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.

Billy Graham in 1966
Billy Graham

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.


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pulled from the main page are generally marked with [Posted] or [Pulled] in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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



February 22[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 February 22

February 21[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 February 21
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations

[Posted] Billy Graham[edit]

closing down to put an end to pointless off-topic discussions. --Jayron32 18:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Jay – The last four posts were not off-topic. Sca (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed image
Article: Billy Graham (talk, history)
Blurb: Billy Graham, widely regarded as the most influential preacher of the 20th century, dies at the age of 99.
Alternative blurb: ​U.S. Christian evangelist Billy Graham, known for his mass-proselytizing crusades, dies at age 99.
Alternative blurb II: Billy Graham, widely regarded as the most influential Evangelical preacher of the 20th century, dies at the age of 99.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • give credit)
Updater: Coffee (talk • give credit)
 The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC) + Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose for now; article is in pretty good shape, but the "other honors" section needs refs. --Jayron32 13:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
We should just delete that section; most of those awards probably aren't notable anyway.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Quite a big deal, and the article is OK. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support on article quality. There are a handful of spots where a cite is needed but overall the article is in good condition and these can be quickly fixed. Support Blurb on the importance of the subject. Graham was an absolutely iconic figure both in the United States and globally and will certainly be remembered as one of the great figures in the history of Evangelical Protestantism. Unquestionably meets our criteria for a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD A couple of CN tags but nothing that should prevent posting in my view. Neutral about a blurb; I concede he was influential within he's field but he's hardly a global icon in the mould of Mandela.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. He is easily the most recognized clergyman in the world excepting only the Pope. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm an ignorant neophyte, but I have to admit this is the first time I've heard of or seen the name "Billy Graham".--WaltCip (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. I had never heard of him before I moved to the US.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Support blurb Curious how old these editors are. I'm 38 and definitely caught Graham in his waning years; any younger and he may seem irrelevant. But his influence was massive and global for decades. GCG (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm 41, if you must know :-)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
He was 99 and has been semi-retired for a long time. Also (and I am not making any assumptions regarding anyone's personal beliefs here) people who are religiously indifferent or are non-believers aren't likely to keep tabs on famous clergy. I am also quite sure there are people who have no idea who Nelson Mandella was. In fact I am fairly sure two such are relatives of mine. :-( -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I support inclusion as main news. For those who have never heard of him, then perhaps the inclusion of the news will address our appalling and immense ignorance about religion and religious men. werldwayd (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - not a fan of the man's work, but his notability is unquestionable. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Notability is not a question here. It is how much of an impact on the world that his death has/may create. He was 99 so his death was not surprising (I had thought he passed already), and while its still early in the news cycle, I'm not seeing the type of shock and awe we'd associate with a blurb-worthy posting like Mandala/Thatcher or Bowie/Prince/Williams. --Masem (t) 14:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Actually, with rare exceptions the standard is not the impact of their death, but rather their life. Madella's death was long expected and had virtually no impact as he had long retired from politics. We typically give blurbs to people who were in the top tier of their field. Graham unquestionably fits that criteria. It is of course also true that we occasionally give blurbs in cases where a very well known figure dies unexpectedly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) "shock and awe" has never been a requirement for posting a blurb on ITN, and for good reason. Shock and awe is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power, dominant battlefield awareness, dominant maneuvers, and spectacular displays of force to paralyze an adversary's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
        • I didn't mean it in a military sense. I'm looking at it from the fact that the world (broadly) was taken aback by the news. Clearly, someone as notable as Graham will get tons of obit coverage, but I'm looking to see if there are mass gatherings to show respect, or similar actions that demonstrate that this was more impactful as a death than just numerous obits. There might be, but that I'm not seeing yet, just a lot of obits. --Masem (t) 14:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
          • Apologies my tongue was in my cheek. So you're opposing because someone who literally just died hasn't had gatherings for them yet? Interesting logic. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
            • A good rule of thumb for a death blurb in my view is whether there is likely to be a separate article just for the death. See Death of Nelson Mandela, Death of David Bowie. Will there be a Death of Billy Graham?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
              • I respectfully disagree. We should make these decisions based on the impact of the individual's life, not the specific circumstances of his death. This man was a major world figure for decades. Lepricavark (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
            • Given that we can post an interim RD while blurb discussions continue, this is completely reasonable to see how the situation develops in the next 24 hrs. The stuff I'm reading right now is still of the ilk "Oh, he was a great man, shame he died"-type of tributes, which do not meet my opinion of where a blurb is worthy. --Masem (t) 15:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Billy Graham is a world-famous white Christian Evangelical who I don't think is a raving right-wing fruit-loop. That's notable in itself ;-) One would like to think he would at least attempt a cup of tea and a sit-down with Richard Dawkins without each other screaming at 120 decibels. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per Coffee, GCG, and Ad Orientem. Gamaliel (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • RD is fine once the article is up to scratch, but strong oppose blurb. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this man is a world-changing figure comparable to Nelson Mandela or Margaret Thatcher, which is the standard we apply for blurbs. Modest Genius talk 14:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Again, the standard is being misstated. It is not "world changing," Mandella did not change the world. He changed his country. The standard has always been that the subject is generally recognized as being in the top tier of their profession. World changing is silly. We would have a death blurb maybe once a decade if that. And virtually everyone outside the field of politics would be excluded. Graham definitely meets the traditional criteria we have always applied here for a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I disagree in almost every way. I'll just point you to WP:ITN/DC which states that blurbs are limited to "major transformative world leaders", which Graham was not. You can't narrow things down to a tiny field just to claim this person was important. In a century's time, people will still be talking about Nelson Mandela. They will not be talking about an obscure preacher. Modest Genius talk 14:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
If you believe that Billy Graham was an obscure preacher than all I can say is that we do not inhabit the same world and further discussion is pointless. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb According to WP:ITN, blurbs are for the deaths of "major transformative world leaders in their field" and in the field of religion, Billy Graham meets this standard. Additionally, his death is receiving substantial coverage around the world [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], [8]. SpencerT♦C 14:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb "He was widely regarded as the most influential preacher of the 20th century" from his biography says it all, biggest christian figure of the 20th century. Claims that he is a obscure preacher are outright laughable and i am not even close to being near the US. Here's a bit from an article i read about his death "Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. counted Graham as a close friend and ally, once remarking, “Had it not been for the ministry of my good friend Dr. Billy Graham, my work in the Civil Rights Movement would not have been as successful as it has been." GuzzyG (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb we might as well quit doing these blurbs altogether if this one isn't posted. Lepricavark (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment RD or blurb, there's gaps in sourcing throughout, and all the list of honors at the ends needs sourcing before this can be posted. --Masem (t) 15:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Too soon to judge about a blurb (I'm usually the first one opposing them, so maybe he does deserve one). News seems to be recent, let's wait a little and reassess? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Oppose blurb. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. is the person with a statue in Washington DC and a U.S. national holiday. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Dr. King is honored for his social/political activism, not his influence in religion. If he were remembered chiefly for his influence in religion he would not have a statue paid for with public funds. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Article should be highlighted as leading news. As a minimum, his name should be mentioned as Recent deaths. werldwayd (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb international transformative impact in the field of religion far beyond his roots in the American South or even his denomination. One quibble though, I think it worth noting that he is considered the most Protestant preacher of the 20th century for NPOV reasons. One could reasonably argue that John Paul II brought down the Soviet Union with his preaching (not an argument I am making, but one that has been made in reliable sources), and I am sure that there are Orthodox clerics who one could argue with as well (Ad Orientem would likely be better at thinking of them than I am, to my shame.) @The Rambling Man and Coffee: what are your thoughts on this? TonyBallioni (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Prefer alt: that has recently been added by Ad for NPOV reasons. I didn't even begin to get into non-Christian preachers (which reasonably would include clerics of other religions whose preaching has also had an impact (positive or negative) on world events comparable to Graham. I think the sourcing would generally agree he was the most influential evangelical preacher, and this is typically what is being referenced, even if in shorthand. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Reiterating an earlier comment, Graham was a famous preacher but it is nonsense to call him out in this way. Martin Luther King Jr. was an American Baptist who exceeds Graham's influence from here to eternity. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Graham is the single most influential preacher of the last 50+ years and unlike most famous "pastors" was near universally respected. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb – Long a household name in the U.S. and fairly widely known internationally. Altblurb offered to avoid subjective "widely regarded ... most influential," which smacks of hagiography. (Is no recent pic available? This one is 52 years old.) Sca (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I do not see any altblurb.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Ad Orientem has added one, although it doesn't address the hagiography issue.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
⇒ Somehow mine got overwritten. Now restored above and Ad Orientem's moved down as Alt2. Sca (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Admittedly I first heard of him by getting him mixed up with the rather-more-to-my-tastes Bill Graham, but he does appear to have sold the whole "don't be a jerk" side of religion quite well. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I remember being dumb-founded thinking that Superstar Billy Graham was going to proselytizing on prime time TV. GCG (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Graham was a massive icon globally, and a world-leading figure in religion, and very clearly passes the threshold of notability, rendering him worthy of a blurb. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly support blurb - He was unquestionably one of the most influential people of his day. Even discounting his work as "America's pastor", he served as a counselor to several US presidents (whether officially or not). I'm quite surprised (though I really shouldn't be, considering this is an international project) at the amount of people who haven't heard of him. Gestrid (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • As a side note, it looks like NBC interrupted their regularly scheduled programming to announce the death of Billy Graham, and that's not, in my experience, very common at all. (An "NBC News Special Report" like the one in the news article I linked is used to interrupt regularly-scheduled programming here in America.) Gestrid (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Besides being America's pastor, he was also the pop music's pastor. A shining example is Cliff Richard, one of the biggests British and international stars. Here is when his life was changed by Billy Graham at Earl's Court in London in 1996 at the height of his fame. Here years later Cliff Richard in a 1984 Billy Graham crusade in 1984. see testimony. werldwayd (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • As an anonymous poster, I don't think my voice should weigh too much... but I do come here on occassion to see the discussion on cases which I think are notable enough to get a blurb. I'm glad to see that most of the people posting here seem to be getting it right. Graham was knighted by Queen Elizabeth and spoke to over 120K at a rally in England---the largest religious rally at the time in English history. (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted with a simpler version of altblurb2. Obvious overwhelming support for posting a blurb but keeping this open for any additional comments. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support blurb - It's interesting to see a lot of people who do not regularly participate in ITN/C come out of the woodwork to support a blurb for this person. That may speak volumes to his outreach. Moreover, to my relief, it may represent a loosening of the blurb standard so that we get out of this "Thatcher, Mandela, Thatcher, Mandela" mantra we otherwise seem to be constantly stuck in.--WaltCip (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Comment Post Posting Oppose blurb on article quality His well-known homophobia is not referenced even once. His misogynistic views are skated over. Article is incomplete. Black Kite (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I recognize that the "if x then y" argument does not apply in ITN. However, I nonetheless find it seriously off-kilter that Le Guin's death was rejected for a blurb while Graham's is almost immediately posted -- and that the arguments for each are almost mirror-image. U.S. residents may have failed to notice that Graham's primary impact was almost totally inside the U.S. (In secondary impact, eg. charitable organisations working abroad, his work is comparable to dozens if not hundreds of others.) He did establish a number of successful firsts in the field of evangelical religion, mostly related to commercializing it. Others have done similar things before him, less successfully. Others have gone considerably further than him since then. He is a significant marker in a U.S.-based roadmap which goes back to Civil War England, but within the broad view he is only another such marker. (Religious rallies of that nature actually go back in the U.S. at least as far as the U.S. Civil War -- and most of those who held them then are forgotten today.)
At a neutral WP, we obviously don't use "For those who have never heard of him, then perhaps the inclusion of the news will address our appalling and immense ignorance about religion and religious men" as a criterion. (Probably just as well, or else the words "appalling and immense ignorance" might well resonate with other decisions which have been made here.) With Le Guin, I suggested two objective measures for a writer which would be necessary for a blurb: academic analysis and marketplace analysis. The comparable objective measures for Graham would be worldwide media coverage of his death (not just the U.S.) and an identifiable widespread social change brought about specifically as a result of his work. For Graham, I see significance, but I don't see worldwide reaction in any way comparable to the U.S. versions, and I don't see a clear social change which can be laid specifically at his door. That kind of thing merits an RD, not a blurb. - Tenebris (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
On no planet and in no town is Guin more known/notable then Graham, it's not about religion either. You're comparing a genre writer to a major preacher who advised MLK and presidents. GuzzyG (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
It is not my fault if you cannot remember all the literature you should have studied in high school. How many English-language U.S. schoolchildren have there been since 1969? That is the minimum number of how many people ought to know of Le Guin. It is one of the basic texts, after all. L-i-t-e-r-a-t-u-r-e, not "genre". - Tenebris (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, i am in Australia and that's the thing, i know Graham but not Le Guin, also F-a-n-t-a-s-y and s-c-i-e-n-c-e f-i-c-t-i-o-n writers are genre writers, sorry to say. GuzzyG (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, support RD. The blurb is a bit much for a Christian minister. I also feel very, very uncomfortable with the POV-pushing tone of the article given his support for homophobia.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
He was a lot more than just a minister, he ministered to 2.2 billion people. His social views are not relevant to the fact that he was influential. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
That makes it worse.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
We're not here to right the great wrong of homophobia. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Nor should we post POV-pushing blurbs on the main page.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's POV to call him influential. He was incredibly influential, as evidenced by his personal relationships with Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. People can judge for themselves his best and worst qualities. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
No. Influential in the United States perhaps. Not influential in Monaco, believe me. We are not USApedia. If we are going to keep the word "influential", the blurb should read "in the United States" after "influential" at least.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Oy, not this argument again. Influence is influence, even if it doesn't touch every country. Maybe he was/is influential to Christians in Monaco, I don't know that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
No he was only influential to the 2.2 billion people living in the United States. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I am very, very uncomfortable with the notion that being a Christian minister disqualifies one from a blurb. Lepricavark (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
We don't usually post blurbs for RDs. He was not well-known outside the US, and he spread discrimination to boot. There shouldn't be a blurb. We will post a blurb when former president GHW Bush dies--I am sorry but Billy Graham was not on the same level at all.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we will, though. Bush was a one-term president, and he was widely perceived to be riding on the political coattails of Ronald Reagan, who himself would be blurb-worthy.--WaltCip (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Questions 1) The blurb feels a bit weasely to me: "one of the most influential" is not a wording that's commonly seen on the main page. The quote is present in the article, but it is sourced to one book, which seems to be some biography published last summer. 2) In any case, should the blurb be "one of the most influential evangelical preachers of the 20th century in the United States"? I must admit I've never heard of him before, so I'm not sure about his international reach. Isa (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Altblurb would be more NPOV than Altburb2 for sure. Except we should add, "known in the United States".Zigzig20s (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb, truly an influential figure. --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Isa that "one of the most influential evangelical preachers" is too weasely. While I understand Fuzheado's motives in toning down the description, I think it comes across as a rather obvious bid to avoid criticism of a subjective assertion. I would point out that Alt1 is entirely factual. Sca (talk) 18:47, 21 February 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.

[Withdrawn] Thomas C. Wales case[edit]

Withdrawn by nominator. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 21 February 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: Thomas C. Wales (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States' FBI indicates the unsolved slaying of Thomas C. Wales, the only federal prosecutor ever assassinated, was probably carried out by a professional hit man.
Alternative blurb: ​In the United States, law enforcement announce the unsolved murder of government official Thomas C. Wales may have involved a conspiracy among a small group of people.
News source(s): Seattle Times
Nominator and updater: Chetsford (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: An update into a criminal investigation may not normally be newsworthy, however, given this was a high-profile assassination that has been unsolved for 16 years, and the recent announcement the only significant update on the case in that time, I think it warrants an ITN mention even though it is US-centric. Chetsford (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose a minor update to a parochial crime. Stephen 04:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose highly localised speculation. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The update, whilst interesting, doesn't seem to be super news worthy. Pedro :  Chat  11:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose'. Being US centric is not relevant(per "Please do not" above such objections would be invalid) but this is too local a story for posting and does not have sufficiently wide coverage even in just the US. This is not a top or even mid-level news story. We also don't typically posts developments in criminal cases; on rare occasions an arrest, but typically only convictions are posted due to BLP issues. Thank you, though, for the nomination. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The issue is not that it's US centric, but more that it has no notability outside of a specific minute niche of interest.--WaltCip (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I understand that, but the nominator mentioned "US centric" as a concern, I was simply informing them that is not an issue. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As a general rule, "mights", "maybes" and "possiblys" don't get posted on ITN, especially when it comes to potential BLP issues.--WaltCip (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure there's a BLP issue here since the B is about someone who is decidedly not L. That said, the reasoning presented has changed my mind as to the utility of this as an ITN candidate and I withdraw the nomination. Chetsford (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Chetsford: The BLP issue is with regards to any suspect their is; posting a development in any criminal cases could suggest the suspect is guilty before their case is adjudicated, which we cannot do. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there's any suspect(s), but I suppose I could be wrong. Chetsford (talk) 12:22, 21 February 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.

February 20[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 February 20
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections

February 19[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 February 19
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

RD: Sergey Litvinov[edit]

Article: Sergey Litvinov (athlete, born 1958) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN CTV L'Equipe
Nominator: Black Kite (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Olympic gold medal winner and world champion. I've sourced this as far as it needs. It might need a little tweaking but the basics are there. Black Kite (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Referenced,notable, short but I think just by an inch above the required length in my opinion. BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

February 18[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 February 18
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime

RD: Idrissa Ouedraogo[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Idrissa Ouédraogo (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety; AP (via NZ Herald)
Nominator: Hl (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.

 — Hugh (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose The filmography is unreferenced, and there is no coverage of his life from 2006 until his death. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I agree, the current coverage is insufficient; I would think something like a "legacy" section would help. Alex Shih (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Peggy Cooper Cafritz[edit]

Article: Peggy Cooper Cafritz (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Washington Post
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 updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support not the greatest article but sufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support - As TRM stated, and quite short but sufficient.BabbaQ (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The article looks decent and adequately sourced. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] 71st British Academy Film Awards[edit]

Article: 71st British Academy Film Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri wins five awards, including Best Film, at the 71st British Academy Film Awards.
News source(s): Screendaily
Nominator: JuneGloom07 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

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

 JuneGloom07 Talk 21:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose no prose, just a three-line lead and tables, tables, tables. Take a look at last year's article... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose apart from what the user above said, do we even post these awards in the ITN? Oscars I can understand, but the british academy awards are in the same league as, say, the Golden globes, or the festival de Cannes. So if we give this pass on importance, we should the also post the globes and the cannes, and then maybe the berlin festival and the chinese one who's name I forgot and then we turn IMDb into the IMDB news page. Karl.i.biased (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    If you don't like it being ITNR, nominate it for removal. Until then, it's ITNR, precisely to avoid the kind of comment you've just made. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    Learn to tell arguments from personal dislike. Also, learn to speak properly. I have no idea what you meant by any of those two sentences Karl.i.biased (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    This isn't the correct forum for you expressing your "personal dislike". And I can "speak properly" thanks. If you have "no idea" then perhaps the problem isn't with what I wrote. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    I was talking about your attempt to claim personal dislike instead of trying to counter my argument against including this in the ITN, and you know it. So keep trying to pull strawmans elsewhere. I rest my case. Karl.i.biased (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    This event is on the recurring items list, meaning that notability is not at issue. You seemed to be arguing that this isn't notable. Since this is on the list, you need to propose it's removal from the list to challenge the notability of this event. Also, if you want to see other similar events added, you need to propose their addition to the list. 331dot (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose only due to lack of update. A 2-3 paragraph bit about the ceremonies themselves is all that is needed. --Masem (t) 23:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Support What prose has been added is about the same as last year's, and in contrast to the Oscars, I don't believe the BAFTA has the same amount of pomp to warrant much more. --Masem (t) 02:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not updated.BabbaQ (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Have updated lead. yorkshiresky (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and Comment If this were to be posted, wouldn't the title have to be de-italicised? i.e.:
''[[Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri]]'' wins five awards, including [[BAFTA Award for Best Film|Best Film]], at the '''[[71st British Academy Film Awards]]'''
— Hugh (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The movie should be italicized, and I've added the italics in the blurb above. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Enough prose has been added now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Disagree, Pawningthree. It's odd to me that none of the prose is beneath the lead. Also, much of that lead isn't sourced (like Ridley Scott for instance). – Muboshgu (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: Looks like those concerns have been addressed since we !voted. The article seems to be at a similar level to last year's. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Article is much improved. Support. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • That's downright impressive that the editors were able to get their act together to get the BAFTAs posted, yet for three years in a row, we've failed to post the Grammys due to an utter lack of editor interest in getting the article up to scratch. I'm not sure what to conclude other than that the BAFTAs are simply more popular.--WaltCip (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    Only among the insignificant percentage of the world population that happens to show up here and cares. We're really not that important when one is drawing such a conclusion. --Jayron32 17:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    It's easy enough to repair a worthy article if you care enough for it to appear on ITN. If you don't, well, you know how it goes.. — Moe Epsilon 21:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    It's all about Team GB baby, TEAM GB! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Request that we agree also to post the results of the Berlinale, which ends Feb 25. – Sca (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704 (talk, history)
Blurb: Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704 (aircraft pictured) crashes in the Zagros Mountains killing all 66 people on board.
Alternative blurb: Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704 crashes in the Zagros Mountains, with 65 people on board
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Early reports, article obviously needs updates as does blurb when they decide no-one survived. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Just made the wording more standard and straightforward, as in the Saratov Airlines crash. Brandmeistertalk 09:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Some small expansion now done, but probably better posted sooner rather than later. What's there is well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article seems just long enough and presumably will expand as more info comes in. Juxlos (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - major airliner crash with high loss of life. Mjroots (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Per above.BabbaQ (talk) 11:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support -The article is fine and adequately referenceed. The scale of the loss and coverage is also very high. Worth posting anytime soon –Ammarpad (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. Feel free to add the photo. --Tone 13:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Past technicalities. Brandmeistertalk 22:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: number of passengers later corrected to 59, total on board 65. Will post at Errors. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Has now been corrected. I've pasted in the new blurb as ALT above. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Just be careful when deleting references which are used multiple times. I fixed two orphaned references that you removed when the numbers changed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether it's better to be half right or half wrong. One of those has since been binned. So we're left with two that contradict the content. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Just because the numbers didn't add up, the other details were used throughout the article. Please don't summarily delete named references without checking the mess you leave afterwards. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for making it look tidy. I'd be reluctant to deliberately re-add links with incorrect information for something that's on the main page. Those sources are still wrong. I thought you might have had an opinion on the new blurb. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Nothing to do with it looking neat, it's to do with replacing references you summarily deleted. The sources may be out of date, but that's commonplace with ITN items. The references were used for other verification, so please don't do that again without fixing the issues you leave. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
They're still wrong. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Then feel free to fix them, but don't just delete them when they're used to reference other items in the article. Thanks again! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Feel free also, as nominator. Although the original blurb we had now seems less than ideal for some reason. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't follow you. The published blurb is fine, the news sources naturally differ on their numbers because of the situation, the original blurb has been superseded. Do you have something to add that benefits our readers here? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Please don't follow me. I just make a mess, it seems. But at the article talk page you tell us the original blurb was "bullshit"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
You did make a mess. And don't do it again. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
And good luck with future nominating blurbs. "Thanks again". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't need luck, and please don't make any more of those kinds of edits. You made a mess. I fixed it. If you need help with how to use named references, feel free to drop me a line. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I have a number of lines in mind already. Thanks for just letting go with this so quickly, after giving just a subtle hint of wrongdoing. Would anyone care to hat this? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment this line of "conversation" is going nowhere, could an uninvolved editor close down the nomination please, the referencing issues have been temporarily resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

