![]() |
---|
|
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.
|
How to nominate an itemIn order to suggest a candidate:
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
Voicing an opinion on an item
Please do not...
Please remember...The main page is an extremely high impact factor article. Millions of people view the main page each day. Anything that gets posted to the main page will be viewed millions of times. For more information about main page impact factor, please refer to this website: [1] |
Suggestions
April 14
Portal:Current events/2016 April 14 | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
April 13
Portal:Current events/2016 April 13 | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
Kobe's last game
Updated article: Kobe Bryant
Blurb: Kobe Bryant scored 60 points in his last game in the NBA
News source(s): (LA Times)
Nominator: EtienneDolet (talk • )
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Making headlines. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose If 60 pts was a record (it's not) that might be a reason to post, but the retirement of a player is not really an ITN worthy piece. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose the article needs to be updated with far more than just a single sentences for ITN. On second thoughts, this would probably give undue weight in the article. This makes a good news headline, but I don't see how it could work on Wikipedia. Probably best to show more than one news source to show how much coverage it is receiving anyway. Even the LA Times don't give a particularly in depth coverage of the event. Jolly Ω Janner 05:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose sporting statistical trivia. He himself has done better before. And retirement was announced in November 2015. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- The retirement itself is the real story here, isn't it? I'm not outright opposed to posting sports retirements, but they'd have to be ridiculously notable for me to support, like Gretzky/Pelé/Jordan notable, or those among the top two or three players to ever play their respective sport. If we post the retirements of players who were merely excellent, that's a lot of retirements. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Peabody Bankruptcy
Updated article: Peabody Energy
Blurb: Peabody Energy, the largest privately-owned producer of coal in the world, files for bankruptcy court protection but plans to continue mining operations as usual.
News source(s): (Reuters) (ABC News Australia)
Nominator: Brian Everlasting (talk • )
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Thanks to portal:current events for this story. My question is: since this was a publicly traded company should this be "publicly owned producer of coal" instead of "privately owned producer of coal?" Brian Everlasting (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose As the articles states, they will continue to operate their mines and assets are protected, this is simply an accounting step as to be able to handle debts they currently cannot pay. --MASEM (t) 01:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Good point. I changed the original blurb to addresses your concerns. Brian Everlasting (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
[Posted] South Korean election
Updated article: South Korean legislative election, 2016
Blurb: In an upset result, the liberal opposition Minjoo Party of Korea wins a plurality of one seat in the South Korean National Assembly.
Alternative blurb: The Minjoo Party of Korea wins the most seats in the South Korean National Assembly.
News source(s): Wide coverage of the election, but shock result is very fresh. Reuters, Washington Post, Daily Mail, Vice, etc.
Nominator and updater: Nizolan (talk • )
Article updated
Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.
Note: As of the nomination vote totals haven't been entirely counted yet, currently at ~99.5% reporting, but all seats have been called. 100% returned.
Nominator's comments: National election, additionally notable for a range of reasons: the upset win that defied all previous opinion polling including the exit poll, the party system upheaval with a new third party, and the problems this poses for President Park. —Nizolan (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - Not very significant in South Korean; not around the globe either. The President Park Geun-hye is still in control. George Ho (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- ITNR probably applies (there's some conceptual subtlety about whether it's a "general" election since the ROK is a presidential system, but the term is widely applied to it in reliable sources (Google "South Korea" "general election")). Anyway, it's odd to claim it's not very significant around the globe when it has received international media coverage for going on a week now (Nikkei, AFP, Economist, all from before the election). —Nizolan (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Rescinding my !vote due to ITN/R listing of general elections and mass coverage. I still don't believe it can change a thing. After all, the president is the daughter of the assassinated dictator, and she might do some influence in the future. --George Ho (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's significant for the same reason different parties controlling Congress and the presidency is significant in the U.S. (divided government). Her legislative agenda is now impossible, and she's a lame-duck president. Have a look at the Nikkei article I posted above, which talks about the significance of the election. —Nizolan (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Rescinding my !vote due to ITN/R listing of general elections and mass coverage. I still don't believe it can change a thing. After all, the president is the daughter of the assassinated dictator, and she might do some influence in the future. --George Ho (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- ITNR probably applies (there's some conceptual subtlety about whether it's a "general" election since the ROK is a presidential system, but the term is widely applied to it in reliable sources (Google "South Korea" "general election")). Anyway, it's odd to claim it's not very significant around the globe when it has received international media coverage for going on a week now (Nikkei, AFP, Economist, all from before the election). —Nizolan (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- General elections are ITNR so we don't need to address notability. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment added altblurb. A hung parliament isn't really a victory in any sense. Needs a prose summary of the result. Fuebaey (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Fuebaey: I can see the concern with the "victory" phrasing, but the proposed blurb also removes most of the context. Specifically: removing "liberal" is unhelpfully decontextualising, since "Minjoo" will mean nothing to most people, and the upset of previous opinion polls and wider expectations needs to be mentioned. I also think the margin of one seat should be mentioned either way. I've edited my blurb to remove the "victory", let me know what you think. —Nizolan (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support but I think the article would be helped to explain - outside of the lede - why the surprise and the projected impact of the Minjoo's upset victory, if that is going to be part of the blurb. (If was just that the result defied the last public opinion polls, eh, not so much). AltBlurb seems fine otherwise. It's otherwise in good shape from what I can tell. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Masem: I added a brief analysis in the Results section of the article touching on and citing these points. There are a wide range of sources using phrases like "surprise", "upset", "crushing" etc. It's difficult to find sources discussing specific impact precisely because nobody expected it until it actually happened, but the general significance is now there and cited. —Nizolan (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- You're right, it's probably going to take a few days for any impact analysis to come into line. (I have no knowledge of how this would affect NK/SK relations and subsequently the rest of the world but I could see that being one of those points analyzed). I would be fine with the first blurb now with the explanation this being a surprise result. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Masem: I added a brief analysis in the Results section of the article touching on and citing these points. There are a wide range of sources using phrases like "surprise", "upset", "crushing" etc. It's difficult to find sources discussing specific impact precisely because nobody expected it until it actually happened, but the general significance is now there and cited. —Nizolan (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Quick note: I altered the wording of the last part of my blurb to follow the condensed style of the alternate; I haven't changed the content otherwise. —Nizolan (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support Please, anything to get horse racing and golf masters pushed down the page. Articles look good. Brian Everlasting (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 05:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
End of Argentine default
Updated article: Argentine debt restructuring
Blurb: Argentina reaches an agreement to pay the holdouts, ending a 14-years long sovereign default.
News source(s): Financial Times, Bloomberg, Reuters
Nominator and updater: Cambalachero (talk • )
Article updated
Nominator's comments: As said, it is the end of a sovereign default that lasted for more than a decade (and 5 presidents since then). Clearly newsworthy. Cambalachero (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Noting that there are a couple CNs in the lede and a few paragraphs in the latter half that are unsourced, overall this looks like a fairly comprehensive article on this debt situation, and once those CNs are fixed, should be ready to go. Topic is definitely of interest and appropriate for ITN. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak support I found the updated information in the article, but it would be nice if it were added to the lead and/or made more prominent (such as a section header) so that readers could find the update easier. But it's there, and the article is in good shape, I see a few CNs in the lead, but the article is essentially completely referenced in the body. Ideally, the CNs would be resolved, and the update made a bit more prominent, but it's not in bad shape right now. --Jayron32 18:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I have fixed the two citation needed tags (they were referenced elsewhere in the article), and mentioned the end of the default at the end, linking to the section. Cambalachero (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
[Closed] Singapore rape ruling
- 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 to update: Penal Code (Singapore)
Blurb: The High Court of Singapore rules that women cannot be guilty of rape
News source(s): e.g. [2], [3]; Google turns up a lot more
Nominator: Banedon (talk • )
Article needs updating
Note: I'll be the first to say this is an odd nomination. Arguments for and against featuring this:
For:
- It's unprecedented.
- It's surprising. The facts of the case are not in dispute; the accused expected to be found guilty (she even plead guilty).
- This is probably going to cause some public outrage in Singapore. If that happens there's a good chance that the law will be amended, resulting in lasting consequences.
Against:
- Right now it appears to only be causing local coverage (this may however be because of its unexpected nature, and timezone issues).
- There's no article on the case itself, at least not that I can see. The Penal Code article is the best one I can see to link. As of time of writing, that article has not been updated yet. I can see an argument for this case to have its own article however, and will not be surprised if an editor creates one.
- It's a high court ruling as opposed to a supreme court ruling (?). The question mark is because the coverage I have seen do not mention that the prosecution intend to appeal, in which case this is final.
- In a global sense, Singapore does not exert much international power. One could reasonably argue that this is just a court case in a minor country with no international impact (and one could reasonably counter-argue that "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.")
Just putting this out there for ITN to consider.
