Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

Kofi Annan in 2012
Kofi Annan

How to nominate an item

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC.
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

Headers

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
  • Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...

  • ... add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  • ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  • ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  • ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  • ... oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)


Suggestions

August 20

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

Business and economy
  • PepsiCo announces their intent to buy SodaStream, a manufacturer of products for in-home soft drink production, for $3.2 billion USD. The deal awaits approval by regulators. (BBC)

RD: Uri Avnery

Article: Uri Avnery (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Jerusalem Post
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

RD: Jimmy McIlroy

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

Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: One of Burnley's legends. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Article needs a bit updating to reflect his passing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

August 19

Portal:Current events/2018 August 19
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Sports

RD: Rafael Calventi

Article: Rafael Calventi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Iñaki Salazar (talk • give credit)

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

 Iñaki (Talk page) ★ 07:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

  • The article needs lots of work with sourcing first. --Tone 07:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article needs LOTS of source work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

August 18

Portal:Current events/2018 August 18
Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Sports

RD: Peter Tapsell

Article: Peter Tapsell (British politician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian, Financial Times
Nominator: Hrodvarsson (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Member of Parliament for over 50 years. Father of the House from 2010 to 2015. Article needs a little work. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: 2018 Kerala floods

Article: 2018 Kerala floods (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is still in BBC top news. Hence should be part of ongoing. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Support: 320+ lives have been lost, worst flood in over 100 years. Almost the entire state [tourist hotspot] is impacted and several thousands are affected. Covered widely in the international media. New York Times Washington Post Sky News Guardian Japan Times Regards, theTigerKing  16:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Still a developing story receiving ample coverage in the media. Teemu08 (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Suport Concur on the magnitude of the disaster coupled with the continuous news coverage. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Already posted by Amakuru at 14:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC) --Danski454 (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose and Pull what consensus? Article has bad grammar, missing refs, broken graphs. Atrocious, not at all MP quality. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
    Consensus was reached that the quality issues were resolved, in the August 11 section down in this very page. And it was posted as a blurb by another admin until it rolled off the bottom due to later events.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
    Well the article now has referenced, poor grammar statements like "The Centre reached out to Kerala, offering a helping hand to tackle the situation.". What "Centre"? To Kerala how? What helping hand? WTF is that meaningless statement? --LaserLegs (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
    No Wikipedia article that's immune to poor grammar as there are no paid Oxford-trained proof readers here. The easiest solution is just fix it, you, yourself. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support if you don't like the quality of the article, fix it. It's still a noteworthy current event. 2601:200:4001:E52E:9548:E4CF:7DBE:FB15 (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Traditionally on ITN, articles with significant quality issues are removed from the template until they are brought up to quality, WP:SOFIXIT or not. See Kofi Annan below. Nonetheless, although the quality is somewhat middling, I personally think this article meets minimum standards. SpencerT•C 05:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Hey IP, that is not a great attitude to have. Laserleg is providing his comments on viewing the article. It is now the responsibility of other editors to see if they can positively respond. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article is still receiving updates (diff changes over the past 24 hours, although without dating information, it's unclear when these changes are occurring. For an example, Carr_Fire#Timeline has some of this and was previously included in the ongoing section. SpencerT•C 05:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

