Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

This page provides a forum for ors 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.

Ajit Pai in 2013
Ajit Pai

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 ors 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pulled from the main page are generally marked with [Posted] or [Pulled] in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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 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 ors 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[]

December 15[]

Portal:Current events/2017 December 15
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Health
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports

December 14[]

Portal:Current events/2017 December 14
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

[Posted] Net Neutrality repealed[]

Article: Net neutrality in the United States (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States Federal Communications Commission votes to repeal Title II Net Neutrality rules.
News source(s): NYTimes, Ars Technica
Nominator: Masem (talk • give cr)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I know this is strictly how Internet communication is handled solely within the US (and expect !opposes on that), but given the importance of the US's tech sector on the Internet globally, this will have impacts on global Internet systems. Masem (t) 18:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not that radical a change in my opinion, but the reaction across the Internet has been monumental, on levels of SOPA.--WaltCip (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Without going deep into the history: while the repeal is revoking the 2015 order, there had been various regulations in place that enforced net neutrality since at least 2010 (around the same time we started hearing providers wanting to make fast-lanes for traffic); the 2015 order came by because courts found that a previous FCC order that enforced NN was improper, so the FCC then raced to correct that with the 2015 order. This is effectively the first time that there has been no net neutrality protection on the US internet infrastructure while internet providers have been pushing for tiered services. --Masem (t) 21:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
This is my last comment here since Wikipedia is not a forum and the request has been posted, but in response to 331dot the idea that this only goes back to 2015 is a complete falsehood. This goes back to 1996 where lawsuit after lawsuit from 98 to 02 to 07 to 2010 to 2011 to 2014 all pushed the FCC towards writing net neutrality into law. The principle behind it is as old as the internet itself. You're right that there will be lawsuits, but it's absolutely "radical." BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It has 260 unique sources and a C class rating. Even with its CN tags, it's unquestionably a well-sourced article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "C" class? Really? Well it's got serious referencing issues and should not be linked on the main page. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Note that it has not been checked against B class criteria. Note that out of all 5 presently featured news articles, C class is the highest rating of any primary link with two of the five being start class. Note that the 15 CNs are in an article with 262 unique sources and 340 separate citations. It's undeniable that this is a well-sourced article and it's quantifiable that it's both better sourced and an equal or better class than the other present news articles. With regard to all of our established criteria, you simply have no argument here. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • CA's opinion is the one that usually holds sway around these parts, but your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. GCG (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've eliminated nearly all unsourced content from the article, so this problem should be solved. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Not solved. ITN doesn't rely on some wikiprojects quality evaluation applied at some point in the past. ITN has it's own guidelines (which perhaps you've not bothered to read) which state "Updated content must be thoroughly referenced. As with all Wikipedia articles, citations must be to reliable sources.". The target article is objectively missing references, which makes it objectively inadequate for the main page, which makes it objectively necessary to pull until it's fixed. Cross posting this to WP:ERRORS and pinging @Jayron32: and @Stephen: in the hopes that one of them can take a look and pull as necessary. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Disney buys Fox[]

Articles: The Walt Disney Company (talk, history) and 21st Century Fox (talk, history)
Blurb: The Walt Disney Company buys assets from the 21st Century Fox valued at roughly $52.4 billion
Alternative blurb: The Walt Disney Company announces it will buy most of 21st Century Fox's entertainment divisions, valued at roughly $52.4 billion
Alternative blurb II: The Walt Disney Company announces intent to buy most of 21st Century Fox for $52.4 billion
News source(s): The New York Times, BBC
Nominator: Cambalachero (talk • give cr)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Clearly a historical event for Hollywood. Cambalachero (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Blurb needs work though; technically this is a merger. "Buys assets" underplays that less than a third of the existing company will be spun off. GCG (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I've tried an alt blurb; we know Fox would keep its news side, but its hard to present a short blurb with calling out the exceptions. "most of Fox's entertainment divisions" is about the best summary that implies the news stays with Murdock. --Masem (t) 15:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
That was why I wrote "buys assets from the 21st Century Fox" instead of "buys the 21st Century Fox". It left it implicit that Fox still exists after the deal, which is about some of their assets, not about the whole group as such. However, the alt also seems fine, and I have no problem with it. Cambalachero (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Note: This user made only 2 s in wikipedia (unless it's a regular user who forgot to login in; in that case please do so and sign as needed) Cambalachero (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
If this falls apart or is blocked in the courts, that would likely merit posting. If it closes, it won't make the news. The time to post is now. As noted below, there is discussion about this somewhere. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Last place I can find is in 2015 here [1]. --Masem (t) 17:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@CosmicAdventure: I found Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 49#On when to post business announcements... and Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 53#Business deals: post them when they're announced or when they're signed?, both confirming that posting when it's in the news is the right time.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
That's them. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicAdventure (talkcontribs) 17:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

December 13[]

Portal:Current events/2017 December 13
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports

RD: Pat DiNizio[]

Article: Pat DiNizio (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USA Today
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: Smithereens vocalist Pat DiNizio. Seems like yesterday.

[Posted] RD: Dan Johnson[]

Article: Dan Johnson (Kentucky politician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times
Nominator: Davey2116 (talk • give cr)
Updater: Acdixon (talk • give cr)

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: Due to the highly unusual nature of the death, I would also consider a blurb, since Slobodan Praljak got one a couple of weeks ago.  Davey2116 (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I see. I have now stricken out the suggestion. Davey2116 (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

December 12[]

Portal:Current events/2017 December 12
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Health and environment
International relations
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports

[Posted] RD: Alessandro Kokocinski[]

Article: Alessandro Kokocinski (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Tuscia Web
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give cr)

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.

 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] United States Senate special election in Alabama[]

WP:SNOW. There is no chance this will develop enough consensus to be posted. --Jayron32 15:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
( conflict) Strongly concur with the above close. I was just about to do the same thing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Article: United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017 (talk, history)
Blurb: Doug Jones wins United States Senate special election in Alabama, defeating Republican Roy Moore
Alternative blurb: ​In the U.S. state of Alabama, Doug Jones defeats Republican Roy Moore in a United States Senate special election.
Nominator: SecretName101 (talk • give cr)

  • Oppose ITN isn't really the place for local politics – NixinovaT|C⟩ 05:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • SNOW Oppose Of course. No, it may signal the Trump backlash, but it's not ITN material. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as per above. A regional election that doesn't even nominally change the balance of power in the chamber to which the elected person will sit. --LukeSurl t c 05:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Nope We have firmly established that local elections are not ITN material. EternalNomad (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


@User:Stephen I would like to appeal your closure on the grounds that it is invalid to refer to this as a "local election". A Federal election for national office is hardly "local". In addition, in January 2010 the Massachusetts Special election and its ramifications were considered to be worthy of inclusion in ITN. I'd argue that further discussion should be allowed before closing this.SecretName101 (talk) 07:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Checking the 2010 case, that was when the Democrats lost the supermajority, which had significant consequences. In this case, the Republicans still keep the majority, as noted above. --Tone 07:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support this is major international news (Independent, BBC News, New York Times, Times of India, Sydney Morning Herald). It's been the top story on BBC News for the past 24 hours, and I can't ever remember an election in Alabama getting that amount of coverage in the past. Far from being "local politics", the wider world is seeing it as a de facto referendum on Trump's style of leadership - given it was him and Steve Bannon who were the vocal minority to get behind gay-bashin' Roy Moore. (I have re-opened the discussion so people can elaborate on this, and would recommend people focus on what reliable sources are covering over their personal opinions of what they would like to see). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Incidentally, your source selection is a form of cherry-picking because these stories are specifically on the "US" sections of the respective international news sites, which by definition focus specifically on US-based stories. You have to take a good look on the SMH or Times of India sites before you can locate coverage of this election, and even then, the primary focus is on Trump who seems to be compulsory clickbait material.--WaltCip (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose It's clickbait, but still local politics.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
It's not local politics in Britain, India or Australia - so why is it headline news there? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
If it gets to Main Page could we use a picture of the horse, please? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
It was only published in the international press because of it's sensationalistic. Did we post about Britney shaving her head or Macron's dog peeing? See this, this, this, this, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't recall that being the front-page news headline for two days. As Moore appears to have refused to concede (presumably on the assumption that God will fix the recount), the story is far from over yet. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Lap dogs are people too, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
It's a local election in one state. It's not significant. The media want ad revenue, but we don't, thank God (pun intended).Zigzig20s (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I doubt the BBC want 'ad revenue'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Widely reported internationally. Its a local election, with national significance, and international coverage due to the people involved. I also second the horse request. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - no different to a shock by-election result in the UK, and I wouldn't expect that to be published. Optimist on the run (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Top news on German Radio. The world speaks about it, - it would seem strange not to mention it. ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A straightforward "surprise result in local by-election in which the candidate from the party who traditionally dominate the area lost because of personal controversy" story, and as such no different to something like Richmond Park by-election, 2016 which we wouldn't have dreamed of posting. ‑ Iridescent 12:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Much as I think Zac Goldsmith is a spoiled brat and a nasty piece of work, I don't really think that's there's any equivalent in the UK - the best analogy I can think of is if UKIP put up Jayda Fransen as a candidate for some hypothetical Clacton by-election on a ticket of deporting all Muslims and re-introducing the death penalty and was leading the polls, only to be beaten by a Corbyn-supporting Labour candidate. It just wouldn't happen. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how "Extremist candidate doesn't get elected" is ITN-worthy, even from the US. All this demonstrates is that polls aren't relaible - something that has alreasy been shown in recent years, on both sides of the Atlantic. Optimist on the run (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment this wasn't any old by-election and the US Senate isn't any old legislative body. False equivalences are silly. If itn had run the election it would have been "snow close Alabama is a red state, don't waste time considering". Thanks for reopening. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The subject is in the news and the articles have been thoroughly updated, so the criteria for posting are met. I wouldn't support this if it weren't reported internationally, as Ritchie333, Only In Death, and Gerda Arendt attest. Davey2116 (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Davey2116.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • No, no, no, no, no!!! - No election of this sort in any other country would make it to ITN. The only reason this is getting attention is because of the amplified media attention over the GOP candidate. The GOP hasn't even lost their majority in the Senate!--WaltCip (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongest oppose As pointed out, there is no change in the majority leadership in the Senate, so this is not ITN material. Those claiming that its being massively covered should be reminded that ITN is not a news ticker and we are more careful as to what stories better represent a global encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 14:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:In the news#Significance :"Opposing a specific story merely because one opposes all stories of that type (such as elections, or sports, or disasters) do not often generate agreement from the community.". I am supporting it because it has had significant coverage in multiple, independent, worldwide sources, and nothing else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Supporting because it has multiple global coverage is effecting asking us to be a news ticker. ITNCs do need wide news coverage to be posted; just that some degree of news reporting is observed. But we do not use the measure that "covered internationally" as a posting rationale. --Masem (t) 14:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
But is that not how Wikipedia works full stop? WP:GNG - "significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources". You can't just make up criteria based on your personal opinion and expect everyone else to fall in line with that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Let's just abolish all the constitutional amendments after the 10th - "that would eliminate many problems". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
ITN does not work off GNG rules, its a much narrower criteria for inclusion to avoid being a news ticker. (And even with the GNG, which looks for enduring coverage rather than a spike, that means that even a burst of international coverage doesn't assure an article. Though for this special election article, its notability is not at issue). --Masem (t) 14:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose As much as I like the outcome, it's still not ITN material for the above reasons. Especially that this doesn't change anything relating to the Senate majority. †dismas†|(talk) 14:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The Senate majority has been halved, to it's smallest possible value? Many commentators are saying that this is quite significant. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Halved, but they still have it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

( conflict)

  • Oppose – Though momentarily of great interest in the U.S., it is as others have said essentially a parochial matter that doesn't meet ITN norms. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
It's already been closed once incorrectly; closing again would be inappropriate.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support What do ors here mean that ITN isn't a place for politics? In this particular case we are talking about 25 years since "ruby red" Alabama elected a Democrat, this would easily pass notability criteria. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Assuming that Wikipedia's readers all know about the significance of Alabama in U.S., let alone international, politics is a form of systemic bias.--WaltCip (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on WP:BIAS grounds and the fact that control did not flip. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to be clear here, the story of this nom is that Alabama didn't elect a child molester. That's what you think ITN should post? This is systemic bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    • To avoid the BLP , I do assume you mean "alleged" child molester. --Masem (t) 15:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

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

[Closed] 2017 New York City attempted bombing[]

Good faith nom but this probably could have been SNOW closed. Far too minor an incident. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2017 New York City attempted bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): The New York Times
Nominator: ST15RMwikipedia (talk • give cr)

Nominator's comments: This is a recent terrorist attempt, which the media is still discussing. Thanks, User:ST15RMwikipedia 17:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No. This is simply too little of a statistical impact to be included at ITN. On top of that, its only meaningful notability is to New York City, not the United States, and especially not the entirety of the English speaking world. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • From above: "Please do not... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
      • I do not think my comment in any way falls under that statement, if you read it comprehensively. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • ( conflict) Oppose I was glad nobody had nominated this yesterday. One lone idiot who hurt himself more than anyone else. We New Yorkers have mastered the Keep Calm and Carry On attitude of our forebearers. Better to ignore this idiot than give him coverage and potentially inspire other idiots than to give this any more coverage than it's already gotten. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I know I am going against character here (never been accused of being foolishly consistent), but this appears to be the sort of low-level local crime we generally don't post. There was no great conspiracy, no larger plot, no widespread damage. There's no there there on this one. The article itself probably (IMHO) wouldn't withstand an AFD (given the AFD was proposed in a few weeks once coverage died down) and given that, I don't see where this should be posted. --Jayron32 18:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as we don't usually post attempted attacks. EternalNomad (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I was waiting for this to be nominated. The general consensus on ITN is that in order for a terrorist attack to be posted in a major city, there has to be a significant number of casualties. Here, nobody even died. There were four injuries, none of which were life-threatening and one of whom was the attacker. The New York subway system was disrupted - which already gets disrupted on a fairly regular basis anyway due to poorly maintained tracks - and that was it. The news is literally just covering it because it's New York City, Times Square, and ISIS-related. The rest of the world has already moved on.--WaltCip (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • We moved on before the rest of the world. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Ed Lee[]

Article: Ed Lee (politician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): SF Examiner, SF Gate
Nominator: Muboshgu (talk • give cr)

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 didn't vote for him, but he was my mayor, the incumbent mayor. Needs a little work. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  • The tone now seems OK. Living thousands of miles away and with limited internet access right now I'll recuse myself from assessing whether the selection of events from his mayoralty is representative. --LukeSurl t c 07:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

RD: Charles Robert Jenkins[]

Article: Charles Robert Jenkins (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give cr)

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: Some referencing issues. American Soldier who defected to North Korea. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Your jingoism notwithstanding, we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. RD postings need only verify the quality of the article, not the notability (nor any sort of moral standing).--WaltCip (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

December 11[]

Portal:Current events/2017 December 11
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

[Posted to Ongoing] Thomas Fire[]

Proposed image
Article: Thomas Fire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Thomas Fire, the largest of an outbreak of wildfires in southern California, becomes the fifth-largest fire in California history.
Alternative blurb: ​The Thomas Fire, the largest of an outbreak of wildfires in southern California, has forced over 94,000 residents to evacuate from Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties.
News source(s): [3] [4] [5]
Nominator: James Allison (talk • give cr)
Updater: LightandDark2000 (talk • give cr)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Extremely large wildfire outside of the fire season. 1000 structures burned, 8000 94,000 people evacuated, citywide power outages in a ~100,000 pop. city, unprecedented disruption at a major state university, likely catastrophic damage to the nationally-significant state agricultural industry. James (talk/contribs) 16:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Do you understand what article was posted to ongoing? Stephen 02:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • If nominated and the article is regularly updated then it would stand a good chance. Stephen 03:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

[Pulled] Resignation of Indonesian legislative body speaker[]

Article: Setya Novanto (talk, history)
Blurb: Setya Novanto, speaker of Indonesia's People's Representative Council, resigns from his post amidst a corruption scandal.
News source(s): Reuters, ANTARA, Straits Times etc.
Nominator: Juxlos (talk • give cr)

Nominator's comments: This is following a multi-week news coverage involving a raid, manhunt and a car crash plus hospitalization, receiving pretty much 24 hour national plus significant external news coverage. Juxlos (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

If you oppose this, fair enough, but I don't think the leader of a national legislative chamber being arrested and subsequently resigning is "low level political news". 331dot (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Off topic. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A "third rate hell hole". I'm married to an Indonesian. How many times have you been there? Maybe re-consider your words? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I greatly admire an admin who has the humility to pull their own posting.--WaltCip (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Support This aligns to a Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell in the US, methinks - that would get posted. Is there any evidence that this level of corruption is commonplace in Indonesia? GCG (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Remember that the English Wikipedia reaches the entire English-speaking world. Thanks, User:ST15RMwikipedia 20:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Uh, yeah. That was my entire point- that we shouldn't dismiss events because they occur in the non-Anglophone world. GCG (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Vera Katz[]

Article: Vera Katz (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): San Francisco Gate
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give cr)

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.

 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Keith Chegwin[]

Article: Keith Chegwin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC's Twitter
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • give cr)
Updater: Ritchie333 (talk • give cr)
Other updaters: Martinevans123 (talk • give cr)

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.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll send you a donation by way of an apology - is the number still 01 811 8055? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
01 811 8055, a number etched in our brains. I liked Gervais' Twitter send off, "Pop Knob In Fanny"... (should be safe enough for those who get it and sufficiently mystifying enough for those who don't). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
You can't beat a bit of Festive Fanny, can you? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Russian troops withdraw from Syria[]

No consensus. Stephen 22:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War (talk, history) and Syrian Civil War (talk, history)
Blurb: Vladimir Putin orders the withdrawal of Russian troops from Syria.
News source(s): [7], [8], [9], etc.
Nominator: Karl.i.biased (talk • give cr)

Nominator's comments: It would by nice if we could put this right above the Iraqi announcement which also deals with the defeat of Daish --Karl.i.biased (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose None of the three articles cited has been updated to include the relevent information. --Jayron32 14:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Only Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War needs to be bold. This is the one article specific to this news item. Regardless the BBC report this as a partial withdrawal, which probably puts this in oppose territory for me. --LukeSurl t c 14:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
And the BBC also says there "Mr Putin made a similar withdrawal announcement last year, but Russian military operations continued." But the BBC seems to be having its own problems - its article is all about 'partial withdrawal' but its headline currently just says 'withdrawal'.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Russia is keeping its base in Syria so the "withdrawal" is more of a troop movement than a pullout. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support A withdrawal's still a withdrawal even if some bases remain. Sort of like how the US finished with WW2 years ago even though it has bases in Japan to date. Banedon (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Not a good analogy - what happened with US troops in Japan at the end of WW2 was (for very good reasons) the exact opposite of a withdrawal.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, purely an announcement by a (Redacted) politician (Redacted) (Putin) made to promote his reelection. (Redacted) Abductive (reasoning) 22:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose current blurb: I'm currently neutral if the words 'partial withdrawal' are added to ALL blurbs under discussion. In other words, keeping the present blurb but adding an altblurb is not good enough for me, and I don't feel free to change the main blurb myself, which might also be problematic in that existing votes are for/against 'withdrawal', but not necessarily for/against 'partial withdrawal'. So it might be better to close this, and re-open it as a new nom about 'partial withdrawal' (though I'm at ITN too intermittently to know whether that's the recommended procedure or not).Tlhslobus (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose'. No evidence outside of a statement that the event is actually occurring. We should not be effectively promoting press releases on ITN. James (talk/contribs) 18:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

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

December 10[]

Portal:Current events/2017 December 10
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports

[Posted] RD: Lalji Singh[]

Article: Lalji Singh (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Times of India
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give cr)

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 is a Good Article --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Simeon Booker[]

Article: Simeon Booker (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Washington Post
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give cr)

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.

 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Max Clifford[]

Article: Max Clifford (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • give cr)

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.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

December 9[]

Portal:Current events/2017 December 9
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Sports

[Posted] RD: Grant Munro[]

Article: Grant Munro (filmmaker) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give cr)

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.

 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Tombs discovered in Egypt[]

Withdrawn, as I'm too busy to work on it, and I doubt someone else will. Also looks like there won't be any consensus to post it anyway. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Kampp 150 (talk, history) and Kampp 161 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Two ancient tombs, Kampp 150 and Kampp 161, are uncovered in Thebes, Egypt.
News source(s): BBC, The New Indian Express, The Boston Globe, Deutsche Welle, Sputnik, etc.
Nominator: Fitzcarmalan (talk • give cr)

Nominator's comments: Two stubs, but only because there isn't much detail to be added yet. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose notable or not, we cannot put stubs on the main page. Suggest waiting until something substantive is found in the tomb, causing an update to the article, prior to posting. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose if something notable is discovered in these tombs, I'm all in, but we need notability and quality, neither of which seem present right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The state the articles are in now is not sufficient for the main page. Needs a serious expansion to be useful for readers. --Jayron32 12:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, minor discovery hyped by politicians to try to revive their moribund tourism industry. Abductive (reasoning) 22:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Iraqi Civil War victory[]

Article: Iraqi Civil War (2014–present) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi declares victory against ISIL after capturing the group's remaining territory in Iraq.
Alternative blurb: Iraq declares its civil war is over after capturing all remaining territory controlled by ISIL in the country.
Alternative blurb II: Iraq declares victory over the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
News source(s): BBC Washington Post Stuff
Nominator: Karl.i.biased (talk • give cr)
Updater: Inatan (talk • give cr)

I have examined the tags, and they seemed excessive to me, so I removed them. Inatan (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I am leaning towards the second alternative blurb. What do you think (regardless of support)? Inatan (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
See my reply below in my (first of possibly several) Post-posting Comment.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I will see if I can add references to the bullet point list, and then leave the rest up to the regular writers. Inatan (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Done. I went beyond what I said I would do. The sections for 2015-2017 still need significant expansion, but apart from that, it should be ready to post. Inatan (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • 1) I've now added cited warnings by the Australian Government, UK Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson, and Reuters, to both text and (in a shorter form) to lead.
  • 2) I've replaced the incorrect source for ISIL supporters promising to fight on by guerilla war with a 'citation needed'. With a relatively brief google search, I have not managed to find such a source, at least not in the last 24 hours (anything earlier may be out of date now). Maybe more searching might find one. Or maybe we should just delete the statement due front-page quality concerns, but I'd prefer somebody else to tell me so, or to do it themselves (as little time has yet been given for a search, and I'll now be moving on to other topics for a while).
  • 3) I think the blurb should ideally be changed to something like "Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi declares victory against ISIL, despite warnings that ISIL may fight on by other means"
  • 3b) But I'm a bit worried that by doing so we may be inviting some censorship by ors working for the powers that be, that might be quite a bit worse than the limited self-censorship of not changing our blurb. Yesterday morning UK Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson's statement was part of item 2 or 3 on BBC News (and was implied in their headline, see my comment yesterday), whereas now I get just 10 relatively obscure sources when I google Gavin Williamson “The fight though isn’t over". This suggests that he was 'off-message', and that a British Defence Advisory Notice may well be at work (perhaps along with its equivalent in other countries). As the saying goes, truth is the first casualty in war. Though it's always possible that I'm just not using the best google search parameters, especially as I must have used other parameters to find my Derbyshire Times citation (though the fact that the best I found was the relatively obscure Derbyshire Times rather than the BBC or a major paper like The Guardian is itself consistent with a Defence Advisory Notice being at work).
  • 3c) Maybe the powers-that-be have a not-unreasonable worry that over-publicizing warnings (that ISIL may continue by guerilla warfare or terrorism) may turn such warnings into self-fulfilling prophecies by reviving the morale of ISIL fighters and supporters. Putting such warnings on our front page might or might not be seen (by the powers-that-be and/or by some of us, possibly eventually including me) as an example of such over-publicizing.
  • 3d) Anyway I'd prefer feedback from others before asking for such a blurb change.
Tlhslobus (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for all your work! I like one of your first versions of the blurb best, "Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi declares victory against ISIL, whose supporters vow to continue a guerilla war." Although the source did not match the second clause in its article. Thank you for correcting it. The reason for that is that when I added the source, the bullet point said "Islamic State supporters continue guerilla warfare after the Islamic State is defeated in the country." How about this one, "Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi declares victory against ISIL, whose supporters continue guerilla warfare."? Inatan (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Which source was that, and is it still in our article text? (After I put the CN on it, the 'vow to continue guerilla war' line got removed by another or, so now the only explicit mention of guerilla war that I see is from Reuters, and that merely says ISIL's enemies expect a new phase of guerilla war, with no mention of it having happened yet).Tlhslobus (talk) 12:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
(If it was the Iraq News story, which is the one I removed, that now doesn't mention guerilla war or any kind of insurrection anywhere, so maybe the bullet point got removed for reasons similar to why the UK Defence Secretary's warning is now only found in places like the Derbyshire Times).Tlhslobus (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
And if we can't find sources for actual or vowed guerilla war, we'd either have to go with something like "..., despite warnings that ISIL may fight on by other means" or "..., despite warnings that ISIL may fight on by guerilla war" or just leave the blurb as it is (which may well be best, especially if the powers-that-be are using things like Defence Advisory Notices to get warnings and guerilla war mentions removed from websites, in which case our current sources may become incorrect due updating).Tlhslobus (talk) 12:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Meanwhile I note that the article is now stating as a fact that the war ended on 9 December 2017 (instead of merely being proclaimed over by Abadi, with every possibility he'll soon be proved wrong, always assuming he isn't already wrong, as suggested by your 'disappeared' bullet point, in which case our lead is definitely FAKE NEWS, though it's arguably that anyway). But I don't currently feel willing (and perhaps not able either) to risk various wars to try to fix that. So I think I'm just going to give up and find something a bit easier to work on elsewhere.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, the blurb is good enough. The article traffic is becoming too much for me to handle, and the protection process takes too long to be useful. I will move on as well. Inatan (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually it seems that others have now managed to fix the worst problem without our help, but I think I'll just leave it in their competent hands.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I must varn you, CosmicAdventure, ve haf vays of making you not talk so disrespectfully about our beloved Fuhrer (Face-smile.svg, tho hopefully I won't end up regretting seeing The Donald and his pals as mainly just a rather sick joke). Tlhslobus (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

December 8[]

Portal:Current events/2017 December 8
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

[Closed] DRC Peacekeepers attack[]

Snow closure as nominator due to lack of notability. Has disappeared from RS's. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Article: Kivu conflict (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 14 MONUSCO peacekeepers are killed in an attack in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
News source(s): The Guardian BBC
Nominator: Stormy clouds (talk • give cr)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Target is not currently a separate article. The existing article provides the necessary context, but needs further work. Notability is derived from the target of the attack, as this is the largest fatality count for peacekeepers since 1993. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Conceding some exceptions, usually we want enough material for a decent "start" quality article before we seriously consider linking on the main page. Unfortunately we are nowhere near that here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Yeah. Article was in a torrid state when I found it, and my efforts at clean-up haven't and won't be able to redeem it. In your view, would it be more efficient to start an article dedicated to the attack from scratch, or keep targeting the current target? Stormy clouds (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
(Please see my opposition to this suggestion spelled out with my Oppose vote below).Tlhslobus ([[User talk:|talk]]) 01:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Stormy clouds. First I agree with Tlhslobus' comments. Beyond which I'd just try to expand the coverage in the current article until/unless a very clear case for notability is established which I think is unlikely if you consider SUSTAINED, RECENTISM and the 10YT. Unfortunately I rather doubt this is going to get posted. But we will see. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now on quality (and not yet sure about notability either - 'if it bleeds it leads' is for selling newspapers, not for deciding ITN notability, otherwise we should be consistent and also follow the newspapers' other dubious habits and thus post sex and celebrity stuff too). Also Oppose sweeping the quality issue under the carpet by creating a new article (as suggested above), thus also hiding most of the background, as the stated purpose of ITN is to let readers see quality articles giving them the background they won't find in the mainstream media. The new article may also become the subject of an Afd, especially if created mainly to avoid fixing the quality of the parent article. The quality of the current article may yet get fixed (or at least improved) if enough other ors are interested. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Incidentally, whether it really is the largest fatality count for peacekeepers since 1993 seemingly depends on who gets counted as a peacekeeper. For instance, I could be wrong, but as far as I know there have been higher daily death tolls among both Western 'peace-keeping' forces and UN civilian 'peace workers' in Iraq and Afghanistan even after their position became 'legitimized' by post-invasion UN Resolutions. (And I've no idea how many other such 'peacekeepers' there may be). And I'd rather like to know who were those 'peacekeepers' in 1993 (for instance, were they US 'peacekeepers' in Somalia?) Tlhslobus (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually the Guardian answers my above question: "The loss is the most serious suffered in a single day by the UN since 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed in an ambush in Somalia in 1993." This is presumably technically correct, but it probably helps if you ignore, for instance, 22 or more people killed in the Canal Hotel bombing that targeted the UN Mission in Iraq in 2003, as '22 or more' is also greater than the current number, but presumably they don't count as they weren't all UN workers (Note: The Guardian says 'UN', not 'peacekeepers', nor 'UN peacekeepers'). Tlhslobus (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Lilac Fire[]

No consensus for posting. Alex Shih (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Article: Lilac Fire (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): http://www.fire.ca.gov/current_incidents/incidentdetails/Index/1928
Nominator: Bardic Wizard (talk • give cr)
Updater: Missvain (talk • give cr)

Nominator's comments: large current wildfire Bardic Wizard (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • What about it?--WaltCip (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Even if this was switched to the Thomas Fire, or to the general Dec 2017 wildfires, Oppose. Yes, unusual this time of year, but its part of the trend of dry weather in CA leading to these fires. They are only getting larger coverage as they are actually near LA (read: something approaching a first-world problem in terms of bias, though fully aware there is threat to life and property destruction. Just that wildfires happen all the time with the same threats) --Masem (t) 15:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not only is the Thomas Fire bigger but this fire itself is not anything special, in fact this is the first time I have heard of this fire. I don't believe we have put wildfires on the front page before so I don't no why we should put one on now. Khscarymovie4 (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
    • We have posted wildfires before, I'm sure. Check the archive. Also, you may not have heard of it until now, but thats irrelevant. A State of Emergency has been declared. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
    • The thing is, it went from brush fire to 4100 acres in one day. Bardic Wizard (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
      • That makes for an interesting factoid (perhaps it's the fastest-known conflagration of a wildfire?) but not news in of itself, especially since there are no deaths yet (at least, for the Lilac fire). --Masem (t) 17:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not notable. Never heard of it. – NixinovaT|C⟩ 19:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on significance. Doesn't seem to be making much of an impact in the news cycle outside of the San Diego area.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Compared to disasters which normally make it to ITN, this wildfire is at worst an inconvenience.--WaltCip (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Muboshgu. When you are not the most significant fire in one state at any given time, you lack the newsworthiness and importance for ITN. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment really? There is currently an in season cyclone which is neither the strongest or deadliest in the box right now. I haven't looked at the article, but the 2017 wild fires are certainly in the news — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicAdventure (talkcontribs) 00:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
At the time of posting, Ockhi was the strongest cyclone of the season, classified as very severe and responsible for 39 fatalities. One cannot put that storm, and all the havoc it wreaked, on a pedestal with this wildfire. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
"This season". LOL since 2015 even! One can, and I did. The fires are "in the news". --CosmicAdventure (talk) 03:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed you have a tendency to have a contrary opinion to pretty much every consensus established within ITN/C.--WaltCip (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it's all those Cosmic rays. Sca (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I try to take my cues from actual news media vs my biased opinion of what's "important". Apparently that makes me a contrarian. I'm also a bit of an inclusionist which around here seems to be worse. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

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