Open main menu

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

Contents

April 30Edit


[Posted] End of MESSENGEREdit

Article: MESSENGER (talk, history)
Blurb: ​NASA's MESSENGER probe to Mercury crashes into the surface of the planet after running out of fuel after an eleven-year mission.
Alternative blurb: ​NASA's MESSENGER probe to Mercury crashes into the surface of the planet after an eleven-year mission.
News source(s): CNN, BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: While not an ITNR, it is the completion of a otherwise successful multi-year mission. I note that the probe should have crashed by the time I've written this, but there's not yet been confirmation that the crash happened. MASEM (t) 20:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. Aside from the end of the mission, any sort of landing on another planet (even if a crash) is notable in my view. I also think this hasn't been done on Mercury before. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once the article is updated. The end of an 11-year space mission is obviously notable enough to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support it has been confirmed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Confirmation of its crash has been established. We have a final image 2m from Mercury's surface as prove. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This was an intentional crash by NASA due to lack of funding. The original blurb implies that lack of fuel caused the crash. Almost any orbit around Mercury would be perfectly stable because Mercury has no atmosphere to cause orbital decay. This is not the same as the International Space Station, which does need fuel to reboost orbit due to orbital decay with earth's atmosphere. However, NASA is not admitting that it intentionally crashed the satellite and I can't find any news sources to support this theory. My alt blurb leaves out the lack of fuel part. Brian Everlasting (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't necessarily oppose your altblurb, but do you have a source for that claim? The CNN page leads off with "NASA's Messenger space probe crashed into Mercury on Thursday after running out of fuel" and that "scientists determined there was no way to save it"; the BBC page states it was "Now fully out of fuel". No amount of funding would get more fuel to the probe. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
From BBC: "For four years - and 4,104 circuits in total - Messenger traced a highly elliptical orbit around Mercury. It regularly drifted out to a distance of nearly twice the planet's diameter, before swinging to within 60 miles (96km) at closest approach. To maintain this pattern in the face of interference from the Sun, it needed a blast of engine power every few months, which meant the mission faced an inevitable, violent end when the fuel ran out." I don't think we can engage in a conspiracy theory here. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Masem is correct here. The comments by Brian Everlasting about funding are completely missing the point (unless he meant that more funding should have been provided before launch to enable a longer mission). He also shows a lack of understanding of how the mission was planned and why it needed fuel to maintain its orbit (the Sun affected the orbit). Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
It's possible Brian Everlasting is getting confused by early mission details. Per sources like [1] [2] [3] and our own article, the primary mission was for a year, and it was extended it sounds like at least twice. There was always a possibility it could have been abandoned earlier, I'm not sure if it would have been intentionally crashed early in that case, but I guess it may have been. But if there was absolutely no one working on it, I presume it would have crashed due to the lack of corrections. Others may know more than me, but even under the current scenario I suspect funding could have been a factor after design/launch in how soon it crashed. In particular, from my read of the sources including our article, it's possible different orbit corrections which may have conserved more fuel and made the mission last longer, could have been made. It sounds to me most likely the orbit corrections that were made were chosen because it was felt they would give the most useful images from available probe resources. But from what I've read I also can't completely rule out orbit corrections being chosen based on the assumption that there may not be enough funding to go for longer so better to get these images now rather than never. Nil Einne (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support but please add the pic from 2m above Mercury. Nergaal (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    • That pic (which I think I misread being 2m from the surface but showing an approx. 1km square area) is here File:Last_Image_by_NASA_MESSENGER.jpg but I don't think that is as interesting as the artist's version of the probe already included. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
      • The 2m refers to 2m per pixel. Stephen 23:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
      • The probe crashed on the side of Mercury currently facing away from the Earth, so the last 1000 or so pictures it took were lost with it. It did skim only a few hundred metres(!) above the surface on its penultimate orbit. I hope they one day identify the crater it formed. Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per 331dot. I agree that landing on another planet is sufficient for inclusion without reference to the fact whether it was successful or not. This crash marking the end of an 11-year space mission makes it even more important.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Historically and scientifically significant space mission has reached its inevitable, crunchy conclusion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Stephen 00:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggestion Can we add the word "purposely" in front of "crashes"? Without the context, it sounds like a failure which most source agree this was far from one, the crash the best manner of maximizing useful information on the probe's last legs. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose the change, as it makes it sound like the probe had agency in crashing itself into the planet. Bad English. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Arguably, under directions sent by NASA to the problem to alter its orbit, it did. --MASEM (t) 04:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Eschborn-Frankfurt City LoopEdit

Article: 2015 Eschborn-Frankfurt City Loop (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 2015 Eschborn-Frankfurt City Loop is cancelled following a terrorist threat similar to the Boston Marathon bombings.
Alternative blurb II: ​The 2015 Eschborn-Frankfurt City Loop is cancelled following a terrorist threat.
News source(s): Cyclingnews.com, The Guardian, Reuters, NBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Cycling races are not infrequently cancelled due to weather conditions. For a race to be cancelled because of a terrorist threat is, to my knowledge, unique. Many top cyclists were scheduled to take part. Relentlessly (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak support it's one of those "it's news because it didn't become news" stories, but it's significant because it's in Germany, it's disrupted a 50+ year-old event, it's been likened to the Boston Marathon bombings and it's certainly being discussed around the world right now. Article is slim but decent enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support per The Rambling Man. A major cancelation seems like a big deal. I'd probably prefer the alt to the original blurb. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support per TRM on both quality and merits. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support per above. The news is not so much the terrorist threat, but the disruption of an annual traditional event for the first time in its history. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose we don't post this race normally, and unless there are arrests all we've got is an overabundance of caution, which is itself not news, certainly not ITN. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Arrests, assault rifle, pipe bombs etc etc etc. Research? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, and stricken, but that should be in both the blurb and the nomination rationale. If someone just mentioned Lincoln had a bad night at the Ford Theater I'd have opposed that too. μηδείς (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Forgive me, Medeis, this is my first time at ITN and I'm not wholly familiar with how things are done... Relentlessly (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
No apologies are necessary. μηδείς (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment The Rambling Man of course didn't cite sources that explained that only parts of an assault rifle were found and that the ammunition found was not for that assault rifle. The plural pipe bombs he used was never supported by any source. LoveToLondon (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fortunately a happy end, but nothing beyond that. Unspecified threat, no terrorist act, no deaths. Brandmeistertalk 21:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Good point, after all, we're just here to look for the blood, guts and murder. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose and please discount support votes that are based on incorrect claims.
    • Many top cyclists were scheduled to take part. - it was a race of a lower tour, not of the 2015 UCI World Tour (that actually has a bigger race this week). I'm counting exactly 2 top cyclists in the field.
    • The news is not so much the terrorist threat, but the disruption of an annual traditional event for the first time in its history. Tradition does not imply importance, and compared to Rund um Köln it is not even that old. Would a cancellation due to lack of sponsorship have been posted to ITN if it had caused the disruption of this annual traditional event for the first time in its history?
    • it's significant because it's in Germany If that's your criteria, you should nominate the scandal that BND supported US government espionage against European politicians and companies - that is much bigger news in Germany this week and will continue to make headlines for some time.
    • it's been likened to the Boston Marathon bombings What is significant about that? The sources are saying that if a terror attack was actually planned it might have been a copy of the Boston Marathon bombings. It is not true that it would have had the impact of the Boston Marathon bombings.
    • following a terrorist threat So far this is pure speculation. It is not even proven that these people planned a terrorist attack, and even less clear whether they targeted this race or just happened to live in the area where the race is.
  • LoveToLondon (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    • As you presumably know, LoveToLondon, the WorldTour is not the be all and end all of professional cycling. I agree, however, that "terrorist threat" is ambiguous and that the cancellation per se is not ITN-worthy. I certainly see where you're coming from. My opinion is that for a high-level professional sporting event to be cancelled because of a suspected terrorist attack is relevant to the page. Relentlessly (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    • As you also know, LoveToLondon, being an experienced editor with a new account, you simply can't expect someone to nominate an item for ITN just because they happen to support another. If you care so much, do it yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - this is significant.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Nur in Deutschland. Sca (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment Not even there. Even in Germany it was top news only for half a day, check for example the website of the main public TV station where it is currently news number 4 (after UK election, North Korea and Nepal), or other major media from serious to boulevard where this news from yesterday is already considered less important than UK election, Greece or BND and football. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment In the German language Wikipedia it is not on the frontpage, and the article in the German WP covering the race currently contains less words for it than the proposed ITN blurb - clearly contradicting claims like it's significant because it's in Germany. LoveToLondon (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Nope, just reinforcing claims that the de.wiki could be better. And it's "fewer words". Now stop, and try to be constructive. Or log into your old account and carry on there. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The German language Wikipedia actually treats it correctly based on the relevance it has in Germany. I don't have an old account, so stop your personal insults against me for revealing that your claims like it's significant because it's in Germany and it's certainly being discussed around the world right now were blatant lies - it is a relatively minor story in Germany and internationally not even a major headline in cycling (just try to find the given sources for this ITN from the frontpage of the media they are from). LoveToLondon (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok! Say no more ;)! (P.S. As for "lies", please provide diffs for your quotes... I need to see where you can refute what I directly said about what you're quoting, or perhaps you're changing my comments deliberately? Surely not........!) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
You are saying you did not write what is signed with your name above? LoveToLondon (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait too much unclear information - they had bomb-making chemicals, but currently unknown if the Salafists actually placed any bombs. Reporting is limited, article quality is limited, and we might know more in 24 hours. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Even your statement the Salafists is not backed by the sources, the sources only say these people had contacts with salafists. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Unique dinosaur discoveredEdit

Article: Yi (dinosaur) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists discover the first known dinosaur with membranous wings, Yi qi.
Alternative blurb: ​Scientists discover the first known gliding dinosaur, Yi qi.
News source(s): NY Times Nature

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is the first-ever dinosaur to be discovered with membranous (bat-like) wings. As such, it could have a significant impact out our understanding of evolution. (see NY Times and Nature commentary linked above - if you click on the Nature link in the NYT article, you can get free access.) ThaddeusB (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose: Seems like a rather arbitrary feature to make ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    • And strong oppose altblurb, as it simply isn't true. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support (conditional) if we can get a much better explanation--from what I read last night its neither a bird nor a pterosaur but was considered capable of rudimentary flight. That would be a huge discovery, since we have only known of four groups, the insects, pterosaurs, birds and bats that could fly since the 1800's. This would make the fifth. μηδείς (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Not flight. As an evolutionary advance, gliding is much more common than flapping flight. Abductive (reasoning) 16:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
That's why I am waiting for more information, the popular source I read last night pointed out its close proximity to the birds, but that fact that it was not a bird itself, and had a different wing structure that may have allowed flapping. The animal is unique enough that I will support its posting no matter what, it would be absolutely farcical to argue we wouldn't post a new genus of unique mammalian gliders, I just want a better picture. μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Please do not... add simple "support" or "oppose" !votes. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached." Abductive (reasoning) 17:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised this is the first time you've noticed this! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I wouldn't mind a somewhat better blurb to make the distinction that this was gliding instead of powered flight, but it is still flight via non-feathered wings. peer-reviewed via Nature, and article in good initial shape for posting. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • They seem to have feathers, and they are not wings. Abductive (reasoning) 17:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "The strange membranous wings of Yi qi are unique among dinosaurs and difficult to interpret." If they aren't wings, what would you call them? Please suggest an alternate blurb that better describes the find if you can. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Planes or membranes. Anyway, I provided an altblurb. Abductive (reasoning) 17:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I support that altblurb by calling it a gliding dinosaur, making it immediately clear without any additional context. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I agree the altblurb is better than the original. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a volant dinosaur using membranes instead of feathers, which is unique. Easily the most notable fossil discovery of this century so far. The altblurb is incorrect as many other presumed gliding dinosaurs are known.--MWAK (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    @MWAK:, do you have another suggestion for the blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support because Abductive supports, and "I trust this user". Article is rudimentary but functional enough to describe the good bits. Just get the blurb right please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. According to the sourcing, this is a dinosaur with "seemingly bony wrist structure that may have had a role in flight". I appreciate that it's now May Day, but let's not be too literal about it. Formerip (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The most important fossil discovery for many years. Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Stephen 00:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Ouch. As posted now, the blurb is simply untrue. Change it into: "first known dinosaur using membranes instead of feathers" or something similar.--MWAK (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Argh is more appropriate than ouch, don't you think. This is not the first believed gliding dinosaur. The blurb needs fixing, not the story pulling. 07:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. Changed back to the original blurb. Black Kite (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Ditto on the notability and uniqueness of this fascinating new species. Also note that the membranes were also found attached to the extended sesamoid bones, so it is not simply an assumption that it glided/flew but a well-founded hypothesis. TheLateDentarthurdent (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Rubella eradicationEdit

Article: Rubella (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Americas becomes the first World Health Organization region to be officially declared free of rubella.
News source(s): NY Times, BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A significant milestone in the fight against one of the world's major diseases. I believe it is just the third human-transmissible virus completely eradicated from any region of the world. ThaddeusB (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Support Seems notable event since we're basically talking one hemisphere rid of it. A few small issues with article (Also, I would suggest that the lead image on that article can be cropped to just show the back/above the waist, as to maintain the "principle of least surprise" when it comes to possibly questionable images on WP) --MASEM (t) 15:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I cropped the image and added some additional references to the symptoms section. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I personally would not be offended but I can envision someone would be with the original uncropped version without having a warning. No issues on article from me. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: The first of hopefully several important advancements in combating disease this year. Not unexpected, but historically significant. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose good work, but it only takes one infected person to bring it back. This should get a blurb when the disease is eradicated world-wide, not just in one area of it. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it requires a transfer of a native strain. An imported strain doesn't count, so it is considerably more difficult than simply someone catching it elsewhere and bringing it back. We posted when Polio was eradicated from the South-East Asia Region. I believe that is the only other major regional eradication in ITN history. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd assume that when WHO says "eradicated" they are based on that on statistical data (as implied by the article) and there are certainly likely isolated cases of people that have not been to a doctor in some time that may still carry the native strain; there's also the imported strain aspect Thaddeus describes. It is similar to when a species is considered extinct in that there may still be living instances but they are so rare or undiscovered to be able to assure the continuation of the species. --MASEM (t) 17:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm still not sure I get this. The fact that the local strain has been wiped out is like saying Jefferson defeated islamist terrorism in 1801. I am not terrible upset this was posted, but does it mean we'll also have other local postings and then a final posting and an anniversary posting? μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support big news, just like the Poliomyelitis eradication in the South-East Asia Region, that we posted last March. Significant progress and helpful that we have people that actually know what they're talking about around here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. A notable public health advancement. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly a significant milestone in the advance of medicine and health. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Stephen 00:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] First test flight of New ShepardEdit

No consensus to post will develop for this. Stephen 00:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
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.

Articles: New Shepard (New Shepard|talk, [{{fullurl:Blue Origin New Shepard|New Shepard|action=history}} history]) and Blue Origin (talk, history)
Blurb: New Shepard from Blue Origin successfully completes its maiden test flight.
News source(s): spaceflightnow, Florida Today
 Hektor (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Don't see how this is all that notable. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Also, the article has an orange tag and clearly needs significant updating. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting a test flight; if this is on a new type of rocket it would be ITNR when it actually is launched on a mission. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

April 29Edit


[Posted] Progress M-27M accidentEdit

Article: Progress M-27M (talk, history)
Blurb: Russian Federal Space Agency lost contact with Progress M-27M, which has failed to reach International Space Station and is descending back to atmosphere.
News source(s): BBC, The New York Times, The Guardian

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 Jenda H. (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support — A mayor space accident. --Jenda H. (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Progress is unmanned, and part of routine delivery of materials to the ISS; this won't end the ISS mission and unless Progress crashes in a populated area, nothing serious in the long term. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    • To add, the updates later today suggest that this will burn up harmlessly in the atmosphere within the week, so this is not like it is plummetting back to Earth and threatening anyone's life. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait at least until there is better info. The facts seem sketchy at present. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Question. Would this not be ITNR, if updated? ("Launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article") 331dot (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is an unmanned vessel. This is nowhere near the imprint on the world's collective memory as the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Obviously, if it crashes and causes a catastrophe, include, but the chances of that are miniscule, as the experts say. Of course, they're also the same experts who said that this would get to the ISS. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This is listed as ITN/R. What is needed is an article with sufficient detail. Including when and where it came down. Abductive (reasoning) 04:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - listed as ITN/R. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see this at ITN/R. If we're talking "Launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article" this wasn't a launch failure. It launched fine, they lost control while they were manuevering it to orbit and dock with ISS. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a failed launch because it did not reach the proper orbit due to the malfunction. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This failure is the latest in what I consider to be a long series of misguided missions to the ISS. Why are NASA and Roscosmos spending so much money on the ISS? Just let the ISS fall out of the sky and focus on Mars. Brian Everlasting (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
As Medeis suggests, personal opposition to the ISS is not relevant here. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Since when have launch failures been ITN/R? Nor is this to highlight failures due to editor opposition to the ISS itself. Unless this wipes out something when it lands (indeed, is it still outside the atmosphere?) there's no story here. μηδείς (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
It's been ITNR since 2011 (this revision) as a result of this discussion which narrowed the listing from its original "any space mission". 331dot (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - The article meets my standards for an ITN blurb. In the news, clearly, and of international interest. Jusdafax 19:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Having every and any failed rocket launch on ITNR seems far too silly to take seriously. I think it's a bit moot in this case, though, because the launch seems to have been successful, it's just that they lost control of the thing once it was in space. Formerip (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
It isn't "every and any failed rocket launch"; it is failures with sufficient details to update the article, which is not always the case. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
We always require sufficient details to update the relevant article, of course. That isn't really adding anything. Formerip (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted - ITN/R overrides any appearance of local non-consensus and the article is in adequate condition. 331dot is correct that that the current rule was established as a compromise between those who wished to continue posting every launch (once upon a time, there was 1-2 of these posted every month) and those who did not. It certainly was intended to include any kind of failure, not just an explosion or similar at the moment of on take off. This may actually be the first time ITN/R was invoked since the rule changed - it certainly is not frequent regardless. However, if ITN/R needs changed, this is not the place to discuss that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Crown prince of Saudi ArabiaEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 23:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Muqrin of Saudi Arabia (talk, history)
Blurb: Muqrin of Saudi Arabia is removed as Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia following a reshuffle.
Alternative blurb: King Salman of Saudi Arabia removes his half-brother as crown prince, replacing him with his nephew Muhammad bin Nayef
News source(s): Huffington Post (and many others), The Guardian
Nominator's comments: Something strange is going on there...and it's more notable in the light of the fiasco in Yemen... 120.62.28.109 (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Speculation this is tied in with other events, and this is not deposing the current leader in the country. Unless I'm missing something, there is no official duties tied to the Crown Prince (comparable: the US Vice President does have official powers) so this is mostly preparing the heir in the future. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm...the crown prince being deposed is not every day and its more notable with a new king recently. There is some sort of a power struggle going on in the world's largest oil exporter at the same time as an increase in regional conflicts. (also note the radical swings in oil prices this year so far...). See the first line in the "Succession" section. Personally, I would tie it to Bahrain too but that's more "speculative" so I'm not expecting that to be posted. Although I'm not saying its going to be replicated but South Sudan deposed the VP a mere 6 months before the violence of the civil war started...120.62.28.109 (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Wait 'til dust settles. Sca (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A major shift of power in an important country. Even if things are in flux right now, what we know so far is enough to be notable. Thue (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait a bit as per Sca. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose; from what little I know about Saudi government, the King can change who is succeeding him at any time, so this is not unusual. It also seems that the Crown Prince has few if any official duties so there is little impact to the country. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Sure the crown prince may have little power now. But it is the dictatorial equivalent of a US president being elected in November 2012; even though he only comes into power in January 2013, the fact that he is anointed is still considered news in November 2012. Thue (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
A closer comparison would be a change in the vice president, since the crown prince has similar responsibilities and only comes into power if the king dies. As 331dot mentioned, the crown prince can and does change, which while uncommon is not unusual. Mamyles (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I further presume that the King would choose someone ideologically similar to himself, so any change probably would not represent a sea change in Saudi government. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I fear that any comparisons with either hereditary monarchy or with populist democracy, as a means of understanding the significance of this change, are almost certainly bound to fail. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it's important for readers to understand that the way that things are done in their own country isn't the only way of doing things. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
It is not that uncommon, 3 of the last 4 crown princes never became king. LoveToLondon (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Only if you count this change; only two of the previous four never became king, and both died in office. This appointment represents a major political upheaval. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
A comparison to a vice president really misses the point. Joe Biden is not going to become President. If there were a rule change in the US so that the vice president automatically became heir apperent to the president, then you can bet that we would post new vice presidents. Thue (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose internal Saudi politics issue. Not significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not quite at the level of a monarch himself being replaced, which would meet WP:R. Even if Prince Charles yielded his position as heir to Prince William, I doubt that would be included on here. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Comments like "from what little I know about Saudi government" convince me that this should be run. Part of the role of ITN and the wikipedia is to educate and inform. Saudi Arabia is a very important country, and the resders would benefit from knowing more about it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    • However, no one has shown how this isn't just a reshuffling of heirs without a major change of government or how this ties into larger events. We do want to education, but we need to be more than "oh, this happened, we have no idea what it actually means in larger context beyond there's a new heir to the throne". --MASEM (t) 03:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not so much a shift in power as in shift in hypothetical, future power. That's not to say the Crown Prince isn't powerful, but he's no King. When he (or another) takes the throne, I'll support a blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:40, April 30, 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a cabinet shakeup. ITN never posts those. Abductive (reasoning) 04:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Where one of the "cabinet members" can go on to become the unelected ruler of the country? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Like in the US? --MASEM (t) 14:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
That's right; Nixon appointed Gerald Ford to be Vice-Pres, and Ford went on to be President without every being elected to either. Abductive (reasoning) 18:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Lacks immediate significance of broader impact. Sca (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Closed] Maersk TigrisEdit

close for now, this seems to be a dispute in a civil suit, see longer comment below. μηδείς (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Straits of Hormuz (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The MV Maersk Tigris is escorted by Iranian navy vessels to Bandar Abbas port after it was in Iranian waters.
News source(s): CNBC Yahoo
Nominator's comments: Significant international relations repercussions as the Iranian nuclear deal is being discussing in washintgon. 120.62.28.109 (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. First I am not sure this is going to amount to more than a footnote in international news. Conceding this could become more significant in the future, I don't think it rises to ITN level at the moment. Secondly there doesn't appear to be anything relating to this incident to link to on the project. We are not a news service. ITN blurbs are supposed to link to a related article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough on the first point (the vessel just reached the port about 5-6 hours ago according to maritime tracking data) but on the second we don't need to have needless news articles when there already is an article that can carry the events. The ITN does the project a disservice otherwise.120.62.28.109 (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until if this was confirmed to be on purpose with malicious intent, which might take a few days to determine. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I think the case for ITN at this point is WP:CRYSTAL. There have been a lot of conflicting reports about what is going on, but the confirmed facts don't paint a picture of an international incident that would meet the notability criteria for ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait as per Masem. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even with malicious intent nothing that has happened so far would be relevant for a blurb. LoveToLondon (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait limited evidence so far, looks like this is to do with a dispute over Maersk being fined over something from 2010, they've agreed to pay ~$100,000 - and Iranian court wants them to pay $3.3 million. See Maersk#Business with Iran about issues from 2010. Further details about 2010 may come out in the following days. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Maersk is reporting this is apparently a civil seizure over a ten year old dispute with an Iranian company over a ship Maersk was paid for but never delivered, see source. μηδείς (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Posted] Execution of Bali Nine duoEdit

This has been posted, and further discussion is not going to change that. If the ITN requirements or criteria need amendment then open a discussion at the appropriate channel. Stephen 01:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
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.

Articles: Bali Nine (talk, history) and Capital punishment in Indonesia (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Eight convicts, including Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran of the Bali Nine, are executed by firing squad in Indonesia.
Alternative blurb: ​Eight convicts, including foreign nationals, are executed by firing squad in Indonesia for drug charges.
Alternative blurb II: ​Australia, The Netherlands and Brazil have all recalled their ambassadors to Indonesia over the execution of their citizens for drug trafficking offences.
News source(s): CNN The Guardian
Nominator's comments: Major news story for quite some time, and Australia just recalled its ambassador from Indonesia. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, was about to nominate it myself. Significant event with lots of news coverage and substantial international impact. Everymorning talk 01:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - significant international incident but the two executed should be bolder instead of the Nine. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just run-of-the mill executions of career criminals. And that's a cute bit of grandstanding by the Australian government, given that it was Australian authorities who tipped off Indonesian authorities at the time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Given the Australia-Indonesia dispute over the executions, it seems like this is a pretty significant on an international stage. NickCT (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Being responsible matters little. This case, as well as another one that climaxed in January with a similar execution, were a source of diplomatic tensions between Indonesia and other countries, not just Australia. A schizophrenic Brazilian national was among the executed, despite several appeals by Roussef. Last month, the Brazilian government rejected the credentials of the new Indonesian ambassador there, and now they are "evaluating" ties with Jakarta. I do believe the Australians shouldn't be mentioned so prominently for simply being Anglophone nationals, so I've added an altblurb for that purpose. I don't recall the January story being posted, so posting this one would do no harm. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article is now updated, and I've expanded the blurb to mention the six other drug convicts who were executed at the same time. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Was their (death sentence) conviction previously reported on ITN? If not, then Support. While on a functional level this isn't terribly significant, it has caused quite a diplomatic stir. Joshua Garner (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Executions of drug smugglers, including foreign nationals, is par for the course in Indonesia. If these unlucky Aussies were independently notable figures, I would support ITN, but they're pretty much only famous for being busted for drug trafficking in the wrooooong country to be busted for that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    • @Kudzu1: Indonesia ceased its use of the death penalty for almost six years. See Capital punishment in Indonesia - Indonesia has killed more people in ~2 months than they have in ~7 years. This is not run of the mill. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support For the following reasons-
1. Execution by firing squad: This should draw international condemnation.
2. Foreign Nationals executed.
3. Covered by media around the world and notable enough to be on ITN.Regards, theTigerKing  02:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No. The Netherlands and Brazil recalled their ambassadors in January, and the Australian government has recalled their ambassador. Ban Ki Moon publicly called for these death sentences not to be executed. The death penalty was suspended for six years under a previous Indonesian president and has resumed under the current one because he campaigned on it - this is not routine, countries recalling their ambassadors does not happen frequently. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing in the article suggests a massive international reaction that some supports above suggest. Drug traffickers were discovered, given a trial, and sentenced to execution. Seems very run of mill, and nothing indicating that Indonesia just executed people wrongly or did not give them a fair trial. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Masem: read the article Capital punishment in Indonesia - no death sentences executed in all of 2014 - this is not "run of the mill" - in just this year they have killed more people than in the past ~7 years, and three countries have recalled their ambassadors, and lawyers allege sentencing judges sought $130,000 in bribes.-- Aronzak (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Which points to a long-term issue, this incident being one factor of that, and making this particular story less an ITN case. --MASEM (t) 05:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support for many reasons:
  • International Relations The Netherlands and Brazil recalled their ambassadors in January, and the Australian government has recalled their ambassador (Sydney Morning Herald Guardian). France and the EU have called on a moratorium on the executions of a French national, and Hollande has said he "would do everything possible up to the last moment" to prevent Serge Atlaoui's execution - (Euractiv) and France condemned the current wave of killings (news.com.au). Ban Ki Moon called on the execution not to go ahead (PhilStar Leadership (Nigeria) Philippines president Benigno Aquino III called for "humanitarian consideration" for Mary Jane Veloso, who was set to be executed. (ABC)
  • Wave of killings See Capital punishment in Indonesia - no death sentences were carried out in all of 2014, and no death sentences were carried out between 2009 and 2012. The reason for the sudden recommencement of the execution of prisoners on death row is Joko Widodo becoming president. This is therefore intrinsically a political issue, not a criminal justice issue. See the graphs in this article - Indonesia has already killed more people in two months than any year since 1999, and they are overwhelmingly foreigners.
  • Corruption The pair's lawyers say that the sentencing judges requested a $130,000 bribe. The Indonesian authorities pushed ahead with the execution, without waiting for the judicial review into the bribery accusations to take place.
  • Inconsistency: Note that people involved in the Bali Bombings have not been given death sentences, and some are currently walking free. A woman who murdered her own mother and crushed her body inside a suitcase was given 10 years.
  • Jimly Asshiddiqie, the previous chairman of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia (which upheld the death penalty in 2007) says that Indonesia should abolish the death penalty because "Global humanitarian values have changed" (Guardian ABC PM).

