Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

For administrator instructions on updating Template:In the news, see Wikipedia:In the news/Admin instructions.

In the news toolbox
Error reports (WP:ERRORS) Nominations (WP:ITN/C) Discussion (WT:ITN) Admin guide (WP:ITN/A) General criteria (WP:ITN) Death criteria (WP:ITN/DC) Recurring items (WP:ITNR) Awards · Sports · Discussion Current events portal (P:CE) Archives (2008–11)

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.

The Danube on January 9 Passenger services are inaugurated on the Addis Ababa–Djibouti Railway, a fast electric railway connecting the Ethiopian capital to the Red Sea. A cold wave affecting Eastern and Central Europe (frozen Danube pictured) causes more than 60 deaths. La La Land wins a record-breaking seven awards at the Golden Globe Awards. An attack on a nightclub in Istanbul, Turkey, during New Year's celebrations, kills at least 39 people and injures more than 70 others. Ongoing: Battle of Mosul Recent deaths: Anthony King Graham Taylor Oliver Smithies Clare Hollingworth view - page history - related changes - Edit (admins only)

How to nominate an item In order to suggest a candidate: Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated. Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC. Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates. Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so. Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable source. 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. There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN. Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template. Headers Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with [Posted] or [Pulled] in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active. Items can also be marked as [Ready] when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked [Ready], you should remove the header. Voicing an opinion on an item Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a brief (or detailed!) rationale for your choice. Comments and other objections are welcome, but this is the basic form. Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so. The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page. Please do not... ... add simple "support" or "oppose" !votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached. ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN. ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s). ... oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R. ... oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)

Suggestions

---

January 12

---

[Posted] RD: Anthony King (professor)

Article: Anthony King (professor)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian
Nominator: MBlaze Lightning (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.

 —MBlaze Lightning ^T 13:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Several unsourced statements but should be fixable. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Masem:  Done. Article is now fully referenced and in good shape. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 07:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support Referenced, interesting. Perhaps one could flesh this out with more reviews of his books via JSTOR, but this is fine for the main page I think.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support Referencing looks solid - it's pretty minimal and could use more fleshing out, but no tags and solid referencing passes muster. Challenger l (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support Short, but sufficient. Post it, and readers can help expand it. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• This looks fine now. I am happy to see that we are now following the citing standard for lists of works, awards, etc. Posting. --Tone 07:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Graham Taylor

Article: Graham Taylor
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38599231
Nominator: KTC (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.

 KTC (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Wait. Superficially seems to be at a reasonable starting place (his playing career was low-key so hardly surprising that there's not much in that section), but some inline cites needed. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Referencing is now there or thereabouts. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Massive sourcing gaps, particularly in the early part of the article. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support with the improvements noted. There's the first para under "Wolverhampton Wanderers (1994–1995)" that lacks a source but that looks like an easy fix and nothing super contentious. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Currently, the article has major needs with regard to referencing. Statistics and honours are uncited, several potentially contentious statements have no cites, many sections have one or no cites at all. If that is fixed, this could be posted. --Jayron32 15:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  Full Support. Looks great now, thanks to the work of @StillWaitingForConnection: for cleaning this up. A great article! --Jayron32 17:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Posting. --Tone 18:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

January 11

---

[Closed] 2016 United States election interference by Russia

Consensus fairly against posting. Opinion has moved further into opposition since the previous two (30 Dec, 2 Jan). Consider asking WT:ITN before renominating to prevent rehashed arguments. Fuebaey (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Article: 2016 United States election interference by Russia
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): [1], [2], [3],[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]
Nominator: Fixuture (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Yes: I'm nominating it again. Not sure when people here will follow standard procedure for this item - quality of the updated content and significance of the developments is clearly given - it would be biased to leave it out! (Note that Wikipedia basically ignoring it is something that people will probably take note of and what will shine a bad light on the credibility of the In the news-section) For some reason until now it wasn't featured in the In the news section yet despite the certain notability, significance, article-quality and intense news-coverage around the world for over a month. While I previously primarily suggested adding it as a blurb I now suggest to add it to Ongoing. Fixuture (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose not sure how this could ever be "ongoing", nothing is going to change, there'll never be anything other than conspiracy theories about this, posture and counter-posture, and now soon-to-be-POTUS has been caught on camera in Russia, he's going to be Putin's best buddy for a while. This is all over the press but most of it is non-encyclopedic tattle. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I do not agree. And how can you say that "nothing is going to change" - that's a very strange statement given that this whole thing is developing by the day now. "Conspiracy theories" by a country's administration and its intelligence agencies? If you want to call it so please do - indeed you even may be right (which I highly doubt, especially as even Trump now admits that it was probably Russia who did the hacking) - but that's not objective, neutral and appropriate conduct here! The tattle in itself is already significant enough. Please also note that the section is called "In the news" - and, like you said, this thing is very much in the news - all over it, all over the world. Such a "tattling" if it concerns two major world superpowers, the election of a person that's often called the most powerful person of the world and warfare/foreign-influence-taking of a new type is very certainly significant. You do not need to understand this but I hope that Wikipedia collectively gets this thing's significance, because if it doesn't it'll make it look absurd and biased. --Fixuture (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, it would seem, several other members of the Wikipedia community do not "understand this" as well as me. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm thinking this is one of those real world news stories that doesn't work that well at ITN. There will probably be continued drips and drabs, but little is being confirmed by anybody, and it's too late to prevent it anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose We are still working on extremely evidence that is trying to tie the Russian gov't directly to the intrusions with malicious intent, and now we have what Buzzfeed did and that some papers (but not all) by posting an unverified statement which has since been proven completely wrong that would have serious ramifications if it were true. This rings of a story the media really' wants to be true to contest the election, and until there's concrete evidence or some type of criminal arrest, this is definitely not appropriate for ITN. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The documents have not been proven to be false. They're unverified. Could be bunk, could be legit. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I'll not weigh in on the newsworthiness, but "has not been proven false" has never, in any known human endeavour, ever been an acceptable claim about anything. Read up on the null hypothesis before you ever speak such silliness again. This is certainly a newsworthy event, and I'd have supported its inclusion, but I'll oppose it just to prevent you from winning any argument ever with such complete and utter bullshit. Good grief! Seriously, never do that again. --Jayron32 23:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Plenty of news stories are hoaxes, and can be definitively called as such. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Yes they are. "Have not been proven false" is not a standard of proof. If you continue to use it as such, you should rightly be ridiculed for it until you retract is. --Jayron32 23:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
          • You seem overly concerned about semantics. I was simply pointing out that it has not "since been proven completely wrong", as Masem suggested. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Far enough point (I struck that), but it's still raises serious questions about the state of the media to want to cover this without checking the facts and thus the alarmist nature of this story. --MASEM (t) 00:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as not meeting the criteria for posting to Ongoing. Unless something like a smoking gun being discovered, someone being charged with treason and put on trial, or WWIII breaking out over this, I see no reason to post anything about it. 331dot (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I'm seeing ongoing coverage about it (a couple of headlines from the past 24 hours for example: "Donald Trump Concedes Russia’s Interference in Election", "For Russia, U.S. election meddling claims strip Trump win of luster") and the article's being frequently updated. What's not to like? Banedon (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. We are never going to achieve a concensus about this and much of the conjecture seems to be unverified tittle-tale as we have seen over the past day. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Without concrete evidence, the claim about hacking seems to me to just be political excuse-making, probably forgotten about in a year or so.--WaltCip (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for a variety of reasons. First, there's nothing suggesting a material effect of this hacking, and most evidence is stuck trying to prove that the hacks happened at all or were directed in any way. Second, the article reads like the sort of feverish political emails I receive from my elder family. Third, nearly everyone furthering this narrative is somehow connected to the current President, who will be leaving office shortly and so I expect this will drop off the radar entirely thereafter. Lastly, the investigation into this affair hasn't exactly gone where the instigators though it would. The recounts unanimously support the original winner, and there's been some hilarious accidental discoveries along the way (such as more people voting for Clinton in certain Detroit districts than even live in those districts!). We can't post articles discussing "trolls" which make us sound like teenagers on their parents dial-up. We can't feature groundless political intrigue on the front page of a supposed encyclopedia.128.214.53.104 (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

[Closed] Elbphilharmonie Hamburg Official Opening

Consensus against posting. Fuebaey (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Article: Elbphilharmonie
Blurb: The Elbphilharmonie in Hamburg, Germany is officially inaugurated with light shows and concerts of the Elbphilharmonie Orchestra.
Alternative blurb: The Elbphilharmonie in Hamburg's HafenCity, one of the largest and most advanced concert halls in the world, is officially inaugurated.
Alternative blurb II: The Elbphilharmonie in Hamburg-HafenCity, Germany is officially inaugurated.
Alternative blurb III: The Elbphilharmonie in Hamburg, Germany is officially inaugurated.
News source(s): New York Times

Reuters elbphilharmonie.com
Nominator and updater: Horst-schlaemma (talk • give credit)
Article updated

Nominator's comments: One of the world's largest, most modern and acoustically most advanced concert hall opened today, landmark event for the global cultural scene and classical music. Most refined acoustics at the great hall. Covered by all major media. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Referencing is needed, and the claim made by the nominator that it is "Europe's largest and most modern concert hall" isn't even in the article at present. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose might make DYK, but not ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - not ITN worthy. --Fixuture (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment How so? It obviously is ITN worthy to the major news sites in the world. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, "Fury over India flag doormats for sale on Amazon" is on the BBC News International news site, and this story isn't. There's your answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I might be missing it, but the BBC isn't featuring it on the Europe index or the Entertainment & Arts index. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Obviously the BBC has relevancy criteria converging with those of "The Sun" these days. Bet they'll have it tomorrow with quality pictures delivered. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope, still nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose A concert hall isn't that significant. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Muboshgu. Being "one of the world's largest ..." isn't sufficient, since that implies there are other comparable concert halls. Even being "Europe's largest ..." isn't sufficient, since that implies there are five other comparable concert halls, one on each continent (discounting Antarctica). We do need new ITN blurbs but this feels too much like scraping the bottom of the barrel. Banedon (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose on lack of sufficient notability, but this seems like an excellent DYK candidate considering the lack of coverage outside Germany. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

[Posted] Addis Ababa–Djibouti Railway

Article: Addis Ababa–Djibouti Railway
Blurb: Passenger service is inaugurated on the Addis Ababa–Djibouti Railway, connecting the the capital of Ethiopia with the Red Sea and reducing travel times by 85%.
Alternative blurb: The line is the first electrified standard gauge and fast railway in Africa.
Alternative blurb II: The new fast railway will connect the capital of Ethiopia with the sea in 12 hours, instead of 3 days by car
Alternative blurb III: The first fast electrified railway is open that connects Addis Ababa to the Red Sea, decreasing travel time by 85%
News source(s): [13] [14]
Nominator: Holapaco77 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Very good news: the new fast train will connect the capital of Ethiopia with the Red Sea in just 12 hours, instead of 3 days car travelling: that will improve the quality of life for millions of ethiopian people and the economic level of the Horn of Africa --Holapaco77 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment It's been open for three months and passenger services haven't started yet; all that happened today appears to have been a formal inauguration ceremony. ‑ Iridescent 18:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Last October it was inaugurated only the ethiopian side, while yesterday they completed ALL the railway, also on Djibuti side. --Holapaco77 (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. [Edit conflict] According to the article, the railway appears to have been inaugurated on 5 October 2016? Which is a shame, because this would have been a good story. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No, in October only the section in Ethiopia. --Holapaco77 (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The article needs to be clarified. At the moment the lead gives one date, and the text another. I've also requested a couple of references. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I think this is a big deal and people are so anti-American news on here that something like this is a godsend. I actually think this is a big deal and deserves its own ITN slot, but I'm going to add a third possible blurb because I don't like the other two. Honestly, I don't expect this to pass ITN but you can always try. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• What are you suggesting the news is here? This is a story from October—to repeat, this railway has been fully operational for freight for three months and isn't yet open for passengers (and is a replacement for an existing railway, not a new route), all that happened today was a handover ceremony. ‑ Iridescent 19:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's newsworthy when a massively important railway opens to the public. It would be like having a railway going from Boston, MA to New York, NY to Philadelphia, PA to Baltimore, MD and then to Fredericksburg, VA, distance wise. Besides, like the hypothetical railway I just mentioned, this railway will service millions of Ethiopians and Djiboutians who want to reach the Red Sea. Very newsworthy in my opinion.

Neither of us is commenting on notability; despite two inaugurations, one in October, the line doesn't seem to be open to the public yet. I'd be prepared to support if the date it opens to passengers could be pin-pointed & nominated. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

According to many news outlets based in the East Africa-Asia area, the railway is officially open for business. However, |there is a dispute over who actually owns the railroad. To find a ton of media outlets just search 'Addis Ababa-Djibouit Railway' into Google, Yahoo not bing etc., UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose stale or not real, you choose. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Our chance to post about this rail was three months ago I'm afraid.--WaltCip (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Three months ago they opened only the ethiopian section. Yesterday they inaugurated ALL the new railway, also on Djibuti side. --Holapaco77 (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support _I'm new around here, so I don't understand where in the rules it says that the blurb has to be timed exactly to the beginning or end of an event, especially for something like a railroad launch that takes several months to complete. Why limit posting to a fraction of the time the event is happening? In this case, I think the case can be made that the official inauguration is timely per "The event can be described as "current", that is the event is appearing currently in news sources, and/or the event itself occurred within the time frame of ITN."104.182.168.222 (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - railways have a major impact both visible and less visible. That this is neither an American or European story is also good for decreasing bias, while the ongoing dispute on the talk page is hashed out. A formal opening ceremony is a natural posting point, too. Prefer original blurb. Banedon (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. A notable transportation development in Africa. 331dot (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support once unreferenced statements have citations. A big development for African infrastructure, and a part of the world that's rarely featured in this section. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support with some refs in the Route section. The two citation needed tags are for minor facts. I also rewrote the first blurb in the template. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• It may be worth noting that its the first fully-electric railway in Africa AFAICT. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's true: all four lines of the Metrorail Western Cape are fully electric, for example, as is the entire route of the Gautrain. Modest Genius ^talk 13:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Metrorail Western Cape is a suburban light rail, while Ethiopia-Djibouti railway is an international line. --Holapaco77 (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• In which case, the blurb should be something like The Addis Ababa–Djibouti Railway, the first fully-electric (international?) railway in Africa, opens for regular traffic. If so, I support. --Tone 07:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support as a significant transport development. The article is a bit lacking in substance, but meets the minimum standards. Exactly which moment we choose to feature this seems rather academic - now is as good a choice as any. Modest Genius ^talk 12:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment The article is very unclear what the 10th date represents, given that it claims that in November the full line was inaugurated too. The article needs clarity to understand why the 10th is an important date here, as well as other sourcing aspects. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

[upgraded], in brief: this in an international railway connecting two different countries: Ethiopia and Djibouti. In october was opened the ethiopian side, while yesterday was inaugurated also the Djuboutian side. So, now all authorities say the railway is full completed: for this reason also the President of International Union of Railways was present at the ceremony in Djibouti yesterday. --Holapaco77 (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Support though I would recommend if someone could give this a quick copyedit, that would be good. The clarity provided by Holapaco gives good rational why this Jan 10 event is a key one (linking Ethopia to a seaport via rail). --MASEM (t) 22:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support It's the first fast, electric, not narrow gauge railway in Africa, Ethiopia's a landlocked country of 100 million and this greatly improves the horribly slow trip to the sea (3 days to go 300 air miles?, good God! That must be some mountainous road) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 04:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

January 10

---

RD: Tony Rosato

Article: Tony Rosato
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CBC
Nominator: Muboshgu (talk • give credit)
Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article.