- Comment It turns out the decision was made because the accused rapist is transgender (biologically female but had lived as a man since she was 16, and had even "married" two women). Don't know the exact wording of the court ruling, but I think the blurb should clarify that. Brandmeistertalk 07:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose a backward-thinking set of policies just got tweaked. That they do not even acknowledge the concept of male rape (...rape is narrowly defined under S375, Penal Code as the penile penetration of a vagina...) underscores a failure to get with the program. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral - It's... bizarre. But I'm not sure whether or not that in itself is newsworthy.--WaltCip (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – This such an anomalous case that it doesn't pose wider significance. Rather a straw in the wind. Sca (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose, this is an instance of a court telling a legislature to update some laws. Abductive (reasoning) 16:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not seeing a substantive update in the highlighted article that makes the blurb stand out. --Jayron32 16:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Please note that rape is defined differently around the world, even in the US. Rape used to be narrowly defined as coercive sexual intercourse committed by a man on a woman in several jurisdictions, and still does in some. As the West became more sexually liberal, laws were introduced to address the complex issue of sexual assaults. In some places, a term that was used to describe a specific crime began to encompass an entire spectrum of sexual assaults. Others went a step further and got rid of the phrase "rape" altogether.
- This case did not involve legal rape in Singapore, let alone the High Court deciding on whether it did or did not occur. The accused was charged with sexual penetration of a minor, i.e. sexual assault on a person under the age of consent, and seems to have been acquitted on a technicality - a legal loophole. The suggested article does not mention the case or even list the section of the law involved - s. 376A Fuebaey (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
April 12
Portal:Current events/2016 April 12 | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
[Closed] RD: Arnold Wesker
- 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.
Updated article: Arnold Wesker
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian
Nominator: Dharmadhyaksha (talk • )
Article updated
Note: Death updated but the article is not in a good shape.
- Oppose a large volume of works but little indication of being important in his field. Many people receive knighthoods. The article is also heavily under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per TRM; the knighthood (and one award in 1959) might indicate he is above average, but not "very important" to his field. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Have added more awards in the article. Michael Billington (critic) says that he couldn't bring out the success of his early 1960s success, but "the radical bard of working Britain" has got plenty good reviews of his plays. As typical with old gen stars, this article also lacks attention because of probably uninterested editors. The article though created in 2004 has had little over 200 edits only so far. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 14:23, 13 April 2016 (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: David Gest
- 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: David Gest
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • )
- Oppose Major referencing issues, large blocks of text have no references, and a giant orange tag at the top warns of that. If this were cleaned up, I'd have no objection to posting this. --Jayron32 16:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Referencing is obviously an issue, but looking past that, it's hard to argue for importance, where really the only claim that can be made is being the producer of a music television special that featured, at the time, the biggest pop music star (Michael Jackson), which was bound to draw viewers. Ratings are different from quality for television, and I would not weigh too much on simply the ratings for it. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak oppose based on the work required for the article to be improved before it could feature on front page. I'd put him up there based on the production work. I did once own a copy of his autobiography - the guy was nuts, he used to go into bookshops in London and sign copies that were just sitting on the shelf so they couldn't be sent back to the publishers. If the article was fully cited, then I'd switch to a weak support. Miyagawa (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose even if the quality is good. He was a well-known figure, but that doesn't qualify him for RD. His "producer" career which has been cited twice already was about as thin as a sheet of paper; 3 TV specials? big deal. All the obits I see mostly just tie him into Liza Minelli. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not seeing how he meets meets the RD criteria. That he had a high profile marriage and was a well known UK reality TV star over the last decade doesn't strike me as top and/or important in his field. BLP facts in the lead and his career section are virtually unsourced. Fuebaey (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per Masem, Nohomersryan. – Sca (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
April 11
Portal:Current events/2016 April 11 | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
[Closed] US, UK, French foreign ministers to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum
No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2016 (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: List of visitors to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum
Blurb: U.S. John Kerry, British Philip Hammond and French Jean-Marc Ayrault become first foreign ministers from countries possessing nuclear weapons to visit to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
News source(s): The Guardian
- Oppose Highlighted article has not been updated (indeed, it looks like it has not been updated since 2009) and contains very little prose. We don't normally feature mere lists at ITN, generally some moderately extensive prose explaining the event and its context is needed. --Jayron32 13:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose not a sufficiently significant diplomatic event to merit posting. --LukeSurl t c 17:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. An interesting "first" but not groundbreaking. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – Ditto. Had Kerry issued a formal apology, that would've been news. Sca (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Withdrawn] 2016 Stavropol bombings
- 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 to update: 2016 Stavropol bombings
Blurb: Multiple suicide bombings occur in Stavropol, Russia.
News source(s): Sputnik (JUST breaking so more to come)
Nominator: Lihaas (talk • )
Article needs updating
Note: Just creating
- 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: Howard Marks
Article to update: Howard Marks
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • )
Both articles need updating
Note: Just a punt really, important in his field of drug trafficking.
