Wikipedia : In the news/Candidates/March 2018

Support: Per ITN/R. TIL about that award. Article is just long enough. Juxlos (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with regret. The Pritzker Prize article is an FL and has been updated, but Doshi's article is simply not good enough. The only way this could feature in short order would be if we switched targets... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Reynaldo Bignone

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2018 March 6 Template:Cob

Support Article is of sufficient depth and well referenced. --Jayron 32 15:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 22:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - sufficientt article. Thanks for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 6

[Posted] RD: John Sulston

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

Support Referenced and interesting.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support only objection is to the use of the Daily Mail reference. Otherwise good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support replaced daily mail source. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Sam Walton (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] [Posted] Sergei Skripal (Russian Spy Poisoned)

~~Oppose~~ Premature I think. He and his daughter are still alive (though critical condition), they're not sure what the poisoning agent was, and the media is quick to draw parallels to Litvinenko. --Masem (t) 16:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now that its confirmed it was a nerve agent (not a random environmental thing) alongside the responding officer being ill with the same. --Masem (t) 18:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - If either dies, then it would be worthy of a post (possibly blurb) - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Several EMTs were injured, and one remains in hospital. I think the premature train is pulling out of the station. GCG (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing about the EMTs I can find is from the BBC in that 3 were treated for potential exposure; 2 were cleared, one still remained under testing 3 hr ago, but they certainly weren't "injured". --Masem (t) 17:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until one of them dies per above.--WaltCip (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Whether they die or not makes no difference - the poisoning itself is a big enough story. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's been confirmed that a "nerve agent" was used. This isn't run of the mill stuff by any means and regardless of whether the pair of them are still (barely) alive and whether or not parallels have been drawn to Litvinenko (how accurate!), assassination attempts of a known foreign spy on British soil, along with his daughter, is certainly worthy of posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This could be about to turn into something quite serious. I would imagine the government will be under enormous pressure to respond, especially since it is not the first instance of this kind of thing by (almost certainly) Russian operatives on British soil. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically, what are the geopolitical ramifications of this likely to be?--WaltCip (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know, do we? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Made some small tweaks, but all good in general. Not something I'd ever expect to happen in Salisbury. !dave 18:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - articles are of good quality, the story is dominating the media at present, and given that there was clear and malicious foul play, this is a geopolitical issue regardless of whether or not they die. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Might it be useful to add that a nerve agent was used, now that it's been confirmed? Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd support, media seem to confirm. If they determine the specific substance, this could be updated further. Brandmeister^talk 21:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose this isn't getting major coverage globally. It's there if I look for it, but otherwise it's drowned out. For example even BBC's World page currently has "US softens stance on metal tariffs" as the headline, followed by "Florida gun law moves step closer" and then by "Assad's forces push deeper into enclave". It's especially ironic since this apparently happened on Sunday and there was no coverage until now. Banedon (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's because for the BBC, it's not "world news", it's local news. It's the main story on the front page. Isa (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a sign that few / no other countries care. I learned about this story because of this nomination. I also read related stories because of this nomination, and if it continues to generate stories they are not showing up on my newsfeeds either. Banedon (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

reminder: 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. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And it's been headline news on that front page for the past four days. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still fail to see what consequences are likely going to come about for Russia, even if it were determined that the operative who poisoned him was on Putin's payroll. Perhaps an ambassador might be pulled out of the country, but nothing with any actual long-term significance. Feels like government shutdown-esque media hype.--WaltCip (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows what the consequences are going to be? I don't have a crystal ball. But the use of a nerve agent against individuals in a high street setting in the UK is definitely significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is that something like this might have had greater consequences during or before the Cold War era. As it is, this isn't exactly the shooting of Franz Ferdinand.--WaltCip (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure no-one is comparing the possible consequences with the outbreak of the First World War, but the story was posted on its merit, not on the plethora of possible actions that may occur subsequently. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive bottom

[Posted] RD: Peter Nicholls (writer)

Oppose Article is barely above a stub, would need to be expanded to better demonstrate his life's work. What is there is also poorly referenced. If expanded significantly and fully referenced, that would get my support. --Jayron 32 13:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re I haven't seen anything in the criteria that articles for RD must be of a certain length (here assessed as Start-class), so sorry for that. There seems to be some coverage of him from the 1970s and 1980s (like this full-length article) but mostly offline it appears. I'm not sure that I can fix it with the sources I can find but someone else might be able to. Regards So Why 14:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose (in part) of ITNC is, and I quote, "To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events." (bold mine) There isn't enough information in this article to qualify as "quality". There's large gaps in his biography. It is no where near comprehensive enough to be a quality article. Since you think this person is important enough for recognition here, I'm flummoxed as to why you would then want to specifically refuse to improve the quality of his article, that you would want to tell the world that he's not worth writing a decent article about him. --Jayron 32 14:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood. I'm all for writing a quality article about him and I wish someone would. I just said that I am not able to do it because most of the sources that apparently exist are offline and thus outside my reach. I'm not an expert on ITN and just by reading WP:ITNRD I did not see any requirements that a certain quality was required. Which I apologized for. Since WP:ITN/A says Template:Xt, I don't think I should withdraw this, should I? Regards So Why 16:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're fine to leave it open. Quality issues can, of course, be fixed by anyone with sufficient interest in doing so. There should be no rush to close nominations. (I'm not in favor of closing them unless there's outright disruption anyways). --Jayron 32 17:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I’ve tidied it up a little and added a few lines and some references. It is on the short side but I think it’s adequate. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I added some more material to better cover his non-science fictional work, and cleaned up the references a bit. It's not our best article, but I think it's good enough, now. /Julle (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 22:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting Support Good job all who worked on expanding this. It's still short, but now more comprehensive of his professional work. --Jayron 32 12:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 2018 Antonov An-26 crash

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

I fixed the link. Haven't looked at the article yet so no comment on that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is a stub right now. Willing to re-assess when the article is in a well-developed state. --Jayron 32 18:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that there was some discussion about posting military planes crashes regarding 2017 USMC KC-130 crash. --Jenda H. (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's not get hung up with "military = less notable". We do post military aviation accidents, such as the 2017 Myanmar Air Force Shaanxi Y-8 crash. In this case, we have a large enough death toll that we should be leaning towards posting, subject to article quality. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:AIRCRASH is an essay not a policy, so editors should feel free to apply their own judgement. My take: apply it as a negative weight on the notability, such that the acceptable level of quality is a bit higher. GCG (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Myanmar crash was posted because the casualties includes people beyond the military (in that case, family members). If it is only military personal in a military plane, that's generally not very notable for ITN purposes; it's tragic, but we've considered that "in the line of duty". --Masem (t) 03:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unlikely to have lasting impact, and the coverage I saw of it spend more words not on the crash itself, but rather Russian involvement in Syria. Banedon (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. At all. – Nixinova ⟨[[User talk:Nixinova!T]]![[Special:Contributions/Nixinova!C]]⟩ 23:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support - when article is expanded beyond a stub. The crash is certainly notable enough for ITN. -Zanhe (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Unfortunate to be sure, but of only passing significance – mainly (as Banedon notes) due to Russia's involvement in the Syrian War. Sca (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - article not in good enough condition to post. Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support once made more neat-article is important but is stub. Needs to be cleaned and posted. User:awestruck1 (talk) 20:14 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - the victims are exclusively soldiers. Soldiers die in war, especially while in active duty. Therefore, the crash is less notable, and 39 fatalities (a relatively low count for plane crashes which permeate into the news cycle) only compounds this in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

[Closed] Paula (1876 barque)

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but what is the significance of this? ‑ Iridescent 19:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The 132 years between the bottle being dropped and its discovery. Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it happened in January and did not receive much immediate fanfare suggests to me that it's not a very big deal. Lepricavark (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason for the delay in reporting was that an intensive investigation was carried out to confirm the provenance of the bottle and the message it contained. Mjroots (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To my surprise this is actually getting some, albeit limited, news coverage. However I think this is more DYK material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is a fun story, but its not really of great significance. As the article was created today, this would be a good nomination for DYK. --LukeSurl^{t c} 20:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ec

Oppose – I did read the story (on BBC), but must agree with previous two posts. Only a curiosity. Sca (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I've undone the closure, as it was far too premature with 3 hours discussion and 3 !votes. As such, I will offer no opinion on this piece. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought it was closed too quickly as well. Sca (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Trivial, not significant news, an interesting little factoid that would fit nicely at DYK as said above. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unusual but trivial discovery which has no lasting encyclopaedic value. The article on the ship didn't even exist until yesterday. If this was a person it would fail WP:BLP1E, as it appears to have no notability whatsoever beyond this single bottle find. Take this to DYK, it isn't ITN material. Modest Genius ^talk 15:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - take it to DYK, as this item is far more suitable there. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive bottom

[Closed] RD: Shammi (actress)

Template:Archive-top Template:ITN candidate

Oppose Several problems here. There is a "close paraphrasing" tag that has been at the top of the article for four years, and a watermarked image. Maybe these could simply be removed, but the article is also under-referenced, and the sources that are there look weak - blogs, gossip-type sites and a heavy reliance on Rediff.com (is that a reliable source?)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pawnkingthree – Nixinova ⟨[[User talk:Nixinova!T]]![[Special:Contributions/Nixinova!C]]⟩ 19:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive-bottom

[Posted] USS Lexington (CV-2) wreck discovered

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2018 March 5 Template:Cob

Support. The article is a FA and the update is sufficient. --Tone 09:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fine article, subject is historical and internationally notable. Good nom. Jusdafax (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Indeed, FA article. Updated. Ready for posting. Perhaps including the person who discovered it Paul Allen in the blurb.BabbaQ (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - article in excellent shape and updated. Mjroots (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I'm not convinced that finding the wreck in itself reaches the level of significance required for ITN, but the article is an FA, likely to be of interest to readers, and we're going through a slow news period. Modest Genius ^talk 11:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Personally I'm a sucker for sunken-wreck stories & pix, but agree with Genius that this one's significance in the Big Scheme is doubtful. Titanic and Bismarck were big finds of famous ships, but with advances in undersea technology discoveries of wrecks has become almost commonplace. Sca (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I read this last night, and feel that given that it was purposely scuttled (only now affirming where it came to rest) and that Allen's Vulcan project has had a string of successful finds, this might not be that big of a discovery as being made out. However, I do weight the fact that the article is FA and is being covered by the news. --Masem (t) 14:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --Jayron 32 15:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope the the billionaire runs out of ships full of dead men to exploit soon. Abductive (reasoning) 16:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 5

[Posted] RD: Uri Lubrani

Support Short but adequate. Decently sourced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - indeed, short but sufficient. ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Well sourced. – Nixinova ⟨[[User talk:Nixinova!T]]![[Special:Contributions/Nixinova!C]]⟩ 04:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 05:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Trevor Baylis

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

Oppose for now. Too much is uncited or with unclear connection to source material. I've done my best to tag the biggest problems with CN tags. --Jayron 32 17:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Oppose Several citation tags and other unsourced statements that will need to be referenced. (By the way this is not the current England cricket coach who I first thought of when I saw the name).--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Too many Template:T tags – Nixinova ⟨[[User talk:Nixinova!T]]![[Special:Contributions/Nixinova!C]]⟩ 04:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:U, Template:U and Template:U, I think I've now got the sourcing covered. The article is still far from perfect, but if you could take another look to see if it is acceptable for our purposes here, that would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article looks fine now, certainly good enough for RD. Nice work Template:U! Modest Genius ^talk 12:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Rock on. --Jayron 32 12:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support definitely up to mark, marking as such Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to go now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 22:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 4

[Closed] RD: Russ Solomon

Oppose Too many unsourced statements.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

[Posted] Italian general election, 2018

Wait until we get the seat numbers, otherwise the result is incomplete. The article looks good, well referenced and with plenty of prose on the campaign. I'd go with blurb 1. Modest Genius ^talk 18:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article now has seat numbers, so I think we're good to go. Modest Genius ^talk 11:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Post now and update the blurb as more results come in. Banedon (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Multiple tables do not have a clearly cited source. Others need to be filled in. I have also added multiple CN tags. The article is not in horrible condition. But it has some gaps in referencing and there are a few too many sections in need of being updated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support Template:Cn tags seem to be mostly on non-controversial statements and I've filled in some. But the tables do need some filling. Juxlos (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support It has 113 citations, enough. The big news are already confirmed, the rest of the tables can be filled when the final results are in (for example votes cast abroad counted etc.) --Pudeo (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per Puedo. Ready for postingBabbaQ (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article has been improved greatly. The tables have been filled (I've added the updater). Davey2116 (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good work on the article, less delighted with results. But, I mean, has the right-wing every failed Italy?. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks ready. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the tables still lack clear references. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: William McAlpine

Are we truly going to use the full title of nobility on the main page?--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sir William McAlpine would suffice, although the honorific could be dropped. Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Honorifics are handed out liberally by governments of all stripes. I see no reason for us to use any of them. Vanamonde (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - This one was not handed out by a government, though. For some reason baronets have the "Sir" in the article title while mere Knight Bachelors, such as Sir Roger Bannister, do not.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lots of unsourced material and not a huge amount about his life except for a too-big section on his railway hobby which takes up half the article. Black Kite (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 90th Academy Awards

Support. This is in WP:ITNR 184.153.25.119 (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yearly ITN event 05:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Support Jusdafax (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support once article is ready. Lepricavark (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lot of useless support !votes above; one section is tagged Template:Tq the box office section looks like it needs a few cites or atleast one more. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Relevant discussion on whether to keep that tagged-section is currently taking place at Talk:90th Academy Awards#Proposal to remove "Historical Precedents" section. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't see any tagged sections (maybe this has been fixed?) or any other problems that should preclude posting. Looks fine to go up. Modest Genius ^talk 14:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is ready; sufficient prose and no tags.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I modified the blurb to mention that the movie won 4 awards in total, this was kind of a standard practice in past years. The orange tag is back in the article although I thought I found a good solution to the issue. --Tone 15:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Tripura Legislative Assembly election, 2018

Comment the background is going to have to be expanded substantially explaining the significance of this election. I don't consider the population of the affected region when reviewing noms. It's either "in the news" with a "quality update" or it isn't. --76.122.98.135 (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose State of Tripura has a population of 4 million - if California or Central Java (pop 39 and 33mn) flips from their traditional parties, while pretty safe to say will be more significant, it would still be a regional election and hence not ITN-worthy. Otherwise, every ITN would be regional elections. Juxlos (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is a state election, so isn't significant enough for a broad audience of readers. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I'm not necessarily opposed to posting regional elections; in particular, I feel quite strongly that we should post the more significant domestic elections from countries with large populations. This particular one doesn't quite fit the bill, though. It's a very small state, which has frequently voted very differently from the country as a whole. The election to post was that of Uttar Pradesh, about a year ago; that state is more populour than all but a handful of countries, and the election made the news for the particularly strident views of the new chief minister. Vanamonde (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sub-national entity, no wider implications, routine politics. If we posted this we would have to post a continual stream of state and mayoral elections. Modest Genius ^talk 14:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is too parochial. Lepricavark (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abottom

[Posted] RD: Davide Astori

Support Nice article. Referencing is better than what we typically see around here. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes, per above. Tragic. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very sad news, but the article is in good shape. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sad story. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Sobering news. Lepricavark (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could someone post this please? It's been sitting here marked Ready for well over 19 hours with unanimous support. I can't post it myself as I nominated it! Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just post it. Unanimous support, plenty of it, non-controversial. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thank the admins for this slight delay; whether intentional or not it allowed Quini to be on RD for a few hours at least.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Vanamonde (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2018 Baku fire

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

Comment this should be moved to 2 March I believe, since that's when the event took place. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Article is a bit on the short side, but it’s good enough and decently referenced. Juxlos (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Two small inline tags, but promptly fixable. Brandmeister^talk 18:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Short but sufficient.BabbaQ (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Articles looks fine, though short. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 3

[Posted] RD: Lin Hu (air force general)

Support Looks short but adequate. Decently sourced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 05:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: David Ogden Stiers

Oppose most of the career section is unsourced. Aiken D 17:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Aiken D. Referencing is not up to scratch. [A sad loss. Memory eternal.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abottom

[Closed] RD: Roger Bannister

Oppose pretty much all of it's unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the text appears to be verifiable from his 1955 autobiography, I can only do a spot-check on Google Books but if anyone's got a copy, that ought to be able to do most of it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am currently updating its citations and referencing, and have added a number more in-line citations, starting with the section on the sub-four-minute mile. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Bannister is well-documented in sources, so we should be able to fix it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The Rambling Man, but happy to support if it's fully referenced, which as Ritchie333 says, shouldn't be too difficult as a well-documented person. Aiken D 13:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still opposed, unless the unsourced parts are removed. Per Joseph2302, it would probably work to remove them. Aiken D 18:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's up to C-class, and he's a very important figure. p b p 13:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The class of the article is not relevant; no admin would post this in its current state of referencing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose mostly unreferenced with multiple large sections entirely unreferenced. Hope it can be referenced Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should additionally be moved to 3 March 2018, as family sources have confirmed (via news articles) this date (cf. [39]). — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Done - Stormy clouds (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ many unreferenced sections. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppoze due to lack of referencing. However, there may be a case for a blurb given rating as a vital article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb the referencing looks to be getting better, and a RD listing is obviously necessary once that's up to snuff, but I oppose a blurb. Bannister's fame far exceeds his importance, and he was 88 when he died. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I hoped people would come forward, but there are still too many unsourced statistics in the article, so it's obviously not happening. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A number of sections have now been updated, but it would appear that a lot of the unsourced items in the biography are from Bannister's book, of which I do not have a copy to verify; I'm trying to do what I can from other sources. If there are any particular items that, if they had citations, people would then be happy it is sufficiently referenced, please tag them or let me know on my talk page. Thank you — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's now a lot more citations for the article since its initial nomination and objections; at the time of nomination, there were a couple of dozen citations from about as many references, and there are now more than 60 citations from 42 references. Given Bannister's milestone and the improvement in the article, I think it would be fair to list in RD. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are still numerous uncited paragraphs. And the legacy and memorabilia sections are almost entirely uncited. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Most of the content is well sourced. If you removed the unsourced content, this article would be good to go, so if it bothers people that much then just remove it. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Kenneth Gärdestad

Support looks adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 22:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Video Assistant Referees in association football

Oppose Instant replay been going on in Major League Baseball and the National Football League for a few years now, didn't get nominated here. I don't think it's significant enough – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Association Football (AKA Soccer) is not first sport to utilize such measures. As Muboshgu notes, both The MLB and the NFL, as well as car racing in general has already implemented this technique well before association football has, and thus is nothing new. It will also most certainly not be the last sport to do so as well.SamaranEmerald (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's already implemented in football, so this isn't that big a step. And in any case, I doubt it would ever rise to the level of the significance of events we normally post at ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Relatively minor change in sporting rules. Maybe if keepers are no longer permitted to use their hands, that would be post-worthy. Spencer^T♦C 21:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - brilliant news for fans of some teams, and association football is the world's leading sport, but I don't feel that it rises to a significant enough level in terms of rule changes, particularly as financial constraints mean that it will not be implemented universally. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abottom

[Closed] RD: Billy Herrington

Support I deleted a few unsourced categories. Looks fine to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, missed where it was included inline. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose until those cn tags are addressed. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unreferenced videography, several unreferenced sentences. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality article. Well known figure in many parts of the world, especially the United States, Japan, and China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wessex 95 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Replyto - notability at recent deaths is not a concern, only article quality is. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - referencing issues abound, particularly in videography, unfortunately. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TRM and Stormy. Referencing needs work. I have added a few tags. Also I'm not sure how "in the news" this is. I did a search and the only reference to his death came from the one Chinese site. We generally require some mainstream news coverage when considering RD nominations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Vanessa Goodwin

Support Short, but good enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - short, but sufficient.BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support barely above stub standard, but what's there is fair and square, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article notes that she had a ~10 year long political career, but aside from mentioning which post she was elected into, doesn't describe any work she did while in those positions. For example, this news story mentions "most recently she began an overhaul of Tasmania's prison service and courts system". I would like to see more specific content like this in the article. Until then, I think the article does not have coverage of sufficient depth for RD. Spencer^T♦C 21:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, it did have all the hallmarks of a stub+. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

March 2

[Posted] RD: Brandon Jenkins (musician)

Support Seems good enough, but there's some ugly proseline. "In 2003, Jenkins moved from Oklahoma to Austin, Texas, where he lived until 2015." Fascinating! GCG (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support No big issues, good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support concur with the above, it's grim but good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2018 Ouagadougou attack