Nominator's comments: Not in terrible shape. Could be postable soon. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I think this needs significant work. Besides the lack of references in places, there's nothing on his personal life beyond his early life/education until the "Arrest and mental-health issues" comes up, which makes this seem disproportionate. I'm also uncomfortable with hanging that entire paragraph off a single newspaper; more varied sources would be ideal. His career needs more detail. The big list of voice work could probably do with being moved to some kind of tabular presentation at the end. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Had saw this earlier ( VG news channels focusing on his Luigi work) but had opined that it was in too far shape in quality and sourcing to be a possible RD with the time factor involved. Espresso notes the problems that I also see with the article. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Good point. I took a quick skim and thought that I've seen worse, and do see worse when I peruse the recent deaths articles. Don't think I have much time to work on it, but maybe someone else does. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose too many unsourced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Oliver Smithies

Article: Oliver Smithies
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT, Seattle Times, Star Tribune
Nominator: Fuebaey (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.

Nominator's comments: British-born American geneticist and 2007 Nobel laureate. Fuebaey (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support There's a few tiny gaps in sourcing in the accolades, but that appears to be generally sourced to ref 10 right before the list. Otherwise looks fine. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support when referencing improved. Could do with more on research, but so could nearly all our articles on Nobel winners. I'll try to fix the referencing for the minor awards. It might all be covered in the general reference but I wouldn't count on it. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support looks good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Dylann Roof

No consensus to post. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Articles: Dylann Roof and Charleston church shooting
Blurb: Dylann Roof is sentenced to death for the Charleston church shooting that killed nine people in 2015.
Alternative blurb: The convicted killer is sentenced to death for the Charleston church shooting that killed nine people in 2015.
News source(s): [15] [16] [17] [18]
Nominator: Everymorning (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Very high profile shooting, and this is the culmination of a long-anticipated trial. This verdict has also received coverage around the world, e.g. it's the lead story on the BBC website. Everymorning (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose mass shooter gets death penalty - so what? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support – Top story in much of the English-speaking world. (In blurb, perpetrating is unnecessary.) Sca (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• As per your suggestion I have removed it from the blurb; thanks. Everymorning (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support We covered the shooting, it seems reasonable to cover the end of the legal process. Capital punishment is exceedingly rare in the developed world and is declining sharply in the United States. Federal death sentences are even more rare. The Roof article looks solid while the shooting article has a couple of spots in need of a cite but overall I think it's good enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Non-ironic question: how final is this? The BBC report[19] says that Roof has requested a retrial and that the formal sentence has yet to be given. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• It is the sentence of the primary trial court. Appeals are more or less automatic in capital cases and can drag on for years or even decades. Anything beyond that is getting into WP:CRYSTAL territory. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

hell also have his lat min appeal to the gov who at athat point hopefully wont have the same skin color as me ;)Lihaas (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

First this is a Federal case, so the Governor won't be involved. And secondly your comment has racial overtones that are really inappropriate. Please exercise some restraint when commenting and remember that this is not a WP:FORUM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This may be pushing WP:CRYSTAL/WP:FORUM territory but he has yet to face trial in state court, in which case if convicted and sentenced how he was here, the governor could be involved if South Carolina Palmtree5551 (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

support came here to nominate AND per below we post convictions. that lil pipsqueak is gonna be executed in 5-10...that's what you get for taking down our flag from the capitol.Lihaas (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Lihaas: I'm not sure this comment is really appropriate. Can you tone it down? Isa (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

+1 -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

+1. Lihaas, remove your comment per WP:NOTFORUM or I will remove it for you.--WaltCip (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: Just sentenced, not really hanged or whatever method is followed. Very likely to be reviewed through appeals. Maybe post when the execution actually happens and if it's in news then. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Weak support - The Oscar Pistorius sentencing wasn't featured, but I find this trial more interesting compared to that one (its intentional, it had deep-reaching motivations, and so on). A danger with waiting is that if he is executed, it might not be in the news then. Weak support because coverage appears to be limited to the anglosphere. Also, there are some proseline issues in the article. Banedon (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • We did post Pistorius' conviction, however, which is odd, as the standard is generally on the sentencing. Even still, in Roof's case, he basically confessed to the crimes, so a guilty conviction was assured, the question was going to be the type of sentence he got. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Weak support - I feel like the bigger news might be when (or if) he is actually executed but with this being a big story at least stateside, I could see posting this Palmtree5551 (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment this has already dropped to eighth in the BBC's international homepage, behind Star Wars gibbons and Ban Ki-moon's naughty relatives. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Cover it when he is dead and cold. Meaningless sentence. Years of appeals to come. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for most of the reasons already given by others (probable years of appeals, etc), but also as a small gesture of protest against giving yet more publicity to the kind of murderer who seems to kill at least partly in order to get such publicity. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Since the Americans complain if we use regional interest as an oppose, I guess I support an article that highlights the US still kills people like a variety of other corrupt and amoral regimes.Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Question - @Only in death:, what do you mean? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Only in death does duty end please refrain from engaging in obviously political commentary. You are free to support or oppose the nomination, but this is Not a FORUM or soapbox. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: can we strike this vote, in the best interest of preventing political arguments? A conflict about the 'barbarism' of the death penalty is the last thing this already heated topic needs. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Done per WP:POINT and above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Undone. You can ignore it, the closer can disregard it if they wish, but my rationale for supporting is allowable. The premise that a one-liner support/oppose is 'soapboxing' or an abuse of forum is frankly laughable. You may not *like* the rationale, but that is no reason to strike another's comment. Secondly Ad Orientum, you have already voted in this conversation, so you cannot make Administrative actions (which striking another's vote would be in this situation) due to INVOLVED. And perhaps you two should both have realised literally no one else took issue with this until you made a drama out of it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough on my being INVOLVED, but your vote rational is naked political SOAPBOXING and obviously POINTY. And no it is not valid. I would encourage you to consider striking or rewriting it on your own. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

First off, you made it into a big deal, not me nor Ad Orientem. We were being diplomatic and asking nicely after you made a vague, weirdly worded political statement. Second, you undid something that two other editors felt was best to prevent controversy, so I'm somewhat bothered by the fact that you refuse to strike your controversial vote but you also refuse to reword said vote. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I would encourage you to stop bringing attention to it? *I* didnt respond until you two decided to start striking votes. I was ignoring your obvious provocations until that point. If you are going to make a POINTY argument that implies the vote is in bad faith. But since you both seem to have a bee in your bonnets about it, yes I do think its a good idea on an encyclopedia that serves the world to have on its front page a blurb that shows the US still executes people. You neither have to like, or agree with that reasoning, but that is your problem, not mine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Trust me, he'll have died on death row long before the US ever gets around to executing him. In Texas it takes 25 years, and that's considered fast. And we aren't in Texas.--WaltCip (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Well I assumed he will be there for 25 years then complain being on Death Row forever is cruel and unusual punishment and get it changed to life ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I'm still opposed to posting, but in line with my above-mentioned dislike of giving unnecessary publicity to the killer I've added an altblurb that leaves out his name.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. No lasting or global significance. Nowhere near close to being the "top story" in UK or elsewhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support Has received international coverage. However, Dylan's article could do with some of the WP:Proseline fixed up first. AIRcorn (talk) 10:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Might be notable if the sentence had been three weeks' community service. Might reconsider if there's a televised execution. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Weak support because federal death sentences are very rare. The conclusion of this racial attack on a church will have some sort of historical significance. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. It'll be stuck in automatic appeals for decades.--WaltCip (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support on principle We have generally reported on the first initial sentencing of major crimes that we previously featured in ITN as a means of closure. Yes, there will be appeals, they will go on indefinitely, but barring a complete reversal of the sentence, the results of those usually go without the same fanfare as the initial sentencing. Hence why we generally focus on that initial sentencing. I do think both article suffer from proseline problems but the sourcing is there. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - As an American I can safely say that based on our court system this thing will be clogged up with appeals for decades, and when it's finalized he'll still be on death row for about 180 months, or 15 years. Clump that with the ten-twenty years in court, as a rough estimate and we'll all grow old together before the event actually takes place. Maybe when they settle on a decision or give him the chair we'll include it. The court system is extremely frustrating and mind boggling, so it's not surprising that this mass murderer was allowed to represent himself as well as appeal a seemingly infinite amount of times. Check back in 25-35 years. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose basically per Martinevans above; this would be notable if he'd received a fine, but "criminal gets the expected sentence" isn't of any particular interest. (It's certainly not and never has been the lead story on the BBC website, either.) ‑ Iridescent 19:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

In regards to your BBC comment, it wouldn't be there. In all fairness, the Dylann Roof issue is more of a domestic United States matter, while the BBC is a UK-based domestic media outlet. However, the other points you mentioned were spot on. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the BBC might take issue with your quaint description of "domestic media outlet"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

When I say domestic, I mean mostly UK related stuff. They probably won't cover the conviction of a mass shooter in America. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I see. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment If he goes to the chair and fries, would the Roof be on fire? Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 20:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

What? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Depends how High and Dry he is. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This nomination is just one of those interminable drifters. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Contrary to Iridescent's claim above, this was the lead story on the BBC's news homepage ( which is here for me and other Americans) when I nominated it yesterday. Everymorning (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - The question is: what makes Dylan Roof receiving a death sentence more worthy of being posted as an ITN item on Wikipedia's main page instead of other death sentences given around the world to other mass shooters who kill for "ideological" reasons? In the United States (US), mass shootings occur on a daily basis. And in fact, if you define a mass shooting as "at least four or more people maimed or killed' during a single shooting incident, then in the US today, right now in 2017, there is more than one mass shooting every single day. In most of these mass shootings, the gunmen are "selecting their victims somewhat indiscriminately," and so the violence in these cases is not a means to an end. That is not the case here for Dylan Roof mass shooting. Roof did profile his victims. And for quite specific ideological reasons, it would seem, Roof selected this specific church as a target because of its historical significance as a symbol of the ongoing struggle for racial justice in the US. But who cares about this outside the US? I wish I could support on principle like Masem above, but I oppose because this story has ITN interest only in the US, and nobody outside of the mainstream media in the US seems to care one way or the other about it. There have been no significant structural or systemic changes to the way the US does business as a result of the shootings by Dylan Roof. If there had been real changes made as a result of Roof's actions, then I would support. The shootings did not change hearts and minds in the US. Unfortunately, Americans continue to have amnesia, and the only thing that changed (no kidding) as a result of this shooting was that they stopped flying the Confederate flag in front South Carolina state Capitol building. So back to my original question, why does this mass shooter's death sentence ruling deserve ITN status over any other mass shooter in the US or anywhere else around the world? Christian Roess (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't know where you get your data from, but we've had less than one mass shooting per day. And Roof's was particularly horrible, worse than most. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I worded the thing poorly. I should've written something like, "as of 2017, and over the past X number of days, there's now, on average, more than one mass shooting every day in the US." As to your second point, I'm not sure how or why anyone outside of the US would find this "particularly horrible," without factoring into it the ideological part of the equation. And btw, I'm an American currently living in the US and so I'm trying to view this from an outsider's POV, so my question is not meant to troll or snark my way through this debate. My oppose is a weak oppose, and I can possibly be persuaded to change my vote. Christian Roess (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Suggest Close I am not seeing any consensus or reasonable hope for reaching one. I'm INVOLVED so I can't close it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

[Closed] World Cup expansion

Winners of major international competition yep, a change to have a few more teams for a tournment in a decade's time, not so much. Closing as consensus unlikely given the opposes already. -- KTC (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Article: FIFA World Cup
Blurb: In association football, FIFA vote to expand the World Cup to 48 teams from the 2026 tournament.
Alternative blurb: In association football, FIFA confirm that the World Cup will be expanded to 48 teams from the 2026 tournament.
News source(s): Guardian
Nominator: Yorkshiresky (talk • give credit)
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Most widely viewed sporting event in the world. Of international interest. Plus it'd be nice to have an ITN where people aren't dying. yorkshiresky (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Now this is a newsworthy sporting event. Take note.--WaltCip (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Really? A minor formatting change is newsworthy, but an actual championship isn't? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't see this as significant enough for ITN. This looks to me like a simple rule change for an event 10 years from now. Mamyles (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support per above, one of the most watched sports events worldwide. Brandmeister^talk 18:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, very notable competition, the most watched in the world, but a rule change that won't occur for 9 years? Nah. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It's in line with ITN practice of posting when decision is made, not when it becomes effective. In elections, for example, we don't post inaugurations or oaths, but voting results. Brandmeister^talk 18:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, but is it notable enough for ITN? Also, it's a bit WP:CRYSTAL; if the management of FIFA changes (there is opposition to it) it might never even happen. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the sporting event is newsworthy, not the rule change that'll take effect in a decade. A one-sentence update sort of emphasises its significance. Also fun to see a double reflist in the middle of a FA. Fuebaey (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Both as effectively just a rule/format change, and that when talking about an event as far out as 2026, that falls clearly within the scope of WP:CRYSTAL (too far down the line to presume it will happen). --MASEM (t) 19:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Minor rules/formatting changes for ITNR tournaments should not go on ITN, absent something else.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose and suggest closure. FIFA are, at best, a completely disreputable organisation whose decisions are always questionable and may have no real longevity. That aside, a minor rule change to tournament isn't even that interesting, for me, it's all about more money for FIFA because more tickets can be sold, and nothing else. It may result in North Korea winning the World Cup after beating England 9-0 and Germany 11-0 and Spain 99-0 on the way, but I doubt it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Propagandist. North Korea already won the World Cup, every year for the last fifty years. They beat all competitors 500-0. Kim Jong Il was an excellent forward, as I recall.--WaltCip (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose So the tournament will expand in nine years. Unless, as is pointed out above, they change their mind. WP:CRYSTAL applies then, doesn't it? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

[Posted and closed] RD: Clare Hollingworth

Posted to RD, and no consensus for a blurb. Stephen 04:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Article: Clare Hollingworth
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Clare Hollingworth, a British journalist who first reported the outbreak or World War II in 1939, dies aged 105 in Hong Kong.
News source(s): BBC, Washington Post, Daily Telegraph, Der Speigel, Le Monde
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.

Nominator's comments: Looks in reasonably good nick. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support noting that the five books should have their ISBNs or equivalent attached to validate her authorship, since they are otherwise non-notable books. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  ISBNs and ASINs added. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support – Very interesting career – is she blurbable? Sca (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: Although she is most noteworthy for WWII-related coverage, there seems to be very limited coverage of her life post WWII all the way up to the 1980s, a huge gap. All that the article mentions is "During the following decades, Hollingworth reported on conflicts in Palestine, Algeria, China, Aden and Vietnam" and then a single line about the Shah of Iran. Spencer^T♦C 16:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The BBC Obituary has a wealth of information. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support Have added some detail about her early life. Agreed that more about her post-WWII career would be helpful. Edwardx (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support RD now or blurb when a few more details are added. NYT has a bunch of info too. This probably doesn't meet 'traditional' ITN standards, even though she broke the so-called "scoop of the century" and there's dozens of obituaries in major news outlets. But at minimum I'm supporting on reader interest: a trailblazing woman journalist who was the first to report huge stories like WWII or Philby and was around long enough to contribute info about Tienanmen Square in 1989. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support Was an item on BBC News at Six tonight, including interview footage. A brave pioneer journalist. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Spencer. The third ref makes our article look laughable. One paragraph on her Second World War scoop and the rest of her career is a footnote? This is a person who covered the birth of modern Israel, the Algerian War, Vietnam War, the last Shah of Persia (Iran) and China after Nixon met Mao. It doesn't even mention that she worked for The Guardian. Fuebaey (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support Seems sufficiently updated, sourced, and comprehensive to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Posted. Sam Walton (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Let's get a blurb together. This is the sort of thing ITN is designed for - bringing coverage to notable people from the past.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  That's a nice suggestion but I'm afraid that since she wasn't an American actor or actress prominent in the 1960s to 1990s, there'll be little interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Au contraire. Sca (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'd support a blurb. Her life story is fascinating, and the article is now moderately fleshed out. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb – offered above. Sca (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb More than famous enough. AIRcorn (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb Given the recent mess of blurb problems with RDs, here is a person that has an interesting career, but far from influential that we would consider as something key to a blurb. --MASEM (t) 06:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Not a major transformative world figure. Notable only for what she did while she was alive. Her death did not change the world. Death of Clare Hollingworth will never be blue. Doesn't meet the stated death criteria nor any reasonable alternative ones, no matter how many times Sca writes "support". RD only. —Cryptic 09:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Notable only for what she did while she was alive. How is anyone supposed to do anything after they die? AIRcorn (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

See Cryptic's comment regarding 'Death of'. Some people are only notable because of how/when they die. The death itself may be an event that has greater repurcussions (Start of WW1 anyone?). Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Having a "death of" article is not a requirement (Death of Carrie Fisher Death of Debbie Reynolds Death of George Michael) AIRcorn (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

None of which should have been blurbs either. —Cryptic 12:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No its not a requirement, only that a 'Death of' is one indication the death in itself is notable. Some people do not have biographies at all, only 'Death of X' ones. I cant recall who it was, but there are some completely non-notable people who because of the manner of their death have led to changes in law etc. Their living actions had zero consequence, their death had impact. Obviously they themselves cannot do anything after they die, however their death can spur changes. I dont know why we have a Death of Carrie Fisher article. Beloved actress dies of heart attack is really not of great significance to need more than a section on her biography. -ninja edit- Ah I see its a redirect, which is rather the point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• RD only She does not meet any of the criteria: "where the news reporting of the death consists solely of obituaries, or where the update to the article in question is merely a statement of the time and cause of death, the "recent deaths" section is usually used" (obituaries only here); " In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb" (death itself not newsworthy for its manner or the reaction); "the death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb" (no). Bencherlite^Talk 09:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• RD only it'd be a memorial to her to blurb her, but her death isn't any more newsworthy than RD is designed for. Blurbing deaths has become a little devalued lately. Basically, what Bencherlite said. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• RD only - Doesn't meet the standard set by Nelson Mandela, Margaret Thatcher, or Carrie Fisher.--WaltCip (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  Now there's three people you don't often see together in one sentence. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Which would be the first you'd omit as not belonging in the group? Sca (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't answer that! That's a trick/gotcha question.--WaltCip (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

 • NOTE – FYI, from today's "Connecting," an emailed newsletter for former AP writers:

A legend in journalism left this world on Tuesday night in Hong Kong.

Hollingworth had been a journalist for the Daily Telegraph for less than week when she revealed that German tanks were gathered at the Polish border, poised for an invasion. It was the start of an illustrious career....

Sca (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

And...........? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

So, it's not true there's little interest in the U.S. in someone who's "not an American actor or actress." Sca (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Well it seems obvious that it would be of interest to former AP writers. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Covered by NYT, Wash. Post, ABC, The Atlantic, Time, AP (tho she never worked for AP) and others. Many U.S. papers, such as the Charlotte Observer, gave the AP story significant play with pics. Not because she was a household name in the U.S., but because her story was important and fascinating. Too bad it wasn't featured on ITN. Old now. Sca (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• RD only This is not a blurb person. The news coverage is not significant enough for that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

IMO we should occasionally blurb people who may not be widely known at present but whose stories or accomplishments are/were particularly interesting. Sca (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

[Attention required] RD: Roman Herzog

Article: Roman Herzog
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [20]
Nominator: Wishva de Silva (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.

 WdS | Talk 11:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose "Early life and career" and "Personal life" section entirely unreferenced. Clean up before nominating articles. Seattle (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I'm sure it'll be much more improved when entering the index site, anyway this can't be ignored, no matter the state of the article. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose we simply do not post items in this condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment What exactly constitutes "this condition"? It's fine by the standards and more extensive and comprehensive compared to the above nominated Clare Hollingworth. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It would be better to look at posted items rather than unposted candidates. The orange tag, for starters, needs to be resolved, and there's no mention of his death outside of the introduction of the article. Additionally, a good chunk of information from the infobox isn't covered in the prose of the article (personal life/family, education, etc.). Spencer^T♦C 17:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • There are whole sections and paragraphs without sources. Oppose until this is fixed. Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. Highly notable but the article remains far from ready. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support full blurb. Highly notable, as noted, and the article is adequate in my opinion. --Tataral (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  No, it is not adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment In addition to still needing the career lists sourced, I would recommend someone do a minimum copyedit and merge a lot of those 1-2 sentence paragraphs into larger ones. We do want to avoid excessive proseline. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. This is approaching staleness; what do people think about hiding all the stuff under "Other activities (selection)" & "Recognition (selection)"? The meat of the article now appears reasonably well sourced and just in need of a minor copy edit. (Now done.) It's a pity to forego noting the passing of an important figure because no one has the energy to cite relative trivia. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

January 9

---

[Closed] 2017 College Football Playoff National Championship

In a sincere wish to channel the productive energy of the editor somewhere else, I am closing this as a no consensus (I am pretty sure we are not getting any consensus regardless of how long this discussion continues). --Tone 21:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Article: 2017 College Football Playoff National Championship
Blurb: The Clemson Tigers defeat the Alabama Crimson Tide to win the 2017 College Football Playoff National Championship.
Alternative blurb: The Clemson Tigers upset the Alabama Crimson Tide to win the 2017 College Football Playoff National Championship.
Alternative blurb II: The Clemson Tigers come back from a 14-0 deficint to upset the Alabama Crimson Tide 35-31, in the 2017 College Football Playoff National Championship.
News source(s): CNN, Forbes, Variety
Nominator: Muboshgu (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Major sporting event. In many parts of the U.S., including Alabama and South Carolina, college football is the only form of American football. It's more than just a game, it's a way of life. Last year's title game drew a television audience of 25.7 million. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Let's summarize the support and oppose arguments for this annual nomination from years past. The main support argument is that the national viewership for this particular sporting event is high, year-after-year, and there is international coverage for this event on various news sources. A secondary support argument is that the players participating in the championship are playing with the high likelihood of becoming professional athletes, essentially a step away from the top tier of American football. Finally, the game brings in millions of dollars of advertising and sponsorship revenue, as well as pumping money to the respective schools that participate. The main oppose argument, on the other hand, claims that regardless of this, the athletes are still amateurs participating in a provincial game between competing universities. They are not professionals, nor are they paid for their participation. American football also, despite having international coverage, has a limited interest in other countries and is widely considered a regional sport. Therefore, while it's all well and good to post the NFL Super Bowl, it's a bridge too far to post a championship game for regional collegiate sports.

Now, the consensus has been in prior years to not post this based on the multitude of factors. As the notability requirements for ITN have not been significantly altered from the previous years, I do not expect that consensus has changed, and therefore I oppose and again reiterate my call from prior years to salt the earth.--WaltCip (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

"A bridge too far" to increase the annual American football postings from one to two? "Regional"? The NCAA comprises colleges all over the United States. "Salt the earth"? I believe this is more of an issue of an inability to form a consensus to post, not an established consensus to not post. Also, consensus can change. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Continental is more like it. America is bigger than Australia and almost as big as Europe (and I mean all the way to the Urals at the longitude of Afghanistan Europe, otherwise the USA's bigger). The game may be between universities but they often represent their state. Alabama football is the team of Alabama in any sport. Alabama has no professional sports of any note in or near the state. Clemson's the best football team in another state that has no major pro teams. If the second level on the English football pyramid is sometimes posted (I think) then why not this? Would the best non-Premier League team spend over $100 million/yr if the players had to work for free? Note that if college football didn't exist the 2nd through 9th biggest stadiums on Earth wouldn't either and there's only like 6 home games a year but the football programs still turn a profit. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I have never seen a second-level game in the English football pyramid posted here (I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not). Black Kite (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

That's fine, because this and a "second-level game in the English football pyramid" are not analogous. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure they are, this college game is lower tier, i.e. it's not Superbowl, but it's the same sport, so our closest analogy is the Championship playoff in English football, second tier, but worth £150 million to the winners. One match, the winners of which will get £150 million, at least. Is that a clue to the significance of that game versus this lower-tier event? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If you can't acknowledge that the NFL and NCAA are not directly analogous to the Premier League and the English Football League, then we're going to keep going around in circles. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If you can't see that this college sport isn't worth discussing when we never go near a multi-hundred-million-pound second tier "soccer" match, than you're right, we're wasting time, yet again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The supports that this does have suggest that it is worth discussing. All the soccer postings that come through ITN, and we can't get a second American football story in a calendar year? Because you clearly don't understand its impact in the United States? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This isn't American Wikipedia, remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, game winning touchdown with one second left in the game. Headlines like "Alabama vs. Clemson II is costliest national championship ticket in recent years". This was an instant classic, lived up to the hype and then some. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. One of the most-watched sporting events of the year. Yes, it's American football, but we post exactly one story on the sport each year. The world won't end if we up that to two, despite what many of my colleagues who will be longing on in the next few hours would have you believe. Calidum 05:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Calidum. Personally, I wouldn't care if everyone woke up from pleasant slumbers tomorrow morning and decided American football is a completely ridiculous and barbaric form of entertainment and that they would all rather make watching paint dry the national pastime. But this is a big event in one of the biggest countries in the world, and there's no real "slippery slope" problem. This is the one "big game" watched all over the United States (and by some Canadians) that is not the Super Bowl. The article isn't amazing, but the references are fine and it does contain a summary of the game. ITN is stale right now. Let's get this up. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose second tier sports event. We don't post the English Football League Playoff final ever, so I don't see why this would be any different. We certainly shouldn't be lowering the bar just because ITN is stale, that would set a terrible precedent. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Because it's in its own category. This is not comparable to the English Football League Playoff. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    • It's not "in its own category", it's American football. That's NFL. Done. English League Playoff final, one game, one 90-minute game, is worth something like £150 million to the winning team. And we don't post it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
      • There's plenty of money involved here. That it doesn't go directly to the players is a separate issue. And the presence of the Super Bowl in ITNR, one story a year, shouldn't be used as a reason not to post this. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
        • No, you've missed the point. Winning the second tier championship playoff in English football will reward the club by at least £150 million. It will probably reward the players by millions each as their contracts are expanded and prolonged. This college contest is charming but of no encyclopedic value. We've got the top tier American football game (played in .... America) covered already. We don't need another American football story played ... in America by ... Americans. American football is niche and covered by the Superbowl if it expands outside that niche. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
          • Oh, the "no encyclopedic value" canard of yours again. Again I'll await you taking this article to AfD then. Millions of people are out there telling you this is not "niche". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
            • Not millions, about five or six, here, all Americans, all telling me that somehow I should give a toss about "college football". Which neither I nor the rest of the world do. Superbowl, sure, but this stuff, nope. It's not ITN-worthy, even in our times of limited updates. We don't want to start a precedent where all such minor American games are given a pass based on this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Amateur competition. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is not a second-tier competition to the NFL (as the Championship is to the Premier League in English football); it is a completely different competition. We don't dismiss the Premier League (which is ITN/R) as a second-tier competition to the Champions League. What matters is popularity and cultural impact. If an amateur university competition has this to the same or greater extent as professional competitions we post, why shouldn't it be posted? Neljack (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  It's not top tier. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  It's the top tier of college football, which is completely separate from the NFL. You might as well say that the Champions League isn't top tier because of the World Cup. College (American) football is different to professional football, just as club (association) football is different to international football. Neljack (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  I don't follow that, college football and professional football are both non-international football tournaments. Club associtaion football and international association football differ. Champions League is top tier in Europe. Premier League is top tier in England, La Liga is top tier in Spain etc. College football is not top tier and lowering ITN's bar to include it would be a mistake. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  Please try to follow this opinion piece: "Passion, tradition elevate college football over NFL". Or "25 Maps That Explain College Football". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Thanks for the summary of arguments in the first post. The argument that college football players are "amateur" or not paid is preposterous. Nearly every one of them is compensated handsomely, and a few are cash-paid outright (although in contradiction of regulations). I also find the argument that college football is not "top tier" similarly wrong. Anyone who watches a good college game next to a "professional" game could tell you that. Often, "professional" players are not honed college players; rather they are past-prime. Their designation as "professional" players is a quirk of how compensation accounting is performed and has nothing to do with their talent or level of play. Getting hung up on this triviality is a bizarre avenue for opposition.128.214.53.104 (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose We should only be posting sporting events if they are at the highest level and/or of interest worldwide (and no, that's not a US v REst of The World thing, I don't think we should post The Boat Race either for example. Black Kite (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose As per above. I also think the boat race is a regional event of low interest. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: I won't discuss The Boat Race here, but if you'll examine the record it draws hundreds of thousands live at a time and millions on TV. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think The Boat Race is poor example, if you're trying to provide one to justify your !vote. The Boat Race is a competition that is solely between two competitors, never any others, with no qualifications or deciding matches to earn a spot to this event. If you want a real analogy you might want to try low-tier football/soccer events. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 09:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Which low-tier football (soccer) events do we post at ITN? Black Kite (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't follow candidates for ITN that often to say you do or don't. The point was The Boat Race was a poor example of something that is similar to the college football playoffs. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 09:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Precisely. We don't post lower-tier soccer events, which is why we shouldn't be posting this either. Black Kite (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The point is moot anyway. College football is top-tier. The only difference between this and "professional" football is that professional players are able to openly disclose their compensation. This is a quirk of American collegiate sports that has no parallel elsewhere. There is no equivalence between level of play and which boxes you have to check on a tax form.128.214.53.104 (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Amateur competitions are almost universally not top tier. With a few exceptions. And none of the ones with fully professional leagues are. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Take a moment and watch 20 minutes of a random college football game on YouTube, and then 20 minutes of a random professional football game. You'll find that the college game has noticeably more energy, spontaneity and speed than the professional one. The only place where pro players excel is in drilling, which is for nothing when 80% of that drilling is "slug it out 1 yrd from scrimmage". College ball is the top.128.214.53.104 (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinion on the players skills. Amateur leagues are not top tier - which is reserved for the top divisions of fully professional leagues. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, I feel the college football playoff results are worth mentioning, as it's a major sporting event in the United States. College football is the third most popular sport in the United States behind the pros in the National Football League and Major League Baseball. It tops Major League Soccer, the National Hockey League, National Basketball Association and auto racing in popularity (three of these four we post results for on ITN). However, it doesn't fall in line for inclusion and never has. I think the main page is long overdue for a change IMHO. The main page needs to have it's own blurb of different sets of ITN, rather than combining top headlines with sports and recent deaths. There is too much news for this much debate, as this is arguably a big headline which we traditionally leave off (which we shouldn't). In December 2016, around 2,300 edits were made on the candidates page deciding what should be on the template. I guess I'm the only one who can see that such a narrow scope for inclusion means worthwhile news is passed up and we end up wasting a massive amount of time and effort for a few days worth of mention on the main page. So much more useful news, sport results, etc. could be added and aren't. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 11:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This argument, again? Oppose for all the same reasons. We need a new type of close; not WP:SNOW, but WP:THISISNEVERGOINGTOACHIEVECONSENSUSBUTWILLCONSUMEAHELLOFALOTOFBITSANDGOODWILLINTHEPROCESS. GoldenRing (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Your bad faith oppose sure doesn't engender good will, no. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Top tier of its sport, college football. It isn't a lower tier than the NFL, just a different league- which all but directly pays its players. I think it's hard for many to appreciate how big a deal this is for millions of people. I won't repeat any more than that. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support we posted Star Wars lady, this passes that threshold. Nergaal (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I find it amazing that: right now ITN notes the death of three entertainers who died in advanced age of natural causes decades after their fame had peaked; ITN notes a violent attack in a region wracked by violence; RD has been expanded to include animals and plants; and yet the inclusion of the pinnacle of a sport generates so much controversy.128.214.53.104 (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Not the top level of the sport. We should not be diluting our criteria by posting amateur student competitions. We've had discussions over college sports time and again, and no-one ever advances any new arguments. They are not suitable for ITN. I also oppose posting celebrity death blurbs, so the fact that those exist doesn't change the situation. Modest Genius ^talk 14:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Student? [21] [22] [23] Supposedly the link 1 TV series is pretty accurate (student sport wasn't that big in my schools (New York City) so can't comment first hand). I do know that there's way too many college student athletes picking easy classes and some of the least useful degrees in the school (including "Bachelor's of General Studies", studying "everything" to avoid going deep in anything before you're kicked off the team (they can only play school vs school for 4 years even if they still only have 80% of a bachelor's to prevent further abuse of the system, thus the standard is to not touch the playing area for 1 millisecond during school vs school on year 1 so they can study football very hard for 5 years instead of 4 and only have to get 1/5th of a bachelor's per year (the legal minimum)) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This shows how college football is just a kludge of grafting something like the Premier Leagues' under-23 teams into universities. Which is only this way because college football was invented by a bunch of probably well off real students of nearby schools in 1869 but gained popularity till it became a farce. Like a Monty Python sketch. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Celebrity trees and whales are cool though. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Correction, they are "notable", not "celebrity". And they meet the RD criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sure it does, but the most notable thing I can find about the Pioneer Cabin Tree is that it fell over. It falling over was literally the most notable thing it could have done, because had it stood for another 250 years, Wikipedia might not have been around to write an article on it. I digress though, this game was infinitely more notable than that tree will ever be. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 15:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Infinitely"?! Time will tell, and you and I won't be here to argue about it. A minor college sporting event which happens every year is really not spectacular, I'd expect to see it covered by one line in a sporting almanac for 2017, but nothing else. I suppose Americans care about it a bit but the rest of the English-speaking world couldn't care less. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

American sports almanacs have a whole chapter on college football. I think I've even seen college football in farmer's almanac(s) which have tables of gestation periods and lifespans of livestock and eggs, animal speeds, woodchipper ads and things like that. And how can it be minor when it gets more US TV viewers than any other annual sport event? (besides the Super Bowl game) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• • I could say that your oppose isn't suggesting a new reason to oppose either, just the same old "not the top level of the sport" which fails to understand the enormity of this event. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    • You might want to rephrase that after looking up the definition of "enormity". Even if it meant what you think it means, an event which is relevant to a very small percentage of the globe is not "enormous". Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Oh I used the right word. It might not mean the same thing to people across the globe, but it's an "enormous" event here, and locality and international scope aren't (or shouldn't) be factored into votes. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Reluctant support - because we really need new ITN blurbs. Banedon (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. This is a highly watched sporting event with enough interest to warrant inclusion on the main page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - event with merely a regional relevance, as opposed to the English Wiki having a global meaning. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • From above: PLEASE DO NOT oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. Your !vote isn't valid. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    • To me, the oppose isn't based to it relating only to a single country. It's based on only being relevant to a regional audience. The Super Bowl relates only to a single country but it still has international relevance.--WaltCip (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
      • That's still not valid. We have so many nominations that are only "relevant" to a "regional audience". Even if you don't care about this, there should be a recognition that millions do. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Perfectly valid I'm afraid. It's college football. So what? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
          • So millions of viewers, millions of dollars, millions of news articles, major significance in the sport. But you don't like it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
            • Second lowest CFB championship ratings since 2005.--WaltCip (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
              • There was no CFB championship game in 2005. The current system is three years old. The game ended at around midnight east coast time, which surely didn't help ratings, and is a problem the NCAA should address, but doesn't change the worthiness of this nom. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
                • It ended 12:25 am in the time zone where 47% of Americans live, including the time zone of the winning team. [24]. The kind of, sort of championship game was on cable since 2011, some Americans don't have cable. The viewership differences are mostly minor. The most viewed game in that time period was between Southern California and Texas, the #1 and 2 highest population states in the US. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – Ditto. "Really needing" new items isn't a good reason; neither is the regrettable Fisher-Reynolds precedent. Sca (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • As above, this isn't a valid oppose. And the fact that ITN is stale makes opposing this relevant, newsworthy sports story even more questionable than by buying the Eurocentric view that doesn't understand the purpose of the nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support Article is sufficiently updated with a referenced game summary and is covered widely in the press news. Spencer^T♦C 17:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• "Clemson’s Title Was a Surprise. Just Not to Clemson", "Deshaun Watson And Clemson Made History Against Alabama", "Clemson's national title win a big hit on social media","President Obama, Jeff Sessions, Clemson: Your Tuesday Briefing". Seriously how does this game not qualify here? I'm not saying we should add this to ITNR yet, but the 2017 event belongs. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • That's not the purpose of ITN. As an avid New York Times reader myself, I can see some other headlines - "Sessions Says Law ‘Absolutely’ Prohibits Waterboarding"; "Fox Settled Sexual Harassment Claims Against O'Reilly"; "Obama Races to Overhaul Police in 2 Cities by Jan. 20". These are by all accounts newsworthy stories. Not a one of them will be posted on ITN. Our standard is not to report the daily political goings-on of regional governments, or a play-by-play of events of limited national interest. If you want that standard to be changed, consider an RFC.--WaltCip (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    • The purpose of ITN is to showcase newly updated content with significant developments and wide interest. Like a college football national championship. It's not a "daily political going-on". And since it's millions who watched it, we can say this game is not of "limited national interest". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    • From the yellow box above, it says that ITN criteria are "based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments." Well, let's break that down. Some editors above have given the check mark on the first criteria. The article is updated, it could do with more, but it has the minimal required level of detail. Then "perceived significance"... for college football, this is the mack daddy of significance. I know it doesn't cross over outside of sports, but how many sports stories do? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I think the point is that sports events (note: separate from news stories) should have some notability outside the country they take part in. The Superbowl does. College football doesn't. If you look at the nine ITN/R football (soccer) entries, you have 8 that are supra-national (i.e. continental or worldwide competitions) plus the Premier League, which is watched by billions worldwide. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
        • That directly contradicts the PLEASE DO NOT that I quoted above. That is not and should not be a requirement at ITN/C. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
          • But in that case you're succumbing to systemic bias, because only the sports that take place in countries with a large number of Wikipedia editors who care to comment here will gain enough supports to be posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
          • You could find hundreds of these sources in American press. Thing is, this isn't American Wikipedia, it's English language Wikipedia. We don't post lower-tier sports competitions, regardless of the "how big is your stadium?" nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
            • We're succumbing to systemic bias by not acknowledging the importance of this event. And the fact that it might not relate to countries outside of the U.S. (I haven't looked to see if it was broadcast anywhere else) isn't a factor in ITN/C discussions. Yet people are making it one. This is not a "lower-tier" sports competition the way your second-tier soccer league is. This is its own concurrent beast. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
              • Not at all, and by your own admission you have no idea whether this charming parochial event is considered significant by anyone outside the United States. Some of us non-Americans endure the Superbowl, just to see how many sensitive folks can become offended by a nipple at half time, but beyond that, it's a navel-gazing exercise. To avoid adding a lower-level version of the same sport to ITN isn't systemic bias, it's common sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
                • I don't need to know because it doesn't have to be an international story to be posted, no matter how hard you try to twist the criteria for posting to make it that way. College football stands on its own, as I've tried to explain this nom and in past years, and because you don't have a comparable system, you won't accept the arguments. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
                  • It's clearly escaped your notice that this has been opposed year on year on year and it's not just me saying it and it's not me trying to "twist the criteria" (I've said precisely the opposite not that you'd notice). We have plenty of comparable "systems" and they are all more significant than this college game. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
                    • Read WP:CCC. If people considered the criteria a little more carefully, and acknowledged the differences between this and the NFL, we'd be in a different situation. Meanwhile, this is only the third instance of the national championship game for college football, and the college basketball tournament (the only other college sport worth posting) has been posted here before. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
                      • Fully aware the consensus can change, I've been here a while you know. People vote with their instinct, and most of the time that means that minor college sports with no impact to 95% of the world won't get posted, like mass shootings in the US don't get posted, like car bombings in Syria don't get nominated, like suicide bombers in Iraq don't get posted. The general feeling is that these events fade away after a few hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is an amateur event, followed in only one country, and does not make headline news around the world in the same way that the Super Bowl or other major professional sporting events do.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment that Americans have to fight so hard to get this apparently so notable and so significant event onto ITN must demonstrate to them that at the very least that it's utterly insigificant outside their own universe? I'm not stating that that's the only reason to oppose it, because of course ITN discourages opposition of items relating to a single country, but at some point, there has to be a reluctant acceptance that "college sports" are of no interest to anyone outside of the US in any way, shape or form. Sure they have big (American) crowds and big (American) stadia, but I recall watching the Superbowl in New Zealand with a bunch of Brits and Australians, and after seven hours we were happy to see it end, but the point was that the Superbowl was notable enough to draw that kind of international (drinking) audience. This college stuff is charming but nothing more. It means nothing to anyone outside the US and most of the opposition (every year) point this out (every year). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I have to fight this hard because you don't have an understanding of sports in the U.S., and you object to posting something so far outside of your wheelhouse. Tell me again about how you're rejecting this because it's not sufficiently international. That's not a valid reason to oppose per ITN rules and you know it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

[Closed] Northern Irish ministerial resignation

Consensus is to wait for the expected political fallout. Stephen 00:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

{{ITN candidate

Article: Renewable Heat Incentive scandal
Blurb: Martin McGuinness resigns as deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland over the Renewable Heat Incentive scandal.
News source(s): BBC News, New Statesman, Politico
Nominator: Fuebaey (talk • give credit)
Updater: St170e (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: We don't normally post stories relating to devolved legislatures. However, this article is somewhat detailed - akin to the previous HK political nominations - and we are going through a slow patch in terms of ITN blurb turnover (oldest story being more than two weeks old). This is currently the top story on the UK BBC news website: a person who has co-lead a country for ten years leaves because of his [political] partner's involvement in a subsidy scheme. Fuebaey (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for nominating this. The resignation is huge: it could prompt the collapse of the NI Executive, the NI Assembly, forcing snap elections and may even threaten power-sharing in Northern Ireland. However, I'd recommend adding 'in protest over the Renewable Heat Incentive scandal', because it currently implies that he was to blame. All the best, st170e 18:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. The article looks updated and referenced. Agree with St170e over the rewording. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per St170e. A great argument for waiting to see whether this leads to a bigger political event than one subnational official stepping down. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, the resignation is massive news in itself. It was reported worldwide; whether something will come of it is unknown. I'd probably guess elections, I'm not sure how big of a political event that is for inclusion. st170e 07:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. This seems a notable development in Northern Ireland, possibly putting the peace process at risk. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Wait Sinn Fein have seven days to nominate a new deputy first minister; if they do, things will carry on as before. If they don't, there will be snap elections. If the elections eventuate, that seems the time for this to go to ITN, with a blurb something like, Snap elections are called in Northern Ireland after the deputy First Minister resigns in protest over a renewable energy subsidy scandal.. Concerns about this putting the peace process at risk are worrying enough, but a bit too CRYSTAL for the front page at this stage. GoldenRing (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Hey, you can blame the disgraceful actions of the DUP for that... Support GoldenRing' proposal.--Máedóc (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Wait. This will be suitable for ITN iff it causes the NI government to fall. The constitution provides a seven-day period to sort things out before it happens. It seems likely that no compromise will be reached and all sides now expect an election, but stranger things have happened in NI politics. If/when the assembly is dissolved and new elections called then we should feature this. I know it's a sub-national entity, but this isn't a routine election posting. Modest Genius ^talk 14:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Wait until a change in head of government for NI is confirmed or if there are snap elections. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - the article says "In the power sharing government, McGuinness' resignation also meant that Foster was removed from her role as First Minister ... As the Executive Office of Northern Ireland has fallen with McGuinness' resignation, it may now cause the collapse of the Northern Ireland Assembly, forcing a snap election to be called." In this case I don't see waiting as preferable. I oppose nonetheless because Northern Ireland is but one part of the UK. Weakly, because we really need new ITN blurbs. Banedon (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Banedon The First Minister role is a joint office; if one resigns the other goes too. If there is no replacement within 7 days, then the institutions fall (which is scheduled for 5pm on 16th Jan). This isn't a routine scenario: it is a real threat to the Northern Ireland peace process. st170e 13:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

St170e Can you explain what this peace process is? Northern Ireland is not at war, the Northern Ireland peace process article refers to developments two decades ago, and even if it is a "threat" to the peace process, I'm hard pressed to see why we would post it until the threat turns into a reality. Banedon (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Banedon: I really don't think an explanation is necessary, but nevertheless: The Troubles in Northern Ireland ended in 1998 with the Good Friday Agreement. War in Northern Ireland took place over 30 years; this was the agreement that finally ended it all. The reason this resignation is so significant is because the institutions will collapse on Monday, the nationalist community (represented by Sinn Fein) have effectively called time on devolution. I ask that you change your vote to a 'Wait' rather than oppose. The situation in NI is (sadly) unstable (see Dissident Irish Republican campaign) and this resignation has received major news coverage internationally. Whether the institutions will collapse or not will be a waiting game, but Sinn Fein are adamant that they will not replace the dFM. You can find the information regarding Northern Ireland in the articles I've linked. st170e 01:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not convincing I'm afraid. If the war was 30 years ago (it can't really be described as a 'war' either) then there's a high bar to meet before we can say it matters today. The news articles I've seen don't make it seem like violence is going to happen again soon, only that it places Northern Ireland's fragile politics in uncertainty. But that much is obvious every time someone resigns. Furthermore, anything that affects Northern Ireland only will also have to contend with the fact that it is not a sovereign country. I don't see the difference between internal NI politics and those from one of the many states of the US or India, for example. To top it off, this is not receiving major news coverage internationally. I just looked through e.g. the Yahoo New Zealand portal (a country in the anglosphere, too) and couldn't find this unless I specifically searched for it. As of right now, we still have two old blurbs on ITN, so I still only weakly oppose, but if some newer blurbs get posted I'll move to full opposition. Banedon (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

This blurb isn't about violence happening anytime soon, it is about a realtime threat to the peace agreement that set up these political institutions. Even Fox News reported on it and so did El País who called it a crisis política including also Le Monde, who said it could delay Brexit and even CNN wrote an opinion piece on it. Its significance is huge and has repercussions for peace; this doesn't just affect NI, but Ireland and the UK as a whole. And I hope I have satisfied your concerns about it not being reported on worldwide. st170e 12:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I continue to read your argument as more convincing for us to wait for further and more immediately significant developments than to post this now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

That's fine with me, I do see the merits of waiting to post it. 5pm on Monday is the deadline for a re-nomination, so at 5pm, we should know whether a snap election will be called. If there is an election called, I recommend this to be posted then. st170e 22:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

[Posted] European cold wave

Article: January 2017 European cold wave
Blurb: A cold wave affecting Europe causes at least 20 deaths.
News source(s): BBC News, euronews, RT
Nominator: Fuebaey (talk • give credit)
Updater: Ghmyrtle (talk • give credit)

 Fuebaey (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support.--WaltCip (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose so far. Compared to 2013 extreme weather events, for example, this looks relatively mild. Moscow, however, has recently set a new low temperature record, so would support if this wave worsens. Brandmeister^talk 18:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support in principle snow on the beaches in Greece?! 20 deaths? Notable and across the news, and has been for a day or two. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. By my count the reported deaths are now at 27. Article is short and would greatly benefit from a map, but meets the minimum criteria. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  Pinging our resident @Cyclonebiskit: to see if we can rummage up one. Fuebaey (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• This is ready to go, marked as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Posting. --Tone 07:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• I'm glad we finally found something new to post on ITN. I do however find it kind of humorous that after a long pause with nothing to talk about, we end up talking about the weather. Dragons flight (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] McDonald's sells China business

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Articles: McDonald's and CITIC Group
Blurb: McDonald's sells its Chinese business to Chinese conglomerate Citic in a deal worth up to $2.1 billion
News source(s): [25]
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)
Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Short on time so just throwing this out here. Size of deal is big and ITN needs a new blurb. There are other possible target articles such as History of McDonald's or International availability of McDonald's products but as of time of writing none of them are updated. Blurb can also be written as "Chinese conglomerate Citic buys ..." if the CITIC article is to be emphasized. Banedon (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - McD's is only selling its controlling share, will still retain 20%, and of course will still be involved in the franchise in China. And $2.1B is pocket change in terms of deals particularly for a compare the size of McD's. Seems mostly some bookkeeping optimization rather than any groundbreaking business deal change. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  Here's a fun fact Masem: the value of a human life fluctuates wildly when different methods are used, but it is typically between $1 million and $10 million [26] [27] [28]. $2.1 billion then is worth between 210 and 2100 lives. And an accident that kills 210 people is virtually a shoo-in for ITN. Banedon (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  That's a really poor comparison, and should never be used to try to justify the importance of business deals. McD has > $25B in revenue in 2015, CITIC had $3B in revenue and >$40B in assets. $2.1B to these companies is a small figure, and much smaller than most business deals. Further, it is not like McD's is leaving the China market at all. --MASEM (t) 00:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  I find it offensive that you can say $2.1 billion is "a small figure" to these companies. Really, how many companies in the world even have a market capitalization of above $2.1 billion? Yet you say it is "much smaller than most business deals". Also, $2.1 billion is less than 10% of McD's revenues in 2015 (it is closer to 50% of net income, but I digress). McD also employs 420,000 people. If an accident kills 42,000 of McD's employees, does that make it not postable since it's "a small figure" to the company? Further, even if 42,000 of McD's employees die, it's not like the business is going to cease operations or anything like that. Same goes for CITIC. Banedon (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  Again, comparing business deals to human lives seems rather pleading. Business deals should be compared to business deals and nothing else. And on that, At least 500 companies had revenues >$2.1B, making the amount relatively trivial in the world of business today. --MASEM (t) 01:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - $2.1 billion might not be big money to McD's, but it's big money to us. We don't really post very many business/economy stories on ITN, so this would be a welcome change to our usual slowness.--WaltCip (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose neither target updated, not a big deal in monetary terms, no real impact from a business perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• The least recent blurb we currently have on ITN dates back to Christmas of last year. What is it going to take to get a business story posted? What's our criteria?--WaltCip (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Well, as a minimum both targets would need a decent three-to-five sentence referenced update, that would assuage the quality concern. But we routinely don't post business deals that are much more valuable or impactful than this so I'd hate to see the bar slipping just because we're lagging on news. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Ho-hum.

• Oppose – It's a hohummer, IMO. Sca (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose both on article quality and merits. It would require a great deal of work, with emphasis on referencing for the target articles to be postable. There are multiple orange tags. And as noted above, this is not really that big of a deal in the world of high finance and mega corps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad Orientem (talk • contribs) 16:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems a trivial nugget of information. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 20:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Want fries with that nugget?--WaltCip (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment This report states that McDonalds only owns 65% of its business in China to begin with. The rest is already franchised. 55% of its stake goes to Citic, 28% goes to The Carlyle Group and McDs retains 20%. Blurb probably should clarify this. Haven't seen an article update yet either. Fuebaey (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Multi-billion dollar deals like this happen all the time. If we were to include every one of them in the 'ITN' section it would be total chaos. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

[Posted] RD: Michael Chamberlain

Article: Michael Chamberlain
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [29], [30]
Nominator: MBlaze Lightning (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.

 —MBlaze Lightning ^T 14:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support not seeing much to complain about here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Seems well referenced and adequately developed. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Posted. Spencer^T♦C 16:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

January 8

---

[Closed] RD: Ruth Perry

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Article: Ruth Perry
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): "Death of Matriach: Ruth Perry, Former Liberian Leader Dies At 77". FrontPage Africa. January 9, 2017. Retrieved January 10, 2017. 
Nominator: Zigzig20s (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.

Nominator's comments: Liberian politician. It would be good to add more African RDs. Can't find too many obituaries, however. Zigzig20s (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The second paragraph under "Interim Head..." looks very suspicious like copyvio, and definitely far from anything close to encyclopedic writing. The rest otherwise seems okay, but this paragraph needs serious work. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Would you like to fix it please?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it. At best, it was a copypaste with a few words switched out in an attempt at paraphrasing. That paragraph on her role in office probably needs replacing. More reliable sourcing would be preferable as well. Most of the article relies on this Answers.com biography. The first part is from Contemporary Black Biography (useable - look for the actual book) and the other is a circular reference; other book sources shouldn't be too difficult to find. Fuebaey (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am surprised there aren't any obituaries in the Western press. But that's part of the problem. If we wait for them in vain, we reinforce anti-African censorship by not posting this RD.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not mention obituaries. I deliberately did not use the one above because it closely paraphrases our (previously copyvio) article. It's been nearly twenty years since she left office and there are at least two books in the article already. Playing the systemic bias card with someone who occasionally tries to promote non-Western stories here instead of attempting some research isn't doing much to convince. Sorry.

In any case, I'm a bit busy working on another article at the moment. Pinging @MurielMary: to see if she can help. Fuebaey (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not personal. You're not responsible for the fact that she doesn't have an obituary in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Times, The Guardian, etc.. I do think there is censorship but this is not our fault at all, it's a much bigger issue.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose not really "in the news" is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, she just died, but she was African, so she did not get countless obituaries in the way that American or Spanish politicians would. Frankly that may be a problem with ITN?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

No, we need to see it "in the news". If it isn't "in the news" then it's not part of this section. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Perry seems very notable; the BBC refers to her as "Africa's first female Head of State" [31] but the current article fails to reflect her importance or cover her life fully. If newspapers written in English fail to cover her death then there is little that English-speaking editors can do to improve her article. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support for RD immediately. I frankly do not understand the objections. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• My objection is that (because of the removal of a chunk of promotional, copyvio text) there is now precisely no information about her tenure as head of state. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

[Posted] 2017 Golden Globes

Article: 74th Golden Globe Awards
Blurb: La La Land wins a record-breaking seven awards at the Golden Globes Awards.
Nominator: Aaadddaaammm (talk • give credit)
Updater: Espresso Addict (talk • give credit)

• A consensus from the previous years was that the GG are not posted, just the Oscars. --Tone 19:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• OK, that seems fair, can I withdraw the nom? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I suppose you could but consensus can change and people might think differently this year. I think the next major awards are in Feb - BAFTA and Grammys (same day) - and it's not as if we're being inundated with ITN stories at the moment. For me, the article is a bit light on prose and could do with some expansion on the ceremony (Fallon's hosting, Streep's speech, etc). Fuebaey (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I've added a bit on Streep's speech & responses to it; Fallon's hosting isn't getting much comment over here. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't watch it either. I was just thinking how everyone always comments on the awards host; Fey and Poehler got rave reviews, though Gervais not so much. Then I search 'fallon golden globes' and come across stuff like this. Appreciate what you've already added. Fuebaey (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't even get shown on any channel I can access, sigh. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I've added a bit on the ceremony based on the Vanity Fair source Fuebaey linked. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Aaadddaaammm: Please provide some sources, and sell us on why we should post the Golden Globes. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Support. BBC: "La La Land has broken the record for the most Golden Globe Awards, winning seven prizes."[32]. If the article can be brought up to quality I think we should consider posting this. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose because of failure to meet WP:ACCESS, per WP:BOLD. The rest of it is meh, okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Is there a requirement to meet WP:ACCESS? I thought that only applied to featured content. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Well no, it's part of MOS which applies to all content. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not aware that we normally require full MoS compliance for ITN. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• No but deliberately contravening it is unnecessary and clumsy. We should aim for better. This isn't DYK, after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Isn't this like a world record? Most Golden Globes won by a single feature film? It's been in the news all week so I think it seems like fair game for our 'ITN'. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  Well, it's not a "world record", it may be a "Golden Globe" record, and that may well confer more significance to the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• It has certainly been covered extensively in the UK, both for the record success of La La Land & for Streep's remarks. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Any further discussion on this? Espresso Addict (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - we really need more ITN blurbs, and this is significant enough. Banedon (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment made some tweaks and marked as [ready] but surprised that there's no coverage of Hiddlestone's speech gaff which has been all over the actual news for a day or so. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• That would be because the note I put in the Reception section was removed by an IP just prior to your edits. Sigh. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support and I added 'a record-breaking' to the blurb to reflect importance.128.214.53.104 (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Nat Hentoff

Stale. Stephen 04:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Article: Nat Hentoff
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times, The Guardian
Nominator and updater: MBlaze Lightning (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.

