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.

Vivian Cheruiyot in 2016
Vivian Cheruiyot

Contents

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 mark in 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]

April 24[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 April 24

RD: Saleh Ali al-Sammad[edit]

Article: Saleh Ali al-Sammad (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Houthi-recognized President Saleh Ali al-Sammad is killed in a Saudi Arabian airstrike.
News source(s): [1], [2]
Nominator: Panam2014 (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.

 Panam2014 (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

April 23[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 April 23
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

Penis and scrotum transplant[edit]

Articles: Human penis (talk, history) and Scrotum (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Doctors at Johns Hopkins University successfully complete the first transplant of a penis and scrotum on a United States veteran.
News source(s): Time New York Times BBC
Nominator: Andise1 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: A world's first that is in the news...hopefully not too grotesque for ITN. Andise1 (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose DYK is the way ahead here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. Neither has been updated adequately and the human penis article is very poorly referenced. I am Neutral on the merits of the nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you know of a more suitable article than penis (or scrotum)? Those were just the two that first came to my mind, but open to others if more suitable ones exist. Andise1 (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry to say that this is well outside of my field of knowledge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support with different target article (Penis transplantation). However the human penis article also has this section which makes it seem like this transplant is an incremental advance. Open to changing my mind, but will need some indication of why this is so different from previously-performed penis transplants. Banedon (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I just don't think this is at the level of importance we expect from ITN. — 🦊 23:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
support If the first heart transplant was notable (and WP was not there then) then this is. Although might have to watch the wording. "Male secual organ"/"urinary gland", I do not know.Lihaas (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I think that's a stretch. Most people would probably agree that heart transplants are far more important. Lepricavark (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral / mixed It's interesting and certainly notable, but DYK does seem more fitting. I'm willing to switch to either support or oppose based on other editors' comments. I agree with Banedon that there should be indication of what makes transplant in particular unique compared to past transplants. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not only is this more DYK material, this is also very inappropriate in terms of decency. SamaranEmerald (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Show me the policy that applies. HiLo48 (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all of the above, this is the kind of nomination that will garner controversy should it be posted...it’s just plain out obscene. Kirliator (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Show me the policy that applies. HiLo48 (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is better suited for DYK. Lepricavark (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Technically, this was completed in March, they're likely only reporting it now to make sure the man was recovering. This might be stale for that reason. --Masem (t) 04:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Toronto van incident[edit]

Article: 2018 Toronto van incident (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least nine people are killed in a vehicular attack in Toronto, Ontario.
Alternative blurb: ​At least nine people are killed when a van drives into pedestrians in an apparent vehicular attack in Toronto, Ontario.
Alternative blurb II: ​A vehicle ramming attack in Toronto, Ontario kills at least 9 people and injures dozens of others
News source(s): CBC BBC Globe Guardian
Nominator: LaserLegs (talk • give credit)
Updater: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Deaths - yes. But ... minimum deaths? Dunno... LaserLegs (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Support BBC now reporting 9 killed. Very rare (and tragic) event for Canada. EternalNomad (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support ah, so not just Europe then. Unstoppable tragedy strikes North America and horribly so. Support because it's notable that it's in Canada, it's notable that it has a reasonably high casualty count, the article is already good enough to post, it's in the news globally, this is ready already. Blurb sucks, but otherwise post now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support although I'm not certain we should call it a "vehicular attack". The BBC news are currently reporting the local police as calling it an "apparent attack" so I've proposed an alt-blurb but that could do with being more succint. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Very proud how the article turned out to be. Not sure if I can support since I created the article and is the updater. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I debate waiting for you to nom it as your own work, but decided to move ahead. Hope you don't mind. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @LaserLegs:: I wasn't sure I'd be INT worthy as I though there were no fatalities, but I am certainly very glad you nominated it while the article is being updated! Good work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. This is undoubtedly either a terrorist attack or a lone wolf copycat of a terrorist attack. Suggested second alt blurb. Also CNN is reporting “at least 9 dead” and “at least 16 injured”, so I’ve added those stats to my blurb. 66.31.81.200 (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - solid article, clear notability. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted wtih modification of blurb2 ("16" is not "dozens"). --Masem (t) 21:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No longer "at least" Dust has settled and casualties are counted. Can someone correct the blurb in certain terms? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, April 24, 2018 (UTC)
    • Updated to 10 and 15. --Masem (t) 00:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. That ten was a nine when I asked, but simply updating is the way to go. Saying "at least" kind of implies (at least some) of the injured are expected to die, rather than might. Not the most positive (or neutral) thinking. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, April 24, 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Per above; unusual event, I don't think this has happened outside of Europe before; added alt-blurb 3.  Nixinova  T  C  03:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) WASP-104b[edit]

Early closure. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: WASP-104b (talk, history)
Blurb: WASP-104b, a Hot Jupiter exoplanet discovered in 2014, has been labeled as the “darkest planet” ever found and darker than charcoal, with about 99% of light observed.
News source(s): (New Scientist) (Inquisitr) (I4U)
Nominator: LovelyGirl7 (talk • give credit)

  • I'd prefer seeing this as dyk, if it gets expanded first. --Tone 16:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - better as a DYK. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, good faith nom, but this is better off in DYK, not ITN. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Moral support - Factually interesting, but better off in DYK.--WaltCip (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for ITNC - definitely a DYK candidate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Dave Nelson[edit]

Article: Dave Nelson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Chicago Tribune
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Resignation of Armenian PM[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Serzh Sargsyan (talk, history)
Blurb: Serzh Sargsyan resigns as Prime Minister of Armenia, following large-scale protests
News source(s): GuardianBBC
Nominator: Galobtter (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Supersedes the protests nomination below; article needs some work with cites. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, 2018 Armenian protests needs updating to reference the protests' successful outcome. FWIW I think this should be a "two bold article" blurb.--LukeSurl t c 15:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, oppose on quality. Not only is there that orange tag, that proseline in the "early career" section is a problem. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this resignation will have a lasting effect on the socio-political dynamic in the country. The resignation came after lots of protests which are in itself notable. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support but please see the Armenian Protests discussion below instead; the protests that led to this should absolutely be mentioned in the blurb + the protests article is more ready for ITN. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Very notable news from a corner of the world that almost never appears in the In The News box.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's maintenance tagged for the love of anything that's good. We can't post it, regardless of its notability worthiness in this state. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Very notable news--Panam2014 (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment What exactly do we need to do to fix that maintenance tag? I have no idea how to attack that at the moment.(NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC))
  • Comment What maintenance tag? I checked all three articles in the blurb and I haven't come across one. Is everyone talking about the expand suggestion tag? Is that even a maintenance tag? Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge[edit]

