*Why did you think this was worth nominating when you knew what the end result was going to be, [[User:WaltCip|WaltCip]]? [[User:Andise1|Andise1]] ([[User talk:Andise1|talk]]) 03:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
*Why did you think this was worth nominating when you knew what the end result was going to be, [[User:WaltCip|WaltCip]]? [[User:Andise1|Andise1]] ([[User talk:Andise1|talk]]) 03:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
*::::Then why waste our time? There's lots of things I think you should do. It would be beyond rude of me to demand you do them if I knew you either incapable or unlikely to do them. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 18:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
*::::Then why waste our time? There's lots of things I think you should do. It would be beyond rude of me to demand you do them if I knew you either incapable or unlikely to do them. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 18:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
*:::::Well, maybe, remaining in the spirit of AGF, Walt was trying to use reverse psychology, motivate enough editors to reconsider their instincts and maybe vote yes after all. Or maybe they will next time. I don't see the nomination as a waste of time, nor do I believe it was posted in order to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. ---[[User:Sluzzelin|Sluzzelin]] [[User talk:Sluzzelin|<small>talk</small>]] 18:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
*:::::Well, maybe, remaining in the spirit of AGF, Walt was trying to use reverse psychology, motivate enough editors to reconsider their instincts and maybe vote yes after all. Or maybe they will next time. I don't see the nomination as a waste of time, nor do I believe it was posted in order to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. ---[[User:Sluzzelin|Sluzzelin]] [[User talk:Sluzzelin|<small>talk</small>]] 18:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
A suicide bombing at the opening of a local police station in the rebel-held town of Inkhil, Daraa Governorate, in southern Syria, kills at least 12 people, including an opposition minister. (Reuters)
Law and crime
The Obama administration through federal prosecutors announces corruption charges against nine defendants, including a former close aide to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, over their roles in alleged bribery and fraud schemes tied to the awarding of large state contracts and other activities. (Reuters)
In a standoff which has continued for two days, an exchange of gunfire with a barricaded suspect in Anchorage, Alaska, injures two police officers. The standoff is one of two occurring in the Alaskan city. (Alaska Public Radio Network)
A gunman shoots dead two people and then himself at the Tennessee factory Thomas & Betts Corp. (ABC News)
Litigants file a new wave of lawsuits against Volkswagen regarding its emissions scandal. (BBC)
Disasters and accidents
Heavy rainfall, flooding, and landslides in the Indonesian province of West Java kill at least ten people and leave three others missing. (AFP via AsiaOne)
A migrant boat carrying some 600 passengers capsizes off the coast of Kafr el-Sheikh Governorate, Egypt, killing at least 52 people, with hundreds more missing. (BBC)
Sacramento mayor and former basketball star Kevin Johnson beats protester Sean Thompson's face to a "bloody pulp" after being hit in the face with a whipped cream pie at a charity dinner. Authorities arrest Thompson for felony assault of a public official. (ABC 15)
August 2016 becomes the world's hottest on record (since records began 136 years ago) and 16th 'hottest on record' month in a row. (Australian Geographic)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Black Lives Matter. This one has escalated to violent protests and a state of emergency. It's in the news, so I'm nominating it. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my oppose vote at the recently nominated "Shooting of Terence Crutcher" (Sept 16). Another day, another controversial police involved shooting. These things are far too common here in the United States. We did post Ferguson because that was a very rare case with huge ramifications. This is not Ferguson. If that changes I will reconsider. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as routine, both the shooting and the riots. Although, if someone were hanging out in front of my home with a gun, I wouldn't describe the police response as "controversial".128.214.53.104 (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't know if I would use the word 'routine' but this is hyped in the press much more than it probably should be. I don't think declaring an emergency is sufficient to post this; we would need at a minimum Ferguson-scale riots, as Ad Orientem suggests. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Rioting is entering its second day on this one; the "We posted Ferguson because it went beyond the initial shooting and a short protest" appears to be bearing out in this one case. I agree that we shouldn't post every one of these tragic and horrific events, but this one may yet have legs that others do not always have. The knee-jerk "we should never post U.S. shootings because Americans are just all murderous gun-toting racist maniacs" response we get to these isn't usually helpful, especially in differentiating between stories that don't have lasting impact on the news cycle and those that do. This one may or may not; but given that the protests and riots and retaliations seem to be increasing rather than dissipating does mean this bears monitoring rather than merely dismissing off-hand. We may find that by tomorrow this goes nowhere, but I think we should leave ourselves open to the possibility that if this does reach Ferguson-level newsworthiness, we still consider posting it. --Jayron3212:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Yes, this is another police shooting of an unarmed black man in the U.S., and another shooting in general in the U.S., an occurrence which has now become as routine as Walter Cronkite reporting the number of dead GI's in Vietnam. I'm willing to entertain Jayron's idea that this story may have some lasting, long-term effect, but considering how the last shooting, and the shooting before that, and the shooting before that, and the shooting before that, etc., all had no long-term effect? I'm not holding my breath.