-- Aronzak (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Which betrays the true agenda, which is to make Wikipedia an advocate against the death penalty. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Recalling ambassadors to Indonesia does not mean advocate against the death penalty and Wikipedia is not supporting death penalty --AntanO 05:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support amount of diplomatic grief makes this in my opinion worthy of posting. SeraV (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as per other supporters point of view. --AntanO 04:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Barbaric. But unless the dead were actually innocent they knew what they were risking, not our place to write great wrongs. μηδείς (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The Baltimore story, which is still ongoing despite y'all having killed it a day or two ago, is still the main front-page topic in the international edition of BBC.com. I'll concede that the disposal of a few drug smugglers is also mentioned on the page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Given the Baltimore story is ongoing, Baseball Bugs, it could be renominated, given the curfew and the Orioles being forced to play in an empty stadium.
Imagine that, posting an ITN about the Orioles playing in an empty stadium. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Non-notable persons were convicted of an actual crime which they evidently really did commit and handed a penalty that is hardly unique for the charges (several other Asian countries do the same). The volume of complaint about the execution was considerable but that alone means nothing to us and there doesn't appear to be any obvious political implications that don't carry a whiff of crystal ball. In short, merely posting that they were executed is meaningless as they are not notable on their own and executions in SEA are hardly news, but adding more than that would be doing something we don't do. - OldManNeptune 05:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Yes, it is barbaric and does harm international relations. Western citizens executed in Asia, and everyone screams that this notable because it is a barbaric crime. How many of you did the same for each of the three foreign nationals that were executed in the US last year? It harmed international relations to a level that the US Secretary of State openly disagreed[4] when Mexican Edgar Arias Tamayo was executed in Texas last year violating international law and an explicit court order of the International Court of Justice. Saudi Arabia executes around 20-40 foreigners by public beheading every year. There have already been two cases of Indonesion women being beheaded in Saudi Arabia this year (also harming international relations) - noone seems to care because they were not Westerners. LoveToLondon (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
You are free to nominate any issue you feel is not getting a prominent discussion due to systemic bias at any time. We can only debate the nominations that we are given. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually no, Wikipedia is not intended to be used for the promotion of causes and agendas. -Ad Orientem (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Who is talking about causes and agendas? I'm talking about systemic bias. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
And we must for the current nomination also discuss which rationales for support votes are factually incorrect. Execution by firing squad: This should draw international condemnation. is incorrect when you consider that neither governments nor media seem to care much about the fact that Saudi Arabia has already done public beheading of around 50 people this year. LoveToLondon (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable international incident. It's not about righting wrongs; it's about what is in the news, as this is the 'in the news' section. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Executions are very rarely ITN material. The fact that foreign nationals were executed really doesn't alter that fact. When you travel to another country you are subject to their laws and legal system. The United States has executed foreign nationals and I don't recall them being featured on ITN. The diplomatic spat is just that and it will soon pass. On a side note, we need to be careful about using this page or the ITN section on the Front Page as a FORUM for pushing an anti-capital-punishment AGENDA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I could be wrong but I don't think the US executions led to the recall of ambassadors(possibly because most executions in the US are at the state level) which is a very serious diplomatic matter. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I am pretty sure Mexico has recalled its ambassador at least once over the execution of their nationals. -Ad Orientem (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - we usually are hesitant to post crime articles. But in this case it is executions that has been mentioned in world media not just on the day of execution but for several years. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support very high profile event, all over the news here in Aus. —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 13:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Bali Nine#Pre-trial investigation is unsourced. This will need fixed before I can consider posting. The reaction section immediately after excessively uses quote boxes. It would be nice is that was fixed, although it won't keep it off ITN. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support most of the known planet abhors capital punishment, and most of the world has been reporting this summary execution. It's a big, big multi-national story that, for a change, impacts a vast array of Wikipedia's readers, and which is being covered widely. That no Americans were put to death shouldn't stop this from being considered considerably important global news. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    The was an American called Frank Amado in death row in Indonesia, but I don't know if he is still there. Executions are fairly routine in the US, so I doubt if there will be much of a stir there. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Major international news. So far there have been executions of citizens of Nigeria, Thailand, Malawi, Vrazil, Australia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Pakistan, the Netherlands, India, Ghana and France. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel obligated to point out that "gets lots of coverage" and "high profile event" mean very little for ITN. Kim Kardashian's wedding got lots of coverage. The premiere of the new Avengers movie is "high profile." This doesn't make them ITN material. Recalling ambassadors is something that happens many times a year around the world over a variety of incidents and is likewise not newsworthy, and I haven't seen anyone threatening sanctions or the like. "Two governments disagree on whether or not to use the death penalty" is not news. - OldManNeptune 22:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't recall Ms Kardashian getting front page coverage, nor the Age of Ultron for that matter. These were not grinning guests at some celebrity wedding or fashionable red carpet event. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
To put it bluntly: so what? As I've pointed out, this isn't a news ticker making the front page of a newspaper means nothing other than that it sells papers/gets clicks. I'm quite sure those executed did not enjoy themselves, but nowhere do I find that as a qualifier for ITN, do you? Can you articulate a reason why this belongs ITN without resorting to emotional appeal? - OldManNeptune 07:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Third story on the international BBC website, doubt Kim'd make that, ever... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Right next to Freddie Gray protests in several US cities. I think the objections over that being closed were valid. It will be fairly similar. A number of incidents spread out over time, with varying levels of news coverage. Baltimore does seem to have risen to the level of Ferguson. Indonesia may end up doing several rounds of executions, and there will be news coverage each time. ITN doesn't deal well with sporadically re-appearing news stories. The 'ongoing' links are a bit of a joke - who ever bothers to read what is listed there? Carcharoth (talk) 07:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
125,000+ views of the Yemeni article in 20-odd days and 682,000 views of the ISIL article in the past month. So the answer to your question is, a lot of people. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but not by following the links from the ITN template, I'll bet. What I meant to say was "who ever bothers to read or click on the 'ongoing' links?" They are buried away and are easily missed. I've never seen the point of that, but that is maybe a discussion to have at WT:ITN. Carcharoth (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Why even post this when it's a repetition of the very thing I've already raised objection to? Hell if we're going by sheer volume of coverage, I'd guess the Kardashian clan as a whole qualifies for an ongoing (in case anyone is really not reading sarcasm, I am not suggesting we actually do that). You're not going to convince me that third from top on BBC really means anything - we certainly don't post the top 3 stories each day, do we? It is of course moot now, but all evidence points to this being posted on straw poll, without regard to either valid reasoning based on policy or article quality at the time of posting. I was under the impression that's not how we do things. - OldManNeptune 00:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 04:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - while I wouldn't have supported posting this, it has generated news coverage in the UK (though not at the level I would have thought warranted an ITN entry). Obviously the coverage has been far more extensive in Australia. The tragedy of this case is that it seems fairly clear that the two Australians (at least) were rehabilitated and reformed (the prison governor called them model prisoners and spoke out against the death sentences). Some of those executed were originally sentenced to life in prison, and this was changed on appeal to a death sentence. All clearly political (the president elected last October on a platform to win the war on drugs [5]) and very sad. There are other cases as well [6]. Those future cases may well generate similar levels of news coverage. A more measured response here suggests that relations will at some point return to normal - i.e. the withdrawal of ambassadors is more a protest than a permanent breakdown in diplomatic relations. Carcharoth (talk) 06:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • While I agree that there was a consensus to post, I don't understand why the orange tag (which I pointed out above) was ignored. That is normally an automatic disqualification, let alone in a case where the discussion is fairly close. (Someone else removed the section after the article was posted, specifically because the article was on the main page.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't think there was any sort of consensus, and the orange tag on the page is evidence that this one moved too fast. There should have been more time taken to assess article quality and consider the arguments in opposition to posting, of which there were several. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Orange tag? All I'm looking at is a good article. And for what it's worth, several items have recently been posted with such maintenance tags, it appears those days of insistence on quality are way behind us. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, this version is the one that was posted. The issue has now been fixed, so consider the notice a reminder not to post such articles, not a request to do anything here... The article is designated as a GA, but it passed GA back in 2007 when standards were much, much lower. That combined with accumulated edits over 8 years meant there was no guarantee of quality just because it was a GA. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Doesn't seem to matter now, the article is in decent shape, it's still world news, particularly as they appear to have executed an individual with mental difficulties who was unaware of the proceedings until the last moments, something that I understand doesn't even happen in the US. Oh, and if you don't believe it to be a Good Article any longer, please send it to WP:GAR. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • (to note, it did happen before but now is considered unconstitutional). --MASEM (t) 20:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • My apologies, I completely missed that when reviewing the article. I reviewed the intro, noted the GA classification and reviewed the sections related to the updated content (Appeals on down); when I clicked on the TOC to move to that section, I missed the orange-level tag. I assumed since the article had a GA designation that the rest of it was GA-quality. I will take more care when reviewing candidate articles in the future. Thank you to ThaddeusB for adding references. Best, SpencerT♦C 00:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Closed] UK MEP David Coburn banned from Wikipedia indefinitelyEdit

Snowclose by request of nominator. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: David Coburn (politician) (talk, history)
Blurb: The Guardian reports that David Coburn (politician) was banned from Wikipedia after his staff edited the Wikipedia article about him 69 times in six days
News source(s): The Guardian
Nominator's comments: Points up the problems with COI editing in Wikipedia Jytdog (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - of minimal significance outside Wikipedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose navel gazing with minimal significance. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Navel gazing. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • comment, ok, that is SNOW. I have never done this before, and don't know how to withdraw a nomination. please feel free to kill this. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Per WP:IAR I changed the header to say "MEP", as Coburn is a Member of the European Parliament, not a 'Member of Parliament'. Nomination should stay closed, obviously, but that needed to be corrected. Carcharoth (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • My view is that any story that's about Wikipedia itself, now and in future, needs to be of major, major importance, to avoid the "navel gazing" as others have mentioned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Fully agree. Jusdafax 19:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Although it can be quite meditative, I'll grant you. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

April 28Edit


[Closed] RD: Jack ElyEdit

No consensus. Stephen 23:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Jack Ely (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian New York Times Washington Post

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Known for being an original member of the Kingsmen, and for singing their version of "Louie Louie", which the Guardian calls "one of the most famous songs of the 20th century." Everymorning talk 17:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - One-fifth of a one-hit wonder. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not seeing a sign of importance here. Being a member of a band with one major hit is one's 15 minutes of fame, and no further signs of fame or importance beyond that. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose No awards no note of influence, no sign of notability - 15 minutes of fame for a song from half a century ago. Another that has their fans - but not remotely meeting any RD criteria. Challenger l (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not RD notable, good article though. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Closed] Afghan landslideEdit

Closing as stale. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: 2015 Badakhshan landslides (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 52 people are killed by a landslide in Badakhshan Province, Afghanistan.

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Significant disaster with a large death toll. ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak OpposeWeak Support - Our article starts off by saying "This commonly happens this time of year in this region", and that a similar landslide last year also led to deaths. It is equivalent of when tornadoes of moderate strength race through Tornado Alley - there's damage and deaths but it's the nature of living in that area of the world. That said, this also highlights that there are places in the world that we don't get news until much too late to actually respond to it. (And just in case, I originally thought this might have been tied to the large quake over the weekend but this happened before that, so not a related event). --MASEM (t) 15:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Landslides do occur each year. Large number of deaths is uncommon, though. Last year is the only one I am familiar with with >100 deaths (and is the only one with a Wikipedia article). Also, we would certainly post a US tornado with 50 deaths (we have posted many with ~20 deaths), so the comparison is a little weird as a reason to oppose. Finally, even if a landslide with 50+ deaths happened once a year on average (it doesn't), I fail to see how that changes the significance of the event. No one would argue that an annual sporting event should not be published just because it occurs annually. "Too common for ITN" should mean monthly, not once every few years. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not "annually", it is "regularly" which is the point here. We post tornadoes that may have few deaths but millions in damage due to the intensity/size/duration of the store that generally makes these events rare. I'm just not seeing how this is a rare event for this area beyond that it claimed more lives than usual. But that's the nature of my weak oppose, I recognize it is a number of deaths to a natural event that couldn't have been readily avoided. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Its only regularly if you are counting all landslides, the vast majority of which do little or no damage to human settlements. Just as tornados regularly occur in central US, but only occasionally cause significant damage. The amount of significant landslides in Afghanistan is very similar to the amount of significant tornadoes in the US. As we know, in 2014 a landslide killed ~350 in Afghanistan, which was more than the 2013 total by all natural disasters country wide. Since 2010, I could find only two others with 50+ dead: One in 2010 (170 dead) and one in 2012 (70 dead, but as part of an earthquake, so possibly not all deaths from the landslide itself). --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Tragic, obviously, but not an unusual occurrence in the area. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Masem and Kudzu1: Care to reconsider given that I've shown this is only "common" in the same sense that tornadoes are common in the US, or floods are common in China. That is, landslides in Afghanistan are common, but ones that cause large destruction/deaths are not. I doubt you can find a single case where ITN has rejected a similar story before - we have always posted this sort of story before, including many cases of Chinese floods and American tornadoes... It seems ITN standards have risen substantially lately, which is why we constantly have week old stories on the template. We need to get back to where we are averaging close to 1 story/day, which is what we were at for several years before late 2014/early 2015. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I'll change it to weak support. I'm worried that stories like this which are difficult to classify in the larger world picture are the types of articles that WP:NOT#NEWS tells us to avoid and that should be better documented at Wikinews, and yet they keep coming. Not every natural disaster in the world that leads to loss of life needs an article; only those that have a larger impact. ITN should be careful about this because we do set an example of what news is proper to cover in WP in the context of WP:NOT#NEWS. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree with Masem. I'm not going to complain if it is posted, but the slides are a week stale at this point, I'm not persuaded the casualty count here is really out of the ordinary, and this nom hasn't attracted the kind of attention I'd expect for a disaster (not that a large number of participants are needed for consensus, of course). -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Posted] Sudanese general election, 2015Edit

Article: Sudanese general election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: Omar al-Bashir is re-elected President of Sudan.
Alternative blurb: Omar al-Bashir is re-elected President of Sudan in an election widely criticized as unfair and illegitimate.
News source(s): BBC, VoA, Reuters

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 Ali Fazal (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose pending significant improvements in the article and the blurb. This election has been roundly condemned as lacking credibility and illegitimate by most developed and democratic states. None of this is reflected in the blurb or the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb on significant improvements in the articles overall balance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as this appears to me to be stale, results being presented some eight days ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: i understand the complete results were announced yesterday as per the sources: Reuters. Ali Fazal (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, it is probably worth a note in the blurb that numerous countries signed up to a statement saying the whole thing was a mockery of democracy. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: is this the statement that you are referring to? If yes, then it's three countries. or did you mean the EU? Ali Fazal (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless some mention is made of the fact that this is a complete farce (obviously using more neutral language). Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I've started a discussion at WT:ITNR regarding dubious elections and associated blurbs. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb until we have a consensus on how to deal with elections deemed, by some, to be un-democratic. This isn't a "pick-and-mix" item, it's ITNR, and there have been, are, and will be many more like this. We need a way of dealing with it while remaining inherently neutral. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Do we have another article or any reliable source that discusses why this election is considered illegitimate, and why there was a voting boycott by the opposition? It's not covered in this year's election article, Elections in Sudan, nor in much detail at the linked sources.
I don't think that we should attack this election while there is insufficient content to explain what went wrong. Not that I respect the leader (who is wanted by the ICC), but from the linked reliable sources it certainly seems that the election was fair. The turnout was more than average for African elections, the vote was vastly in favor of this candidate, and the opposition did not even try to run. One could easily claim that the result was more from a case of stupidity by the opposition than unfairness. Mamyles (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the original blurb Listed at WP:ITN/R. The double standards of people who want neutral language for US-supported leaders who came to power through questionable elections but condemning language for not US-supported leaders who came to power through questionable elections are disgusting. LoveToLondon (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the original blurb. Obviously democracy in Sudan is a joke, but we haven't seen cause to editorialize on the "election" of other autocrats. Just because Bashir is a genocidal dictator who is wanted by the International Criminal Court doesn't make his "election" any less legitimate than that of, say, Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan (who "won" with 97.7% of the "vote"). -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb - I don't think it's our place to comment on the fairness of this election on the Main Page. Such coverage can be left in the article itself. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb. The article is there for readers to judge for themselves the reaction and opinions on the election; we don't need to say it in the blurb. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted original blurb. SpencerT♦C 16:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Keith HarrisEdit

There's not going to be a consensus to post this. Stephen 23:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Keith Harris (ventriloquist) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Guardian BBC Independent Telegraph

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: (I'm not particularly expecting this to succeed but you never know...) Nominating as very important in their field of British ventriloquists. I suspect the Harris was still the best known living British ventriloquist at the time of his death even though he has not been very high profile for quite a long time. He was pretty famous in the 1980s even though our article covers this time period poorly. His obits are fairly prominent towards the top of British media website frontpages. JMiall 15:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Clearly a good faith nomination, but he just doesn't rise to ITN/RD level attention. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I hate that duck. More seriously, he's just not that famous in the UK any more, let alone internationally. --Dweller (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose While perhaps a leader this field, the field is so small and lacking importance that its hard to consider this, and in considering the larger world of entertainment, a bit player in that. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Cuddles and Dweller. Seriously, I'm beginning to wonder as to if we need to redefine "field": he was an "entertainer", and while he as a "British ventriloquist", I don't think we should make that a field. He was reasonably entertaining, and sold out in his later career to entertain students etc, but certainly not RD notable material.
  • Support But only if there's a fair-use image of the duck so we have the juxtaposition of a 1980s children's hero, the Armenian Genocide and the Nepalese earthquake on the frontpage. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Closed] RD: Verne GagneEdit

No consensus to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Verne Gagne (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Associated Press, The Independent, Canadian Online Explorer, WP

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: He is one of six men inducted into each of the WWE, WCW, Professional Wrestling and Wrestling Observer Newsletter halls of fame. -The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 07:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support He held a major wrestling world title (the AWA Title) for more cumulative days than anyone else. Admittedly, it comes with a caveat (he owned the AWA) but he was a major wrestling star in the Midwest for decades, so it does make him at or near the top of his field. -- Scorpion0422 09:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • That's not real. That's a storyline. When Phillip Seymour Hoffman died, we didn't credit him with Truman Capote's bibliography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose He might have been top of his field, but "professional" wrestling is not something I'd say should be covered here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Why? No matter what professional wrestling is, it is still a field. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
So if the first person to catch all 151 Pokemon was to die, would you include him as well? That is also a field... I can hardly believe that there are people here who oppose the inclusion of dead world leaders, but when some guy from a make-believe "sport" comes along, he is supposed to be a valid person for RD? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
If you could demonstrate that someone who caught all 151 Pokemon was somehow notable to video gaming and received news coverage, I would consider it. I'm not sure which "dead world leaders" you are referring to, but not every world leader meets the recent deaths criteria. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The difference is that "wrestlers" are professionals and public figures, just like actors and singers. The scripted nature of their field doesn't cancel that out. How many people pay-per-view to see the guy who caught all the Pokémon, or buy stickers and action figures of him? '''tAD''' (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I also don't see it really being in the news. Washington Post has a tiny headline on their start page, nothing to be found at New York Times or CNN... Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, some of us are here to build an encyclopedia, not a portal to the NYT or CNN. Deferring to those entities over and over again causes me to wonder if anyone else really understands the difference. As for your point about a lack of coverage, that's actually not all that surprising for someone who has been out of the spotlight for over three decades. Some of these so-called journalists may have to actually do some research rather than lazily copy whatever they find lying around on Twitter and pawn it off as "news". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure that you have seen The Mirror, TI and CBS ?-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 12:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support From what I can see the article is in good shape and the subject appears notable since he won a major wrestling world title. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I never know with these pro wrestler articles how much is In-universe. Difficult to judge significance.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
This particular article reads like it was heavily influenced by the editor having watched WWE's The Spectacular Legacy of the AWA DVD. It's missing tons of important points about Gagne, but doesn't really have any in-universe problems that I can see. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Having grown up in Minneapolis during Verne Gagne's active years ('50s and '60s), I must advise he does not meet RD criteria. Sca (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
    • He was actually active in wrestling until the '80s. -- Scorpion0422 14:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's difficult to argue importance in a sport where it is known there are crafted story arcs even if there are elements of athletism involved. If we take the stance that we are looking at actors rather than athletes, I don't see the importance here compared to, say, someone like Andre the Giant or Hulk Hogan which are names immediately recognized outside of the sport. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
One of the interviewees on WWE's AWA DVD was Mike Chapman, the executive director of the aforementioned Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame and Museum. In one clip, Chapman considered Gagne's impact to be on a par with not only Hogan, but Frank Gotch as well. That's saying rather a lot. I understand that many of you would not have these same objections were we discussing Hogan. However (and this applies to the past RD on The Ultimate Warrior, too), impact should not be gauged strictly by slick television production and marketing hype, no matter how much it translates to mainstream media attention. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I can appreciate that some users aren't always sure what's "real" when discussing pro wrestling. So here are some real facts, courtesy of this article and Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer.
    • "became the first-ever four-time Big Ten champion. To top it off, the three-time All-American also won two NCAA championships."
    • He was a top amateur wrestling and might have won a medal at the 48 Olympics had he not been around at the same time as Henry Wittenberg.
Gagne stated that he was on the Greco-Roman team, which is a different competition from freestyle. He further stated that the 1948 U.S. Greco-Roman team was pulled from the competition because the U.S. was so far behind the curve in Greco-Roman wrestling that they would have had their heads handed to them had they competed. I haven't done any research which would confirm or deny that, however. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
    • "he headlined cards from coast to coast in the 1950s, a handsome star, seen by millions on the DuMont Network"
    • He was the top name in the AWA for 40ish years at a time when it was a major promotion and was number one across the Midwest, including in Minnesota, Chicago, Milwaukee, Denver, Omaha, Winnipeg, Salt Lake City and San Francisco. He was a household name in many of those areas, especially Minnesota.
    • During that time he drew millions and millions of dollars and outearned many of the top "real" sports stars.
    • He was a skilled trainer and his pupils include Ric Flair, Ricky Steamboat, Curt Hennig, Bob Backlund and The Iron Sheik.
  • So there is absolutely no doubt that he was at the top of his field. The only problem is that some users here think that their opinion is all that matters and they don't see an industry that's been around over 100 years, drawn a lot of money and been seen by millions and millions of people as something important. -- Scorpion0422 14:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
You might be interested in my "Gagne" note & link on this talk page. Sca (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I read that. The last sentence, "I suspect the audience for these programs consisted mainly of old men and adolescent boys.", caught my attention. Prior to the expansion of wrestling on television during the mid-1980s, it was typical for only one wrestling program to air in a television market, which was used as a vehicle to promote live wrestling shows in that market. Under that environment, that one wrestling program typically commanded ratings in the 20 to 25 range, with shares in the 65 to 70 range. This included AWA All-Star Wrestling. This despite the fact that it was about as far removed from Monday Night Raw as you could possibly get. In the early years of the Wrestling Observer, it was regularly derided by one Minnesota-based correspondent for featuring "left-handed squash matches in a garage in front of 30 people". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I don't really think he meets our standards. Pro-Wrestling is not universally recognized as a sport and is often viewed as a form of scripted entertainment. Conceding that there is an argument that he was still in the top tier of his chosen profession, that is not an automatic qualifier for inclusion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Whether it's a sport is not important here even slightly. What is important is that pro wrestling is an industry that has been around a long time and there have been periods where companies are incredibly popular. With that in mind, why shouldn't we note the deaths of the most notable people in it? Since the current system of Recent deaths came into play, there have been two wrestler RDs that I know of (Maurice Vachon in 2013 and The Ultimate Warrior in 2014) so it's not like we're featuring ever wrestler that died. I'd certainly say Gagne was more important to wrestling than Marcel Pronovost was to ice hockey (and this is coming from a Canadian hockey fan).
    • I wish people could let go of their dislike of pro wrestling. I don't like NASCAR, but I would never try to block the top names in that field being listed here. Gagne spent 40 years as a headliner across the world and is widely regarded as one of the all-time greats (though admittedly he is rather controversial). If he had equivalent accomplishments in soccer he would have been posted by now. -- Scorpion0422 16:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Basically a moderately well known actor, don't see any RD qualifications here. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
To frankly state the impediment to inclusion in ITN: 'Professional' wrestling is not what it purports to be. It's a crude, ostensibly violent form of entertainment presented as sport. Even though anyone with reasonable intelligence can see this, it remains a charade that may deceive the gullible. Granted, Mr. Gagne was a colorful and successful personage, but IMO the dubious if not mendacious character of his venue detracts from his stature. Sca (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
In that message on Herald's talk page, you outright called Gagne a "charlatan". To somewhat validate that point, the aforementioned Wrestling Observer correspondent wrote on one occasion that Gagne was contemplating challenging Rudy Boschwitz, until someone talked some sense into him about the consequences all that attention and scrutiny would have for the wrestling business (evidently, a lesson not learned by Linda McMahon many years later). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
KAOS, I said "something of a charlatan," but even that may have been too strong a term for a person peddling patent medicines. Nevertheless, Mr. Gagne's career reflected the ethos of the 'pro' industry by relying on some form of deception to make his performances marketable.
In fairness, a sampling of Minneapolis-St. Paul media coverage yesterday, prompted by this discussion, indicates Mr. Gagne was a likeable person. That however doesn't qualify one for ITN. Sca (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, the "pro wrestling is too violent!!!" card. Anyone with reasonable intelligence can see that ANY sport contains violence and in many cases the violent aspects are accentuated for entertainment purposes (ie. fights in hockey and tackles in football). Pro wrestling is on the same vein, but the difference is that they aren't really trying to hurt eachother, unlike in soccer where some players try to injure the opposition to get them out of the game.
I said ostensibly violent. Sca (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that most people can't get past the "Oh my god, it's fake!" impediment and see wrestling for what it is. You know what else isn't real? Star Wars. Also: Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Lost, Unicorns, Game of Thrones, Call of Duty, etc., etc. They all fit under the banner of "charade that may deceive the gullible". So if Mark Hammill were to die tomorrow, would you also oppose on those grounds? In spite of what you think, pro wrestling is an industry where the top promotions are capable of drawing thousands of people to live events every day all around the world.
In short, can we make this a discussion of Verne Gagne's merits? There's precedent for including pro wrestlers in the RD section, so this argument is extremely unimportant. If Wikipedia were to censor the deceased because their claim to notability was unfavourable, the section would never include dictators, warlords, soldiers, politicians or anyone ever convicted of a serious crime. -- Scorpion0422 18:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose simply not in the news, for such a massive entertainment industry as wrestling, this individual has failed to make any major news outlets that I read. The article is okay, he bossed his own company's contests, but nothing much else going for this right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you TRM for an oppose actually based in policy. Yes, unfortunately most pro wrestling deaths don't get a lot of mainstream coverage. But it is still early. -- Scorpion0422 18:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
When Gagne and Wally Karbo bought into the Minneapolis Boxing and Wrestling Club, that promotion was doing good if they drew more than a thousand people to an event. By the time the AWA hit its peak, it had had a string of a decade or more of drawing as many as 25,000 people to its largest events (mostly at Comiskey Park, though they also drew crowds in this range in the Twin Cities by close-circuiting events which had sold out the St. Paul Civic Center). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
      • No worries. Of course, it's not a "policy", but I understand your point. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
CBC is mainstream. So is The Washington Post and FOX Sports. I think The Independent is big in Britain. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, April 29, 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - any doubts that Gagne was at the top of his field or lacking mainstream coverage should be quashed the Associated Press reporting that he was a "Wrestling legend" and "one of professional wrestling's most celebrated performers and promoters". The Independent "wrestling legend and Hall of Fame star". Canadian Online Explorer "one of the biggest stars ever in professional wrestling" ... "there can be no doubting that Gagne is one of the most important figures in the history of the game". @The Rambling Man and Ad Orientem: @Masem: He's also had books written about him: #11 on the 50 Greatest Professional Wrestlers of All Time. One of the Minnesota 150: The People, Places, and Things that Shape Our State, and inducted into at least five different Halls of Fame. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - It can be hard to determine how much significance comes from in-universe situations, but in this case, he was integral in creating that universe. --Onorem (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Whether or not one likes pro wrestling, it's hard to deny its global success and popularity. Gagne, particularly as promoter of the long-time top North American promotion (which also worked significantly with All Japan Pro Wrestling), was instrumental in that success. He also spurred the careers of wrestlers even non-fans know, like Hulk Hogan and Ric Flair, themselves large factors in the wrestling boom. In-universe, he was a world heavyweight champ for longer than anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, April 29, 2015 (UTC)
  • Support There is some confusion, and often disdain, for the business that he helped mold, but whether one enjoys that product is largely irrelevant. Verne is on the Mount Rushmore of men who established Professional Wrestling as a staple of cable television and he had successful (almost unmatched) prolific in-ring careers in both amateur and professional wrestling. I believe that this has been reflected in the sources supplied above.LM2000 (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Relatively few news reports that often consist of repeated press releases and twitter posts - no real independent reporting to indicate that he was important enough for RD. LoveToLondon (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@LoveToLondon: - no real independent reporting - there's an article from The Independent I quoted in my 00:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC) post above. There's also the Associated Press. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 10:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
As I already wrote above there is not much written in the The Independent article apart from pictures of Twitter posts. It is also one of very few major sites that have anything at all. If you want to prove how important he was considered internationally, pick a country like Australia or Germany and tell how many of the major (non-wrestling) media in that country have reported his death. An AP news item is also not sufficient to imply very high importance. You also claimed He's also had books written about him, which doesn't seem to be true. Is there any book written solely about him, opposed to him being one of many covered equally in the book? LoveToLondon (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
He's featured in the title of Minnesota's Golden Age of Wrestling - From Verne Gagne to the Road Warriors (available in South Africa, if that matters), and wrote a $425 book.
There's an in-depth Bleacher Report retrospective. Granted, that site is what it is in an RS way, but whatever it is, it gets a lot of traffic. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, April 30, 2015 (UTC)
Reading that Wikilink, I see it's essentially CNN's little sister, since August 2012. Could explain the lack of "real CNN" coverage. Just in its proper department. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, April 30, 2015 (UTC)
Your statements are just becoming more and more hilarious, and wrote a $425 book is a nice joke. For a book that was published 30 years ago there is no real availability, so someone seems to be trying his luck by demanding a huge price immediately after he died. According to your Amazon link they have zero reviews, which tells a lot about the popularity of the book. Being mentioned in the title of a self-published book by the Minnesota Historical Society Press about wrestling in Minnesota is also not a big achievement. LoveToLondon (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggest this discussion be closed. Sca (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

