Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/April 2017

RD: Sodimejo

• Neutral — The article looks alright and is completely properly sourced, but it is very short. Surely, some more details of Sodimejo's long life could be added, or some more information on his age. There's a decent chance that this man was indeed the oldest man alive for a while, even if he was born thirty years later than he claims. It would be nice if there were some sections in this article, naturally expanding it and turning it into a C-class article. I still have difficulty grasping what level of quality is needed for RD, so I stay neutral on this for now. ~Mable (chat) 09:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now - article quality is not there yet as it's not much more than a stub.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Saeed Karimian

• Oppose the article is a stub. Aiken D 12:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ditto. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Ueli Steck

• Support One of the world's most famous climbers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it's not about how famous he is, that's a given, it's about the quality of the article which is not adequate for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. There's a lot to do before this can be on the Main Page. Aiken D 19:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I've taken the
  bold step of removing the "Climbing achievements" section entirely (copied and pasted it to talk for reference), meaning that there shouldn't be any unreferenced statements in the article now and it should be ready to post. Stuck's major achievements are already discussed in prose in the career section. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 01:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Posted short but referenced, Stephen 23:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Ongoing: 2016–17 Turkish purges

Nominator's comments: This was suggested by multiple users in the section below so I am nominating it, seeing as the ongoing section is lacking at the moment. Over 130,000 public servants and judges have been sacked and/or imprisoned so far, and over 3,000 schools and charities closed. The story is making international press, and is bound to increase now that the referendum was passed. Laurdecl ^talk 04:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as long as there are updates. Everday day or so has a new round of arrests/suspensions.Lihaas (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I believe this will be in the news more. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bit Crystal Balling, but ya, id agree.Lihaas (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support recurring theme and important. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I previously supported the internet block nom, but this covers the broader topic so would prefer this. Aiken D 09:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I support this in addition to a blurb about the Wikipedia block. --Fixuture (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Add it to the bit in there already about the recent referendum. Redundant on its own, the two things are linked. South Nashua (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Per RM. Turkey appears to be traveling in a seriously regrettable direction politically (although there is an opposition). Sca (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Should add something on Internet censorship aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not the purpose of Ongoing, we link to an article, and let that do the talking. I believe the Wikipedia block is mentioned in there, but the Ongoing aspect means it just links the article, not specific aspects of it therein. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted GoldenRing (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: George Genyk

• Support article is referenced and decent enough. Aiken D 14:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Turkish authorities block Wikipedia

• Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The year of birth is being discussed as 'dubious' - see article talk page. Aiken D 12:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes there are different dates in the various sources, some state 1960 (or 66 years) and others state 1959 (which on reflection matches other facts like his debut age, his brothers ages etc.) not sure how to deal with sources disagreeing??  MPJ-DK  12:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 1959 fits with all the other facts known about him and his brothers. I put 1959 in the article with a source.  MPJ-DK  12:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Date issue figured out, we think a 2009 typo in the article led to some obituaries using the wrong date - they use Wikipedia as a source apparently for the birth year.  MPJ-DK  16:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Decent article, and now the birth year issue has been dealt with I can support. Aiken D 16:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen

[Closed] Storming of Macedonian Parliament

[Closed] Russian ship Liman

Consensus says no. If anyone thinks that reopening this is likely to lead to a different outcome, they may of course do so.

Bencherlite^Talk 22:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

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

---

Article: Russian ship Liman (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Russian intelligence ship Liman (sister ship Cheleken pictured) sinks in the Mediterranean Sea following a collision with a Togo-registered livestock carrier. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC)
Credits:

• Nominated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)

 Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• weak oppose ordinarily it could have been something but all rescued an no injuries. Doesn't account to much. (but nice para update)Lihaas (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I looked for this article earlier and it didn't exist, it does now, but only because it sank with zero casualties. It made the front page the BBC News website momentarily, with sexy talk like "spy ship" and "sank off the Syrian coast" but it pretty much amounts to nothing more than a maritime traffic accident where nothing actually happened that will have any long-term effect. I imagine the article should be taken to AFD in due course, as the
  WP:AIRCRASH folks are so keen to do when a military plane crashes in insignificant circumstances - it's a "meh" incident. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • WP:GNG has been met. Mjroots (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • So you can justify the existence of the article but not the incident which is utterly trivial. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose good faith nom. The incident is far too minor for ITN. As noted above the ship is almost certainly notable, but the incident itself is not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Alas, in the real world, a sinking ship from which everyone is rescued is of little note – unless of course they're all celebrities or pro sports stars. Sca (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose posting this accidental sinking with no casualties. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Posted] RD: Leo Baxendale

• Oppose technically marked as a stub (three times) and most of the bibliography is either unlinked or redlinked without any references. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's clearly not a stub any more, I'll remove those tags. Otherwise there's a fair few obits in the UK press that should help with improving the article. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sourcing some of the more obscure elements of the bibliography is going to be difficult - it's one of those cases where a Google will show enough blog posts, forum items and the like that you can be pretty confident the item is true, but there's nothing that's a proper
  WP:RS for citation. It's not uncommon for British artists working for D.C. Thompson to work on various titles during their time with the company, sometimes for short stints, sometimes for decades. As such a comprehensive referenced bibliography is both a daunting task and not necessarily a particularly useful one. Perhaps the biobliography should be a list of Baxendale's creations and "notable" stints on other titles. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  If we can't reliably source the items in the list, they should probably be moved to the talk page for further investigation, to allow this to be posted in quicker time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this should be ready now. I've switched "bibliography" (which would be an impossible to complete list) into "notable creations". A bit arbitrary what's in it -- it's essentially everything that gets mentioned in biography articles and obits -- but critically it means that everything in it can be sourced. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Up to scratch now. I've added a couple of quotations from the sources to give a flavour of his importance and influence, and those who have cleaned up and improved this article from how it looked earlier today (particularly
  Bencherlite^Talk 21:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support amazeballs, an article where people (person?) have (has?) cited all the works! Who knew that was possible?! I've tweaked a little, as is my want, it's good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Country bias confirmed - Vinod Khanna has more sources and more coverage than this guy. I have also added multiple reliable sources. But this was posted before Vinod Khanna. I have given links from BBC, CNN, Washingonpost below. Now here is your popular link from TIME website. Marvellous Spider-Man 02:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Not in the slightest. The absolute number of references, as I've had to point out to many people time and again, is not an indicator of absolute quality, indeed several items in the filmography remain unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Who has actually created this

  WP:GA level rule for RD? What harm will happen to main page if Vinod Khanna is posted there as it is not a stub and those movies are not hoax. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  How do we know they aren't a hoax? --Jayron32 18:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Google" the search engine website helps along with youtube which has full videos of those movies. Next every word, alphabet, punctuation marks should also be sourced along with space between words to pass ITNC RD. Marvellous Spider-Man 18:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, please re-read

WP:V, we need reliable sources to verify claims made in articles in Wikipedia. We don't "Google" it or tell our readers "Google it". We don't need to reference "word, alphabet, punctuation marks ... space between words" because they are non-controversial and unlikely to be challenged. Appearances in unreferenced movies are likely to be challenged (as I've done here), so either provide the references, or don't. I expect YouTube is glad to see it's full of copyvios of Bollywood movies too. Marvellous stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I've just posted Vinod Khanna, but The Rambling Man is exactly right - there's no bias here, we hold every biography to the same standards. Baxendale's was sufficiently sourced before Khanna's. Black Kite (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Vinod Khanna

• Oppose a lot of unreferenced claims in the prose, unreferenced awards and unreferenced filmography. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates shouldn't become a test for Wikipedia:Good article nominations candidate. A very popular actor. --Marvellous Spider-Man 08:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  It's hardly requesting an article to be GA status when asking for a BLP to be correctly referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have sourced maximum lines. Including filmography. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Filmography is unreferenced. You are also aware that BLP applies to the recently deceased, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For every film to be sourced we need a filmography article separately. A superflop movie from the 1970s cannot have any reliable source other than IMDB, especially uncredited roles. I have added Rottentomatoes link which has filmography which is better than IMDB. By the way most movies are already mentioned in the sources already linked in the article. --Marvellous Spider-Man 12:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Om Puri's death did not show up here, don't expect Vinod Khanna's either, ITN is shit now where they disregard the lesser known celebs from 3rd world country..--Stemoc 12:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope, it's about article quality, not about the nationality of the individual. Om Puri's article is still tagged as needing more references, so I guess everyone disregarded the article itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can anyone show some Wikipedia policy that Recent Death ITNC actor candidate, should have filmography sourced for every movie other than IMDB and Rottentomatoes(IMDB lists all movies but is not considered reliable)? Marvellous Spider-Man 12:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:V. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Oh, and

  WP:BLP is worth a read too. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

I was talking about ITNC nomination policy. I have sourced maximum movies. I will source more. Movies released after 2007 can be sourced as internet reviews are available. Old movies don't have internet reviews. Old successful movies can have sources but old flop movies can't have online sources, though they were reviewed in many paper newspapers which don't have online copy. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well

ref improve}} time. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• I continue to disagree with the idea that every line of a filmography needs to be sourced before an RD can be posted, where there is no specific issue as to the accuracy of the contents. What I have discovered in recent months is that there is an operational rationale for enforcing very strict referencing requirements for ITN and RD (and more recently OTD), which is that it motivates editors who want to see the item mainpaged quickly to improve the referencing very. The trade-off, of course, is in terms of timeliness, and in some items not getting mainpaged at all where the work doesn't get done, or done in time, plus the question whether if an editor spends three hours adding a footnote reference for every film (or book, or award, or whatever), he or she is spending that much less time on other mainspace work that might be more productive. In other words, I agree in principle that an item on the mainpage should have quality referencing, but I don't agree that each and every fact in the whole article needs to have a footnote before we can post to RD. It is also troubling that in many cases, to get articles to RD editors have simply removed the accuracy-undisputed-but-not-specifically-referenced content altogether. This would be fine if they then circled back and added the content with references later on, but too often the content is permanently lost. There are times when, at least for some reasonable period of time, an article section with a ref-improve tag is much more likely to lead ultimately to well-sourced content than a section altogether removed; query whether enforcing an "articles with a single section or sentence flagged as needing citations can't be mainpaged" rule leads more often to the former, or the latter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Well V allows editors to tag contentious items such as claimed film appearances (often in unlinked or red-linked articles, or not even mentioned in target articles) or claimed awards. If you want to change V or ITN guidelines to allow posting of maintenance tagged BLPs that's your call. People seem to be becoming upset that the ITN and OTD guidelines are finally being adhered to. Those people should either improve the articles to meet the criteria or work to change the criteria so we can post poor tagged articles to the Main Page. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The unspoken and somewhat question-begging assumption in that reply is that (for example) a lengthy article about a writer, including abundant well-sourced content, but concluding with a list of his or her books and articles that lacks a reference for each one, is a "poor" article by Wikipedia's overall standards. In the context of all the project's other challenges, I do not believe that to be so. Yours is a strong voice for improved referencing in various contexts and I respect that, but what I have not seen from you or a few others who make similar points is a considered response to my points about trade-offs and balancing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't really see why we need any trade-offs or balance in a BLP, many folks have managed to suitably reference lists of works or films etc, they just make the effort, and everyone benefits. I see little point in degrading our standards because editors can't source things, especially when most of the items that need to be sourced are either red linked or not linked at all, and thus strongly fail

  WP:V. Of course, this is mildly ironic as I fought so hard to make sure that minority BLPs would be easily allowable onto the main page since we removed the "super notability" debates that usually would have precluded such individual's being featured in any case. All that's required now is a well referenced article. That's much easier than trying to convince a western audience of the super notability of an Indian actor (say) over one who appeared in the Fast and Furious franchise (who got a blurb, no less). I took many steps to make these postings easier, all that needs to happen now is interested editors should find sources for the BLPs before they are posted. And I will not change that approach. I've done it myself for various RDs, so would expect the same from others. After all, this is an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

I have spent too much time finding sources for filmography, to see that this article passes RD. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article seems to be in good enough shape but a few adjustments on the citations would be nice. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is now in good shape thanks to User:Marvellous Spider Man. The subject has more coverage than some other recently posted subjects.
  WP:BIAS I guess. Pratyush (talk) 05:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment & advice: Spiderman and all other Bollywood regular editors: The concept that the filmography needs to be complete is itself flawed. Few years ago many, if not all, filmy articles had a subsection called "Selected filmography" and included only notable films. The ideas changed when the loose NFILM guideline made it possible for every film to have an article of its own. Thank to all fanboys, indian film articles multiplied like hell and consensus building within co-editors allowed poor references as RS. The race to have a separate Filmography article, use BH and such as sources in it,and make it an FL deteriorated the quality further. Long story short... Stop crying foul on other editors and buckle up... Easy way out would be to rename the section as "selected filmography" and get away with all non-notable films even if they have article but would hardly have a single RS on their page. Am not saying this "strategy" should be used everywhere; but Khanna has plenty films and not mentioning a few of those does not make his article incomplete in any sense. --- (Yours truely, ex-regular editor who got fed up with subpar Indian articles and the general tendency of regular Indian editors to concentrate on films more than other encyclopedic topics.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.209.217.183 (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you are, but it's easier said than done. I tried to remove some films, but the preview is disrupting the table. Now some editors might object, that unless I create a separate filmography article, I can't remove the less notable films. It wasn't very clever of you to comment this, after two support votes. I am not doing anything after making 100+ edits in

WP:GA. Marvellous Spider-Man 15:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support. Marvellous referencing work by Marvellous Spider Man.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there are still entries which don't even have Wikipedia articles which aren't referenced. Not good enough still. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now referenced all the entries without a WP article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Which I'm not going to object to, but the article still lacks references for several claims. But at least this will stop the complaints for the moment I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The main paragraph that was unsourced was trivia and actually was sourced via the filmography, so I've simply removed it. The main citation needed in te death paragraph I've sourced, and the final sentence there was, again, trivia so I've removed it. Black Kite (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And I've just copyedited it for tone, trivia and tense. Should be reasonably OK now. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, you're doing a good job here, there are awards that are still unreferenced, but don't stress it. It's up there now, there's a growing swell of support for poorly referenced articles, as evidenced by Newyorkbrad, so perhaps we shouldn't even bother checking articles, like the German, French, Spanish Wikipedias do; so often Sca tells us that these items are readily posted on other Euro-Wikis, despite having little-to-no referencing. I wonder how many of the Euro-Wikis posted Vinod Khanna or Om Puri? Maybe we need an RFC to just post anything that's listed at ITNC regardless of quality or notability, just to keep that section ticking over and to overcome systemic bias. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you dragging me into this discussion, in which I played no part – vendetta?

As I said last week, "these supposedly despicable European Wikipedias are cited not as sterling examples of technically perfect WP work, but rather as indicators of multinational informed opinion regarding what news is significant."

Again, stop sniping at me on this non-issue. Your comments on me here are gratuitous, mean-spirited and irrelevant. Sca (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I'm simply trying to ask if, as you note so often, we should be more like the Euro-wikis who post articles to the main page with clear referencing issues, just as the French Wikipedia has done (see below). Nothing vendetta/mean spirited etc about it, I'd encourage you to participate in further discussion over a new approach which en.wiki could adopt to more rapidly post under-refenced BLPs. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting my point. I occasionally (not "so often") mention postings on European WPs to illustrate that an event or issue is considered notable by informed observers in non-English-speaking Western (in the broad sense) countries. This has nothing to do with any change in referencing standards mooted on English Wiki. Sca (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this example, could you link me to the discussion on the French Wikipedia with such "informed observers" that came to a consensus that this should be posted? My French sucks, but all I'm seeing is a bunch of admins posting whatever they like. I'd be more than happy to wrong about that, of course. Do the other euro Wikis have such approaches where it appears that anyone with the mop can pick and choose items for their Wiki's main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at de.wiki too, that seems to be the same, an admin keen on films posted it with no discussion. The article is marginally better than the French one, yet sorely lacks references, without even being tagged as such. Is it just en.wiki that runs ITN by consensus I wonder? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The internal workings of other Wikipedias are irrelevant to my point. Sca (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, they're vital. If it's just the decision of a random admin who happens to like the article, that's very different from "indicators of multinational informed opinion." But at least I've learnt something new about those Euro wikis. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that your last word on the subject? Sca (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was hoping with your linguistic skills you'd be able to confirm or deny my assertions that, at least for French and German Wikipedia, news items for RD appear to be hand-picked by individual admins with no consensus nor any discussion over article quality? That's how it appears to me, but my French/German isn't good enough to go looking for that confirmation. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Je ne parle pas Francais, except a few phrases. As far as German goes, I can read it quite well if it's not too abstract, but I've never pretended to be fluent and I'm not going to wade into any Auseinandersetzungen at German Wikipedia like some kind of linguistic carpetbagger. Try Zwerg Nase. – Sca (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, it seems pretty clear that these Euro Wikis just pick and choose their RD based on nothing other than the personal preferences of admins at the time. It's helpful to know that so we no longer need to draw those decisions into our own decision-making process as it's obvious that it's completely insufficient, both in terms of acknowledgement of significance and quality. We're streets ahead on en.wiki. If we want to publish such things more rapidly, i.e. when sourcing is insufficient, we need an RFC to debate that. Right now, it seems perfectly clear that we shouldn't be referring to "whatever some other Wiki" has done because those other Wikis have no control over what is going onto their main page beside a single admin. From now on we can at least reject the notion that just because something has appeared on a Euro.wiki, it's there for considered reasons. It's there because one individual at that Euro.wiki has decided to post it. Which is absolutely fascinating, considering the amount of debate we'd have had over posting this individual in the past on en.wiki, simply to establish "super notability". In the meantime, one single German Wikipedia admin can post any RD in any state to the German Wikipedia Main Page! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that your last word on the subject? Sca (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's your's! Now we can agree that referring to the Eu.Wikis for both quality and, importantly, notability, I'm done, so thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you'll be glad to know that Selby winning the world snooker championship (Snookerweltmeisterschaft) is now on German Wiki's ITN, too.

Isn't that exciting? Sca (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's inaccurate to say that I support posting "poorly referenced articles" or "anything that's listed at ITNC regardless of quality or notability." What I've said and believe is that the referencing requirement doesn't necessarily require a reference for each and every statement or listed item, without exception, in the entire article. As this thread has run its course, I'll say no more for now, and I'm going to step away from ITN/C again for awhile; but if this disagreement comes up again in the future, it should be possible for you to disagree with my views without caricaturing them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• French Wikipedia has posted Vinod Khanna on their main page. --Marvellous Spider-Man 00:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, in the usual under-referenced state that the French Wikipedia community seem happy with. If we want that here, if we want to follow the Euro-Wikis by posting articles that aren't comprehensively referenced, let's start an RFC so we don't have this continual "surprise" at a need to thoroughly source BLPs which make unverifiable claims. And actually, it looks like en.wiki beat them too it, despite all the issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The English

Indeed, a lot of really excellent work went into this nomination, and it blows the French effort out of the water, so congratulations. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• So Khanna did dishes and worked as Osho's gardener is sourced to a post-death web article by Rediff which does not even mention "garden". Indian newspapers and other sources are pretty much known for using Wikipedia itself as their source. This is BLP violation i would say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.79.129 (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto with the claim that his stay away from family at Osho's caused the divorce. Its referenced to post-death newspapers that dont necessarily fact check but publish in the moment of heat to gain readership clicks for them and their advertisers. The india.com source used infact copies Wikipedia and writes: "He moved to Rajneeshpuram in the United States in 1982 and stayed there for five years. It is said that Khanna cleaned dishes and worked as Osho’s gardener at Rajneeshpuram while his family was back in India. Many say that this five year hiatus made him distant from his family and resulted in a divorce between him and his then wife Geetanjali." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.79.129 (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That stuff was added post-posting, and has since been removed. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: No, this stuff was present even in the revision dated to 21 April, the last revision before his death on 27th when heavy editing started. But thanks for removing it now. 106.209.206.156 (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Evidence of hominid presence in Southern California 130,000 years ago

[Posted] RD: Jonathan Demme

• Article has referencing issues, I've tagged what I noticed at a first read-through. --Jayron32 18:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for looking, User:Jayron32, I have now added sources where you tagged. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose poorly referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good work done on the referencing, good enough to go now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've been improving some of the references in the Careers section and I think the article is of adequate quality for recognition; certainly he was a very influential director — winning an Oscar for The Silence of the Lambs and with Philadelphia being both culturally significant and the film for which Tom Hanks scored his first Best Actor Oscar. — OwenBlacker (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Multiple unreferenced paragraphs, and the entire works section lacks a single reference. Stephen 21:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• With regard to the "Works" section, do you think any one of those entries is really contentious? Do you think a global source, such as IMDb, would be acceptable for that section, or are you asking for each individual item to be separately sourced? It would be useful if you could tag any paragraphs that you think need source(s). Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be reasonable that every entry was referenced, especially those that are not linked, or links that go to the generic TV show article. I'd always question why we need every single piece of work in an encyclopaedic summary. Stephen 11:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That's 70 refs required, then. Would it be more reasonable to trim out the less notable items first? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A very important director of one of the all time classic films.Masterknighted (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Decent enough article on an influential film director. --Bagoto (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Please see my general comments on the Vinod Khanna nom above, which also apply here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. As User:Stephen has suggested, there may be a separate issue over whether we need to list absolutely everything, especially items which have no article. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If somebody wants to add 70 separate sources (or even just a few, to share the burden), I wish them well. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's an odd suggestion to think that 70 separate sources would be needed, if this individual is so notable, most of these will be mentioned in one reliable source, and obits will always help with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Very sorry for thinking such an odd suggestion. I very stupidly said separate sources, when Stephen just said "every entry". Looking only at the populated cells it seems more like 93 separate entries will need to be sourced. But I see that User:Yorkshiresky is already well on the way to completing that and I applaud him for such quick and efficient work. I can't imagine anyone would be so churlish as to insist on a source for every item. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I was trying to help you there, clearly you missed that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't think why. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As pointed out above I've added some refs to the works section. Hopefully this will allow the tag to be removed and it to be posted to RD. yorkshiresky (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment works that aren't even linked to a Wikipedia article: how does a reader
  verify them? I've asked for more refs in that section. The fallback position that some adopt is to rely on blue links, which is flawed because those blue-linked articles may have no RS verifying the involvement of this individual, and each article on Wikipedia should stand alone in referencing terms in any case. Right now this is not ready for main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment As accurate encyclopedists or journalists what have you it is our job to post that which is deserving of coverage, attention and or further research if therein the article does not reach the level of quality it is the role of the constituent body of editors to edit it, rather than just criticizing it endlessly. It should be posted and then further raised up to a higher standard.. To demean the worth of a subject because the article isn't perfection ready is ridiculous. Silence of the Lambs is an influential movie of historic proportions, this is an Oscar winning director, it should be includedMasterknighted (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I tend to agree. I don't see a clear division between "readers" and "editors" and I suspect many editors are not even aware that an article needs improvement until they see a link to it on the Main Page and are interested enough to go and read it. Apologies if this comment is considered off-topic. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article has been updated and well sourced for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Robert M. Pirsig

Comment A single CN tag (related to influences; could be scrubbed), but otherwise very nice. Zen is a cornerstone of NW Americana, and Pirsig's life was lived according to that philosophy.128.214.53.104 (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There were other places that also needed cites. I tagged those. --Jayron32 13:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for looking, User:Jayron32, I have now added sources at those other places. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose poorly referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support His work Zen is a significant modern work, read by millions (and several generations). --SidP (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now while still tagged. --Bagoto (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once references are updated. Daniel Case (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The last remaining CN tag is still concerning influences. I don't think it greatly improves the article and deleting it would be just fine, but it might be sourced to the previous reference, which is an interview at NPR. I can't access it because it's not offered in a format I can play.128.214.53.104 (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Have commented out, as they were originally in the infobox and not visible anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. Looks up to snuff now. Thanks to everyone who pitched in. --Jayron32 15:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] China launches aircraft carrier

Nominator's comments: Aircraft carriers are fairly uncommon, so it seems significant to me that China has built their first one from the ground up, particularly as they have made no secret of their desire to expand their military presence globally. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Significant news. Alarming, in fact, considering recent territorial aggression. Article looks fine. --Bagoto (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Question I do agree this is significant news, and the article seems ready to go. That said, this is the ceremonial launch, while commissioning is expected in 2019/2020. Is the ceremonial launch the right date to feature this? (I don't know, I can't remember a ship launch on ITN before). --MASEM (t) 23:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Attached a "worries" clause after the clause on commissioning, around which I think is where the news is more than with the aircraft carrier itself, kind of like Hitler's threats at the launch of the Tirpitz being more the news than the Tirpitz itself. --Bagoto (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I suppose the question is whether the building or the having is more significant. Personally I would say it's a larger leap to build a warship, especially one as complex as a carrier, then it is to operate one, numerous countries have purchased and operated carriers, much fewer have been the ones to build them. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support an interesting and notable achievement. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A notable achievement; I think now is the time to post as it is the construction itself that is significant; the deployment less so. 331dot (talk) 07:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - There are 37 aircraft carriers in service now, and we're in the midst of a substantial naval buildup in several countries (see Aircraft_carrier#Future_of_aircraft_carriers). If we post this, what about the others? I say either post all of them (making this ITNR in the process), or post none. Banedon (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that there are two factors: China is major geopolitical/ military player and it's their first domestically built carrier. This would be equal to North Korea launching their first domestically built carrier, for example. Brandmeister^talk 09:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per anything that directly contributes to the End Of The World is worthy of ITN. —
  ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per (most of) the above comments with a wry look at
  Bencherlite^Talk 09:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Posted --Jayron32 13:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Wikitribune

NO CONSENSUS

consensus seems unlikely to develop to support posting this. Closing per

WP:SNOW. --Jayron32 14:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

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

---

Article: 

Wikitribune. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, FT

Credits:

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Another Believer (talk · give credit) and Ânes-pur-sàng (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Seems to be getting good coverage such as radio interviews on the BBC this morning. Andrew D. (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Apart from the newsworthiness (which seems weak - I mean, it's just "someone announces a startup"), I don't see how Wikipedia can have "Wikipedia founder does a thing" in the news section and not have it look like an advert. Smurrayinchester 08:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle - on national BBC Radio news this morning. Article looks well sourced, but looks embarrassingly small for an ITN item. Not sure there is much more to say, however. Any international news coverage? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Smurrayinchester. How many startups are featured in some news outlet every day, and how many of those disappear into the mists of time? What about stuff like Citizendium, which got that initial publicity and then faded away? Rather than try to peer into the crystal ball of which new startups will be successful, I say we do nothing. Banedon (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Apart from WP:NAVEL, the article quality is poor, I have not run into this from routine news outlets, and I question the encyclopedic character of the Nth fake-solution to the fake-crisis of Fake News.128.214.163.159 (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Would we cover this if it was a non-WMF-affiliated project? Likely yes, given the international coverage (there is coverage outside of the BBC and UK if you do a quick search) - so basing the argument against it on 'because Jimmy said it' seems rather petty. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would we? Looking at other recent startups from famous techies, we didn't cover Elon Musk's Neuralink or the The Boring Company, which both got a lot of coverage (nor should we have, in my opinion). Smurrayinchester 09:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support because it's "in the news" Brian Everlasting (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brian Everlasting: (ec)Merely being 'in the news' has never been sufficient to post something to In the News, as we are not a news ticker. We don't just parrot the press. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per
  ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support only if article reaches start class - It is being reported worldwide - Sherenk1 (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Being "in the news" is never sufficient for an ITN blurb. ITN looks for encyclopaedic events not pure news (which, ho-ho, can be posted at Wikinews...) ITN has not posted announcements of start-up companies no matter who the founder(s) might be, so to post this would be promotional and purely because of the involvement of Wales. There's no certainty that this crowd-funded plan will actually go ahead, let alone that it will make any difference to anything.
  Bencherlite^Talk 09:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• (ec)Oppose as this doesn't seem particularly different from current news services. Article quality is poor. While not my primary concern, I think this would be seen as promotional and navel gazing even if it's not our intention. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If it weren't Jimmy, we wouldn't be talking about this. While it's "in the news", just another startup announcement. -- KTC (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support now that article expanded with citations from USA and Australia, showing it is of world wide interest as well as being a very novel idea. - Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above - not of sufficient circulation or interest to readers outside of Wikimedia. Sam Walton (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support regardless of its potential as a news service (who can tell) - it has just had a 5 minute dedication slot on the BBC 1 o'clock news. It is IN THE NEWS. Leaky Caldron 12:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - We don't need to be Wikimedia's shill, inadvertently or otherwise.--WaltCip (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Navel gazing. Removing Wales or association with WMF and all other factors the same, and this is just a routine new business venture announcement which we do not post. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Everything posted here is "in the news" to some extent, it's clear that is not the sole factor. Posting this ordinary announcement would be the epitome of navel gazing. Nohomersryan (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm uncomfortable with the main page being perceived as promoting one of Mr Wales's side projects.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Pure navel-gazing. Jimmy Wales announces pet projects to great fanfare all the time, and they invariably vanish into obscurity soon afterwards when he gets bored. (Anyone remember Civilination, Wikia Search or impossible.com? Exactly.) ‑ 
  Iridescent 14:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

• Oppose needs work, not merely to ensure that the orange-level tags are no longer justified but also to flesh out the article more - there's nothing about him after 1996, for instance, and "The Sunshine Makers" is included only as a "see also". The lack of coverage of his death in the news is probably a factor here since it will make it more difficult to give a sourced account of his life - a Google news search turns up nothing.
  Bencherlite^Talk 08:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose per Bencherlite. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Kasinathuni Viswanath

RD: Benjamin Barber

• Oppose as tagged. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed that tagged section. --Bagoto (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 2017 French presidential election first round

RD: František Rajtoral

• Are there any further sources that give more of an indication of cause of death? Aiken D 20:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• RD only and currently weak oppose that based on lack of article quality, barely above stub although what's there seems referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD Decent article. --Yogwi21 (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD Article is goood. --Jenda H. (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment no, the article is neither decent or goood. It's just above a stub and I'm not seeing where some of Rajtoral's career is actually referenced. Did anyone check the sources for this BLP? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose barely more than a stub, as TRM says, and I'm not sure if it's appropriate to include speculation about why he committed suicide, even if it is sourced (is Fanatik reliable?)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2017 London Marathon

Article: 

David Weir and Manuela Schär win the wheelchair races.
News source(s): Guardian

Credits:

• Nominated by LukeSurl (talk · give credit)

Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on

WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: ITN/R event. Article is in its infancy. Keitany's performance was a record for a women's race without running alongside male pacemakers (which offers a slight advantage apparently) but this is probably too complicated to feature in the blurb. LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

• Oppose - irrelevant, insignificant, happens annually, almost no content in the article and it would be ridicolous to feature an aimless run in London but not a march by predominantly scientists in cities worldwide upon which millions of lives and the life-quality of billions could depend. --Fixuture (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  See

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose hardly noteworthy, and article is barely more than a stub. Aiken D 16:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  See

  WP:ITNR and much more than a stub now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Change to support now the article is a reasonable length. Aiken D 20:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As it's a stub. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Much more than a stub now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin note this is on
  WT:ITN/R.Lugnuts Your comment above is bordering on being racially offensive, please retract it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I've changed is - I guess you don't watch Live at the Apollo or read Viz. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on article quality. I would expect an article at least as complete at the 2016 marathon. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  It's got a few sentences on what is actually an incredibly tedious event, but ITNR nevertheless. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose; generic yearly event. Not globally noteworthy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  See

  WP:ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Support - pretty much up to standard now. Comments regarding noteworthiness are irrelevant as this is ITN/R. Also - there are free images to replace Sergio Garcia at last! Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Ideally the article (not the blurb) should report the wheelchair races but this shouldn't preclude posting in the current state. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is OK to post. Event is ITN/R. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good to go, but Mary Jepkosgei Keitany should be linked in the blurb to avoid an unnecessary redirect. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Links fixed. Black Kite (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, both the men's and women's wheelchair winners are notable. Shouldn't they be in the blurb too? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  We didn't post the wheelchair winners last year, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't. I imagine that would make the blurb a little too long, like trying to add the doubles and wheelchair winners at WImbledon into a single sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course, add a suggested blurb at

  WP:ERRORS and it's bound to be give due consideration, based on its content and the posting user. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• I was thinking it would make the blurb too long, but then I thought - do we really need to specify men's and women's races? It's fairly obvious. So I've added an ALT2 above which includes the wheelchair results. (Unfortunately Manuela Schär's article is a bit poor, but...) Black Kite (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ALT2 works for me. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Rightly or wrongly, the wheelchair races don't get the attention of the able bodied races. I don't think they should be in the blurb- I could see not listing any specific races as a compromise, though it doesn't help readers learn anything beyond this occurring.331dot (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Whew! Another European sporting contest, just in time. Far more news coverage than a March for Science (and a far better article as well) --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

made your point, please move on. 331dot (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment Can someone just post this, please? I'll do it myself if I have to, but that's not ideal since I commented. It's ITNR and not controversial. Black Kite (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted on behalf of User:Stephen [7]. I used ALT1 - if any other admin thinks ALT2 is superior please feel free to fix that. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Erin Moran

• Oppose unreferenced filmography. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose fails for notability. The reason she was evicted from her trailer park last year speaks to her fame. She died young and her riches to rags story feeds the tabloids but shouldn't grace Wikipedia's page. It's not news, it's rubbernecks looking at a train wreck. --DHeyward (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a criterion for RD. We judge solely on article quality.Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This DHeyward guy has some sort of personal issue with how deaths are covered. Abductive (reasoning) 02:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that her death has received widespread coverage is an indication of notability. Article quality is the main criterion and the unreferenced filmography is the main hurdle at this stage. I sometimes wonder whether this section is more trouble than its worth. Notable film or TV appearances will be mentioned in the main article. Oppose at this stage. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A filmography for an actress is a required element for any bio, just as a discography for a musician. But these do need sourcing (even if pushed off to a separate page) and it is a shame that most editors do not bother sourcing this as they go along. (Even if this was moved to a separate page, that's sweeping the problem under the rug). --MASEM (t) 23:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note article has been tidied up, discussion on talk page of the article. Should now meet the criteria for main page/RD inclusion. Support. MurielMary (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Embarrassing enough that a barely known wrestler in Rosey has stayed in the In The News box for as long as he has. Her notability is significantly stronger. Fronticla (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and Needs Attention @The Rambling Man: TRM, would you mind assessing her page again? Rhodesisland (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support well I suppose one way of resolving the unreferenced filmography was to remove it altogether, no real issues with what remains, so marking as good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good enough to go.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it meets the standard, ready to go. - Christian Roess (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] March for Science

[Posted to RD] Michele Scarponi

• Support blurb. While he's not by any stretch a household name, for a professional cyclist to be struck and killed by a motor vehicle while cycling is vanishingly rare, and the article is in good shape and well-referenced. Besides, the only other sports-related story in ITN is two weeks old and decidedly stale. ‑ 
  Iridescent 09:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support blurb he was an active top cyclist. The incident is horrible - a tragedy in road cycling world. - Gsvadds (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the article is mainly an unreferenced list of his career placings in various cycling events. Not only is it not referenced but it highlights the fact that his career section (in prose) is very weak indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality grounds. The career section needs more citations (one place explicitly marked), clarification (ditto) and turning from proseline into proper prose. Also per TRM. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - rare event, headline news - how often do such high profile deaths happen? Abovesky (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very well known to cycling fans, possibly some sports fans and Italians. The Rambling Man and Thryduulf, I've referenced the entire career section and I may improve it shortly. BaldBoris 12:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality, though I do weakly support a blurb here for the unexpected death of a predominately known figure. Per TRM, the prose is for the most part mirroring the stats, and gives no real good impression of why he was a great rider and anything outside the cycling career. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• RD Only We've gotten too loose with death blurbs. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Giro winner, article is in good shape. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD - Oppose blurb Sad news, but this person is not in the very top tier of their field or an iconic figure which is the generally accepted standard for death blurbs for non-ITNR figures. Beyond which I agree with Muboshgu's assessment that we have been getting a little too casual about using ITN for obit-blurbs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, Oppose blurb, per Muboshgu and Ad Orientem. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting as RD since the consensus is at least for that. The references seem fine to me now. --Tone 19:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Taliban attack

Nominator's comments: I don't normally nominate attack (as in death and destruction) articles because you know, it is sad. But this is a sizable loss in an ongoing war. Fuebaey (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. One of the largest incidents in Afghanistan in recent years. 207.107.159.62 (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per "ongoing war". I'm reminded of last week, when over 100 civilians were killed in the Syrian civil war. This incident managed to get a blurb because the target were civilians and it happened during a ceasefire. Despite this, it still got a lot of opposes. I believe the incident described here is less impactful. ~Mable (chat) 18:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There is a second article about
  event.--Jenda H. (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose until we have clarification over that "100 killed or injured". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Let me clarify some reasons in support of posting:

  1. The attack was against unarmed soldiers, as many of them were praying at a mosque or eating lunch.

  2. The attack involved the use of rocket launchers.

  3. The event was the single deadliest incident in recent years, assuming that the figure of 140+ killed is correct. The only well-documented incidents in the War in Afghanistan since 2001 with a higher death toll (excluding Taliban and/or ISIL-K deaths, and excluding battles that lasted longer than one week) are as follows:

• The Battle of Kunduz (2016). 200+ civilian casualties.
• The 2009 Kunduz airstrike. With over 100 civilian casualties, we posted this on ITN.
• Possibly the Granai airstrike in 2009, with up to 147 civilians killed.
• The Fall of Kabul at the beginning of the war in 2001, with 528 allied forces members killed.

• This makes Saturday's attack the deadliest bombing in Afghanistan since the war began.

4. The attack was deadlier than the July 2016 Kabul bombing against Hazara Shia civilians, killing 80+ people, which we posted.

5. The attack is directly comparable to the

The Army Public School in which 141 unarmed Pakistan Army staff and recruits were killed. That attack was the deadliest in Pakistan's history, and we of course posted

that one.

6. It is front page news on BBC, Voice of America, Deutsche Welle, Xinhua, and many others. Xinhua (the official Chinese government news network) is reporting on its English site that at least 135 Afghan Army members have been killed, not injured.

I would wait until it becomes clear that there is a confirmation that over 140 on the side of the Afghan Army were indeed killed, and that this count does not include the injured. If this is the case, I stand by my decision to support. 207.107.159.62 (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TIME reports that over 130 are killed, and over 80 injured, according to unnamed Afghan officials. A death toll of 100+ is confirmed. 207.107.159.62 (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is correct, the blurb and the article should be updated. If your claim of them being unarmed and at prayer is correct, that should be included and cited. You can argue as strongly as you like, one way or another, but you are also capable of fixing up the article according. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

207.107.x.x here. The TIME source states,

Gen. Mohammad Radmanish, deputy spokesman for the Defense Ministry, said the militants entered the base in Balkh province using two military vehicles and attacked army personnel inside the compound's mosque.
"Two suicide bombers detonated their vests full of explosive inside the mosque of the army corps while everyone was busy with Friday prayers," he said
Waziri said there were 10 attackers, including the two who carried out the suicide attacks. Eight others were killed in a gun battle with soldiers.
Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid claimed responsibility for the assault in an email sent to media.

184.151.37.191 (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Maplestrip. Casualties of war.--WaltCip (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the ITV news report I just overheard said 140 people had been killed, so that makes this completely newsworthy, but I'd like to see some reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Notable due to the number of casualties - Sherenk1 (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - significant mass casualty event. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per IP. Banedon (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - still attracting major coverage and death toll is exceptionally high. Article is short but OK.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, notable as it received wide coverage in leading newspapers and Wikipedia's standards shouldn't be any different/insensitive. Mar4d (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted
  Bencherlite^Talk 09:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak oppose - almost there, a couple of unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Working on it... The problem when someone dies unexpectedly is that newspapers don't (I presume) have obituaries ready to print, and so they turn to the internet and likely Wikipedia, so there's a danger of circular referencing if we rely too much on those obituaries without doing extra checks. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're pretty much there with the references, The Rambling Man. Could you take another look and let me know if anything still stands out as problematic? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not the most in depth article I have seen but it appears to be decently sourced and I think covers the subject adequately. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. The minor issues have been sorted out. Black Kite (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]