well until we had some snow and then it all became about how crap we are when the weather changes. Regardless, I'd support a Cali-wildfire ongoing nom, assuming the article was up to snuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing per above. Davey2116 (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted to Ongoing Stephen 23:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing on multiple fronts. Fifth largest fire is a bad sign, since it means there were four bigger ones. Fifth largest fire in California is an even worse sign, since that's only one of the US's many states. 1000 structures burned is not many. 8000 people evacuated is minute. $50 million of damages caused is also minute. For comparison we have stuff like 2017 South Asian floods affecting several orders of magnitude more people. Pull. Banedon (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you understand what article was posted to ongoing? Stephen 02:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose loosely per Banedon, but with an added element of WP:BIAS. The article is December 2017 Southern California wildfires. Sure. Kind of repeating a common refrain here, but if there were fires of this magnitude (displacing a similar number of people) in Tanzania, would there be several efforts to post it? They're not notable enough, in my opinion. A lad insane talk 02:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • If nominated and the article is regularly updated then it would stand a good chance. Stephen 03:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing for general fire article. Condition is suitable, I do note nothing seems to have been added for December 12, but the rest of it's fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

[Pulled] Resignation of Indonesian legislative body speaker[edit]

Article: Setya Novanto (talk, history)
Blurb: Setya Novanto, speaker of Indonesia's People's Representative Council, resigns from his post amidst a corruption scandal.
News source(s): Reuters, ANTARA, Straits Times etc.
Nominator: Juxlos (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: This is following a multi-week news coverage involving a raid, manhunt and a car crash plus hospitalization, receiving pretty much 24 hour national plus significant external news coverage. Juxlos (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Article looks in good shape. --Jayron32 16:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. An unusual occurrence, especially when this is the second time he has quit due to scandal; we don't often post Indonesia, either. Article seems fine. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Generally we do not post political scandals that don't touch a head of state or government, but this is so bizarre I'm inclined to support with the understanding that this is an exception (sine exemplo) and should not be viewed as precedent for lowering our usual standards. I have no issues with the article quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support because of how much it has captivated the Indonesian population. The main problem is as Ad Orientem pointed out, it doesn't involve a head of state or government. Banedon (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per 331dot. Davey2116 (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose local politics, it's not clear why this is really something we should be posting at ITN and not at DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, corruption is so common in third-rate (Redacted) countries that ITN should only post when it doesn't happen. Additionally, this goes against years of consensus here that such low-level political news is not postworthy. Abductive (reasoning) 22:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
If you oppose this, fair enough, but I don't think the leader of a national legislative chamber being arrested and subsequently resigning is "low level political news". 331dot (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Off topic. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A "third rate hell hole". I'm married to an Indonesian. How many times have you been there? Maybe re-consider your words? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per Abductive. The article for the legislative body outright says that the chamber has received multiple allegations of being rife with corruption.--WaltCip (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Apart from Reuters (ystdy), haven't seen it on main Eng.-lang. sites. Sca (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • comment took a quick look, the refs need to be checked. Look for the word "crony" in the article see if the ref supports. I suspect npov issues. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Coverage and article looks good. James (talk/contribs) 16:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment this has apparently been posted, despite consensus actually moving away from it being posted. Hmm. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pull no clear consensus demonstrated. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted - @The Rambling Man: Good to see you mate! I hope you know I don't have a stake in this. So, I assure you this is not intended to be a !supervote of any form. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    Especially good to see you too buddy. No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose and pull Not significant enough for ITN. The discussion should have been allowed to continue; there was no consensus to post.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @Pawnkingthree: Could you expound on how you find it "not significant enough" for posting? I'll also note that the discussion has not been stopped, and is gladly encouraged to continue if necessary. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
      • @Coffee: As has been mentioned above, this is not a head of state or government. If John Bercow resigned in similar circumstances I would vote the same way.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak pull (never thought I'd type that) -- I'm not seeing this "in the news" anywhere. It's not the lead story on the EN Jakarta Post, and it's absent from the news aggregators all-together. Comments like "PT Orbit Terminal Merak, owned by his crony, oil trade kingpin Riza Chalid" deserve an NPOV tag, honestly. Weak because ID is a huge country by popn and we so rarely get stories out of there, and in this case the decades long record of corruption FINALLY catching up with him, makes this perhaps an exceptional case. (I agree with Ad Orientem above). --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pulled - for now, due to the consensus becoming unclear. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I greatly admire an admin who has the humility to pull their own posting.--WaltCip (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Support This aligns to a Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell in the US, methinks - that would get posted. Is there any evidence that this level of corruption is commonplace in Indonesia? GCG (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Remember that the English Wikipedia reaches the entire English-speaking world. Thanks, User:ST15RMwikipedia 20:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Uh, yeah. That was my entire point- that we shouldn't dismiss events because they occur in the non-Anglophone world. GCG (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Vera Katz[edit]

Article: Vera Katz (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): San Francisco Gate
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.