The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- question Why do you , as nom, suggest hes top of his field?Lihaas (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't. I said he was important. That is self evident. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well RD is not "imoportant" cause if theyre notable enough they have pages and not all those with pages get posted to ITN. So there has to be more as that's not "self evident".Lihaas (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field" Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- As nominator, why do you think hes top of his field? "Just a punt" is not a reason.Lihaas (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- RAAD just had 2 controversial deaths in the last couple of months that had FAR bigger implications and the northern Ireland change of government (direcrly related) was not posted here. oppose meanwhile. (but changeable)Lihaas (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't really know what you're on about. Marks' death is featured on BBC News' global homepage. Your points are not relevant to this nomination, thanks though. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field" Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well RD is not "imoportant" cause if theyre notable enough they have pages and not all those with pages get posted to ITN. So there has to be more as that's not "self evident".Lihaas (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't. I said he was important. That is self evident. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support Notable drug trafficker/public figure. Baking Soda (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support Notability is there, article is good. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not highly notable Sherenk1 (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Support as one of the most notable people in the field of drug smuggling. Article looks to be in good shape too (although there is still a heavy reliance on his autobiography). Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- I feel notability is high enough to merit an RD listing but I'm uncomfortable posting a biography to the main page whose dominant source is an autobiography. GRAPPLE X 10:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. The majority of this article relies on a single primary source - once that is sorted, then we can see. Challenger l (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak support The article is fully referenced and fairly extensive. Challenger 1 raises a good point, it is mostly sourced to his own autobiography, but said autobiography appears to have been published by a reputable publishing house, and meets the requirements of a reliable source. It should probably also have more sources, but I don't have any major problems with this appearing on the main page. --Jayron32 11:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak support. The sourcing is a concern, but he qualifies on the merits and like Jayron I don't think it should be kept off the page for just the sourcing. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support Yes there is a heavy dependency on Marks' book, but there are 24 other sources as well, which are a hell of a lot more than many RDs that have been posted here. Laura Jamieson (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – Notability seems negligible. Sca (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - We have come to a curious time in ITN where, in any given nomination, support !votes simply claim "this is notable" and oppose !votes likewise "this is not notable", without substantiating evidence thereof. We need to set a benchmark for asserting or disputing notability, otherwise this is simply reiteration of WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE.--WaltCip (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- In any case, whereas this has been posted on the front page of BBC, support for inherent notability and the detailed article, which although requiring improvement, goes into sufficient depth to assert notability. I'm also surprised we did not nominate, let alone post, the death of Henry Hill in June 2012; if posted, that would have served as a good basis for comparison.--WaltCip (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Per WaltCip, the standards at Wikipedia are not based on "stuff I have heard about and/or care about". In all levels, and at all places, in Wikipedia, coverage in reliable sources is the measure of all things. When major, highly respected, news organizations devote considerable resources to covering a subject, it is not for us to say that the story isn't notable, based on our own personal criteria. --Jayron32 18:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like such persons are on the brink of criteria. Not everyone would agree that weed smuggling is one of the RD virtues. Brandmeistertalk 18:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- That is loaded language.--WaltCip (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- There are no virtues. There is only 1) extensive coverage in reliable sources and 2) quality of the article. Nothing else enters into the decision making here. --Jayron32 14:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like such persons are on the brink of criteria. Not everyone would agree that weed smuggling is one of the RD virtues. Brandmeistertalk 18:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Noted smuggler, author and media figure. The article is of interest, and despite the unusual nature of this subject for ITN, this is a good nomination which has my whole hearted support. Jusdafax 22:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - A rather interesting life, having been in the news both for negative and positive aspects of what he did. The coverage I see in other sources seems to give weight that this is not just a B-list celebrity or small-time crook but someone of some reputation, and support on that as well as being an interesting, well-sourced read. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Just a couple of sections below this one there was a discussion about how Fuzheado posted an article with orange tags, and how it's clearly stated in the policy that articles with orange tags are not to be posted. This article also contains a big orange tag at the top, which would imply that it should be automatically rejected or at most support pending improvements regardless of significance, and yet even editors who are particularly fastidious about article quality are supporting? If we post this, ITN officially makes no sense. Banedon (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's a bit more complex than that. It's pointed out that many of the sources are based on autobiographic works, which itself is not bad for a BLP which has clearly demonstrated notability beyond that. This should be fixable in time but importantly, there are no really unsourced statements on a BLP (though one can contest if the autobiographical ones are true, we have to assume they are until proven otherwise). It is an orange tag but one that for ITN I would overlook for posting since this is something that can be fixed with more eyes on it. On the other hand, when the orange tags are about lack of sources, which is a no-no for BLP, that's a reason to not post. --MASEM (t) 01:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- See, that's why some people (especially those with scientific backgrounds) think ITN makes no sense. It's clearly stated in the policy that articles with orange tags are not to be posted. No exceptions are listed. This ought to make supporting the posting of such an article as nonsensical as opposing an ITNR item on merit, and yet it doesn't!? To say that this orange tag can be fixed by having more eyes on it does not make sense either, since all articles can be fixed by having more eyes on it. Meanwhile orange tags that say "this section requires expanding" are effectively attach-able to any article except possibly GAs and FAs. Certainly for example currently Pfizer is featured and yet sections like its history during the 19th and 20th century can be tagged as such. The only reason the orange tag is not there is because nobody has tagged it. Orange tags about lack of sources can be fixed by hiding / deleting the relevant text, which immediately makes the article "presentable", and the only reason the orange tag is still there is because nobody has deleted the material. And so on ... the more I think about it, the less sense ITN makes. Banedon (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- The key word at WP:ITN's guidance on orange tags is that articles with serious orange tag issues may not be posted. That means we have some discretion in the first place, but that also means that not all orange tags are equal. A "lack of sourcing" orange tag on a BLP is a much more serious problem than a "source to autobiographical works" orange tag, for example. It's not the case that having an orange tag is a bright line. --MASEM (t) 02:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Fuzheado not only posted an inadequately sourced article, he posted it without any clear sign of consensus. And for the sake of accuracy, Banedon, there was no orange maintenance tag on the version he posted. Also, while you claim "it's clearly stated in the policy that articles with orange tags are not to be posted", you should be aware that the ITN instructions are not a policy, nor do they state what you claim. For reference, the instructions currently say: Usually, orange and red level tags are generally considered major enough to block posting to ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- See, that's why some people (especially those with scientific backgrounds) think ITN makes no sense. It's clearly stated in the policy that articles with orange tags are not to be posted. No exceptions are listed. This ought to make supporting the posting of such an article as nonsensical as opposing an ITNR item on merit, and yet it doesn't!? To say that this orange tag can be fixed by having more eyes on it does not make sense either, since all articles can be fixed by having more eyes on it. Meanwhile orange tags that say "this section requires expanding" are effectively attach-able to any article except possibly GAs and FAs. Certainly for example currently Pfizer is featured and yet sections like its history during the 19th and 20th century can be tagged as such. The only reason the orange tag is not there is because nobody has tagged it. Orange tags about lack of sources can be fixed by hiding / deleting the relevant text, which immediately makes the article "presentable", and the only reason the orange tag is still there is because nobody has deleted the material. And so on ... the more I think about it, the less sense ITN makes. Banedon (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
[Closed] Ukraine PM resigns
- 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 to update: Prime Minister of Ukraine and Arseniy Yatsenyuk
Blurb: Ukraine Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk resigns
News source(s): e.g. Guardian; Google turns up a lot more.
Nominator: Banedon (talk • )
Both articles need updating
Note: Article not updated. 6-word blurb looks a bit odd too. I have left which article to bold in the blurb to ITN.
- Support on the general bit of news - a world leader resigning is as important as their election. Perhaps the target article could be Second_Yatsenyuk_Government (if I understand the situation correctly) as that focuses on how this point came to be. The given articles at first glance all seem all reasonably sourced but we should re-check once an appropriate blurb is given. --MASEM (t) 02:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- oppose run of the mill politicking and no election either. head of state's boy coming in tomorrow. Nothing eolutionary here.Lihaas (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support per Masem. Neljack (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- strongly -- however the article to reference, I suggest, would be Arseniy Yatsenyuk (which ends with a brief-but-informative coverage of the unraveling and end of his tenure in office), rather than the articles about his title or the Second Yatsenyuk Government (which is not current on this news). This resignation is, most specifically, about him. Also, the blurb should be longer, as with the less-important Icelandic leader's resignation a few days ago (27 words).
- This event, involving the Prime Minister of one of the largest countries in Europe, coming at a sensitive time, during a shaky wartime truce with the world's second-most-powerful nation (Russia), while votes are being taken against Ukraine's attempt to join the European Union, a factor shaking the core of the EU.
- I suggest this blurb (all details validaated in the referenced article, and its references):
- | blurb = Ukraine Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk 10 April, says he will resign 12 April, following allegations of corruption, President's call for his resignation, and parliament's vote of dissatisfaction with his Cabinet.