 —MBlaze Lightning ^T 17:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Needs work with special attention to referencing. Also there is an orange tag which is a showstopper at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose most books are unreferenced, without taking too much time to look at most else. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Needs better referencing throughout. Some more on his personal life would also be helpful. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Provisional support, looking better now. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Ready - The article is now fully referenced. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 14:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: "Career" section is just not good enough quality. It seems like it has a bunch of 1-3 sentence paragraphs, and over half of the sentences start off with some variation of "in [date], Hentoff..." Spencer^T♦C 16:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support my concerns addressed, good work! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. Article seems much improved if still light on his personal life (all his marriages need referencing). However, if he died on the 7th, as the article states, it is already older than the oldest RDs. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Question. I was set to post, but then I noted Espresso Addict's comment, which seems to be correct. Do we just close the discussion as stale, or is there something else to be done? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• I posted a query on the talk page about whether we should post RDs in posting order, rather than date of death order -- sparked by this RD going stale immediately before it was tagged as "ready" -- but there doesn't yet seem to be consensus to do that. So probably best just to regretfully close as stale. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

[Closed] RD/blurb: Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani

Unimproved, stale. Stephen 22:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Article: Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani
Recent deaths nomination
Alternative blurb: Former Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani dies aged 82.
News source(s): SF Gate BBC, Independent
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.

Nominator's comments: Hugely influential figure, fairly active even at time of death according to BBC. EternalNomad (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support blurb as he was very notable figure in the modern history of Iran.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb – Looks to be well documented. (Should that be hyphenated?) Sca (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Question. Could someone explain for those of us not in the know the merits of this person for a blurb, which we typically reserve for either sudden, unexpected deaths that are themselves a story, or the death of a world-transforming figure. Thanks in advance 331dot (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the most widely known heads of government in the Islamic Republic of Iran (the other being Ahmadinejad). Sca (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

331dot: He had been an influential figure from the beginning of the Iranian Revolution. He held many important official responsibilities. Can you just see that how the main stream media have exploded by his death? Mhhossein ^talk 17:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I was aware of who he was, but as I understand it, generally former head of state is not a ticket to a blurb.(sitting head of state, yes.) I've skimmed the article but it doesn't seem to describe what his role in the revolution was other than being the first Speaker afterwards. 331dot (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support blurb: Per my comment here. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I suggest to include his picture, like what we have here. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• RD only as of right now. I don't think at this time that this person meets our traditional criteria for a death blurb(sudden/unexpected, or a world-transforming figure). If he does, his article doesn't make that clear to me. I actually think the case would be stronger for Ahmadinejad. 331dot (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose RD on article quality. Too many gaps in referencing. Oppose Blurb on merits. The standard for death blurbs are any combination of... a sitting head of state or government who dies in office, their death was sudden and unexpected to the degree that it is shocking and/or they were a truly iconic figure at the very pinnacle of their field. IMO Rafsanjani does not meet any of those criteria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Was his death expected? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

At 82 there is nothing surprising about his death from natural causes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, You're right. My 2 cents; "He was one of the leaders of the 1979 Islamic revolution,"[33] which changed the equations in the region and the world and Iran international relations. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support blurb, answer to above, he was going for presidency on 2013 and his death now was actually sudden and unexpected, he was holding multiple top governmental consultation positions even very immediately before his death. have a look at current #1 story of BBC to get an idea. −ebrahim^talk 19:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, three days national mourning is declared now on Iran as his death. −ebrahim^talk 19:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing sudden or unexpected about a man dying of natural causes at 82. And while certainly an important political figure, important people die every day. If he merits a blurb we are going to have nothing but obituaries for "important" people on ITN. This lowering of standards is getting out of hand. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I have always supported the position for keeping very high standards for posting both death blurbs and links to articles in RD, but it seems like much has changed in the last year so that now we post ordinary deaths based on article quality only to RD and do not give a damn about how extraordinarily important the person was to merit blurb. But since we have regressed on posting the deaths of Carrie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds, which received far less attention in the media than Rafsanjani's death (note that Rafsanjani's death is top story on most of the media) and the blurb is still on the main page, then this is a perfect qualifier for a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He was politically active and influential even before his death. Is current top news of BBC just means nothing? Speaking of age, maybe you are not well considering other active politician ages on Iran. Ahmad Jannati, one of most famous and still news making politicians of Iran is aged 89 and Ali Khamenei, Iran's head of state, 79, many more also can be listed here if you are interested in. We are of course talking about local and relative suddenness/expectancy at some level here because otherwise, death of all mortal humans on earth would be just an expected thing for say, an alien. −ebrahim^talk 20:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support blurb Now his name has the second trand of the Twitter Yamaha5 (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb Undoubtedly an important figure, both as President and otherwise, but the President doesn't have the same power as the Supreme Leader. Neljack (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support RD, neutral on blurb: Sort of the same situation as Soares -- if we post one, we ought to post the other. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose needs copyediting for neutrality, and some referencing issues. Having said that, its not a million miles away, but it's RD only, this person ceased to make a mark on our lives two decades ago, it's the death of an old man who hasn't been influential in any way for years and years. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

"In any way"? He was just running for another presidency on previous presidential election and his influence is one of the reasons of current Iran's president win on the last election, have a look at this and this to see some interesting points like his influence on.making JCPA happen or possible effect of his death on Iran's current government and reformists. −ebrahim^talk 20:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No, but thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support blurb – He was one of the most famous figures in Iran and the world. GTVM92 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@GTVM92: I get Iran, but please provide evidence that he "was one of the most famous figures in the world" or otherwise a world-transforming figure ranking with Nelson Mandela, Margaret Thatcher, and Fidel Castro. His article doesn't indicate that, at least to me. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

He was one of the key figures in the Iranian Revolution after Ruhollah Khomeini and ruled Iran for eight years. I think a president of a country like Iran is known in the world! GTVM92 (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The article is also upgraded by me as I can. GTVM92 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Posted RD - Consensus unclear about blurb. -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Pull Fuzheado did you even look at the WP:BLP you just posted??! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Pulled Terrible terrible BLP violating article as RD. --MASEM (t) 22:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb RIP great leader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.217.34 (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment This absolutely cannot be posted anywhere on the main page in its current state. Not only are there huge slabs of unreferenced text, but a number of BLP issues. Please don't do that folks. Black Kite (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose May be well known in Iran but virtually unknown in the rest of the world. As this is a English wikipedia, and he is not well known in any of the English speaking countries or India. May be blurp could be put on Persian wikipedia.--Numancia (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Per the RD RFC, 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. Oppositions based on notability are therefore discounted.--WaltCip (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

[Posted to RD] RD: Peter Sarstedt

Article: Peter Sarstedt
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: MBlaze Lightning (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.

 —MBlaze Lightning ^T 16:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose on the grounds of lack of references only. Mjroots (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose ignoring the unreferenced vast body of works, the article seems stub-like in coverage of his life and death. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support pending better references, currently has 24. Not sure what the "vast body of works" is: 19 singles and 15 albums not really a lot. Probably very easy to find references for the un-referenced 17 singles. I've commented out all the album tracks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, that's the "vast body of works", it all needs referencing. As always, thanks for your interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  Anyone want to construct tables for the singles and albums? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Under-referenced, with a lot of gaps in the coverage of the career. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks to the nominator, User:MBlaze Lightning, the article now looks well-referenced (41 citations in total), inclucing all singles and albums. Do you still have concerns? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support well done to everybody involved in improving the article. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 11:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, I'll second that. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Posted to RD. Spencer^T♦C 15:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

January 7

---

[Posted] RD: Pioneer Cabin Tree

Article: Calaveras Big Trees State Park
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: The Pioneer Cabin Tree in California, United States, falls and shatters during a rainstorm and flooding.
News source(s): "Beloved California Giant Sequoia Tree Felled by Storm". ABC News. January 9, 2017. Retrieved January 9, 2017.  "The Latest: Famed giant sequoia topples in California storms". Associated Press. January 9, 2017. Retrieved January 9, 2017. Hongo, Hudson (January 9, 2017). "After More Than 100 Years, California's Iconic Tunnel Tree Is No More". Gizmodo. Retrieved January 9, 2017. Mazza, Ed (January 9, 2017). "GREEN: Pioneer Cabin Tree, Iconic Giant Sequoia With 'Tunnel,' Falls In Storm". The Huffington Post. Retrieved January 9, 2017. The tree was “barely alive” due to the hole punched through it in the 1880s. Hockaday, Peter (January 8, 2017). "Historic Pioneer Cabin Tree toppled in California storm". SFGate. Retrieved January 9, 2017. Andrews, Travis M. (January 9, 2017). "Morning Mix: Winter storm fells one of California's iconic drive-through tunnel trees, carved in the 1880s". Washington Post. Retrieved January 9, 2017.  Melvin, Don; Chirbas, Kurt. "Pioneer Cabin Tree, Famous for Tunnel, Is Toppled by Storm" (Video). NBC News. Retrieved January 9, 2017. Photos show the sequoia splintered on impact. If the question is whether a tree falling in the forest makes a noise, this one probably did. 
Nominator: 7&6=thirteen (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.

 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support as RD - Though tragic, the tree was alive for more than 100 years. We generally only reserve blurbs for trees with extreme global significance, such as Mandela or Thatcher.--WaltCip (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support RD on sourcing improvements not appropriate for blurb per WaltCip. I note other parts of the article need sourcing before this can be posted. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment Added sources for rest of article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Quick question, unlike the other living animals etc, this doesn't actually have a stand-alone article. The criteria read to me that only dedicated articles to the subject should be considered. Is this not the case? "An individual human, animal or other biological organism that has recently died may have an entry in the recent deaths section if it has a Wikipedia article that is:" being the relevant bit. This doesnt have a wikipedia article. Its a mention in an article about the park. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I did think about that before my comment, and one thing I determined is that we could have had a separate article on the tree (there's enough secondary sourcing to support a separate article on doing a google search), but it doesn't seem to make sense to separate the tree from discussion of the state park in terms of comprehensiveness. (Otherwise we get the situation like from Nov 2016 with the Big Tree [34]). --MASEM (t) 15:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    • We should determine now whether or not we can use the current standing article Calaveras Big Trees State Park as the "pipe" for the RD. If we can't, then we need to close this nom until the new article for the Pioneer Cabin Tree is created.--WaltCip (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    • From looking at that discussion (Big Tree) where the prospect of merging is raised, Ad Orientum indicates that would prevent it being an RD? So here where it already is not a stand-alone article, that would be the default position? I have no beef either way, if the consensus is that living people mentioned on other articles are eligible for RD then fine, but I was under the impression the relaxation of the RD criteria to prevent super-notability arguments hinged upon the notability already being established by having an article (which isnt the case here). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Notability allows one to create a standalone article if the topic is notable, but does not require this. We encourage editors that if a notable topic is better covered in a larger topic for better comprehension of both topics, that's acceptable. That should be reflected here at ITN as well. Ideally, I think that a section of the current Park article should be split off to discuss the Tree in detail (more can be said about when it was carved that way, why it was carved, and the influence of the other tunnel tree from Yosemite) to make that stand out, but it will still otherwise short. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Clarification The tree may be millenials old, age unknown. It was 33 feet in circumference. It is more than 100 years since they hollowed it out as a tourist attraction. 7&6=thirteen (☎)

Comment - the Pioneer Cabin Tree is not individually notable, only the park in which it stood? Reporting it's death would be analogous to posting the death of one of the whales named in the Granny article? If all the trees in Calaveras Big Trees State Park had died, that would indeed be notable? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose if the tree isn't notable enough for its own article, I don't see that it qualifies for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Struck support vote above. Precedence dictates that an RD requires an article demonstrating individual notability. Thus we can have neither a blurb nor RD posting until this is made so.--WaltCip (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Clearly notable and sourced. Has a great picture. Suggest you look at the article again. In any event, if you insist on a separate article I can do that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a great picture. But I suspect your new article might not survive any ensuing unfavorably strong winds. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support, but worthy of a blurb. Mjroots (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. For an RD we need a separate article. Somewhat to my surprise, it does seem to be in the news internationally eg BBC, so a blurb might be also be a possibility (which paradoxically would not need a separate article). Espresso Addict (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Pioneer Cabin Tree. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Pioneer Cabin Tree is now a stand-alone article. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• You make a hard case, but with a name like that you must be biased. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support RD. Article is long enough and fully cited. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support RD once more. Good job on the new article.--WaltCip (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support now a very decent standalone aritcle has been created, this is good to go. Nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Posted to RD, without prejudice to discussion of a blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Carbon

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Article: Carbon
Blurb: Scientists from the Free University of Berlin announce the discovery that Carbon can form a covalent bond with six other atoms.
News source(s): ZME science Science news