 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Posted Stephen 22:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Keith Chegwin[edit]

Article: Keith Chegwin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC's Twitter
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • give credit)
Updater: Ritchie333 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Martinevans123 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Insufficient lead section per WP:LEAD, much of body text is uncited. --Jayron32 14:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I suppose there's zero chance of the blurb "Cheggers goes pop.", is there? Mjroots (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
    I did consider adding a note to the effect that "Cheggers finally went pop" but considered that it might be very lost on our non-Brit readers who no doubt would have found it incredibly offensive and sought my excoriation. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, it would have been lost on non-Brits, not so sure they would have found it incredibly offensive though. You should see the barnstar Iridescent left me (you probably have though, as I'm pretty sure you're one of my TPSs. Mjroots (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    You monsters! Suffice to say that if I lived in Tunbridge Wells, I'd be disgusted. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    Funny you mention Tunbridge Wells, I live about 10 miles (16 km) from there! Mjroots (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support having added sources (Jesus H Christ TRM, you're using The Sun for this - I think not); I think it's all there now. So, on the main page - one, two, three .... [whistle] Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
    I "Jesus H Christ His Lord Saviour Our God" used The Sun because it was the only source available at the time, plus the BBC Twitter link which my company firewall rejects. That was about six hours ago. JESUS. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll send you a donation by way of an apology - is the number still 01 811 8055? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
01 811 8055, a number etched in our brains. I liked Gervais' Twitter send off, "Pop Knob In Fanny"... (should be safe enough for those who get it and sufficiently mystifying enough for those who don't). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
You can't beat a bit of Festive Fanny, can you? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article now meets ITN standards.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support, now, what about that blurb? Mjroots (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    Well, since you actually got a barnstar for the suggestion, it must be a shoo-in, surely.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    Oh, and the BBC have already got in there with making people outraged: [7] so we'd be in good company...  — Amakuru (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I read the article ... And I still don't get it. To my friends across the Atlantic: sorry for your loss. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    @CosmicAdventure: the suggested blurb was a clever play on words referencing a children's programme Cheggers hosted. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Russian troops withdraw from Syria[edit]

No consensus. Stephen 22:16, 12 December 2017 (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.

Nominator's comments: It would by nice if we could put this right above the Iraqi announcement which also deals with the defeat of Daish --Karl.i.biased (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose None of the three articles cited has been updated to include the relevent information. --Jayron32 14:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Only Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War needs to be bold. This is the one article specific to this news item. Regardless the BBC report this as a partial withdrawal, which probably puts this in oppose territory for me. --LukeSurl t c 14:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
And the BBC also says there "Mr Putin made a similar withdrawal announcement last year, but Russian military operations continued." But the BBC seems to be having its own problems - its article is all about 'partial withdrawal' but its headline currently just says 'withdrawal'.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Russia is keeping its base in Syria so the "withdrawal" is more of a troop movement than a pullout. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support A withdrawal's still a withdrawal even if some bases remain. Sort of like how the US finished with WW2 years ago even though it has bases in Japan to date. Banedon (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Not a good analogy - what happened with US troops in Japan at the end of WW2 was (for very good reasons) the exact opposite of a withdrawal.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, purely an announcement by a (Redacted) politician (Redacted) (Putin) made to promote his reelection. (Redacted) Abductive (reasoning) 22:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose current blurb: I'm currently neutral if the words 'partial withdrawal' are added to ALL blurbs under discussion. In other words, keeping the present blurb but adding an altblurb is not good enough for me, and I don't feel free to change the main blurb myself, which might also be problematic in that existing votes are for/against 'withdrawal', but not necessarily for/against 'partial withdrawal'. So it might be better to close this, and re-open it as a new nom about 'partial withdrawal' (though I'm at ITN too intermittently to know whether that's the recommended procedure or not).Tlhslobus (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose'. No evidence outside of a statement that the event is actually occurring. We should not be effectively promoting press releases on ITN. James (talk/contribs) 18:18, 12 December 2017 (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: