• OpposeI agree with Luke, this has nothing to do with the UK, not visually appealing, not described by the British Museum as a "unique find" /s. Nergaal (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• edit
• history
• watch

• Syrian Civil War
  • The Syrian Army captures at least 23 villages in North East Aleppo Governorate from ISIL in a matter of hours after an ISIL withdrawal caused by the SAA capturing Al-Khafsah. (Al Masdar News)
• Iraqi Civil War (2014–2017)
  • Battle of Mosul (2016–2017)
    • The Iraqi Army retakes Mosul Museum as well as the main government building in Mosul. (Reuters)

• 2016–17 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season
  • Cyclone Enawo makes landfall in Madagascar as a powerful Category 4 storm, making it the most powerful storm to strike the African nation in 13 years. (The Weather Channel)
• Dozens of tornadoes spawned by thunderstorms touch down in the American Midwest, damaging or destroying numerous homes and businesses and causing some injuries. The Johnson County Executive Airport in Olathe, Kansas is closed following heavy damage caused by the severe weather. (ABC News)
• A CSX Transportation freight train collides with a charter bus in Biloxi, Mississippi, killing at least four people and leaving dozens injured. (Fox News)
• 2016-2017 Cook Inlet natural gas leak
  • An investigation by the United States Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration finds that the natural gas leak occurring in Alaska's Cook Inlet began earlier than first reported, and represents significant safety and environmental risks. The agency gives pipeline operator Hilcorp Energy until May 1, 2017 to fix the leak, or shut the pipeline down. (KTUU-TV)

• Malaysia–North Korea relations
  • North Korea temporarily bans all Malaysian nationals (estimated to be at least 11 people including embassy employees) from leaving the country amid a growing dispute between the two countries over the death of Kim Jong-nam, the half-brother of Kim Jong-un. Malaysian official Khairy Jamaluddin calls the move "tantamount to taking hostages". (BBC) (Channel News Asia)
• South Korea–United States relations
  • The United States begins deploying the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system in South Korea. (BBC)

• Vault 7
  • WikiLeaks releases thousands of documents that it claims provides details of surveillance software used by the United States Central Intelligence Agency. (The New York Times)

• European migrant crisis
  • The National Assembly of Hungary approves the automatic detention of all asylum seekers who enter the country. (BBC)

RD: Ron Bass (wrestler)

• Nominated by MBlaze Lightning (talk · give credit)

• Support Solid, well referenced article. --Jayron32 11:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

RD: Kamran Aziz

• Updated and nominated by GGT (talk · give credit)

• Support — Short but well referenced. —MBlaze Lightning 13:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment As all references are in Turkish (which is not disallowed, I should point out), it would be helpful if someone who knows that area could comment on the sourcing quality, but this otherwise looks fine. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Since the nomination the Turkish Cypriot state TV released an article in English, linked above. There is also an English-language book cited in the article, which can be accessed online. --GGT (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 23:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

RD: Vince (rhinoceros)

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

• Nominated by Zigzig20s (talk · give credit)

• Support blurb - This is an unexpected death and the circumstances surrounding it are noteworthy. --WaltCip (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment – A good faith nom. about a bizarre story, but in general I haven't been comfortable with ITN blurbs about animal deaths. Highlighting such events in this way seems almost to cheapen the tragic human deaths in the news all the time. Sca (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the way Vince was brutally murdered (or "killed") is rather tragic, isn't it?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Savage and revolting, but again tragic seems rather too anthropomorphic. Sca (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

PS: The death of Fritz the polar bear in the Berlin Zoo drew this headline – Tragic end for Fritz – in guess what publication? – Sca (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that applying RD to non-humans is wildly inappropriate. That guideline has got out of hand. IMO this either needs to be a notable enough story for a blurb, on its own merits, or nothing. RD for an animal is frankly distasteful and disrespectful of the people we list there. Modest Genius 14:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Run an RFC and get the consensus changed. Until then it's the law of the land.--WaltCip (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Good article and notable. On the other hand, what the fuck?! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• We have consensus to post notable non-human organisms to RD so that's not an issue. That said, I'm not really convinced on quality. The article contains 132 words of readable prose – around 80 if you remove the quote and tweet (the latter of which seems of dubious significance). It's a stub with section headers. While I think a rhino being poached in a zoo is probably noteworthy and highly rare, the "First rhinoceros to be killed inside a zoo in Europe" claim to notoriety seems to be based on an emotionally charged comment from the zookeeper saying there has never "been a case of such violence", which doesn't explicitly state it's the first time a rhinoceros has been "killed" (dubious wording – not even by accident?) in a European zoo. Not really comfortable posting in this condition. – Juliancolton |  00:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your concerns. I have added "probably" with two references and direct quotes. Probably hard to get real data about this--for example it's possible rhinoceroses were killed during the world wars--but this is definitely "in the news" as a most unusual event.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way, in my "edit summary," I meant to type "re." Sorry about the typo.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb - the only time I could see the death of an individual animal being blurb worthy is if it were the last of its species. --LukeSurl 13:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Do you support an inclusion in the RD section? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• I haven't the time now to review the article and reference quality, but if it's adequate then yes. The new RD rules on notability are clear that they include individual animals with articles. --LukeSurl 14:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I don't really like this "animal inclusion" aspect of the current policy and would support an effort to amend. But as the rules currently stand animal nominations are OK for RD. --LukeSurl 14:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC) -- after reading some discussions in this thread I have some further thoughts on this, see below. ---LukeSurl 14:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support RD. But I hope the publicity doesn't encourage anyone. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose We shouldn't have an article on the animal, under the logic of WP:BLP1E. The article was created as a result of the crime, and ignoring everything about the crime, the animal had no notability before that point; being the victim of a crime, were this a human, would not qualify the person for an article, and the same logic should apply here. This is not like Cevil who was notable before killed, or the situation around Killing of Harambe which was the controversy about actions taken to protect the kid over the gorilla; there's no indication that there's a major controversy here, just a sad crime. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment However, should this be posted as an RD, please make sure that since "Vince" is a common name, there is some clear labeling in the RD string as to distinguish this from any potential human named Vince. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Perspective: There are 7.5 billion human beings, but only less than 20,000 Southern white rhinoceroses on this earth. And this was apparently the first time a rhino was poached inside a zoo in Europe. It has also been "in the news" internationally, which makes it relevant to this section.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Just because we are "in the news" does not mean that just because a topic is "in the news" that we feature it; we are looking at the encyclopedic nature of the topic which requires less focus on immediacy and a longer, farther-out view of the world. I'm starting from the premise that neither the animal itself is notable in the long-term, nor the event around its killing notable as a news story as it currently stands (there's no serious outrage or changing of laws to prevent this); I'm sure there's a topic on WP where this can be mentioned (perhaps White rhinoceros) but that again begs how important that is. If you discount everything beyond this being an near-extinct species, this is a average crime, and while the rhinos are nearly extinct, this is not like the last of a dozen here, so a blurb doesn't make sense either. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Come now Masem, you can hardly describe a crime as 'average' which involves a white rhino being poached *inside a zoo*. How many crimes involve Rhinos? How many times have any animals been poached from inside a zoo in a built up 1st world country? Its one thing to poach on reserves, its another to waltz into a safari park enclosure. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@OID, this is straying somewhat from the point but animals are poached from zoos in Europe all the time, to the extent that the big inner-city zoos like London Zoo don't even bother to report it to the police when they discover it but just send in a monthly tally. (Google animals stolen from zoo and prepare to be shocked at how many hits it brings up.) What's unusual here is that the animal was killed (usually, it's a case of stealing-to-order for the exotic animal trade). ‑ Iridescent 18:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Masem. I have no problem with animals featuring in RD, if they are notable outside of their death. The article was created in response to the death and is the animal equivalent of a BLP1E.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, not notable outside of its death. --AmaryllisGardener 20:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@AmaryllisGardener: The RD process has been changed to remove debates about notability from the process; if a person/animal/organism merits an article, they merit posting to RD assuming a quality update and being in the news. If you are arguing that this animal does not merit an article, please bring it up for AfD. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This is the problem, the article was created due to the incident, so there's been no evaluation of notability yet. It would be pointy to AFD this while the ITN/C is open. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Then I would ask if the intention is to nominate it for deletion after this discussion. As of now I don't think the article is in shape for posting. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I also suggest an article be created for Satao II (an article exists for Satao, but not the successor). See here: 129.97.18.152 (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not really the place to discuss this but for the record I believe you meant to link to Satao (elephant) :-)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Well, I guess there's no one to badger the oppose !votes opposing on the basis of notability since TRM got blocked, so it's up to me. Opposes based on notability for RDs are no longer relevant since the RFC on RDs. If there is truly an issue with notability, then nominate the article for deletion. Until then, the only thing that needs be determined here is the quality and sourcing of the article being nominated.--WaltCip (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be sent to AFD, actually. I was going to wait until this debate has run its course. Did the RFC consider articles that were created on the same day they were brought to ITN/C? --Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Skimming the RFC it doesn't look like it was discussed in depth. The only mention of AfD in the proposal is that an article up for AfD would prevent its posting to ITN. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Whilst I agree sending the article to AfD whilst this discussion would be pointy, that is indeed where it needs to go. This is the animal equivalent of a BLP1E and whilst the news story should be mentioned somewhere, it almost certainly fits better as part of Southern white rhinoceros or a poaching-related article. Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. After reading these comments I think we've exposed an issue that needs addressing with the new RD criteria. The fact we're discussing an animal here is actually a bit of a distraction, the issue here is "BLP1E"-like noms (where the 1E is the death) that wouldn't meet blurb level.

For what it's worth, if an AfD on this animal came up I would suggest merging into Parc Zoologique de Thoiry (which would need to be created). As such, because I don't think an independent article should exist for this animal, I will !vote oppose with a side of WP:IAR for the by-the-letter following of the RD criteria. --LukeSurl 10:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• This would be posted as a RD if the article was more than a stub. We wouldn't post a human RD in this state, it's not going to happen with an animal either. Stephen 23:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Vault 7

• Nominated by Andise1 (talk · give credit)

• Comment if this runs, it needs a considerably better hook. The significance of the leak is that it details specific methodologies; if the CIA weren't engaged in intelligence-gathering activities I'd be asking some fairly pointed questions about why I'm still paying my taxes. ‑ Iridescent 20:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am not great at writing blurbs so any altblurb ideas are greatly welcomed. Andise1 (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Agreed with Iridescent. Current blurb reads like "The U.S. Army has been killing enemy combatants since 1901."--WaltCip (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment – The content of the leak is the important part, not what it shows about the CIA. How about A series of documents released by Wikileaks reveals the Central Intelligence Agency's database of security vulnerabilities? KSFT 21:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support, but not the blurb. Added an altblurb. --Fixuture (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Altblurb 2, offered above. Serious stuff. Sca (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have a hard time answering the question "so what?". Should we expect intelligence agencies to engage in this kind of thing? I say yes, since that's what intelligence-gathering is about. Is there something special about CIA then? I don't see anything, since although they are obviously the biggest such agency, I'd be surprised if the intelligence agencies of other countries are not doing this. Heck, the fact that Kim-Jong Nam was tracked to Malaysia and killed is a sign of what the intelligence agencies of North Korea are capable of. What, then, is this leak worth? It's basically told us nothing we didn't already know. Banedon (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Did you know before today the CIA could record conversations remotely from your living room television?--WaltCip (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    • No, but it's not surprising. Like, it is obviously (?) conceivable that the CIA has the capability to do that, and the people working in intelligence-gathering agencies are among the best and brightest of humanity. If you are interested in this topic you could look at articles such as Aldrich Ames or Cambridge Five to see the level of deception these people go to in order to outwit the other side. I would be more surprised if the CIA had the technological capability to do this but elected not to, even when there was good reason to record conversations. Banedon (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't get the importance about this new leak? Didn't Snowden say all this stuff years ago? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Many specific details makes this noteworthy. I am personally not that surprised, but many people are, and the revealed extend was not entirely predictable. Hence it is currently on the top of the front page of New York Times etc. One interesting angle is that the open security holes in e.g. the iPhone also affect Americans, but the intelligence services had largely promised to tell manufactures about security holes so they could be fixed. Thue (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Conditional Support Needs a couple CN's filled in. Beyond that, this is HUGE news not just because of what was being done, but because Wikileakds told everyone in the world how it was being done. This is probably the worst day the CIA has had since the Bay of Pigs Invasion. And conversely the champagne must be flowing in Moscow and Bejing tonight along with whatever the ISIS savages celebrate with. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment and oppose as nominated. As I understand this, the story here is not that the CIA is spying (which is the "so what?" mentioned above), but that the hacking tools used by the CIA were leaked (and not just to WikiLeaks). This means that a large number of unaligned and unaccountable entities are able to hack just about any communication. That is a serious threat to everyone, from the top line governments of the world all the way down to anyone using WhatsApp or Instagram or mobile banking apps. That's a big news, but it's still too early to know what's going to happen with this. Lacking that certainty leaves us with the current situation where we're trying to post "government agency duly perform tasks" which is a bit uninspiring. This could change rapidly, and if it does I would like to urge a new nomination instead of re-tooling this one.128.214.163.201 (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support subject to the conditions that others such as Ad Orientem have laid out above. In this case the fact of the leak is significant enough; we need not parse or hypothesise about the consequences in the usual ITN amateur-guessing-game manner. I had a good read of the New York Times lead, which carefully and cogently explains the significance of the leak. If I can diverge from the topic for a moment, also of some significance to me is this fact, as stated by the NYT: "The codes names used for projects revealed in the WikiLeaks documents appear to reflect the likely demographic of the cyberexperts employed by the C.I.A. — that is, young and male. There are numerous references to 'Harry Potter,' Pokémon and Adderall, the drug used to treat hyperactivity." Sounds like the same kind of knob-brigade that runs wikipedia. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Notable as per reasons given above. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - According to Snowden, "here's the big deal: first public evidence US Government secretly paying to keep US software unsafe." In another tweet, he says, "The CIA reports show the USG developing vulnerabilities in US products, then intentionally keeping the holes open. Reckless beyond words." I think the story is notable, but I'm not sure the current blurb accurately reflects the importance. Great Dessert (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  ... ? I still don't see this as anything we didn't already know. Heck, it's not even surprising. RSA encryption can be broken by brute force, and any software making use of RSA is inherently unsafe. If an entity with as much resources as the US government elects to hack my credit card, of course they will succeed. If the US government kept a hole that a hacker with limited resources can attack, and such an attack actually happened, then it'd be something to post. Banedon (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  There's a question for the reference desk. When, exactly, did this mentality arise where it's become fait accompli to assume that if the government wants to turn your home into a remote wiretap, it can do so at will with little more than a few keystrokes entered by a CIA programmer?--WaltCip (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  I could ask the same question from the opposite angle. When, exactly, did this mentality arise where it's become fait accompli to assume that the government has evil intentions, including to its own citizens? Banedon (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Moreover, my comment was objective and did not suppose good or evil intentions.--WaltCip (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I recognize there's a story here whether it is the claim the CIA has been doing unauthorized hacking, or that these supposed CIA tools are now in the open making the potential for more threats. My concern is the legitimacy of WikiLeaks' claim; not that they are not reliable but no corroborating proof or peer-review to assure these claims that these are CIA tools are true. It gets into the area of political speculation that we here should be avoiding as ITN. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Well we should go with what WP:RS say. And they take it as legitimate. Also WikiLeaks has a good track record. Furthermore while the interesting part is the content of the disclosure the release in itself is also newsworthy itself. And I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "a story here whether it is the claim the CIA has been doing unauthorized hacking, or that these supposed CIA tools are now in the open making the potential for more threats" - this doesn't really matter as the blurb/s isn't stating anything about it. --Fixuture (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. It's the biggest intel leak so far. ~★ nmaia 17:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment – Some of us might no longer be surprised by anything the CIA does, but that's not the criterion; it's significance in the context of democratic-society norms. Sca (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  Actually, significance is in the context of coverage by reliable sources. Everything else is personal opinion and WP:OR. --Jayron32 19:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Significance in terms of import, actual or potential, also is a criterion – otherwise ITN would be full of blather about celebrities (and zoo animals?). Sca (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. The article needs to be expanded first. I suggested on the talkpage we should add a "reactions" section. Feel free to respond there.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think that it needs to be expanded further before getting added to the In the news? I think it's sufficiently good enough already, can still be expanded after getting posted there and as this (and reactions) develops and also already features some content that would be appropriate for a "Reactions" section. --Fixuture (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

It would make it more "newsy" for ITN. Otherwise we'd be tempted to think, so what, the CIA tracks everything to keep us safe, who cares?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Ever heard of Big Brother? – Sca (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Posted Stephen 23:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

THAAD deployment

• Nominated by Banedon (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Shaded0 (talk · give credit)

• Support Article is in good shape, it's the subject of recent news coverage, looks like I have no reason to hold this up. --Jayron32 15:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support I would agree it is worth adding, there have been a couple of other edits since last night with added sources for the South Korea deployment. The Chinese government I believe has been pretty reserved with statements, although a non-government official had made a statement that was included in the New York times:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/world/asia/north-korea-thaad-missile-defense-us-china.html?_r=0

"A retired general, Luo Yuan, even suggested that China destroy the system with a military strike.

“We could conduct a surgical hard-kill operation that would destroy the target, paralyzing it and making it unable to hit back,” General Luo wrote in Global Times, a state-run newspaper.""

Shaded0 (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support and Comment - Support per above. I've added a second relevant article. Feel free to challenge or uphold its inclusion. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

  I don't see how Foreign relations of North Korea can be added to the nomination. It doesn't mention THAAD, and besides this deployment doesn't look like it will fundamentally change anything in North Korea's foreign relations. Can you explain? Banedon (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't it in response to North Korea firing those ballistic missiles into Japanese territory? Or am I mistaken? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support but leave off the "Chinese protests" aspect. A notable international development- but the Chinese protest just about everything the US government does. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 02:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Malaysia–North Korea relations

• Nominated by 81.204.120.137 (talk · give credit)

• Comment BBC is (now?) saying its also the same for NK citizens in Malayasia. I will say this is an rather unusual situation so there may be some merit but would want to give this some time to make sure it's not both countries snipping at each other. --MASEM (t) 06:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

  A different story I read earlier indicated that Malaysia's response to North Korea's provocation was only to prevent North Korean diplomats from leaving Malaysia. If they are actually preventing all North Koreans from leaving that is obviously a bigger story, but we might want to be careful to ensure we know what the facts are. Dragons flight (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• According to the BBC article I read earlier today (don't have a link handy, sorry) this affects 11 Malaysians in North Korea. Malaysia initially said it was preventing NK diplomats from leaving, and later "clarified" this to say that all NK citizens would be prevented from leaving. This affects about 1,000 NKs in Malaysia. So it's not peanuts, but it's not enormous numbers of people, either. GoldenRing (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ongoing, looks like a developing story, with NK ambassador being declared persona non grata or Malaysian government ban on their football team participation in NK. Brandmeister 08:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Ongoing seems to be the sensible choice here, since it seems like this RW drama, sadly, won't end anytime soon. Nergaal (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support ongoing. Not really sure why there was so much opposition to doing this earlier, but the story has continued to grow in its importance to diplomatic relations. Dragons flight (talk) 10:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

  P.S. Also, no objection to posting a blurb, though I lean in favor of ongoing. Dragons flight (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support either a blurb or ongoing. Which target article (this or Kim Jong Nam) isn't that important for me. Banedon (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb. Highly unusual moves in international relations; this is now a sufficiently notable story on the diplomatic aspects alone. I'm not convinced we're learning enough day-by-day about the assassination to make putting Jong-nam's article in the ongoing section, but the latest development is worth a blurb. PS. are we okay calling this an assassination now, rather than suspected or alleged assassination? Suspects have been charged but not convicted. Modest Genius 11:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Suggest we go for a blurb and then think about ongoing once it reaches the bottom of ITN. We're pretty light on new blurbs at the moment (top story is a week old!) and there isn't another likely one at the moment. --LukeSurl 12:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support ongoing - Notable. Would not warrant a blurb though. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb on this diplomatic incident; I don't feel the incremental events for updates are there(yet) enough for Ongoing. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Ongoing - I initially opposed 'ongoing' for Kim Jong-Nam but this is just getting out of hand. Per above I support. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Blurb but would recommend avoiding an ongoing at this point but not against reconsidering it as this blurb (assuming posted) falls off the list. The fallout of diplomatic relations is news, although this could be very short-lived, and we just don't know. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Posted as blurb. Bolded the "relations" article and hashlinked to the section on the Kim Jong-nam stuff. --Jayron32 15:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. This is pretty confusing. The bold link leads to a story that says Malaysia reacted in kind. I'm not sure it is fair to single out North Korea as the aggressor. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that the blurb should refer to the actions of both governments. Neljack (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to Stephen, the admin who fixed this. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

March 6