- Wait Until/if he submits resignation on April 12. Baking Soda (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not notable enough, didn't even appear as headlines in major news channels Sherenk1 (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Do you know anything about notability? Judging from the three comments at ITN, the answer is a clear no. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - PM of a country resigns. Notable.BabbaQ (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Suppoert We should bold the article on Arseniy Yatsenyuk; it is well written, fairly extensive fully referenced article. Resignation is mentioned and background provides context. Checks every box for main page posting. --Jayron32 13:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support but wait ... 'til Tuesday. Yatsenyuk's post Sunday on Twitter: "On Tuesday, April 12 my request will be submitted to the Parliament." Sca (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wait till he actually resigns first. On Sunday - he announced his resignation, saying he will formally do so on Tuesday. On Wednesday morning, he's still PM. Fuebaey (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
April 10
Portal:Current events/2016 April 10 | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
[Closed] RD: Duane Clarridge
Consensus not to post. BencherliteTalk 13:45, 11 April 2016 (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: Duane Clarridge
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • )
- Oppose mostly unreferenced. Not sure on his notability though. He's a key figure in the Iran–Contra affair, but is that a broad enough topic to be considered "top of his field". Jolly Ω Janner 01:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose GHWB was the CIA director, and we would neither have listed him, nor his successor, even though his successor died under suspicious circumstances. The natural death of a regional director? Nope. μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose on importance. He doesn't seem to have as significant impact in the Iran-Contra affair, compared to someone like Oliver North. --MASEM (t) 01:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Strong oppose He's clearly not a notable person in whatever field. The length of his career and his personal achievements simply doesn't earn him notability for inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not notable Sherenk1 (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose As others have said I am not even sure about his being a "key figure" in the Iran-Contra affair. The source supporting the "key figure" statement in the article actually calls him an "instrumental figure" (which to me is a lesser degree than "key") and indicates that he was heavily involved, but so were a bunch of other CIA operatives and he was not a figure on the level of North, Fawn Hall, Lawrence Walsh, etc. Plus as said above, he was just a regional director, not the head of the CIA. TheBlinkster (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2016 (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] Masters
Blurb: In golf, Danny Willett (pictured) wins the Masters Tournament.
News source(s): Bleacher Report, CBS Sports, Golf Channel
Nominator: Fuebaey (talk • )
Article needs updating
Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.
Nominator's comments: Fourth round needs a summary. Existing prose could do with some additional references. Fuebaey (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - major sporting event, following in line with the previous year(s). ///EuroCarGT 23:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support decent paragraph of updated content for the fourth round. Rest of article quality is acceptable and it's in the news. I'd suggest delinking golf. I'm sure most people have a basic grasp of it (maybe this is a Western bias!). Jolly Ω Janner 01:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not quite notable, however article looks good Sherenk1 (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's already been deemed notable based on the fact it's listed at ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support ITN/R and update seems adequate. Ready to go IMO. --LukeSurl t c 10:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- IN THE HOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEE!!!!' Once it's been updated with more prose. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak support There's a short prose synopsis of each round, which I think meets the bare minimum. It would be nice if the lead were expanded a bit, but this is tolerable for the main page. --Jayron32 11:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Posted ITNR and consensus that there is enough in the article to warrant posting. BencherliteTalk 19:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
[Closed] Sweden becomes the first country in the world with its own phone number
ITN doesn't do anniversaries like this. BencherliteTalk 20:23, 10 April 2016 (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 to update: Sweden
Blurb: Sweden celebrates becoming the first country introducing a constitutional law to abolish censorship 250 years ago by becoming the first country in the world with its own phone number
News source(s): Swedish Tourist Association
Nominator: Count Iblis (talk • )
Article needs updating
- Oppose No significance. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Since we normally require a paragraph of content added to the updated article, I'm wondering whether this would give undue weight in the Sweden article? Is there anywhere else it can be added? Jolly Ω Janner 19:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not even sure what this is besides a tourism gimmick. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose We don't normally post marketing releases, even for government tourist boards. If this does get posted, someone might want to update Swedish Tourist Association or Censorship in Sweden rather than the actual country. Fuebaey (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2016 (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.
[Reposted] Kollam temple accident
Article to update: Kollam temple accident
Blurb: Over 80 people are killed after a fireworks mishap at a temple in Kollam, Kerala, India.
News source(s): Various
Nominator: Lihaas (talk • )
Article needs updating
Note: Just creating... Created BARE bones but I'm busy now so if someone can get to it over the next few hours I can come back then.
Nominator's comments: High death tooll and this stuff seems to be ITN worthy. Lihaas (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support Notable and article looks good enough. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Posted - Currently a global top news story with unusually high casualties. First new ITN item in days. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Pulled Most of the article is unreferenced, including BLP-statements. Stephen 07:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Fuzheado this is the third time in a week or so that you've rushed into making bad decisions. Please take a break from posting items at ITN and perhaps work on improving them instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Re-posted - All unreferenced content has been referenced. You can do both. Instead of pulling stuff, why not help fix articles too? -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know to whom you are addressing that comment but it may have passed you by that I always improve and fix such articles, and I do that before I post them. I also look for a consensus, not just one support. Now please, more haste less speed. I don't want to have to take this further. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Post-posting support, echoing The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)'s comments. Stuff should not be linked from the main page where there are serious issues to be addressed, except in exceptional circumstances, which this was not. Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Question So uh, is consensus not even something we do anymore? Even if we apparently don't give a damn about quality, how was this ready to go with a single opinion voiced? - OldManNeptune ⚓ 08:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've already mentioned that. This was posted without consensus and without quality check. Double fail, and not for the first time. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Trout for posting without consensus and without any clue as to ITN's standards. Please stop doing this. Post-reposting support given its current condition and newsworthiness. BencherliteTalk 09:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Post-reposting support on its merits as a major accident; this was initially posted far too quickly, leaving aside the state of the article(which was far too poor). ITN is not meant to be a news ticker and does not need constant updates if the article quality is poor and it lacks consensus(one person does not make consensus). 331dot (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- What's all this then? - I have no problem with the condition of the article now, but Fuzheado's posting (and re-posting in wheel war fashion) without attempting to form a consensus sets a very uncomfortable precedence here.--WaltCip (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I moved the article to Puttingal Temple fire. May want to follow suit, since redirects are normally discouraged. Jolly Ω Janner 19:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Since this is already re-posted and there seems to now be a consensus, I won't vote, but wanted to agree with the others that seeing an article nominated, created and posted within, apparently, 3 hours and with only 1 supporting vote apart from the nominator is disconcerting. Maybe it worked out OK this time but I can see other instances where this would be a very bad precedent. The fact that it's "first new ITN item in days" doesn't justify skipping over established consensus and article improvement steps. TheBlinkster (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
April 9
Portal:Current events/2016 April 9 | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
[Closed] RD: Tony Conrad
- 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 to update: Tony Conrad
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Yahoo News, NME Pitchfork ARTnews
Nominator: Andise1 (talk • )
Article needs updating
Note: Article most likely needs better sourcing for the main page, which I have been trying to work on a little bit, but more help would be greatly appreciated.
- Weak support on notability. Oppose on article quality - the tense hasn't even all been updated yet (I don't have time to do it myself, sorry). Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose article is under-referenced and I'm yet to see any awards that would place this individual into the RD notability bracket. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Avant Garde, Structral, Drone? Could it be... μηδείς (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose on notability; I am not seeing any indication from the article that this person was "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field" which is generally required where the person doesn't hold some high-ranking position of power. TheBlinkster (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- See the comment I made on thos nomination and you will see that sources are calling him very important in his field. Andise1 (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- I did read the sources. I noted that his NYT obit says that he's been "slowly emerging from obscurity" over the past few years and the last line quotes him as saying to the Guardian, “You don’t know who I am ... but somehow, indirectly, you’ve been affected by things I did.” In his Billboard obit with the same quote, he goes on to say "I don't mind being anonymous though. I hate celebrity." If he were widely recognized as important in his field, he would not be making a statement "You don't know who I am" because people would already know. This appears to be a case of somebody who is definitely notable and had some importance in his field and is recognized by some people in the know, but is not "widely recognized" - he says as much himself.TheBlinkster (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- See the comment I made on thos nomination and you will see that sources are calling him very important in his field. Andise1 (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2016 (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] Grand National
Updated article: 2016 Grand National
Blurb: In horse racing, Rule The World wins the Grand National.
News source(s): BBC Sport, The Guardian, Sky News
Nominator: Fuebaey (talk • )
Updater: Tigerboy1966 (talk • )
Other updaters: The Rambling Man (talk • )
Article updated
Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.
Nominator's comments: Needs a race summary. Fuebaey (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Is this really of international significance? Rcsprinter123 (relate) 23:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Is "international significance" really a requirement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.177.184.228 (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- "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."--98.180.123.57 (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I haven't opposed. I have asked a question. Rcsprinter123 (commune) 11:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Is "international significance" a factor that needs to be considered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.172.56.3 (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- As the IP user has suggested, international significance is not required and the lack thereof is discouraged as an objection; if international significance was required, very little would be posted. Further, as this event is on the ITNR list, it will be posted as long as the article quality is sufficient. If you feel this event should not be on the ITNR list, please propose its removal at the ITNR talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Is "international significance" a factor that needs to be considered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.172.56.3 (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I haven't opposed. I have asked a question. Rcsprinter123 (commune) 11:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose aside from the lead, there is no referenced content. Jolly Ω Janner 07:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- The article on the horse is adequately referenced. The race article needs a bit of work on refs, but I will try to fix that later today. Tigerboy1966 08:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Okay. Give me a ping when you think it's ready or a reviewing admin can just ignore my previous post in light of more recent support. The Grand National is (I think) the biggest horse racing event in the UK? There's ample news coverage to support notability. Jolly Ω Janner 09:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done. I think it's OK now. Tigerboy1966 13:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Okay. Give me a ping when you think it's ready or a reviewing admin can just ignore my previous post in light of more recent support. The Grand National is (I think) the biggest horse racing event in the UK? There's ample news coverage to support notability. Jolly Ω Janner 09:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- The article on the horse is adequately referenced. The race article needs a bit of work on refs, but I will try to fix that later today. Tigerboy1966 08:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- not ready This is on WP:ITN/R so there is no question about notability, all we are here to judge is (1) whether the event is actually in the news this year, and (2) whether the article is of sufficient quality to post on the main page. The answer to the first question is a definite yes. The answer to the second question is not yet - the "race overview" section is blank and the "media coverage" section is unsourced. I didn't see any obvious issues other than those though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Added "Race overview" and sourced "media coverage". Tigerboy1966 13:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support see above. Issues resolved. Tigerboy1966 15:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support few more minor tweaks made and now ready to go, marked as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Posted ITNR and consensus to post after improvements from its original condition. Yet another year in which I failed to win anything in the workplace sweepstake (being able to say "I have Wonderful Charm" was a good joke while it lasted though, even if Mrs B. disagreed...) BencherliteTalk 16:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
April 8
Portal:Current events/2016 April 8 | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
[Posted] SpaceX CRS-8
Blurb: SpaceX CRS-8 launches to the International Space Station, and in a spaceflight first, successfully lands its reusable main-stage booster on an autonomous spaceport drone ship.
Alternative blurb: SpaceX CRS-8, an unmanned cargo mission to the International Space Station, performs the first successful landing of its reusable main-stage booster on an autonomous spaceport drone ship.
News source(s): (The Verge) (Reuters)
Nominator: Brian Everlasting (talk • )
Nominator's comments: Straight from portal current events, this is very newsworthy in my opinion. Brian Everlasting (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support, because space stuff. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support, noteworthy first and a project that has been followed by the media for the past several months. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support primarily based on the successful reusable module landing, which is an impressive feat. Article while sources could get a bit more indepth. --MASEM (t) 03:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support I thought about nominating this myself, but this space stuff was too confusing for me, I almost picked the wrong article. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 05:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
[Removed] Remove Zika virus outbreak from ongoing
I can't see any real "ongoing" info from about March. Does this still need to be on the frontpage? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - No longer needs to be on the front page, I agree. Ongoing news should be just that. Jusdafax 09:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Not really considered by most to be an ongoing story -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support Though I note that experts are worried about what might happen during the north hemisphere summer. Should that expand, we might need to readd but that's a decision then, not now. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Google News has hundreds of fresh stories still. For example, this one has a good timeline with a WHO announcement on April 7 which seems significant. Andrew D. (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support no major developments have been added to the article in the past week. Jolly Ω Janner 08:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Removed per consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
[Closed] 175+ workers killed (Syrian Civil War)
Snow close. Should reliable sources become available to substantiate such a massacre, suggest an article is written to nominate here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2016 (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: No article specified
Blurb: At least 175 workers were killed by the ISIS after kidnapping them from Syrian cement factory.
News source(s): Mirror RT
Nominator: Eugen Simion 14 (talk • )
I don't know if there is an article about this story, but is the notability is high. Mirror RT- EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- We need an article to evaluate, and a proposed blurb; this is not the forum to request the creation of an article. Ideally the ITN candidate syntax should be copied, pasted, and filled in. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Mu - No key article in blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Can't answer I have no article to assess the quality of. What Wikipedia article are you trying to direct readers to? --Jayron32 12:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wait Both sources cited have since retracted the claim that the workers were killed. That conclusion was attributed directly from the Syrian military, which is not a reliable source. The fate and location of the workers are as of yet unknown. Mamyles (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't see any reliable sources backing this up, nor do I see an article updated for assessment. Suggest this is closed before a keen admin invokes IAR and posts something. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose very premature nomination. An article needs to be provided for assessment. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per previous two comments. Neither current (14:45) AP nor NYT stories mentions killings. Sca (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
April 7
Portal:Current events/2016 April 7 | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
[Closed] National Guard of Russia
No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2016 (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.
Updated article: National Guard of Russia
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): [4][ https://news.vice.com/article/putins-new-national-guard-strengthens-his-grip-on-security-as-russian-economy-falters]
Nominator and updater: Picomtn (talk • )
Other updaters: Checkingfax (talk • ) and Checkingfax (talk • )
Article updated
- Oppose, suggest DYK - It's an internal guard, comparable to the US's National Guard from what I read so while one could say there might be potential international issues, I really don't see it as something demanding a UN-type response. But as a new topic, DYK is perfect for this. --MASEM (t) 02:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Unless the UN responds with sanctions, I don't really see a reason to post this.--WaltCip (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose What reason does it qualify? Sherenk1 (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. This doesn't seem like a threat to NATO or the EU any more than the US National Guard is a threat to Russia. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
References
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: