Wikipedia : In the news/Candidates/May 2018

This is pretty much ready to post - I'll just wait until I see some more support. --Tone 14:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article is good. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Need this one. Ultimograph5 (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added an image to the nomination, as I realise the ITN section will need one once the item on the Inter-Korean summit is bumped by this incoming item. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 17:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This will also get posted when it arrives at its destination, per ITNR. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good 2 go.BabbaQ (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. Davey2116 (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well done indeed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would it be better to add that the spacecraft were launched "by NASA"? I would love to see that addition because it would give NASA credit for paying for the launch. Brian Everlasting (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reply to NASA funded it, Lockheed Martin built it, the United Launch Alliance launched it, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory runs and operates it. So, there is a lot of people you exclude when you solely credit it to just NASA. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Succinct, neutral blurb is all that's needed. We are not advertising for them, why should we argue on who to credit?. –Ammarpad (talk)

Russian protests

Comment this would be more fitting for an ongoing nomination, not a separate blurb. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I am not seeing any updates on the article. Am I wrong? Sherenk1 (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support on principle, oppose on quality - I'm already hearing a lot about this story from outlets and peers, so I'm fully convinced that it's an important news story, but the article is far from ready. There were very few additions for the 5th May protests and unfortunately I had to roll them back because there were no sources and the sentences added used wording that isn't compatible with MoS. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not sure how the blurb is commensurate with the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing about 5 May in the article minus the infobox. Feels like a POV push especially with the poor translation for the blurb. Juxlos (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Apparently this started last year. So nothing new?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From what I see in the article there were rallies on 5 May. So, did these protests continue or they only occur this day? If there is a new wave of protests and a new article was created, I would consider supporting this.--Jamez42 (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) North Korean time zone change

Oppose Not seeing this in the news, probably more of a DYK item. --LaserLegs (talk)
Oppose per LaserLegs, I’m only seeing this as a ploy to improving relationships between the two Koreas. SamaranEmerald (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Because it actually went through. Sherenk1 (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose minor, barely notable piece of news that does not warrant an ITN post. This is basically saying we post “Daylight Savings Time begins/ends in the United States”, albeit half the time change. Kirliator (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good faith nom. Interesting trivia. But it's still trivia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I disagree with the comparison to American Daylight Savings time, which is far more routine. Still, this is too trivial to merit posting at ANI. Lepricavark (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -We cannot litter main page with every segment of their chat. We posted the grand part, that's the meeting itself. That's enough. May be DYK?. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Three years back I have nominated article about recently established Pyongyang time. It was not approved. --Jenda H. (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I actually disagree with peoples assessment above. I think this is just the kind of news that should appear on ITN. It is part of history that Korea changes back time in an effort to soften relations. Article seems decent enough for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kinda getting a 'cool story bro' feeling from this. A bit of harmless trivia. talk to !dave 11:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2018 May 4 Template:Cob

May 4

(Closed) Albert Pujols' 3000th career hit

Oppose "32nd player" basically says this might be a career achievement, but not a significant milestone for the sport. --Masem (t) 14:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm as big a baseball fan as they come (just check my promoted content) and while it's great he reached that milestone, it's not a significant enough sports story for us to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -Muboshgu and Masem have said everything. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Pujols is one of the greatest to ever play the game, but this isn't even a record being broken. It's very impressive, but he's not even the first active player to hit 3000, and he certainly won't be the last to do it. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of curiosity, does anyone have any examples of sport records/milestones that were posted to ITN? Nohomersryan (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can't see any at the moment, but pretty confident we have posted some key world record-breaking (sub 4-minute mile, for example) figures, but not all of them. --Masem (t) 19:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria mosque bombing

Oppose as still a stub, otherwise the nomination is right, tremendous loss of life. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - but only until someone expands and improve the article.BabbaQ (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support in Principle, Oppose in Quality large-scale attack, but the article is in desperate need of an expansion. Will change to full support once necessary changes are made. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Doina Cornea

Support Solid article. Well sourced. No issues. Memorie veșnică! -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above, nice job TDKR. Kirliator (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Marked as Ready -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Vanamonde (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Kīlauea eruption

Oppose. Kilauea erupts frequently; almost continually in fact. A new vent that requires evacuations is rare, but so far no-one has been hurt and very little damage has been done. I'll be willing to reconsider if things get much worse, but right now this is missing the 'disaster' part of a natural disaster. Modest Genius ^talk 10:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - 10,000 people being evacuated is a significant number. Article in good shape. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does it say 10,000? I read 1,500. Abductive (reasoning) 17:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Template:Re - BBC TV news said 10k just before I posted. Mjroots (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Indeed, large evacuation. BabbaQ (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This eruption is getting featured heavily in the news and the Wikipedia article is a well-written one that will be nice to highlight. OtterAM (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - widely reported major eruption. Good opportunity to feature a GA. -Zanhe (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It’s 1,800 evacuated, not 10k. I have updated the article noting the destroyed houses, closed geothermal power station, and no-fly zone. I’ve also added a sub-header for navigation, and added an altblurb. Jusdafax (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Modest Genius. It's affecting a trivial number of people and as yet has caused next-to-no damage. It's inconvenient, but 1,500 people can be evacuated from a large hotel because of a fire alarm. Nothing significant to see here, nothing that will live long in the memory, nothing that a real encyclopedia would note beyond a single bullet point in the list of eruptions of volcanoes for this year, certainly not main page material, despite the good quality article (and weak update). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I agree with Modest Genius that Kilauea has been erupting continuously since 1983, article is in excellent shape, and coverage is widespread across the media. Python Dan (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There appears to have been a related earthquake. As more information comes out, I think an updated blurb may be needed soon. Sounder Bruce 23:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - major news item, earthquake has added to notability. Not sure what the delay is here. It's not often we get a WP:GA to post. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Making the headlines with the related quake. Article is GA class. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Marked as Ready looks like the consensus is highly in favor of posting this. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added altblurb mentioning earthquake. Please change or remove however you like. GreyGreenWhy (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ANY ADMINS THERE? I oppose this, but the consensus is clear, and has been for about 12 hours. Why isn't this being posted? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Posted alt2 with a picture. -- KTC (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe needs up date after new info here from BBC. 26 homes destroyed, new fissures after earthquake etc. Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 07:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In reaction to the ongoing and destructive eruption, I have created 2018 lower Puna eruption as a stand-alone article, moving much of the update from the Kīlauea article to there. If deemed worthy this article could be linked to the word “eruption” in the blurb. And I’d favor adding the 26 destroyed houses in the blurb per GreyGreenWhy, though the blurb might be too long. Jusdafax (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Literature 2018 postponed

Support Ha, you beat me to this nom by a whisker. :) Significant enough and it is in the news now even if the prize wasn't due until November. Not sure if this should be posted now or then when people will be looking for it. Suggested more concise blurb, the first sounds too much like a juicy tabloid headline to me. cart-Talk 09:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per historic decision by a significant institution. I suggest using the org blurb.BabbaQ (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, I was edit conflicted while I was trying to add that the original blurb is also sort of incorrect since it is the Nobel Comity that ultimately awards the prize, the Academy is just one part of that comity, and the comity has postponed the prize because of the trouble in the Academy. cart-Talk 09:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see your point.BabbaQ (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New blurb suggested. cart-Talk 10:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support on the merits. Very unusual to not give out this award. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Who would have thought that the MeToo revolution would affected the Nobel Literature prize? Count Iblis (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was wondering what brought Nobel Prize in Lit. to ITN at this time and thought it must be something unusual. And yes, it is.... –Ammarpad (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a third more neutral Blurb suggestion.BabbaQ (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent suggestion. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 10:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. The prize itself is ITNR, and this is effectively the negative of that. On the other hand we're essentially saying 'something won't happen as planned'. On balance I think it's worth a blurb, but only just. I've added yet another blurb suggestion (alt4), as none of the existing ones are particularly satisfactory. The reasons for the controversy seem sufficiently complicated that we shouldn't try to summarise them in the blurb. Modest Genius ^talk 10:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Complicated" is an understatement, the whole thing is called Paradise Hotel here in Sweden. A short neutral blurb is best since there are numerous things leading up to this postponing; we can't single out one of them. cart-Talk 11:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A problem with "resignations" in the blurb is "Technically, members are appointed for life to the Swedish Academy and cannot resign, although they can refuse to take part". -- KTC (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more. As a result of this debacle, the Swedish King has altered the rules. See section: Nobel_Prize_in_Literature#Controversies_about_Swedish_Academy_board_members. cart-Talk 12:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have those that "resigned" prior to the rules change resigned formally since the rules change, or are they still technically refuse to take part so the seat couldn't be filled? -- KTC (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article is now tweaked for better reading, thanks for pointing it out. The new rule is only two days old and everything is still a mess. One member has formally handed in her resignation, the rest haven't got around to it yet, no seats are held with the intention of hindering new members. No seats have been re-filled. This current uncertainty and mess is why I think the blurb should be short and neutral as in the first altblurb. cart-Talk 12:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Template:U - being in Sweden and able to read Swedish - almost certainly has a better understanding of this complex scenario than the rest of us, I think it is prudent to defer to them on which blurb(s) are adequate here. --LukeSurl^{t c} 13:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Apparently the first time the prize has ever been withheld due to a scandal (the only previous occasions were due to war time or a lack of suitable candidates.) My preference would be altblurb 2.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a Swede I think blurb 3 or 4 is the most appropriate as the postponing has more reasons for happening than the sexual harassment scandal. BabbaQ (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that the resignation and inactive members due to the crisis is the legal reason the Academy can't work at the moment. The sexual harassment scandal was one of the things that triggered the crisis, but so was the suspicion of financial crime now under investigation by the Swedish Economic Crime Authority as well as long-held bad blood between members, active and inactive. But of course it is the sex scandal that the media picks up on. cart-Talk 13:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurbs 3/4, but oppose on quality There are a few quality and BLP concerns of the update to this. Notably, per BBC that the accused member had denied the charges but this is not included. The update should focus less on what the accusations are, only that they were given and that board members wanted to leave in protest, something the King granted on May 2. Nothing about the accusations have been proven so we have to be very careful there. --Masem (t) 13:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles updated with that the accused denies charges. Btw, he is not a member of the academy, he is just married to one. cart-Talk 14:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Posted alt 1. -- KTC (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is the wrong blurb that has been posted. The issue is wider than that particular issue and blurb 3 and 4 would have been more appropriate. Anyway its good it got posted.BabbaQ (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If one of those blurbs were chosen, we must first figure out if we are talking about real resignations or simply leaving while still formally being members until their resignations have been handed in. How many chair are now leagally empty? Since not even the Academy is clear about this, how can we be. cart-Talk 14:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For ITN's purpose, it doesn't matter how many chairs are empty or are pending, just that as a whole of the remaining voting members, they voted to postpone their selection until next year. --Masem (t) 14:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't have a quorum now and so have no power to decide a prize currently. They are stuck until they change the rules. Andrew D. (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I saw the item on the main page just now. The blurb didn't explain matter well and so I clicked through. The article doesn't explain the matter well either – there's nothing at all in the lead about this. Reading other sites to understand what's happening, the issue is that the committee doesn't have a quorum because many members are boycotting it and some have been doing so since 1989! The organisation is clearly a shambles and, while there's talk of what they are going to do to sort it out, they haven't actually done it yet and so we shouldn't be predicting that it will all be done by 2019. Per WP:CRYSTAL, more work is needed to present this uncertainty more clearly. Andrew D. (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are saying two laureates will be announced in 2019.[37] It's true that the matter is not mentioned in the lead, but modifying the blurb so it goes straight to Nobel_Prize_in_Literature#Controversies_about_Swedish_Academy_board_members would solve this.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now in lead and section is fixed with info about the quorum. I think the most reliable source is the press release from the Academy itself. cart-Talk 15:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ex-VW CEO indicted

Oppose, longstanding consensus at ITN is only to post convictions. Please withdraw your nomination or waste everybody's time watching it get inevitably closed. Abductive (reasoning) 02:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain the Winterkorn indictment is of such an unusual nature per the references that it precludes your “consensus” which many here, including me, have never signed off on. Jusdafax (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you are saying is that you believe an IAR exception to our customary approach is justified. I will think about it. This is unusual in the extreme. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ad Orientem, that’s a more diplomatic statement which I endorse. I can’t recall a similar criminal charge being filed against a top-rank corporate CEO before. Another notability factor is the statement by the U.S. Attorney General which I have added to the target article. I am continuing to expand both articles. Jusdafax (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We don't usually post indictments outside of world leaders due to potential BLP issues, because we don't presume guilty before they are proved innocent. --Masem (t) 03:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t agree that this is a BLP issue. It’s sourced information and news around the world. Per Ad Orientem, this is not your usual criminal indictment. There are also major economic considerations for Volkswagen itself. Jusdafax (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that in his article or in the Dieselgate article, this is not a BLP issue. But to put it in a high priority space like ITN, that's a bit different. Front page should be more careful as to these types of charges which have yet to result in convictions. Additionally, he's the ex-CEO, and thus has little effect on the company proper. --Masem (t) 04:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Volkswagen has already admitted guilt in the case, and Winterkorn has resigned over it. The referenced articles state that the indictment is likely to have financial and legal effects, and calls into question the corporate culture that led to the emissions cheating. The charges are filed at the highest legal system of the U.S. Government. It’s on front pages all over the world. We are re-reporting a high-profile, high-level, unique indictment that has among other things substantial financial considerations. Your concerns do you credit, but I strongly disagree with them. This is important, groundbreaking news. In my view it can’t be compared to, say, a murder case or pedestrian scandal. The ITN precedent is the 2015 FIFA corruption case which of is similar criminal magnitude in the sporting world. And yes, the FIFA indictments were ITN blurbs. Jusdafax (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose –Probably may support when he is actually convicted and more update on the conviction exist in the article. Mere indiction of former CEO doesn't rise to level of significance required at ITN. Comparing this with FIFA case does shows exactly why this shouldn't be on ITN too. FIFA is the world's preeminent body of the World most popular sports. You can't even compare notability of convoluted FIFA case with this scant news of retired business executive being indicted. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a difference between retirement and being forced to leave due to exposure. Yeah, over ten million illegal vehicles and an 8 billion dollar settlement for starters as a result of this CEO’s actions, which he has taken responsibility for. But in your world, charges of breathtaking corporate corruption is “scant” news... depends on what you believe is important, eh? Jusdafax (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. I might(emphasis on might) support this if he was currently the CEO, but he is not. He is currently just a private citizen for which BLP applies. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for a verdict. A conviction might be suitable for ITN, a mere indictment is not. Modest Genius ^talk 10:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Masem, 331. – Sca (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stormy Daniels next. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That’s the kind of snark that lost you your adminship. Jusdafax (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn, change the record. As a regular and one with considerable experience, you should know by now that we simply don't post "accusations". This is sadly a complete waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn yourself. Take your further quibbles to the Talk page. Jusdafax (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no quibbles. You're the one that started badgering me and gravedancing. Check the mirror. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2018 May 3 Template:Cob

May 3

RD: Afonso Dhlakama

Support - Article is sourced and ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet Still too many gaps in referencing. ghost 12:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For a controversial BLP - allegations of war crimes and the like - there are too many unsourced statements. Also no details of his death in the article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) India dust storm

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2018 May 2 Template:Cob

The article is as of this writing one sentence and is a long way from even being evaluated, to say nothing of being posted. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blurb is longer than the article... need I say more? Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have worked to expand the article enough to re-open this. The death toll is continuing to rise and there's fears more deaths are coming from additional storms. --Masem (t) 15:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --UkrainianCossack (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Highly unusual death toll and still rising. The news is also at the top of every major news outlet one can think of. It is epitome of In the News. Someone savvy with images can help to upload one for visual illustration –Ammarpad (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It is highly unusual, but the article as of 20:00 remains too thin for Main Page promotion. Sca (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Substantial weather event. Article will fill out. Brycehughes (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - weather event, substantial. article is ok.BabbaQ (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per BabbaQ and Ammarpad. Banedon (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I suppose if we have to draw a line somewhere, this one is over it, but only by a Planck Length or so. Seriously, if this is a major event worth noting, why has no one bothered to write anything about it? It'd be nice to see people so eager to show the world this article if they actually wrote some text to show off. This really should be expanded! --Jayron32 00:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Combination of Non-western event in a not-quite-first-world country, that included loss of power/communications. There probably is more to write but it's not going to come fast. --Masem (t) 01:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment – For an event that killed 120 (AP), the current 280 words of non-background text seems quite skimpy. Sca (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that this article is about as skimpy as can be and yet be good enough to make the main page. I am hoping it is further expanded today and in the days to come. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2

(Closed) WASP-107b

Comment in what way is this significant and interesting to our readers? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ping its because this is the first time an exoplanet has helium in it. That’s what makes it unique. —LovelyGirl7 talk 13:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support An important discovery. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there are already planets that have helium in their atmosphere (e.g. the Gas Giants), besides, the story is no longer being reported anymore on news outlets. Python Dan (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alternatively, this would be an excellent item for DYK. OtterAM (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abottom

(Posted) RD: Bill Torrey

Support –Article is in good shape. –Ammarpad (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good to go up. Jusdafax (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work, Muboshgu. ghost 12:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Posted -- KTC (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dick Edell

Almost fully referenced. I added one tag. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed. --LukeSurl^{t c} 17:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Support. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support fully referenced now. -Zanhe (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agree with above supporters. Jusdafax (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Tony Cucchiara

Oppose Discography isn't sourced, and the article is a stub. It needs some expansion. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) David Goodall is on his way to Switzerland to end his life

Support RD when the time comes. I am not scientific, but reading the article, I do not get the impression he was a revolutionary figure in the field who deserves a blurb. Harambe Walks (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- He is not a revolutionary figure. You're thinking of Jane Goodall. Abductive (reasoning) 02:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD when the time comes. BabbaQ (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Nothing really unusual for a very old person to die by euthanasia in a nation where it is legalized. Also doesn't appear to be globally top of his field. EternalNomad (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD when he's dead, article is of sufficient quality, if short. --Jayron 32 01:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD This is rather macabre but let’s wait until he’s successful in his bid to end his life and then post as a RD. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - premature nomination. He's still alive, and we have no idea when he will end his life. -Zanhe (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD - the article is ready for RD when the time comes. Stormy clouds (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Wang Danfeng

Support Referenced and looks comprehensive.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yeah, it looks good. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Gibson bankruptcy

Oppose As noted here and in the articles, this was largely expected (in contrast, the Toys R Us failing was more a surprise). And this isn't the end of Gibson, just turning their focus back to guitar making. --Masem (t) 16:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too small. If Gibson is only a leader in guitar manufacturing, that's too specialist an area. The article also indicates the company is relatively small, e.g. $135 million in liquidity payments is not that much money. Compare Toys R Us (per Masem), which dealt with a much larger field and had revenue in the billions. Banedon (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basque group ETA

Support on principle, oppose on quality The article is woefully undersourced. There's a lot of red links, but that's probably not as much of a problem as the lack of sorucing throughout. But the event is one of note that could be ITN if the article was good. --Masem (t) 14:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; target article seems to quit reporting activity (outside of a few quick notes in the lead) on the dissolution process. Basically, the article body stops having relevent information about the group in about 2016, so ALL of the context for their dissolution, which has been going on for about 1.5 years now, is absent from the text of the article. There needs to be a LOT more information on the past two years to provide enough context for the blurb to make sense. This is entirely separate from the sourcing issues noted above, which is also a no-go condition for me as well.--Jayron 32 14:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ETA announced a permanent end to armed struggle way back in 2011, and I'm not sure that formally declaring themselves dissolved is really that significant.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support on principle, oppose on quality Interesting story, but the article needs a lot of work. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support End of an era for Spain and Basque history itself. GWA88 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support on principle, oppose on quality per BrendonTheWizard. -Zanhe (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support For Spaniards, testimonies of terror, it is a very important day. It is the demonstration that democracy has won against those who for half a century have brutally attacked us. 853 families have just seen the surrender of the murderers of their relatives. End of an era. Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right about that, but what about the quality of the article? It has a one-line update. Where is the detail, the reactions? There are several "citation needed" tags too.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Chhota Rajan conviction

Suggesting alt blurb, linking to the victim and removing "notorious". 331dot (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Target article has one line noting the conviction, and no other mention of the murder. Dey might be a better target, but it needs an update. ghost 11:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Normally I'd support something like that, citing IAR/BIAS or the ilk; but bearing in mind that's a BLP (cf. BLPCRIME), most of the article should be expunged. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose coverage seems scant. I put in "India" into Google and got results about gender bias in India, air pollution in India, the Taj Mahal changing colour, and England taking over #1 ranking in cricket from India. Putting in "Rajan" yields more relevant results, but there's still completely unrelated stuff like business movement on the front page. Banedon (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Won't that be for each news we post. Everyone is not always interested in everything we post. I do see this in BBC.com world and also as top news in BCC India. I expect someone from South America wouldnt be interested in this news. But Users from India would certainly be along with Indian expats living in other parts of the world. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes but that's why I'm using specific search terms ("India" and "Rajan"). This kind of result indicates it's not dominating news even in India. Looking at the website of The Hindu, some of the current headlines are "Supreme Court wants trials in child sexual abuse cases to be fast-tracked", "JD(U) leader Uday Narayan Chaudhary quits party", and "Aadhaar biometric data is 100% secure, asserts India’s cybersecurity chief Gulshan Rai", all unrelated to the case. Banedon (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Article is spotty and inconsistent, hard to follow any narrative, reads like a collection of random crimes. Also same problems as noted above. --Jayron 32 15:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Random collection of crimes" aptly describes this article. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--I came across nothing but scant coverage across the Indian print-dailies.Not significant enough, to deserve a mention at main-page.On a side-note, it's my first foray into ITN and if my arguments are on the wrong lines, I expect that some of the regulars over here will correct it.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2018 May 1 Template:Cob

May 1

(Closed) RD: Wanda Wiłkomirska

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

Support. It looks comprehensive and referenced--I added one CN tag however.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - when the one CN tag is taken care of. -Zanhe (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped that one sentence about festivals which where known long ago, - the artists mentioned are linked just above. I also tried to link the who' who of concert halls and orchestras, and the pieces and accompanists. Composers not yet, - too many ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support refs are fine. ghost 12:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive bottom

(Posted) RD: Universo 2000

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate Mike Peel (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apoyo Es un buen artículo. Bien por Muertes Recientes. --Jayron 32 01:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks referenced, and it highlights an interesting aspect of Mexican culture.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support referenced and comprehensive. -Zanhe (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Building fire and collapse in São Paulo

Oppose - at just one death, this is a clear oppose at present, one which is only exacerbated by the current state of the article. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article quality is poor, can't decide if the main subject is the building itself or the fire, has jaring changes in points-of-view, barely above a stub. --Jayron32 16:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to note that I'm still working on the article; it should look better than before now. I'm new to ITN, and didn't realise that high quality was a key metric here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support article is no more "barely above stub" than any other disaster story we post, there are no "minimum deaths" criteria such objections can be safely ignored, and most importantly, the story is actually in the news. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no minimum death criteria, but that does not mean that logic should not apply. If we posted every fire where one person died, we would be inundated with such items daily. The article, while not atrocious, is not at the quality required for main page, and the story is only "in the news", as far as I can see, if you go looking. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can post things if no one dies Indeed, we often do. When we invent arbitrary metrics, it encourages us to exclude quality articles from consideration that would otherwise be appropriate for linking from the main page given their quality. THAT being said, this one is not up to snuff, but otherwise our primary concern (as with all other sections of the main page) should be to direct people to quality articles. The phrase, often quoted, that "ITN is not a news ticker" primarily means that ITN is concerned mostly with quality, and not with other arbitrary metrics. --Jayron 32 18:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I get that. I just think that the often bandied about "significance" argument comes into force when one person dies in an event that is fairly routine - fires are common, and a fire with no fatalities would have scant little chance of getting posted. It is not about creating arbitrary metrics, it is about common sense, and my opposition is also rooted in the article quality, as stated above. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fires in 24 story "historic" office buildings which subsequently collapse are common? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the building was so "historic" that the article didn't exist until it collapsed. This is the equivalent of a BLP1E. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ping This is Brazil - there are plenty of historic buildings that we don't have articles for here, e.g. I also started Evangelical Lutheran Church of São Paulo today. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with TRM. Reading the article I am not understanding what was particularly historic about this 1960's skyscraper that was filled with registered squatters(I didn't realize one could "register" as a squatter). 331dot (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The city of Sao Palo put it on their list of historic buildings ... in 1992. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes... by an organisation that's so notable that it doesn't have an article. BLP1E anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Template:Ping pt:Conselho Municipal de Preservação do Patrimônio Histórico, Cultural e Ambiental da Cidade de São Paulo ... want to help translate it? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd love to try, but my Portuguese ends at "Jose Mourinho". Interestingly though, the Portuguese Wikipedia article about the destroyed building was created .... today. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        If they decide after 30 some odd years that the building is historic, that's up to them, but I'm still not understanding the historic value here. Is this historic nationally? We aren't talking the Cristo Redentor in Rio. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good faith nom. Fires in "historic" buildings likely occur on a near daily basis somewhere in the world. I am not seeing anything that makes this event stand out. I further doubt the long term significance of the event and I concur that WP:1E might be an issue here. AfD?-Ad Orientem (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it's highly uncommon for a historic high-rise building to collapse in a massive fire (last occurrence I can recall was on 9/11). I find some editors' snarky attitude troubling. I highly doubt they're more qualified than the City of Sao Paolo to determine whether a building is historic or not, and they're too ignorant to realize that the vast majority of notable topics outside the English-speaking world do not have articles. -Zanhe (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A problem I have is trying to define the building "historic". Old, yes, but not historic, and the fact that the building was being occupied by squatters suggests it had little historic value. --Masem (t) 00:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Template:Ping It was listed as historic by the city of São Paulo (CONPRESP). Squatters don't avoid buildings with historic value... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think the point with the squatters is not that they reside there illegally but the fact that they don't seem to be kept out of this supposed historic structure. (which again begs the perhaps not relevant question as to how people can register to illegally reside in a building) 331dot (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - 'registered' came from the metro news article, but I'm not sure if that terminology is accurate, so I've removed that word from the article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not significant to the level of ITN. Had we have functioning notability criteria for buildings, that article may well be deleted as WP:BUILD1E. So it is not surprising 80% of the references are because of the fire. ~~In addition, as a matter of fact, using 'historic' to describe mere 50-year old squatter's quarters is not the best use of this important adjective.~~ Fifty years to building is the same as few months in human ages. Buildings suppose to last centuries, be avenue for something important and still stand before we call them historic. Last, but not the least, the proper title of this article should be Edifício Wilton Paes de Almeida building collapse or something like that. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Striking part of my comment per new information that it was listed as "historic" by the Sao Paulo city government. Remaining comment remain valid. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's more of a story to tell here about the history of the building, which is why I prefer the current title rather than focusing exclusively on the collapse, but the news media is suffering from recentism here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Forget all the details and superlatives for a moment: how often is a 20+ story building destroyed unintentionally? Honestly don't know, but it seems unusual. ghost 11:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support by precedent. Compare Grenfell Tower fire. That building didn't have an article until it caught fire either, and we posted it anyway. Banedon (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a bit different. That led to 23 deaths and an ongoing investigation into building regulations and fire safety.--WaltCip (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping, Template:Ping- 71 people died in Grenfell, not just 23 (that was the number of flats in which people died). This means that there were literally seventy-one times as many deaths in that incident as this one, hence the precedent is not particularly applicable in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As of this morning, there are 49 people missing. They'll start looking through the debris soon (after it's cooled). ref, will expand the article later today. Mike Peel (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If/when they confirm 50 deaths, or in the environs of that number, I will support. At just one confirmed death, I feel it is lacking in significance. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that if that happens (and I hope it doesn't!) this will have become stale news. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are we imposing a minimum deaths requirement now? If so that's fine, but we should be consistent. Banedon (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're not "imposing a minimum deaths requirement". I don't see an RFC mandating a change to the ITN rules. What an odd thing to assert. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – On lack of significance. Quite a stunning video was shown on news sites, but with only one death reported its impact is negligible. Sca (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just not a big enough deal. Lepricavark (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's sounding like this is actually a big deal. It now has two articles on ptwp - see pt:Edifício Wilton Paes de Almeida and pt:Incêndio em edifício do Largo do Paissandu. It was a squatter-occupied federally-owned historical building in the centre of the city, and there are currently 49 missing occupants. It's started an inspection of a lot of other buildings in São Paulo. Most of the coverage (apart from the 'stunning video') is in Portuguese, but Google Translate works quite well, and that shouldn't be held again this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Isn't gonna make it. Sca (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Leave it open. Authorities are saying that 40+ people are unaccounted for. That fire in the UK was posted, if this gets snow closed "who cares" it just further re-enforces the euro-centric bias at ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would be open to supporting this if the missing people are established to have died, but such a blurb should leave out the alleged "historical" nature of the building. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - The local authorities in São Paulo aren't allowed to designate a building as "historic"? On the learned contributors at ITN/C are allowed to do that? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - If Brazil has the equivalent of the National Register of Historic Places and this building is on it, I would happily reconsider. A local government can make whatever designations they want for whatever reason. I could convince my city council to declare my home "historic" if I wanted to. This 1960's building was so historic that registered squatters were residing in it. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I think that's IPHAN, National Institute of Historic and Artistic Heritage. That has a short list, and this building's not on it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. For social significance, not for death count. It is noteworthy that a downtown skyscraper could be populated by squatters, and we see the huge danger of irregular housing. Please ignore objections about insufficient death count. This is a very newsworthy event receiving global coverage. Jehochman ^Talk 14:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe squatters are not uncommon in Brazil's cities. ITN is not a forum to publicize or right great wrongs. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is speculation, but if the missing 40 were squatters in the building, presumably they're now street people (or are squatting somewhere else), I guess. Sca (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: one body found today, 6 currently missing. Ref. I suspect this is now too stale, so I'm happy for this discussion to be closed if needed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]