 207.107.159.62 (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Weak support - Interesting, and potentially ITN-worthy. Not sure why it wasn't published in Science though. Nergaal (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - There is no update to the target article. This nomination can't even be properly considered until this discovery is described in the article. Dragons flight (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I added the update in the article. I would support on notability, but it appears that the discovery was actually confirmed last month. EternalNomad (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Publication date appears to be 2 January 2017? Espresso Addict (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Weak oppose While the science is commendable, this is nothing groundbreaking or vastly changing the nature of how we approach carbon-based chemsitry. The idea of 6-bonded carbon has been around, and certainly possible given all orbital theories, just that isolating the state has been difficult, and here, to isolate it, they had to make this molecule in extremely acidic conditions and kick two electrons off the structure (technically making this a non-stable state), neither which are readily practical conditions for any major breakthroughs. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Seems to be more of a novelty project rather than something paradigm-shifting. A quote from the second news article: Although the idea for the structure isn’t new, “I think it has a larger impact when someone can see a picture of the molecule,” says Dean Tantillo, a chemist at the University of California, Davis who wasn’t part of the study. So this suggests that the idea has been there but this is the first time they have a visual of it? Willing to reconsider my position if I'm misunderstanding this. Spencer^T♦C 16:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comments from a chemist: If this is posted, the blurb should be changed as this is not talking about a covalent bond between any more than two atoms. It is suggesting 6 bonds around a single carbon, as opposed to the typical 4 bonds. Sets of 5 bonds are well-known, such as in CH+
  5 and arguably like the intermediates in SN2 substitution reactions. Further, though I have not read the Angewantde Chemie paper, the Science News reference describes an x-ray study of the solid state which determines atomic positions rather than bonds, and I can draw a plausible 4-coordinate structure using organometallic approaches, with the C at the top of the pyramid bonded conventionally to a methyl group and one of the C atoms in the pentamethylcyclopentadiene dication ring, and the two vacant sp³ orbitals having sideways overlap of the π-bonds. This would give a structure with the geometry described by the article and with bond lengthening due to the geometric strain on the sp³ hybridised ring carbon. The rearrangement of hexamethylbenzene on oxidation is interesting (and this article is the place for the details) but if I am correct about the organometallic-like arrangement, it is worth noting that showing bonds to each ring atom is generally the disfavoured approach. Ferrocene, for example, can be shown with the Fe bonded to the 10 C atoms surrounding it, but showing just bonding to the centre of the ring is much more common. (Yes, I know my comments include WP:OR, hence I am making comments for others to consider or disregard at their option.) EdChem (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • What would you suggest as a potential blurb? And as a chemist, your views on the notability of this (worth posting or not) would also be welcomed. Best, Spencer^T♦C 16:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Alternative Blurb suggestions: Spencer, since you ask, something like on of these:
      • Scientists from the Free University of Berlin determine a structure in which carbon adopts a 6-coordinate geometry.
      • Scientists from the Free University of Berlin determine the structure of a dication of hexamethylbenzene in which one carbon atom adopts a 6-coordinate geometry.
      • Scientists from the Free University of Berlin demonstrate that hexamethylbenzene rearranges on oxidation to form a structure with a 6-coordinate carbon centre.
        • Hyping the name of the university is disgusting. Abductive (reasoning) 02:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
          • It is standard practice in reporting of scientific discoveries to credit the school(s) involved, if there is space for them all. --MASEM (t) 02:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
            • Horrendous. And ITN usually just says, "scientists announce." Abductive (reasoning) 02:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    • As for my view on posting, I am interested but not highly surprised, but then I know that the notion that carbon must have 4 bonds is not an inviolable rule. I would like to see a decent image added to the articles mentioning this as how this might be possible is not intuitively obvious. It is a highly unusual arrangement for carbon – no comparable example comes to mind – and carbon always having 4 bonds / being 4 coordinate is a rule taught very early so most who have ever studied chemistry might be intrigued or surprised by the blurb. EdChem (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support when a target article has been properly updated. This struck me as fascinating, even though I was aware of 5-coordinate carbon structures. A free image would be nice. I like EdChem's first and third alt-blurbs; if the original blurb is incorrect it should be struck -- I note that both carbon & hexamethylbenzene currently talk about the carbon being "bonded to six other atoms", as this is what is stated in the lead of the Science News source. If we use carbon as the target, it should be piped to the appropriate section. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment without some help here, 99.9% of our readers will not understand the significance of this discovery. I suggest you all work on a blurb that relieves the "so what?!" question that's on most people's minds when they see this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • That's part of my oppose - from a chemistry side it is "cool" but it doesn't have any immediate ramifications (compared with the anti-matter aspect from a few weeks ago, for example). --MASEM (t) 23:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support Oppose - When in doubt, listen to the expert, in this case EdChem. Banedon (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, pure hype, no real-world impact, resurrection of decades-old idea. Note the lousy sources. Abductive (reasoning) 02:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Though I had not heard of it previously, I have found Wikipedia already has an article on this pyramidal carbocation and its preparation was reported in the Journal of the American Chemical Society in 1974: doi:10.1021/ja00814a034. The structure shown at our article reflects the interpretation I described above of a pentamethylcyclopentadiene dication ring. Looks like these scientists have found a new approach to making it, from hexamethylbenzene rather than from hexamethyl Dewar benzene, but I don't see that as ITN-worthy. EdChem (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

[Closed] RD: Mário Soares

Unimproved, stale. Stephen 22:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Article: Mário Soares
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Mário Soares, termed the father of modern Portuguese democracy, dies at 92.
News source(s): BBC, Bloomberg (via Yahoo), AP (via Yahoo), AFP (via Yahoo), BBC
Nominator and updater: sca (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.

Nominator's comments: Soares, founder of Portugal's Socialist Party in 1973, has been termed the father of Portuguese democracy in the post-Salazar era. Might be worth a blurb. Sca (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose almost entirely unreferenced. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 17:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose not referenced, certainly not blurb-worthy, I'm not even sure this death made it to the main page of the international BBC News site, so it's clearly not notable enough for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

BBC – Sca (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't say it wasn't covered by the BBC, obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support blurb Described as the "father of democracy" of Portugal by BBC, tremendously important figure. Article is woefully under-sourced though for a person of his notability. EternalNomad (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb in principle, pending article improvement. Article may require some work, but surely deserved. Covered in BBC's European News. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Far too unsourced to even consider RD. It's going to take a lot of work to even get there, and the importance (effectively only influencing one country) seems too narrow to consider for a blurb even if the article quality could reach that level. --MASEM (t) 00:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb Of far more importance than the second-rate American celebrities posted last week. 2A00:23C4:A688:DB00:C925:F1DC:400E:5A30 (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment if anyone cares sufficiently to support a blurb, perhaps they can work on the referencing in the article which is practically non-existent. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• If no consensus to post people will think waste of effort. You said "certainly not blurb-worthy". 86.190.108.0 (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Just my opinion, of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support blurb pending referencing. The bar has been brought very low with Star Wars actresses. Nergaal (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose blurb. While undoubtedly important to Portugal, I would regard death blurbs as mostly for figures of international renown, and I'm not seeing much evidence of importance/impact outside of Portugal. Oppose RD pending referencing. The current article is profoundly under referenced. If it can be improved in a timely manner, posting to RD would be appropriate. Dragons flight (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The reason I said it might be worth a blurb is Soares seems to have been important to the late 20th C. history of Western Europe. But must concede he's not widely known in the U.S.; not sure about UK. Sca (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb A very important figure in Portuguese history, but not quite at the blurb level for my money. Neljack (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is still almost entirely unreferenced. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support RD at least. I suspect he actually deserves a blurb, if only for his role in helping to prevent Portugal from going communist and becoming a kind of European Cuba during the Cold War. As regards article quality, the shortage of references may be due to the lack of 'citations needed', leading me to suspect that those who know about the relevant Portuguese history may well think the article is almost entirely correct.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

[Closed] President of Ghana: Nana Akufo-Addo

No consensus to list the inauguration just because we missed the election. Stephen 23:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Article: Nana Akufo-Addo
Blurb: Nana Akufo-Addo becomes the fifth President of Ghana.
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-38539751
Nominator: Tentinator (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: ITN has become far too US-centric so I have nominated this article to balance it out. The inauguration seems to be taking place now.   Tentinator   11:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Question. Is there any particular reason this inauguration is notable, other than the fact it is occurring? 331dot (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I would add that the only US related event is the deaths of Fisher/Reynolds. The others are Turkey, England, and Russia, so I'm not sure where "US centric" comes from. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support upon sourcing improvements. We didn't post the election article back when it happened and ITN is stale. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it was nominated, but if it was and not posted, it was likely due to quality issues, as elections for head of state are ITNR. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

[35] It does appear due to quality issues. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. seeing little coverage of this inauguration or an indication of why it is notable other than its occurrence. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm unpersuaded by the argument "we didn't post it then, so we should now." It doesn't seem to be in the news now- not sure if it was then, either, but it isn't now. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The BBC coverage of the inauguration [36] is currently on the main World news page and is second to lead on the Africa page. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I accept that this is in the news somewhere in some capacity, but it is not a top headline story in my area, nor do I believe in many places. I would add that inaugurations are routine events(for awhile we stated on ITNR that they generally weren't posted, though we don't now) and absent some special notability for this particular one, I don't see why it should be posted. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Certainly more in the news than anything we currently have up. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I grant that, but I find it a poor reason to post something, if still understandable. If it merits posting(or not), it shouldn't matter much when the last update was made. I get doing so, but... 331dot (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: There are two "citation needed" tags. Those need to go before I support this.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support – since this wasn't posted when the election results were finalized back in December. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose the article needs improvement, but as we didn't post the result of the election, I'd be amenable to allowing this. Having said that, we're on a slippery slope there, as it's going to give every election of head of state a second bite at the cherry, which appears to be somewhat biased. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a concern of mine too, it does feel like gaming the system (but obviously here in good faith) to allow this. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The article looks in an adequate state to me now. Did you have any particular concerns, The Rambling Man? I don't think we should consider this a precedent for allowing two bites of the cherry to elections, but we do seem to be rather lacking in news at the moment. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  As I said, I'm not convinced we need this, but since we haven't had the preceding story it's probably okay. We may need to work some words into ITNR about duration between switches of head of state, or perhaps we can exercise common sense (unlikely). I'll stick with my position, but wouldn't cry foul if an admin assessed it differently. This is no longer about article quality, just about newsworthiness in the pure-ITN sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Espresso Addict and Patar knight. Banedon (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment So, do I see a rough consensus that we can post inaugurations in case the election results have not been posted because of issues with target articles at the time? I am fine with that, but I would firmly oppose posting the same story twice. Would not make this an official rule, though. Ready to post this one, then. Opinions? --Tone 14:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The uncited stuff I tagged has been cited, so quality wise, it looks good to go. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The election is what's notable, not the inauguration; the time to post this was when the election occurred. Ghanaian general election, 2016 is not updated with a prose results section and only has a section for "Preliminary Results"--it's unclear if those are final results or not. Spencer^T♦C 16:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment – Yeah, we should have had this when the election results were known. Posting his inauguration now is a little like saying, "Oh, by the way, this guy was elected a month ago, but we didn't notice." Sca (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

January 6

---

[Closed] Fort Lauderdale airport shooting

It's clear that however much discussion happens that there is not going to be a consensus to post this. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Article: 2017 Fort Lauderdale airport shooting
Blurb: A shooting at the Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International Airport in Florida kills 5 people and injures 8 others.
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38535699
Nominator: KTC (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: I'll leave it to the community to decide if this is "just another" US shooting. KTC (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Just another shooting in the US. Nothing special about this one. Gfcvoice (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Support because it's in the news, which is the point of "in the news". The article quality is decent for a new article on a developing situation. Please don't argue that shootings at airports are run of the mill. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Check it out, it's in the news on the other side of the pond. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Support that's just an opinion, "Just another shooting in the US.", so is the turkey attack "Just another shooting in Turkey." ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 20:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Mass shootings are rather rare in Turkey and the nightclub attack was a terrorist attack with a very large death toll. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

According to this, Turkey has a just slightly higher homicide rate than the US (4.3 to 3.9), though that margin is very small. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 20:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"homicide rate" does not equate to "mass shooting rate". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I actually edit conflicted trying to nominate this myself. An attack on an airport is rare, even in America. The article is actually in a pretty good condition for a brand new topic. Dragons flight (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. This is the deadliest attack on a U.S. Airport since 1975 (LaGuardia), and the deadliest shooting committed by an American ex-military officer since 2015. However, given that all the other current ITN stories are about shootings, deaths, and aviation incidents, I'm not sure that my conscience permits giving this a full support. 2620:101:F000:700:F082:E953:9768:BAEB (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Not sure why a shooting in/at an airport makes this event any more special than a shooting at a different location. If for example the shooting took place at a factory that manufactures toothpaste, would it matter that the shooting was a rare shooting at a toothpaste manufacturing factory? Gfcvoice (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Why does it matter at all where the shooting took place? Somebody opened fire, killing and injuring people, causing chaos among the bystanders who ran, and it's a newsworthy event being reported on by news outlets across the globe. Why isn't that enough. Why is there a systemic bias against posting these shootings here? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Because they are a common occurrence in the US, just like fatalities from car crashes. Gfcvoice (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm actually not sure this should be posted, but shootings at airports are not common in the US. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Which goes back to my earlier question - why does the location matter? Why is a shooting at an airport considered particularly newsworthy compared to a shooting elsewhere? Gfcvoice (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
          • Gee, I am wondering why it matters. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:C04E:3594:1796:89BC (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
          • (ec)Airports generally have armed security personnel, procedures, equipment, and many witnesses to deter violent activity. For someone to commit a violent act there despite such measures is unusual, to say the least. For the moment this doesn't seem like terrorism and I don't think it yet merits posting, if ever, but I understand why it was nominated. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
            • No, I know that I could park my car, walk into my local airport armed and run into the baggage reclaim area shooting the place up no problem at all (if I had the inclination, the gun etc, which of course I don't). To think otherwise is either ignorant or naive. P.S. More than 22 million passengers per year go through my "local airport" before you get all sniffy about it.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
            • I agree with The Rambling Man, for many airports it is very easy to access the arrivals and baggage reclaim area. The location does not seem to be very different to a toothpaste factory which also has many witnesses to potential violent activity. Gfcvoice (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
              • A toothpaste factory is not a public facility with armed security personnel present, even in baggage claim. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
                • I suspect Gfcvoice was being faceitous. And in any case, it turns out the shooter was taken down in one minute, so that's not too bad. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
                  • I've heard conflicting stories on how the suspect was captured; one account stated that after he was finished shooting he got on the ground to allow police to arrest him(and the sheriff said he was arrested without incident) but the other account was that he was shot within a minute as you state. But I digress.... 331dot (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
              • And yet you don't think it's sufficiently newsworthy when someone actually does it? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
                • It's worth an article, maybe, but it's still "so what?" The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
                  • So people are dead and it's a major news story based on all the outlets covering it. Plain and simple. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
                    • So people are dead, it's a major news story. So what? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
                      • So the whole point of ITN is that we post major news stories when there's an article of sufficient quality. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
                        • No, the point is that we post articles of encyclopedic value. Quality is essential, but so is EV and consensus. This has no EV and no consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
                          • You say it has no EV, but I don't see anyone else arguing that. There's no consensus to post, clearly, but I call bullshit on the oppose reasons. You're disregarding a major, ongoing, and newsworthy U.S. problem. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
                            • Call it whatever. It's another day, another mass shooting I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
                              • "Another day, another mass shooting" ... unbelievable disregard. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
                                • No, just sad fact. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Will reconsider if the death toll breaks double digits or there is evidence of terrorism. Otherwise, sad though it may be, mass shootings are just too commonplace in the United States to keep posting them all. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd probably lean towards this point of view, but I think we should at least wait to see how it shakes out. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No doubt. If the facts change, I will reassess at that time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"To keep posting them all"?? We don't post ANY of them, unless it's considered Islamic terror, which shouldn't be a factor in the decision making process here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

False claim, see Washington Navy Yard shooting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow one example. And it's from 2013, before non-American Wikipedians here started cracking down on any American mass shooting story here, I believe. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It was notable. This is not. Regardless of your anti-anti-American hate speech. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

LOL "hate speech"? I'm just calling it like it is, at some point people here decided to oppose U.S. mass shootings almost entirely, unless some aspect of it stood out (like ISIL). This is plenty notable, newsworthy, and updated for posting, but WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

YOUDONTLIKEIT relates to deletion discussions, just for clarity. And actually, I don't like it, I don't like seeing thousands and thousands of Americans being shot to death every year through ignorance, but I can't do anything about that. I'm entitled to my position, and if that means "oppose", so be it. Got it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it applies here as well, another discussion board that tries to build consensus. No, I don't get how disliking mass shootings means opposing posting the articles. That doesn't connect. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't claiming causality, read it again. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Your position, as best I can tell, is that this sort of thing happens too often. But that disregards the entire category of mass shootings, without considering that some are more newsworthy than others. Check the list of mass shootings again and you'll see that only a small percentage of them get articles, and even fewer get nominated at ITN. And yet the ones that reach that bar get disregarded here, unless the guy is an Islamic terrorist. That still makes no sense in my view. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This is not more newsworthy in any sense. It's being reported because, like our own ITN section, things are slow. It'll be off the news this time tomorrow and probably never spoken about again. Because it's yet another mass shooting with no consequence. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Tell that to the people at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, and the people involved in the gun control debate. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Well obviously, this discussion is about the notability of the event for inclusion on the main page of Wikipedia, not a memorial debate. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose the comment above ... deadliest shooting committed by an American ex-military officer since 2015 ... says it all, that this kind of thing is so commonplace in the US that someone can quote that factoid out of the box. Just another mass shooting in the United States. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, just another mass shooting in the US, just another terrorist attack in Turkey/Iraq, just another election in XY. Let's just focus on dead orcas and star wars princesses, after all that's what our core audience is interested in. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:C04E:3594:1796:89BC (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

False comparison. How many mass shootings take place in the US every year? And the sooner y'all learn this isn't American Wikipedia, the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I found British sources, and I'm sure I could find sources from other countries if I looked. You're trying to disregard American news through an interesting form of systemic bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not disregarding any "news", I'm simply stating that this is not encyclopedically notable. It's "so what"? It's "get more armed guards at airports". It's standard American gun culture. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This is not "standard American gun culture". That would be the person who ones one or more than one gun and hunts from time to time. Mass shootings make the news because they're not "standard", no matter how much you want to standardize them. Believe it or not the U.S. is not a country of whack jobs running around streets shooting each other like we're playing GTA V. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This very much epitomises standard American gun culture. Mass shootings take place every day, sometimes domestically, sometimes at work places, this time in a baggage reclaim area. So what? America has a staggeringly high rate of death by firearm, and this is just another example of it. Just like Libya or Syria or Iraq has a staggeringly high rate of death by bombing. We don't post all those, why should this be any different at all? Is it really that Americans are more important than Syrians or Iraqis or Libyans? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

More people should nominate those for posting, I'd support. The existence of one form of story that doesn't get its due doesn't mean that this shouldn't get its due either. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

There's your systemic bias!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It goes both ways. Not enough people nominating bombings in the Middle East, people who don't understand gun violence in the U.S. rushing to oppose mass shootings that ISIL doesn't claim credit for. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No, car bombings in Iraq which happen less frequently than mass shootings in America are summarily overlooked. We shouldn't be looking to compound that ignorance here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Car bombings in Iraq still don't relate to mass shootings in the U.S. They can both be ITN-worthy, and there's no reason to summarily disregard from either category. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm doing either, but I'm opposing this non-story, just as I'd probably oppose a car-bomb that killed a dozen in Syria. Just because it's in America, it doesn't make it more notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"In the news" means "in the news". You're opposing a story that's in the news because you don't like it. There's no good reason not to post this, or some of the bombings that happen in the Middle East. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Once again, and for the avoidance of doubt, with one mass shooting per day in the US, this doesn't rise to the level of notability sufficient for inclusion in ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - It'll actually be newsworthy if the gun lobby loses their coveted Second Amendment.--WaltCip (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Every single media outlet disagrees with you. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Oh really?! Tell me with a straight face that it won't be an immediate posting on ITN if the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution gets repealed.--WaltCip (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It will also be newsworthy if the sun rises in the West, which is roughly on the same level of probablility. Now can we focus on the issue at hand as opposed to, once again, turning a tragedy into an opportunity for people to climb on their political soapboxes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• • • • • Let me rephrase: every single media outlet sees this shooting as newsworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Why do I get the sense that this would be posted with unanimous support if the perp had been named "Mohammed" rather than "Miguel"? A shooting in a Turkish airport gets posted, and a shooting in an American airport is being dismissed as run of the mill. What systemic bias we have created. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Bleve alleged perp is named Esteban. – Sca (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Mass shootings in America happen every single day. You know that. 48 people were killed in Istanbul. This event is notable enough, probably, for an article, but will be a nothing-to-see-here load of pulp tomorrow. Nothing will change, this has no impact on anything, other than the likelihood that more guns are sold and more mass shootings take place in the United States. No systemic bias, just this kind of thing is business as usual. Like bombings in Iraq or Syria or Yemen. None of which get posted, or even nominated. So there's your bias! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

  • • Mass shootings don't always make the news the way this one did. And I'm seeing people disregard it in a knee-jerk fashion. That's a bias. We do still post stories that are "in the news", right? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Only if they're encyclopedically notable. Which this is not. For context, see this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
        • I'm well aware of the rates of gun murders in my country. And if you don't think it's encyclopedically notable, nominate it for AfD. I'll wait. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
          • Sure! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
            • Still waiting. I assume your not nominating it for deletion is a tacit recognition that, in spite of what you've typed in this thread, you recognize that it meets GNG. Then, when coupled with the news coverage it's getting, it becomes a story that should be posted by ITN. But, the bias against U.S. shootings not tied to Islamic terrorism prevents you from coming to that conclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
              • Take it however you like. I'm not interested in this, it's probably a one-liner in a list of mass shootings, so eventually the article will redirect there. The EV of it will be determined in months or years, i.e. will it change anything other than encourage Americans to carry more guns, i.e. no, the status quo will remain. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
                • Mass shootings are never status quo, in spite of how many of them we have. And there's our biggest disconnect on this issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
                  • Deny it as much as you like, but mass shootings are the status quo in America. Denial is commonplace, but bare facts show otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
                    • This shooting, and the reaction to it in news coverage, is not status quo. But you can't allow that one shooting differs from another. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  Respectfully TRM, they really don't happen anywhere near "every single day". In 2005, the FBI used a criteria for "mass murder" that required: killing at least four people in a single incident at a single location and not with an apparent intent to commit armed robbery, gang violence, or domestic violence [37]. Under that criteria, such events happened in the US about twice a year on average from 1982 to 2012 [38], and 4 times in 2016, 4 times in 2015, 2 times in 2014, 5 times in 2013, etc. If you believe that ~4 incidents per year is too many for ITN, then fine, but the hyperbole that this happens every day in the US is just wrong and unhelpful. Dragons flight (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

  Respectfully, a mass shooting is where at least two people are shot. They don't even have to die. Our own article states that a mass shooting is " an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence" Just because the FBI have re-defined it in the United States to make it more acceptable, that's meaningless. So I'm afraid I entirely disagree with everything you've just written – filtering the numbers to make it seem less awful is cheap and condescending to the rest of the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

  "less awful"? That seems to be the opposite of my point. The magnitude of this event is relatively rare, even for the US, and hence more awful than the garden variety murders that do happen every day. Maybe you think any shooting involving 2 people is the same as shooting 13 and killing 5, but I would strongly disagree with that. Dragons flight (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

  No, sorry, you're wrong again, the magnitude of this event is not rare for the US. As noted above, I abhor all killings, but in America mass death from government-sanctioned gun crime is commonplace. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support: An airport shooting in the US is pretty rare -- and it's all over headlines. Seems worthy to me. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 22:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Holy crap well that's something new, apparently this individual had "had checked the gun in his baggage". Which makes the shooting even simpler than I had ever expected. You can check guns into your baggage?! What a complete mess. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

  Of course firearms can be checked into baggage, that's how they travel internationally by air. Unless you're suggesting they should be allowed in one's hand luggage. ;-) Even in countries with much more restrictive gun laws, that wouldn't be a suprised. -- KTC (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, that's a complete joke and something in a non-gun-toting country we'd just fine pure madness. Makes an airport shooting even easier, and this even less remarkable. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

  How does that change anything, either way, in this story? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  Aren't they supposed to be unloaded and in a locked case without ammunition? That wouldn't stop the crazy from unlocking it and loading it with a magazine in his pocket of course. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't accept that there is a bias against US shootings on ITN. We have posted the Orlando, San Bernardino, Sandy Hook and Washington Naval Yard attacks in recent years, so it seems that a shooting where the number of fatalities is in double digits is likely to be posted. But half a dozen deaths is simply not enough - the death of six people in a violent incident sadly happens frequently around the world. We can't post of all of these incidents and there is nothing that makes this one stand out as sufficiently significant. Neljack (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is there a death count minimum being applied? Where is that in the ITN criteria? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    • There isn't a death count minimum, which I why I mentioned that I didn't see any special features that made this particularly significant despite the low death count. There certainly can be such cases - the Boston Marathon Bombing is a good example of a attack with a low death count but greater significance, which led to it being posted - but we can't post every case of six people being violently killed in the world. There are just too many of them. Neljack (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I hate the fact this will be yet another body count blurb, but ITN is in sore need of a new blurb. Banedon (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - has received attention world wide in media. article seems decent and it is rare with airport shootings. BabbaQ (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Absolutely support How come a single black criminal being killed lawfully by police is news but 5 people killed by Muslim terrorism is not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.192.31.98 (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Weak support. Body count is not double digits, but it was at an airport that according to the article is one of the world's 50 busiest, the article is sourced, and it is "in the news". ITN is also pretty stale. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Too premature. If you look up "Fort Lauderdale" on Google News, some unreliable websites I did not click on suggest he may have self-radicalized online. There may be more to this story. Let's wait and see what the authorities tell us first.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support A serious and rare event.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment We're sitting on three stale celebrity entertainer deaths in blurbs - none of them under 50, all last year's news, but the majority of words written here today involve a British admin(!) ranting about US politics (again) rather than a discussion on getting today's top headline - a mass shooting at a nominally secure location, an event most would agree is not frivolous entertainment news - ready for posting. At least no one will mistake us for a ticker! - Lvthn13 (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  Comment I don't know which British admin you're referring to, but as predicted, this has already dropped out of the news, other than to reignite the gun control debate once again, which of course will be utterly futile, particularly in light of the incoming President. None of the celebrity deaths should have been blurbs either, perhaps people need to nominate more articles of encyclopedic value and lasting notability? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  Oh don't play coy, you stepped right up to enjoy the spotlight! Save your breath sir, I don't give a damn whether this goes up or not, it's a banal story and death is the most boring news. Nor do I have any wish to engage you, the above exchange shows your endurance for petty internet argument far exceeds my own. I only suggest that you are part of the problem, not the solution, and that your petty soapboxing discourages productive editing by people who might care, here and in other discussions you choose to shit upon. As a result, we have last year's entertainment news, and ITN is a joke. That is all, good day! - Lvthn13 (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  Well I'm not an admin, hence the confusion. But you have a great day too. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  My apologies then, I always assumed by the way you shouted others down with such authoritative gusto that you must have some kind of actual power. I did not realize that you are merely loud. - Lvthn13 (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Yes, like it or not, it's just another shooting in the United States. You can make efforts to convince us believe how big or how important this is, but it's neither a terrorist attack committed by a global enemy nor an extraordinary rare incident that merits attention. It's an example of a deviance in the American society and nothing else.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Suggest Close After being under active discussion for most of a day there does not appear to be any consensus. Nor does it seem likely we will get one. And, predictably, the discussion has devolved into debates over other issues that seem to pop up every time we have a mass shooting in the US. I'd close it myself, but I'm WP:INVOLVED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Closed means closed. A discussion has been opened regarding this general issue; please contribute there. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

• Comment I was just coming to support this, and it looks like I have missed it. Anyway, it is still a pretty prominent news item at the bottom of the world.[39][40][41] If this reopens (I think less than 24 hours is too fast, especially since this is an international encyclopaedia) then this can be moved to a full support. AIRcorn (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Aircorn: And yet, even though this story is international news, it's not "In The News" because of a cabal of editors who automatically oppose posting any American mass shooting event, without any regard for how one mass shooting differs from another. This is a systemic bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

[Posted] RD: Tilikum

Article: Tilikum (orca)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Telegraph
Nominator: Nohomersryan (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.

Nominator's comments: I know, not another animal, but this guy was pretty famous for his captivity at SeaWorld, for killing Dawn Brancheau and later for being heavily featured in Blackfish. Article doesn't look too bad. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I'm psychic. Sourced, updated with death, well covered due to being a serial killer whale. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support...nominating "Only in death" our resident Nostradamus. Also support this posting per our new RD rules. Yes, IP, we are posting Shamu.--WaltCip (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

 • Is this a bid to orcastrate RD? Sca (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, despite the moaning and whaling of those in opposition, that is our porpoise.--WaltCip (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This nom. can't be normal – it's just a fluke. Sca (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really a big fin of these puns, they really blow. shoy (reactions) 18:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Water you talking about? These puns are killer! -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Where are whales weighed? At a whale weigh station. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support with improvements. The current article gets many of the big / controversial things right, but somehow fails to cite some of the basic descriptive details about Tilikum. In addition, for a prolific breeder who was related to roughly half of all orcas now owned by SeaWorld, the section on his offspring is woefully short. Lastly, I would have expected more discussion related to Blackfish, and his safety / behavioral issues. Yes, the three deaths are listed but there is hardly any context to say how unusual this was, and there is no discussion of what the post-death safety investigations found and whether they criticized or exonerated his owners and other handlers. Dragons flight (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that is a function/result of most of that material being covered in their respective linked articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

What linked articles? The first and second deaths are reported with no wikilinks at all, nor does his offspring section have any links. Also, the rather relevant contextual article killer whale attacks on humans was not linked from Tilikum until I added a link just now. Dragons flight (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support subject of multiple documentaries, news articles, and books. Extremely notable. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Per sources, per media attention. Has been the subject of a documentary and books.BabbaQ (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Weak support still some inline maintenance tags to be addressed, but consensus to post appears clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Posted -- KTC (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

References

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

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