February 17[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 February 17
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections

[Closed] Sheep human embryo[edit]

No consensus to post an announcement at a science conference. Stephen 23:53, 19 February 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: Sheep (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists in Scotland successfully grow the first sheep embryo containing the cells of humans.
News source(s): The Guardian The Telegraph
Nominator: Andise1 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Not sure what the best target article(s) should be so I just linked Sheep for now. Feel free to suggest better articles that you know of. Andise1 (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC) (UTC)
  • No comment yet on appropriatenes, but perhaps Xenotransplantation as the target? --Masem (t) 00:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Also to comment, this is research announced at a professional meeting, but does not appear to be yet published (a paper seems to be pending though). --Masem (t) 00:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, garbage with a zeroary source. Nominator should know better. Abductive (reasoning) 09:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose these cart-before-the-horse noms. ITN is meant to highlight quality articles/updates. If we don't even have a target article, how can we suggest the update is worth showcasing? GCG (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just a claim at a conference, with no evidence. Come back once they've published a peer-reviewed paper and there's a suitable article for an update (sheep would be a ridiculous place to put it). Modest Genius talk 15:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A target article isn't just the thing we make bold in the text, it needs to be a place where a significant, substantive, update has been made to the encylopedia. This has not happened here. Sheep would be a bad article to put this content in, and, reading the Guardian source there, this technique is different to xenotransplantation. Chimera (genetics) might be a better bet, but reading the current content of that article, I cannot see more than a sentence being added to the end of Chimera_(genetics)#Research for this. --LukeSurl t c 15:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree on that about the substantial update; and realistically I cannot see this being significant until it is attempts to transplant the sheep-grown element back to a human. Eg, ways off. Interesting, but not ITN material here. --Masem (t) 15:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We can surely find a more reputable source for this research than Telegraph and Guardian. In any case, as per above, the research needs to be subject to peer review.--WaltCip (talk) 19:35, 19 February 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: Ongoing] 2018 Winter Olympics[edit]

Article: Chronological summary of the 2018 Winter Olympics (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
Nominator: Kiril Simeonovski (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: I'm a bit surprised that this hasn't been added to ongoing as the Winter Olympics are underway and medals in several events have already been awarded. It's also a bit troublesome to navigate through the chronological summary without a direct link from the main page. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

  • With the current blurb on the opening ceremony, there's no need for ongoing, and I'm pretty sure its established once that falls off the ongoing is automatic. --Masem (t) 13:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
    • However, we always link to the main event page, not to the timeline. --Masem (t) 13:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
      • We have always linked to the chronological summary (please see for the 2016 Summer Olympics and 2014 Winter Olympics as an example) regardless of the blurb reporting about the opening ceremony (please see also for the 2016 Summer Olympics and 2014 Winter Olympics as another example).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Nevermind, then. The only thing I would be concerned with is the collasped tables for summary of results - I would expect some visible prose on the list. (I see the 2016 one is the only other one with this collapsed format, and its not really helpful, to me. ) --Masem (t) 16:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - do not feel that simultaneous listings at ongoing and as a blurb are required. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC) - NB: This nomination was previously closed by me, but has been reopened per the wishes of the nominator.
  • Comment If the blurb reporting about the opening ceremony is the problem, then we could pull it in order to move the story to ongoing. The opening ceremony is not the main news for a such event any more.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Support pull and move to ongoing. This is the logical decision in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose doing anything until this naturally rolls off the bottom of the list, and at that point we can shift it to ongoing. --Jayron32 15:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the suggested list of results (chronological summary) fails as an encyclopedic article and, as a stub, shouldn't be listed on the front page. Until proper prose sections are added, I believe 2018 Winter Olympics would be a more appropriate article to list on the front page. ~Mable (chat) 10:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    • The posting of the chronological summary page became an WP:IAR consensus because the original practice was to post them on ITN directly.[9] Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, even if we need to apply a little WP:IAR to the normal rules for ITN. It is definitely "in the news", it is well-updated and referenced, and it condenses all the most information related to the broader topic that is in the news into one convenient yet informative article. I don't really see the need to pull the opening ceremony if this were posted to ongoing, but I would support it if that were necessary for some reason, as this is the part that is currently "in the news" and the article that would be much more difficult to find than (rather than the opening ceremony one). Canadian Paul 15:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Note - I hope I'm not out of turn doing this, but as the opening cermony blurb is now the last item on the ticker, I figured this should be brought back up to the top for current discussion rather than remaining below, only to be seen by the oddly-timed watchlist entry with this section header. - Floydian τ ¢ 09:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support We've posted the summary page as ongoing for previous Olympics. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted as ongiong, as the blurb just rolled out of the ITN box. --Tone 20:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

February 16[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 February 16
Armed conflict and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections

2018 Oaxaca earthquake[edit]

Article: 2018 Oaxaca earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: An earthquake strikes Oaxaca, Mexico, and a helicopter carrying government officials surveying the damage crashes and kills 14 people.
Alternative blurb: ​A helicopter carrying government officials surveying damage from an earthquake in Oaxaca, Mexico, crash-lands, killing 13 and injures 15 others on the ground.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Zanhe (talk • give credit)
Updater: Matthiasb (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Raymie (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is an unusual disaster: the strong earthquake did not kill anybody, but the helicopter crash killed 14. Zanhe (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Support The evente is notable and the article is pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article in good shape, even though "summary section" can benefit from improvement to have more direct reference. The blurb is also too wordy, and needs tweaking or alternative. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. When an incompetent government helicopter crash's death toll of 15 exceeds the entire earthquake's death toll of 0, that should tell you that it should not be posted. Abductive (reasoning) 13:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • This is not valid reason for opposing ITN candidate. See "Please do not" advise above. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Ok, how's this; add the item in no longer in the news to my oppose. And please, poiny out which of the "Please do not"s where my oppose went wrong... Abductive (reasoning) 19:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - This earthquake incident is notable, article is not good shape.18:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)BabbaQ (talk)
  • Oppose - the earthquake killed nobody, and is therefore not particularly notable and of minimal lasting impact. The helicopter crash is tangential, and would struggle to pass on notability as it was a plane crash involving government personnel, and had a low death toll compared to the other posted aviation incidents currently at ITN. Therefore, I oppose both items (they should really be considered separately) owing to a lack of lasting impact. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, but... If we took the earthquake out of the picture, and focus on the helicopter crash, which didn't kill anyone on board but killed 13 on the ground + about the same number injured, that would be seen as a notable air incident. The earthquake itself, while significant at 5.9, isn't that major. I do not think we want to create a separate article for the crash, it's linked to the quake, but I think we need to put the helicopter crash as the focus of the blurb. I've provided an alt blurb that puts the focus on the crash section of the article for this purpose. --Masem (t) 14:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per stormy and WP:AIRCRASH. Neither event is independently significant, and their confluence is not causal. GCG (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: earthquake certainly not notable, air crash may possibly be, but that doesn't have an article. Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

RD: Leo Cahill[edit]

Article: Leo Cahill (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Globe & Mail
Nominator and updater: Floydian (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: Former CFL coach / General Manager. Not a long article by any means, but I have expanded it slightly and sourced everything. Floydian τ ¢ 09:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Support –Stub but well sourced, good for RD. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose A well-sourced stub is still a stub. Challenger l (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support 1579 characters of prose is barely above the 1500 required by DYK, which I consider the red line between stub and start. A little expansion would help, especially to the lead, which doesn't summarize the article body fully. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Lassie Lou Ahern[edit]

Article: Lassie Lou Ahern (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 updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Adequately sourced. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support brief but adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are only 2 sentences describing her life between 1932 and 2018. Although she may not have actively been starring in movies, the article does not have sufficient biographical coverage in my opinion. SpencerT♦C 22:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

KP Sharma Oli appointed Nepal's new prime minister[edit]

Article: Khadga Prasad Oli (talk, history)
Blurb: Khadga Prasad Oli sworn in as 41st prime minister of Nepal.
News source(s): (AZ), (THT), (NYT), (HT)
Nominator: Biplab Anand (talk • give credit)

 Biplab Anand (Talk) 06:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Conditional support: Head of government of a country but the article can use some references. Juxlos (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Article needs a bunch of references; the Marxist Insurgency section, several paragraphs under the multi-party democracy section, and the entire electoral history section needs refs. --Jayron32 13:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The swearing-ins of heads of government are not normally posted, it's heads of state who are in the limelight. In this case, the Nepalese king president is the head of state. Brandmeistertalk 16:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
    That's irrelevent. The swearing-ins of heads of government are not on ITNR. Which is meaningless in any discussion not involving ITNR. There are hundreds of items we post that are not covered by ITNR, we discuss them on their merits, and make the decision to post them without regard for anything except is the article quality good enough and is this a topic which is in the news. --Jayron32 17:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
    I don't recall seeing various swearing-ins of PMs on ITN. Nearly all countries have their own PMs who come and go and I don't see why this one is particularly special. Obviously, if we post every one of them, the main page would be overwhelmed. Brandmeistertalk 18:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
    If Theresa May or Justin Trudeau was replaced, this would be an unanimous Support. They don't change that often. Juxlos (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Brandmeister: Nepal's monarchy was abolished 10 years ago. They have a president now but the Prime Minister is the real leader. -Zanhe (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional support per Juxlos. -Zanhe (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose needs better referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

February 15[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 February 15
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

Ethiopia PM Hailemariam Desalegn resignation[edit]

Article: Hailemariam Desalegn (talk, history)
Blurb: Hailemariam Desalegn resigns as Ethiopia's prime minister and chairman of EPRDF.
News source(s): (BBC), (DW), (VoA), (Fox news), (The Guardian)
Nominator: Jenda H. (talk • give credit)

 Jenda H. (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Article needs a much better update to establish context for the resignation. --Masem (t) 14:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose too much unreferenced material in the target BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per above, support once referencing issues are addressed. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional support on quality notability is undeniable but the quality of the article is very poor. Will support if unreferenced material is referenced and the article is improved in general. Karl.i.biased (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


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 [] 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: