---

Nominator's comments: Significant archaeological find; also visually appealing. Described as a "unique find of international importance" by the British Museum. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "in Great Britain", ergo oppose. Nergaal (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "of international importance", ergo support.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - ^Boi you got roasted^ UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per above and article appears to be sufficiently cited. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Why do we even bother having the "don't complain about single country events" rule if no one ever follows it?--WaltCip (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, cool stuff. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We could have posted (or at least nominated) its discovery instead, which per article was in December 2016. Brandmeister^talk 19:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Would we have known anything about the artifacts when they were discovered? Presumably, it took some time for experts to work out their age and provenance. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly, two blokes found a trove late last year, it wasn't until today that it really became notable. Just like when notification of a death is delayed, we deal with the real news of it (and this) when it's really in the news. And that's now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A notable historical find; the article states this has international significance. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, let me try to put this in perspective, since it seems to be lacking here:
  • oldest gold artifacts are from cc 4000 BC, in Bulgaria: Varna Necropolis
  • in Romania cc 3000 BC
  • Greek earrings from 2300BC
  • Irish artefact from 2000BC
  • Georgia cc 2500 BC
  • England cc 2000 BC
  • Nebra sky disk in Germany are from 1600 BC
  • China 1600 BC
  • Tutankhamun's mask in Egypt is from 1300 BC
  • in France 1300
  • bracelet in Ireland from 950-800 BC (as you can see, the blurb is technically wrong)
  • the oldest jewelry in Great BritainUK, the items posted here, are from 400-250 BC

All those voting support can they explain why is this item notable to ITN beyond being reported by the English-speaking news outlets from the UK? The item was discovered 2 months ago, but now it gets a publicity stunt to attract visitors, and isn't actually archeologically relevant. "of international significance", "unique find" and "truly historic" for tourism indeed. @Pawnkingthree, UNSC Luke 1021, Juliancolton, and 331dot: Nergaal (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nergaal: - Just because one thing is older doesn't mean this thing is any less notable to the world. Besides, these other things have all been on display for a while. This is just coming out, and it's over 2000 years old. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Your own opinion Nergaal is just that, your own opinion. This is being widely reported, globally, as significant. It doesn't diminish the significance of all those worldly goods you've listed, but this is ITN and this is in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Check [1] and [2] first before expressing strong opinions. Nergaal (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I've already expressed my opinion, as you have many, many times. I think we get your perspective, and hopefully by now you get ours'. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Nergaal: - The blurb is not wrong. Northern Ireland is part of the UK but not the country of Britain. Also, half of the examples you have specified were uncovered and displayed before ITN or even Wikipedia existed. I don't see the relevancy to the discussion at hand. You can't call it discrimination to not include something if it was discovered back in 1902. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unique find and truly historic. Ready to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by "truly historic"? Nergaal (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)The article has a quote stating that "This unique find is of international importance." It's starting to appear in the news elsewhere; US, India, Ireland. It's also not like we post an overabundance of treasure/archaeological finds here. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, what do you mean by "What do you mean by"? It's all there, in reliable sources. If you don't like it, that's a different thing altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you had any idea about the subject of how "truly historic" this is, you would have known that the oldest bronze age (not iron age like this one) artifact found in the British isles is more than a millenium older. Read Bush Barrow. This news is just "look, a millennium later we discovered new iron, not bronze age jewelry in Britain". Nergaal (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I'm following reliable sources. Are you? Or are you just offering us your opinion? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • You mean, you actually know the distinction between bronze age jewelry and iron age jewelry? Nergaal (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think we're talking past each other now, so this ends here for me. I'm going by reliable sources, you're going by .... your opinion? Goodbye! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unique find indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to point out that this is a blatant case of US/British centrism. Less than half a year ago, the The World’s Oldest Gold Artifact May Have Just Been Discovered from 4,600 BC and nobody jumped to create an article even though it was in the news. Nergaal (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why didn't you create one? 331dot (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Torcs were made in France/ Germany. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for trying to point that out Nergaal. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nergaal: - Please point me to the relevant article. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Why was the "ready" mark removed from this item? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because Nergaal "doesn't like it". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And again. Our IP friened seems to confuse "consensus" with "unanimity" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nergaal has added a quaint alt blurb which somehow tries to relate this find to Bronze age jewellery, to whit: ... and some 1,500 after the oldest Bronze age gold jewelry... (sic). I suggest we stick with the main blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean stick to the intentionally misleading blurb instead of the accurate one? Nergaal (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, he means use the accurate blurb instead of the pointy one. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No pointy alt blurbs, please. I've removed the alt blurb that no one, including Nergaal, think should be on the main page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean it's ok to post sensationalized oldest artifacts from the iron age, when older, bronze age are known from the same area? Nergaal (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes! If reliable sources are used and consensus exists! You already know that stuff Nergaal!!!!! If you don't like it, there are other projects you could work on! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I mean exactly what I said, no more, no less, which I expressed in simple English words. Stop trying to draw me into the dispute, I've no opinion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Dude, you just said "truly historic" without even bothering to open Gold working in the Bronze Age British Isles. You vote against events that have over 20 million viewers but you quantify it as "truly historic" when 2 blokes finding out some gold that is more than a millennium less old than the previous find. You don't see any lack of objectivity here? Nergaal (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • • You can't possibly be talking to me, I assume the threading is messed up. Perhaps you weren't talking to me the first time, either? if so, ignore my comment above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]
            • Reliable sources and consensus are against you. Stop it now because you're becoming disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wanted to point out that 'jewelry' is spelled properly. I'm striking the sic for the sake of clarity. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not what it was there for. And it's not "spelled properly" (sic) in Brit Eng. Stop trying to fix things you don't understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)***'Jewelry' is spelled correctly in American English, just going to say. Can you explain why the [sic] was present then? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, as is "spelled", but this isn't an American topic. Read the alt blurb again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is now being filibustered (or at least there's a poor attempt to do so ongoing); it's been ready to go for some time, trustworthy admin, please action the posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no consensus. Unmarked as ready. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:9F (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how one person delaying the ITN process through filibustering can be considered 'no consesus' rather than 'disrupting a clear "support"' UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The blurb is actively misleading. If you say something's the oldest Iron Age jewellery found in Great Britain", it'll be read as "the oldest jewellery found in Great Britain, which happens to date to the Iron Age". —Cryptic 21:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  So when the BBC say "Two friends have unearthed jewellery which could be the oldest Iron Age gold discovered in Britain.", they're wrong, misleading, what? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  And actually, I think you're talking bunk, while English is rich with possibilities for many interpretations, your assertion is somewhat flamboyant and derogatory to our audience who I believe can read English as well as the BBC can write it in most cases. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe wrong, maybe misleading, maybe misled, maybe just selling clicks. I don't know and neither do you. That doesn't mean we have to use their misleading wording too. —Cryptic 21:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I know how to read English and the blurb, and the BBC, are not misleading anyone. If someone misinterprets the blurb, or the BBC, it's their own misinterpretation. We use reliable sources here, and the BBC is one of those. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cryptic: - I speak American English and I can understand it perfectly fine. I don't see what the problem with it is. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per nom. A significant find indeed. ZettaComposer (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Requesting Post - by an uninvolved administrator. The consensus is clearly in favor of posting and the only reason it hasn't already is because of filibustering by Nergaal. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 22:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Can we use the image with this, which shows the actual objects, in preference to the current ITN image, which is an artist's impression? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the image needs to be protected, and that can usually happen within fifteen minutes of getting it listed at Krinklebot's page. Admin instructions are pretty easy to follow in this regard. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, checking on Commons and Kriklebot's page, the image is already good to go. Needs a trustworthy admin to switch the image (and the (pictured), alt text etc) whenever convenient! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, this stuff just happens while I type! Done, hurrah! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting comment I would not ask this to be pulled, but this clearly better suited as a DYK, given the opposes above and that it is really not that significant a find relative to the whole of human discoveries. It's very much clear a DYK as the oldest finds in England. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the oldest, not even when further restricted from Great Britain to England. There's more than a dozen such listed at List of Bronze Age hoards in Great Britain, for example. —Cryptic 22:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, this story is far too interesting to be condemned to the esoteric, sleep-inducing no-man's land that is DYK. Consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of posting so I'm not sure why a couple opposes would mean it's not suitable for ITN. Moving on, something I hadn't noticed until just now is that "revealed for the first time" may be redundant - thoughts on just "revealed"? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm just going to point out that this was posted in 4 hours from proposing it. The ITNR on Oscars below took 3 hours. This discovery took months to be announced to the public but we can't wait hours to have an involved discussion. Nergaal (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I tend to agree with User:Masem that this item is a little weak. But my main concern here at ITN is to try to prevent the posting of scientifically false crap. So I'm willing to let this one slide. Abductive (reasoning) 23:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting oppose and pull - the fact that the blurb says "... found in Britain" (emphasis mine) is great reason to pull this. Logically, there is also oldest iron-age gold hoards in every other country in the world. I see no reason to single out Britain. Banedon (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a shame that we seem to get calls to pull the blurb on everything that isn't a boring ITN/R item or a suicide bombing. Let's try to make ITN a little more engaging and not less, please. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I beg to differ. If we did not have significance controls then every nomination that meets the quality standards would be postable (see the RD reform), and that is something we have agreed we don't want [3]. I am in favour of pulling this blurb not because it isn't a boring ITN/R item or a suicide bombing, but because it is at best only nationally significant, and there are 196 countries in the world. If you want to promote more non-ITNR non-suicide bombing items onto ITN, there are a few nominations in the threads below this one. Banedon (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because something happens in one place doesn't mean it's only notable in that place. A history curator at the British Museum (which is to say, someone who actually knows what they're talking about) called the discovery important on an international scale. The story is being reported by the Archaeological Institute of America who use the "international importance" quote in their headline, which suggests that wasn't just an offhand remark by an overzealous British patriot. Even if it's not of superlative significance, it's still significant - lots of items we post aren't about the absolute oldest or deadliest or biggest. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The curator of the British Museum is of course going to hype his own artifacts. You'll note that the archeology.org site puts "international importance" in inverted commas, implying they are using that as a direct quote and do not necessarily stand by it. The idea of "international importance" is also context-dependent, e.g. if a new archeological find changes the history of Ireland as we know it in the 15th century, and is of interest only to Irish people and historians, one could still claim it to be of "international importance" since Northern Ireland is not part of Ireland currently (but it was in the 15th century). The grand total of countries affected would be two, but that's still international by definition. Banedon (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  If you disagree with the expert at the British Museum, or question their motives, feel free not to include this story in your newspaper or website- or take it up with the reliable sources that have included this. If we refused to post things that were only relevant to one nation(assuming we disagree with the expert at the British Museum) very little would be posted here.(which is why we warn against single-country based objections) Part of our mission is to inform and educate readers. I learned something I wasn't aware of before and found it interesting. I don't see the big deal here. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I had to re-read what you wrote to be sure of what I'm seeing. You wrote "If you disagree with the expert at the British Museum, or question their motives, feel free ... to take it up with the reliable sources that have included this", which is incredible because it's as though you've never worked with WP:RS before. Here's a comparable example: George Foreman says Floyd Mayweather is better than Muhammad Ali - do you seriously think that means an edit to Floyd Mayweather to say that he's better than Muhammad Ali (citing George Foreman) is justified, and that if you disagree with it, "feel free to take it up with reliable sources"?? All the sources on this topic I've seen cite precisely one expert who calls the discovery of "international significance", when other articles on big discoveries quote many more experts. See e.g. the Trappist-1 discovery, to which news articles quote from involved and uninvolved scientists. If there's anything I learned from this nomination, it's that the bias on ITN is very real. Banedon (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  So you believe that the "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one" should have "unless it's from the UK" added? 331dot (talk) 09:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  No. If anything, you should be the one supporting that line, since I am opposing this nomination. I know you'll say something like "but I'm not from the UK". It doesn't matter. Collectively on ITN, we are showing pro-UK bias. Banedon (talk) 09:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I await your nomination of a similar event in another country with similar coverage and importance, I would be happy to support it. The way to address bias is to work in underrepresented areas, not suppress stories from represented areas. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Your waiting is over then, since a couple of the nominations in the threads below this are mine ... and I note that you have not commented on them, even though they've been around for a while. Too late since Stephen closed them already. Oh well. Banedon (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting support happy to see "in the news" posting things that are actually in the news. My thinking aligns with Juliancolton. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest closing this. I don't see what can be gained by further discussion and debate about this item that gained consensus. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. If as much effort went into finding and improving new news items as goes into complaining when people don't get their way once an item is posted, Wikipedia would be a much richer place for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support We have an excellent picture to go with the item. This also nicely complements the current FA – Viking metal :) Andrew D. (talk) 09:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: The biggest and most prestigious event in the Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series. Dough4872 01:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Motorsport is already overrepresented in ITNR with seven events per year, more than any other sport and matched only by film awards. That's a very high bar to including additional non-ITNR ones, and there was nothing special about this race this year to overcome it. Oppose. —Cryptic 01:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm finding it hard to disagree with Cryptic here. GoldenRing (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above.--WaltCip (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose posting this; we don't post Major League Baseball's Opening Day, or the NFL's Kickoff game. This has been brought up before; the end of the season is what is posted, as the result of the whole contest(the Cup) is more notable than its first game from an encyclopedic standpoint. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting... StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Only to comment (this is not a !vote) - we have posted Daytona in 2013, 2015, and 2016, and did not post in other years since ~2011 (though it was nominated). --MASEM (t) 15:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

 mfarazbaig 17:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose As there is no statement of when this operation would "end" with a broad mission statement, this is not really suitable for ongoing. Perhaps the announcement of the initiative as an ITN would be fine but that would then have to be considered on the 22nd. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - All of the news sources covering this operation are Pakistan-based. It seems to be a domestic thing in Pakistan that doesn't really affect the rest of the world. I don't feel this is of interest of English-speaking readers, but I could be wrong. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  "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." Banedon (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  " Less than 8% of the Pakistani population speak English" (Pakistani English) - That being said, I don't feel it is of interest to the large majority of our English speaking audience. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  While "domestic thing in Pakistan" is not a valid argument, it is valid to state that this is not widely covered outside of Pakistan. I am skeptical of "not of interest to English speakers" as an argument due to systemic bias issues. 331dot (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose - per Masem, and I'll support a blurb based on the events of 22 Feb. Banedon (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Nominated it [4]. Banedon (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose for now. For an ongoing article, there's really not much here. I see two events since the launch of the operation. Also, article suffers from generally poor writing (WP:PROSELINE issues). If this were expanded and a more natural narrative written, and if it were to continue to have regular (approximately) daily updates with additional information, I'd switch to support. --Jayron32 14:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: Right now, the amount of potential damage is unknown, as it requires actually having the sites that operate cloudflare spend time and effort to see what got cached. It does not seem to have too many security experts freaked out, but they are issuing warnings for password changes, among other steps. This could be nothing, it could be something, and while WP should not be worried about PSAs or the like, treating this as ITN makes s a lot of sense. MASEM (t) 01:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support; less widespread than Heartbleed (i.e., as provider of CDN/DNS services only), which was also posted to ITN. Mélencron (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the nomination. This is nothing. Until it stop being nothing and then the story can be updated accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose seems extremely minor. I saw barely any coverage outside of one-off items. Banedon (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – This is a fairly major incident, in that it affects a large variation of services (among which OKCupid, an online dating website that should have a large amount of personal data, and Patreon, which is effectively a banking app). It's still unclear how impactful the actual leak may have been, though. More importantly, the Wikipedia article still seems of fairly low quality, creating more questions than answers. I can imagine the article being expanded in the next two days to the point where it gives an appropriate amount of information on the issue, but until then I would agree with the opposition. ~Mable (chat) 15:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: Leila de Lima is the most prominent government critic of Duterte's drug war. On the one hand, this is "just" an arrest - not a conviction. On the other, this is a powerful sign coming from the government that dissent re the drug war is not tolerated, and if she proceeds to mysteriously disappear, there would never be a more natural time to post this. As with most of my nominations I'm floating the idea to see if ITN prefers to wait for a more blurb-worthy event happening soon, or posting now and then amending the blurb as the inevitable nation-wide drama unfolds (or neither; the article is heavily tagged as of time of nomination). Banedon (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It would be one thing if this was a well-established leader of a drug cartel, and they finally captured and arrested them. This is certainly not the case here, and as per BLPCRIME, the arrest is definitely not sufficient for ITN. --MASEM (t) 06:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  A comment on that: I think for most people this story is less about Leila de Lima, but rather about the Philippine government. Leila herself for example is likely to prefer more, not less, publicity for her arrest. Banedon (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not significant at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Neither a support or an oppose, but the Philippine government has jailed political opponents before. De Lima herself had previously pursued cases against then senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada and Bong Revilla, and former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, among others, and had them jailed. Estrada and Revilla are still incarcerated, and if the plans are to be followed, De Lima's cell is to be adjacent to those two's. –HTD 08:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: Duterte fans, foes in mass Manila rallies Banedon (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Masem. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

 Count Iblis (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose assume this is a joke nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - this is well known. If posted anyway, it should give the exact numbers ("eating 800 grams of fruits and vegetables a day increases life expectancy by ______ years"). Banedon (talk) 07:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Forever Young - EugεnS¡m¡on 08:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Which updates to which articles are you in support of? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As total nonsense. The expression 'An apple a day keeps the doctor away,' and variants thereof, goes back to the Siege of Harfleur, or thereabouts. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 08:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is literally vital information and it's in the news. The story complies well with WP:MEDRS as the main source is a review of nearly 100 studies. We should link to 5 A Day as the main point is to double that number. Myself, my score is currently 1 as I just got up and have started with an orange. Andrew D. (talk) 08:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Another article with no update or relationship to this news story. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I have just updated the 5 A Day article and will continue to do more today. Andrew D. (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Then you'll need a new (and encyclopaedic) blurb to target that article. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I very much appreciate the humorous style of the blurb, but it simply has to give more information than this. This headline looks like downright nonsense, and would probably work well for a newspaper, but not for the style of news blurbs Wikipedia is known for. That, and I have a hard time imagining dietary news like this being blurb-worthy. ~Mable (chat) 09:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a report on common sense. The more fruit and veg you eat, the healthier you are likely to be. It's been known for millennia. This report simply confirms common sense but has the other side effects of increasing the stress on those families who can't afford to buy ten portions of fruit/veg a day. The report is a bit like saying "if you don't run across roads without looking, you will reduce your chances of being hit by a car". Common sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't entirely agree. I haven't read the sources, but I could definitely imagine that this kind of research could pressure governments and such things. Regardless, it's definitely not big news that this is the case. The news would be that such a report came out, and I can't really call that big news at all. ~Mable (chat) 09:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  What don't you agree with? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and WP:SNOW this joke nomination. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Only managed 799 grams today. Guess that's the end of ol' Lugnuts. RIP. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 11:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: Yeah I raided your fruitbowl :p Rest In Peaches! ;) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 11:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Important news in the medical field, backed up by BBC article. Gfcvoice (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not sure whether this was seriously meant but health recommendations are generally only news in the country they are made, or possibly closely related countries. I don't know how much attention this is getting in the UK but we don't want a story every time a country repeats known advice or puts a new spin on it. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Okay, I'll humor this. This is covered widely and is notable, and we don't get much of a chance to post health news on Wikipedia. WaltCip (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We do not use popular press to support medical claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I'm happy to support especially important stories even if boring and especially entertaining stories even if trivial. This story is neither newsworthy nor particularly engaging. I'm not well-versed in the medical literature, and I recognize that the findings of this study may have some sort of significance that I'm not fully able to appreciate, but even if that's the case then it's not of broad enough interest to post IMO. Telling people that "if you eat healthy, you're more likely to be healthy" is likely to elicit this sort of response from most of our readers. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose It may be "news" but it is clearly not the type of news that ITN handles. If there was a case where, say, some newly chemical in an apple was found through recent published studies to be of great medical benefit, that might be something, but this is just yet a variation on how important fruits and vegatables are to a proper diet which has been known for decades. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

 Banedon (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose article too weak, looks like this should really be "ongoing" if its truly notable in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I suggested that ongoing would be inappropriate because of the broad and vague goals of this operation that doesn't have a clear end or timeline to the end. Announcing the start of this operation as a regular ITNC would have seemed more appropriate to me. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: Unfortunately I can't find any news sources yet covering this, but news of his passing is percolating among economists. Mélencron (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Added a source. --bender235 (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose several unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please name, I'll try to fix. Ken Arrow was one of the most influential social scientists of the 20th century. It would be a shame if he's not on RD. --bender235 (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take the "Endogenous-growth theory" section for example. Not one ref. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added some. --bender235 (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's often a problem that when people say 'for example' only that specific case gets fixed. Have a look at the sentences and paragraphs throughout the article that make claims and yet lack a citation. That's what needs fixing. Stephen 02:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support Overall the article is good and well sourced, but the subsection "Arrow's impossibility theorem" could use more sourcing. Other than that I think it's a go. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

 —MBlaze Lightning ^T 05:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose insufficiently referenced, and in this case, that's very important. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The article is pretty well-referenced now. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 12:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is much improved, and the only reference problem is ref 16 (dead link, "The lies...") which is used in the most contentious part of the article. On the condition that this is resolved, support.128.214.163.237 (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recovered from archive.org. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a single CN tagged sentence which is repeated verbatim on many other websites, but not on any RS that I can find and sounds suspiciously like OR. There are sources for Connell and Benedict's common council meetings, so adding one of those and removing the "close to" phrasing might suffice. The chronology in the last section is confused and some rather weighty stuff is unreferenced. I don't think these problems are insurmountable, but I also don't think the current state is suitable or that contentious content could be simply removed for the sake of posting to RD.128.214.163.208 (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose the article is certainly important enough that it should be featured, but I'm still seeing a number of grammatical errors, and also some weasel words and issues with sourcing. "failure to adequately address" is not something we should be saying in Wikipedia's voice. Vanamonde (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support reiterated. I fixed a new redlink, and every assertion appears to have a suitable reference. The language mentioned above comes directly from the legalese in this case, and given the weightiness of the matter I think its best to use that language instead of trying to come up with something else.128.214.53.104 (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: Reactions from the UN (MONUSCO) and the Pope. Zigzig20s (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose nothing updated for six days. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. I've added a lot. And the event is still unfolding (ongoing)...Zigzig20s (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last event noted when i reviewed the article was 14 February. That's six days. Two flare-ups in six months is not really an "ongoing" issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The video story I've just added was published on 18 February. Also to be honest it's happening in the middle of nowhere, which probably explains the lack of instant breaking news by the hour.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well unless it's regularly updated it's no use at Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for ongoing The article is very short, and there's very little regularly updated information. As noted by TRM, the last significant event happened almost a week ago, the last event of ANY kind is a reaction statement from February 16. If the article could be greatly expanded, and if it could be shown that events were happening rapidly by daily updates to the article, I'd change to support. --Jayron32 11:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as not really being "in the news". This is the first I'd heard of this, and the sourcing on the article itself is pretty narrow: a few Reuters sources, but then the Vatican, niche African-oriented press and RFI. RS's sure, but this isn't the broad sampling of sources I would expect from a highly-notable event of world-wide import.128.214.163.237 (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should dismiss the African or francophone press. There should be no supremacy of US media at ITN.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thats 100% true. So use the continuous reports in the Francophone press to update the article daily with ongoing information, and when the article is sufficiently in depth AND we can see that it is being updated regularly, we'll all vote support. --Jayron32 02:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added reactions from the MAEDI and the USDS.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at all dismissing non-US press, and that's a very creative reading of my objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.163.249 (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not any events. When you have continuous coverage of the conflict itself, and not just random reactions to it, you may have something. So far, nothing in the actual conflict since February 14th has been added to the article. That's not really a current event, ongoing or otherwise. --Jayron32 11:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While it is ongoing, would a blurb make more sense?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Such as? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Department of State, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development, and the Pope condemn the violence and use of child soldiers in the Kasaï-Central clashes?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not newsworthy. These organisations and individuals condemn stuff all the time. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, reliable third-party sources think it is newsworthy.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, they have to print something. I clearly meant not newsworthy in regard to this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think this is not newsworthy? I'm just curious. The US media care more about the Milo gossip; very sad.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not seeing it in any news outlets today, yesterday etc that I read regularly, the major events are spread well apart and nothing actually seems to be "ongoing", the use of child soldiers is not exclusive to this conflict, the condemnations are "by numbers" (take a look at any of the suicide bombing articles, condemnations aplenty). It's not ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles in Voice of America, the Catholic Herald, Le Monde and La Croix were all published yesterday.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? I've made my position clear, leave it now, focus on others. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Another comment/update. Just to let you know: I have added more info about another incident on February 18, and a reference from The New York Times.Zigzig20s (talk)

  Thanks, it was three days ago and looks incredibly insignificant on a global news scale. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked me to "focus on others" earlier, could you please do the same thing? We know--you don't like this nomination--we get it--please follow your own advice. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, this was a new update, so I'm just confirming that it's not of any note. It's not about "liking" a nomination, it's about due and careful consideration as to whether it rises to the notability level of the main page of Wikipedia. And an office being "ransacked" does not. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: This is the same action that Russia used as justification for intervening in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I think Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) is the most suitable article for this, but 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine and War in Donbass are also plausible. As of time of writing none of the articles are updated. If anyone has other suggestions for other target articles / blurb feel free to suggest. Banedon (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Is there enough to this new development to create a separate article?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all sorts of countries recognise all sorts of passports from all sorts of places. Maybe a DYK hook? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Neo-Soviets gonna neo-Soviet. Don't see how this rises to the level of ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No article. What's the point of making such a nomination?128.214.163.237 (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  There are two approaches to ITN nominations. The first is "I've just written a great article, you should feature it". The other is "this could be something, what do you think?". If it isn't obvious enough, I'm a believer of the second kind of nomination. Banedon (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I feel that nominating an event without an article is like telling a friend something without any context or any way to read more. It's absolutely useless to tell somebody something without giving some kind of context and allowing them to read more. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Moot - No article.--WaltCip (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Even if we had a target article, this seems more on paperwork rather than anything groundbreaking. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because there's no article to consider. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: I thought that this might be worthy of a news blurb as the James Bond franchise is fairly notable as is Daniel Craig and several news agencies/websites (including CTV Television Network) have covered this development. TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW close Good faith nomination, but this is trivial. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]