April 27Edit


[Closed] RD: Andrew LesnieEdit

Closing as stale. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Andrew Lesnie (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN Guardian New York Times

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Won an Oscar for his work on Lord of the Rings, obits in the New York Times and CNN. Was also a member of the Australian Cinematographers Society Hall of Fame. Everymorning talk 10:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Not really seeing a full career as a leader in the field - while Oscars for LotR films is impressive, that seemed to be a high point, with very little else of his career unremarkable. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now on article quality. Academy Award winner and clearly at the top of their field, the article needs some work and better references and inline citations. Challenger l (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, Academy Award-winning cinematographer? Job done. Oppose on article quality, really weak stubbish article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Closed] Lower back pain linked to chimpanzee spine shapeEdit

Not going to be posted, let's not waste any more time on this. Stephen 01:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Articles: Low back pain (talk, history) and Human evolution (talk, history)
Blurb: ​People suffering from lower back pain tend to have a chimpanzee spine shape.
News source(s): BBC News

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Somehow medical science has missed a very obvious anatomical feature that could have been discovered thousands of years ago. Count Iblis (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose no blurb, no update, at least one target article appears to have been vandalised for over a week.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not an extraordinary finding, just enough peculiarity in evolution and biology. WP:ITN type of blurb I feel. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this has been known for a long time, that our spines aren't perfectly adjusted to an upright walking position, and it causes back issues. At best this would be a supporting study, not a new idea. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Medeis. Doesn't seem like a surprising, breakthrough result. DYN seems like the right place for this if either article can be majorly expanded on that. --MASEM (t) 23:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Closed] Kazakhstani presidential election, 2015Edit

Closing as stale. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
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.

Articles: Kazakhstani presidential election, 2015 (talk, history) and Nursultan Nazarbayev (talk, history)
Blurb: Nursultan Nazarbayev is reelected as the president of Kazakhstan.
News source(s): CEZ

One or both nominated events are listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.
 -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 12:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Elections of heads of state or government are generally included, although there is some question in my mind as to whether this exercise actually constituted an "election." Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Even if the election is just for show or the outcome is known/predetermined, it is still their legally authorized election. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support based on WP:ITN/R. LoveToLondon (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support the update is minimal but probably not far from all that'll be available. Reminder: we're not here to make our own opinion on the legitimacy of elections around the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Re-election of a country's head of state is always important, per ITN/R. Quality looks sufficient. Mamyles (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - The election article is pretty weak: no prose in the results section and no reactions. Maybe there is not a lot to write aboutthe election, but I would think we can do better than this at least. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I've started a discussion at WT:ITNR regarding dubious elections and associated blurbs. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Standard ITNR. Ali Fazal (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Unmarked as ready - there is still no prose on the results or reactions. There are plenty of sources which contain reaction [7][8][9] and is does appear any admin is willing to post as is since it has been marked ready for a couple days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Closed] RD/blurb: Abu Bakr al-BaghdadiEdit

Not yet confirmed by a reliable source. SpencerT♦C 00:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: The supreme commander of ISIL Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi dies from injuries by airstrikes.
News source(s): Millions

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Suspected death of the proclaimed head of ISIL and the most wanted man on the planet. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 09:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose convention is to wait for independent confirmation, moreover the article has not been updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting "suspected" deaths; quickly checking some of the sources, it seems there is disagreement about whether he was killed or not. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • if verified it would warrant a full blurb.120.62.26.196 (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Tentative Support Blurb but as identified above we need 100% affirmation from sources, not what is currently second-hand information. --MASEM (t) 12:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • If-and-only-if there's some hard confirmation, this death is clearly blurb-worthy. However, it appears he has only been injured, per [10]. If he dies, given how prominent ISIL stuff is in the news, we should have a blurb and not just an RD note. --Jayron32 16:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb when confirmed: This man is one of the most wanted in the world and heads an organisation known in all corners for its wickedness. His death would have the same impact as that of Bin Laden, or if we has Wikipedia 1,500 years ago, Atilla. However, such an announcement would be news all over the web, and we can't trust Iranian state media alone without widespread backup '''tAD''' (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Hey, you're giving Attila a bad name there.... Abductive (reasoning) 18:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose no rationale given for the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Done..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 17:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, The Herald, I may change to support with a blurb when I have time to read up. μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait for confirmation. If confirmed, a blurb would be warranted but at the moment, there's no confirmation from other sources Palmtree5551 (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Unconfirmed headlines today sre treating the question of confirmation as the main story, since it seems the claims all trace back to one announcement on Radio Iran. μηδείς (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I've started a discussion at WT:ITN about unconfirmed deaths and their treatment here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Closed] BurundiEdit

No article to assess, despite nomination being 36 hours old, impossible to gauge consensus until then. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: 2015 Burundian protests (talk, history)
Blurb: Violent protests occur in Burundi after the President Pierre Nkurunziza seeks to extend his tenure at the 2015 election.
News source(s): Guardian Reuters BBC
Nominator's comments: Akin to the Burkina Faso protests last year and this is still ongoing. 120.62.26.196 (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
If the news is relevant enough then just maybe people will spend the time and effort to create one.120.62.26.196 (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The area already appears to be one rife with such conflicts and thus not news at the current scale. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pro forma oppose No article means we can't judge the quality of what we are putting on the main page. Whether or not this is a current event is irrelevent if we have no article to judge. The purpose of Wikipedia's main page is to direct people to quality Wikipedia content. A redlink is self-evidently not quality content. Give us an article to assess, then we can make a decision. --Jayron32 16:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

April 26Edit


[Posted] RD: Marcel PronovostEdit

Article: Marcel Pronovost (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NHL

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Eleven time All-Star and member of the Hockey Hall of Fame. Twice a first-team All-Star. Won five championships as a player and three more as a scout. Article is a GA. Teemu08 (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Meets DC as very important in his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Top hockey player, article in good shape. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support important in his field, RD material. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems to meet DC2. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted a decent article about a notable person, and with just a few tweaks of my own, this is a good effort all round. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Northern Cyprus presidential election, 2015Edit

Article: Northern Cyprus presidential election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: Mustafa Akıncı (pictured) is elected president of Northern Cyprus.
News source(s): The New York Times Reuters Euronews

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Election of a president in a rather non-ceremonial role (see "electoral system" for the significance of the role) in a major upset of power (the Prime Minister announced that he is stepping down). The first presidential election that actually had a run-off in national history, and with quite remarkable results as the president-elect's political background and major supporters are two minor parties with 3 seats in a parliament of 50. The state lacks international recognition, but the election does not. GGT (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support probably should be ITNR and article is good enough for main page inclusion, unlike most of the detritus supported by our current populous. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
It may merit posting, but this situation is specifically excluded from ITNR: "Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits". Northern Cyprus is only recognized by Turkey who maintains a military force there, considered an illegal occupation force. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per above.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I apologize for my incorrect statement which I didn't realize was incorrect due to edit conflicts. Anyway, given the historical nature of this election to this territory I support as well. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose an election in an unrecognized state, which does not change anything about its interactions to neighbors like Cyprus. Nergaal (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The reality is quite the opposite, which, frankly, should be clear from a reading of some parts of the article. The outgoing president was a hardliner that had a very strained relationship with Cyprus, Akıncı's election is seen as an important change and a possible catalyst for a solution. He has closely cooperated with Greek Cypriot officials in the past. It also signifies a change in the relationship with Turkey, as stated in the article, to a more dialogue-based relationship. And Akıncı's ties with the EU will also bring the Turkish Cypriot government closer to the EU. Just a note, the Turkish Cypriot president is accepted internationally as the representative of the Turkish Cypriot community. Being unrecognized does not mean that it is not a state, nor does it mean that it has no international impact. And do we assess every single election covered by ITNR on the basis of impact on int'l relations anyway? --GGT (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Well put and non-Partisan (based on the fact you seem to be a Turkish Cypriot) arguments from GGT I must say.--119.4.57.26 (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support While Northern Cyprus is largely unrecognised, it is de facto independent. Its presidential election is thus sufficiently notable, particularly given the potential diplomatic implications. Neljack (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Nothing against the Turkish Cypriots, but only one country has recognized Northern Cyprus as a sovereign state – Turkey. I understand Neljack's rationale, but am concerned that treating entities lacking legal status as if they were recognized states would be a problematic precedent. (One has in mind more than one other self-proclaimed 'state.') Leaning toward oppose. Sca (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Question Doesn't BabbaQ's simple "per above" rationale constitute a !vote? 71.183.129.212 (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Consensus is determined by strength of arguments, not numbers. So if your question is does that comment have less weight, the answer is yes. If your question is does removing that comment make this no consensus, the answer is no. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. My question is, doesn't that comment have zero weight and is it even permissible to post it in the first place since it falls under one of the Please do not... categories above. I ask because if it is permissible and it has some weight, I may use it myself in the future. 71.183.129.212 (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Supports like that do have some weight, if used in a context that is obvious. In this case it is clear that the editor is agreeing with The Rambling Man's support, as that is the only comment above, so the support counts as any other. If what he was referring to was not obvious, the proper course would be to ask for more information directly below the "!vote" in question. Mamyles (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The answer to that question is not easy. It enters into the whole idea that consensus is not about numbers, but yes numbers do enter into the decision as a secondary factor. Perhaps the best thing to say is, yes it has some weight, but you would always be better off explaining your reasons in your own words instead of just saying "what (s)he said". See also Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#Arguments without arguments and the intro of that page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] London marathonEdit

Article: 2015 London Marathon (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At the London Marathon, Kenyan Eliud Kipchoge wins the men's race and Ethiopian Tigist Tufa wins the women's race.
News source(s): VMLM

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 11:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Listed at WP:ITNR. I also agree that nationalities of the winners should be added. Trickaphobe (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - notable sporting event. ITN material.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Listed at WP:ITNR. Should the nationalities of the winners be added? LoveToLondon (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I tried but couldn't get a combination. Both are Kenyans. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 11:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
No, they are not both. LoveToLondon (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Alternative blurb added. LoveToLondon (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Since the blurb is correctly, replacing it with altblurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality article is currently not worthy of being called start class. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
    Well, it is called a start class. And should be judge as such. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
    Eh? This is ITN, we shouldn't be considering posting start class articles, no matter what you think we should "judge as such"... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Clearly not ready and no need to support on notability since it is ITN/R. I'm pretty busy today, but I'll get to it when I can. If someone else wnats to tackle it, take a look at 2015 Boston Marathon or 2014 London Marathon for some idea of what is expected. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Removing ready. Needs more expansion. For a comparison of what expected quality should look like, please see 2014 London Marathon. SpencerT♦C 04:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Almost there..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 07:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree although the description is solely about Paula Radcliffe which lends undue weight to that one individual... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Other than adding a table of the results, there don't appear to have been any changes since yesterday... Anyway, I'll be on it shortly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I will likely work on the article more this afternoon, but it should be up to minimum standards now. (Marked ready by someone else.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I love it when a stub comes together. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

April 25Edit


[Closed] Protests over the death of Freddie GrayEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 16:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Death of Freddie Gray (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Baltimore, Maryland, thousands of people protest the death of Freddie Gray, who died in police custody on April 19.
News source(s): CS Monitor The Guardian USA Today New York Times
Nominator's comments: Not sure how bad protests have to get to become ITN worthy, but USA Today reports that the protesters are breaking windows and throwing things at police. According to the Guardian, some of them are also smashing police cars. The number of people protesting in Baltimore has been reported to be at least 2,000 by Reuters [11] which seems significant. Everymorning talk 02:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Didn't post Ferguson, didn't post the more recent shooting in SC, this is more of the same. I would think we'd need something more akin to the riots after the Rodney King decision to consider a major topic. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • What's needed is an "ongoing" about the continual citizen revolt against police brutality. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose just a few angry idiots. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not nearly at the level of even the not-posted Ferguson protests. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Y'all are not seeing the pattern here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
      • What pattern is that? Has the National Guard been called out in this case? 331dot (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
        • The National Guard was called in Ferguson but that wasn't posted... –HTD 15:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
          • I'm aware of that (and I supported posting Ferguson for that reason) but I'm trying to figure out what the "pattern" is that BB referenced. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
            • Police kill a man in custody and/or unarmed on the open street, violent protests ensue. This has been going on intensively for quite a few months now. It's been in all the papers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I disagree with this being listed in Ongoing. If you think police brutality is bad in America, try about 50-100 other countries. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I usually oppose demonstrations, especially in free countries, but this turned into a riot, and prevented people from being able to leave the Baltimore Orioles game. To characterize this as protests is like calling the Colorado Batman mass murder "role playing". μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment if, as alluded to above, there's a persistent and terrifying turn of events in the United States where the police can no longer be trusted and blood runs on every corner, please direct me to an article discussing such flagrant indiscretions and also to the reliable sources that consider it to be something significant beyond standard household incompetence. We're discussing the legal system of the most advanced country in the known universe, right? (I think what is most charming is that for the template "{{List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, Description}}", there's even a "Refresh counts" link! Perhaps an "Ongoing" is required, along with a counter of people killed that automatically increments on our main page?) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This is an issue that is massively overblown by media outlets looking to exploit the racial element in order to generate clicks, headlines... etc. As long as there are police officers, there will be bad police officers. However, the perception does not match the reality due to undue coverage of the negative and complete ignorance of the positive. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed, "complete ignorance" seems an entirely appropriate assessment. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pretty much. These types of stories demonstrate the issue with racial tensions and profiling that has had a long (decade+) history in the States; some citizens are getting more worked up about it. I've noted before that we'd be need to looking at the scale of the 1992 Los Angeles riots for an ITN on this type of story. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is fairly run of the mill as demonstrations and minor civil disturbances go. We have rightly declined to post far more significant protests and riots. If this qualifies then we are setting a very low bar for this sort of thing and had better get ready to have demonstrations on the ITN section more or less permanently. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.
Once again, what part of "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Protests_over_the_death_of_Freddie_Gray). No further edits should be made to this discussion." don't you folk understand? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

  • I suspect that if this were 1965, you all would have been calling Selma "run of the mill" and "massively overblown." Yes, this business of cops treating blacks differently from whites has been going on for a long time. The difference is that the victims are no longer willing to put up with it. The trigger for this series of related stories may well have been the Trayvon Martin case, and the initial inaction of the police. There is an ongoing trend here, whether y'all are seeing it or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You, like much of the mainstream media, appear to have an agenda in this matter. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Which is what the right-wingers were saying about the media in the 1960s. Go check your own agenda. Mine is simply to not have Wikipedia look stupid and out of touch. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia will neither look stupid nor out of touch simply because it doesn't allow itself to be used as a forum for your anti-police message. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Ignoring trending news can make Wikipedia look stupid and out of touch. And twisting complaints about some police brutalizing citizens, to being characterized as "anti-police" (which the New York cops have done, for example), is comparable to when complaints about child abuse by some Catholic clergy, were characterized as "anti-Catholic". I am not anti-police. But I am anti-police-brutality. Please don't tell us you are in favor of police brutality??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • If you're going to accuse me of twisting your words, don't twist mine. I never said I was in favor of police brutality. I just think it is overblown and definitely not something we need to highlight with an Ongoing entry. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I never said you were, I asked you to tell us you aren't. As for your characterization of it, why should I trust your judgment vs. the judgment of journalists? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Journalists are not inherently right and it is dangerous to unquestioningly trust them. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not for righting or publicizing wrongs just for the sake of doing so. This individual protest was simply not as significant as other, more notable protests(at least one of which was not posted). 331dot (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Have it your way, but your investment in this subject suggested that to me. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You have lost all sense of proportion if you think not running this makes Wikipedia look stupid. I think I need to echo what others are thinking - you need to step back and take a breath here. Resolute 20:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Posted] 2015 April Nepal earthquakeEdit

It's posted already, no need for the ongoing supports, it's clearly job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: 2015 Nepal earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Almost 450 people are killed after a 7.9 magnitude earthquake strikes Nepal.
News source(s): Here RT
 -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 06:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it's still early to tell for certain but the early reports indicate significant damage to Kathmandu, especially the older part, so this will probably merit posting. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Damage is quite extensive. The Dharahara has collapsed. Also, tremors were felt in various parts of India, including Calcutta, and Ahmedabad and Delhi. Magnitude at the epicentre was 7.7 on the Richter scale. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support subject to a little more improvement. The bare urls need to go, and there are a few unreferenced sentences. Once these are fixed then it should be good to go. Mjroots (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support but wait until an official death count is obtained. We can also include that the building of the UNESCO World Heritage site - Kathmandu Durbar Square have collapsed. USGS reports 7.9 magnitude. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support highly notable catastrophic event. —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 10:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As well as the terrible loss of life, UN designated heritage buildings have been lost. The magnitude figure in the blurb has been superseded. I suggest "estimated between 7.8 and 8.1Mw". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
USGS has not reported above 8. I suggest we don't resort to the media's numbers but verifiable ones.120.62.13.239 (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
It won't be more than 8. If it was, then I won't be editing this. I felt it and am living just 160 kms from the epicenter. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 11:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support quite a terrible one. --Whaterss (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted While the death count is not final yet, it is obvious that it is high enough to be newsworthy. Thue (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
There are many more dead. Article says "918+ deaths" so update to front page description is needed. 86.150.91.187 (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:ERRORS is the best venue for comments like this. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Major quake. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - A quake over 7-7.5 with its shocks felt as wide an area as it did, even without loss of life or damage, would still be a worthwhile post given how infrequent that scale is. --MASEM (t) 02:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - thousands of dead people. plenty of damage.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

April 24Edit


[Closed] RD: Sabeen MahmudEdit

No consensus, and no debate for a couple of days. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Sabeen Mahmud (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): IBTBing search

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Notable NGO and social worker of Pakisthan -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 05:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Article was only created today, which is evidence enough for me that she did not reach the RD level of notability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not seeing any real indication of RD notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per what TRM said. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose That is an amazing amount of references for an article with so little information. I am not seeing how she meets any RD criteria. Challenger l (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Posted] RD: Władysław BartoszewskiEdit

Article: Władysław Bartoszewski (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Fox News ABC News WSJ NYT

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: This man is a very important figure to the Polish people. He was a former Polish Foreign Minister so that's RD notable. His death is being reported by other worldwide news sources. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - important person w/many awards; article in good shape. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - The person seems important and initial look at the article seems to be in good shape except that the bulk of in-line sourcing is to the obits, and not the dozen+ books in the biblography section. These seems to be an article that begs for much more expansion for someone with that much written about them. That said, that seems to be a poor reason to uphold the ITN compared to other articles we've had in the past in much poorer sourcing shape. --MASEM (t) 04:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support seems notable enough LoveToLondon (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Quick driveby comment—if this runs with a blurb rather than as a RD, "Auschwitz survivor" is misleading and shouldn't be used, as most readers will assume it to mean he was a holocaust survivor. Auschwitz was originally a prison camp and was only later converted into an extermination camp; Bartoszewski was interned there when it was still a prison, and was released long before the holocaust began. – iridescent 23:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for that. I'm not looking for the blurb but i took that out in case of confusion. Sorry. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Brandmeistertalk 09:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support important person. winning many awards etc.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the article and its size speak for his importance, there are no tags, 21 references, including for all his awards. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 100th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide + CanonizationEdit

Posted, further discussion is not relevant here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Armenian Apostolic Church canonizes 1.5 million victims of the Armenian Genocide while much of the world commemorates the 100th anniversary of the Turkish atrocities.
Alternative blurb: ​World leaders and other officials attend the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide in Yerevan, as the Armenian Apostolic Church canonizes the genocide's 1.5 million victims.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Armenian Apostolic Church canonizes 1.5 million victims of the Armenian Genocide.
News source(s): Armenian Church makes saints of 1.5 million genocide victims, Turks And Armenians Prepare For Dueling Anniversaries On Friday + numerous others. It's been all over the news.

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is the 100th anniversary of the first genocide of the twentieth century. It has been all over the news for weeks. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the canonization (which I was going to nominate when I had a chance to write an update). A canonization on this scale is unprecedented and the Armenian Church hadn't canonized anyone in 400 years. Neutral on mentioning the 100th anniversary. It has indeed been in the news for weeks, but it is still just an anniversary which normally would go on OTD not ITN. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that OTD would be the better place, but for whatever reason they have ignored the anniversary which is today. IMHO it is sufficiently newsworthy that it warrants front page attention. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that the genocide's 100th anniversary was previously nominated and closed as better suited for other aspects of WP's front page. The canonization aspect, however, is a new factor. --MASEM (t) 02:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose anniversary but support canonization once there is an article for it. The MP currently has three topics related to the genocide/anniversary (in OTD, TFL, and POTD), and as previously stated anniversaries tend not to be ITN material. The canonizations are different, though, and newsworthy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose canonization has no timeline, so what other consideration made the Church do this now? μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Presumably the impetus was the 100th anniversary of the near extermination of the Armenian Christian people. What does the timing have to do with whether or not this is ITN worthy? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support something along the lines "AAC canonizes the 1.5 mil victims of the 1914 Armenian Genocide." Nergaal (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose ITN isn't the place for anniveraries. I might have supported the canonisation if there was a separate article for it, but there isn't at present.  — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 06:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ...Canonization. It's a headline that's pretty newsworthy. It is a once in a lifetime event. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Medeis, but I also doubt that those saints will be revered in the same fashion as Catholic saints. I haven't seen any posted canonizations outside Roman Catholic Church, such as Ethiopian Church, etc. It's unclear whether the names of all those canonized are actually known. Brandmeistertalk 08:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The Oriental Orthodox venerate saints in much the same way Catholics do, perhaps even more so in the post Vatican II world. Also en-masse canonizations, especially of large numbers of martyrs is not without precedent. Although more than a million is extremely rare. The Russian Orthodox Church commemorates all of the martyrs of the Communist persecutions, which certainly numbers in the millions. And the Roman Catholic Church has done large scale canonizations for martyrs. Recently the Coptic Orthodox Church canonized the Martyrs of Libya beheaded by ISIL. Knowing the names of all the victims is not relevant. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Turkish atrocities is a problematic way to phrase it. After all, we are not talking about a Turkish national state at this point. Not that I want to defend Turkey's stand on this, but we should be careful here and phrase it properly. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the canonization upon their being an adequate article. It seems rare for such a thing to happen. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Altblurb proposed and support both. Centenaries attended by world leaders to commemorate events that shaped a region and people's history are certainly notable enough for ITN inclusion, and a similar nomination was posted last year. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support first blurb. 'Turkish atrocities' seems like a legitimate way to describe Turks killing 1.5 people. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support first blurb. "Turkish atrocities" doesn't seem to be problematic, but it is redundant. Let's keep the blurb as concise as possible. --Երևանցի talk 14:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as I think that this should be included on the main page at some point, and the canonization/anniversary have certainly been in the news recently. I also oppose using "Turkish atrocities" at the end - it is redundant and feels like an unnecessary snipe at the country. It is sufficient to call attention to the genocide. Mamyles (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked ready - The posting admin will need to determine whether there is consensus for the longer blurb that mentions the anniversary, but there is clear consensus to post at least the canonization. I have now expanded that section of the article, so this is ready to post IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely a notable event and it needs to be posted.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted canonization only; clearer consensus for that. Article quality looks sufficient as well--Jayron32 16:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I would post anniversary as well, no real reason to not post that part as well. SeraV (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

April 23Edit


[Closed] Mammoth genome sequence completedEdit

No consensus to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Woolly mammoth (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An international team of scientists has sequenced the complete genome of the extinct woolly mammoth.
News source(s): BBC, Washingtonpost ect..
 Jenda H. (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per the fact that it is an interesting scientific event.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The scientific value does not seem to be big. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a unique development of huge significance. It gives us a great tool (a third sample) in understanding the evolution of the modern elephant family. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • What is your evidence that this is of "huge significance"? That is, do you have any secondary sources that are remotely credible? Abductive (reasoning) 18:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I simply understand genetics and cladistics, and a sample of three gives you much better resolution in an evolutionary tree with a better ability to determine synapomorphies and symplesiomorphies. It's analogous to only being able to study humans and chimps and then suddenly having gorillas to compare them to. Given the elephant relatives form an entire biological order (on the level of primates or carnivores) this is huge news, and is not like sequencing "just another" rodent genome. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the complete sequences of many living and at least one extinct (Neanderthal) animals have been published. Technically this is not much of a feat anymore. Abductive (reasoning) 18:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Abductive. Clearly we need to take some of the support votes with more caution in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Closed] Warren WeinsteinEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Articles: Warren Weinstein (talk, history) and Drone strikes in Pakistan (talk, history)
Blurb: Barack Obama announces that Warren Weinstein, an American aid worker, has been inadvertently killed by a drone strike in Pakistan launched by the U.S. government in January 2015.
News source(s): NPR Wall Street Journal CNN

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: I would add Giovanni Lo Porto to the blurb but he does not have an article yet. This has big implications for the US drone program, and the Wall Street Journal says it's "the first known instance in which the Central Intelligence Agency killed hostages in a drone strike." Everymorning talk 21:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose being killed inadvertently in an act of war is not an accomplishment that puts one at the top of some field. We do not post drone strikes in general, and there's no indication the location was not the intended target. μηδείς (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No - It seems that his chief claim to fame (and the reason he has an article) was having been kidnapped by al-Qaeda. It's a tragedy for his family and friends, but it's just one of those bad things that happen in war sometimes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is obviously a good faith nom but the two preceding !votes pretty much summed it up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Has little notability outside of his kidnapping and death. We certainly don't post innocent locals who get killed in American drone strikes. Neljack (tal-k) 04:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above reasons, this is a tiny event in the larger picture. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Closed] RD: Pierre Claude NolinEdit

No consensus to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Pierre Claude Nolin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): THP

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Per RD criteria : The unexpected death (whether by natural causes, accident, or violence) of a person in a prominent office or position may warrant inclusion. He was the senator at office of speaker at his death. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support died in office, notable in his field. Disagree with unexpected death, been battling cancer for years. —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 14:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD He was the top man in the Canadian Senate at the time of his death. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - article will need some work both in length and referencing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvements, seems fairly apparent that he qualifies for RD. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not seeing how someone who occupied this position for five months is particularly significant. Did he actually achieve anything? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Seriously? He was one of the highest ranking elected officials in the Canadian government (US sense of the term). If the Majority Leader of the US Senate died 2 minutes after taking over the job he would merit immediate posting in ITN. This is a no brainer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Apparently not! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on article quality and no demonstration of importance. We did not post US House Speaker Tom Foley who was much better documented. μηδείς (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not really notable plus the article is in bad shape plus it has a tag. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Not notable? Good grief what are your standards for notability? -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I feel that he is notable to Canadians, but not worldwide. Plus the article is in bad shape. For example, when world-renowned and very notable director Manoel de Oliveira died he was post to the RD section, but was pulled because the article needed referencing and there was a tag. This article has some issues. If he is notable then clarify that in the short lead and expand the article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits as meeting DC1 but article needs work and is not currently in shape for posting. DC1 only mentions holding a high office of power, not that they had to have done something in the office. Foley did not die in office. --331dot (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
That's a bit confusing, are you saying Foley would have ben a better Speaker had he died in office? μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Done..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 05:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Speaker of the Canadian Senate is not an "office of power" in any meaningful sense. The Speaker does not have the political power of the Speaker of the US House of Representatives. It does not even have the power of the Speaker of the House of Commons (in Canada or in the UK) - unlike them, his decisions on points of order are subject to appeal to the whole Senate. And the Senate is a much less important body than the House of Commons in Canada. Neljack (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have to agree that while he looks to have done a lot of good in Canada, his position does not rise to the level I expect for RD. More discussion is needed, removing [Ready]. Mamyles (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. More discussion is needed. There are now more opposes than support. Plus the nominator added that he meets the RD criteria because he died suddenly which is not true since he has been battling cancer for awhile. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is an appointed position from within an appointed body. In other words, unelected. In still harsher words, a political hack. Abductive (reasoning) 19:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Both on the above points that this is not a major position of power within the CA gov't and the short time they were in it there is little to say about their importance to merit RD. --MASEM (t) 22:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Deutsche Bank fineEdit

Article: Libor scandal (talk, history)
Blurb: Deutsche Bank is fined a combined $2.5 billion by American and British authorities for its involvement in the Libor scandal.
Alternative blurb: Deutsche Bank agrees to a combined $2.5 billion fine by American and British authorities for its involvement in the Libor scandal.
News source(s): NY Times, Reuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: An enormous fine (a record for interest rate charges) in a highly notable scandal. When the record was previously set by a $1.5 billion fine for UBS in December 2012, it was posted on ITN. ThaddeusB (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support, but needs work - it is worth keeping in wikipedia. More balanced content and citations needed.Trickaphobe (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support - I will comment that our article implies that the bank agreed to these terms, meaning this was a negotiation likely from a much larger damage number. I would consider a reword of the blurb to establish that better. Article on the scandal should be the highlighted one but that is in good shape. --MASEM (t) 01:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Deutsche Bank wanted a much small number. They agreed to the proposed number, yes, but that just means they didn't fight the amount in court. I am certainly open to alternate wording though... Highlighted article is on the scandal (I messed up the bolding which made it appear wrong). --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the fact that increasingly powerful central government agencies are charging ever larger fines does not reflect actual damages. This money will go into the coffers of the US and UK governments; it will not be awarded to any victims to make them whole for real losses as would a win in a civil suit. Posting this would be like announcing California is now charging water users whatever some panel feels like based on how deep the user's pockets are. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Your comparison to California is ridiculous, but not surprising considering you find a way to oppose every business story. (Incidentally, CA's attempt to charge varying water charges was struck down in court.) The "actual damages" are estimated in the trillions, so your comment is off base there as well. And the victims in asset valuation manipulation cases are not obvious, as it is the market as a whole that is screwed - there is no party that could sue... Your philosophical objection to all things big business is noted, though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I picked that case specifically because it was the arbitrary action of the regulators which was overturned. And you make my point for me that the amount of the fine is totally arbitrary in regards to the real damages and victims, but rather goes into the government coffers. You seem entirely oblivious to every point, including that I am pro-laissez faire, so please just stick to objective arguments. I think a great business case to post might be Hank Greenberg's $40 Billion case against the Fed Reserve for seizing AIG from him in 2008. We'll see. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think you are the one totally missing my point, so I guess we are agree there ;)... Yes, the fine enters the gov't coffers. That doesn't make it arbitrary or a power grab. A speeding ticket enters the gov't coffers too. Does that mean the "victim" was somehow cheated? No, the fines exist to discourage the behavior. And a failed regulatory move in CA hardly supports the assertion that the Nat'l govt of the US or the UK is "increasingly powerful"... I meant ITN stories when I said you were opposed to big business, and in that regard your record speaks for itself. I knew before I posted that you would oppose - which is perfectly fine. You are entitled to your opinion that ITN shouldn't post business stories (unless they back your ideology apparently), but I am also entitled to point out your predictable opposition. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
You claim there are trillions of dollars in damages. In a civil system, there would a suit with named plaintiffs and claimed damages and DeutscheBank would either be sold or put under receivership however the judge best decided to reimburse the victims, and the criminally negligent would face forfeiture of all their personal wealth, including the named trader, their mansions would be sold, and they would spend the rest of their lives in jail. But in this sort of arbitrary plea bargain no one is made whole, the company just pays a bit of protection money to the regulators that stands in no relation to any fac (worse, its like the mugger giving the cop some of the money he just stole for your wallet and the cop saying "I have discouraged him from robbing again" as he pockets your money), and the government benefits from the settlement. All this is a government seizure, not a civil or criminal verdict. As for my politics, I only mentioned them to show how you're willing to say anything to support you're point, including now arguing the other side. I am all for innovative business stories and all for actual legal procedure. This isn't a business story. μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Significant fine resulting from a notable scandal. Whether we wish even more was done to them or not, or thinking they should have been sued, are both irrelevant. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is not even big news in Germany. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be big news in any particular country; such objections are discouraged under the "Please do not" section above. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It says "please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country". I am not saying this only relates to one country, it most obviously concerns several. What I am saying is that even in Germany, where Deutsche Bank comes from, it is not a major news item. I believe that is a valid point. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Point taken, but that doesn't take away from its significance in other countries where this bank does business. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I still believe that it is a pointer towards its overall significance. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be plenty of German language coverage to me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose That's plenty of German language coverage for a completely different topic. All news there are regarding their strategy change including giving up their majority on Deutsche Postbank. This is huge news making headlines everywhere in Germany - and completely unrelated to the (compared to the size of the bank) small Libor fine. LoveToLondon (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @LoveToLondon: Well that was a major fail on my part. Here is the correct link: [12]. If the Postbank story is a "major headline" in German than clearly the fine is a bigger one because it was roughly 1.7 times as much German language coverage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • How do you measure 1.7 times bigger? I am seeing 446 for the strategy change with a focus on Postbank and 167 for the start of thecriminal trial in the Leo Kirch case (how often does it happen that a current CEO of such a big company has to appear in court every day? this is the criminal trial against him based on a civil trial where Deutsche Bank already paid a billion) mixed with the strategy change, compared to 476 for the Libor story. And the Libor story is old news now, while the strategy change is currently frontpage news in mainstream media still generating more articles. LoveToLondon (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The gap narrowed some since my post. It was 285 to 475 at that time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I really don't understand at times how these sort of stories don't get posted in here. Homeowners and cities lost quite lot of money (billions) thanks to the fraud of these banks, well now one of these banks is punished and it even accept that people in there had engaged in illegal activity. Time to post this. SeraV (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose can you quantify how much British banks have paid out on PPI please? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I am failing to understand your objection - can you clarify please? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
You are failing to be able to answer my question? Or read my question? Or understand my question? Be specific please. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I am failing to understand its relevance, and especially how it equates to "oppose". --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It's an attempt to contextualise the significance of such a small fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
And you still haven't explained what it is supposed to mean. Why is that so hard? Are you trying to say banks make lots of money or something else? --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I just did explain. I want a context for the size of this fine. It looks, on the face of it, to be a minor fine in the big scheme of things. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
To answer your question, it seems to be $1.8B across the entire industry, compared to to $2.5B for just one comapny here... Here is a better context: Deutsche Bank reported net income of 441M euros and net revenue of 7.8B euro in the most recent quarter.[13] The fine therefore represents about 5 quarters of profits and about a 3rd of their quarterly revenue. That is quite substantial. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Um, did you actually read that source? It says "Britain’s biggest banks are poised to set aside as much as 1.2 billion pounds ($1.8 billion) more in the fourth quarter" (my emphasis) i.e. in one quarter of one year, banks in Britain had to put aside about as much as this single fine, above and beyond what they'd already paid out...... This fine is peanuts in comparison, perhaps DYK? (For what it's worth, this recent report indicates that British banks paid out £38.7 billion (I guess around $50 billion) in the last four years in "penalties". This is just another bank paying out a small sum based on their illegal dealings. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
My bad for not stating "in the last quarter"... You do realize that 38.7B figure is for all fines, of all types, by all banks, over 4 years right? (Of which 24.4B is for PPI, but again that is across the entire industry - i.e. hundreds of banks. Still, the PPI fraud probably should have been nominated & posted at some point.) Of course it is a much larger number than a single fine paid by a single bank for a single case of wrongdoing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but it seems like your keenness to post this is clouding your judgement. There aren't "hundreds of banks" in the UK yet several paid out billions of pounds in a single year. This story is nothing special. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks like hundreds to me... And we did post the new largest interest rate fine the last two times it was set (both in 2012), neither of which even included the guilty plea to fraud charges included here, so apparently this story was "something special" then. The fact that there have been other big bank fraud cases over the last few years (some of which were posted), doesn't change the importance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable acknowledgement of wrongdoing by a major bank. International interest and coverage. Good ITN material. Jusdafax 04:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment 2/4 opposes are demonstrably false ("not well covered in German") and 1/4 is a question w/unclear reasoning to oppose. Seems to me there is consensus to post based on strength of argument. (Although, obviously, I am too involved to officially judge consensus and post.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment If this is big enough news for getting posted, the strategy change including the sale of the majority stake in Deutsche Postbank also has to go to ITN - as explained above this is much bigger news in Germany. Was the settlement in the Leo Kirch civil trial where Deutsche Bank paid over a billion posted on ITN? This was a milestone in a story that is making headlines since 2002, not something like the Libor fine that is already superseded on the frontpages by the strategy change news. From these three stories involving Deutsche Bank this week (Libor, strategy change including sale of Postbank, criminal trial against current CEO starts on Tuesday), why should the only one that will be completely forgotten in the public perception within a few weeks go to ITN? LoveToLondon (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You mean as incorrectly asserted? There are more stories on the fine in Germany and more internationally. Of course we don't determine importance by number of stories either - that was only offered to counter the false claim that the story wasn't being covered in Germany. And in any case, whether another story is also worthy of posting doesn't affect whether this one is or not.... The UBS $1.5B fine was posted near unanimously. Barclay's $500M fine was also posted. That is the last two times a record fine was given. The only difference between then (2012) and now is standard creep at ITN. That is not a good thing and is why people are constantly complaining about stale stories not cycling off. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • With incorrectly asserted you are referring to your 1.7 times bigger claim? Now it's equal, and since it's newer the strategy change will soon overtake the old Libor news in number of articles. You are wrongly accusing me when you imply I was saying it was not being covered at all in Germany. But it was not the news regarding Deutsche Bank last week that created most publicity. Both inside Germany and internationally the strategy change is currently on the frontpages (internationally only on the frontpage of the business news).
  • A record fine would be ITN news. Your claim that this was a record fine is clearly incorrect, the current fine is less than 20% of the biggest fine a single bank got in the US, and a quarter of the biggest fine a single bank got in 2014. In the banking world this is a normal fine LoveToLondon (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No, number of articles was correct at the time I posted it. And again, it isn't even relevant - we don't decide importance based on number of news stories. The number was offered SOLELY to counter the obviously incorrect claim (by Zwerg Nase) that the story wasn't widely covered in Germany... Your assertion that the Postbank story is bigger (more important) is both incorrect and irrelevant as we don't not post a story because some other story (might) also be important.
As the the fine, it is a record (for interest fraud) according to many reliable sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I really would like to add that amount of fine is not really even relevant here, why this is news is that major bank has been found quilty of a major fraud, and been punished for it. This is a huge scandal no matter how much they are being fined for. I see no reason for some to insist that this isn't important enough because the fine is not big enough. SeraV (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
You can always claim a record when you define the category narrow enough. Have there ever been big fines for interest fraud before? If the Libor scandal is the first major interest fraud case ever, it would obviously always set new records no matter how big or small the fines are. LoveToLondon (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
There have been other notable interest rate cases before, but regardless new banks being fined over Libor are certainly not guaranteed to exceed previous Libor fines... I could only find 3 larger single-bank fines of any kind ever, two for mortgage abuse and one for tax evasion. The only one of those to include a guilty plea was the tax evasion fine ($2.6B), which was posted on ITN. Bank of America's record fine was posted. The other bigger one (to JP Morgan) apparently wasn't nominated. As previously pointed out, UBS' $1.5B fine was posted, as was Barclay's $500M fine. A $900M fine was posted in Sept 2013. There don't appear to have been any others that were discussed. The only difference here is ITN regulars are quicker to vote oppose than ever before. The story itself is just as significant as the numerous previous cases we posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
As happens frequently, your claims do not match the facts. When you write $2.6B (similar to the Deutsche Bank fine), the truth is $8.9B (3.5 times the Deutsche Bank fine). The reason you gave for that fine is also incorrect. LoveToLondon (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I assure you that was incompetence on my part, not intentional deceit. I intended to link that comment to this case, which is $2.6B for tax evasion and was also posted. So it is actually 6/6 previous cases that were posted: 2 larger fines, 1 about the same, and 3 smaller. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
What you call incompetence on your part continues - you are so incompetent that you even fail to read what you yourself wrote just one statement before. Your incorrect claim So it is actually 6/6 previous cases that were posted is clearly contradicted by your own statement The other bigger one (to JP Morgan) apparently wasn't nominated. LoveToLondon (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Nope, no error there: 6/6 that were nominated were posted. A non-nomination can't be used as evidence for or against because we simply don't know how that case would have ended... Instead of nitpicking my words and insulting me, maybe you can try actually coming up with a reason this fine doesn't deserve to be posted but the other 6 did? --ThaddeusB (talk)
  • support - notable scandal. ITN worthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Admin comment: No clear consensus yet imo, would prefer to let the nomination run a little bit longer. SpencerT♦C 16:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable scandal and a notable fine. The opposes carry almost no weight. Calidum T|C 23:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe this can be merged with news about the trial in Munich at the moment: [14] Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Nasdaq Closing RecordEdit

Closing good faith nomination that is obviously not going to be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Articles: NASDAQ (talk, history) and dot com bubble (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The NASDAQ Stock Market sets a new record high for the first time since the dot com bubble collapsed in 2000.
News source(s): Wall Street Journal,New York Times, Bloomberg, Business InsiderFortune/Reuters

Both articles need updating
Nominator's comments: We normally shy away from stock market movement, but this is a different story that warrants posting, IMO. First, it has been 15 years since the last high - we obviously won't be posting again tomorrow or next week when a new high is set. Second, it is a symbolic start to a new era as the damage done by the irrational behavior (among the worst in market history) of the dot com era has finally been whipped out. Third, major news sources have written extensive stories about it (see links above), which is not the case for routine records. ThaddeusB (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Nasdaq is nowhere near any inflation adjusted high. The value of the dollar is 1/4 what it was in 20 January, 2001. The Nasdaq is currently worth less than half of what it was in gold even after the Internet bubble had crashed, under a quarter of its value at the bubble's high. We're looking at an arbitrary number calculated in no objectively measureable units. μηδείς (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Your numbers are way off. A 2015 dollar is actually worth about .75-.76 2001 dollars, not .25. Do not confuse the rise in the price of gold with inflation. And the index value, by definition, isn't arbitrary in the normal sense of the word. The whole point of an index is to provide a fixed (and easily calculated/measured) reference point, basically the exact opposite of an "arbitrary number". --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The numbers all depend on the source, and they vary from site to site, paper to paper. I looked at several dozen graphs with different axes. You cannot dispute two facts, that this is an arbitrary number, and second, that the absolute value of the stock in commodities is less now than it was even after the internet bubble crashed. Gold was at $265/oz in Jan 2001-It closed at $1194/oz today: 1/4 the value, and this was after the internet bubble crashed. You cannot find a single source anywhere that says the Nasdaq ia worth now what it was worth when it last had the same dollar price. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
You are correct that the value is not higher in spending power (although the index number doesn't account for dividends), but you are way way off if you think prices have risen 4x in 15 years. Inflation doesn't measure the rise in the price of gold, it measures the rise in the price of consumer goods. There are many reasons why gold has gone up dramatically - out of control inflation isn't one of them. Indeed, you would be hard pressed to find a single consumer good that has even doubled in cost over that period. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Arbitrary record. A large bust on a day or across a short period of time would be ITN, but not general slow growth. --MASEM (t) 01:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

April 22Edit


[closed] Human embryos genetically modified for the first timeEdit

Closing as no consensus to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Articles: Gene therapy (talk, history) and Cas9 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists report the first genetic modification of human embryos using the Cas9 enzyme
Alternative blurb: ​Scientists report the first genetic engineering in human embryos to modify an aberrant gene that causes beta thalassemia.
News source(s): The Telegraph The Guardian Washington Post The Economist Nature - Rebuke/moratorium: WSJ, AFP/Yahoo NPR Reuters
 A1candidate 17:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support -- but I am at odds if the Cas9 article should be the featured one or something like Gene therapy. Why this is news is not so much the technique in general (this appears to be the first time on human cells), but the ethical aspects, as while this is a peer-reviewed publication, it was rejected by Nature and others due to the ethical considerations. So there's both a tech story here and a larger policy/ethics one, and dunno where best to point this. The Cas9 article is fine as a link, but I'm not convinced it is the featured one. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
You're right, I've updated the nomination accordingly -A1candidate 18:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
That seems like a fair-er (more appropriate for those coming from ITN) target that I could find immediately, but others might suggest a better one. You could keep the Cas9 one as the second target, though certainly keep it linked in the blurb. --MASEM (t) 18:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
This is correct. The technique has been used on other organisms for a while, so there wasn't any real scientific doubt it would work on humans. In other words, there is no scientific advancement here. Instead, this is a story because these scientists dared to break the code against doing it. Depending on one's point of view, that may be a cultural advancement or cultural descent. And it may well be a big story. Just don't confuse the coverage with importance of the science. I'm neutral for now --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support bordering on strong support. I agree with the above conclusion that this is chiefly about ethical/legal implications for this technology rather than science (except obliquely as the legal aspects loop back to the progress of the science), but on the other hand you would be hard pressed to find someone with even a vague notion of what this is who does not have very strong opinions one way or the other on this topic, and not without justification given the implications of gene therapy. Further, this is not merely a regional/national court decision as many ethical stories are, it's a world first (verified, at least). - OldManNeptune 20:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added altblurb from Guardian to clarify what's going on. Here is the relevant open access article (although published on 18 April). Brandmeistertalk 20:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose we know this works, it is just the first time it has been reported in embryos not brought to term. When live human children are brought to term would be the time to cover it. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Medeis, wait until actual application in a fully developed human. Quoting the Nature article linked in the nomination, The team injected 86 embryos and then waited 48 hours, enough time for the CRISPR/Cas9 system and the molecules that replace the missing DNA to act — and for the embryos to grow to about eight cells each. Of the 71 embryos that survived, 54 were genetically tested. This revealed that just 28 were successfully spliced, and that only a fraction of those contained the replacement genetic material. “If you want to do it in normal embryos, you need to be close to 100%,” Huang says. “That’s why we stopped. We still think it’s too immature.” There's no reason to post incremental changes for individual scientific experiments until we actually have a true "first" Dolly-equivalent. SpencerT♦C 21:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • <strikethough>Comment</strikethough> In March this year, scientists worldwide (International Society for Stem Cell Research) called for a worldwide moratorium on using CRISPR to modify human genes (NYT) and the same group expressed dismay that this study happened (Reuters calls it an "ethical furor) and called for a moratorium again. This isn't notable for the biology, but it is notable for bioethics, and public debate about the ethics of gene therapy with stem cells. I think this is notable enough for its own article. -- Aronzak (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose reading the article comments on Nature it's clear that most people are missing the point of the article and not understanding the actual issues involved. The public needs to be informed on expert issues on sensitive bioethical issues, not preached to by activists and told to react violently against things they don't understand. -- Aronzak (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong meh support technologically this is not a breakthrough, but the issue here is the ethics of the subject. It is kinda if say Spain reported having a working atomic bomb: sure, technologically has been done 60 years ago, but ANOTHER country getting control of it, be it one without actual bad intentions, would likely spark more than just a debate. This is the practically certain go signal to a race behind the curtains on ethically VERY dubious experiments. Nergaal (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Please do not do this - this is a bunch of hysteria over basic science.
    • 1st, scientists have genetically modified embryos before - see this headline from 2008. (popular media gets "first" wrong all the time.)
    • 2nd, if you read the paper, the scientists worked with messed up embryos that could not be used in IVF.
    • 3rd, there are miles and miles to go before CRISPR could be used in IVF - the paper was scientific research not medicine and had no pretention to be medicine. All the media hype is as though the scientists were just itching to throw these edited embryos into a uterus. oy.
    • 4th this is a WP:PRIMARY source in biomedical research. There are many retractions in that field, and many papers that turn out not to be replicable but are not retracted. WP should not be reacting to things like this at all, much less featuring them on the front page.
please don't make WP another voice in the idiot choir. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The difference there is that those people just decided to do create a freak embryo, while these people attempted to "fix" an embryo. Nergaal (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
when you say "fix" you mean "change a gene in triploid "freak" embryos that could never be used in IVF" right? read the damn paper. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the technique used on a "freak" embryo can be used an a fully functioning embryo. Adding DNA is much easier than selectively switching it. Nergaal (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
you are making things up out of pure air. terrible. things are not that easy in medicine - it moves no where near the speed that IT or materials science does because... biology. and messing around with actual IVF? that will take an extra long time. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
An article in Nature stated that the publication of the paper looks "set to reignite the debate on human-embryo editing." [15] The International Society for Stem Cell Research has responded calling for a moratorium. The media gets a lot of details wrong and exaggerates issues to non-experts - I would rather that any coverage of this on Wikipedia is limited to only expert analysis. -- Aronzak (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • support let the readers learn and understand, and arrive at their own conclusions --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose current blurbs / updates. Both blurbs are misleading in that they don't make clear that this experiment was done with non-viable cells never intended for implantation. In addition, the updates to the suggested articles are trivial and miss most of the details. I find the ethics question somewhat interesting, and I might be able to get behind a post if there was a targeted article that got into the ethics of this experiment, but right now the suggested blurbs / articles don't do that. Dragons flight (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Opposed The news may be the violation of ethic codes on human research, not on genetic engineering. The problem is that there is a gray line between gene therapy and eugenics. I would not provide a soapbox in Wikipedia to these researchers. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggestion To reflect that this story is not the technology but the ethics, perhaps the blurb should be: "Chinese scientists successfully demonstrate genetic modification of human embryos using the Cas9 enzyme despite a worldwide moratorium on such research." --MASEM (t) 01:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    An NGO with no legal authority called for a moratorium in March, at which point the research currently being discussed had already been completed. Your version makes it sound like they broke the law, which isn't the case. (There are some countries that ban germline experiments, but China isn't one of them, and of the ones that do have such bans some only apply to work on viable embryos.) Rather than violating the law, this is more a case of science getting ahead of the law and possibly going places that it shouldn't. Dragons flight (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose all blurbs suggested so far. This is the media hype machine at work, not a significant scientific advance. The strongest blurb you can reasonably use is Scientists report low success rate in the application of commonly performed experiment to clusters of human cells that are nonviable models for early embryos. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
sooo well said. for others, see here - the comments there by Prof Robin Lovell Badge on both the science and law, nail it. Jytdog (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with most of Jytdog and others' comments about the notability of this scientific advance. Seems to really be less of a deal in scientific circles than the mainstream media suggests. Mamyles (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Calbuco eruptsEdit

Article: Calbuco (volcano) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Calbuco volcano erupts in southern Chile forcing the evacuation of 4000 residents.
News source(s): BBC Yahoo! News Canada

 Johnsemlak (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - This is a known active volcano, according to the Wikipedia article (10 eruptions since 1837), and no casualties have been reported as of yet.--128.227.196.227 (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Though I wish that some of the images captured were free to make it a Featured Image, as they are rather impressive. But the lack of loss of life and serious damage is not sufficient for ITN. Also at least when I checked the article last night, it was rather thin and needed significant expansion. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Weak Support Improvements to article and discussion of impact even not a major death toll help here. And now with the free image, that's something to draw the reader's eye too. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this simply doesn't rise to ITN level. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Why? Not saying you're wrong, but why do you think it doesn't. It'll help to know the REASONING for next time.120.62.20.221 (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
A fair question. At the time I !voted, I was unaware this had caused a mass evacuation. Still, as I understand it, this is an active volcano and there were no deaths, so I'm not sure this is really big news. Admittedly, I don't know if this is an unusually large evacuation for a volcanic eruption, so I am open to reconsidering my position. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • i'd like to support this if the article were more detailed and coverage of the eruption more broad, but perhaps this is simply to far from major habitation to have gotten much coverage? μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • comment. Regarding the lack of deaths, it should be noted that we have posted accidents and envirnmental events in the US (and other western countries) that had no or minimal casualities because they were significant in other ways. I am not an expert on the significance of this eruption but it looks pretty major. I don't think that that the fact that it has erupted 10 times in 200 years makes it any less notable. I'd appreciate some perspective here from more knowledgeable editors on how significant this is as an eruption. That said, it seems very likely that if this happened in the US or anohter English speaking country it would be posted. And it did result in a town being evacuated.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The article needs work still but I htink it could be improved quickly.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The article now as a section for the 2015 eruption and its well referenced. I think the update, while minimal, does meet teh standard.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - article is updated an referenced. Loss of life is only one factor to consider. How often do volcanoes erupt and force the evacuation of thousands from a populated area? - Floydian τ ¢ 15:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article is weak and really gives no weight to why this should be part of the ITN section, a few thousand evacuated? I'm not certain, and as Floydian asks, when was the last time we had a mass population evacuation, even if it was limited to a few thousand people? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    Changed position, the article is worse than weak, and "On April 23, at 01:00, a new, more energic pulse started." is the most recent update, so we're not even up to date on what's going on. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support (ec) I think there's a good update, and while this is not an "it bleeds it leads" story, it is a good encyclopedic quality story that smart readers will come here, rather than to the Daily Mail to get comprehensive information on. I suggest Masem and Mellowed Fillmore reconsider their votes based on article improvement. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC
There's a rather nice free image, Masem, I have added it to the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It so far a pretty normal eruption, and 4000 people is not a mass evacuation - otherwise it would also be appropriate to have an ITN item each time several thousand people get evacuated when defusing an US bomb (which happens several times each month). LoveToLondon (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment it appears that this is genuinely a case of a flash in the pan. A few people inconvenienced, nothing more than that. No-one is talking about this today, let alone in a month or a year, simply not newsworthy enough for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

April 21Edit



[Posted] Train New World Speed RecordEdit

Articles: Land speed record for rail vehicles (talk, history) and L0 Series (talk, history)
Blurb: Central Japan Railway Company's maglev train, on a test run, breaks world speed record and becomes the first train to run at more than 600 km/h (375 mph).
Alternative blurb: ​The L0 Series (pictured) maglev train breaks the world speed record and becomes the first train to run at more than 600 km/h (375 mph).
News source(s): Bloomberg, BBC, Asahi Shimbun

 61.245.26.4 (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose The article is not good enough. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Is that your only reason? Would you support in principle? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't. But I thought one reason would suffice to oppose ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I would have inferred you had no other objections. After all, the article could be improved. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb I've suggested an altblurb that links to a more relevant article. Smurrayinchester 13:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb - seems newsworthy and novel. kinda puts other recent rail vanity projects into perspective... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Only because a few days before it also broke the maximum speed record (this is even a betterment of that) and still going under testing. It is possible it could still be broken again before put into service. Or if this is posted, and it breaks the record again in the next few days/months, we better not re-post again. I'd also want to see better discussion of the L0 article on the train itself. It's not the place to discuss the principles of maglev but there should be some discussion of the technical aspects of the improvements made on the train/etc. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose sort of like Masem. I don't believe 600 km/h to be some kind of barrier that was broken, anything particularly significant. It may get to 400 miles/hr in subsequent tests, is that any more or less signifcant a milestone than 600 km/hr? Having said that, it's certainly of encyclopedic interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It's a significant advancement in transportation. I would however, reword the blurb in a way that indicates speed trials are ongoing and more records could fall. On a side note, it would also be nice to post some transportation related news that did not come with a death toll. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
How is it a significant advancement in transportation? Will any train ever carry passengers at such speeds? Highly doubtful... Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't the train full of journalists? (... and they count as people, don't they?) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
It was, but I believe the normal running speed once it's in service will be a snail-like 505 km/h. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Per our article, the anticipated normal running speed is 315 mph. Looking at the land speed record article, there is definitely notation of how many cars/loads are included with the run as to avoid the issue of burdened vs unburdened operation, and this was burdened with 7(IIRC) cars. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I guess there is only a limited amount of the special track required, and it's only in Japan? And I suppose in service the fastest speeds will be possible only on the longest routes. But this is all operating detail. The new world record speed still seems to be an achievement. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
A fair question to my point here is are they going to try to keep pushing speed records here? That this train has broken a land speed record is ITN worthy, regardless of all other issues, but my concern is if tomorrow or next week or next month are they going to break it again. Noting that they plan to significantly reduce the speed once normal operation begins, we'd want to make sure they are at the end of the intentional speed testing to record the final record. I can't tell readily from the linked articles if they continue to plan to push the limits of the train or if that was the big run and all remaining run tests are to prepare for standard commuter use in Nov. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
That's a fair concern. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - new world record for a maglev system is definitely ITN worthy. Mjroots (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - new world record, ITN worthy. Period.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @BabbaQ: But they set a new world record last week too, and it is still in testing. They might just break it again next week. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment do we re-post every time they increment the world record? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to support this for that reason. This is just testing and it isn't clear that they are done. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
How long would one wait to be sure? An event like that one, with the world's press all carefully assembled, must take quite a bit of organising? Perhaps they'll slip one in when no-one is watching. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. It's true that we shouldn't post a record being repeatedly bettered over a course of tests, which is what we have here. However, on 16th April the maglev speed record was broken for the first time in 12 years. That's totally postable and not yet stale. Formerip (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Question: How "important" was the 600 kph milestone to the industry? If this itself is not an arbitrary measure (akin to the idea of the 4-minute mile in running), then I would agree that even if the train beats more records in the future prior to normal service, this would make it the point of posting to ITN. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - According to the website the current tests end on 4/24, so I don't think there should be a huge concern of the record being broken again after this cycles off ITN (if posted). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A landspeed record is quite notable (though rocket propelled vehicles have gone faster). The issue here seems to be how often that record is broken. Given FormerIP and ThaddeusB's comments, I think the record is rare enough. The only quality issues for the target articles seem to be citations, and these claims are well cited. Quality is acceptable. Mamyles (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - International interest and good notability. Yes the article is a list, but features the info at the top, and is well put together. Good ITN material. Jusdafax 01:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a notable achievement that is worthy of mention. Most opposes seem concerned about having to post every time there is a change, but as ThaddeusB mentions, the current testing ends this Friday. Even if they manage to improve the speed over the next three days the blurb (or the altblurb, which I prefer) would not require changing. Is any other company threatening to beat the record next week? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - The notable fact is that the speed record has been broken. If the top speed keeps getting higher, we do not need to repost the story. Cochonfou (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - the L0 article is fairly light on content - I'll see what I can do to beef it up later today. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Ready (for altblurb) - The L0 Series article is now updated and expanded with train specifications and other details. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted, minus the image because the new ones haven't been up for very long. Would like to swap a picture of the train in eventually, because it's pretty cool looking, but I'm not sure that particular image works well at thumbnail size. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

April 20Edit


Ali Abu MukhammadEdit

Article: Ali Abu Mukhammad (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Head of the Caucasus Emirate Ali Abu Mukhammad is confirmed to have died.
News source(s): Al Jazeera

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 -120.62.26.196 (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Mohamed Morsi sentencedEdit

Article: Mohamed Morsi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi (pictured) is sentenced to 20 years in prison for ordering killings during the 2012–13 Egyptian protests.
Alternative blurb: ​Deposed Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi (pictured) is sentenced to 20 years in prison for ordering killings during the 2012–13 Egyptian protests.
News source(s): France24, Jurist.org, Guardian

Article needs updating

 Brandmeistertalk 11:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support on article improvements - Not a word in the article (Morsi's) about the sentencing. There's a few smaller issues in the article but definitely not sourcing, it just needs a significant update on the trial result. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support upon improvement of the article. This is obvious ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support definitely ITN worthy once the article is updated. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support deposed head of state being jailed. If it was good enough for the ex-President of the Maldives, it's definitely good enough for a man who led the Arab world's most populated country '''tAD''' (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with improvements: A former world leader doesn't get sentenced to two decades in prison very often. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note I think 22 Morsi's supporters who are sentenced to death should be included in the blurb. Also thousands of Morsi's supporters have been sentenced to death after speedy mass trials, which the United Nations has described as "unprecedented in recent history". 198.16.164.205 (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - when updated.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose the current proposal that makes it sound like a fair trial in a democratic country. He was a democratically elected president who was removed from office through a Coup d'état led by the person who is now president, and Amnesty International says This verdict shatters any remaining illusion of independence and impartiality in Egypt’s criminal justice system. LoveToLondon (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
    • That might be so, but the blurb doesn't state whether it was fair or unfair. It's not our job to care what others would think of it, we just report the fact per WP:IMPARTIAL. Brandmeistertalk 10:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
      • The blurb very strongly implies that it was a fair trial. It is very impartial to not describe the fact that this is was a show trial after a Coup d'état. LoveToLondon (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
        • What about describing Morsi as "deposed" instead of "former" Egyptian president? That maintains neutrality while nodding to the circumstances of his departure from office. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Support above decision. "Deposed" is factual and neutral, and succinctly informs the reader to a certain degree on the background to the trial. '''tAD''' (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – as a watershed event in regional politics, but: Article first needs updating of introductory paragraphs and Trial section to include Tuesday's verdict. Sca (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Did some cleanup work this morning and removed the tag. If there's anything else amiss on the page, flag it, but I knocked out the four most obviously problematic sections. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Kudzu1: The lead is pretty long, but the main ITN issue is that te trial section isn't updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
    Lord, I didn't even think to check that, such an obvious thing it seemed. It's updated now, although it would be nice to have some more detail on the charges, co-defendants, and situation vis-a-vis the other trials scheduled for next month, maybe from local or regional reliable sources (if any). -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    Ok, thanks, marking ready unless there are other serious objections. Brandmeistertalk 07:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. @David Levy: for image update. --Jayron32 13:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    Done. —David Levy 14:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Boston MarathonEdit

Article: 2015 Boston Marathon (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At the Boston Marathon, Ethiopian Lelisa Desisa (pictured) wins the men's race and Kenyan Caroline Rotich wins the women's race.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as per ITN/R. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Zwerg Nase. —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 11:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on article improvements A paragraph and a table of results is not sufficient for an event like this. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvements. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per R, but with improvements. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Not ready - there is insufficient text on the race results (2 sentences currently). I will work on that soon, if no one gets to it before that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    Now updated and ready, I think. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    My concerns on lack of prose have been dealt with and agree this is ready. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - ITN worthy. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I have a problem with the photo being of the men's winner. Why can't the photo be of the women's winner? In this culture, the male is always above the female. I think the female winner of the same race should receive as much publicity and exposure on here as the male. Why not show both winners? Other than explicit ignorance what possess this nominator to only include the male winner? I'm sure it's not too challenging to put two photos beside each other in the news blurb. Just saying. Chanelpuke (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I see no reason why both can't be featured: the two have free images both formatted with the vertical aspect ratio so a square 100x100 image with both is trivial to make. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) @David Levy: to set up a multi-picture rotation like we did for the French Athletes helicopter crash. I'm sure this is an easy fix. Please note, however, that your tone implies that people intentionally excluded the female just to offend you. They did not. It involved no amount of bad faith, and in general, you'll find that people are more likely to help you when you don't simultaneously imply that they're bad people. But we've done multiple picture rotations before, and it can probably be done again. It will rotate through the two winners in equal measure, so no one is favored. Just be nice next time, and don't imply that anyone didn't already do what you asked merely because we're all bad people. --Jayron32 15:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
    I've fulfilled this request. —David Levy 19:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
    • My apologies for the negative tone. I just hope something can be done by someone who knows what they're doing because I don't. This just caught my attention. Apologies again. Chanelpuke (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
    Just an FYI, the current setup shows "(pictured}" with a curly bracket closing instead of parenthesis. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, it looks like David Levy has fixed that. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Roy MasonEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Roy Mason (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ITV, BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Mason was an MP for 34 years. He also held ministerial posts in the Labour governments of the 1970s, most notably as Minister for Northern Ireland at the zenith of The Troubles. I understand that some might say that this is only a UK story, but he had a leading position in negotiating an end to one of Europe's bloodiest conflicts since the Second World War. '''tAD''' (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Lackluster article both in terms of detail and sourcing, and somebody who never seems to have risen to the top of his field despite a long and occasionally interesting career in politics. If he actually had a significant role in negotiating an end to the Troubles, it isn't reflected in the article; one gets the impression he was actually somewhat of a hawk. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on same reasoning Kudzu1 gives. I tried to look at our article, not seeing much, and even the BBC's obit is very "thin" considering how they normally report important deaths. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Very bare of detail and history - a strange sight for one of his age. Doesn't appear to fit the RD criteria for notability or influence at all. Challenger l (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Posted] China–Pakistan Economic CorridorEdit

Article: China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (talk, history)
Blurb: ​China and Pakistan announce the launch of the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor, a $46 billion project to connect Gwadar Port in Pakistan to Xinjiang in China.
News source(s): BBC The Guardian Reuters

Nominator's comments: Very expensive project that could potentially connect China to the Indian Ocean if successful. It also dwarfs the amount of money the US is spending in Pakistan, and Xi Jinping's visit to Islamabad today has been called "fate-changing" by the Guardian. Everymorning talk 15:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support pending a few minor cleanup issues (bare link reference needs to be properly formatted). Otherwise, solid article, current event, covered by news sources. Check, check, check. --Jayron32 15:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with article improvements - Importance is high, the controversy section in the article needs more inline citations. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when "controversy" section is referenced" - of all the sections, that is the most important to source well which makes it especially odd that it is the only unreferenced one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on importance, pending article improvements. But in the state I found it in, the "Controversy" section began The following commentary is refuted by the Government of Pakistan...., which hardly seems neutral or encyclopedia style, and contains passages where the intended meaning is quite unclear. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose written like (and presumably from) a press release, amounts to a policy announcement, not an actual fait accompli. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Edit war - IP users reverting changes, article quality not guaranteed. -- Aronzak (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
We do have WP:semi protection to deal with such situations, if needed. Doesn't really seem like a good reason to oppose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)−
  • Support - when clean-up is finished.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support - Article is proposed for protection. Clean-up done. --Saqib (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
ThaddeusB: I know I'm late to comment but I think the current blurb is not correct. Out of 46$ billion, large share of money will be spend on enery sector rather than transportation infrastructure connecting Pakistan and China. --Saqib (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Saqib: We could replace "$46 billion" with "large scale" or similar if everyone would be fine with that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

April 19Edit

April 18Edit


[Posted] Mediterranean shipwrecksEdit

Article: April 2015 Libya migrant shipwrecks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​700 migrants feared dead in Mediterranean shipwreck
Alternative blurb: ​More than 1000 people are feared to have drowned after two vessels capsized off Libya in separate incidents.
News source(s): Guardian Press TV RT

Article updated

Nominator's comments: "The Mediterranean’s migration crisis worsened on Sunday morning as up to 700 more migrants were feared to have drowned just outside Libyan waters, in what could prove to be the worst disaster yet involving migrants being smuggled to Europe.
If confirmed, the accident means that at least 1,500 migrants have died so far in 2015 while on route to Europe – at least 30 times higher than last year’s equivalent figure, which was itself a record. It comes just days after 400 others drowned last week in a similar incident." 120.62.26.120 (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Already under review. Look at under April 15 2015 Libya migrant shipwreck --AntanO 12:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
It's different. It was this morning.120.62.26.120 (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but same article has two incidents. --AntanO 14:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support This has been described as the most deadly migrant shipwreck for several years. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • support - per Gareth Keggs reasoning, Agree.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not sure what this is supposed to link to. Also these shipwrecks are becoming a fairly regular occurrence. Perhaps we should create a broader blurb to cover all of them with an appropriate linked article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. If these vessels are sinking frequently with many casualties or this migration in general continues to be a story it might merit an ongoing listing. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment L is obviously not the article you want to link to. '''tAD''' (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment If the press use this latest figure to highlight the issue of migrants trying to flee to Europe and the dangers they encounter, as for us to write a larger article on the situation (doesn't have to be tied to this year but this year's death toll should be noted - Illegal immigration to the United States could be used as a template for this) that would be reasonable to highlight. But I would want to see this broader summary as the ITN, not just any one of thee shipwrecks. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment article was worked on earlier for the 13 Apr crash, putting them together seems valid given the media analysis. -- Aronzak (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – A reported 20,000 people have died trying to cross the Mediterranean to Europe since 2000. This is the latest, disastrous, example and IMO would be conspicuous by its absence from ITN. Sca (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb, not a good week. SeraV (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the new alt blurb. It seems to cover things satisfactorily and there is no doubt that the death toll makes this ITN worthy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment We have duplicating nominations for same article. One is here, another one is under "April 15". --AntanO 14:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb, I think this is the point when we certainly have to report this. Brandmeistertalk 14:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The EU is stating they are going to take action to be able to help these disasters better, which definitely points out this most recent incident is the back-breaking straw and likely the point to ITN this news. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb: I was on the fence when I saw the previous incident listed, but two mass-casualty events of this sort in rapid succession cannot be ignored, even if this sea crossing is notoriously dangerous for asylum-seekers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, not because of the number, but because the sources are saying that governments are going to change their policies as a result. Abductive (reasoning) 17:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
This could prove to be "the worst disaster yet involving migrants being smuggled to Europe." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC) (p.s. note: "A shipwreck is the remains of a ship that has wrecked, which are found either beached on land or sunken to the bottom of a body of water.")
Sidenote, shipwreck is both a noun and a verb. See Shipwrecking. -- Aronzak (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Side sidenote - I think the use of capsize is much better. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support devastating loss of life, and, it appears, many more queued up to risk the same fate. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted - Article is much better now that it provides context/background - very good work everyone. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

April 17Edit


[Posted] Oldest stone toolsEdit

Article: Lomekwi 3 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Stone tools found at Lomekwi 3 are dated to 3.3 million years ago, which, if confirmed, would represented the oldest known stone tools.
News source(s): Science, NPR, Scientific American

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is potentially a really big find as it would push the earliest date of tool making back before the dawn of the Homo genus. Naturally, there will be some debate, but the early indication is that scientists are receptive to the findings (see Science & NPR articles). It will take a very long time to form a scientific consensus, and it will only be in the news now. As long as the language of the blurb is careful, there shouldn't be a problem posting. Edit: To be clear, the scientists behind this have not published their findings yet. Their work has been reviewed by outsiders and reported as news by reputable science sources, though. If people prefer to wait until the paper is published, that is perfectly fine, but I would like to potentially get consensus on that now to avoid later opposes as "not in the news" or "stale" since there will be a gap between the news coverage and the paper... Please indicate whether you prefer to post now, (potentially) later, or not at all. Thanks. ThaddeusB (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

  • SupportOppose Peer-review publication of findings. Beats the previous known date by 700k years so this clearly outside the likely chance of coincidence. Article in decent shape (looks like made on these findings). Adding a map to the article might help, but not a issue on ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 00:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • A 15 minute oral presentation at a conference is not a peer-reviewed publication. LoveToLondon (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, I misread that it was published by Science, as noted it's just a news report, one that I would give some weight to reliability if Science is reporting it, but yeah, we should wait for confirmation. --MASEM (t) 01:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • To clarify, the paper has not been published yet, but is scheduled to be published in May. That would mean it has already been peer-reviewed (which happens before the paper is accepted). If consensus is to wait until it is published, that is fine by me, but be aware there likely will not be any press coverage at that time, so I certainly hope people wouldn't oppose as "stale" and/or for "lack of coverage" at that time... I would request comments be clear that they mean "support on merits of story, but wait for publication" (e.g. as a "wait" vote) if that is indeed what they mean. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you give a source indicating that the paper has already been successfully peer-reviewed? The Paleoanthropology Society journal prints the abstracts of all oral presentations, but that is neither peer-reviewed nor a proper paper. LoveToLondon (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think you are correct. I misread something saying an abstract was due to be published as saying a paper was. I will ammend my comments accordingly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - A clearly important finding.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. One only has to look at all the Wikipedia articles that have to be substantially revised to see how this really changes the field. In fact, I hope people can make some of those changes before this gets posted. The lack of peer-review is a bit troubling but it seems that in this case it is due to the importance of the discovery. Abductive (reasoning) 17:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    I agree with this assessment completely. I'm note sure why so few people have commented - are people afraid to support because the paper isn't out yet? As ITN regulars probably know, Abductive has a strong reputation for not "buying the hype", so his endorsement on importance is pretty meaningful. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    We have a potentially significant bit of scientific breakthrough (that mankind had used tools 700k sooner than the latest prior estimate). It is unlikely the researchers are making up the story, but they have only presented their postulates on the age based on other signs they've seen - now they are waiting on the carbon dating and other measures to get the timing to best scientific accuracy, which might prove their postulate wrong. Once that's done and published by a peer-reviewed journal, that's pretty much assurance that they have proven out their postulate, and we on WP can treat it as "fact". And that's the point that in the past we have treated all scientific stories for ITN - the peer-reviewed report so that we're not reporting on bad science (again, unlikely here). It's similar to where other events have desired points for posting, like the conviction of a criminal. --MASEM (t) 04:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
No offense, but you shouldn't be posting such speculation if you have no idea what you are talking about. Radiocarbon dating is only good to 50,000 years or so and only works on organic matter. A more applicable half-life dating (e.g. Potassium–argon dating or Uranium-lead dating) would only tell you the age of the rock, not the time it was made into a tool. Half-life dating is not the normal way to date anything in archeology, because, again that can only tell you the age of the materials (at best). Instead things are dated via stratigraphy. This isn't a lab test of any sort, but rather a careful documentation of where in the artifact was found in the ground. Sonia Harmand et al. most certainly are not waiting on some sort of lab confirmation to publish. Instead, they are (most likely) somewhere in the normal publication process (which takes a while) and have chosen to publicly share their findings early b/c they think they are really important.
It's also not necessarily true that we always post on peer-review publication. I am pretty sure there were a couple instances a while where back we posted at some other point because that is when the news coverage came out. Generally, the two happen at the same time, so there really is very little precedent one way or the other. Thus it is an open question. And, I only asked people to speak up if their reason for refraining to comment was the timing, not change their minds - it is hard to tell anything from silence. Maybe people would prefer to wait, or maybe people just haven't been active this weekend, or maybe people aren't seeing the significance... It would be a real shame if this gets opposed now as "too soon" and later (by different) as "stale", with agreement on significance, just not on timing. Thus, I would like to form a consensus of some sort now to avoid that possible issue later. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support I don't generally like publishing "pre-print" results. We've often embarrassed ourselves when we've been suckered by science by press conference (remember the arsenic-based lifeform that wasn't? The gravitational waves that were actually probably dust?) Paleoarchaeology is a field that is notoriously prone to confirmation bias - it's easy to read too much into rocks and bones - and even when results are subsequently confirmed, it can take a lot of wrangling get a scientific consensus (see Homo floresiensis (the hobbit) for one example). However, the article has a lot of citations of quotes from independent researchers who seem to generally support the hypothesis. That's still peer review, albeit of a more informal type, and I agree with ThaddeusB that waiting for full formal publication takes us into the realm of staleness. Smurrayinchester 09:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I've seen the news 2-3 days ago, but got my hands to recheck it today. Since such sources as Archaeological Institute of America or National Geographic confirm the finding and the publication of related article has been at least announced, I think it's safe to post this. Brandmeistertalk 14:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This certainly is big if true, and I will support posting this since independent researchers in our article seems to support this. SeraV (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 04:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Xenophobic attacks in South AfricaEdit

No consensus, no discussion for a few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Xenophobia in South Africa#Attacks in 2013–15 (talk, history)
Blurb: Attacks on foreigners in Durban, South Africa kill at least six people.
News source(s): The Guardian BBC CNN Newsweek
Nominator's comments: The Guardian link describes these incidents, which have received a lot of news coverage, as "one of South Africa’s worst outbreaks of xenophobic violence in years." Lots of people are protesting the attacks as well, according to the Newsweek link above, and they have sparked international reactions. [16] Everymorning talk 14:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • support - per the fact that these attacks has been heavily covered by world media.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Fairly low death toll so far. Worth keeping an eye on, though. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: If only because ITN is not really a great place for "slow" events like this. It's not as important as to fall into Ongoing, but there's also no obvious point where this is ITN. --MASEM (t) 17:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We also don't have ITN for the frequent "White US cop shoots black guy". LoveToLondon (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when the "king of the Zulus" (Mina ngifunda isiZulu) calls for his neighbors to pack their bags it's Lebensraum all over again. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this kind of racial tension is permanent in some countries like South Africa and the United States. Some of what is written above is utterly false. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article quality seems low, some things in the article are poorly sourced. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is patchy and here-and-there on its coverage '''tAD''' (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It's got a massive reaction all over Africa (from Nigeria to Zimbabwe to Mozambique and Malawi). Zuma cancelled an overseas trip to Indonesia for this too. The ramifications based on the spite against South Africa (the now-second largest economy) is no simple matter. I guess they're black and nowhere near Europe so it doesn't really matter. (Considering the censorship of non-"western" sources in the migrant deaths posting).120.62.25.132 (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


The discussion above 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.

[Closed] RD: A. Alfred TaubmanEdit

No consensus to post, no discussion for several days. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: A. Alfred Taubman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CD

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Pioneered the modern shopping mall concept -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 03:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - An interesting idea of being leader in the field (its not conventional RD aspect) , but save for the Philanthropy section which lacks sources, this isn't a bad article to be ITN. --MASEM (t) 05:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose not really seeing how he meets RD criterion for leading in the field of pioneering shopping malls, but certainly seemed philanthropic. Article is in a reasonable shape but could use checking for tone and tense, and as Masem points out, the odd additional cite for the mega-claims in the Philanthropy section must be provided. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose What and when exactly did he pioneer? The article reads a lot like promotion, and it is not clear what he did (or didn't) pioneer compared to people like Victor Gruen. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you ever read any article fully and verify your claims by referring to the reliable source? All your previous claims are so lame that none have helped the ITN reviewers. Trust me...-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 09:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It is interesting to see that you have nothing to answer except personal attacks against me when asked to explain your "pioneer" claim. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not seeing any significant impact. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Not seeing any significant impact means one hasn't read the article. Godfather of the modern shopping mall, white knight savior of Sotheby's, a very intersting and accomplished mensch. μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment What is the "godfather" claim based on? I have read the article, and when you ignore the awful US-style bragging that is mostly based on his own book there is not much contents telling what he actually invented. The article even fails to say when and where he opened his first shopping mall (and a pioneering mall surely also has an own article). LoveToLondon (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, I would have expected you to attack him for being a Jew, rather than just an American. Perhaps you should consider moving to East Germany? μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Come on, WP:NPA. This bickering is pointless. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Some of it is disgusting. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Not only disgusting, but clearly in breach of WP:CIVIL.-ELEKHHT 08:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Really solid sources such as Time and CNN back the pioneer claims. Not saying it is necessarily enough for RD (I'm neutral), but let's not pretend like the claims can't be backed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I think part of it comes from "where do you draw the line of "field" in RD"? E.g. we'll have "pioneer in race relations" or "pioneer in neuroscience" or "pioneer in mountaineering" then "pioneering in college basketball" now "pioneering in shopping malls", next "pioneering in ice cream flavours" and "pioneering in flat pack furniture". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
When everyone just copies the term "pioneer" from the title of his book (some even upgrading it to "godfather") there is not even a basis for discussion. The article is currently complete rubbish when it comes to describing what he actually did in "pioneering" shopping malls (apart from becoming rich). The first section of "Shopping mall development" is filled with praise for him from himself and his partner, but even fails to mention when and where he opened his first mall. The article has so few facts in the field where it is said he was a pioneer - just compare it with the Victor Gruen article that makes it clear what he pioneered. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the article gets a re-write - it needs to look and feel like an encyclopedia article. Challenger l (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per LoveToLondon and others. In academic literature Victor Gruen is credited to be the 'pioneer' of shopping malls. Taubman could have been at most the pioneer of some self-defined-sub-type of mall. --ELEKHHT 08:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Closed] Monkey rediscoveredEdit

No consensus to post; make way for DYK nom. SpencerT♦C 21:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Bouvier's red colobus (talk, history)
Blurb: Bouvier's red colobus, a species of monkey last seen in the 1970s and thought to possibly be extinct, is rediscovered in the Republic of the Congo.
Alternative blurb: ​A photograph of a Bouvier's red colobus, a species of monkey previously last seen in the 1970s, is published.
News source(s): UPI, Discovery News

Article updated
Nominator's comments: It's not every day a species of primate thought to be extinct is rediscovered after being unseen for nearly 50 years. ThaddeusB (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Um, he pointed out precisely one other occurrence of a primate plus a turtle, bat, and rat (all of which would be considerably less surprising) and a bird (somewhat comparable). So even including all vertebrates, we are talking ~1-2 per year, which is hardly common. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Also of note, "rareness" is not a standard ITN works on. "Recent" and "In news sources" and "quality article" are all standards we judge against. We can arbitrarily define rareness anyway we want. Worldwide there's probably 1-2 national elections every month, and no one bats an eye if we post one of those. The rationale is spurious when it is based solely on a criteria we can easily demonstrate that we have never applied when deciding whether or not to post. --Jayron32 03:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I thought that too but opposed my nomination, because Nokia "doesn't make as many phones as they used to" (???) and because sometimes mergers don't go through. What I'm trying to say is that while ITN is designed around the recent, sources, and quality article standards, its standards in reality are a lot more high strung and things are often interpreted in odd ways.
More importantly I don't think this wasn't covered in many reliable news outlets at all, NBC is the only big outlet I can see that covered it. Not in BBC, Yahoo, CNN, USA Today, or any of the other big guys that ITN candidates usually have. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Your coverage argument is perfectly fine (but keep in mind that science stories are rather differently coverage than say political stories). However, I wouldn't be looking at an IP with minimal ITN experience to learn what ITN expects. People can and do make stupid arguments all the time (like Nokia being a small company with no impact, LOL), and such arguments will be ignored by the assessing admin just like any other area of Wikipedia. The only reason the Nokia story hasn't been posted yet is that we have a shortage of admins looking for things to post - the consensus is rather obviously in favor of it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Stale/Oppose. Really, I am opposing this on the grounds that the species is not taxonomically interesting. If an "extinct" Order (such as the Coelacanth) is found it truly is a big deal. Or even an "extinct" Family. Also, it is stale: reported on March 5th. Abductive (reasoning) 05:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose always nice to have some good news, but I'm perplexed by why our article says "they announced the find on March 3" yet this is not considered stale? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support this is the sort of content we definitely should post occasionally, we are an encyclopedia after all. SeraV (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose If it was not listed as extinct, this is not news, just an interesting tidbit. The re-emergence of a species thought extinct is certainly newsworthy but this does not seem to be the case. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - a rediscovery is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Good news is underreported. Certainly more important in the long run than the fact that one of Secular Saddam's red-haired cousins was recently killed shilling for ISIS. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • That's just wrong. The rediscovery makes absolutely no difference to the monkeys, and scientifically it is garbage. Why do you think the hack who found them had to get crowdsourcing to fund his expedition? Because no granting agency was interested. Abductive (reasoning) 18:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Since the soon-to-be acquisition of Alcatel-Lucent by Nokia is now posted, perhaps we should post this instead. We should be happy to find the last remains of this species. George Ho (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment have all the supporters overlooked that this discovery was first announced in early March? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't confirmed/publicly announced until now - a Facebook post by the explorers is hardly a reliable source. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, that's not what the article says. A sighting in March was made and announced publicly, I don't recall see (or saying) anything about a Facebook post. Are you suggesting this story hinges on the publication of a photo of the March discovery? Also, can you confirm the IUCN (or some other substantive body other than "Discovery News") has confirmed this discovery to be the real deal? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, the Bouvier's red colobus is "critically endangered" according to IUCN, and according to our article, as are "2464 animals and 2104 plants". It is not, and has never been classified by IUCN as "thought to be extinct" so your original proposal is somewhat misleading, as is the blurb. So, is this really a discovery worthy of all this discussion? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The article does say "They announced the find on March 3 via Indiegogo". Abductive linked to the corresponding Facebook post above. Either way, not a reliable source. The first RS report was this week... As far as authoritative confirmation goes, I am pretty sure IUCN reviews status on a scheduled basis (i.e. not specifically in response to findings). I imagine there will be a scientific paper published soon, but have no idea when.
Of the 2064 critically endangered species, how many were last spotted in the 1970s? Very few - most have known populations that happen to be very small (and many others are invertebrates). It is not deceptive to say "possibly extinct" that is exactly what the IUCN listing says: "Listed as Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct)" - there is not separate "possibly extinct" category. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, that's all as I expected. The blurb is misleading, it's not "rediscovered" it's "photographed" and the RS all point at the Indiegogo link, so how odd, it's suddenly RS when a third-party points at it? Come on... For me, old news, nothing that exciting, and I remain opposed. Thanks for the discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
For the record, sources point to the photograph (which came from a PR just released, not Indiegogo), not the March 3 blog post, as confirmation. And yes, that is how Wikipedia works - when an reliable source ("organization with a reputation for fact checking") reports something a primary source first mentioned, it becomes "reliable" information. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
What makes it worse is this, from a press release by the Wildlife Conservation Society: "Recent surveys by WCS had previously recorded red colobus in what is now Ntokou-Pikounda National Park in 2007 and 2014, but they were very rarely encountered and no photograph had been taken." So in other words, the monkey had been spotted as little as a year ago. No story here I'm afraid, just the publication of a photo. Perhaps a blurb change is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
red colobus != Bouvier's red colobus. The spotting of red colobus in general in the area is what made them think there was the possibility of this specific species also being there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Then publish away, but the news is the publication of the photo, not the discovery which was announced by the people that "re-discovered" it in March. There has been no third-party confirmation of it, other than the few press people just publishing the photo and relating to the Indiegogo crowd-sourcing. It was "re-discovered in March". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Your alt is a reasonable suggestion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Bouvier's red colobus is the species of red colobus that is living in that area, so the sightings in 2007 and 2014 were the from the "rediscovered" species. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Closed] RD: Francis GeorgeEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 04:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Francis George (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post Reuters Time

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: According to the Washington Post link above, George "became a leading figure of his era in many of the most important events in the American church." Everymorning talk 19:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD pending article improvements Does appear to meet RD, but the article's sourcing is in very poor shape. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose He was one of 17 Cardinals in a country where only 6% of all members of his church are living, and he was not elevated to Cardinal Bishop or otherwise more important in the Vatican than an average Cardinal. Is every single of the currently 223 Catholic Cardinals eligible for RD when he dies? What about other churches? LoveToLondon (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per LoveToLondon; I'm not clear on which RD criteria is being met here. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with LoveToLondon, I would only give rd to Cardinal Bishops, unless cardinal in question have accomplished something really special. SeraV (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose we really would need some grand encomium from outside the Church to justify this. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose important to what field? Weakly sourced article to boot. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Mistake. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Baseball Bugs: Did you mean to place this below in the Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri section? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, just a retired functionary. Nothing special about him. Abductive (reasoning) 02:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose little notability outside Roman Catholicism. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think anyone is suggesting that every Cardinal would qualify for RD. But Cardinal George was a long-serving archbishop of a very large diocese and a highly influential figure in the Catholic Church in his country. He played an influential role - at the international, not just the national, level - in the Church's response to the sexual abuse crisis. He lead its opposition to the Affordable Care Act. It's a close call, but on balance I think he is important enough to meet the criteria. I would add that I am bemused by the suggestion that Cardinal Bishops, unlike other Cardinals, should qualify for RD. They tend to Vatican bureaucrats, some of questionable importance - I wouldn't be inclined to support Roger Etchegaray or José Saraiva Martins for RD. I'd say Cardinal George was a higher-profile figure and had a bigger impact than either of them. Neljack (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • With 2.3 million Catholics being less than half the size of the largest diocese in the US, I am bemused to hear Chicago being called "very large". What was his influential role in the non-US part of the sexual abuse crisis? The article does not contain any sourced facts why and how he was influential in that. LoveToLondon (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD A very prominent member of the largest Christian denomination in the United States. He was also a very influential figure in the culture wars being a leader of the conservative wing of the American Catholic Church. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am not seeing how he was notable or influential for his field - one of 31 archbishops [1] - and took the conservative line. His death was sadly unsurprising, diagnosed with cancer ten years ago. I am simply not seeing where he meets the RD criteria. Challenger l (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Closed] RD: Izzat Ibrahim al-DouriEdit

No consensus to post at this time. SpencerT♦C 21:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Many Not sure which of these aren't notable.

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Iraqi general and a commander of the Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order. He was an Iraqi military commander and was Vice Chairman of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council, until the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait? The news articles state his death is claimed but not affirmed? (I'm not sure on RD appropriateness yet, article seems okay, but just would like better confirmation on news). --MASEM (t) 17:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until we know he has been killed; I'm also uncertain on if he meets the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait, but post for sure if confirmed. This guy is/was the highest ranking survivor of the Saddam Hussein regime and a major player in ISIS. Abductive (reasoning) 19:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose that he wasn't hanged with Saddam is no accomplishment. These people know that they will live by the sword until they die by the sword. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Article is sufficient quality, major news sources are reporting the death prominently. --Jayron32 21:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Jayron. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
A poor quality article is an established reason for opposition. Since when is a good quality article itself a reason for meeting any of the ITN criteria? Since when is "bing hits" an RS? μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:ITN says, under the section titled Purpose says, "To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events." Nowhere does it say "We should avoid posting subjects because we find what they did abhorrant". Highlighting quality content on stuff that recently happened is the primary purpose of ITN, regardless of for what reason that content is in the news. Even if it's because the person who died was a really bad person. --Jayron32 00:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I get that, and he was evil, but the idea is to nominate good articles about notable figures. This guy is about as important in the end as the third biggest drug dealer in Chicago, so regardless of my side comments, I contest the notability/accomplishment requirement. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Please, he was the mastermind behind all resistance to the US since the collapse of the Iraqi government in 2003. Think of him as the head of state for a country the size of Belgium. Abductive (reasoning) 18:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait at least until the kill is confirmed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait for DNA analysis. $US 10 million bounty is notable.-- Aronzak (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until this is confirmed via DNA tests. Jusdafax 18:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

April 17Edit


[Posted] Oldest stone toolsEdit

Article: Lomekwi 3 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Stone tools found at Lomekwi 3 are dated to 3.3 million years ago, which, if confirmed, would represented the oldest known stone tools.
News source(s): Science, NPR, Scientific American

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is potentially a really big find as it would push the earliest date of tool making back before the dawn of the Homo genus. Naturally, there will be some debate, but the early indication is that scientists are receptive to the findings (see Science & NPR articles). It will take a very long time to form a scientific consensus, and it will only be in the news now. As long as the language of the blurb is careful, there shouldn't be a problem posting. Edit: To be clear, the scientists behind this have not published their findings yet. Their work has been reviewed by outsiders and reported as news by reputable science sources, though. If people prefer to wait until the paper is published, that is perfectly fine, but I would like to potentially get consensus on that now to avoid later opposes as "not in the news" or "stale" since there will be a gap between the news coverage and the paper... Please indicate whether you prefer to post now, (potentially) later, or not at all. Thanks. ThaddeusB (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

  • SupportOppose Peer-review publication of findings. Beats the previous known date by 700k years so this clearly outside the likely chance of coincidence. Article in decent shape (looks like made on these findings). Adding a map to the article might help, but not a issue on ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 00:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • A 15 minute oral presentation at a conference is not a peer-reviewed publication. LoveToLondon (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, I misread that it was published by Science, as noted it's just a news report, one that I would give some weight to reliability if Science is reporting it, but yeah, we should wait for confirmation. --MASEM (t) 01:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • To clarify, the paper has not been published yet, but is scheduled to be published in May. That would mean it has already been peer-reviewed (which happens before the paper is accepted). If consensus is to wait until it is published, that is fine by me, but be aware there likely will not be any press coverage at that time, so I certainly hope people wouldn't oppose as "stale" and/or for "lack of coverage" at that time... I would request comments be clear that they mean "support on merits of story, but wait for publication" (e.g. as a "wait" vote) if that is indeed what they mean. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you give a source indicating that the paper has already been successfully peer-reviewed? The Paleoanthropology Society journal prints the abstracts of all oral presentations, but that is neither peer-reviewed nor a proper paper. LoveToLondon (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think you are correct. I misread something saying an abstract was due to be published as saying a paper was. I will ammend my comments accordingly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - A clearly important finding.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. One only has to look at all the Wikipedia articles that have to be substantially revised to see how this really changes the field. In fact, I hope people can make some of those changes before this gets posted. The lack of peer-review is a bit troubling but it seems that in this case it is due to the importance of the discovery. Abductive (reasoning) 17:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    I agree with this assessment completely. I'm note sure why so few people have commented - are people afraid to support because the paper isn't out yet? As ITN regulars probably know, Abductive has a strong reputation for not "buying the hype", so his endorsement on importance is pretty meaningful. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    We have a potentially significant bit of scientific breakthrough (that mankind had used tools 700k sooner than the latest prior estimate). It is unlikely the researchers are making up the story, but they have only presented their postulates on the age based on other signs they've seen - now they are waiting on the carbon dating and other measures to get the timing to best scientific accuracy, which might prove their postulate wrong. Once that's done and published by a peer-reviewed journal, that's pretty much assurance that they have proven out their postulate, and we on WP can treat it as "fact". And that's the point that in the past we have treated all scientific stories for ITN - the peer-reviewed report so that we're not reporting on bad science (again, unlikely here). It's similar to where other events have desired points for posting, like the conviction of a criminal. --MASEM (t) 04:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
No offense, but you shouldn't be posting such speculation if you have no idea what you are talking about. Radiocarbon dating is only good to 50,000 years or so and only works on organic matter. A more applicable half-life dating (e.g. Potassium–argon dating or Uranium-lead dating) would only tell you the age of the rock, not the time it was made into a tool. Half-life dating is not the normal way to date anything in archeology, because, again that can only tell you the age of the materials (at best). Instead things are dated via stratigraphy. This isn't a lab test of any sort, but rather a careful documentation of where in the artifact was found in the ground. Sonia Harmand et al. most certainly are not waiting on some sort of lab confirmation to publish. Instead, they are (most likely) somewhere in the normal publication process (which takes a while) and have chosen to publicly share their findings early b/c they think they are really important.
It's also not necessarily true that we always post on peer-review publication. I am pretty sure there were a couple instances a while where back we posted at some other point because that is when the news coverage came out. Generally, the two happen at the same time, so there really is very little precedent one way or the other. Thus it is an open question. And, I only asked people to speak up if their reason for refraining to comment was the timing, not change their minds - it is hard to tell anything from silence. Maybe people would prefer to wait, or maybe people just haven't been active this weekend, or maybe people aren't seeing the significance... It would be a real shame if this gets opposed now as "too soon" and later (by different) as "stale", with agreement on significance, just not on timing. Thus, I would like to form a consensus of some sort now to avoid that possible issue later. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support I don't generally like publishing "pre-print" results. We've often embarrassed ourselves when we've been suckered by science by press conference (remember the arsenic-based lifeform that wasn't? The gravitational waves that were actually probably dust?) Paleoarchaeology is a field that is notoriously prone to confirmation bias - it's easy to read too much into rocks and bones - and even when results are subsequently confirmed, it can take a lot of wrangling get a scientific consensus (see Homo floresiensis (the hobbit) for one example). However, the article has a lot of citations of quotes from independent researchers who seem to generally support the hypothesis. That's still peer review, albeit of a more informal type, and I agree with ThaddeusB that waiting for full formal publication takes us into the realm of staleness. Smurrayinchester 09:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I've seen the news 2-3 days ago, but got my hands to recheck it today. Since such sources as Archaeological Institute of America or National Geographic confirm the finding and the publication of related article has been at least announced, I think it's safe to post this. Brandmeistertalk 14:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This certainly is big if true, and I will support posting this since independent researchers in our article seems to support this. SeraV (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 04:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Xenophobic attacks in South AfricaEdit

No consensus, no discussion for a few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Xenophobia in South Africa#Attacks in 2013–15 (talk, history)
Blurb: Attacks on foreigners in Durban, South Africa kill at least six people.
News source(s): The Guardian BBC CNN Newsweek
Nominator's comments: The Guardian link describes these incidents, which have received a lot of news coverage, as "one of South Africa’s worst outbreaks of xenophobic violence in years." Lots of people are protesting the attacks as well, according to the Newsweek link above, and they have sparked international reactions. [17] Everymorning talk 14:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • support - per the fact that these attacks has been heavily covered by world media.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Fairly low death toll so far. Worth keeping an eye on, though. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: If only because ITN is not really a great place for "slow" events like this. It's not as important as to fall into Ongoing, but there's also no obvious point where this is ITN. --MASEM (t) 17:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We also don't have ITN for the frequent "White US cop shoots black guy". LoveToLondon (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when the "king of the Zulus" (Mina ngifunda isiZulu) calls for his neighbors to pack their bags it's Lebensraum all over again. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this kind of racial tension is permanent in some countries like South Africa and the United States. Some of what is written above is utterly false. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article quality seems low, some things in the article are poorly sourced. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is patchy and here-and-there on its coverage '''tAD''' (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It's got a massive reaction all over Africa (from Nigeria to Zimbabwe to Mozambique and Malawi). Zuma cancelled an overseas trip to Indonesia for this too. The ramifications based on the spite against South Africa (the now-second largest economy) is no simple matter. I guess they're black and nowhere near Europe so it doesn't really matter. (Considering the censorship of non-"western" sources in the migrant deaths posting).120.62.25.132 (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


The discussion above 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.

[Closed] RD: A. Alfred TaubmanEdit

No consensus to post, no discussion for several days. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: A. Alfred Taubman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CD

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Pioneered the modern shopping mall concept -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 03:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - An interesting idea of being leader in the field (its not conventional RD aspect) , but save for the Philanthropy section which lacks sources, this isn't a bad article to be ITN. --MASEM (t) 05:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose not really seeing how he meets RD criterion for leading in the field of pioneering shopping malls, but certainly seemed philanthropic. Article is in a reasonable shape but could use checking for tone and tense, and as Masem points out, the odd additional cite for the mega-claims in the Philanthropy section must be provided. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose What and when exactly did he pioneer? The article reads a lot like promotion, and it is not clear what he did (or didn't) pioneer compared to people like Victor Gruen. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you ever read any article fully and verify your claims by referring to the reliable source? All your previous claims are so lame that none have helped the ITN reviewers. Trust me...-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 09:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It is interesting to see that you have nothing to answer except personal attacks against me when asked to explain your "pioneer" claim. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not seeing any significant impact. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Not seeing any significant impact means one hasn't read the article. Godfather of the modern shopping mall, white knight savior of Sotheby's, a very intersting and accomplished mensch. μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment What is the "godfather" claim based on? I have read the article, and when you ignore the awful US-style bragging that is mostly based on his own book there is not much contents telling what he actually invented. The article even fails to say when and where he opened his first shopping mall (and a pioneering mall surely also has an own article). LoveToLondon (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, I would have expected you to attack him for being a Jew, rather than just an American. Perhaps you should consider moving to East Germany? μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Come on, WP:NPA. This bickering is pointless. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Some of it is disgusting. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Not only disgusting, but clearly in breach of WP:CIVIL.-ELEKHHT 08:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Really solid sources such as Time and CNN back the pioneer claims. Not saying it is necessarily enough for RD (I'm neutral), but let's not pretend like the claims can't be backed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I think part of it comes from "where do you draw the line of "field" in RD"? E.g. we'll have "pioneer in race relations" or "pioneer in neuroscience" or "pioneer in mountaineering" then "pioneering in college basketball" now "pioneering in shopping malls", next "pioneering in ice cream flavours" and "pioneering in flat pack furniture". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
When everyone just copies the term "pioneer" from the title of his book (some even upgrading it to "godfather") there is not even a basis for discussion. The article is currently complete rubbish when it comes to describing what he actually did in "pioneering" shopping malls (apart from becoming rich). The first section of "Shopping mall development" is filled with praise for him from himself and his partner, but even fails to mention when and where he opened his first mall. The article has so few facts in the field where it is said he was a pioneer - just compare it with the Victor Gruen article that makes it clear what he pioneered. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the article gets a re-write - it needs to look and feel like an encyclopedia article. Challenger l (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per LoveToLondon and others. In academic literature Victor Gruen is credited to be the 'pioneer' of shopping malls. Taubman could have been at most the pioneer of some self-defined-sub-type of mall. --ELEKHHT 08:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Closed] Monkey rediscoveredEdit

No consensus to post; make way for DYK nom. SpencerT♦C 21:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Bouvier's red colobus (talk, history)
Blurb: Bouvier's red colobus, a species of monkey last seen in the 1970s and thought to possibly be extinct, is rediscovered in the Republic of the Congo.
Alternative blurb: ​A photograph of a Bouvier's red colobus, a species of monkey previously last seen in the 1970s, is published.
News source(s): UPI, Discovery News

Article updated
Nominator's comments: It's not every day a species of primate thought to be extinct is rediscovered after being unseen for nearly 50 years. ThaddeusB (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Um, he pointed out precisely one other occurrence of a primate plus a turtle, bat, and rat (all of which would be considerably less surprising) and a bird (somewhat comparable). So even including all vertebrates, we are talking ~1-2 per year, which is hardly common. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Also of note, "rareness" is not a standard ITN works on. "Recent" and "In news sources" and "quality article" are all standards we judge against. We can arbitrarily define rareness anyway we want. Worldwide there's probably 1-2 national elections every month, and no one bats an eye if we post one of those. The rationale is spurious when it is based solely on a criteria we can easily demonstrate that we have never applied when deciding whether or not to post. --Jayron32 03:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I thought that too but opposed my nomination, because Nokia "doesn't make as many phones as they used to" (???) and because sometimes mergers don't go through. What I'm trying to say is that while ITN is designed around the recent, sources, and quality article standards, its standards in reality are a lot more high strung and things are often interpreted in odd ways.
More importantly I don't think this wasn't covered in many reliable news outlets at all, NBC is the only big outlet I can see that covered it. Not in BBC, Yahoo, CNN, USA Today, or any of the other big guys that ITN candidates usually have. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Your coverage argument is perfectly fine (but keep in mind that science stories are rather differently coverage than say political stories). However, I wouldn't be looking at an IP with minimal ITN experience to learn what ITN expects. People can and do make stupid arguments all the time (like Nokia being a small company with no impact, LOL), and such arguments will be ignored by the assessing admin just like any other area of Wikipedia. The only reason the Nokia story hasn't been posted yet is that we have a shortage of admins looking for things to post - the consensus is rather obviously in favor of it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Stale/Oppose. Really, I am opposing this on the grounds that the species is not taxonomically interesting. If an "extinct" Order (such as the Coelacanth) is found it truly is a big deal. Or even an "extinct" Family. Also, it is stale: reported on March 5th. Abductive (reasoning) 05:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose always nice to have some good news, but I'm perplexed by why our article says "they announced the find on March 3" yet this is not considered stale? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support this is the sort of content we definitely should post occasionally, we are an encyclopedia after all. SeraV (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose If it was not listed as extinct, this is not news, just an interesting tidbit. The re-emergence of a species thought extinct is certainly newsworthy but this does not seem to be the case. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - a rediscovery is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Good news is underreported. Certainly more important in the long run than the fact that one of Secular Saddam's red-haired cousins was recently killed shilling for ISIS. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • That's just wrong. The rediscovery makes absolutely no difference to the monkeys, and scientifically it is garbage. Why do you think the hack who found them had to get crowdsourcing to fund his expedition? Because no granting agency was interested. Abductive (reasoning) 18:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Since the soon-to-be acquisition of Alcatel-Lucent by Nokia is now posted, perhaps we should post this instead. We should be happy to find the last remains of this species. George Ho (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment have all the supporters overlooked that this discovery was first announced in early March? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't confirmed/publicly announced until now - a Facebook post by the explorers is hardly a reliable source. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, that's not what the article says. A sighting in March was made and announced publicly, I don't recall see (or saying) anything about a Facebook post. Are you suggesting this story hinges on the publication of a photo of the March discovery? Also, can you confirm the IUCN (or some other substantive body other than "Discovery News") has confirmed this discovery to be the real deal? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, the Bouvier's red colobus is "critically endangered" according to IUCN, and according to our article, as are "2464 animals and 2104 plants". It is not, and has never been classified by IUCN as "thought to be extinct" so your original proposal is somewhat misleading, as is the blurb. So, is this really a discovery worthy of all this discussion? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The article does say "They announced the find on March 3 via Indiegogo". Abductive linked to the corresponding Facebook post above. Either way, not a reliable source. The first RS report was this week... As far as authoritative confirmation goes, I am pretty sure IUCN reviews status on a scheduled basis (i.e. not specifically in response to findings). I imagine there will be a scientific paper published soon, but have no idea when.
Of the 2064 critically endangered species, how many were last spotted in the 1970s? Very few - most have known populations that happen to be very small (and many others are invertebrates). It is not deceptive to say "possibly extinct" that is exactly what the IUCN listing says: "Listed as Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct)" - there is not separate "possibly extinct" category. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, that's all as I expected. The blurb is misleading, it's not "rediscovered" it's "photographed" and the RS all point at the Indiegogo link, so how odd, it's suddenly RS when a third-party points at it? Come on... For me, old news, nothing that exciting, and I remain opposed. Thanks for the discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
For the record, sources point to the photograph (which came from a PR just released, not Indiegogo), not the March 3 blog post, as confirmation. And yes, that is how Wikipedia works - when an reliable source ("organization with a reputation for fact checking") reports something a primary source first mentioned, it becomes "reliable" information. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
What makes it worse is this, from a press release by the Wildlife Conservation Society: "Recent surveys by WCS had previously recorded red colobus in what is now Ntokou-Pikounda National Park in 2007 and 2014, but they were very rarely encountered and no photograph had been taken." So in other words, the monkey had been spotted as little as a year ago. No story here I'm afraid, just the publication of a photo. Perhaps a blurb change is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
red colobus != Bouvier's red colobus. The spotting of red colobus in general in the area is what made them think there was the possibility of this specific species also being there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Then publish away, but the news is the publication of the photo, not the discovery which was announced by the people that "re-discovered" it in March. There has been no third-party confirmation of it, other than the few press people just publishing the photo and relating to the Indiegogo crowd-sourcing. It was "re-discovered in March". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Your alt is a reasonable suggestion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Bouvier's red colobus is the species of red colobus that is living in that area, so the sightings in 2007 and 2014 were the from the "rediscovered" species. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Closed] RD: Francis GeorgeEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 04:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Francis George (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post Reuters Time

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: According to the Washington Post link above, George "became a leading figure of his era in many of the most important events in the American church." Everymorning talk 19:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD pending article improvements Does appear to meet RD, but the article's sourcing is in very poor shape. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose He was one of 17 Cardinals in a country where only 6% of all members of his church are living, and he was not elevated to Cardinal Bishop or otherwise more important in the Vatican than an average Cardinal. Is every single of the currently 223 Catholic Cardinals eligible for RD when he dies? What about other churches? LoveToLondon (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per LoveToLondon; I'm not clear on which RD criteria is being met here. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with LoveToLondon, I would only give rd to Cardinal Bishops, unless cardinal in question have accomplished something really special. SeraV (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose we really would need some grand encomium from outside the Church to justify this. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose important to what field? Weakly sourced article to boot. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Mistake. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Baseball Bugs: Did you mean to place this below in the Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri section? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, just a retired functionary. Nothing special about him. Abductive (reasoning) 02:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose little notability outside Roman Catholicism. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think anyone is suggesting that every Cardinal would qualify for RD. But Cardinal George was a long-serving archbishop of a very large diocese and a highly influential figure in the Catholic Church in his country. He played an influential role - at the international, not just the national, level - in the Church's response to the sexual abuse crisis. He lead its opposition to the Affordable Care Act. It's a close call, but on balance I think he is important enough to meet the criteria. I would add that I am bemused by the suggestion that Cardinal Bishops, unlike other Cardinals, should qualify for RD. They tend to Vatican bureaucrats, some of questionable importance - I wouldn't be inclined to support Roger Etchegaray or José Saraiva Martins for RD. I'd say Cardinal George was a higher-profile figure and had a bigger impact than either of them. Neljack (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • With 2.3 million Catholics being less than half the size of the largest diocese in the US, I am bemused to hear Chicago being called "very large". What was his influential role in the non-US part of the sexual abuse crisis? The article does not contain any sourced facts why and how he was influential in that. LoveToLondon (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD A very prominent member of the largest Christian denomination in the United States. He was also a very influential figure in the culture wars being a leader of the conservative wing of the American Catholic Church. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am not seeing how he was notable or influential for his field - one of 31 archbishops [2] - and took the conservative line. His death was sadly unsurprising, diagnosed with cancer ten years ago. I am simply not seeing where he meets the RD criteria. Challenger l (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Closed] RD: Izzat Ibrahim al-DouriEdit

No consensus to post at this time. SpencerT♦C 21:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Many Not sure which of these aren't notable.

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Iraqi general and a commander of the Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order. He was an Iraqi military commander and was Vice Chairman of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council, until the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait? The news articles state his death is claimed but not affirmed? (I'm not sure on RD appropriateness yet, article seems okay, but just would like better confirmation on news). --MASEM (t) 17:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until we know he has been killed; I'm also uncertain on if he meets the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait, but post for sure if confirmed. This guy is/was the highest ranking survivor of the Saddam Hussein regime and a major player in ISIS. Abductive (reasoning) 19:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose that he wasn't hanged with Saddam is no accomplishment. These people know that they will live by the sword until they die by the sword. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Article is sufficient quality, major news sources are reporting the death prominently. --Jayron32 21:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Jayron. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
A poor quality article is an established reason for opposition. Since when is a good quality article itself a reason for meeting any of the ITN criteria? Since when is "bing hits" an RS? μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:ITN says, under the section titled Purpose says, "To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events." Nowhere does it say "We should avoid posting subjects because we find what they did abhorrant". Highlighting quality content on stuff that recently happened is the primary purpose of ITN, regardless of for what reason that content is in the news. Even if it's because the person who died was a really bad person. --Jayron32 00:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I get that, and he was evil, but the idea is to nominate good articles about notable figures. This guy is about as important in the end as the third biggest drug dealer in Chicago, so regardless of my side comments, I contest the notability/accomplishment requirement. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Please, he was the mastermind behind all resistance to the US since the collapse of the Iraqi government in 2003. Think of him as the head of state for a country the size of Belgium. Abductive (reasoning) 18:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait at least until the kill is confirmed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait for DNA analysis. $US 10 million bounty is notable.-- Aronzak (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until this is confirmed via DNA tests. Jusdafax 18:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

April 16Edit


[Closed] RD: Stanislav GrossEdit

NOT POSTED
Consensus is to not post this based on lack of notability and article quality. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Stanislav Gross (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Radio.cz

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Czech lawyer and former politician who was Prime Minister of the Czech Republic from 2004 to 2005. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 11:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the quality of the article. The article focuses predominately on scandals and accusations and doesn't seem to me to provide a balanced and reasonable account of Gross's life. Would need a fair bit of work to bring it up to standard. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD. The implication of importance by the article, even given the time he served as PM, seems trivial and unremarkable in contrast to what I would expect to see from an important world/national leader. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality and merits; article states that he did very little as PM and held the office for a short time, not long enough to have an impact. As such, does not meet the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Youngest EU PM ever, died at 45 of rare disease, scandal-plagued administration, certainly more interesting than a former Waffen SS member. μηδείς (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment He is not the youngest EU PM ever. LoveToLondon (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Nor is he the youngest Waffen SS Member! (Who is the youngest EU PM ever?) Still quite notable. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. An orange tag up top since November 2013, and the abysmally short quality are unworthy of a former head of state. I am of a mind to suggest that it needs attention from an expert, between the near-total lack of references and the overall tone of the article, as Bcp67 indicated above. The history of this particular PM reminds me of American Pres. Warren G. Harding - who also died abruptly, but from circumstances that were much less clear back in 1923. Challenger l (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment He never was Head of State. LoveToLondon (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Oh. I REALLY had the wrong end of the stick then. I apologize. If he wasn't a head of state either - then I don't see how he fits RD at all. Challenger l (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • A fair question is that is the PM in Czech a more decorative title (the true power in a different body of the government) or is it truly the head of the executive branch? I don't know, but I know an RD in the last 6-some months this was a point of difference for at least one person. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • PM is never a decorative title, Head of State is often a purely decorative title. People like David Cameron and Angela Merkel are not Head of State. It would be hard to find a more powerless person in politics than the Head of State of the UK, who even has some of her speeches written by the PM. LoveToLondon (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality, weak oppose on notability. Some claims above are simply false. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

April 15Edit


[Posted] RD: Surya Bahadur ThapaEdit

Article: Surya Bahadur Thapa (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Hindu The Himalayan Times

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Five times Nepal Prime minister -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 05:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support if article is drastically improved: He obviously meets notability criteria, having been a major political force and leader in Nepal for half a century. But the state of the article is appalling. Forget that it still refers to its recently dead subject in the present tense; it has a well-deserved orange tag at the top because it has literally six citations, two of which are duplicates and two of which were just added as references for his death. I'd like to help out with this, but I honestly don't know where to start. Almost every single claim in the article is completely unreferenced; it's a gaping BLP violation, and we're talking about somebody who has been a household name for generations in a country of nearly 30 million people, a five-time world leader, and a respected elder statesman in South Asia. What a shame. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with significant article improvements - RD is clear, but oh man. That article fails BLP with nearly no sourcing at all. This needs serious work to get it to a state RD can use. --MASEM (t) 05:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality Clearly notable and suitable for RD, but the article needs a lot of work first. If and when improved (I don't have the knowledge on the subject to do it myself), Support. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support notability and strong oppose quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality - it's a real nightmare. Barely any references and the lead is barely even there. Absolutely notable enough for RD, but it needs a LOT of work. Another article that needs attention from an expert, I'd say. Challenger l (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per those above. Hopefully someone will take some time to address the sad state of the article, though. Connormah (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The rules say that the article must be satisfactorily updated and have no major omissions of the person's life and effect, and comply with the WP:BLP rules. Not, "the article must not even have a single citation needed or cleanup tag". A political leader of this fellow's stature is important enough that his omission would seem random. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Marking ready before becoming stale. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Removing ready mark. Sorry, but it's all very well and good to claim that we should be posting this before it's stale and attempting to mark it as ready, but, once again, whole sections of this biography lack a single citation. Plus it's barely written in English. Startlingly poor. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Fine now, I think..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 07:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • After a substantial copyedit by myself following earlier significant work by The Herald and Taknaran, I am inclined to say this is ready --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Agreed that the sourcing makes it good to go. --MASEM (t) 01:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 04:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Great work on this, guys. Sometimes I don't know why I bother with Wikipedia, but it's people like the editors who teamed up to fix this formerly abysmal article who inspire me to do what I can. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Aaron Hernandez found guilty of murderEdit

Overwhelming consensus not to post, risk of certain posters turning things nasty, so closing. Fgf10 (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Aaron Hernandez (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former New England Patriots player Aaron Hernandez is found guilty of first-degree murder in the murder of Odin Lloyd.
News source(s): CNN Reuters BBC The Guardian

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Has been a high-profile trial for some time now, and this verdict is getting news coverage from around the world. Everymorning talk 15:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Murder trial that received some press but only because the guilty party (glad I can type that) is a professional athlete. That doesn't make this rise to the level of importance for ITN. Then again, Oscar Pistorius was posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is also an article on the murder. Link that? '''tAD''' (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I have added the murder article to the blurb. Everymorning talk 15:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: Pistorius was posted, and by that standard, Hernandez should be posted, too. But I don't like that standard, and I don't like ITN being used as Page Six for celebrity court dramas. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    Of note, the only standard is "Do we post this article now for <reasons>." The posting or non-posting of any article in the past for any reason does not qualify or disqualify this article for any reason. We judge every article suggestion on it's own merits every time, regardless of what has, or has not, been done in the past. --Jayron32 16:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per Muboshgu (I don't believe we should have posted Pistorius either). If we are going to post, some of his sporting career could be sourced better, and a anti-proseline purge in discussion of the trial events would be helpful. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Weak oppose Pistorius was a whole different batch of cookies. He was an international Olympic athlete (I think), not an American "footballer", and Pistorius IMO generated alot more international media coverage. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I believe that if Pistorius wasn't an amputee he wouldn't have been so newsworthy. Abductive (reasoning) 15:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose as per EoRdE6's reasoning. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Pistorius is a Paralympic medallist, Hernandez played in the NFL and was not as internationally known as say his teammate Tom Brady. The Pistorius trial also gained attention for the prospects of an amputee being imprisoned, and also much was said about whether it was murder and manslaughter due to his mental condition. That kind of special attention hasn't been given to this case. I was largely unaware of the ins-and-outs of this case although BBC Sport put up main stories from US sport, including a recent baseball doping ban which one would think is less notable than murder '''tAD''' (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per most of the points above. The only reason this rates major news coverage is that he was a former NFL player. This is legitimate news in New England. Outside of that area it's tabloid news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support we're a good, comprehensive neutral source where readers will be looking. Comparisons to pistorius sound eltist and biased. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - if we posted Pistorius we should by all rationale thinking post this as well. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'd agree with the assessment of The Almightey Drill. Aaron Hernandez is not widely regarded as a "face" of the NFL, in spite of the inherent fame that being a football player carries in the USA. Peyton Manning (or on the other side of the ocean, Lionel Messi) being charged with murder would be a bigger deal simply because of his media presence. This case also does not bear inherent controversy as the O.J. Simpson trial did, which surely would have been posted if ITN existed back then. By the way, I feel that it should be mentioned that any story that gets posted on BBC or Reuters is, by definition, not "tabloid news". --WaltCip (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Your last statement isn't correct. The Jeremy Clarkson sacking was front page BBC and other big news outlets but was quickly rejected as tabloid news... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 17:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I guess there is a regional difference in the definition of the term "tabloid", which I understand to mean a gossip newspaper such as The Globe or National Enquirer.--WaltCip (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think this is that similar to the Pistorius case; Hernandez was a member of a team, not in an individual sport, aside from the already-stated fact that Pistorius was an Olympic athlete and famous for his circumstances(not having feet). Nothing was particularly notable about this case other than the defendant. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Murder convictions, even well publicized ones, are unfortunately very common in the U.S. Just because it involves someone famous doesn't make it earth shattering news. Aerospeed (Talk) 21:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • All Star player, $40 million contract, and the fact that they don't have Olympic American Football is a reason to omit him? As an individual he was obviously at the top of his field. The man's admittedly not of Dutch descent, but he's a world class athlete convicted of a capital crime and facing two more such charges. The only reason not to post him seems to be that this is what we expect from American minorities. μηδείς (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the first handful of arguments here are not particularly productive. We are not a court system, so don't follow and are not bound by precedent here. I'm not sure how the racism accusation came in, but that's probably definitely not the case. Mamyles (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hernandez's race is completely irrelevant to me, and as far as I can see at the moment, most everyone else on this page. I think the racism arguments have no foundation at all. Hernandez is not a disabled NFL player, unlike Pistorius in track. He was also part of a team, unlike Pistorius. Hernandez also did not have international attention, unlike Pistorius(and even former teammate Tom Brady).331dot (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose This conviction doesn't seem to have any more impact than if the player retired or was critically injured. It does have some shock factor, that an individual so many people revered would be so violent, but I would consider that closer to tabloid news. And, for consideration of balance, we've already had many sports blurbs recently. Additionally, his article is close but not quite updated to the quality I would like to see for posting. The yellow-level tag about prose is a great suggestion. Mamyles (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Pistorius was an Olympian, albeit a paralympian who won gold in 3 Paralympic games, Hernandez played american football, a sport that no one gives a second look at outside of the US..there is no comparison here..OJ Simpson qualifies cause he was famous as an actor as well..Aaron Hernandez does not....that said, this is a news item in the Portal for American Football and thats it..--Stemoc 05:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose we're not a tabloid. People get convicted of murder every day. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Why are we even debating this? Run of the mill murder case, neither the victim or the perpetrator were particularly well know. Medeis' arguments are deeply insulting and just plain ridiculous. Just snowclose it. Fgf10 (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Nope, just a run of the mill murder case, not news-worthy. Calling other editors racist is deeply insulting. Fgf10 (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
To refer to the willfull taking of a human life as "run of the mill" is deeply insulting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah yeah, whatever. Not relevant for the nomination. Fgf10 (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
You were just claiming it is relevant, now you're claiming it's not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Sigh, whether or not calling this run of the mill is insulting or not is irrelevant, not that fact that it is run of the mill, which is relevant. Keep up. Fgf10 (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Which source has called this murder "run of the mil"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
You should report any racist comments to WP:ANI. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, no racist comments were made, just Medeis accusing people of being racist. As for referring her to ANI, I'd do it if I though it would do any good... Anyway, closing this as it's not going to go. Fgf10 (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
And then you could be challenged for your casual attitude towards murder. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

RD: Homaro CantuEdit

Article: Homaro Cantu (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [18][19]

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Surprise death of one of the world's most famous chefs and a leading figure in the rise of molecular gastronomyThaddeusB (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The death is unusual, but I'm worried about the lack of recognition; I'm not seeing things I would associate with importance in culinary skills like Michalin stars or other awards. If it is only a leader in the molecular gasotromony, that's too fine a subset of chefs in general. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Like I said the article is in poor shape... Moto is considered one of the nation's top restaurants and one of ~3 restaurants that led the MG trend. It is definitely Michelin starred and has been for some time. Trust me, among chefs Cantu was considered an innovator and a superstar. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Assuming that can be added and sourced, then yes, I would support this as RD. (I don't think him of having enough of a household name presence to merit a blurb like with did with Robin Williams, but assuming the sourcing above, RD for sure). --MASEM (t) 15:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, our coverage of chefs is very poor in general (no idea why). Take Joël Robuchon, the most Michelin starred chef in the world. Even his article is only start quality. The MG article article has like 2 paragraphs about everything that has been since 2000 - and the genre was basically just getting started in 2000... Anyway, improving Cantu's article will be my top priority today, regardless of any decision made here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait: I'm willing to trust and see what ThaddeusB comes up with, even though I'm not seeing a case for RD inclusion right now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    Weak support after update. I don't know he was at the very top of his field, but he does at least seem to have been notable and his death was unusual. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD There doesn't seem to be much frontpage reporting in international media of his death, so the claim he was a "superstar" is clearly overblown - he was no Paul Bocuse and no Hervé This. ThaddeusB also made the incorrect claim "one of the nation's top restaurants" - Moto (restaurant) says with source In 2012, Forbes Magazine ranked Moto #44 on its list of "The 100 Best US Restaurants.", and having only one Michelin star implies that a restaurant is worse than the over 400 restaurants worldwide that have more than one star (there are over 2000 restaurants that have at least one star). In Chicago Moto is one of 24 restaurants with at least one Michelin star, and not even one of the 5 best restaurants in Chicago that have more than one Michelin star. LoveToLondon (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Let me clarify, when I say "among chefs Cantu was considered an innovator and a superstar" I mean other chefs considered him to be such. That does not necessarily translate into fame among the general public or Michelin stars. He was known for innovation first, and food second. And in that regard, he was the at the top... No serious foodie would say something as silly as "all 2 Michelin star restaurants are better than all 1 Michelin star restaurants" or even that only starred restaurants matter. Cantu was important because he along with Grant Achatz and Graham Elliot made Chicago into the place to go to innovative food. Any chef wishing to follow that trend - and many, many have - looked up the those three. There are hundreds of Michelin starred chefs that have minimal impact on the culinary world - Cantu had a large one.
I do apologize about calling Moto one of the top restaurants in the country, though. You are correct that it is usually "only" ranked in the top 50 or so. I was actually thinking of Alinea (Achatz's restaurant), which is routinely top 5-10, so did slightly overstate that point. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
So your claim "one of ~3 restaurants that led the MG trend" is in reality "one of top 3 MG restaurants in Chicago".
Compared to Grant Achatz he was not even the most renowned molecular gastromony chef in Chicago, and being one of the best 3 molecular gastromony chefs in Chicago is a quite strange definition for "superstar". The real superstar in molecular gastromony who is not defined by having a restaurant with Michelin stars is Hervé This. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
No, that is not what I said at all. I said chefs (all over the world, not just in Chicago) viewed him as one of the top few people in the field. Michelin stars do not measure impact. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
What position in what field exactly, and what RS do you have to back this up? E.g. top 10 in molecular gastromony in the world would make him a medium-important person in a pretty small field. LoveToLondon (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, everything I wrote is my personal opinion based on my knowledge of the gourmet food world (following it is a hobby of mine). I was unaware that we are now supposed to start all ITN comments with "In my opinion..." As far as RS coverage/opinion goes, I will let the article speak for itself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It also speaks for itself that you have no RS to backup your claims like "chefs (all over the world, not just in Chicago) viewed him as one of the top few people in the field" and "among chefs Cantu was considered an innovator and a superstar" - no non-US sources in the article, no sources from the field of cooking in the article, and no sources in the article that relevant people in the field of molecular gastronomy like Ferran Adrià or Heston Blumenthal said he was a superstar. You already admitted that your attempts to inflate the importance of Moto were incorrect, and the rest of your claims are also not based on verifiable facts. LoveToLondon (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no need for your false and unfair personal attacks against me. Please do not ascribe motive or admission of guilt. I made a simple mistake about Moto's rank (top 50 instead of top 10). I stand behind everything else I wrote. You disagree with my assessment and that is perfect fine, but when you attempt to paint me as purposefully deceitful, you cross a line. Believe it or not, two people can have a different opinion w/o one being dishonest. Geez.
I would say the article already backs up my claims. No it doesn't use the exact words "superstar" - but the idea is there including from Adrià. If you had bothered to read carefully, you would see Adrià is mentioned and if you wanted to see his exact words all you had to do was click through to the source.... I'm sorry your view sources such as The New York Times as unreliable and would have prefered food sources such as Gourmet magazine. These sources do exist, I just haven't used them (yet). International sources exist as well. Do not confuse lack of use for lack of existence. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between someone being good in his field and respected by other people in his field, and someone being considered a superstar which you repeatedly claimed without bringing any RS for that claim. We are not discussing personal opinions, we are discussing verifiable information. In the source Adrià is saying that Cantu is good, which is lightyears away from saying he is a superstar.
The few international sources that covered his death tend to describe his main achievement as "worked for Charlie Trotter". LoveToLondon (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • My apologies, but I was not able to get the article up to par in one night - I will continue work tomorrow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    Article is now updated and in good shape. I will likely work on it more, but it is in good enough shape to assess Cantu's merits. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • For what its worth, a follow-up story on Cantu's death appeared on the front page (i.e. A1) of today's New York Times. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 Libya migrant shipwreckEdit

Closing without prejudice to posting. Discussion is ongoing with a new nomination, due to a second and deadlier shipwreck. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: 2015 Libya migrant shipwreck (talk, history)
Blurb: ​About 400 people are feared to have drowned after their vessel capsized off Libya.
Alternative blurb: ​144–150 people have been rescued from vessel shipwreck off Libya.
Alternative blurb II: ​Over 1000 people are feared to have drowned after two vessels capsized between Libya and Italy in separate incidents.
News source(s): Reuters, BBC
Nominator's comments: About 400 people are feared to have died or missing since Monday, 13 April AntanO 14:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, pending slight expansion. Looks like one of the largest migrant shipwrecks in terms of reported casualties. Brandmeistertalk 14:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral, while a large number of potential deaths, it is also case these are migrants and we have skipped on previous migrant shipwrecks in the past. Article could be expanded but fine as a current developing event for posting. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Weak Support, one of the largest migrant shipwrecks yes, but the article requires quite a bit of expansion, and the casualties figures are all just estimated right now. You also might want to add something about the backlash the EU is getting to the actual article EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I considered nominating this yesterday, but decided it was best to wait for more details to emerge. The casualty figure is evidently a guess by a couple rescued immigrants and is far from official. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: These tragedies are very sadly frequent, and elevate during the European summer. Not to say that I oppose its inclusion, but things have been previously opposed on the standard of "unfortunate, but that happens all the time" '''tAD''' (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once details are more certain. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Operation Mare Nostrum should be its own article, this shipwreck has similarities to the 2013 Lampedusa migrant shipwreck -- Aronzak (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is a big casualty of Human Race & must be brought forward. Most of the details are certain as news are getting updated by agencies.( !dea4u  11:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC))
  • Support – If I heard correctly on the news Wednesday, some 20,000 people have died trying to cross the Mediterranean to Europe in this century. (Can this be right?) Not a minor problem. Sca (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    • And we've not posted any of the previous issues with migrant fatalities like these wrecks before. People using any means necessary to flee into Europe is common enough and because they will take any risk, these deaths happen. I'm sure numbers of the same kind can be found for people crossing the Mexican border to the US or trying to cross over from Cuba to the US and drowning along the way. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending further details. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - as the immigration issue continues to be a headline (today's headline is 15 immigrants being charged with murder for throwing 12 others overboard and 40+ others dying in an unrelated sinking), I don't really think we should be highlighting the sinking of 400 in isolation. If we post something, I feel it should be the waves of people arriving (10,000 in the last week), which is being described as an "immigration crisis". In that context, 400 dying is, sadly, perfectly ordinary - an estimated 3,200 died last year in crossing attempts. So the real story is the rise in attempts. An article such as Immigration to Italy would be a better target for the general story. [20][21] --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    • You are taking the issue as a whole, whereas this is a single incident, apparently one of the deadliest, if not the deadliest incident so far involving migrants crossing the Mediterranean (more deadly than 2013 Lampedusa migrant shipwreck, for example). I'm not sure how to reflect that in Ongoing, so posting shipwrecks of such scale would improve our coverage. If the same number of people dies on a capsizing passenger ship, we would almost certainly post that. Brandmeistertalk 08:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, but capsized passenger ships are not a daily occurrence. Immigrant drownings are - nearly 10/day last year and more this year. Yes, this one is higher in number than average, but that is the only thing notable about it. And with more people trying this year, it is inevitable that more will die. I am not against posting exactly (hence my "comment", not "oppose"), but feel it needs to be put into context. This is not a freak disaster, but rather the outcome of more and more immigrants risking their lives to get to Italy. The comparison Masem made above about drownings in the Rio Grande and Gulf of Mexico is apt. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Update: I added the altblurb. --George Ho (talk) 09:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the death toll is dropping as we speak. Basically yet another transportation accident. We don't need headlines that are estimates couched in euphemisms. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not feel the article is ready as it still lacks any background information for context. I am opposed to posting in the current form, but could support posting the disaster article ~two background paragraphs are added to explain 1) the commonness of migrants dying in similar disasters (3200 in the last year) and 2) the recent rise in the number of immigrants. Without that information, the article is incomplete. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I see so many rationalization to reject on ITN. So, lets close and do other business. --AntanO 13:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment given another sinking in the Med today with around 700 migrants on board, several hundred of whom are believed to have died, this stuff shouldn't be missing from our ITN section. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't the new loss of 700 hundred lives, compared with 400 in this incident, mean that "this stuff" should be replaced by a new article and ITN entry? Or should the existing article be expanded and the blurb adjusted accordingly? Otherwise there is some room for reader confusion. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks like we have a real bugger's muddle now. We either have one article covering all of this stuff, or individual articles covering each incident, right now we seem to have a bastard halfway house "solution" which is pretty grim. I suggest we close this nomination, it is going stale anyway, and continue with the current one launched today, and then work out how best to present this info to our blessed readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree, closing this one would make sense. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when articles are created - a no-brainer. The blurb should now be something like Over 1000 people are feared to have drowned after two vessels capsized between Libya and Italy in separate incidents. When the articles exist, of course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Article is under expansion. Feel free to suggest a new blurb. --AntanO 10:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Another blurb as Ghmyrtle suggested. --AntanO 13:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Posted] Nokia plans to acquire Alcatel-LucentEdit

Articles: Nokia (talk, history) and Alcatel-Lucent (talk, history)
Blurb: Nokia announces plans to buy telecommunications equipment maker Alcatel-Lucent for €15.6 billion (US$16.6 billion).
News source(s): The Verge, BBC, Reuters, New York Times

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Big merger of two well known, high value companies. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 13:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - We need to feature more business news and this is an excellent opportunity to do so - huge merger of two well known companies with international reach. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per ThaddeusB. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support on news - I agree we should be posting large mergers when both companies have announced their agreement to complete such actions, and $16B is not something to sneeze at, but I do note ITN has been resistant to posting theses, so I'm hesistant about breaking tradition. On the article quality, Nokia's is fine but there's problems with Alcatel - the R&D section is mostly unsourced, and I'm worried on the sourcing of that timeline (it has a formatting that screams possible copyvios issues though I can't find anything immediately). --MASEM (t) 14:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Nokia officially announced the merger, but two companies haven't merged yet. George Ho (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
That's true, so it's slightly WP:CRYSTAL? But, as with most company mergers, I suspect there won't be any new "announcement" when it actually happens (and it might happen over weeks or months?) So it will be missed. Or were you suggesting a delay in posting? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes we are aware of that and that is why the blurb says "Nokia announces merger". As with all big company mergers this is probably the only time it will be all over the news. Small updates will envitably pop up, but the big part here is that the merger has been confirmed. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 20:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Martin & EoEdE6 are correct, the time mergers are in the news is when they are announced. The legal completion receives a brief mention in business papers at most. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support agreeing with Masem's analysis. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Opppose for impact. Nokia, once the largest cellphone manufacurer in the world, now makes almost nothing, and A-L branding is purely regional. I could get behind posting more business news, so long as the business news is something other than "small-to-mid sized merger occurs". Also, the first news of this broke, I think, on Monday.128.214.53.18 (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
You're objecting because Nokia "makes almost nothing"? i.e. because it's not "a manufacturer"? It had a net profit last year of €1.17 billion, so it must be doing something right? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Two of the four biggest companies in telecommunications equipment are merging, with a combined revenue of over 25 billion Euro. Cellphones are irrelevant for the impact - none of the companies involved is manufacturing cellphones at the moment. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • How is this nomination "ready"? We've pointed out the problems of the nomination. Are flaws badly sourced or something or lacking influence? --George Ho (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose just because of the practical issue that a given proportion of mergers that get announced never actually happen for one reason or another. Formerip (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Support as LoveToLondon pointed out this is a big deal and 25B€ isn't something to just skip over. 2606:A000:1408:214C:A82D:482D:9AFF:4C92 (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Posted - A few people would prefer to wait until the merger is complete - that is a valid position to take, but is in the minority here. The remaining oppose makes a nonsensical argument about Nokia being a small company and can be ignored. Overall, there is a clear consensus on notability and a reasonably clear consensus to post now. Alcatel's article could indeed be improved, but since it is not a bold link that is not a factor holding back posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
How come I don't see it? And should the image be swapped with File:NSN headquarters.JPG? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Now appeared. But Günter is now four items down, leaving his image a bit stranded? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The current wording looks WP:CRYSTAL-ish, suggest swapping to "Nokia agrees to buy..." per linked section or something similar. Brandmeistertalk 16:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that would be an improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Wording adjusted. I will swap out the picture later today if there are no objections--ThaddeusB (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The Nokia headquarter is pretty unknown, and there is anyway not much you see at that image size. What about File:Nokia wordmark.svg? LoveToLondon (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
That's possible, but also pretty boring... Any other opinions about which image, if any, to use? --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────── I would say a picture of an old classic Nokia phone that prominately displays the logo, but that might be a bit off topic given the news it is referring too. I'm just browsing through the pretty big c:Category:Nokia. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Please stay away from former Nokia products like rubber boots, mobile phones and car tyres that are now part of completely separate companies. LoveToLondon (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
They may not anymore, but they were once the worlds largest vendor of mobile phones, and though the branding is being phased out, one can still go to a store and buy a nokia branded device. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
One can still go to a store and buy a Nokian branded tyre. Displaying a tyre or a phone would be stupid since it has nothing to do with the businesses Nokia is operating in today - and nothing with the business this merger is about. LoveToLondon (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Am quite prepared to stay away from rubber boots, mobile phones and car tyres, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

April 14Edit


[Posted] Cuba removed from the list of State Sponsors of TerrorismEdit

Article: State Sponsors of Terrorism (talk, history)
Blurb: ​President Obama removes Cuba from the United States' list of State Sponsors of Terrorism.
Alternative blurb: ​President Barack Obama moves to remove Cuba from the List of State Sponsors of Terrorism amid diplomatic efforts to improve relations between the two countries.
News source(s): ABC News NY Times BBC

Article updated

 Imzadi 1979  19:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support the story, oppose the article quality. The tag says it all, too much reliance on massive quotations and not much encyclopaedic treatment of the subject matter at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - article quality can be improved.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • (ec)Support on the merits. This seems a notable step in US-Cuba relations. This is just breaking so it will need time to be adequately updated. I would wonder if the target article should be Cuba–United States relations instead of the state sponsored terrorism list(which can still be linked). 331dot (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel there is a better point in regards to the ongoing discussions between US and Cuba that is clearly an ITN entry, no question, I'm just not sure if this is it or not. (For example, if these talks will lead to the end of the United States embargo against Cuba, which I think more sources see as the big event.) It is not that this is important but it may not be the most important results of these discussions. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    I'd be tempted to strike while the iron is hot. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    Just reading a bit more, I do think this might be the right moment, language being said implies the terrorism factor is one aspect, there's still issues US has with Cuba, etc. But I am only throwing this out there in case. It would be nice in the blurb to reflect that this is an outcome of the current discussions. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Reading some more I see that this move by Obama apparently starts a 45 day period before the removal actually occurs(see NY Times article) and gives Congress a chance to block it. Should we wait until the removal actually happens? We tend to do that with most other postings(i.e post when it happens and not just the announcement). 331dot (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    I'd tend to agree given the current political climate (election year-buildup politicking already going on). --MASEM (t) 20:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    And this page claims that Congress does not need to approve. Kinda confusing. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    Odd, our political system. :/ But it does suggest that there still remains a 45 day waiting period before it is removed, even if the President can do it on his own volition. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - An alternate target for the bold link is Cuba–United States relations if that is easier to improve. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
We also seem to have Cuban Thaw which I put in my suggested blurb(which I invite changes to). 331dot (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Cuban Thaw is probably the best target of the three options, as it gives the decision context. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose bizarre internal policy issue, akin to Nixon official removing someone from his enemies list. We don't even post most actual legislation--and this is just an executive order. μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    It's a little more complicated than that. The state sponsors of terror designation was created by Congress and comes with automatic legal sanctions for any nation on the list. The US Secretary of State was tasked by Congress with maintaining the list subject to a variety of provisions. It is certainly more than just a private enemies list. Dragons flight (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. My main concern is that the change hasn't happened yet, but rather a process has started that will lead to the removal in 45 days (unless Congress intervenes with a veto-proof majority). Seems like it would be better to post when this news when/if Cuba is actually removed. Dragons flight (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Very weak oppose given that there will be a 45 day wait as well as a chance(if small) that it will be blocked by Congress(which I guess is different than approval). Unlike many announcements I think there will be some news about this when it actually happens. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait In the BBC, Rubio explicitly condemned this - wait and see what Rand Paul says, and whether this will play into the Republican primary. Republicans will try to veto it in Congress if they universally oppose it. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    That's not how Congress works. Under the law, Republicans would need to cobble together veto-proof majorities to override a presidential veto of any resolution of disapproval. All sources agree the odds of that are virtually nonexistent. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I think we definitely need something about US-Cuba relations, but it's likely to be one of those situations where there is no really big moment but a long string of small stories, spread over months. So I'd be in favour of a blurb that covers the general thaw in US-Cuba relations, with this change as the event to hang it on. GoldenRing (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. A significant warming in a famously frosty relationship. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support positive diplomatic news are a change of pace around here. Nergaal (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait The thaw in Cuban-American relations is definitely ITN worthy. But I would put it all in one post when formal diplomatic relations are restored and ambassadors are exchanged. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • That is many years off, and can be posted at that time. Abductive (reasoning) 04:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, the water is the ice-jammed river is now flowing, the definition of a thaw. Abductive (reasoning) 04:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per extreme POV. I don't think we should ever consider posting changes to a highly subjective list of a single country that includes countries that apparently do not comply within its future plans and geostrategy. It might have been worth supporting had this been a legitimate list adopted by the United Nations or any other impartial international organisation. If you really think that we should post something about the Cuba–United States relations, there are other ways to do it such like signing of diplomatic agreements, engaging in joint economic programmes, opening the air transport, etc.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted - There is a consensus that the Cuban Thaw should be posted at some point. There is some disagreement about when to post, but several of those who prefer to wait express that their preference is only mild making an overall consensus that now is an acceptable point. The quality of the Cuban Thaw article is acceptable, so it will be the bold link. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The wording change is a smart move (to point out that Obama is moving to remove) addressing the 45 day issue noted above. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Late Support. Thank you, ThaddeusB. Happy news and with luck part of Congress starting to get along with the administration. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Howard Stern to be featured on David Letterman's last showsEdit

No offense to the nominator who made this in good faith, but this will not gain consensus be posted so I see little reason for this to continue. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Howard Stern (talk, history)
Blurb: ​​Howard Stern will be featured as a guest on David Letterman's final shows.
News source(s): Daily News

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: I feel this is newsworthy. Sterngleek (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Thanks for the nomination, but the announcement of a guest isn't anywhere close to the importance we usually require for ITN items. I may support posting when the last Letterman show airs, but this really isn't much of anything. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose celebrity A to appear on celebrity B's show? Even the Boat Race is more significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but I agree that a mere guest announcement does not merit inclusion into ITN. Merely being newsworthy(if that's even the case here) isn't sufficient; I would suggest that Sterngleek review the criteria and perhaps past nominations to get an idea of what may merit posting. Suggest SNOW close. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Celebrity news. Nothing here ITN. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.
Once Letterman's show comes to an end, it could merit a mention. He's been an American TV fixture for several decades. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Percy SledgeEdit

Article: Percy Sledge (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Noted pioneer artist in the R&B genre (received an lifetime award for this), also inducted into R&R Hall of Fame. MASEM (t) 15:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. Really, his chief claim to fame is for When a Man Loves a Woman (song), though he had other charting hits (Ain't No Sunshine...). On the other hand, his version of the song charted in multiple decades, and so have covers. Multiple hall of fame honors. Found one CN template in the article, which I replaced with a source. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Hall of fame, aint no sunshine, etc etc... --BabbaQ (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support notable artist, excellent candidate for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD - sufficiently notable person, article in good shape. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Per above. Miyagawa (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Miyagawa. Mjroots (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Referencing issues at time I made nom have been addressed. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Blackwater Baghdad shootingsEdit

Oh the weather outside is frightful, but the fire is so delightful, and since we've no place to go... --Jayron32 16:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Blackwater Baghdad shootings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​​Ex-Blackwater guards get life, 30-year sentences for Baghdad massacre.
News source(s): USA TODAY

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Part of 'War on Terror' which is still not finished. Ednabeady (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral, however, the blurb should include the conviction of 3 others with 30yr terms. Also, the blurb should link to the shooting page. --MASEM (t) 01:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose mostly based on the quality of the nomination. Put some work into it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose a three sentence update in two years? μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article has few updates. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose many people get many long sentences for murdering others. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as not updated and weak on notability at best. Not seeing extensive news coverage of this. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note for new editors: Was a WP:SNOW close. Mamyles (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

April 13Edit


[Closed] RD: Herb TrimpeEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 04:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Herb Trimpe (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): IBT NYP

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American comic book artist and occasional writer, best known as the seminal 1970s artist on The Incredible Hulk and as the first artist to draw for publication the character Wolverine -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 08:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose not convinced this individual is one of the greatest comic book artists in the field, I'm not seeing many notable awards for instance, but open to being convinced. Article is in reasonable state (need to fix "present"), although the text add about his death is somewhat perfunctory. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose As TRM states, while within the field there was a lot of tributes, he was far from the leader in the field. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. When I first heard of his passing, I genuinely considered him for RD - now, as then, I find his article and notability sadly lacking. Yes, he was the first artist to draw Wolverine. I'm not sure he's influential or terribly notable in his field, aside from that single point. I understand completely why he would be nominated, but I don't think he quite meets the bar. Challenger l (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Posted] Russian wildfiresEdit

Article: 2015 Russian wildfires (talk, history)
Blurb: Wildfires in Southern Siberia, Russia kill at least 33 people and damage more than 1,400 homes.
News source(s): [23][24][25]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: An unusually high death/damage toll for a disaster of this nature. Article work is ongoing. ThaddeusB (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • support - unusal for this part of the world. extensive damage and deaths. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and the article has acceptable quality. Brandmeistertalk 09:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support notable and more-than half-decent article condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support unusual and significant event. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support On both event + article quality. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Liquid water found on MarsEdit

No consensus to post this at this time. From these comments it seems it isn't clear enough whether water as been found, or evidence of water. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 13:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Water on Mars (talk, history)
Blurb: Martian rover Curiosity finds liquid water beneath Mars's surface.
Alternative blurb: Martian rover Curiosity finds strong evidence of liquid water beneath Mars's surface.
News source(s): The Guardian BBC

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Potentially groundbreaking discovery regarding extraterrestrial human colonization. Joshua Garner (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The header is not exactly correct; the BBC states that "evidence" of liquid water was found, not liquid water itself. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose As 331dot points out, this is not assurance of water, just strong evidence water likely existed. Which is I think at least the 2nd time this has been shown. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"Mars has liquid water just below its surface, according to new measurements by Nasa’s Curiosity rover" looks like a pretty categorical statement? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
That's not proof there is water, just that the probability there is very high (It's a theory, not proven). They have not been able to directly sample the water (and verify those findings) at which point that would be a clear ITN. --MASEM (t) 21:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
yeah, I guess this nom is a saddening bore, 'coz I've seen it ten times or more. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Point of order. It's a hypothesis. Theories (at least the ones we use) are all proven. Hypothesis is the word you're scrambling for. --Jayron32 22:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It is unlikely definite proof will arise in the forseeable future - that would require a Martian mining effort. If it really the second time strong evidence has arisen (do you have a citation for that), that is a valid point, but the request for definitive proof is not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that the story I'm thinking of is this one [26] but it might have been other discoveries. And this are ones that showed that there were some water molecules in the rocks, as well as some methane suggesting the possibility of life. But with this new discovery, all they are saying is that the temperature in the Martial soil, for a sufficiently thick enough region, is at the right conditions where liquid water could be retained. Very important towards pushing on human exploration of the planet, but I don't think this is groundbreaking as the headlines are making out. (including headlines that are getting it wrong, though knowing headlines are not written by the article writers themselves). --MASEM (t) 21:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Minor point of clarification since you said "existed", but the claim is about evidence that liquid water exists on Mars in the present, and not merely in the past. Dragons flight (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The optimal target is if there is a good quantity of water on the planet already that could be used to support a colony and reduce the weight of carrying it from Earth to Mars, as well as study a planet which had, at one point, the conditions sufficient to support life. They have found water molecules as part of rock samples, but nothing like a pool of water; they've also shown the water found is of different isotopic distribution as one would expect, which they've used to argue about when (if there was) water on the planet likely evaporated. This specific story says that water pools could have readily existed in the right temperature regions within Mars' soil (and may perhaps still exist if they could dig deeper), but not that they exist, presently. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose "evidence" of water is OLD news. μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I am not sure how you guys are glad to post every single terrorist event around the world, but you find actual human progress as "old news". Nergaal (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Posted] RD: Eduardo GaleanoEdit

Article: Eduardo Galeano (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC News The Guardian

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Described by the Guardian and the Associated Press as a leading voice in the Latin American left. AP obituary (first link above) says that his book ""The Open Veins of Latin America" became a classic text for the left in the region [i.e. Latin America]..." Everymorning talk 17:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support on article improvements - Fair argument to importance. The "Works" section needs a LOT of citations and is almost a direct violation of quotation policy (we're paraphrasing reception about his works by named person and sources but without giving exact sourcing information). --MASEM (t) 17:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose appalling article, no real obvious idea how he is significant in his field, a single award from Sweden. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Per countering systemic ITN bias against literature, art and intellectual life (and Latin America).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Countering systemic bias means that this person meets the RD criteria but is not posted due to such bias; please indicate which RD criteria is met here and in what way. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
No that is not what systemic bias means. Systemic bias means that white boys who like sports or war can be sure that their interests are represented whereas people with other interests, particularly those that take slightly more mental effort to appreciate, cannot. This encapsulates the general day to day workings of ITN perfectly. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
So you decline to answer my question? 331dot (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
A vote with no substance. We don't just vote with our hearts here, start using your head please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Whereas voting with your ass is perfectly acceptible?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't know. Perhaps you, as the expert, could answer your own question? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support: He never exactly racked up awards, but he was a prolific author in a little-covered field, and certainly Open Veins of Latin America is a well-known work. As a side note on quality, I have gone through and removed some problematic sections while adding references and expanding in places. It should be of sufficient quality, or close to it, to post. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Voice of the left? Is this some sort of objective fact, or comparable to the Nobel Peace Prize? μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose I do not see how this man meets the RD criteria - the article really doesn't make it at all clear what impact he had or how notable he is, or was. There are some decidedly brief moments from his history listed, and literally the other half of the article is taken up by a bullet-point list of his works. If this is someone on par with the best journalists in his language, or indeed, any language - then I suggest that the article needs a LOT of attention. Challenger l (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Opposition withdrawn - the article seems a great deal clearer and more well-formatted now, citations seem to be in order. He seems to bave been among the most influential writers of his nation's recent history, though he has little in the way of international recognition. I think that should make him notable enough for RD, in this context. Challenger l (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Being "global soccer's pre-eminent man of letters" should alone be enough, especially when compared to other recent, more regional, inclusions like Richie Benaud, Elmer Lach and Robert H. Schuller. It is also well-referenced (certainly compared to the last two of these). --Inother (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Based on the huge influence his writings, especially Open Veins of Latin America, had on Latin American and the perception of the continent in the rest of the world. P. S. Burton (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Article seems to be in good enough shape and the person is defiantly notable and at the top of his field. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per P. S. Burton. Neljack (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - An important author with a decent article whose death is worthy for RD. Jusdafax 01:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is in good shape, definitely notable, politically motived oppose votes notwithstanding. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted as blurb] RD: Günter GrassEdit

I don't see much more point in continuing this; closing before this further degenerates into a name-calling fest. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Article: Günter Grass (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Günter Grass, Nobel laureate and author of The Tin Drum and Dog Years, dies at age 87.
Alternative blurb: Günter Grass, Nobel laureate, Waffen SS member, and author of The Tin Drum and Dog Years, dies at age 87.
News source(s): The Telegraph TG

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: German novelist, poet, playwright, illustrator, graphic artist, sculptor and recipient of the 1999 Nobel Prize in Literature. He was widely regarded as Germany's most famous recently living writer. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 09:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Per nom and article is in good shape. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, for either RD or full item in the news section. He was very significant author and activist. --Egeymi (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. Thue (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull Article is woefully undersourced in terms of inline citations. --MASEM (t) 13:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I should note I support reposting after article improvements. RD criteria clearly met. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
      Where's all the indignation and accusations of "sloppiness" here then? Or are you just not worried about being consistent? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
      • This one is a problem, and yes, I could go into the rapid timing with almost no discussion, but the "pull" needed to be done first. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull Quickest posting of a sub-standrd RD ever with the lowest "consensus" I've seen for a long time.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pulled pending article improvements. Probably not the worst article ever posted, but consensus is we can and should do better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support after article update. He was a complicated great artist. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as the article is well enough. Even Grass' critics will agree that he was an important personality, and that's what this here is all about. And while we possibly should, we're currently not even talking about a blurb, but about a simple RD. --PanchoS (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note As of right now, about half of the information in the article is uncited. While one or two cn tags wouldn't be a big deal, the fact that half of the information fails basic Wikipedia standards for verifiability is bad. Of course, he's a behemoth of a figure, but the main page should feature good Wikipedia work, and this is not yet it. --Jayron32 14:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Greatest German novelist of postwar era. His Danzig Trilogy is a masterpiece. Sca (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Blurb would not be appropriate (death was of no surprise); he is not of the level of worldwide impact as Thatcher or Mandela. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Disagree, Masem. Long a literary figure of global significance – and not just to English- (or German-) speaking world.
"Suggested blurb:
Günter Grass, Nobel laureate, author of The Tin Drum and Dog Years, dies at age 87 in Lübeck, Germany.
(Tried sticking it into nom form above w/o success. Doh.) Sca (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Not helpful for admin in making decision --Jayron32 01:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is his death changing the world, in the sense of the amount of attention it got as it did for Margaret Thatcher or Nelson Mandela, where there were worldwide tributes and a significant amount of pomp dedicated to people who had a major hand in bettering the world? No, not here. RD listing is not in question, but this is a bad case for a blurb. (Particularly given the state the article is in). --MASEM (t) 16:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I trust you will ask the same quesiton next time someone proposes posting the result of a college sports-event, a medal bestowed on a soldier or a plane crash etc. His literature changed the work. And since wikipedia was not around to post it when he received the Nobel prize, this is the only other comparable chance for major literary figures to appear on the main page. The systemic bias at play in argumentation here is mind numbing. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The event where his literature changed the world was proven out by being given the Nobel prize. However, that occurred before we had ITN (much less Wikipedia). His death has not caused a massive change, no more comparable to Leonard Nimoy or other beloved actors and creative persons. As such, RD is well suited, but the world is not dropping everything they are doing to acknowledge this person, and we shouldn't start now. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
But the world stands still when a bunch of Oxford nitwits sit in a boat on a lake? Or when unpaid kids trying to make their way to the big leagues win an basketball game....please.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"Recent Deaths" is a different beast from normal news cycles. Whenever anyone with some ounce of fame dies, there are obits, etc. RD was developed to recognize that this is how the world operates, and to avoid flooding blurbs with every famous person's death, to acknowledge them in the box in a brief manner. In rare cases, such as Margaret Thatcher or Nelson Mandela, the world as a whole mourned their losses due to the impact these people had and their legacy. In other rare cases, we lose people before their time in a manner we did not expect, like Robin Williams, and the world still stops and mourns that. But people get old and they die, that's life, and most famous people that die get a day of recognizing in the newspapers and that's it. That's the place where RD sits. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It was Oxford and Cambridge (although the 'Tabs were so far behind you'd need a telescope to see them) and they didn't "sit" in their boats, they rowed their bollocks off, for 18 minutes (try doing that yourself, I guarantee you'll puke after five minutes) and it wasn't "a lake", it was the River Thames (sorry if the article doesn't make that clear enough for you). But realistically, your tone (much like mine in some responses here) isn't going to win you any favours. Do yourself a favour and stop whinging. I may follow in your footsteps. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
And so fucking what? It is an annual event the global significance of which is more comparable to one of my bowel movements than to that of Gunter Grass' authorship. As for my tone I might listen to advice from someone whose own tone and argumentation suggested they have a clue.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Take a break dude. No need for the "so fucking what"s. Comparing a 186-year-old event to your own shit is puerile but perhaps what you're aiming for. If so, success! A+! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Puerile is exactly what seems to be the main criterion for inclusion here at ITN so yes, that was the intended effect.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Whatever, you achieved your aim, well done on that, at least! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb amnd RD obviously needs to be posted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Huge deal. Many news outlets choose a quote by German cultural secretary of state Grütters as a headline, stating: "his literary legacy will stand next to that of Goethe." Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb death of author by old age needs no blurb, regardless of supposed sainthood. μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Wrong Günter, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Not helpful for admin in making decision --Jayron32 01:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Whereas college sports and soldiers medals require ample coverage... ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
You don't like British nominations? Well at least that's clear now, thanks for the definitive statement. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I am considering making a point of becoming an ITN regular with the specific purpose of systematically opposing what ever stupid ass sports even you support. I dont mind including cricket matches or other pop culture events when that may be warranted buy the systematic opposition to any topic that works at a slightly higher level of of abstraction than boys fantasies of violence, gold and glory is sickening ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes, the bunch of "Oxford nitwits" on a lake. Wow. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Please, Maunus, do so. It would be some light relief to read your pointless rants amongst the real heavyweight debates here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments – ... from others:
 • "Grass learned a lot from Rabelais and Celine and was influential in development of 'magic realism' and Marquez. – Orhan Pamuk (Nobel laureate)
 • "This is very sad. A true giant, inspiration, and friend." – Salman Rushdie
 • "One could argue that Günter Grass's The Tin Drum is the great novel of the 20th century ... it most completely defines the era in all its glories and catastrophes." – Darragh McManus (Guardian)
Certainly one of my favorite movies of all times... warshy (¥¥) 17:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 • "The Tin Drum became one of the most widely read modern European novels. – Stephen Kinzler, NYT
Sca (talk)
PS: I'd also argue that Grass's complex and occasionally controversial utterances and revelations make him even more compelling as a significant personality. Sca (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"Art is uncompromising and life is full of compromises." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb and RD. Obvious inclusion for RD. Gamaliel (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding support is it just me, or are most of those offering such effusive support actually gauged the quality of the article they're supporting for main page inclusion? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've looked at it and I don't see how it is so substandard that we can't include him in at least RD. Gamaliel (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Referencing has improved a lot (not enough) but a lot since the first objections were raised. The first time I assessed the article above, about 1/2 of the paragraphs in the article, including several whole sections, had no references at all. As of now, it's much closer to being postable. There are a few paragraphs in the social and political activism section likely to be contentious and need cites, and several of the "awards and honors" need cites as well. It's a smaller hurdle than it was earlier today. If you, @Gamaliel:, could get on those fixes quickly, we're real close to getting this to a postable state. Thanks for your concern, and I'm glad you want to help out. --Jayron32 19:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The article is in much better shape than when I put up my "pull" !vote above, with maybe a couple floating CNs but far from the undercited case before. It should be okay for posting RD now. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Is the decision over RD vs blurb based on article quality?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. The quality standards for both should be the same. The blurb vs. RD issue depends primarily on overall notability, with "bonus points" (for lack of a better term) for an unexpected death or other unusual circumstances. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Can we cash in the secret bonus points? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. Needs to be posted ASAP, citing is just fine, not important issues left. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for RD - might warrant a blurb (beyond my ken), article looks good compared to several almost stubs I've seen posted, a good chunk of references no reason not to have it as an RD in my opinion, I'd suggest get back up there as RD for now, then let people haggle over blurb/not. EdwardLane (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb when last few referencing issues are fixed. The SS material really should be better cited as it is likely contentious and includes (for example) opinions of living people completely uncited. The biography should also have some sort of citation - one ref covering it all could be sufficient. That said, the man was an absolute giant in his field and country and rises to the level of full blurb notability IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    So cite it. Not ready, and no support for a full blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    For the record, it wasn't me who marked it ready (although due to wiki oddities, the edit summary history makes it seem that I did). It should be obvious from my comment that I don't feel it is quite ready yet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    No need to have a "for the record" edit, it's all wrapped in diffs. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb He was definitely an iconic writer for decades in both German-language and world literature.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Now (23:00 April 13) listed on German, French, Danish, Spanish, Finnish, Dutch, Norwegian, Polish and Swedish versions of ITN or RD. Sca (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: With a small bit of free time this evening, I went through and found refs for pretty much everything outstanding in the Waffen-SS section. It took about 15 minutes. Not to point fingers at anyone or single out this particular nomination, but I have to say the WP:SOFIXIT ethos at ITN seems rather lacking. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb or RD - He was great, his death is in the news, and the article features additional referencing thanks to Kudzu1. Let's do this and move on. Jusdafax 01:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Judasfax. This has taken long enough already. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    • And let me clarify I support an RD, not a blurb. I don't think a blurb is necessary in this case, as the death does not actively impact a great number of people. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support anything but be quick! - This usually happens here when a person is clearly notable, but some problems must be created despite the article being in good enough shape and the person is defiantly notable. By the time this process is done, it might be 10 days after Grass died (and then who cares?! All that work for nothing!). I support a RD tag and a blurb seems nice since Gabriel Garcia Marquez (I think) got a blurb too. I feel that Grass is good enough for a blurb if not just hurry up to make a decision. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Seriously, what's going on? A bunch of students shooting hoops gets a blurb in no time, and we can't even get Günter Grass on RD? What a joke! Fgf10 (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted as blurb. Article quality looks fine now; consensus slightly more for blurb than for RD. SpencerT♦C 07:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Suggest pic of Oxford rowers (right) – who appear about 1/4 inch high – be superseded by Grass pic. (left) used on various non-English WPs since ystdy. (Rowers pic has been up for three days.)
PS: It took 2,700 words, and 21 hours (!), to get this item posted. Sca (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Point being? 331dot (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Sca (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean for a reply. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, what it took was article work but some fine individuals. ITN is not a news ticker - it is a place to feature quality articles that happen to be in the news, not things that are in the news and happen to have any sort of article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed; there is nothing wrong with an extensive discussion, which posting word counts and time intervals suggests. Short discussions would be a problem. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull blurb, post RD I don't see nearly the impact of this death as there was for a Thatcher or a Mandela. I didn't post here because I knew it was certain to be RD, but I would've opposed a blurb if I had seen it going that way. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
As User:Spencer said, there was a majority for the blurb, so it should stay that way. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose Muboshgu's suggestion. Logically indefensible, IMO. Ignores global coverage, wide cultural and historical commentary touching on great issues of our times. Sca (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull blurb, post RD per Muboshgu. This is hardly Mandela or Thatcher, and there is nothing particularly interesting about the death. Tailor made for RD, unless we now indeed offer the similar courtesy to all Nobel laureates. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Grass is hardly any Nobel laureate. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
In your opinion, sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Not helpful for admin in making decision or WP:AGF-ful. And please don't start getting personal.
This discussion should be   closed. Why debate this nom – which IMO shouldn't have been controversial in the first place – all over again? Sca (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. I simply stated an absolute fact. And we're now just suggesting that it should simply be an RD, Grass was hardly Mandela or Thatcher. And perhaps you aren't aware of our requirement to post quality articles, which this was not. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Definitely not a Thatcher. Sca (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
No, nor a Mandela. Nor was his death in any way remarkable. He is a perfect RD candidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
He was a great artist. Sca (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Sure. But if you asked the whole world who of the three was least significant by some margin, you know what the answer would be. Blurbs are kept for people like Mandela and Thatcher, not a popular and artistic Nobel Laureate who died a very unremarkable death. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Blurbs are kept for when consensus thinks that they are appropriate. We hear and respect your opinion, but it seems to be the minority for this one. This posting was a correct interpretation of consensus. Mamyles (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Well no, since posting, two of us have suggested RD is more than adequate for this individual. The posting of the blurb was marginal at best in any case. But thanks for your input! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retain blurb. More notable than a women's basketball tournament? Yup. More notable than the Boat Race? Yup. More notable than someone who was obviously guilty being found guilty? Yup. Pull one of those three if you need to. Black Kite (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support blurb or RD, as is an especially notable author that is near the top of the field. Note that at this time there are 10 that support blurb and/or RD, and 6 that support RD only. Mamyles (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, and we gauge consensus by argument, not by counting votes. This one sets an interesting precedent mind you. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Every support here has a rational argument and is hardly just a vote. Your arguments are not particularly more convincing than any of the other 10. And yes, the number of supports is a measure of consensus, though not the sole measure. Mamyles (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, for instance, one vote for a blurb is "Obvious inclusion for RD." Well played! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Haha, I'll definitely give you that one. Someone should have pinged that editor for clarification. Mamyles (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Another opined with the really well qualified "Support blurb amnd RD obviously needs to be posted". The rationales are not all that convincing here, really.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
A third suggested " a blurb seems nice". Brilliant. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Now, about the pic, can we switch Grass for rowers as sgtd above? Sca (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It's already listed at ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Sca and The Rambling Man. We have a featured photo on the German Wikipedia. -76.227.230.27 (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
David Levy, would a pic switch be your dept.? Sca (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Image updated. Thanks for the ping. —David Levy 16:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep blurb. Probably a borderline case at best, but I don't think it's so clearly wrong that any good will come out of playing hokey-cokey with it. Formerip (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep blurb whining about this being posted as a blurb is entirely unnecessary. There is sufficient consensus to keep the blurb and he is important enough figure in literature to deserve it as well. Someone should close this. SeraV (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Not helpful; please take elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • I think it's proving instructive to see how poor several of the arguments in favour of a blurb are. Just like your own. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I really am getting sick and tired of your arrogant and condescending behaviour. How about joining some workshop on how to deal with people. Might help you. SeraV (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Likewise, but at least I'm honest about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I have been yes but mostly just towards you, but I am now more or less sick of you. Please don't reply me ever again with your usual nonsense or anything at all and I do the same. SeraV (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not even sure what you do here other than to pop round to argue with me. It certainly doesn't appear to me that you're here to improve Wikipedia in any way. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Did you not hear me? I don't want to deal with you! And your biggest achievement I suppose is chasing away bunch of admins and other editors from here who disagree with you. SeraV (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. I contribute all over this encyclopedia, enriching its content and upholding quality standards. But you probably aren't aware of any of that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry to say but that is overshadowed by your behavior and insistence to hound away people from these pages and from this project who disagree with you. SeraV (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say that I really only consider the opinions of those who are here to improve things. Anyway, I suggest if you wish to continue popping up to argue with me, you do it at my talk page rather than continually bloat ITN. Feel free to hat all this "don't reply me ever again" nonsense and continue elsewhere. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
You did notice, that you started to argue with me here right? Or are you just that dense. SeraV (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

April 12Edit