(Readded as blurb) Death of Kofi Annan

Contentious nom closed. Posted as blurb, rationale at bottom of discussion.--WaltCip (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Kofi Annan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan dies at the age of 80.
Alternative blurb: ​Former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan dies at age 80.
Alternative blurb II: Nobel Peace Prize winner and former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan dies at the age of 80.
News source(s): [1]
Nominator: Power~enwiki (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: I haven't touched the article myself; it still has a few unsourced sections but is at about 1 edit per minute right now so those should be fixed soon. I think this is blurb-worthy. power~enwiki (π, ν) 09:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • RD only. UN Secretary General is not a particularly important position and Annan was not the world-transformative leader in his field that we typically give a blurb to. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
We also already have two deaths in the ITN box. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
This is irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Probably, but I think it's something to consider. Readers may wonder what RD is for when most of the ITN box has deaths in it. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
No, we should never change standards just because of what is currently being displayed. Full stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Then we should be prepared for criticism that ITN is turning into RD. That's all I'm saying. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
You've inadvertently disclosed your nationality but I see you have declared it on your user page anyway! Thincat (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
What does that have to do with anything? 331dot (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • RD only. At least Kofi Annan is a famous person in the world’s political history. Many American or British politicians are nominated and blurbed even though they are not world-transformative as the previous person said. Furthermore, Annan is also a Nobel Peace Prize laureate that should have blurbed this article. If we cannot put the event on “On Going” sections, we can just put this article onto the “Recent Deaths” section.Iagen0509 (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • 100% blurb as top man for the UN. However, article is dreadful, so neither RD nor blurb need be discussed right now, just fix the myriad issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb very notable person, Nobel Prize laureate. No brainer. Article requires some work, of course.- EugεnS¡m¡on 10:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've changed this to RD=Yes, as I don't know why it was No. This doesn't prevent people also asking for a blurb (tho I'm RD Only, see below).Tlhslobus (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • RD only - per 331dot. Being top man at the UN ensures you are well known, but usually doesn't make all that much difference in practice to all that many people, due to the limited powers of both the UN and of its boss. And his Nobel Peace Prize seems to be about as meaningless as Obama's (I liked and broadly approved of Annan and Obama, but that's beside the point).Tlhslobus (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - absolutely worthy of a blurb, as the world-famous and significant ruler of a leading global organisation. Absolutely worthy of a blurb, alongside the two already listed. It is not every week that ITN has three death blurbs, but then again, it is not every week that three figures of global renown and importance die. Support blurb pending article improvements. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The U.N. Secretary General doesn't "rule" the U.N. so much as they oversee it. The real power of the U.N. is in the Security Council. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - that there will be three death blurbs on MP does not matter one jot. It's just the way the dice fall. Leader of a global organization for a number of years, highly respected and worthy of a blurb. Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose at the moment given level of referencing. Would support blurb given he was the first black African Secretary General and I would argue the highest profile Secretary-General this century. Capitalistroadster (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • RD only. This is why we have the recent deaths section, so that we'll have space in the blurbs for events that have more impact in the present, instead of deaths of people, regardless of how great things they have done in the past. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that's accurate at all. My reading of the RFC is that the chief benefit of the "new" policy is that we would limit ghastly devil's advocacy against the worthiness of the recently deceased (see discussion of the "random" Ms. Franklin). Intentional of not, it also provided less prominent personalities a figurative day in the sun (post their literal last day in the sun). ghost 13:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible support for a blurb, pending reference improvements. One of the most important politicians of the late XXth-early XXIst centuries. Presided over 9/11, the US invasions of Iraq & AFghanistan. WE just need to get rid of citation tags and we are good to go. Openlydialectic (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb A classic example, highest tier of international diplomacy. And end of another era... Brandmeistertalk 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • RD only An important political figure but not world-transformative. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
    Recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize are usually considered important figures and world transformative. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Obama got one primarily because he was not George Bush, not for anything he did.(which he would admit) Getting one doesn't necessarily reflect their influence on the world. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
If Obama were to die tomorrow he'd get a blurb, not just a RD. --Gerrit CUTEDH 12:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
If Obama, Bush Sr, Carter or Clinton were to die tomorrow I'd oppose blurbs. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Obama??! That's completely bonkers. The Rambling Man (talk)
Aside from being the first black POTUS, he wasn't especially transformative, I don't consider a nobel prize to be "blurb worthy upon death" for anyone. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it's worth just ignoring LL if he's not commenting on the article being discussed. He's welcome to his opinion as long as he doesn't become disruptive when the consensus feels otherwise. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Getting one doesn't necessarily reflect their influence on the world. this kind of POV speculation is not a good example to set around here. How many Nobel Peace Prize winners have there ever been? It's not up to us to decide how worthy these individuals were. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure winning a Nobel Prize should be a ticket to a blurb for a deceased person. 331dot (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Me neither. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
But that's not quite all he did, now is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Definitely support RD, neutral on blurb. He is a VIP, so he sure deserves RD (if his article is good enough). Whether he deserves a blurb or not, I'll leave it to others. --Angga1061 13:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb again, not Thatcher/Mandela. Sorry. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • 100% support blurb I love Aretha Franklin, but for her to have a blurb and a Nobel Laureate and UN Secretary General to be left off is a travesty. C'mon, WP:ASB people. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb because this death is really in the news, arguably more newsy than all the extant blurbs in the template and for serving as world top diplomat, Nobel laureate and further first black ... in so many things. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb – (Pending article improvement.) Arguably the most widely known and respected U.N. secretary-general since Dag Hammarskjöld. His name became a household word, in the English-speaking world at least. Sca (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
PS: Annan, who lived in Switzerland, is described by the Zürich paper as "the moral conscience of the world." He was also the first black African to be elected secretary-general. Sca (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb as noted above, not a world-transformative figure. And I do feel that already having two deaths on ITN is a further reason not to post this. Lepricavark (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
"world-transformative figure." is a subjective and vague label. It can't be objectively defined. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • As of this writing, the article has had a two-sentence update (and the sentences, one of which is in the lede, are nearly identical) conveying no information beyond what's in the blurb, and is fairly littered with citation-needed tags. It's not postable to the main page in this state no matter how many people vote support. —Cryptic 14:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD/Blurb on quality, support blurb if updated - As Cryptic just pointed out, we're nowhere close for this being posted even as an RD. I would support a blurb, not so much as the UN SG (not really an elected position as with most other world leaders) but as a Nobel Peace laureate (which *is* a significant honor/importance). --Masem (t) 14:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb: Very important and influential person, and literally all over the world. Worthy of blurb. Article seems alright now, perhaps could have a few more references for its length but it's not specifically lacking. Coverage good, too.Kingsif (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • RD only An important person who deserves RD nomination. Not sure, if every Secretary General of UN should figure in blurb [per contributions to the mankind].Regards, theTigerKing  16:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@Vaibhavgupta1989: As long as someone merits an article, they merit posting to RD. Importance is no longer judged for RD nominations. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - It's true he received a Nobel Peace Prize, but he simply isn't a transformative world-leader figure a'la Thatcher or Mandela. WaltCip (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support blurb except for article quality; Kofi Annan is a household name. I think the Thatcher/Mandela standard is ludicrously restrictive. As for the concern that there would then be three death-blurbs on the main page, that is irrelevant. We post events as they happen, there is no quota. Davey2116 (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
It isn't irrelevant when we have a section of the ITN box dedicated to deaths. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • (P.S.: I know that "if we posted X, then we should post Y" arguments are not generally valid here, but it'd be questionable to post (with all due respect) Aretha Franklin and Atal Bihari Vajpayee and not post Annan, since Annan was at least as prominent (if not more) than they were. Davey2116 (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
    • +1. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Disagree that Annan is a "household name". I think if you asked the average person on your average street corner if they knew Kofi Annan died, they would say "Kofi who?" Most people in the world don't know who the UN secretary general is- but they have heard of people like Reagan, Thatcher, Mandela, and Aretha Franklin. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
        • You know the danger with such hypothetical? I knew who Kofi Annan was even as a child (when he was UN SG). I've never heard of Aretha Franklin until her death being in the news, and even now I had to double check that's who you were talking about. -- KTC (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
          • I did say "average", which by its nature would leave out people who may know who he was. We likely have different world perspectives on this, which I respect- but I can only give my opinion based on it. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
            • Your definition of average is seriously those who don't know who he is? Why aren't I an "average person on average street corner"? Just because I'm involved in Wikipedia doesn't mean I'm magically more knowledgable about any particular subject apart from Wikipedia itself. I don't follow politics apart from what pops up in the news and now social media. I certainly don't follow international politics. I'm not Ghanaian or even African who may be more likely to know of a UN SG from Ghana. Again, the danger with "if you ask the average person on the..." hypothetical is one inevitably answer it with their personal bias, so unless you have actually conducted such a survey and preferably in multiple countries, it's not a very helpful line of argument. -- KTC (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
              • I apologize for giving offense, as I don't seem to be clearly making my point, so I will stop before I dig myself in a deeper hole. Again, apologies. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
                • I'm another person who has never heard of Aretha Franklin, but heard of Annan many times. starship.paint ~ KO 09:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Annan's status as a "household name" was greatest during his tenure as general-secretary (1996-2007), when he was often in the news, and a decade later it may have faded somewhat, at least among younger readers. That in no way diminishes his notability, however, and we should have a blurb. Sca (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Support blurb His death news are all over the world online news. His article is complete enough already, his position in the UN was considered the top in world politics/diplomacy. What else? Everything is there already to show his nobility. If a singer (Aretha Franklin) can be written in the news, then I don't know what to say if a world leader (plus noble price winner) can't be written there. Please don't get priority wrong based on mainstream popularity. Chongkian (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - (Support RD) Notable for sure, but weak legacy as U.N. Secretary-General, who also died many years after retirement. --Bruzaholm (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb if article is up to standards. I don't agree with the "not a world-transformative figure" assessment or standard. Annan was UN SecGen for ten years, received a Nobel Peace Prize and was - for me and many my age - the first SecGen we ever knew about. Annan was also Under-SecGen for peacekeeping in a time of huge conflicts like Bosnian War and the Rwandan genocide. Regards SoWhy 18:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
    Well the first one I knew about was Boutros Boutros-Ghali and he didn’t get a blurb. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Admin notice: RD posted. Given that there is clear support for at least a RD notice, I've posted that. Discussion about whether to include a blurb can continue. Opinion about this appears split. Sandstein 19:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull @Sandstein:, there are uncited paragraphs in this article. It is not up to main page standards yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, consensus here says otherwise. There's a few people above objecting to the article's quality, but everybody else supports either a blurb or a RD notice. But I won't object to another admin with more ITN experience pulling this if they think it's necessary. I think that would be a disservice to our readers, though. Sandstein 20:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • When we have cases of people arguing on blurb vs RD (particularly this noisy), editors tend to forget about checking on sourcing. That still has to be checked even by the posting admin. Don't assuming cases like this where in the blurb vs RD that the RD is automatically find because people support an RD over a blurb. --Masem (t) 20:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment the sourcing wouldn't pass muster for a Featured Article, but is good enough for RD. I don't doubt the accuracy of the claim that he received a degree from The George Washington University; and removing it wouldn't hurt the article if there was some reason to doubt it. Others (was he "lauded by Kenyans" for the Kenya National Dialogue and Reconciliation Process?) are editing issues, and many are likely included in other references in the paragraphs (but not in sentence-by-sentence attribution). power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull what a complete joke. Something like 37 [citation needed] tags across a BLP and it gets a drive-by posting? This sets an all-time low threshold. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pulled As noted, the source is still bad (15+ CNs for example). I recommend when people are arguing over RD/blurb that posting admins use more care to arguments related to sourcing/quality before posting the RD, since that gets lost in the noise of the RD/blurb arguing. --Masem (t) 20:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No blurbs for anyone Everyone dies as surely as everyone poops. If you're famous and your article is in decent shape, you get noted in Recent deaths. Implies the exact same thing we'd spell out redundantly, without pushing news that needs extra words out of the limited spotlight. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, August 18, 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming you're aware that two of the current blurbs are recent deaths (one definitely less notable), and two other items in it about deaths? Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Aye, it's the rapid-fire pattern that made me put my tiny little foot down more than any one of its three "deserving" the "honour" or anything like that. They're all important in their own ways, and whether any one of us appreciates any of those ways depends on what we were into growing up where we did. The important thing is they were all around the age people normally are when they die unremarkable deaths.
If an overpass collapses on Missy Elliot or Narendra Modi is blown apart by a flying robot abroad, they'd be as deserving as the other seven hundred or so mentioned beneath today's stars without pictures. Because that sort of death has significant and lasting ramifications people in or about the presently-affected area should know about, far more urgent than the routine remembrance and replacement of a pop singer or prime minister. It's not like we can fit the seven hundred notable deaths individually in the clearly designated section for recent deaths, like we can for these three and the next one, so it makes sense to count them collectively as blurbs. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, August 19, 2018 (UTC)
  • Restore to Recent Deaths - there is no mention at present either in blurb or RD's, which is not acceptable - surely his death is noteworthy regardless of the quality of the article about him. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
    • The article still has a large # of citation needed tags, and I do not agree the "sweeping under the rug" of moving all the honors he got to a separate article per [2]. It cannot go up as RD in this state. --Masem (t) 04:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Blurb are we kidding here? The article quality and not the noteworthiness of the news is the debate? If it's a problem, fix the article, don't sweep the news under the rug because we're embarassed the house is messy. 2601:200:4001:E52E:9548:E4CF:7DBE:FB15 (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
    Feel free to fix the article, no-one's going to do it for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
    • "no-one's going to do it for you" - Oh dear, looks like Mystic Meg has hijacked TRM's account Face-smile.svg Let's hope her prophecy proves self-defeating and not self-fulfilling. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Neat, let's all work on it together. But I do not have a problem with an imperfect article being represented in a blurb on current events. If a meteor struck the earth but the article about the event was a mess, it would still be something we should have a blurb about happening. Article quality is not the issue, it being a current event in the news is, because that's what this portal is for. It's not the featured article, or a list of good articles, it's the current events portal. 2601:200:4001:E52E:9548:E4CF:7DBE:FB15 (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD once outstanding concerns are fixed: Quite found of Annan, but thinking rationally, his legacy concerning the UN isn't really profound, aside from being the first Black African to hold office and his restructure of the bureaucracy. 106.208.143.177 (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I did what I could to fix the article. Annan was part of the few people in power with some kind of conscience. He was also chairman of The Elders (organization). Now there are even fewer of them left. Wakari07 (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Re-added as RD, blurb discussion can continue I have reviewed the state of the article, and outside a couple placed that I think we'd prefer to see refs (but on blue-linked organizations), it's no longer in bad shape, so I have readded as an RD at minimum. I've already !voted for blurb, so I leave that assessment to a different admin. --Masem (t) 14:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Reading of consensus This may not be perfect, but I count 15 in favor of blurb and 11 against. Several of the opposes seem to want to ban on RD blurbs, which is a position I advocate, but ITNC is not the place to change policy. Several others have cited the Mandela/Thatcher threshold, which again I must point out is not a standard adapted by consensus. One may interpret "major transformative world leaders" however s/he wishes, but the frequent citation of these precedents has the risk of clouding policy (like the WP:MINIMUDEATHS fiasco). ghost 15:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Restating my support for blurb, if only because the leader of the UN and advocate for human rights through some of most polemic conflicts who has won the Nobel Peace Prize is more worthy of a blurb than the leader of a single nation, one of whom has a blur at the moment. You could pull Vajpayee if concerned about too many RDs. Kingsif (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment It is not a competition. Probability tells us that there may come a time where all 4/5 items on ITN will be very notable deaths. It happens! It is not something we should concern ourselves with. If we have consensus, just add this too. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support blurb. A major figure who was literally the world's top diplomat for a decade. Did important work on HIV/AIDS, peacekeeping etc. Important impacts around the world and Nobel prize winner. It's crazy that we gave blurbs to two people who shouldn't have had them, the refused one of the very rare deaths that do merit a blurb. Modest Genius talk 16:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
    It's good I'm not the only one noticing the intriguing anomaly of current two RD blurbs of people who are deemed "super-notable" and more worthy of blurb than Annan, whose obvious, global-level achievements need no mention here –Ammarpad (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment There's a consensus for a blurb. I completely agree with the above sentiments that Annan is equally worthy of a blurb as Franklin and Vajpayee. Davey2116 (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
    For me, he shouldn't be blurbed because they're blurbed, it should be other way round. Annan, was a global statesman. He deserves it on his own right way better than both current blurbs. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I don’t see issue with having 3 deaths on ITN, we regularly have 3 sporting events or 3 disasters posted on ITN. yorkshiresky (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Yorkshiresky We don't have a "Recent Sporting Events" section or a "Recent Disasters" section in the ITN box. We do have a "Recent Deaths" section and many will wonder why we are putting so many deaths in the ITN box when we have "Recent deaths". 331dot (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Because they meet our criterion on global influence and their deaths made international headlines. It is a coincidence that their deaths occurred so close together. We should not concern ourselves with some possible backlash.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Major world figure for the past 2-3 decades. Kurtis (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Article is good to go and IMO Annan's impact on the UN and as other political figures put it: Annan had a huge impact on the UN's mission for peace. He won a Nobel Prize and his death his making global headlines. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per all the above discussion. Annan had a lasting and notable influence on this world and its history. He certainly meets the Thatcher standard whatever that subjective criterion means. Growing up I thought of him as President of the Earth. I am a sci-fi buff and when I saw some futuristic President of Earth, he is the one I thought of. I would argue he ushered in the way for Obama. From a cultural standpoint, it was the first time in my lifetime, we saw a black man as one of the leaders of the free world.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted as blurb from RD space. Consensus has emerged through the discussion that Annan is notable enough for a blurb given his contributions to the UN, although some arguments about limited notability of his role as Secretary General were considered. Although some felt he did not meet the standard for a blurb posting, not rising to the level of "Mandela" or "Thatcher", the majority did feel that his impact was substantial enough and his recognition high enough for a blurb. Referencing issues appear to have been resolved, and Annan's article has solid depth of coverage of his life and work. Concerns about number of deaths listed as ITN blurbs or comparison of Annan's notability to that of Franklin or Vajpayee, or suggestions that all deaths should be posted to RD, were not considered; concerns related to ITN and RD procedures such as these should be addressed in a wider RFC, rather than an individual nom. Best, SpencerT•C 19:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted blurb) 2018 Asian Games

Proposed image
Article: 2018 Asian Games (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Asian Games open in Jakarta and Palembang, Indonesia.
Nominator: Hddty. (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: The opening ceremony will begin at 12.00 UTC. Hddty. (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Just need several additional sources for "Venues and infrastructures" section and a single source will probably suffice for the "Calendar" section, and then you have my vote.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I am specifically talk about the lack of sources in the tables in the sections I mentioned. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I have added source on venues table and calendar. Hddty. (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
We still need a source for the capacity of the stadiums and venues. Also there is a faulty source in "Marketing" section. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Support Ready to post, @Spencer:. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there any chance it's marked as Ongoing? --Angga1061 01:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angga1061 (talkcontribs)
I don't see why it shouldn't have a blurb first. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb An important sporting event. Regards, theTigerKing  02:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Ongoing right now we only ongoing the Olympics and the "world" cup - there are enough significant regional competitions that if we start ongoing them, there'll always be some sport in the box. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - not as big as the olympics, yes, but the only event that's remotely close to the olympics in terms of coverage is probably the world cup. This is about the same as if not more notable than the 2018 Commonwealth Games - which got a blurb. Juxlos (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb only but as soon as the games opens, a lot of work needs to be done in terms of tenses in the article. That needs to be checked before posting occurs. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb only the Olympics and the World Cup are the only sporting events that qualify for ongoing. Lepricavark (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blub This multinational sporting event is at an Asian level, which is considered continental level and very important already, probably equal to Euro Cup (football). Chongkian (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb then ongoing This is a major sporting event, unlike what Lepricavark, any event can be ongoing. --Danski454 (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb only Ongoing is just for Olympics or World Cup. Yogwi21 (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: ...and I'm afraid it's getting overlooked due to the Kofi Annan stuff. --Angga1061 05:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angga1061 (talkcontribs)
  • Posted blurb  — Amakuru (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Please post the photo added above for a while. It should help alleviate some of the "too many RDs as Blurbs" issue. The photo was published by Fars News Agency which licenses all their coverage under Creative Commons 4.0 International.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

August 17

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

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) Imran Khan

Consensus against posting as the election results were posted in July. --Tone 08:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed image
Articles: Imran Khan (talk, history) and Prime Minister of Pakistan (talk, history)
Blurb: Imran Khan, former cricketer and chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, is elected Prime Minister of Pakistan
Alternative blurb: Imran Khan is elected Prime Minister of Pakistan
Alternative blurb II: Imran Khan, aged 65, is elected Prime Minister of Pakistan
News source(s): Al Jazeera
Nominator: SheriffIsInTown (talk • give credit)
Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
That was different, he is elected prime minister today. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Was there any chance that from the July election that Khan would not have been elected now? We treated the July election as ITNR. --Masem (t) 22:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@Masem: Yes, there was a great chance that he would not have been elected. His party had a very thin plurality, it went a lot into building a coalition. For example if MQM-P would not have decided to support PTI and few independents would have supported the parties in opposition and opposition have been intact then there was a great chance that Shehbaz Sharif might have won. At the time of July election, it was not clear which way MQM-P would go. Also, after July elections, parties in opposition formed a Grand Alliance, only right before the election of prime minister, one party split up. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Just trying to make sure, this was an unusual case in that there was a good chance that he would not have been elected? (To compare, while the US elects the president in Nov, he's not inaugerated until Jan, and there are things that can happen, like death, that could disrupt that, but nearly no legal process (short of Bush v Gore) that could disrupt that, so we announced the US president in Nov. Obviously if something changed in that rare case, we'd likely post it here. I want to make sure we're talking a similar type of case here, this being a rare alignment of conditions leading to this point. ) --Masem (t) 23:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Of course, we could always consider each case on its merits rather than having to Wikilawyer everything into neat shoeboxes. In the case of the recent US election/inauguration, despite not being an American myself I argued strongly that both were necessary for ITN due to the global coverage and the expectation of our readers to find appropriate links on the main page. I know you and I respectfully disagree on that issue Masem, but sometimes there is room for flexibility anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
If my years growing up in Canada taught me anything about this system, Khan was all but certain to form a government. The Dutch(?) or some Baltic country went like a year and a half without forming a government. This isn't news. Sorry. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── MQM-P and his PTI were bitter rivals before the elections. It was well after a couple of weeks after the election when they decided to vote for him. There was a talk that if they did not support him and if he could not sway independents, he would not win premiership. US case is different, it is almost set in stone on election night who is going to be president come January. That was not the case in Pakistan. This guy had a 22 year old political struggle. There were a lot of players involved which included judiciary, military, and intelligence agencies. There was a thought that Shehbaz Sharif might be more suitable to these powers as Khan might not prove as much subservient as Sharif. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose we don't need to post this again. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@Power~enwiki: There is a difference between his party winning a thin plurality and him being actually elected prime minister. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment None of the above matters. This is a separate WP:ITNR than the ITNR for the general election. Only thing that matters is if the article is good enough. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
This is not ITNR. 331dot (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
My mistake. I now see the distinction made between head of state and head of government. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This was the most likely outcome. If his party was not put into government, that would have merited posting. 331dot (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above comments Regards, theTigerKing  02:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
331dot, I know it doesn't much matter in practice in this instance, but you've got two identical votes showing here, which 'looks all wrong', so perhaps you might remove one of them, please.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. Not sure how I duplicated that. Thank you 331dot (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose After election it was quite clear that PTI'll form the next government and Khan'll be its head. I know there was a thin plurality but still 116 seats is much more than PML(N)'s 64. Yeah if PML(N) had formed the government that'd have been surprising and we could've posted it just like how PTI formed government in Punjab despite securing less seats than PMLN. We cann't post a news saying "the leader of a party winning 116 seats (that's 33 more than 2nd party in the list) has been elected PM", as it was most likely, but we could've posted a blurb stating the "2nd most successful party's leader has been elected PM", as it'd have been surprising. Amirk94391 (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@Amirk94391: And, yet Khan got 176 votes while 172 were required hence my point that if MQM-P's four votes and just a couple of independents were not there for him and if current opposition had a united candidate which they had until two days before premier's election then Khan would not have won. I know it is not surprising but this guy is striving to become prime minister for last 22 years and finally becoming a prime minister in a country where change does not happen too often is incredibly important news. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @SheriffIsInTown: As per section 91 (4) of PPC (a bit eleborated here) if no one secures 172 votes there should be a round two between top two contestants of first round and the winner of round two'd become PM regardless of weather he/she received 172 votes or not. So even if Khan hadn't secured 172 votes he was still most likely to become PM. Moreover there was never a fight for government formation in centre. What you're saying is that if Khan wasn't supported by allies of PTI and some independents he would never've became PM. Well from my elaboration of Section 91 above it is clear that only PTI candidates alone could have elected Khan as PM in round two as opposition was divided. Amirk94391 (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

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

August 16

Portal:Current events/2018 August 16
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports

(Posted) RD: Yelena Shushunova

Article: Yelena Shushunova (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post
Nominator: Fram (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Olympic gold medalist in one of the main events, early death. Needs more sourcing, but shouldn't be too hard to finish Fram (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose just looks like that last para of the opening section of the "Senior career" section that needs refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Now fully sourced and in more objective, neutral tone. Support as ready. MurielMary (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Nice work on this one; seemed miles away yesterday. ghost 16:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael Persinger

Article: Michael Persinger (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CBC
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Article overall well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Support looks in good nick. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support well sourced and tidy prose, good to go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support looks good, the person is notable enough. Openlydialectic (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. Notability is not really a requirement for RD, the article quality is. And this article is good. --Tone 08:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted blurb): Aretha Franklin

closing per law of diminishing returns. Discussion is becoming less useful by the second. --Jayron32 11:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed image
Article: Aretha Franklin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Singer-songwriter Aretha Franklin dies from pancreatic cancer aged 76.
Alternative blurb: ​Singer-songwriter Aretha Franklin, dubbed "The Queen of Soul", dies from pancreatic cancer aged 76.
Alternative blurb II: ​American singer and songwriter Aretha Franklin dies aged 76.
News source(s): AP
Nominator: strikerforce (talk • give credit)
Updater: Ritchie333 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Muboshgu (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American singer / songerwriter StrikerforceTalk 14:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on sourcing issues. When she was in the hospital earlier this week I did check the state of her article and there's several unsourced paragraphst throughout which persist today. --Masem (t) 14:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
    • No more para without citation.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I think that for an RD the article is sufficiently sourced. Were someone to request a blurb that might be something different, but the RD is certainly worthy of inclusion in the RD section. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
    • No, we tend to have high standards for RD articles. Right now, I see a couple of sections without references, which is a no-go. List of singles and filmography are also unsourced. Needs some work, but it will probably not be difficult to find sources. --Tone 14:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Well sourced for a RD. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose multiple paragraphs with no references.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
    • No more paragraph without citation. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The overall state of the article is good, although additional work and referencing are always welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose some contentious claims without any references, simply not the stuff we put on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait. This deserves to go on the main page; hopefully by the close of play today, we can get the article appropriately copyedited and referenced. I had intended to get some book sources and take the article to GA at some point, but unfortunately I never got round to it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Now Strong support for blurb - whole article is referenced. Also see RIP Aretha Franklin: Five ways the Queen of Soul made history for more convincing arguments about blurb. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait until the article is fixed, then add quickly because this breaking news that will most likely remain in the news for some time. It would just be wrong if we were the only people who threw her death under the bus. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD and blurb, well-sourced with 107 citations. Gamaliel (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Emphatically Her article will always need work, and even after it is posted, it could change. This is NO REASON to withhold listing her in In The News. List her now. - Haxwell (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb pending improved sourcing. Aretha Franklin is a cultural icon and worthy of more than an RD mention. Kurtis (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb assuming we can get our act together. A plea from bus-drivers everywhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD, looks good enough as it is. However I oppose a blurb because this is an old person dying of natural causes and her influence on the world was far smaller than the Mandela / Thatcher standard we should apply per WP:ITN/DC. Modest Genius talk 16:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I thought we were supposed to evaluate their influence in their field. It's hard to overestimate her contribution to soul music.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thatcher couldn't even sing. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
As I write, the front page of BBC News has live reactions to Aretha's death left, right and centre. This is not just your typical musician's obituary. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Purely from a factual standpoint, this isn't "an old person dying of natural causes". She had pancreatic cancer. StrikerforceTalk 16:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Is cancer not natural? Modest Genius talk 16:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, cancer is one of the main ways that old people die and as much as it's tragic, there's nothing unnatural about it.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Sorry to bring up ITN's dirty little secret but Franklin IS on the Bowie level in music. Certainly more of a major influence in music then Carrie Fisher or Paul Walker were in acting. GuzzyG (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
GuzzyG Fischer and Walker were not old people who died of natural causes; their deaths were news themselves. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
None of those should have had blurbs IMO. Modest Genius talk 16:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Good thing the decision-making process here is based on consensus and not on opinion.--WaltCip (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
"Consensus" is often just an aggregation of opinions though. Particularly so at ITN which lacks almost any policy or guidelines to support our recommendations.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. Feel free to continue discussion about converting to blurb. --Jayron32 16:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)*
  • Comment I've added a suggested blurb. StrikerforceTalk 16:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb with caveat that list of number one r and b singles and filmography need referencing. A blurb is warranted given her influence in her field. It is a vital article level 4 the same as Margaret Thatcher so a blurb would be appropriate. Capitalistroadster (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I just found a citation that mentions Franklin's 1962 album The Tender, the Moving, the Swinging Aretha Franklin as having reached #69 on the Billboard Pop albums chart - specifically, the Clinton Digital Library. It doesn't seem to have gotten its information from Wikipedia. Even so, would anybody consider this to be a reliable enough source? Kurtis (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. It appears to be maintained by the Clinton Presidential Library, which is managed by the National Archives. StrikerforceTalk 16:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Period. Does this even need to be explained??--WaltCip (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, with following text: "Singer Aretha Franklin, dubbed the Queen of Soul, dies from pancreatic cancer aged 76." - Haxwell (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb She was a local singer. Except USA nobody around the world knew her. she had no world impact stastically speaking.
  • Support blurb "major transformative world leader in their field" per WP:ITNRD.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb not Thatcher or Mandela caliber. Not seeing this even in the US Top 20 at Google News. This is exactly what RD is for. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Top story under Entertainment at Google News. [3] StrikerforceTalk 16:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, under the "entertainment" section. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Top story on BBC News, The Guardian, The Independent. LaserLegs I'm going to wager you a tenner that when I go to the newsagent tomorrow morning, Aretha will be on the front cover of every broadsheet newspaper. (And she's not British). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
But will she still be there the day after tomorrow? Doubtful. Poor old slow print media. So slow. So old. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
And it's not often the BBC Radio 4 6 O'clock chimes get ushered in by a little prayer. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Prediction confirmed! I didn't think all the tabloids would follow suit, but despite The Sun being desperate to stick the knife into Danny Cipriani, every national British newspaper (including the Financial Times and the Daily Star) has got Aretha on the front cover. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Also front page news for Al Jazeera and Times of Israel. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
She was #9 on the Rolling Stone list of Greatest Singers of All Time and ranked 19th among the Billboard Hot 100 All-Time top artists.
She was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom and was only the second woman to be inducted to the UK Music Hall of Fame in 2005.
--- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb "Top of their field" would certainly apply here. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 16:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per her significant contributions to music, as explained in the above supports. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb hard to think of a more impactful female singer. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Needs Attention there is obvious, overwhelming support for a blurb at this point. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Hey 19, you better think (think). CoatCheck (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Weakest possible oppose to blurb I am not going to stand in the way of a blurb post, but I would like to point out the difference between Franklin and Bowie or Prince is that the latter were still touring and performing and their deaths were sudden, while Franklin was no longer singing, was known to be suffering from cancer, and had been hospitalized earlier in the week, so it was more a matter of when, not if. I fully otherwise see the reasons to post, and given we've been slow on blurbs lately, there's good reasons to use a blurb here. (but keep in mind about the India PM which definitely should get a blurb once to quality). --Masem (t) 17:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
(ec with post) Mandela retired 9 to 14 years before his death and his death was expected. Did we not post that? (I haven't cehced the archives)--- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
We certainly did post and posted Peter O'Toole the same month (aged 81). --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Blurb posted. There seems to be consensus at the moment...  — Amakuru (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-blurb post What about a photo? Are we just waiting for protection? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
    Is the photo above sufficiently free? The licence says it's not public domain in Canada and other places.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure the photo is sufficiently free, it's a Billboard advert photo from 1968 without a copyright notice, making it PD in the US but not elsewhere. You could try File:Aretha Franklin on January 20, 2009.jpg, which is a US government work and is PD, full stop. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
File:Aretha Franklin on January 20, 2009.jpg and File:Arethafranklin.jpg and File:Aretha Franklin.jpg are all free to use, but may not be up to quality standards of the main page; no picture may be better than a bad one. Others all seem to suffer from the copyright issues noted above. --Jayron32 17:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the first of those is too bad; it's a professional shot and wouldn't look out of place on a main news ticker, in my view. The other two, definitely not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Support image File:Aretha Franklin on January 20, 2009.jpg or File:Aretha Franklin 1968.jpg Haxwell (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Guys, consensus or not, this was posted before the referencing issue was fixed. In any case, I won't contest it, I will just remove the cause of death, since this is not the main focus here (we'd mention an accident but not an illness). --Tone 17:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Alternate blurb? The current is "American singer-songwriter Aretha Franklin (pictured) dies at the age of 76." Would there be any objection to changing it to "American singer Aretha Franklin (pictured) dies at the age of 76"? Two reasons: (1) Although she wrote some songs, her notability comes much more from her singing than her songwriting. (2) The term "singer-songwriter" implies a tradition and a way of working, as our article on the topic indicates, that does not really fit for her. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I would object. She has hundreds maybe thousands of credits on Allmusic.com for either composer or composer/lyricist or both or just lyricist. She was a singer-songwriter. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
But her article calls her a "singer and songwriter", which is not quite thing as "singer-songwriter" - that is used for an artist who almost exclusively performs their own material.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Paul Erik and Pawnkingthree. Though mass media does often confuse the two, there is a difference between a singer-songwriter and somebody who writes and sings their own music. Singer-songwriter is a style/approach espoused by figures like James Taylor, Bob Dylan, Tracy Chapman etc Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
In any case, if the issue you raise is related only specifically to the term "singer-songwriter", I would be ok with "American singer and songwriter Aretha Franklin...". Otherwise, we are perpetuating the same 1960s B.S. to lessen the contributions of the primary artist, especially women artists. She wrote or contributed to the writing of many of her songs. Give her the credit she has earned and has been recognized for. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree. Not sure "singer-songwriter" is appropriate. Also unsure about "pianist". But maybe further discussion is better placed at Talk:Aretha Franklin? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
(ec) I hadn't thought about User:Coffeeandcrumbs's point about what we might be perpetuating. So then yes, I think "singer and songwriter" on the main page would be best. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
So can we now go for Altblurb II? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
But per User:Tone's comment above, I would leave out the cause of death. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. In no way significant to her notability. But am wondering about "soul singer and songwriter". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Franklin (1967)
  • PP comment – It would seem more relevant to her career to use the photo from 1967 (right), when her "signature song" (per our article) Respect hit the charts, or the 1968 mug accompanying this nom (above).
    Also, instead of the rather generic "singer-songwriter," how about "soul singer" – ?? – Sca (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
No objection to "soul singer". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Please see discussions above regarding images. Neither the one used in the nom, nor the 1967 one you mention here are suitable for posting on the main page because they are tagged as without a copyright notice, making them public domain in the US but not elsewhere. Also, there seems to be consensus above not to remove the term "songwriter" from the blurb due to her large number of composition and songwriting credits. We could perhaps go with "sould singer and songwriter..." though?  — Amakuru (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
That would be soul singer and songwriter. Sca (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • support for blurb. A soul and music icon. I'm glad it was posted quickly.Johnsemlak (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per LaserLegs. A death should make the main pages, not just the entertainment pages, to be a blurb. Banedon (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support for rd, neutral on blurb. I don't believe that entertainment figures are to be considered as influential worldwide as figures such as Nelson Mandela or Stephen Hawking, but I'm also not certain that they necessarily need to be in order to warrant an ITN blurb. However, I also don't feel that I'm very qualified to speak of how influential she is or is not, so take this with a grain of salt. If possible, I would change the infobox picture to one of the photographs of her in the 1960s as these are more relevant to her career than the one of her at the Obama inauguration, but I understand that copyright may prevent this from being possible. I agree with the decision to exclude the cause of death, as it is her life that made her death notable, not her death itself. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 01:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull/Oppose blurb Where were other admins looking when someone posted this as a blurb? I am pretty sure we have an established tradition of only posting deaths of Mandela-size figures to the ITN, and this person is sure as hell isn't, neither by the importance, nor by the number of views of her page before her death. Very disappointed in a yet another example of heavy American/Western bias on Wikipedia. Sad. Openlydialectic (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull/Oppose blurb I find it extraordinary that a blurb was posted at 17:17 UTC, only 3 hours 11 minutes after the item was nominated, especially when her death was already on the main page under Recent Deaths. It wouldn't hurt to wait a bit longer to allow all Wikipedians a chance to comment on the nomination, particularly those in Oceania/Asia where it was nighttime when it was hastily posted to the mainpage. Chrisclear (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Chrisclear Arbitrary minimum discussion times have been suggested before but never gained consensus. We usually get criticism that we are too slow to post things. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
331dot I didn't explain myself properly the first time. What I meant was that I don't believe there was strong consensus to post this at 17:17 UTC, and the simple way to resolve that would have been to wait a while longer, to allow consensus to form. I can understand posting an article for a truly influential dead person like Nelson Mandela, but for someone like Aretha Franklin whose influence was smaller, and where consensus had not been formed, it would have been better to wait longer than 3 hours and 11 minutes. Chrisclear (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
No, not really fair enough. It was already main page news across the globe and had a consensus to post a blurb here. No question about that whatsoever. Would it have been better to wait 4 hours? 6 hours? 12 hours? You can't please all the people all the time, but if you want a minimum waiting time then propose it, but this decision was beyond question at the point it was posted, not a problem at all. We've gone beyond the Mandela requirement and have done for some time (since people like Debbie Reynolds have been blurbed). And as yet, I've seen not one single reader question the decision to post a blurb. So it looks like Wikipedia got it 100% right on this occasion. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull/Oppose blurb Not a world transforming figure therefore doesn't merit a blurb. Never even heard of her before she got hospitalised recently. 39.57.133.182 (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
You never having heard of her doesn't mean she was not highly influential in her field, which I believe you would discover in doing research about it. Many media outlets would disagree with you, based on the reporting and her Presidential award she received. 331dot (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd never heard of the Ponte Morandi until last week (and I've worked on quite a few highway and bridge articles myself) but I didn't see much call for pulling that.F Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Maybe you work in health insurance? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Bing! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The article received a million views in the days leading up to this nomination being posted. It will be interesting to see what the pageviews are for yesterday, when they come in - I wouldn't be surprised if they topped a million on their own. Also, can we leave out the calls of "bias"; remember that the article has, in part, been improved by a shout out on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, whose very raison d'etre is to help counteract bias (in this case, bias against women, and especially black women). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Aretha Franklin is still on the front page of the BBC and NYTimes websites, a day after her death. These are online news mediums and not the "old slow print" that LaserLegs was bemoaning with Trumpian rancor. This is a death that is making the world slow down and catch its breath. Posting it as a blurb was the correct decision. Not posting as a blurb would have reeked of systemic bias.--WaltCip (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "A death should make the main pages" and indeed it has, across the globe! This underpins the posting of a blurb to be exactly the correct decision. And a belated well done to everyone concerned in bringing the article up in quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. The AP source used as the reference above clearly says A professional singer and accomplished pianist. Aretha was the Queen of Soul music, known mostly by her big voice. Out of her 20 number-one R&B songs, she only wrote two ("Call Me" and "Daydreaming"). That's not enough notability to call her a songwriter. I'd say soul singer is a better description. Bluesatellite (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted Blurb) Atal Bihari Vajpayee

Proposed image
Articles: Atal Bihari Vajpayee (talk, history) and Prime Minister of India (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Former Prime Minister of India Atal Bihari Vajpayee dies at the age of 93.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: Former Indian Prime Minister Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Under his leadership india had kargil war.India also had it's first Nuke test which has changed India's position on the world completely.Sir Joseph (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Some sections are not referenced at all. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, Oppose RD given quality standards are met. He served 3 times as Prime Minister of India. Ask if you would post Obama/Bush as RD or Blurb and figure out how much systemic bias exists if its the latter and this death is not. 155.64.138.81 (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Point of order did the RD option exist then? Hard to imagine Ford would qualify under current standards. Do we intend to blurb the death of every head of state and government if the country is big enough? Do we go by population, geography, or GDP? This could get out of hand quickly. ghost 17:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on sourcing. I would say that death of one that served as the effective head of state for the world's second-most populous nation probably should get a blurb. --Masem (t) 15:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
As your actually supporting to add the nominations to the blurb. You must actually write 'support' rather than 'oppose'. Please correct the mistake at the earliest. Adithya Pergade (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Working; I hope to address the referencing issues soon. And for the record, I agree, the subject definitely deserves a blurb. MBlaze Lightning talk 15:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb pending referencing issues are resolved. 39.57.133.182 (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support for a blurb once current issues with referncing are resolved. For those who don't know, Prime-Minister of India's the "real" leader of India, and this guy served as one for a total of 7 years. I wouldn't expect problems with getting a blurb once one of the former US presidents die, and India is a country with 5 times as many people as there are in the US, and since it's a democracy, all of the adults there elected him to his post. So he definitively deserves a blurb, more so than the singer whos death is currently featured on the ITN (with a photo too!) Openlydialectic (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb/RD I agree with the above statement, as a leader of world's largest democracy that too a developing country with a lot of problems, a person is entrusted great burden perhaps more than any other country and a person must be remembered for the same. I ask the administers to take a decisions taking a clear perspective of his legacy. Adithya Pergade (talk) 06:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb/RD basis prominence of the subject. Considered one of the best PMs India ever had. --User:WoodElf 07:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. This PM was not a world transformative leader or tip-top in their field like Margaret Thatcher or Nelson Mandela. I'm not certain every US President would necessarily merit a blurb; we didn't have RD for Gerald Ford or he might have been put there. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
If your argument is that you're citing an established practice, then I am sorry but we just posted a blurb AND a picture of some random American singer nobody's heard about outside of the US (her article before her death was visited on average 2-3 times less often than the article about the Indian PM), so no, I don't think your argument works. On a side note, didn't we post a blurb about Fords' death? Openlydialectic (talk) 08:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
RD did not exist at the time of Ford's death, I believe Ford would not get a blurb today(nor every US President). If you were to research her, you would find that the description "some random American singer" is grossly inadequate. But you are entitled to your opinion. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
"we just posted a blurb AND a picture of some random American singer nobody's heard about outside of the US" - would you like it if I opposed this because of "some random former politician who nobody outside India has ever heard of"? Keep the discussion on sources and page views, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I would if you cited your arguments for that statement. I cited mine - the importance of her post and the number of views her article had received. Openlydialectic (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
*Point of order A person cannot be judged on how popular they were nor were they internationally honored and were praised in history or civics text books but rather on what work they have done, how did their decisions and doings influence the surroundings and the future and being leaders how did they protect the interests of their citizens. Hence I would ask all the debaters to not make baseless statements just to prove their point. When it comes to the subject we are discussing, our statements must be strictly guided on the legacy of the person in question . If anyone does not approve of Aretha Franklin being on the blurb then they must oppose the posting of the blurb on the place so provided [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#(Posted_blurb):_Aretha_Franklin ], This is not a platform for anyone to oppose her being on the blurb. Adithya Pergade (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The above point of order seems to rather miss the point. Nobody is using this item as a platform to oppose a blurb for Franklin. One or more editors is using her blurb as an argument for Vajpayee to be given a blurb, which seems a perfectly legitimate argument to make (regardless of whether one agrees with it or not, or has no opinion on the matter), even if some of the wording used may understandably be seen by some as somewhat injudicious.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb A notable head of state of the largest democracy. In office during india's nuclear tests.SaurabhMittal523 (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
He was not head of state, the President of India is head of state. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Don't fret over semantics: the president of India is a ceremonial post. The Prime Minister of India is the person in charge of the country. Openlydialectic (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
You may call it "semantics" if you wish but the fact remains that this individual was not head of state, but head of government, two very different things. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@331dot: Prime Minister is de facto head of state in India While President is de jure like Queen & Prime Minister in Great Britain.-- Godric ki Kothritalk to me 10:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
This isn t the place to argue that point, and it isn't pertinent to this nomination. I was simply correcting the OP. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality - article is full of [citation needed] tags. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb The former head of government of the largest democracy, who played a big role in letting MNCs (Multi-National Companies) into India, Pokhran-II, and the Kargil War is important enough to be featured. Besides, where would India be without him?RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb American singer and songwriter Aretha Franklin's had no international deplomatic ties or connection meanwhile 3 times PM of indai is getting reject here! this is pure bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.233.52.254 (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Singers and politicians are two different fields. There is no requirement of international ties to be posted here; if there were, very little would be posted. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I am amenable to supporting an RD (I have no opinion on blurb), but I'm sure as heck not supporting anything that's covered in {{fact}} tags. Fix that first, and I'll revisit it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb As he is a prominent and one of the best prime ministers of India.-- Godric ki Kothritalk to me 10:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Needs improvement for RD as there are numerous {{cn}} tags. Oppose blurb; he was PM of India for 6 years, but did not have major worldwide influence and falls short of the Mandela/Thatcher threshold we apply. Arguments that he was one of India's 'best' PMs are subjective, meaningless, and not part of the criteria at WP:ITN/DC. I don't think Franklin should have had a blurb either; pointing at that is just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so very unconvincing. Modest Genius talk 10:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@Modest Genius: How can you say that he did not have major worldwide influence? Pokhran-II conducted in his prime ministerial reign after which many countries of world imposed ban on India. Also Kargil War happen in his reign.-- Godric ki Kothritalk to me 10:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose At least 19 {{Citations needed}} tags and two whole sections tagged with {{Refimprove section}}. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. It appears the blurb supporters are focusing on the size of India. That's fine; but lets take that to it's natural conclusion - post all Indian PMs, US Presidents, paramount leaders of China. No big problems there. Next comes Indonesia, Brazil...queue the crickets. Leaders of certain countries (G8 comes to mind) will have a greater potential to impact the world, but these positions should make the holders blurb-worthy per se, as this opens us up to clear bias toward the US, UK and India (i.e. the home countries of the bulk of our editors). ghost 11:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • On notability grounds, this should be a blurb, especially considering Franklin's position there. Vajpayee was Prime Minister, for several years, of a country of over a billion people. Note that that was one in every six persons on the planet, not to mention India is a significant global player. A huge deal. ITN on the the English Wikipedia tries to avoid bias towards the English-speaking world, and excluding such a person on notability grounds would be terrible. Posting should still be subject to quality assessment though. --LukeSurl t c 11:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I knew that was going to happen. Vajpayee was not a pop singer, Franklin was not a prime minister, there is no comparison there, none, none at all. (I opposed a blurb for Franklin, btw). --LaserLegs (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb not Thatcher/Mandela. Oppose RD on quality. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • not Thatcher/Mandela

/Franklin* --Openlydialectic (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Meaningless I'm afraid. Didn't Debbie Reynolds and Carrie Fisher already have blurbs? And Prince? And Bowie? And ... and ... and ... ? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
This'll happen every time we burb a death, for the next few weeks there will be "Well we did a blurb for X, therefore we must Y and Z". FWIW I don't think Prince, or Fisher, or Bowie or the fast and furious guy should have had blurbs. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb He was not only a 2-time PM of the world’s largest democracy, but was instrumental in making India a nuclear power, of which there are only 9 of in the world. EternalNomad (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I've dealt with the two orange-tagged sections. There's now about a dozen {{citation needed}} tags, but that's not an insurmountable task. --LukeSurl t c 13:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb on improvement..three time prime minister definitely qualifies once article is dealt with cn tags..The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Slightly Oppose Blurb, but strongly encourage current editing so it can make RD ASAP. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose still not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Many citation tags remain.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment added some cn tags - when you see a whole paragraph, with one ref at the end, and the last sentence appears to be an aside to the rest of the paragraph, you can generally assume that whole para is not supported by the ref and needs to be checked. I don't have time today to check this whole thing, before we rush this "OMFG VIP not a singer also India has a BILLION PEOPLE" article to the main page, could someone please check it in detail? Or not, I've been told such practice is obstructive, maybe it's a waste of time. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
    • The article is also full of flowery garbage like "major achievement was a significant expansion" and "army units were swiftly rushed into". Needs a copy edit too for MP. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article has several citation needed templates. On the other hand, one of the famous PM of largest democracy definitely deserves blurb, so once the sourcing issue is resolved, a blurb should be posted.Amirk94391 (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
    • "PM of largest democracy definitely deserves blurb" - why? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Because random American singers and former presidents had theirs, and most people here are tired of Western-centric bias on wikipedia. Openlydialectic (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
        • I think it's been adequately demonstrated that your ongoing use of the word "random" with respect to Franklin is completely at odds with the mainstream press around the globe and the strong consensus here at ITN, so if you want people to take you more seriously, you should refrain from continuing to make such assertions. And if "most people here are tired" then there are plenty of other Wikipedias that are desperate for attention, and other projects altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll say this once and then hush up - we are all concerned about bias. But has it occurred to you that "that other nomination" is also a stand for systemic bias against women, and particularly against black women? Now, if you can clear down the remaining tags, I think having an RD is reasonable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Do you think its a coincidence that most of the blurb supporters are members of WP:IND or IPs? Bias is about thinking outside of one's own sphere, wherever that is; not just the U.S. The rules say "major transformative world leaders in their field." Ask yourself: who were the most trasformative living statesmen on August 1st? How about singers? It's not even a conversation. ghost 16:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@GreatCaesarsGhost: I am not Indian, and have no bias towards India at all. I didn't even know this guy existed before he died. Openlydialectic (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Because he sparked a nuclear arms race in the Indian subcontinent and then made peace talks with Pakistan; so he actually made a lasting impression in his field and the impact of his actions was not limited to his country. Also, is it just me or do musicians (English language ones) have a relatively low bar for getting a blurb? 1.39.159.71 (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator's rationale. Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 16:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Question is there a tag for "weasel words" (if that's even the correct term)? The article is full of historic this and significant that it reads like a puff piece from the guys personal publicist. Remove or tag (and if tag, with what)?. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb except for article quality. The so-called "Thatcher/Mandela standard" is way too restrictive; with regards to some of the discussions above, I think every former U.S. President should qualify for a blurb, and so should this prime minister of India. Davey2116 (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – all the energy spent in debating whether or not to post a blurb would be better used ensuring that the article is up to standards... otherwise, it won't even make it to RD and this will all be moot. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
    @FlyingAce: I was actually going to make the identical comment to this one an hour ago! It's quite comical the way they're arguing over which of the two options to use when we can't use post anyway because of the article quality. I've been trying to fix a few of the refs myself...  — Amakuru (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD - OK, I've fixed all the remaining citation tags in the article, so seems ready to do now and I've already posted it to RD. As for whether it should be blurbed, I'm a little unsure if there's a consensus yet for that so the debate can continue here now. I'm inclined to support it myself, as he was leader of a major nation for quite some time, but then again I can see the "slippery slope" argument if we are to consider deaths for all possible leaders of all G20 countries as blurbworthy.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Australian prime ministers typically don't get the blurb treatment. Data on other nations in recent years is quite scant - there haven't been that many deaths of longish-term leaders in recent years. The last Indian was ages ago in 2004, pre-RD days, and it did receive a blurb, but in a template with only three items... one of which was the Queen's Christmas broadcast to the UK. Sounds like a slow news day. IK Gujral only got an RD in 2012, but then again he was PM for less than a year so clearly less notable than Vajpayee.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
We blurbed a German Chancellor who didn't even get a blurb at the de wiki, to my knowledge no POTUS has died since RD was created (and I'd oppose blurbs for Carter, Bush Sr, Clinton and probably Obama). --LaserLegs (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - I'm leaving for the night now, but on reflection I think I support a blurb for this PM. Although not necessarily a household name in the western world, and perhaps less global reach than Thatcher, Mandela (and Carrier Fisher/Arethra Franklin?) I do think he was a very important figure in the world's second most populous country and from a WP:WORLDWIDE point of view we should respect that. If this later leads to a glut of similar nominations in future, then we can always rethink this benchmark. Wikipedia is a work in progress and nothing is set in stone.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Final Comment (I promise) these ESL articles get the worst grammar, and that's one of the things that keeps them off the main page. "The UPA Government on 1 July 2013 accepted before Supreme Court that National Democratic Alliance Government led by Vajpayee has developed half the roads in last 32 years in their 5-year term." WTF? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you should fix those then? You had spent more time typing this comment here than you would have spent correcting those spelling problems. Openlydialectic (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Fix it how? I can't grok the intended meaning of that rubbish enough to fix it. I read articles and check refs before I breathlessly impose my POV of "importance" on the project, if that fails some WP:MINIMUMPARTICIPATION then go ahead and wander on over to WP:AN/I and complain about me, which seems to be in vogue anyway. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb The funeral possession was attended by the heads and representatives from various countries [commentaries running from elsewhere]. The entire Indian political class and the famous were united to offer their condolences and saying their final goodbyes. Tributes pouring in social media was similar to the ones we had seen when Steve Jobs or Former president of India - APJ Abdul Kalam [infact I had nomiated his passing away as a blurb and could see similar opposition commentary running at that time, but was ultimately posted as a blurb then] passed away. The guidelines are quite clear - The event must be notable which had been in this case. Let's not comment on, if his passing away was as noticeable as of Nelson Mandela or Thatcher. He was quite popular in the subcontinent and has contributed significantly to Indian polity. Not every Indian leader will make it to the blurb [IK Gujral in the past]. If we are looking into posting of RD posting in the blurb, we definitely should not consider the "size and scale of India". Not every leader conducts the nuclear tests every day. His death has been covered widely by the foreign media as well. If the article is fixed, we should consider it for blurb now as many oppositions above were based upon on poor references and citations which looks ok now [Not sure, if they are coming back to change their voting status again].

Regards, theTigerKing  02:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Support blurb. This assumes that the quality is sufficient; I've not looked at the article, so I'm neutral on that side of things. This person was the head of government of one of the largest and most influential countries in the world; by what kind of standard is he less deserving of a blurb than some singer? If any standards (other than article quality) make him unworthy of a blurb, it's time for a serious revision of the standards. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. While it has been argued that the article deserves a blurb simply by virtue of him having been PM of India, please note he was PM during a particularly significant period in modern Indian history. India carried out nuclear tests under his tenure, declaring nuclear capability, fought a major war with Pakistan, came close to another war which could potentially have been nuclear, had a commercial aircraft hijacked by terrorists. President Clinton's visit was the first state visit to India by a US president in 22 years. All of these can be categorized as major international events. In addition, economic reforms accelerated India's GDP growth, paving the way for greater influence in world affairs. There is sufficient rationale for a blurb here. In addition, most of the citation issues have now been resolved, in case that is the primary concern.  Shobhit102 | talk  03:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurp Not a quality article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numancia (talkcontribs) 03:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb in principle (I leave article quality for others to judge). At least to me, being PM of India for over 6 years seems an adequate reason for a blurb. Some claim he shouldn't get a blurb because he allegedly is not in the Thatcher/Mandela class. I disagree, even if we have to accept the Thatcher/Mandela standard (and I'm not clear why we should have to, nor am I all that clear that such a standard has any objective meaning). Measured by persons ruled multiplied by years ruled, I have every reason to think that he actually affected the lives of far more people than either Thatcher or Mandela (and that's without even asking what presiding over India becoming a nuclear power has done for or against the security of the entire human race). Tlhslobus (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb on significance. I'm still working my way through the article, but the event is significant enough to post a blurb. We've posted, among others, Leonard Cohen and Aretha Franklin in the not-too-recent past. Vajpayee was the effective head of state in the world's most populous democracy. More importantly, unlike I. K. Gujral (mentioned above as the only other Indian Prime Minister to have died in recent years) he was more or less re-elected; which is to say he wasn't a consensus candidate from a minor party in a coalition government, but a leader re-elected more or less in his own right in what was then the largest election in human history (no, I'm not going to provide a source; every Indian general election is the largest in human history, thanks to its large and growing population). What's more, he was a founder member and the first president of the Bharatiya Janata Party, and played a large role in its predecessor the Bharatiya Jana Sangh; the BJP is India's ruling party today. All in all, an influence certainly as large, probably far larger, than that of any musician or film star we have recently posted. Vanamonde (talk) 05:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, but change picture Full support blurb as the article is very good and had a huge impact on his nation. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb: 3-time Prime Minister of India, was instrumental in making India a nuclear power and prevented a border skirmish from escalating into a nuclear war. Opened up the Indian market and introduced reforms which industralized India. Dignitaries from many, many nations attended his funeral. The article's quality has also been greatly improved. 117.208.198.223 (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Blurb posted.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Given the contentiousness of this nom, a comment explaining your reading of consensus here would be appropriate and appreciated. ghost 12:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose blurb not a world-transforming life or death. May have been highly significant figure in his country but barely known outside of India and certainly not a global figure. RD listing sufficient. MurielMary (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
How exactly was his life not influential? The argument that a leader is barely known outside his own country can virtually be applied to everyone, even those termed as "globally influential" (and that isn't even the case here). Presiding over the world's largest democracy for three different terms while it became a nuclear power and preventing a conflict that almost escalated into use of nuclear weapons itself is a huge bequest to protecting the security of the world, and that is just one among his countless contributions. A second offering would be his travel to the war's opponent, which worked wonders in easing tensions present in the subcontinent and extended over the continent. This single action itself saved millions of lives, and the world as we know now may not have existed. The fact that Indians account for one person in groups of six would indeed mark his reach as "global", coupled with the high level of popularity he enjoys in areas of Indian influence: Pakistan, Indonesia, along with parts of the rest of the world. WP:WORLDWIDE asks us to respect that. 2402:8100:390C:3B0C:944E:FD7D:480F:41AD (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
There are plenty of national leaders who are also globally known e.g. Angela Merkel, Barack Obama, JFK, Margaret Thatcher. This person was a national leader who was not globally known. Being well known to a lot of people, all of whom reside in one part of the world (i.e. the Indian/Pakistani subcontinent) doesn't meet the requirements for a blurb at ITN. MurielMary (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
And where has such a policy been written/implemented? I don't find any corroboration as such. You never heard of him, but that doesn't suggest that he was not highly influential in his field. 2402:8100:390C:3B0C:944E:FD7D:480F:41AD (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Here: "the death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news#Recent_deaths_section He was not a world leader, he was a national leader. Should be posted at RD only, not blurb. MurielMary (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
As per the Oxford Dictionary, a world leader is "The leader of a large or powerful country; a person who has global political influence." Vajpayee checks both (global political influence isn't global recognition; a ruler of India has visceral political influence globally), as well as a "major transformative" leader, quoted from the Wikipedia mainspace article. 2402:8100:390C:3B0C:944E:FD7D:480F:41AD (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb; the bar keeps getting set lower and lower on "blurb deaths" with both Franklin and Vajpayee being very notable figures dying of natural causes in old age. The result is there is precedent creep, citations of "well X got a blurb so should Y". The blurb is not conveying any more information than the RD apart from age of death and occupation. The standards of what is a blurb and what is an RD is notably arbitrary and entirely lacking in global perspective - seemingly one group of dedicated users who earnestly believe the notability of a subject (Fisher, Franklin, etc.) can simply crowd out any dissenting voices. I will say Annan's death is more widely reported globally than both Franklin and Vajpayee. Africa, Asia, U.S. and Europe all reported Annan on front pages. It would be a stretch to find a Japanese or Taiwanese newspaper reporting on Franklin on its front page. Colipon+(Talk) 18:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

August 15

Portal:Current events/2018 August 15
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted to RD) RD: Rita Borsellino

Article: Rita Borsellino (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): https://www.agi.it/cronaca/rita_borsellino_storia-4272285/news/2018-08-16/
Nominator: MurielMary (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Fully referenced to secondary sources MurielMary (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Short but sufficient and well sourced to majority secondary sources. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. She might not be there long though. Already the oldest on the list...  — Amakuru (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018 Kabul suicide bombing

Article: August 2018 Kabul suicide bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Afghanistan, 34 students are killed in in the Shia region of Kabul by a suicide bombing of ISIS
Alternative blurb: ​A suicide bombing in Kabul, Afghanistan left 48 people dead and 67 others injured.
News source(s): [4]
Nominator: Saff V. (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: High number of casualties (67 people),casualties include 34 students Saff V. (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Added altblurb. The article is ITN-Worthy and the story is getting media coverage. I know Afghanistan is a place where attacks are usual but 48 casualties is a significant number. Moreover, most of the deceased are students. I support altblurb. Amirk94391 (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Shipley Rowlinson

Article: John Shipley Rowlinson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator and updater: HaEr48 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: British chemist with significant contribution to science. HaEr48 (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The personal life section is far too trivial (maybe a specific climb could be cited?), but nothing to keep it off MP. ghost 11:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to me. Nice to see chemists on the main page. shoy (reactions) 15:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Good to go.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

RD: Ajit Wadekar

Article: Ajit Wadekar (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: Former India Test and One Day International captain Sherenk1 (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose too much unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article needs massive work on sourcing. Amirk94391 (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

(Removed) Remove from Ongoing: Carr Fire

Article: Carr Fire (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Nominator: Spencer (talk)

The most recent prose update from Carr_Fire#August is from 5 days ago; without continuing substantial updates, this should not remain on ongoing. SpencerT•C 02:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I think we could replace it with Mendocino Complex Fire, which is bigger and still partially ongoing. Then we can remove that when it's contained. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove adding any other fire should be a separate nomination and not tucked away in the removal of this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. It was more of a passing thought than a serious one. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
FYI, according to CalFire, the Carr Fire is 65 percent contained but still draws 4,000 firefighters. Sca (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - while still ongoing, there are no longer sufficient significant updates to merit this remaining up. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove If the article isn't being updated, it isn't eligible for ongoing anymore. --Jayron32 15:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove - A majority of the fire is contained.--WaltCip (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove - still burning, not getting updates, not in the news. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove - Agree that the topic is getting stale. Jusdafax (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Removed Stephen 00:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

August 14

Portal:Current events/2018 August 14
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) RD: Morgana King

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Morgana King (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): LA Times, WA Post (original reporting)
Nominator: Strikerforce (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: Longtime jazz singer also known for roles in The GodfatherStrikerforceTalk 16:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - She actually passed away in March, but it is only now being confirmed publicly. Forgive me if this nomination is gravely in error, given the circumstances, but I didn't see anything in the RD guidelines that specifically covered a situation like this (unless I just completely missed it). StrikerforceTalk 16:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Washington Post was the first to report that she had died in March but no one reported it until this week. Just a death that slipped through the radar, it seems. Using the date it was first reported is an acceptable practice as long as we're clear there was no coverage back when she died (which I cannot find). --Masem (t) 17:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
    That is exactly what the NYTimes says as well including giving credit to WashPo. --- Coffeeandcrumbs
  • Oppose I can't read the source and the article doesn't cover why we didn't discover her demise until some five months later, but in any case, the article needs works on referencing. I think it's a legit nomination by the way, as long as the death hasn't been reported in the interim. Perhaps RD needs a clearer guideline to cover this scenario. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted) Ponte Morandi collapse

Articles: Autostrada A10 (Italy) (talk, history) and Ponte Morandi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Ponte Morandi, a major bridge near the northern Italian city of Genoa, has collapsed with 'dozens' of casualties reported.
Alternative blurb: ​Morandi bridge, a part of the A10 motorway, and about 100 metres tall, collapses and kills tens of motorists.
Alternative blurb II: ​A portion of the Ponte Morandi motorway bridge near Genoa, Italy collapses, killing at least 22 people.
News source(s): BBC News
Nominator and updater: Hektor (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: This is a major collapse. Hektor (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Support on notability. Oppose on lack of content - literally all there is a the moment is a single sentence that gives less information than the blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I've taken the liberty of rewording the blurb. There's work ongoing at Ponte Morandi to get it up to date with news of the collapse, so it should be much more informative shortly. Prioryman (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and Oppose per Thryduulf. Also suggest blurb need a little rewording before posting. -- KTC (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article expansion/sourcing has taken place since the nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is improving, and of sufficient quality to feature. Major bridge collapse with a fair amount of casualties. Mjroots (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Details/update are appropriate at this time. Added Alt2 to be more straightforward blurb. --Masem (t) 13:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Significant. Article looks good. Marking as ready. Mamyles (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting Alt II – Muboshgu (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Battle of Ghazni

Articles: Battle of Ghazni (2018) (talk, history) and Ghazni offensive (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Afghanistan, hundreds are killed as the Taliban seize most of the strategic city of Ghazni and the surrounding province.
Alternative blurb: ​Afghan and NATO-led forces continue to battle the Taliban in the strategic city of Ghazni.
News source(s): NYTimes, CBS, Reuters, BBC, PBS
Nominator and updater: Monopoly31121993(2) (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: This is a major battle and is being reported as such by all accounts. Ghazni is Afghanistan's sixth largest city and nothing on this scale has taken places since the Battle of Kunduz (2016), two years ago. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I have adjusted the blurbs. There may be room for more improvement. IMO, calling the city "historic" was not necessary just in this context. I would also suggest finding more sources beside Long War Journal. The reference section lacks variety. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Death and transfer of territory are routine in warfare. Is the casualty rate here especially high, or are we putting weight on the strategic part? If it's the latter, I think we need to meet a very objective standard in applying that value. It tends to raise more questions than provides answers (strategic to whom or to what goal? According to whom? How many cities are so designated?) ghost 12:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I've updated the article with the latest information today. Yes, the casualty rate here especially high here. No other battle has reached this level in a long time.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Saw it dominate news for a while. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - This should be posted now since it will be old news in a couple of days. It's also uncommon to have news from this region, most Afghanistan news is about Kabul.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - A milestone in the long conflict. Jusdafax (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the original blurb. Article has come along nicely since I noticed it doing NPP. This particular region of the country hasn't seen much conflict in the last couple of years, if I'm not mistaken, so I'd consider this newsworthy. StrikerforceTalk 19:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment We have competing articles about the same subject. I have noted the second article - which was actually the first created - in the nomination. I've started a discussion on the Talk of the editor that created Ghazni offensive to try to reach a consensus on a merge. StrikerforceTalk 20:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I've now migrated everything worth migrating from Battle of Ghazni (2018) to Ghazni offensive. It should be all set.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Gigantic news, arguably the biggest victory of the terrorists in the 17-year long conflict Openlydialectic (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The combined article is well sourced. The story is news worthy. I prefer the original blurb. Altblurb doesn't say anything notable. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted original blurb. Sam Walton (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Sam Walton: I'm confused about this. The blurb was outdated pretty much by the time it was nominated here: the article states that the Taliban withdrew from the city on the 14th. How did it get posted as such? ansh666 20:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

August 13

Portal:Current events/2018 August 13
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Politics and elections

(Closed) RD: Jim Neidhart

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Jim Neidhart (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: GreatCaesarsGhost (talk • give credit)

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

 ghost 18:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now; too much of the article is unreferenced. Aim for 1 per paragraph minimum, with contentious statements given special attention. Also, several of the accomplishments section lacks refs. --Jayron32 18:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose horrible article, needs complete overhaul, nowhere need ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
comment - Calling it a "horrible article", is a bit of a stretch. The article does need some more sourcing, however. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article got worked on, now ready.LM2000 (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    Still whole paragraphs unreferenced, inappropriate for a BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Looks like at least one reference per paragraph now. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Too late to post?LM2000 (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

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

(Closed) RD: Somnath Chatterjee

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Somnath Chatterjee (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Times of India
Nominator: Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Noted Parliamentarian elected Ten times and Former Speaker of Lok Sabha Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • With your MOS:SOB, that sounds like quite a title. 159.53.78.142 (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose at present, as the article is in dire need of more references. Vanamonde (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Vanamonde The article needs some updates.I have added some references. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose early sections have unreferenced paragraphs. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

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

References

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: