---

• Oppose. Individual notes and coins cease to be legal tender all the time (the English paper £10 note also ceases to be legal tender this week), and the linked article makes it clear that these are obsolete notes which haven't been produced since the last century, not a current issue being withdrawn. ("Ceased to be legal tender" doesn't mean they suddenly become worthless, either; it just means you can no longer spend them in shops and need to exchange them in a bank.) This isn't remotely a big deal, and if it is ITN-worthy will open a spectacular floodgate; there are 200+ countries in the world, and probably on any given day one of them is either issuing a new note/coin or withdrawing an old one. ‑ Iridescent 23:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Iridescent. Not remotely ITN material. Black Kite (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - perhaps attempt a nomination at DYK, as this item would be more suitable thataways. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: Indian criminal who committed suicide at the age of 41. Article is reasonably referenced, but may require some work. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose that is one bleak BLP. But oppose anyway because of " presumably because he was upset over his failure to escape" for example. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - Removed, as there is no source to justify such a claim. Please detail any other such issues so that I may rectify them. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This reads as a string of accusations, suppositions and arrests, but has little detail on actual convictions. Whilst few will mourn his man we must still adhere to BLP. Stephen 23:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Support for RD. I for one will not mourn this man, but the sourcing on the article looks solid. The facts appear to be presented as neutrally as possible. Challenger l (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Sourcing is adequate, and article seems to be neutral. --Jayron32 02:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't help but wonder if this is really necessary. Sure, we aren't supposed to evaluate RDs on the basis of anything but article quality, but do we really think it's a good idea to put a convicted serial rapist and murderer on the front page? We can post anyone who has recently died (if article quality is satisfactory), but that doesn't automatically mean we should. Lepricavark (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD is meant to be indifferent to why a person is notable (though it should be noted that not all convicted criminals necessary are notable per BLP1E). --Masem (t) 06:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know that. I'm just saying that it's okay to make an exception to the rule once in a while. Lepricavark (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that we should implement this policy - I can see it being a slippy slope argument (Charles Manson was posted, remember?), and we must refrain from righting great wrongs. Stormy clouds (talk) 07:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the actual text of RIGHTGREATWRONGS and it is not applicable here. I'm not suggesting that we implement a new policy. My point is simply that we should reconsider whether we want to give any acknowledgement to a recently deceased serial rapist and murderer. And I'm not sure the comparison with Manson is apples to apples, as Manson was a household name for decades. Lepricavark (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lepricavark: I understand your logic, I just don't necessarily agree. Under the same principle, we would not post major terror attacks as they would bring attention to terror groups like Daesh. Recent death are posted provided the article quality is sufficient, and making alterations to this rule is not, admittedly only in my opinion, a good idea. If others do not agree, so be it, but we are an encyclopedia, and should refrain from suppressing encyclopedic content of sufficient quality due to moral quandaries. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with this proposal, if is presented in the proper forum and approved by the community. I think you'd find that the implementation would be extremely difficult. The current standard is very clean: omitting a honorable person is not a travesty, including a vile person is not an endorsement. We are only saying we have this article you can look at that we all think is pretty good. Once we get into moral judgements... how do we treat O.J. Simpson, Pete Rose, or Art Schlichter? Billy Graham faced opposition due to his homophobia. (Oh boy, it's going to be fun when this pushes Sridevi off MP) GCG (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support article seems adequate. RD is for all biographical articles. An RD posting does not imply a value judgement on a person, any more than the presence of an article in the first place does. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose RGR notwithstanding, this article reads like it was written by a fan; I keep hearing Bill Hader doing his macabre Keith Morrison impression as I read it. The proseline is rough. This really isn't spotlight material. GCG (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - we now have editors claiming that the article is not neutral as it consists of accusations against the subject, editors claiming that it is too positive towards the subject, and a majority claiming that it is in fact neutral. The discussion is now fractured into literally all possible viewpoints, so this may need the attention of an uninvolved admin to make an assessment one way or another. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I have removed the Ready tag. Looking over the discussion I am not satisfied that there is an adequate consensus for posting at this time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too many sentences unsourced, or sourced to tabloid newspapers. Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Are we reading the same article? Because I can't find a single statement in the article which does not have a direct, inline source to a reliable source. Most of it is sourced to the Times of India and New Indian Express, which seem to be legitimate journalism. Can you elaborate on which statements are not connected to reliable sources? --Jayron32 14:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• India Today ("Dreaded psycho rapist escapes from Bangalore jail") and DNA ("Watch out, there's a psycho on the loose") don't strike me as outstanding journalism. The other problem is that, for example, the "Second arrest (2011)" paragraph is written in Wikipedia's voice as fact, whilst the source makes it clear that much of it is simply what was reported by the villagers (which could be fact, but might not be). ONe of the other problems is the tendency of Indian news sources to report alleged incidents as fact (for example, one source contains " Jaishankar and Selvam hacked the helpless woman with a sickle and severed one of her limbs before robbing her of a chain weighing around 8.5 sovereigns" in a story saying they had been acquitted of the crime). Black Kite (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment After reading and understanding the above, I withdraw my support for this - and find myself unsure what course of action to suggest, when rumor and hearsay seem mixed, as Black Kite implies. Challenger l (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Stale Discussion is now moot. Vanamonde (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: Because even some of our regular editors are confused, I'll nominate this, it's in a junk state but who knows, someone might fix it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Multiple completely unsourced sections, years old tag, very short not offering any new information. The content it offers was already more elaborately covered in opening ITN post and just removed ongoing item. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – The fanfares of the finale are fading fast. Sca (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I was not confused, I merely pointed out below that ITNR lists that the closing merits posting, and thought discussing it in the ongoing removal discussion made sense. If the article is of poor quality, as is the case, it should not be posted. If people want it off the list, that discussion should be started. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We simply don't conflate the removal of an ongoing with a proposal to post a shambolic article. You know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advisory: See this. – Sca (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • • We conflated the opening plus moving it to Ongoing. (" would also support letting this go to ongoing when it rolls off the bottom of the blurbs list", "But sure, this is ITNR, and ongoing after the blurb rolls out is what we commonly do for the Olympics") This was simply the reverse. 331dot (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's pretty obvious this is the best course of action. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - article is dire. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry but the article quality is not up to scratch for the main page. In this case the issues go beyond the usual poor referencing. This is a poorly written mess. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Not gonna make it. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

 The Rambling Man (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Blurb - She was one of the best known comedians from Indian cinema and her career spanned several decades. She was the winner of several awards and played in numerous cult movies in both Hindi and Tamil. The article on her is detailed and well sourced --Manish2542 (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Manish2542: As this is a Recent Deaths nomination, support on the merits is not required; this will be posted once there is a quality update. 331dot (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. B class article and article is well sourced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose At least 12 paragraphs without a single reference, and numerous other uncited claims. Stephen 04:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Arguably the biggest 'Lady Superstar' in Indian cinema. The article needs a minor cleanup – there's a couple of ((cn)) tags in in the career section. —Vensatry _(talk) 04:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Minor cleanup needed otherwise nicely sourced. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - Nicely sourced with minor clean-up but the overall article state is nice. Honestly, a blurb could also be argued seeing the death is sudden and is being covered heavily international (from the BBC to CNN). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Would support blurb as well. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very well sourced article. Sudden death which gained international coverage.--SouravDas1998^{t@lk to me?} 06:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article looks fine. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when fully sourced It's mostly fine, but "Early years as child artist (1967–1975)" has no sources apart from the first sentence, the following paragraph has none at all. There are also a number of uncited claims in "Post-marriage and television debut (1998–2011)". These things do need to be fixed. Black Kite (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - when completed. Right now entire sections are unsourced so I have to give a weak oppose right now.BabbaQ (talk) 09:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose virtually unknown outside India. And very poor article with unreferenced claims — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numancia (talk • contribs) 11:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Numancia: Virtually unknown outside India? I'm from Mauritius where she is a household name just like in the whole of South Asia and everywhere where Indian films are watched. On the other hand, who is Billy Graham? Never heard of him before he somehow made the headlines on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish2542 (talk • contribs)
• Well, I'm Canadian and I've heard of her. Every major media outlet here reported her death. Never heard of Graham though. 75.102.128.35 (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb, support RD this is what RD is for. For anyone tempted to scream about "American bias" and "Billy Grahm" pull that one and move it to RD. Per WP:USGOVERNMENTSHUTDOWN we now pull stories that have faded from the headlines, so go for it. --76.122.98.135 (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Graham is currently our most recent blurb. Pulling him would be a bad idea. Lepricavark (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support Blurb - The article is well referenced and of good quality, when considered on standalone basis. The actor was very popular in Bollywood in 80s and 90s. Making headlines and quite referenced in the subcontinent, the Middle East, and the leading US and UK publications ( CNN, Fox News, BBC News, The Guardian, Sky News, ABC News). The death was untimely which shocked everyone in India resulting in the outpouring of tributes. And regarding the popularity of the actor, one must have the knowledge on what Bollywood is all about!!! If a nomination in recent past did not make through, does not imply it will also not go through (US government Shut down was poplular but was not expected and did not make any short term impact).

Let's not delay the publishing of the post. We have enough support for publishing it to the ITN Regards, theTigerKing  16:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least two of the supports above are actually opposes as of right now, because they are conditional on referencing being improved (Black Kite and BabbaQ). Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb on significance and RD on referencing gaps. Two sections with additional citations required banners, so not ready yet. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support blurb - Billy Graham has lowered the bar. WaltCip (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb - does not cross the notability threshold in my view, and is not in the same league of significance and impact as Graham. Also oppose for an RD listing owing to referencing concerns. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stormy clouds: It's not about who YOU know. She is known to hundreds of millions of movie fans in the world. And don't you get it? Noone ever heard of Billy Graham outside the US before you decided to prostitute your evangelist in the headlines.

@Manish2542: - I'm not American, though, something which you easily could have checked before your facetious and aggressive comment. As a non-American, I can tell you, without bias, that Graham is more notable, as I have to study him extensively for my history syllabus. He was at the top of his field, and was a figure of world-changing impact for evangelicals. Sridevi simply never reached that threshold. Being known to millions of movie fans does not guarantee notability - preaching to 2.2 billion, including multiple presidents, does. And please sign your posts, particularly when critiquing/making insinuations about other editors. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb Graham may have lowered the bar, but not that much. Lepricavark (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - Far more notable than Billy Graham. Death at 54 is also surprising when compared to a 99 year old's death which is expected. 75.102.128.35 (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The paragraphs above are still unsourced. "Support" voters - this isn't going to get posted to RD or ITN until the referencing issues are fixed. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support blurb on significance, oppose on quality I'm seeing this being reported a good bit more than I was seeing Graham's death; then again I don't read solely or even predominantly US news sources. It's certainly a more unexpected death than Graham's. Vanamonde (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb on notability, oppose RD on quality. We don't elevate everyone who dies young to a blurb; her death must be noteworthy per se ("murder, suicide, or major accident" is the suggested standard). GCG (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote on notability to neutral due to the death seemingly being of non-natural causes (I'd put this on par with Heath Ledger, maybe?); but we are still miles away on the references. GCG (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreatCaesarsGhost: Can you explain what was noteworthy about the death of Billy Graham? Double standards.

@Manish2542: - First, please sign your comments inline. Second, give and get respect. By accusing me of double standards, you are not assuming good faith. I supported Billy Graham under the ITNRD qualification of a "major transformative world leaders in their field" which I believe Graham to be. Sridevi does not begin to fit this standard, even within India. We may consider her for a blurb under the standard of "the unexpected death of prominent figures by murder, suicide, or major accident." I'm conceding that she is a "prominent figure." Her death appears to be accidental, but not the result of a "major" accident (this implies a plane crash or similar). I think there might be a gap for this if the investigation becomes scandalous (murder? overdose? suicide?) This is all moot, as the article is woefully under-cited. If you care so much about this getting posting, help fix the article. Western actors get left off RD all the time for lack of refs. GCG (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. She has appeared in more than 300 films in Hindi and other languages.-Nizil (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb once lede is referenced If she was American, it probably would be posted already. That's impossible to eliminate, because many editors are from the US, but it can be counterbalanced, by improving and posting the articles of non-Americans. India is the second-largest English speaking country. That said, though, the lede is still unreferenced. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  A few points: no, it wouldn't already have been posted, and this is in no way related to any "bias", there's clear consensus in favour of the article being posted, but there's a great big orange maintenance tag on it which means no right-minded admin would ever promote it to the main page. No, we don't need to reference the lead. The lead should only contain information that's expanded upon in the main body, so referencing material there rather than in the lead is commonplace (just check any number of featured articles). Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If she was American, people would have sourced it already. Or for that matter, countless editors could come out of the woodwork and insist that it be posted despite the referencing problems, like happened in December 2016 (to quote Carcharoth from then, objectivity takes a back seat to subjectivity.) It shouldn't be posted in its current state. But American bias trumps all, apparently (based on 2016). -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I think you don't get it. There can be no better references! The only ones you will have are from movie related indian magazines. If you are waiting for the New York Times and Newsweek, that won't happen. In short, if Sridevi, arguably the first female superstar of Indian cinema doesn't even get an RD two days after her death, it means that no other indian actor will ever get one. While we are here discussing, an unknown british actress got to be in the RD. What you are saying to the world is that even third-category western actors are more noteworthy that first category indian actors. That's more than shameful, that's simply racist. Probably she is also too Hindu for the admirers of Billy Graham... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish2542 (talk • contribs)

Manish2542 I suggest you read WP:V and then WP:ITNRD before continuing to make false claims and false accusations and personal attacks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• RD is fine once the article is up to scratch, but I oppose a blurb. We should never have given Graham a blurb; let's not compound that mistake by dropping the bar even lower. Blurbs are for transformative world leaders (Thatcher, Mandela), not popular entertainers. Modest Genius ^talk 16:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"We should never have" -- Yet we have. As we have with Carrie Fisher. As we have with Christopher Lee. As we have with Gunter Grass. Your Thatcher/Mandela standard does not exist. It is utterly bunk.--WaltCip (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you disagree with my interpretation, but the criterion listed at WP:ITN/DC continues to be 'major transformative world leaders'. I think that has been ignored or watered down too many times, and will continue to assess blurb nominations by the actual criteria. Modest Genius ^talk 18:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You missed out "in their field." Consensus was that Graham was a "transformative world leader" in the field of Evangelical Protestantism. Also Bowie, Prince and Chuck Berry, while "popular entertainers" were without doubt transformative.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pawnkingthree: Transformative means Western, we got it. Just like Gandhi was passed on for the Nobel Prize for Peace because he wasn't transformative enough... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish2542 (talk • contribs)

I'm fairly sure that if ITN/C had been around in 1948 Gandhi would have got a blurb.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pawnkingthree: How kind of you. Thank you, sahib. Some chai with your scone?. I'm out of here, namaste Manish2542 (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the nationalities of RDs posted this month: Australia, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, China (4), Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland (2), Pakistan (2), Russia, Sweden, Tunisia, UK (2), USA (10). Not posted: Canada (2), Cuba, Denmark, Ghana, Nederlands, UK, USA (5), Zimbabwe. Pending: China, India. If you can find bias in there, you gotta be working for it. (aside: nice work, ITNC!) GCG (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on article quality. Really serious gaps in referencing and there are orange tags which are a showstopper at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The article still has one completely unreferenced section, preventing it from being posted. In terms of global notability and coverage though, her death has received much greater media attention than Graham in Australia, a majority white and Christian country, which puts things in perspective. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if issues with the article are fixed; otherwise regretfully oppose. Double sharp (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Large sections of the article text remain woefully unreferenced or underreferenced. Agnostic on the manner of posting, but this should not be on the main page until quality problems are fixed. --Jayron32 11:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If one more RD is posted, this will be stale and be removed. And still there's a whole huge paragraph almost completely unsourced which is stopping it from being posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is certainly notable for a blurb. For those who say that Graham was more notable, see this. 2.51.20.15 (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page views should not necessarily be considered at ITN, as this could lead to systematic bias. If this were the case, Black Panther would merit a blurb at present. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but many others were saying above that she wasn't much notable and her death wasn't covered in mainstream sources. It was, in BBC, NyT etc, and I just wanted to prove the point of global notability, when someone said more people know Graham than Sridevi, to which I disagree. I mean, Indians are 17 percent of the globe, compared to the much lesser number of Australians. 2.51.20.15 (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT PLEASE READ THIS -> the article is too poor to even consider posting. All the dross above about systemic bias, inherent racism, and other such nonsense is actually completely irrelevant. For all the supporters of this individual, spend your time fixing the article rather than telling the rest of us why Wikipedia is broken because it won't post a hopelessly crap article to the main page. Once all the unreferenced material is referenced, it can go as RD. If you don't like the fact we don't post unreferenced crap to the main page either change the relevant guidelines and policies, or find another Wikipedia or project to work on where standards are lower. I understand that de.wiki and fr.wiki will post just about anything their main pages, so maybe that's a good place to start. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Contempt much appreciated. Western-centric references are not an absolute sign of quality. If I may repeat myself. YOU WILL NEVER HAVE BETTER REFERENCES. She was an Indian star, these are the only references you will ever have not forgetting that she was mostly active in the 1980s and 1990s at a time when Indian magazines didn't publish online. Western-centrism masquerading as "serious work" remains western-centrism. In any case, the story is stale now. "Create your own wikipedia"?, like how afro-american actors created their own awards to counter bias at the oscars? Today it's more subtle, now an objectively major indian celebrity gets cast away in the name of "good references" which should be understood as "indian references are worthless". And yes, don't accuse us of personal attacks, you just did it yourself. Manish2542 (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a heads up, TRM does not like being the target of false accusations, so you might want to strike that last sentence unless you can substantiate your claim. I see no personal attacks by TRM in the post to which you were responding. Lepricavark (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone like being the target of false accusations? The difference is those who falsely accuse or personally attack me usually end up being rebuked and punished. There's no contempt in my post, no personal attack, please read WP:NPA to familiarise yourself with what constitutes a PA, and then check your own posts. Last chance. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm now ready to support the RD. It's far from perfect, but given the size, the refs are good enough for me. With the inquest now closed, there is no basis to consider a blurb. GCG (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. There has been a significant improvement of the article since I checked the last time. --Tone 08:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb it's been a few days since she died and it continues to make the news, especially in India. Banedon (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The consensus was for a blurb, not an RD. Jamming this entry in the middle of the RD section after how long it finally took to post just seems like an insult. WaltCip (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree - this is what RD is for. There would have to be overwhelming support for a blurb to override the normal RD posting, and I don't see that above. Tone made the right call.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The blurb supports never rationalized their argument under generally accepted rules or guidelines. If they want to IAR, fine but they have to say that, and give everyone else a chance to respond to that argument. I've made my own argument, the key point of which is an accidental one-off death is not blurb worthy, per se. Otherwise we'd be posting mid-range celebrities who die of an OD, or as a result of a fall in their later years. GCG (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb per Banedon and WaltCip. I'm aware that "if we posted X, then we should post Y" is not a strict rule here, but the double standard is very noticeable here. Sridevi's death is far more notable than Billy Graham's. Davey2116 (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just took another look at the article. While I am neutral on the merits of a blurb, the first consideration when looking at any nomination here at ITNC is article quality. It pains me to say this, but I have to stand by my earlier oppose. The gaps in referencing would preclude any other nomination from being posted to RD much less a blurb. This article still needs considerable work if it is to be posted on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I concur. There are still many unreferenced claims in this BLP. Never mind, it'll slip away in a few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Sridevi was the first female superstar of Bollywood. She was also one of the most popular actresses in India and have acted in many popular movies. Sridevi's article is also properly sourced. Wiki.editAnshu (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why "needs attention?" Clearly this is never going to reach consensus for a blurb. Should we just close it? GCG (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this should be closed. There is no consensus for a blurb. Lepricavark (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• How is there no consensus? A rough count of the !votes for a blurb (i.e., not counting "oppose on article quality", since the article is now adequate, and counting "support for RD only" as "oppose blurb") gives 14 supports and 6 opposes. Davey2116 (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia's special need for a supermajority of at least 99.5% support, otherwise it's not certain enough ;) - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm certainly not seeing 99.5%, nor am I seeing 70%. Many people voted for RD, a few voted strongly for a blurb, a few voted strongly against a blurb. It was more 50/50 to me. This is lingering now, and sadly so. Time to move on people. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no consensus because many of those above with simple Support votes were voting for an RD - which was what this discussion is. The actual "Support blurb" (including "support blurb when referenced" are about 11 or 12 out of 28. That's nowhere near consensus, I'm afraid. Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I counted all the supports that mentioned her notability as "support blurb". If a !vote was for RD only, then there would have been no need to mention her notability. Davey2116 (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For those questioning her notability, she was cremated with full state honours in India. That could be the phrasing of a blurb. Manish2542 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is deemed to be good enough for the main page in terms of referencing now, then strong support blurb. Sridevi's impact on redefining gender roles in the world's biggest film industry and how female actors would be cast and treated from then on was monumental. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• So no blurb for the first female superstar of the largest film industry of the world. Way to go countering regional bias and gender bias. 42.109.165.118 (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: The battle itself is long over but there's a surprisingly large amount of ongoing coverage. Details are murky. If indeed Russian mercenaries intentionally attacked a US base that should be pretty significant. Somewhat hesitant about this but nominating it to see what ITN thinks. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No It happened on February 7th. I would have supported it 2 weeks ago. But it's not ongoing, and the oldest ITN piece we have right now is the school shooting in florida, which happened like 10 days after the battle. If I were you and was interested in the syrian war, I'd nominate the SAA intervention in Afrin. Seems like the absolute madmen actually did it and that's actually hug news and a severe blow to the american attempts to destabilize the country and put as many of their bases there as possible. Karl.i.biased (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "Ongoing" means the event, not the coverage. GCG (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose decidedly not ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

 The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC) + — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose for now; article is in pretty good shape, but the "other honors" section needs refs. --Jayron32 13:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should just delete that section; most of those awards probably aren't notable anyway.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Quite a big deal, and the article is OK. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support on article quality. There are a handful of spots where a cite is needed but overall the article is in good condition and these can be quickly fixed. Support Blurb on the importance of the subject. Graham was an absolutely iconic figure both in the United States and globally and will certainly be remembered as one of the great figures in the history of Evangelical Protestantism. Unquestionably meets our criteria for a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD A couple of CN tags but nothing that should prevent posting in my view. Neutral about a blurb; I concede he was influential within he's field but he's hardly a global icon in the mould of Mandela.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. He is easily the most recognized clergyman in the world excepting only the Pope. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm an ignorant neophyte, but I have to admit this is the first time I've heard of or seen the name "Billy Graham".--WaltCip (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I had never heard of him before I moved to the US.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb Curious how old these editors are. I'm 38 and definitely caught Graham in his waning years; any younger and he may seem irrelevant. But his influence was massive and global for decades. GCG (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 41, if you must know :-)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was 99 and has been semi-retired for a long time. Also (and I am not making any assumptions regarding anyone's personal beliefs here) people who are religiously indifferent or are non-believers aren't likely to keep tabs on famous clergy. I am also quite sure there are people who have no idea who Nelson Mandella was. In fact I am fairly sure two such are relatives of mine. :-( -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support inclusion as main news. For those who have never heard of him, then perhaps the inclusion of the news will address our appalling and immense ignorance about religion and religious men. werldwayd (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb - not a fan of the man's work, but his notability is unquestionable. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not a question here. It is how much of an impact on the world that his death has/may create. He was 99 so his death was not surprising (I had thought he passed already), and while its still early in the news cycle, I'm not seeing the type of shock and awe we'd associate with a blurb-worthy posting like Mandala/Thatcher or Bowie/Prince/Williams. --Masem (t) 14:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, with rare exceptions the standard is not the impact of their death, but rather their life. Madella's death was long expected and had virtually no impact as he had long retired from politics. We typically give blurbs to people who were in the top tier of their field. Graham unquestionably fits that criteria. It is of course also true that we occasionally give blurbs in cases where a very well known figure dies unexpectedly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) "shock and awe" has never been a requirement for posting a blurb on ITN, and for good reason. Shock and awe is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power, dominant battlefield awareness, dominant maneuvers, and spectacular displays of force to paralyze an adversary's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't mean it in a military sense. I'm looking at it from the fact that the world (broadly) was taken aback by the news. Clearly, someone as notable as Graham will get tons of obit coverage, but I'm looking to see if there are mass gatherings to show respect, or similar actions that demonstrate that this was more impactful as a death than just numerous obits. There might be, but that I'm not seeing yet, just a lot of obits. --Masem (t) 14:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apologies my tongue was in my cheek. So you're opposing because someone who literally just died hasn't had gatherings for them yet? Interesting logic. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • A good rule of thumb for a death blurb in my view is whether there is likely to be a separate article just for the death. See Death of Nelson Mandela, Death of David Bowie. Will there be a Death of Billy Graham?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • I respectfully disagree. We should make these decisions based on the impact of the individual's life, not the specific circumstances of his death. This man was a major world figure for decades. Lepricavark (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Given that we can post an interim RD while blurb discussions continue, this is completely reasonable to see how the situation develops in the next 24 hrs. The stuff I'm reading right now is still of the ilk "Oh, he was a great man, shame he died"-type of tributes, which do not meet my opinion of where a blurb is worthy. --Masem (t) 15:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Graham is a world-famous white Christian Evangelical who I don't think is a raving right-wing fruit-loop. That's notable in itself ;-) One would like to think he would at least attempt a cup of tea and a sit-down with Richard Dawkins without each other screaming at 120 decibels. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb per Coffee, GCG, and Ad Orientem. Gamaliel (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• RD is fine once the article is up to scratch, but strong oppose blurb. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this man is a world-changing figure comparable to Nelson Mandela or Margaret Thatcher, which is the standard we apply for blurbs. Modest Genius ^talk 14:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the standard is being misstated. It is not "world changing," Mandella did not change the world. He changed his country. The standard has always been that the subject is generally recognized as being in the top tier of their profession. World changing is silly. We would have a death blurb maybe once a decade if that. And virtually everyone outside the field of politics would be excluded. Graham definitely meets the traditional criteria we have always applied here for a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree in almost every way. I'll just point you to WP:ITN/DC which states that blurbs are limited to "major transformative world leaders", which Graham was not. You can't narrow things down to a tiny field just to claim this person was important. In a century's time, people will still be talking about Nelson Mandela. They will not be talking about an obscure preacher. Modest Genius ^talk 14:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that Billy Graham was an obscure preacher than all I can say is that we do not inhabit the same world and further discussion is pointless. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb According to WP:ITN, blurbs are for the deaths of "major transformative world leaders in their field" and in the field of religion, Billy Graham meets this standard. Additionally, his death is receiving substantial coverage around the world [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10], [11]. Spencer^T♦C 14:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb "He was widely regarded as the most influential preacher of the 20th century" from his biography says it all, biggest christian figure of the 20th century. Claims that he is a obscure preacher are outright laughable and i am not even close to being near the US. Here's a bit from an article i read about his death "Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. counted Graham as a close friend and ally, once remarking, “Had it not been for the ministry of my good friend Dr. Billy Graham, my work in the Civil Rights Movement would not have been as successful as it has been." GuzzyG (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb we might as well quit doing these blurbs altogether if this one isn't posted. Lepricavark (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment RD or blurb, there's gaps in sourcing throughout, and all the list of honors at the ends needs sourcing before this can be posted. --Masem (t) 15:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Too soon to judge about a blurb (I'm usually the first one opposing them, so maybe he does deserve one). News seems to be recent, let's wait a little and reassess? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD. Oppose blurb. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. is the person with a statue in Washington DC and a U.S. national holiday. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. King is honored for his social/political activism, not his influence in religion. If he were remembered chiefly for his influence in religion he would not have a statue paid for with public funds. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support. Article should be highlighted as leading news. As a minimum, his name should be mentioned as Recent deaths. werldwayd (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb international transformative impact in the field of religion far beyond his roots in the American South or even his denomination. One quibble though, I think it worth noting that he is considered the most Protestant preacher of the 20th century for NPOV reasons. One could reasonably argue that John Paul II brought down the Soviet Union with his preaching (not an argument I am making, but one that has been made in reliable sources), and I am sure that there are Orthodox clerics who one could argue with as well (Ad Orientem would likely be better at thinking of them than I am, to my shame.) @The Rambling Man and Coffee: what are your thoughts on this? TonyBallioni (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer alt: that has recently been added by Ad for NPOV reasons. I didn't even begin to get into non-Christian preachers (which reasonably would include clerics of other religions whose preaching has also had an impact (positive or negative) on world events comparable to Graham. I think the sourcing would generally agree he was the most influential evangelical preacher, and this is typically what is being referenced, even if in shorthand. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reiterating an earlier comment, Graham was a famous preacher but it is nonsense to call him out in this way. Martin Luther King Jr. was an American Baptist who exceeds Graham's influence from here to eternity. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - Graham is the single most influential preacher of the last 50+ years and unlike most famous "pastors" was near universally respected. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Altblurb – Long a household name in the U.S. and fairly widely known internationally. Altblurb offered to avoid subjective "widely regarded ... most influential," which smacks of hagiography. (Is no recent pic available? This one is 52 years old.) Sca (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any altblurb.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Ad Orientem has added one, although it doesn't address the hagiography issue.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

⇒ Somehow mine got overwritten. Now restored above and Ad Orientem's moved down as Alt2. Sca (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb - Admittedly I first heard of him by getting him mixed up with the rather-more-to-my-tastes Bill Graham, but he does appear to have sold the whole "don't be a jerk" side of religion quite well. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remember being dumb-founded thinking that Superstar Billy Graham was going to proselytizing on prime time TV. GCG (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb - Graham was a massive icon globally, and a world-leading figure in religion, and very clearly passes the threshold of notability, rendering him worthy of a blurb. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly support blurb - He was unquestionably one of the most influential people of his day. Even discounting his work as "America's pastor", he served as a counselor to several US presidents (whether officially or not). I'm quite surprised (though I really shouldn't be, considering this is an international project) at the amount of people who haven't heard of him. — Gestrid (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As a side note, it looks like NBC interrupted their regularly scheduled programming to announce the death of Billy Graham, and that's not, in my experience, very common at all. (An "NBC News Special Report" like the one in the news article I linked is used to interrupt regularly-scheduled programming here in America.) — Gestrid (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Besides being America's pastor, he was also the pop music's pastor. A shining example is Cliff Richard, one of the biggests British and international stars. Here is when his life was changed by Billy Graham at Earl's Court in London in 1996 at the height of his fame. Here years later Cliff Richard in a 1984 Billy Graham crusade in 1984. see testimony. werldwayd (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As an anonymous poster, I don't think my voice should weigh too much... but I do come here on occassion to see the discussion on cases which I think are notable enough to get a blurb. I'm glad to see that most of the people posting here seem to be getting it right. Graham was knighted by Queen Elizabeth and spoke to over 120K at a rally in England---the largest religious rally at the time in English history.74.124.47.10 (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted with a simpler version of altblurb2. Obvious overwhelming support for posting a blurb but keeping this open for any additional comments. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support blurb - It's interesting to see a lot of people who do not regularly participate in ITN/C come out of the woodwork to support a blurb for this person. That may speak volumes to his outreach. Moreover, to my relief, it may represent a loosening of the blurb standard so that we get out of this "Thatcher, Mandela, Thatcher, Mandela" mantra we otherwise seem to be constantly stuck in.--WaltCip (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting Comment Post Posting Oppose blurb on article quality His well-known homophobia is not referenced even once. His misogynistic views are skated over. Article is incomplete. Black Kite (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I recognize that the "if x then y" argument does not apply in ITN. However, I nonetheless find it seriously off-kilter that Le Guin's death was rejected for a blurb while Graham's is almost immediately posted -- and that the arguments for each are almost mirror-image. U.S. residents may have failed to notice that Graham's primary impact was almost totally inside the U.S. (In secondary impact, eg. charitable organisations working abroad, his work is comparable to dozens if not hundreds of others.) He did establish a number of successful firsts in the field of evangelical religion, mostly related to commercializing it. Others have done similar things before him, less successfully. Others have gone considerably further than him since then. He is a significant marker in a U.S.-based roadmap which goes back to Civil War England, but within the broad view he is only another such marker. (Religious rallies of that nature actually go back in the U.S. at least as far as the U.S. Civil War -- and most of those who held them then are forgotten today.)

At a neutral WP, we obviously don't use "For those who have never heard of him, then perhaps the inclusion of the news will address our appalling and immense ignorance about religion and religious men" as a criterion. (Probably just as well, or else the words "appalling and immense ignorance" might well resonate with other decisions which have been made here.) With Le Guin, I suggested two objective measures for a writer which would be necessary for a blurb: academic analysis and marketplace analysis. The comparable objective measures for Graham would be worldwide media coverage of his death (not just the U.S.) and an identifiable widespread social change brought about specifically as a result of his work. For Graham, I see significance, but I don't see worldwide reaction in any way comparable to the U.S. versions, and I don't see a clear social change which can be laid specifically at his door. That kind of thing merits an RD, not a blurb. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On no planet and in no town is Guin more known/notable then Graham, it's not about religion either. You're comparing a genre writer to a major preacher who advised MLK and presidents. GuzzyG (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my fault if you cannot remember all the literature you should have studied in high school. How many English-language U.S. schoolchildren have there been since 1969? That is the minimum number of how many people ought to know of Le Guin. It is one of the basic texts, after all. L-i-t-e-r-a-t-u-r-e, not "genre". - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i am in Australia and that's the thing, i know Graham but not Le Guin, also F-a-n-t-a-s-y and s-c-i-e-n-c-e f-i-c-t-i-o-n writers are genre writers, sorry to say. GuzzyG (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb, support RD. The blurb is a bit much for a Christian minister. I also feel very, very uncomfortable with the POV-pushing tone of the article given his support for homophobia.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was a lot more than just a minister, he ministered to 2.2 billion people. His social views are not relevant to the fact that he was influential. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That makes it worse.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to right the great wrong of homophobia. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nor should we post POV-pushing blurbs on the main page.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's POV to call him influential. He was incredibly influential, as evidenced by his personal relationships with Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. People can judge for themselves his best and worst qualities. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Influential in the United States perhaps. Not influential in Monaco, believe me. We are not USApedia. If we are going to keep the word "influential", the blurb should read "in the United States" after "influential" at least.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, not this argument again. Influence is influence, even if it doesn't touch every country. Maybe he was/is influential to Christians in Monaco, I don't know that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No he was only influential to the 2.2 billion people living in the United States. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am very, very uncomfortable with the notion that being a Christian minister disqualifies one from a blurb. Lepricavark (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't usually post blurbs for RDs. He was not well-known outside the US, and he spread discrimination to boot. There shouldn't be a blurb. We will post a blurb when former president GHW Bush dies--I am sorry but Billy Graham was not on the same level at all.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if we will, though. Bush was a one-term president, and he was widely perceived to be riding on the political coattails of Ronald Reagan, who himself would be blurb-worthy.--WaltCip (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions 1) The blurb feels a bit weasely to me: "one of the most influential" is not a wording that's commonly seen on the main page. The quote is present in the article, but it is sourced to one book, which seems to be some biography published last summer. 2) In any case, should the blurb be "one of the most influential evangelical preachers of the 20th century in the United States"? I must admit I've never heard of him before, so I'm not sure about his international reach. Isa (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Altblurb would be more NPOV than Altburb2 for sure. Except we should add, "known in the United States".Zigzig20s (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original blurb, truly an influential figure. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

⇒ Agree with Isa that "one of the most influential evangelical preachers" is too weasely. While I understand Fuzheado's motives in toning down the description, I think it comes across as a rather obvious bid to avoid criticism of a subjective assertion. I would point out that Alt1 is entirely factual. Sca (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: An update into a criminal investigation may not normally be newsworthy, however, given this was a high-profile assassination that has been unsolved for 16 years, and the recent announcement the only significant update on the case in that time, I think it warrants an ITN mention even though it is US-centric. Chetsford (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose a minor update to a parochial crime. Stephen 04:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose highly localised speculation. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The update, whilst interesting, doesn't seem to be super news worthy. Pedro :  Chat  11:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose'. Being US centric is not relevant(per "Please do not" above such objections would be invalid) but this is too local a story for posting and does not have sufficiently wide coverage even in just the US. This is not a top or even mid-level news story. We also don't typically posts developments in criminal cases; on rare occasions an arrest, but typically only convictions are posted due to BLP issues. Thank you, though, for the nomination. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not that it's US centric, but more that it has no notability outside of a specific minute niche of interest.--WaltCip (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but the nominator mentioned "US centric" as a concern, I was simply informing them that is not an issue. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - As a general rule, "mights", "maybes" and "possiblys" don't get posted on ITN, especially when it comes to potential BLP issues.--WaltCip (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not sure there's a BLP issue here since the B is about someone who is decidedly not L. That said, the reasoning presented has changed my mind as to the utility of this as an ITN candidate and I withdraw the nomination. Chetsford (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford: The BLP issue is with regards to any suspect their is; posting a development in any criminal cases could suggest the suspect is guilty before their case is adjudicated, which we cannot do. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any suspect(s), but I suppose I could be wrong. Chetsford (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: Not sure what the best target article(s) should be so I just linked Sheep for now. Feel free to suggest better articles that you know of. Andise1 (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

• No comment yet on appropriatenes, but perhaps Xenotransplantation as the target? --Masem (t) 00:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Also to comment, this is research announced at a professional meeting, but does not appear to be yet published (a paper seems to be pending though). --Masem (t) 00:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, garbage with a zeroary source. Nominator should know better. Abductive (reasoning) 09:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose these cart-before-the-horse noms. ITN is meant to highlight quality articles/updates. If we don't even have a target article, how can we suggest the update is worth showcasing? GCG (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Just a claim at a conference, with no evidence. Come back once they've published a peer-reviewed paper and there's a suitable article for an update (sheep would be a ridiculous place to put it). Modest Genius ^talk 15:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• A target article isn't just the thing we make bold in the text, it needs to be a place where a significant, substantive, update has been made to the encylopedia. This has not happened here. Sheep would be a bad article to put this content in, and, reading the Guardian source there, this technique is different to xenotransplantation. Chimera (genetics) might be a better bet, but reading the current content of that article, I cannot see more than a sentence being added to the end of Chimera_(genetics)#Research for this. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on that about the substantial update; and realistically I cannot see this being significant until it is attempts to transplant the sheep-grown element back to a human. Eg, ways off. Interesting, but not ITN material here. --Masem (t) 15:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - We can surely find a more reputable source for this research than Telegraph and Guardian. In any case, as per above, the research needs to be subject to peer review.--WaltCip (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]