--WaltCip (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HOWEVER, I do think we could make a case for posting this as an ongoing item considering how frequent these stories have become and how there is a central core issue of racism in the police.--WaltCip (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, black policeman shoots an armed black individual refusing to listen to police requests and neighborhood goes crazy. Remind me again which part of this is of encyclopedic value? Nergaal (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's so much more than that. This is just another incident capping off a series of systemic racism from the police against African-Americans. If you're not aware of the bigger picture by now, you never ever will be.--WaltCip (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This type of event is unfortunately too common in the USA for it to have enough national or international significance IMO, especially given that no one died in the protests. Statewide impact is not sufficient for ITN. EternalNomad (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppoose – Regrettably, I have to agree that this sort of event has become too common in the U.S. to meet the notability standard – particularly when it involves only one person. Sca (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Citing irreconcilable differences, Angelina Jolie files for divorce from Brad Pitt and seeks full custody of their six children. The couple married in 2014 and had been in a relationship since 2005. (CNN)(The New York Times)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support Article looks solid and reasonably well sourced. No sources cited for the filmography but all of the listed films have their own article. That works for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mostly unsourced and not particularly comprehensive; essentially just a list of films that he wrote and directed. Tagged his film career. Body doesn't mention all his awards (see cats/navboxes) and the Oscar isn't even sourced. Fuebaey (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Neutral lean opposed. The article doesn't appear to be in bad shape (i.e. reasonably well written and sourced) but it also doesn't appear to have been updated with anything from obituaries on his death. One reason may be that his death seems to have garnered (at least so far) almost no coverage in the mainstream press. A Google News search yielded exactly one post mortem mention, which I can't link as it has been blacklisted by Wikipedia. I am not sure this is what we could reasonably call "In the News." -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Oh I know the snow opposes are coming, but tabloidy as this is, this entertainment news is getting a lot of coverage, and really the ITN news season has never been slower. Anyway, oppose away. WaltCip (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you legitimately thought the story would be posted, why did you immediately say in your nomination you knew it wouldn't be? You all but admitted you knew you were wasting everybody's time when you posted it. If the purpose of the nomination wasn't to get it on the main page, what did you do so for? --Jayron3218:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of AGF, I could imagine he believed that it should have been posted, but also believed that the community here was unlikely to accept it. Dragons flight (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then why waste our time? There's lots of things I think you should do. It would be beyond rude of me to demand you do them if I knew you either incapable or unlikely to do them. --Jayron3218:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe, remaining in the spirit of AGF, Walt was trying to use reverse psychology, motivate enough editors to reconsider their instincts and maybe vote yes after all. Or maybe they will next time. I don't see the nomination as a waste of time, nor do I believe it was posted in order to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. ---Sluzzelintalk18:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose both proposed target articles. The Syria Ceasefire article is about a different event than the one described in the blurb, it's also titled incorrectly (should be 2016 Syrian Civil War ceasefire, note bad capitalization and vague title in the actual title) Also, if there are two different events, they should probably be 2 different articles. The Humanitarian aid article also needs work; it is very incomplete, insofar as the blurb is about a UN-Red Cresent joint humanitarian aid mission that was attacked; the body of the article does NOT cover either organization's humanitarian aid in general, and the body ALSO does not cover the attack (per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize text in the main body of an article, and should not introduce new information). The event itself is being reported in the news, which is fine, but we have no quality article to direct readers to if they wish to learn more. ITN's primary mission is to direct readers to articles. We don't have anything worthwhile yet. --Jayron3211:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think a blurb is more appropriate. I am currently working on bringing articles up to standard for two blurbs - ceasefire collapses, and UN suspends aid following an attack on its convoy. Smurrayinchester10:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose last substantive update to that article was a single sentence about the September 12th cease fire. If we aren't updating an article more than once every 8 days, it isn't suitable for ongoing. Also, I would oppose on quality issues. The article is poorly written, and needs someone to copyedit the article for tone and style, particularly fixing the WP:PROSELINE issues with the writing. But regardless of that, an article which has no information newer than 8 days ago isn't eligible for ongoing. If the article was receiving multiple, rapid updates on information that itself was appearing in the news daily, it would be eligible. --Jayron3211:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A bomb squad robot detonates an explosive device at a transit station in Elizabeth, New Jersey. There has been a previous explosion in Seaside Park. No one is hurt. (NBC News)
Linden, New Jersey police shoot and arrest Ahmad Khan Rahami, the suspected perpetrator. Two police officers are reportedly injured. (The New York Times)
The cost, so far, of battling the wildfire on California's scenic Big Sur coast is $206.7 million — the costliest in U.S. history, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. The blaze, which was first reported on July 22, is currently 67 percent contained. (AP)
Mexican authorities find the bodies of two priests who were kidnapped yesterday in Poza Rica, Veracruz. Authorities find the third abducted person, the driver, alive. (AP)
Like you say, it's stale. On significance, this particular story doesn't seem to have that much of an impact, but the entire subject might be worth trying for ongoing again. Fuebaey (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems to be being updated more frequently than the last time this was nominated. However, I still have major concerns over the quality of the article, specifically the quality of the writing lacks a narrative flow, see WP:PROSELINE for a description of the problem. --Jayron3213:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, how can we cite it as one of Wikipedia's best articles, and put it on the main page to recommend that readers look at it? --Jayron3215:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested blurb is not something we'd post on ITN. If individual people are notable, separate blurb or RD. Otherwise, the only was I see this story to be posted is in Ongoing, unless there is a major development that merits individual blurb. --Tone14:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would support on-going, as it's been in the news for months now, and no sign of slowing down. Article needs work however, and please @Shhhhwwww!!: this is not the first time you nominate an inappropriate or badly researched blurb post. Go through some of the archives and read the main policy page to find out what would be an appropriate blurb or RD topic. Prevan (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A sidenote: The nominator has been flooding WP:ITN/C and Portal:Current events with items of questionable merit for some time now (primarily, though not limited to, Philippines-related content), the majority of which had been rapidly removed or rejected as they failed notability on sight ("a bird-shaped airport opens", to give just one example, which was fortunately not brought here). Said editor seems uninterested in either mending their ways or discussing in case they object to the removal. I remain cautiously optimistic that a learning moment shall come soon. Morningstar (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the blurb but support adding to Ongoing. I agree that the proposed blurb sound like a tabloid spam and not notable enough. HaEr48 (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, I am new to this project (ITN) and I only started nominating around a month and a half ago. I haven't been too familiar with how to write the blurb. Yeah. I am going to be more cautious. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shhhhwwww!! thank you and we appreciate your obvious desire to help improve the project. May I suggest you spend a little time here at ITNC and help review some of the current and newly added nominations? This will allow you to see what other more experienced editors are saying about them and will give you an idea about what we are looking for. But in short, we really are only looking for high quality (up-to-date, well sourced and written) articles about current events that are likely to be of interest to at least some of our readers. We try to avoid subjects that are purely sensational or likely only of a local nature, as well articles that have any significant deficiencies. Orange tags or any serious controversy like ongoing content disputes are usually a showstopper. Thanks again for your contributions and I hope you will stick around to help here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not exactly sure what blurb we are analyzing, but there's only about a sentence or so for every "major event" from what I see in the article. Article isn't in-depth enough for ITN standards. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Australia's Department of Defence acknowledges its participation "among a number of international aircraft" in the Deir ez-Zor air raid. It says it would "never intentionally target a known Syrian military unit or actively support Daesh (ISIS)" and offers its condolences. (SANA)(ABC)
Game of Thrones wins three Emmy Awards to become the most successful narrative series of all time beating the record previously held by Frasier. (AFP/Reuters via ABC News Australia)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Weak oppose I didn't get far through the article before I encountered a phrase such as "Pak did never hold ..." which is so clunky I turned off. What happened to "Pak never held"? Otherwise it looks okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Fixed per your feedback. (To the question what happened to "never held": It was in fact the wording used by the cited source. I tried to avoid paraphrasing too closely; but on reflection this is a straightforward expression of an established fact.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as updater (alongside other editors who worked on the article). Not a generic local politician, but a person who, despite never holding an elective office, had a major political influence on the development of San Francisco over several decades, as informal but very prominent representative of an ethnic community. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Oppose for now. For most competitions, a text synopsis of the event itself is usually a minimum requirement. Right now, no description of the ceremony itself (the event named in the title of the article) exists in the text of the article. If that can be expanded, this could be posted. --Jayron3212:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between an valid opinion (I personally don't think this has been expanded enough) and an invalid fact (There is no synopsis). Please realise that an adequate update is only one criteria used to determine consensus here at ITN and there was consensus to post the 2016 Oscars, even if you disagree with it after the fact. Fuebaey (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no critical coverage of the events beyond what I'd see in a stub. This has been on the BBC News front page as being super important (for Game of Thrones of course), but the article text is bland and simply a series of bullet point sentences. Tables are reasonable, whatever, but nothing more than that. Regardless of things that have been posted (possibly erroneously) in the past, we should not repeat such (possible) errors. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RD: Mandoza
Article:Mandoza (talk·history·tag) Recent deaths nomination Blurb: He is a South African musician who released the hit Nkalakatha which is arguably South Africa's unofficial national anthem. This hit helped break down racial barriers soon after the end of apartheid (Post) News source(s):Times Live, The IndependentBBC Credits:
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose for now. An obviously good faith nomination from a new editor, regrettably the article is not currently up to standards for linking on the main page. It needs copy editing and greatly improved referencing. Will happily reconsider following improvements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the second time, closing as no consensus at all in favour of any kind of posting right now, just a lot of sensible people saying let's wait and see if this is anything more than is currently being reported, which per our consensus, is not ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: So far no one has died, which makes this attack less severe than most of the attacks that we cover on ITN, but this does seem to getting a good deal of news coverage due to the location and substantial injury count. Somewhat preliminary, but news reports are currently indicating that a second unexploded device has also been found. Dragons flight (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lean oppose but wait for more information. The NYPD has said it was 'intentional' but cannot yet confirm a link to terrorism. As (fortunately) no one has died at this time I think that terrorism would be the only way this might merit posting. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have used the word 'bomb' but it hasn't been described that way by actual officials. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait also leaning towards oppose. We don't know enough at this point. But with no fatalities I'm not sure I would support even if this ends up as a terrorist incident. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. This just doesn't strike me as rising to the level that warrants an ITN blurb. I will keep an open mind if there is some dramatic development. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some perspective is needed here. As mentioned above, there have been zero fatalities as a result of this incident. And only 29 injuries. One strongly doubts that Wikipedia would post an article to ITN about a zero-fatality explosion in an impoverished country in Africa. The article shouldn't get special treatment just because it was in Manhattan. Gfcvoice (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unless there's serious ties with international terrorism, which seems to be how the investigators are looking at it from the BBC article, this is an unfortunate domestic incident with no deaths, so not appropriate for ITN. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nannadeem: While I don't think this merits posting either, "domestic importance" is not a valid reason, as stated at the top of this page("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." 331dot (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support given the authorities are saying the NJ military parade route bomb and the NYC devices were made by the same person, and that a note in Arabic was found at one of the NY sites. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We absolutely should avoid the FUD rhetoric at this point; people want to try to connect this to international terrorism but just evidence of a note is far from enough to make that assertion. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "Arabic note" you mention is not discussed in the article. In any case, why does the language of a note (whether or not it actually exists) at an explosion site matter? Furthermore, why should it matter in the discussion regarding its inclusion in ITN? Gfcvoice (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be a big coincidence- and this is becoming an event on its own, even if this latest one is determined to be separate from the others. The Governor has ordered 1,000 state police and National Guard to NYC today. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Again, some perspective is needed here. There have been zero fatalities as a result of these incidents. And only 29 injuries. One strongly doubts that Wikipedia would post an article to ITN about a zero-fatality explosion or series of explosions in an impoverished country in Africa. The article shouldn't get special treatment just because it was in the states of New York and New Jersey. Gfcvoice (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gfcvoice: I wasn't suggesting that it should get 'special treatment'. I would be more receptive to this if it occurred in Paris, Johannesburg, Taipei, Sydney, wherever. An event doesn't have to have large numbers of casualties or deaths to merit inclusion, but a large metropolitan area with tens of millions is understandably a little nervous today. People (including me) wanted to wait until there was more information; there's now more information. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"large metropolitan area with tens of millions is understandably a little nervous today" may be accurate, but this discussion is about the article's inclusion in ITN and not how many Americans are anxious. I disagree with your view that an event "event doesn't have to have large numbers of casualties or deaths to merit inclusion". If Wikipedia is genuine about counteracting its systemic bias in favor of articles about western countries, and in particular, the USA, then this article is a great example of what should not be included in ITN. As above, I doubt this article would be nominated (in fact, an article might not even exist) if the explosions took place in small African cities. Also I should note that the subject article 2016 Manhattan explosion deals almost entirely with one explosion, and I could not find any information about the specific event you described above. Regardless, this is just a local news story, with a big media circus hyping it up because of the location. Gfcvoice (talk) 09:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I link to the story above. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but this is not "death, disaster, and destruction in the news", this is just In the News. There doesn't have to be large number of deaths to include something. You also speak to larger systemic bias issues than just ones we deal with here- unless you want to go to underrepresented areas to sign up Wikipedia editors, there is little we can do about the geographic makeup of them. The way to deal with systemic bias is not to artificially exclude stories, but to include more stories. I invite you to nominate stories from underrepresented areas. We've actually made progress in that area with Recent Deaths. Next time I guess I'll just keep my information to myself. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is not "death, disaster, and destruction in the news" - obviously articles about elections and sporting events and scientific discoveries rarely involve death or disaster or destruction. However for events such as those in New York and New Jersey in recent days, something more than 0 deaths and 29 injuries should be needed in order for an article to be posted on the front page of Wikipedia. Gfcvoice (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They've caught a suspect, a radicalized Afghani, whom they are blaming for all the bombing incidents. I am quite sure we would post it if someone planted Bombs in York and Edinburgh. The response is also part of the story, and the lack of deaths seems to be sheer luck, since the 5K run in NJ was coincidentally delayed, foiling the bomber's plot. NYT. μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1 The article 2016 Manhattan explosion which the subject of this nomination is now a mere redirect to a different article with a different scope to the original nomination. Should I (and other editors) write in support or opposition again, given that the nomination is for a different article? Gfcvoice (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should be discussing an actual article and a revised blurb, perhaps dealing with the arrest of the suspect(as the end of this situation). 331dot (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose blurb There is nothing here that even comes close to rating a blurb on ITN. Weak Oppose RD on article quality. The article appears decently sourced but also looks like a text book example of WP:Recentism, one of the projects principal plagues. Right now the article is pretty much just about the subjects death. Some balance needs to be established. The problem is if you take out even a little of the death coverage you basically are down to a stub and we don't post stubs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC) [I am changing my vote. See below for full explanation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)][reply]
I'm not saying he should get a blurb because he is extremely notable but more because of the circumstances of his death. I agree with you on article quality. - YellowDingo(talk)04:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notable people die under unusual circumstances all the time. We need to exercise some discernment here. Mr. Golbarnezhad rates an article for one reason only, and that is he was a Paralympic athlete. But in the grand scheme of things he was (at the risk of sounding callous about the recently departed) fairly unimportant. I really do not think we should be posting blurbs about people whose sole claim to fame rests on "I was there and I died after hitting a rock." If this were Lance Armstrong, or someone of a similar caliber/notoriety I'd almost certainly support the blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm not arguing that we should not have the article, but rather that the athlete's encyclopedia notability came about through the manner of his death, not through his paralympic career. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If being a Paralympic athlete doesn't confer notability than I'd say this is a pretty clear case of WP:1E and it casts doubt on the notability of the subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Straight OpposeI am modifying my !vote after discussion and taking a hard look at the article and relevant guidelines. The bottom line is that this article has problems, at least one of which is not correctable. If an article is short on references, those can always be added. But you can't fix notability. It's either there or it's not. In this case it's not. See the discussion on the article's talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After lengthy discussions across multiple pages, RS backed evidence of notability has been found and added to the article. I remain opposed but purely on article quality. It's still grossly unbalanced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality. The article is woefully unbalanced. If someone could beef up the biography so it covered more than his death, I'd support. --Jayron3217:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support His death is major event. If not a blurb, then it must be added to RD . I may soon add more biographical information to this article if it helps. Beejsterb (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD per above comments. I believe his article looks good at the moment, even if half of it is about his death specifically. If anything, his death is notable, and that can be enough. ~Mable (chat) 08:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A local doctor in Belgium grants euthanasia to a terminally-ill minor, marking the first case of such procedure performed since the 2014 removal of age restrictions. (BBC)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Posted I'm not interested in debate over conflicts of interest, there are four supports here on article quality, I couldn't really care less about any credit, and one RD has been posted that is younger than this one, and had less consensus, so sue me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Oppose on quality. We should have some sort of text synopsis of the tournament, perhaps at least a paragraph or two covering each round. Right now it's a little background information and a WHOLE lot of tables. --Jayron3217:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See 2016 Rugby Championship#Overview which summerises the tournament to date (note that there are still two rounds and four games to be played). I am personally not a fan of the excessive use of tables, but it is an aspect some editors like to add (if they are a real issue I could try collapsing some of them and see if that sticks). AIRcorn(talk)00:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with tables, but there should also be prose in addition describing the events. Heck, if every major sports news organization can manage a paragraph or two on these events, we can certainly do the same. --Jayron3212:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Jayron32's suggestion for expansion but I think there is enough there to pass muster. And the article looks decently sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Decent, sourced article. The prose update is the tournament overview section, as per most sport tournaments that don't have a 'final' match. I'm not sure what more can be added, other than a in-depth prose synopsis of the eight matches that have already been played and the four that have yet to be, but I have yet to come across a major tournament article that does that. Fuebaey (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose Article is in poor shape with orange tags reflecting significant gaps in sourcing. It will require substantial improvement before it can be linked on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - seeing gradual, but steady, improvements to the article's quality, so we should keep an eye on this. I hope to add my support to this nomination, hopefully sooner rather than later. Christian Roess (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article:Shooting of Terence Crutcher (talk·history·tag) Blurb: White Tulsa, Oklahoma, police fatally shoot unarmed black man Terence Crutcher. (Post) Alternative blurb: Protesters demand arrest in the police shooting death of Terence Crutcher. Alternative blurb II: Five month after another Tulsa officer was sentenced for manslaughter in the shooting death of an unarmed black man, Tulsa police fatally shoot another unarmed black man. Alternative blurb III: Tulsa police release helicopter and dashcam video of the fatal shooting of unarmed black man Terence Crutcher. News source(s):BBC, Washington Post, CBS, NYTimes, Associated Press, USA Today Credits:
Nominator's comments: This is my first time here. Hope this is done right. Didn't think DYK was the right venue for this. Put under date of the shooting. Could put under Sept. 19 if want to talk about the release of the video. EvergreenFir(talk)17:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose obviously good faith nomination. Another day, another controversial police involved shooting. With the possible exception of Ferguson (my memory fails) we have not posted any of these. I agree with that general precedent. These incidents are too common and not of sufficiently wide interest for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. You would not have known. But yeah, we don't usually post items that are basically "the latest in a series of..." type stories unless there is something that makes this particular incident really stand out. I do think we posted Ferguson for that reason. But that was an exception based on unique circumstances and far ranging consequences. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose literally thousands of people are shot to death every year in the United States, a high proportion of them are black, a significant proportion are unarmed. Many of them are killed by the police. Why is this more important than all those others? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Texas authorities agree to pay $1.9 million to the family of Sandra Bland, the woman who was found hanged in a jail cell in Waller County, Texas, in July 2015. A grand jury did not issue an indictment. (CBS News)
The U.S. House Intelligence Committee releases a summary of its two-year investigation into former NSA contractor Edward Snowden which downplays his alleged status as a whistleblower while acknowledging "tremendous damage to national security" as a result of the classified documents he stole. (NPR)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Strong support - I have seen the page-view statistics & size of article; I think this space science Laboratory/technology for astronomy should not be opposed. Nannadeem (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Sorry, I checked the early tables but obviously didn't go far enough. I've removed it. I don't see any point in relinking the overview, as it fails to cover ongoing events. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:
In the news toolbox