WP:SNOW. Consensus to post this is unlikely to develop. --Jayron32 14:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Duchess of Cambridge gives birth to a son the fifth in line to the British throne
News source(s): Sky News
Nominator: WTKitty (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: This is going to be going round the world like wildfire when the states wakes up to this news, this is going to to be in the news all round the world and has already begun. WTKitty (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Provisional Support - once there is an article and it is properly suitable and referenced for the main page.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
See Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Very much a stub as of time of writing this.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Changing to neutral, as we didn't post one for Charlotte. Yet another example of how ITN is IMHO dysfunctional because it serves as a vassal for editor prejudice and original research rather than reader convenience and the posting of things that are actually *in the news*. But hey ho, there's nothing I can do about that I guess...  — Amakuru (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Amakuru What "prejudice" is involved here? No prejudice was involved in forming my opinion. ITN is not a news ticker and has never been based solely on what is in the news(if it were, we would post Donald Trump's tweets almost daily); we use factors like editorial judgement and article quality to evaluate what merits posting. As I stated, we did not post Charlotte because her birth is of little consequence as she is not directly in line for the throne, once George has kids she will be bumped down. The same goes for this child. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@331dot: you say it's down to editorial judgement, yet the judgement of those who !vote here seems to differ from the judgement of all the most of the major news outlets of the world, including the serious outlets not just tabloids. I get that WP:OR and WP:SYNTH don't apply to main page content selection, but we should still be presenting the world as it is, not how we think it should be, and it should still be reader-focused. Perhaps you and I have a different view of what ITN should be about, but I think one of its main purposes, especially given its prominent position on the main page, should be to navigate editors to the articles they want to see at the moment. Kate Middleton's article has seen a big spike in views in the past couple of days, because readers want to read it, and "she is not directly in line for the throne" is not a reason why we shouldn't provide a link to the article for people.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Readers want to read about Kim Kardashian's hairstyle, should that be a permanent link in the ITN box? We need to reflect what readers are interested in, but this is also an encyclopedia, and what readers are interested in also needs to be viewed through that lens. ITN is not a news ticker or tabloid. What you think is important for readers is not necessarily what I think is important for readers, or what other editors think, and so on. Hence the need for discussion and consensus. "She/he is not in line for the throne" is absolutely a reason not to post this, as if it was not a royal birth, it would not be in the news at all. It has no consequence to who the head of state of the UK/other nations is(which is why George was posted). If consensus turns and decides this merits posting, I would post it despite my personal views, but I don't expect that to happen. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We posted George because he is directly in line for the throne, we didn't post Charlotte because she isn't, the same should go for this son. Once George has children, his new brother will be bumped down the line. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 331dot. Mjroots (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Children are born all the time. What 331dot said. talk to !dave 12:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. George was maybe justified (just about) as he will probably become king some day. Other more minor royal births are not. It would be huge systemic bias if we posted this sort of story about the British royal family but not those of other countries. Just being in the news is not sufficient for ITN; we are not a tabloid newspaper. Modest Genius talk 12:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Along the lines of Extra, Extra: Woman Has Baby; Bear Defecates In Woods. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Modest Genius; the number of "ifs" for this child to become king are too many to count. --Masem (t) 13:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - by the logic above how did the winner of a horse race get to be in the news then? It is still just a horse race and hundreds take place each day. What is being missed here is this is not What is notable but what is in the news. Articles are for what is notable. ITN is well for what is in the news that is connected to articles. This event will have more coverage than it deseerves, but it will get massive amounts of coverage. How this does not meet the ITN standards is beyond me. All I see from the opposers is I don't like this being given news coverage so lets not include it. That is not hwo ITN works AFAIK. WTKitty (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Also since when did the need to sit ones arse on the British throne become criteria for what is and is not in the news? I assume from the comments here the Wedding of Prince Harry is an automatic no because his arse isn't going to be sat on the throne of England because he is behind this boy. These decisions must be consistent or they are simply arbitrary. WTKitty (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
In this particular horse race, the horse you want us to promote on the main page came in third. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The above is nothing to do with this nomination it is distraction, there is zero criteria ere regarding ITN it is all just simple opinion and Like/dislike of nominations. WTKitty (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
We judge significance of news, not just number of articles written about a subject. Otherwise ITN would be all Kardashian all the time. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm a monarchist and this doesn't belong on the main page. While I am very happy for the couple, the birth of princes that have no realistic chance of succeeding to the throne is just not that important. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Add We don't really have a lot of precedent for this sort of thing as monarchies have gone out of style in much of the world and the British Royal Family is typically the only one that gets a lot of global press. But FWIW my feeling is that the birth or death of heirs apparent, that is to say those who in the normal course of events are expected to succeed to a throne, probably should get a blurb. Others who are not expected to succeed usually will not merit any notice here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose A baby is born into a rich family. What number in line is he for the throne? The throne that has barely any power? This is insignificant and an example of systemic bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment It's in the news, I'd like to support, but the article is too short --LaserLegs (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
    • How much content can there be for a newborn infant? – Muboshgu (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per 331. – Sca (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 22[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 April 22
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology
  • UK Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt writes to social media firms including Google and Facebook giving them until the end of the month to come up with ways to counter online bullying, underage useage, and unhealthy amounts of interaction online. He says they will face new legislation if they do not comply. (BBC)
  • Tanzania's Communications Regulatory Authority issues a two week deadline for bloggers, Internet TV shows, and other online content creators and distributors to register with the government. (Xinhua)

Sports

(Posted) 2018 London Marathon[edit]

Article: 2018 London Marathon (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At the 2018 London Marathon, Eliud Kipchoge wins the men's race and Vivian Cheruiyot wins the women's race.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: LukeSurl (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Slim but sufficient article on an ITN/R item. LukeSurl t c 16:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak Support Just about enough there.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support ITN/R, sufficiently referenced. Informative. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - will do. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. It's not exactly on a par with Boat Race articles, but it's okay. Plus there's an image we can use for the winner. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Also recommend possible images here of the winners. --Masem (t) 21:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
    File:Berlin-Marathon 2015 Runners 0.jpg is fine, but could use (pictured in 2015) added to any caption, just in case. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Kyrgyzstan PM[edit]

Article: Muhammetkaliy Abulgaziyev (talk, history)
Blurb: Muhammetkaliy Abulgaziyev is appointed as the new prime minister of Kyrgyzstan.
Nominator: Lihaas (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Not ITNR but considering the stability situation in the region, this change of govt seems pretty big.
Granted the article is woeful, but if its supportive pending improvements here then that'd be an incentive to improve the article. (MKR down under may be getting more headlines but this is more globally important). Lihaas (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Not Worthy He's not even the leader of the country (Kyrgyzstan is a presidential republic), and I doubt we'd even post news about a new president here. Sorry, just an impoverished minor and in general unimportant country of a few million people. Randomnickname567 (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No evidence of widespread news coverage. I will note for Randomnickname567 that Kyrgyszstan has transitioned to a parliamentary system according to Prime Minister of Kyrgyzstan.331dot (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
OH well. Still, a country with population of 6 million and gdp the size of Guam's is not worthy an ITN mention, imho. Randomnickname567 (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Size and population are irrelevant. Per longstanding consensus, we post most if not all changes in head-of-state. Also, please leave your jingoistic sentiments at the door; your comments about the country being "unimportant" and "not worthy" are frankly insulting.--WaltCip (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's a three sentence micro-stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support but please do consider changing the bolded article to the Prime Minister of Kyrgyzstan article, not the article about the individual as it is a stub. I agree with WaltCip's arguments: changes of heads of state are inherently significant per longstanding consensus, and arguments that essentially boil down to "that country doesn't matter" hold no validity here. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Agree w/ WaltClip about the jingoistic nonsense. Just want to add it was not head of state, hence I did not tag it as ITNR.Lihaas (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Kabul suicide bombing[edit]

Article: April 2018 Kabul suicide bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 57 people are killed in a bombing in Kabul, Afghanistan.
News source(s): CNN reuters
Nominator: LaserLegs (talk • give credit)
Updater: Mohamadrsk (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Barely a stub now, but with nearly 60 people killed its guaranteed to be posted once it has a few more lines of prose. LaserLegs (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Why does this terrorist attack in an area of frequent terrorist attacks merit posting? 331dot (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. It's a stub and will require significant expansion before it could be posted. As for the merits, I see 331dot's point. These events have become common place over there. Assuming the article is sufficiently improved, I would likely give it a weak support only due to the high death toll. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose tragic but commonplace event that probably doesn't require an article, and should be subsumed into a list of attacks in that region. Stephen 02:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose and share the sentiment that this shouldn't even deserve a standalone page. It is pure WP:RECENTISM in action. Before even this is developed above mere news pieces paraphrasing; another bomb will explode and all attention will be to the new stub. In the next few years we will be left with thousands of permanent stubs on everyday's bombing. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
support IFF the article is up to scratch. this is a high death toll even for Afghan standards.Lihaas (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality / support when improved - Feel free to contact me when the article is improved and I will support this, but all ITN listings should meet the quality thresholds necessary. We posted last month's Kabul bombing because it demonstrated clear significance. I believe 331dot's argument that we shouldn't post this because they seem to happen frequently is a blatantly obvious WP:CRYSTAL argument. Unlike annually scheduled events, you can't just declare that a mass killing in Kabul will happen every month, or that it's just Afghanistan being Afghanistan. I'd even say that asking "Are we going to post one of these a month?" is subtly jingoistic of you, even though I wouldn't go as far as to say you made the argument in bad faith. The significance of this event is beyond question based on our precedents; it's the quality of the article that should be addressed instead. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
It is not WP:CRYSTAL to state that Afghanistan has a history of terrorist attacks and that it seems unlikely to change in the near future.(if any expert or politician foresees a quick end to the terrorism there, I'd love to read that piece.) The War in Afghanistan template in the nominated article shows 4 attacks(not including this one) this year, 14 last year, 19 in 2016, and 11 in 2015. That's just about one a month, and that is just the ones that merit articles. I am just asking if we are going to have a permanent Afghanistan War link in the ITN box, maybe in Ongoing. No more, no less. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, asserting that it's going to happen again, regardless of whether or not you have reasons x y and z to assert that it's likely, is literally a WP:CRYSTAL argument. ITN occurs on a case-by-case instance and this case meets every notability threshold that we have. You're literally opposing because you assert it's probably going to happen again in the near future, that's more or less Wikipedia's textbook definition of a WP:CRYSTAL argument. Don't pretend that it's not. We both oppose this nomination, but the valid reason is that the article needs a lot of work. TheRamblingMan makes an excellent point. Every time there is a mass shooting in the US that kills 4-5 people, the nominations get slapped down because many Americans concerned with Americentrism unintentionally and ironically make the Americentric argument that it's local news, not global news -- then when a mass tragedy in a country facing crisis occurs, we see godawful arguments that assert that it's just the Middle East and/or -stan countries having terrorists as usual, therefore it's unimportant and not notable because it's just Afghanistan being a shit county or something. In both instances, these are highly problematic arguments yet despite contradicting each other we tend to see the two endlessly in ITN. In summary, I hope to see the article improved and would support allowing more time to pass for necessary changes to be made before closing as a SNOW oppose as many of us only take issue with the article's current state, not the subject it covers. Cheers. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Additional comment: I would like to add that I do see where you are coming from; questions along the lines of at what point do terrorist attacks become normalized and insignificant? are certainly worth considering, but I'm unconvinced that this event in particular is unimportant and I still maintain my problems with the argument that this event is not ITN worthy because there might be another one next month. I felt that I may have been too harsh and I wanted to clarify this. Cheers. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose but with dramatic regret this is hilarious. Every time a US shooter gets nominated for glory here, we get the usual "well, if you don't like it, nominate some of the mass killings in the war-torn areas of the world". Then, once a "mass killing in a worn-torn area of the world" is nominated, it's all about "nah, it's just life there". Pathetic and insulting. In other news, article is a stub so unsuitable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Take a look in a mirror TRM, "Pathetic and insulting" applies the other way too. Cheers bro. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Oh really? What's pathetic and insulting here is precisely what I've written. There is no application "in the mirror". People who complain about repeated US gun crime noms are told to nominate other such tragic events (which are 20 times+ more tragic) and when someone does, it's all about the "war zone, forget it, not notable" bullshit. Cheers bro. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Support LaserLegs...there is a two way street. acting like SOnya and Hadil on MKR does not change things.Lihaas (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support upon improvement Even though it is a war zone, this was a mass-casualty attack against civilians, so it is definitely notable. Article is regrettably not in shape though. EternalNomad (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

April 21[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 April 21
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

RD: Fadi Mohammad al-Batsh[edit]

Article: Fadi Mohammad al-Batsh (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Shobair2012 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Locus102 (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: Palestinian lecturer. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Newly created. After further review I may nominate it for AfD, unless why he is notable (apart from death news) is added. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This is clearly a BLP1E, and should be at "Assassination of Fadi Mohammad al-Batsh" (the reactions are more notable then the person). And right now, as a non-RD blurb news item, I don't see this yet significant to merit posting. --Masem (t) 13:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as RD I'm finding little significant news coverage prior to his death, suggesting that, at best, the death might be notable, but not the person.—Bagumba (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose if nothing else, double-tagged. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Nabi Tajima[edit]

Article: Nabi Tajima (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [3]
Nominator: Ryan Reeder (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.

 Ryan Reeder (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Nominator's comments: World's oldest person, longest-lived person thus far in the 21st century, and third-oldest of all time

  • Support --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Shortish but reasonably referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Agree with Capitalistroadster. Jusdafax (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support She's the last person born in the nineteenth century to die, does that deserve a blurb? Davey2116 (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Possibly. We gave a blurb to the last person born in the 1800s, Emma Morano.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
DOB says August 4, 1900 ... which would be the start of the 20th century. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
No, the 20th century began on January 1st, 1901. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah? Ok, I stand corrected. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I had to add a CN tag. Given this is the last person born in the 19th century, I'd support a blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article in good shape for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Verne Troyer[edit]

Article: Verne Troyer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): TMZ, BBC
Nominator: JuneGloom07 (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.

 JuneGloom07 Talk 20:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose: Filmography and television section unreferenced. Plus, I just realized how odd this article does not have a career section highlighting his life in his acting life. Main issue is unreferenced filmography section. Support All issues fixed. Great work! Ready for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as mentioned above, no career section. It jumps from his childhood to his personal life and death. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to lack of referenced filmography. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose until a sourced career section is added and the filmography is sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Okay, we have one now and it looks good. Support. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is so far from acceptable I doubt it can be improved in time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support filmography referenced thanks to work by Skr15081997 and career section added by Neegzistuoja, good job by both, now ready Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Quality concerns appear to have been addressed. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Article looks brief but passable, all sourced. Challenger l (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Its sourced and all, but I find it rather lacking beyond just documenting his career. It's very bland. I realize his career path into films is not a deep and motivational journey compared to people like Brad Pitt, and we're not going to have a superlong article, but we should be able to get past how bland this currently reads. Unfortunately, those are likely concerns past ITN's role. --Masem (t) 13:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks fine. Aiken D 13:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support All sections of the article look complete and are correctly sourced. OtterAM (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - all sections sourced. Other concerns such as expansion of life and career section is something to be taken care of after or during ITN. We review article quality and it is sufficient for ITN inclusion. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - It’s ready, I agree. Jusdafax (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] India death penalty for child rapists[edit]

Strong consensus against posting, not related to quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Unnao rape case (talk, history) and Kathua rape case (talk, history)
Blurb: ​India's Cabinet has approved the introduction of the death penalty for child rapists, amid uproar over Kathua rape case and Unnao rape case.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Making news because of the two cases. Sherenk1 (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Domestic legislation change. Capital punishment in India for other crimes has been in existence before. Brandmeistertalk 17:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The death penalty already existed in India. They can apply it (or not apply it) to whatever crimes they wish. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment it's in the news, I'm inclined to support, but the target needs to be changed to Capital punishment in India and updated accordingly. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose It's not insignificant but we have historically avoided this kind of internal legislative news. In the unlikely event that this does get posted I agree with the above comments that we need to change the target article which I have not looked at for quality purposes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Concur with 331dot. This is insignificant pronouncement. Combined with poor article target. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as this is essentially domestic legislation, and captla punishment is certainly not unprecedented in India. EternalNomad (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - the point is that these cases (especially the latter) have been dominating Indian news. Check the aftermath section of the Kathua rape case article for example. The blurb does make it seem like domestic legislation, but I can't think of a better one. Banedon (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
oppose considering the executive asks the final KANGAROO court to review its decision...this is nothing more than vote grabbing.Lihaas (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per Brandmeister MAINEiac4434 (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 20[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 April 20
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Ready] RD: Shane Yarran[edit]

Article: Shane Yarran (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC News
Nominator: Samuel Wiki (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.

 Samuel Wiki (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Short but adequate and decently referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article has undue weight on his legal problems.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • It isn't undue weight because he really did have a very short professional career and a lot of legal problems. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This still a BLP, and I’m uncomfortable that an article with so much negative information would be put on the Main Page when he has just taken his own life. Ultimately the admins will decide if my concerns have validity. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Well referenced. Noting that, it is also undue to try to balance what is not balanced in reliable sources. –Ammarpad (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

RD : Rajinder Sachar[edit]

Article: Rajinder Sachar (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Hindu, The Indian Express
Nominator and updater: Skr15081997 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

 Skr15081997 (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Very weak oppose in good condition but since it's BLP those [citation needed] really should be addressed before we feature this on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, article has been updated and sources added wherever required. --Skr15081997 (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

North Korea nuclear site[edit]

Articles: Punggye-ri Nuclear Test Site (talk, history) and North Korea and weapons of mass destruction (talk, history)
Blurb: North Korea says it is closing its nuclear test site.
Alternative blurb: ​North Korea says it will suspend its nuclear weapon testing program and shut down the Punggye-ri Nuclear Test Site in advance of summits with South Korea and the United States.
News source(s): [4], [5]
Nominator: 50.30.144.20 (talk • give credit)

 50.30.144.20 (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose quite the surprise, however the target article is a stub class with no mention of the shut down. In addition, the article provided is very vague in terms of content, as it does not mention why North Korea shut down the facility; most of the content in the source is also just a repeat of past events. SamaranEmerald (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment There is a bit more to this story than just shutting down the test site; I've added a different target and blurb, though the target is not yet updated with this news. --Masem (t) 00:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional Oppose if it wasn’t for the fact that the summit between Kim and Moon are next week, I would undoubtedly support this nomination. However the summit itself will be the dominating news next week, which will largely make this nomination, should it be posted, obsolete. Kirliator (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait – This whole situation remains in flux. Suggest we wait to see whether the proclaimed sea change in DPRK policies actually comes to pass – in some tangible way. Sca (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the reality strikes. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Avicii[edit]

Article: Avicii (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Swedish musician and DJ Avicii dies at the age of 28.
News source(s): Variety
Nominator: TompaDompa (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: Lacking references as of this nomination. --TompaDompa (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support blurb Given his influence on pop music in general (indeed, he appeared on many lists of influential young musicians), I feel he is on the borderline of blurb/RD listing. Sceptre (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • support blurb - He is a major figure within music. His death is reported world wide.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose for RD. Article is in fairly good shape source-wise, although the writing leaves a lot to be desired - it's basically all WP:PROSELINE. There are a couple of CN tags to fix and the discography needs referencing, which shouldn't take too long. Don't think he's blurb worthy.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb No, obviously no blurb. Being among a influental young musician is very very far from being top of one's field. Needs a few references here and there but overall looks pretty near ready Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - According to WP:ITNRD, "In rare cases, the death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb". While Avicii has been quite famous in the past few years, he was hardly "transformative" or "leader" in his field. Is there any award or other recognition that named him as the top in world music? HaEr48 (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD, wait on blurb. If the death itself becomes newsworthy for the manner of death, then we can revisit the blurb. So far, all we know is that he died. If we can't say more than that, RD is sufficient. --Jayron32 18:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD, no opinion on blurb as per above. Nice4What (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD Unexpected, tragic, article looks good enough, but not that big for a blurb. talk to !dave 18:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD - As with others, I think we should wait on blurb until the circumstances behind the death become apparent. Jayden (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD (once a few unsourced paras are dealt with) but Oppose blurb - Barbara Bush was certainly more influential than him, and is only in RD. -Zanhe (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD as an unexpected passing of a big name in his field, but Oppose blurb on general notability. Radagast (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Support blurb on principle, wikipedia's editor base is normally not into modern EDM music, but it's one of the biggest music genres in todays market and he is one of it's biggest names, the unexpected young death of a supremely popular (his biggest single has 1.4 billion views on youtube) musician should be exactly what the blurb feature is made for. There's no precedent for such a big EDM musician to have died so obviously there's noone to compare it too, Frankie Knuckles never had mainstream popularity. This is the first death of a worldwide EDM figure. The Barbara Bush comparison is odd, she is not even close to being one of the most notable first ladies, unlike Avicii in EDM. Certainly meets the Paul Walker and Carrie Fisher standard, the difference here is that Star Wars and action movies appeal to an older white male base that edits Wikipedia. GuzzyG (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb Definitely not making the same kind of impact of Paul Walker or Carrie Fisher's deaths, nor anywhere close to Mandela/Thatcher/Prince/Bowie. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
this was first reported two hours ago, how can you be so sure? GuzzyG (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Pretty sure Fisher and Walker news was louder two hours after their deaths were reported. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Obviously a cardiac arrest on a public flight and a car crash are more tabloid worthy then an undisclosed cause of death in Oman but we're an encyclopedia and what is more important, first death of a international (1.4 billion views on ONE song) EDM performer, or two character actors, i don't even listen to this kind of rubbish but a point has to be made if 1.4 billion people (more would be unaccounted) have listened to your song and you have died young and unexpected like this and not to mention the FIRST major performer in your field then by principle you should be blurb worthy. When historians track specific 21st century entertainment who will show up more, Avicii or Paul Walker? GuzzyG (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. — xaosflux Talk 19:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • oppose blurb not Thatcher or Mandela --LaserLegs (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • To be fair, I can't see his DJ sets being that riveting if he was either of those two. Oh, and obviously RD only. Black Kite (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Final comment, i'm in shock, honestly - this Thatcher/Mandela saying has to go if we posted people like Walker and Fisher. IF you're expecting Thatcher/Mandela types then that's like 10 people a century. I think it's a straight up disgrace that a 10 day old aircrash is still on our main page but a leader in their genre dying at an unexpected young age and the number one story on the front page of BBC cannot be posted. 11 billion streams on spotify and you're not of "sufficient worldwide notability". A joke. I dislike this kind of music and am generally a luddite but i call it for what it is. GuzzyG (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I consider Walker/Fisher/Prince to be mistakes, and I don't believe compounding errors undoes those which are past. 10 people in a century? Sure, sounds good to me. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb: Just my opinion as it's not going to happen. This Thatcher/Mandela yardstick would be honourable but it hasn't been fully uniform. I would honestly not put Debbie Reynolds, Carrie Fisher and Paul Walker in that category of people who changed the course of human history. However there have been people from the world of popular culture whose premature deaths have been news stories in an of themselves. I'm not talking cult figures like Lil Peep, but when someone measurably famous like Avicii or Chester Bennington dies prematurely that falls in the same bracket as Fisher and Walker: well-known, contributed to multi-million dollar works, death is big news but not world changer. Just my two cents. Harambe Walks (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Who are Reynolds, Fisher or Walker? I would have oppose their blurbs as well. Also, if we post blurb for Avicii then in the future someone might cite it as precedent to allow even more "famous people" blurbs. IMO, we should stick with the bar set formally by WP:ITNRD, "the death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb", and not by previous example which might have been a mistake. HaEr48 (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Post Posting Oppose Significant gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Significant? The article overall is mostly well referenced, you only added about 3 or 4 CN tags. Does an article really need to be perfect to be listed as in the news? – numbermaniac 01:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
      • BLPs usually need to be correctly and comprehensively referenced, if that's what you mean by "perfect"? The Rambling Man (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
        • True. It's not really a BLP anymore though, but I get your point. – numbermaniac 08:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
          • FWIW, we consider articles related to the recently deceased to still be covered by BLP (generally for 6 mo to 2 years from their death, depending). --Masem (t) 13:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting[edit]

Article: Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 2018 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting is held in the United Kingdom.
News source(s): BBC BBC topic
Nominator: LukeSurl (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Tidy article about a meeting of about 50 governments, almost all represented by their heads of government. Prince Charles' appointment as the next head is the main BBC headline, but I prefer simply linking to the article. I believe it's just closing as I type, a few past/preent/future tense issues can be ironed out over the next few hours. LukeSurl t c 16:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose "Commonwealth leaders meet"... so what? What makes this meeting more notable than any other? It's not Prince Charles. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support decent article, in the news. Blurb should mention Charles even if it's not the bold article. A table of attendees would be nice, but not required. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Over the last few years ITN has shifted to posting summits only when they have major outcomes. The only concrete result from this CHOGM seems to be agreeing how the succession will work when Elizabeth II finally dies, which hasn't happened yet. Otherwise it's just the usual chat between politicians. Modest Genius talk 18:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't really think there's anything too significant about this. Jayden (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - hard to find articles about it from outside the Commonwealth, but then again the Commonwealth covers a lot so I guess it's newsworthy. Juxlos (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per LaserLegs and Jayden, the Commonwealth spans some 50+ nations, so this not a small diplomatic meeting. Even if it only reaffirms Prince Charles as Elizabeth II’ successor to the throne, it’s still newsworthy in my opinion. Kirliator (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Concur that meeting of 50-or thereabout of heads of state is non trivial diplomatic meeting and it doesn't happen always. This is really also in the news. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose We recently removed the G20 as an ITNR [Removed_Remove:_G20_summits], but would still allow a G20 to be posted if something of significant note occurred. I see that that same principle should apply here. The fact the Commonwealth leaders are meeting is not news itself, it is whatever resolves come out of it. --Masem (t) 05:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    • It was removed because the target article was not up to scratch -- not because "not soccer and no deaths". --LaserLegs (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose really not significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Really not a reason just an opinion.WTKitty (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
No, just truth. It matters not a jot who is the head of the Commonwealth, especially when they are the next in line to the throne. If it had been decided that Robert Mugabe or Beyonce was to be the next head, then that's significant. Noting that the natural succession will occur is not significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now What happened in the meeting? This is a reoccurring event, but if something unique happened at it then we can post this. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walter Moody[edit]

Article: Walter Moody (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Sourcing is fine. (However, I do think this fails BLPCRIME, he's only notable for the bombing and trial, and so really should be covered at something like Death of Robert Smith Vance. However, that issue can wait until after the RD is off the page. --Masem (t) 06:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - referenced. Notable. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Good referencing throughout the article, seems fine to post. – numbermaniac 13:37, 20 April 2018 (
  • Support Bombing AND trial? that sounds like two events to me ;). Not to mention the execution (the oldest), counting three events to me. GuzzyG (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

April 19[edit]

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

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Agnès-Marie Valois[edit]

Article: Agnès-Marie Valois (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): World War Two heroine 'Angel of Dieppe' dies at 103
Nominator: Iselilja (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: New article that is a bit short, but I believe sufficient as it is difficult to expand her story a lot without getting into trivia and legends. Iselilja (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Article well developed and well sourced for a newborn article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment needs a one line prose update stating date and place of death, then GTG. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 Done Iselilja (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

(Closed in lieu of newer item) Armenia protests[edit]

The resignation of the Armenian PM in light of these protests (a newer ITNC) makes this entry moot. --Masem (t) 21:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2018 Armenian protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Police in Armenia have detained an opposition MP who has been leading anti-government protests.
News source(s): via Yahoo
Nominator: Lihaas (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Article is a little under prepared, but the protests are daily and if precedent in georgia is anything this is getting precarious. "Velvet Revolution" they are calling it (yes, soros' closed society sounds involved). --Lihaas (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is out of date, no blurb is suggested, bad nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems premature. The article mentions only 100 protesters, so as yet is not anywhre near the scale for an ITN posting.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now but conditional support if there's even a blurb to support (that's kind of important) and the article is improved. I'm interested, but the article has very poor translations in it such as "Oppositional signals spark the flag of Armenia, clamoring for the motto of the movement" which even with context does't make sense. The article needs a lot of work and the nom didn't even offer a blurb for me to support, so oppose by default, but if improvements are made before this closes as oppose I'll reconsider my vote. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all of the above. Kirliator (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - In the news now. And article looks good. Added blurb as well. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Changing !vote to Support - The new blurb looks good and there has been significant progress made on the article. Now that @The Rambling Man:'s concern has been dealt with & @Pawnkingthree:'s concern that there were only 100 protesters is obsolete (now there's reportedly well over 50,000 participating and hundreds of arrests) I no longer have reasons to oppose this blurb. The latest developments in this event seem to be warning signs of a government in crisis, meaning this story demonstrates long-term significance regardless of whether the protests succeed or fail. Update: I reinforce my support now that this article has been significantly improved since my last comment. I am impressed with the the sourcing and the subject has become more notable with the resignation of high-level politicians as a direct response to the protests. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC) BrendonTheWizard (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability, really a minor protest. The article claims that 115k people participated in it (some 5 times the size of the largest rally during the 2014 revolution in the Ukraine), but it's sourced by twitter of all places. Which brings me to the quality threshold, which I think the article does not pass. Many statements are very poorly sourced by twitter/facebook posts, many are not sourced at all. IF someone fixes them then maybe I can tentatively support it, but then the blurb should mention the actual number of people on the square since the current one may be misleading, not to mention that arresting an mp in itself for organising a rally is not in itself ITN-worthy Randomnickname567 (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Changing my vote to Support now that Sargsyan has resigned, which makes the protests a notable event. The article was improved too, most statements were sources, and notable unsourced ones I removed. Randomnickname567 (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Pulled) Kingdom of eSwatini[edit]

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

Article updated

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

  • Support. Unusual.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Unusal and interesting. But Oppose for now based on article quality. Needs to be fully referenced and updated.BabbaQ (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The nominator's comments say more than the article does. If it's to mark the 50th anniversary of independence then the article needs to be updated to say that. But even if it's updated and referenced, I still don't think it's that notable. It's the whim of an absolute monarch. Has it been recognized by any other government?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. How is this ITNR? 331dot (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • It quite clearly isn't, so I've modified the template.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Hasn't this been done before? Sca (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle an interesting and non-death related story. However, there needs to be a good update... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Also support in principle, but that update isn't good enough. One sentence that explains it less than the nomination comment above. I want to know why "eSwatini". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • weak wait until UN or AU recognize it.Lihaas (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
    UN or AU don't need to recognise it. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
    I don’t think either organisation has any mechanism for or interest in objecting to a name change. If a recognised member turns up and says “this is my new name now” that’s it. —LukeSurl t c 08:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support seems very obvious. So what if it's the whim of an absolute monarch - it's still something that affects the entire country fundamentally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banedon (talkcontribs) 03:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per the above. The update is a tad thin but adequate. Davey2116 (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support And one of my 75 wives to the admin who posts this. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 09:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose and pull? Seriously, from a quality standpoint the article is not even close. Did any of the supporters actually bother to read it? Whole huge unreferenced sections. We demand better from an RD posting of some TV actress. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
    • You obviously didn't bother to read my above comment or TRM's, or BabbaQ's. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
      • You and TRM mentioned the update, not the referencing issues. Oh well, I'm just a terrible human being I suppose. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull Referencing is dreadful with huge gaps. How did this get posted? -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Pulled The referencing is indeed awful - even a few of the Support comments noted that it wasn't currently fit to post, and they're right. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. This definitely needs more work.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • General aside The Government of the Kingdom of Swaziland appears to be completely unaware of this, and their current press releases—example—are still using "Swaziland" exclusively in their English-language text. ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – This story seemed intriguing and slightly humorous, but in retrospect the play accorded it on major news sites (BBC, Guardian, Reuters, NYT) seems to have been excessive, even hypey. Sca (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-pulling support in principle - once the sourcing concerns are fixed, I'd support re-adding it. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment if you ask me, this was the King’s decision, I’m not sure if he took into account of the world accepting the name change immediately. It will probably be called Swaziland in general for ages to come. Python Dan (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) New president of Cuba[edit]

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

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

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

  • I think the article is in a good shape. Ready to post when the handover takes place (ping me). --Tone 13:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Tone 14:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article is entirely inadequate for a head of state. It is only barely past a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a 'Head of state' article guideline, perhaps you could link to it? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
As he is described as "a party technocrat who is little-known to the public" there's probably not much more out there to add to the article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am basing my oppose on past precedent at ITN. We generally have a higher standard for presidents prime ministers etc. But in all honesty I think I would oppose posting this in its current state even if it wasn't a head of state. It is not up to scratch for the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
As Cuba is a sovereign state its covered under ITN/R and so postable as long as the quality is of a sufficient level. The article is shorter than some (given the new President is a relatively unknown technocrat in a single-party communist regime that is not exactly unusual) however it is sourced, contains the relevant biographical info and no glaring errors. Most heads of state have long careers in the public eye before they reach the top spot. Cuba has been about the Castro's and only the Castro's for the last 50 years+. Coupled with the wide variety of sanctions on the country, the lack of information in the western media on other public figures there is also not unusual. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. IMHO an article that can be summed up as "X exists, was born on... was a party technocrat... and is now the dictator err... President of country Y" no matter how well sourced, is not the kind of quality article we promote on the front page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • ITNA is fairly clear about the need for consensus before posting. I fail to see why this had to be posted so quickly before discussion could take place. ghost 15:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm all for speedy admin actions on ITN/R items. --LukeSurl t c 15:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The quality of ITNR items must be discussed at ITNC, as you well know. If it was a GA, sure, but the article is short and lean. Some people may have raised legitimate objection if given time. ghost 16:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support It's ITN/R and although the target article is short I see no major deficiencies.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Agreed, the boring golf club photo has been on the main page way too long! -Zanhe (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Further comment: perhaps the blurb could also say, while Castro remains First Secretary. Adpete (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that any other articles linked in ITN blurbs should be subject to the same level of quality scrutiny as the main target? The Rambling Man (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I actually thought that was the case. If it isn't, there should at least be some scrutiny of them. Now, backtracking slightly on my "real leader" comment, I've seen another source (BBC) that says Díaz-Canel will in fact become the "real leader"; while the The Guardian link says it's more of a transition. I don't know, but I think the additional link to First Secretary might help. Adpete (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
No, that's not nor as I believe to be true, has ever been the case. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
What, zero scrutiny on an article linked from the ITN blurb? Surely that's a policy that needs fixing. Anyway, on this blurb and link, I argue that something needs to change because it's not a simple succession but more like a transition arrangement. See e.g. NY Times ("Castros still hold sway" [6]); ABC ("Castro is almost certain to remain the most powerful person in Cuba for the time being" [7]). Adpete (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
It's not a policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you have an opinion on my proposed amendment to the blurb? Adpete (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The posted blurb is just fine and reflects reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

(Removed) Remove from ongoing: Gaza border protests[edit]

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

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

  • Pull per OP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support removal - done and dusted for the time being. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support removal good to get rid of. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Removed Stephen 04:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Stephen: Are you sure that it's no longer an ongoing event? So, what are these sources saying:
...and the article is getting updates. The removal was an immature decision. --Mhhossein talk 13:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The only substantive new information to the article, made after it was pulled, was a single sentence about a Woman's protest. It may or may not still be in the news, that's of minimal importance given that if no one can be bothered to expand the article with that information, there's no need to keep it in ongoing. It may be the biggest story in the world right now; that doesn't matter if the article is not receiving quality updates. If you can provide enough information to make it clear that this article needs, and is getting, daily updates then sure, maybe we can add it to ongoing. At the state it was in when it was removed, that was not evident from the article text. --Jayron32 14:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You are amazingly closing your eyes on those sources. --Mhhossein talk 18:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • What Jayron32 is telling you—correctly—is that we don't care about the sources for the purposes of ITN. The purpose of the Main Page is to highlight quality Wikipedia articles, not to highlight articles for which sources exist but which haven't been written. ‑ Iridescent 18:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • What I find amazing is that the amount of effort you just wasted complaining about this could have been better applied to fixing the article text. Had you, days ago, added that information to the article then it, very likely, would never have come up in discussion to be removed from ongoing. As usual, it's much easier to assume some mysterious "others" will do necessary work, and then complain when it isn't done. Go fix the article, because posting sources here is of no use to the encyclopedia. --Jayron32 18:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
That's right, the article needs to get updates. Thank you. --Mhhossein talk 16:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Updated — This protest is running on a largely weekly cycle of larger protests on Fridays. Extensive coverage continues, including profile pieces in places like The New York Times of individuals killed. I don't object to the pressure to keep the article up to date but now it is. Maybe we can avoid nominating it for removal on a Wednesday or Thursday, only to have to debate re-adding it later in the week.--Carwil (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

April 18[edit]

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

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents
International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

(Stale) RD: Jerry Green (politician)[edit]

This is now stale. Black Kite (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Jerry Green (politician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): InsiderNJ.com and MyCentralJersey.com
Nominator and updater: Skr15081997 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Member of the New Jersey General Assembly from 1992 to 2018. --Skr15081997 (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Dale Winton[edit]

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

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

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

  • Oppose - Referencing not up to scratch. Mjroots (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, due to referencing especially of stuff that could be contentious. Aiken D 06:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC) Now support. Aiken D 21:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I've just trimmed the uncited contentious stuff that I couldn't find cites for that were guaranteed not to be a circular citation and referenced everything else. Miyagawa (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - now seems perfectly well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Sufficiently improved.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - improved.BabbaQ (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Trial against president Nicolás Maduro[edit]

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

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

  • Comment - for fairly obvious reasons we cannot have the target article be in Spanish, or not on en.wiki.ng. No comment on the nomination thus far however, but without a suitable target article, any further discussion is moot. - Stormy clouds (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose no target article, even the Maduro article doesn't seem to cover this in any detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose As noted by the ABC News article, this trial is mostly symbolic, as those involved have no recognized authority by the current ruling gov't (which I'm aware its the call towards corruption in the gov't that is at issue here). And as this only is a start of the trial, it would be better to recognize when it is over; even if it has no recognized authority, various world leaders may speak towards it and support it. --Masem (t) 17:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional oppose - The news section for en.wiki.ng should link to another article on en.wiki.ng. If there was an English Wikipedia article that covers the subject, then I may reconsider, but oppose for now. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Close per WP:SNOW. We will not link an article from another wiki at the main page. And the news is not newsworthy anyway: even if this was a regular trial, we would include it as news when there is a sentence, not when the trial has just started. Cambalachero (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above user. Python Dan (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Bruno Sammartino[edit]

This is now stale. Black Kite (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Bruno Sammartino (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN, New York Times
Nominator: Spman (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Legendary Professional Wrestler and Weightlifter Spman
  • Oppose far too much of it is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I added an article from the NYT, which covers his death in a lot more detail than the ESPN one (Sammartino was the guy in New York City for a while). Vilhjalmsson (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
    It's not just the death that needs referencing, it's all the rest of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. Unreferenced, but there's no question about his importance to professional wrestling. Hopefully someone can whip the article into shape. --PlasmaTwa2 23:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this article pretty much needs to be fixed up for this. He's one of the most significant figures in pro wrestling ever.★Trekker (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I feel like the RD boilerplate is not working. Perhaps we need less flowery language? ghost 13:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - a few people are working to source this article, myself included. Nikki311 18:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article fixed up to postable shape.LM2000 (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article still has a very few sections that could use CNs but the article has been very well fixed up. Good job! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Multiple paragraphs that lack a single reference. Stephen 10:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Stale) RD: Paul Jones[edit]

This is now stale. Black Kite (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Paul Jones (wrestler) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Charleston Post and Courier, Canadian Online Explorer
Nominator: GaryColemanFan (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Famous professional wrestler and manager for three decades GaryColemanFan
  • Support Much like with Samartino I think the pro wrestling project needs to come together here and try to fix up anything that needs fixing.★Trekker (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Fixed up enough to post.LM2000 (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Multiple paragraphs that lack a single reference. Stephen 10:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 17[edit]

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

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

(Closed) Southwest Airlines Flight 1380[edit]

Consensus against posting. Mjroots (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

(edit conflict)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted RD) RD: Barbara Bush[edit]

Article: Barbara Bush (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Former US First Lady. EternalNomad (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Carl Kasell[edit]

Article: Carl Kasell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NPR
Nominator: Davey2116 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Long-time American broadcaster for NPR dies at 84. Sourcing needs work. Davey2116 (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Matthew Mellon[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

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

(Stale) RD: Big Tom[edit]

This is now stale. Black Kite (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Big Tom (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Inexorable Existence (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Fernandosmission (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Irish country music star. Referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not just reference issues, but the article is a complete mess. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Awful article. Zero biographical information on his life before the year 2000, and the rest is just a bunch of tables.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sadly, article would need an almost complete rewrite before being main page ready. --Jayron32 13:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

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: