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] RD: Harry KrotoEdit

Article: Harry Kroto (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): El Pais Royal Society of Chemistry
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: Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery of fullerenes, an allotrope of carbon.

  • Support - came here to post this. No flags in the article. shoy (reactions) 12:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – notable chemist, nobel prize winner. Baking Soda (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • If he died on 30th April why isn't any main stream newspaper reporting it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying that someone fooled the Royal Society of Chemistry? You'd have to ask the media why they aren't reporting this- it may be an indication of his importance(or lack thereof). 331dot (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The news first broke yesterday as far as I can tell [1]. shoy (reactions) 17:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Support - It's been a public holiday in the UK, hence delay in reporting. The Guardian has it now. Sapient (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Daily Telegraph now too. Sapient (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose on quality; while a few missing citations are usually not a huge concern, most of the "awards" and "honorary degrees" sections are uncited. There's too much there that needs reliable cites right now. If that were to be fixed, this could be easily posted. --Jayron32 13:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I share the concern of Dharmadhyaksha that this isn't being reported on; if it was shown to be reported on, I would support posting once the quality issues raised by Jayron area addressed. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support if quality improved Meets RD criteria for importance in his field. Article needs some work though. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The death is now in the mainstream news. I've gone through and tidied up some of the citations; there's no more red text for now. Sufficient? Sapient (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I reviewed the changes from nom time to now and the articles seems sufficiently improved and sufficiently sourced for posting. Importance as Nobel-winning chemist is clear. (The fact he won the Nobel is the point of importance, not that his death being reported in mainstream, though that factor's been remedied with coverage in the Guardian and Popular Science). --MASEM (t) 22:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted - Per Masem's assessment. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Daniel BerriganEdit

Article: Daniel Berrigan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times, Guardian, AP

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 was a notable pacifist who won the War Resisters League Peace Award, among several others. EternalNomad (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Support on importance. A pivotal figure for his era. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose no evidence that his writing letters against the Vietnam War was of any especial influence. μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support after improvements – Notability seems to be there, but not until the article is better sourced. At any rate, according to the NY Times, Berrigan has been a pivotal figure in social & political protest, and one of the US's leading peace activists, for half a century. Furthermore, his militancy included a spiritual & moral dimension (as both a priest and as a poet/essayist) that was unique. The NY Times says he "shaped the tactics of opposition" to the Vietnam War which, at the time, put him on the FBI's "most-wanted list," and landed him on the cover of Time magazine. And as an intellectual figure he received many awards for his writings over a lifetime, including one of the most prestigious awards that "The Academy of American Poets" can give; published 50+ books during his lifetime. Also was a university instructor for many decades, and poet-in-residence at Fordham University; honored w/ the Pacem in Terris Award...the list could go on. Christian Roess (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality - uncited claims, some copyediting to do e.g. capitalisation of university degrees, and overall the article doesn't demonstrate notability. The claims which Chrsitan Roess makes above are not included in the article, for example. MurielMary (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment- Valid points, so I altered the lead to include some more of these "claims" (not my claims, but what The New York Times is claiming). I'm also tracking down other secondary sources to cite, some of which I've already included in the article. Christian Roess (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – A famous figure in the U.S. Antiwar Movement of the '60s, and a headline name. Sca (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose clearly notable yet the article, as of right now, has ten [citation needed] tags and is a little hagiographical, including the mindbogglingly lengthy list of some of his works. Can the tags be sorted and the biblio be trimmed? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • comment - yes those things need to be cleared up before it can be posted. I'm working on it. Will check in again tomorrow w/ an update to my progress. Or maybe another editor will get to it, and we can reevaluate for inclusion on the main page ITN/RD section. Christian Roess (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - cleared up many of the issues that TRM and MurielMary pointed to. The bibliography has been excised down to a real 'selected', while the other publications were moved to a newly created bibliography page for Berrigan. Also, still CN tags in the Awards section. But I can't finish editing until tomorrow. But please look over the article because there may be other issues, too. And that probably means this article is not ready to post yet. Christian Roess (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Ready - In my opinion, the quality of the article is now sufficient (barely--or minimally--sufficient, I might add). And I believe it's ready to be posted to RD. But I think the vote, currently, is deadlocked: tied 3 to 3 (Support= 3 — Oppose = 3). Tiebreaker anyone? Is it ready, or does it need improvement? Can we get a consensus? Christian Roess (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted after another good cleanup. Stephen 02:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support sorry I missed voting on this one but thank you to those who worked on it and got it posted. He was indeed a pivotal figure in the anti-Vietnam movement and a household name. TheBlinkster (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Iraq bombings and aftermathEdit

No consensus. Stephen 23:10, 2 May 2016 (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: April 2016 Baghdad bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 21 people are killed in a bombing in Baghdad leading to the storming of parliament.
News source(s): DNA MD Samaa
Nominator's comments: Bombings here are, by precedent, ITN worthy with much larger fatalities but the consequences of the breaking events in Baghdad here are bigger. Parliament stormed, people blocking the road to the airport to stop politicians fleeing...this is a much bigger reaction. Heck, is tooearly yet, but maybe a revolution of sorts? Lihaas (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support when article improved, a major event in Iraq due to the storming of parliament. The article isn't ready to post yet, but this is still breaking news it seems and the article looks to be being worked on, so it shouldn't be too long. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose protests not related to bombing. Baking Soda (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Many a sources citing both.Lihaas (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Linking bombing by ISIS to reform protests against government is Wikipedia:SYNTH. Topics completely separate, share in common the same date. Baking Soda (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
As is your "most likely" SYNTH or downright POV.Lihaas (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Sources provided do not link bombing with protests, which have been going on for weeks, classic SYNTH. See Talk:April_2016_Baghdad_bombing#WP:SYNTH_Bombing_did_not_provoke_protests for sources stating otherwise. Baking Soda (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Blurb obfuscates the event by implying the storming of Parliament was done by the bombers. --WaltCip (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
"Also feel free to suggest better blurbs". Lihaas (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
There's no point. The events by themselves are not notable and the coincidence itself is not worth reporting.--WaltCip (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is insufficient and confused, blurb conflates two issues with no referenced certainty. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2016 (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] Ivory burningEdit

Article: Destruction of ivory (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Kenya burn largest pile of ivory ever in a manifestation to combat illegal ivory trade.
Alternative blurb: ​Kenya burn largest pile of ivory ever in a manifestation to combat illegal ivory trade.
News source(s): BBC News, CNN

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Biggest manifestation so far with wide coverage of a worthy cause to combat illegal ivory trade and poaching of elephants and rhinos. w.carter-Talk 15:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

  • support - rare event. mentioned in world media.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
comment without prejudice the aticle is not updated beyond 2 sentences, and I don't know how that article can be enough for the topic and include this one=-off incident.Lihaas (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree with both BabbaQ that this is a notable event that is getting news coverage, but also with Lihaas that the article barely mentions it. If the article was GA or higher then I'd certainly support it, but as it stands I really can't decide. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Update now expanded plus numbers in the rest of the text updated. (my Internet connection had collapsed, now fixed along with the article) w.carter-Talk 19:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I think the article and the news story are of sufficient interest globally to warrant this being posted. Having said that, the update is relatively small, but once you've covered main points (biggest ivory destruction in history, tonnage, number of animals) there's no much more to say. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose what ITN criterion does this meet? μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
    • There are no formal ITN criteria, only a statement of purpose that ITN "serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest.".
      1. This is unquestionably a recent event.
      2. That it is of wide interest can be seen by the extent of news coverage.
      3. That it is an encyclopaedic topic can be seen by our article on ivory destruction, and the biggest ever event is certainly worthy of inclusion in that article.
      4. That it has been substantially updated is less clear, but I'm convinced by The Rambling Man's comments that what we have is sufficient. 'Support. Thryduulf (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
    • The criteria for size of updated content says "... a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient". The 'main' article is now updated with 15 20 sentences and 6 8 refs. The second article is not updated, but does every 'help' article linked to in a blurb have to be updated? Like Bergen in the nom below? Plus adding alt blurb to emphasize the burning and not just large pile. w.carter-Talk 08:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Only the main linked article is required to be updated, although other linked articles being updated is obviously a good thing for Wikipedia in general as well as ITN specifically. As long as those other linked articles are not contradicting the main article and not nominated for deletion or flagged as BLP vios they're essentially irrelevant to the nomination process (and even then it would almost always just be a case of tweaking the blurb to avoid linking to them). Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
    • It's pretty obvious that this meets the criteria for ITN, if anyone needs help in understanding how to find those criteria, please see WP:ITN where the information is clearly explained. I think Thryduulf summarised it nicely, so hopefully that clears up any "confusion". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I did not ask what the ITN criteria are, I asked how this meets them. Record contraband seizures are announced all the time. This is rather below the fold. μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
    • This is not one contraband seizure, this is a government making an unprecedented manifestation attended by two African presidents and several wildlife conservation organisations. The burning contains years of seized contraband, in fact the amount almost equals the total amount of destroyed ivory in the whole world ever before this event, and the event is covered by virtually every major news agency in the world (just Google it). I'd say that makes it an ITN candidate. Even without the ITN, the article is receiving a rapid increase in views, so the readers are curious to learn more. w.carter-Talk 20:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @Medeis: I've explained above how this meets all the criteria for ITN: It's a recent event of wide interest related to an encyclopaedic topic with a sufficiently updated Wikipedia article. If you think this is just another contraband seizure then you need to reread the article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I think there's more confusion here. This is in no way related to heroin seizures (P.S. thanks for the fascinating link to the "biggest heroin seizure in Salem County" (where?) when this is the biggest destruction of ivory in the history of planet Earth. I guess that's indicative of the systemic bias we all suffer from around here). This is the destruction of ivory which has been previously reclaimed from criminals. It's in the news, it's of interest to our readers, it's had a quality update, if the application of the ITN criteria to this article need further explanation, please feel free to ask. Otherwise I would suggest this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support This is manufactured news – a staged PR event. But, on the other hand, it's the biggest such event and has duly attracted lots of coverage – much more than other items currently in ITN. So, it should get the benefit of the doubt. Andrew D. (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose a noble but misguided attempt at fixing a problem. I would prefer wikipedia not to endorse such an economically-idiotic attempt that will only lead to skyrocketing prices of ivory on the black market. Nergaal (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
    • That standpoint is also covered in the article. I would prefer the Wikipedia to remain neutral and just write the facts about what is going on in the world. w.carter-Talk 21:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
    • And the opposition is absurd and purely a personal POV which has no bearing in reality to ITN's raison d'etre. As already explained, it's in the news, it's of interest to our readers, it's updated, there's no complaints here. Unless of course we want to stagnate ITN with days-old news and ignore things that are actually making notable global news. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - this does fit the ITN criteria, and the article has been updated sufficiently. Reading through all these remarks, it seems to me that those in "support" ultimately made their case, although some of the opposition's points were valid and credible. But those in support were more convincing, answering nearly every valid charge against. Christian Roess (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pull there's a net support of one out of a vote of 3 to 2 in favor of this posting. It's absurd. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
We don't count votes. 331dot (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, 331., counting is possible, now that WP:NOTAVOTE is no longer a guideline but a downgraded essay. George Ho (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Just because something is possible doesn't mean it should be done, or that it is a substitute for consensus. 331dot (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Plus, if we were to actually "count", the vote stood at 5 to 2 at the time of posting. It's not absurd!! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support Article is of sufficient quality, update is well-referenced and extensive enough. --Jayron32 02:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • post-posting support It is sufficiently in the news to qualify[2][3][4][5] and a notable enough topic[6]. Would prefer some more info in the article, but there is enough. Also one of the opposes is very political in nature. AIRcorn (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. Well, if we're vote counting and 3-2 in favor wasn't enough for some to agree to the posting, please count this as another on the support side. Now I think we're at 6-2. Rhodesisland (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose WP:NOTADVERTISING, we should not be advertising this PR move by the Kenyan government. SSTflyer 04:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

April 29Edit


[Posted] 2016 Turøy helicopter crashEdit

Article: 2016 Turøy helicopter crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​. Thirteen people are killed when a Supa Puma helicopter crashes near Bergen, Norway.
Alternative blurb: ​All Super Puma helicopters in Norway and the United Kingdom are grounded following a fatal crash near Bergen, Norway.
Alternative blurb II: ​All Super Puma helicopters in Norway and the United Kingdom are grounded after 13 people are killed in a crash near Bergen, Norway.
News source(s): BBC

 The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose Low-profile accident in the grand scheme of aviation history. Previous similar accidents (2016 Magdalen Islands Mitsubishi MU-2 crash or 2016 Sunbird Aviation crash) weren't posted either. Brandmeistertalk 20:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - large helicopter crashes with loss of all on board. @Brandmeister, you are comparing apples with oranges there. Mjroots (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment the "Crew and passengers" section is entirely unreferenced (I've added a tag) and there are some other untagged claims needing citations too. I'm undecided on the notability at present. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @Thryduulf: I've referenced that section. The only outstanding item needing referencing is the registration of the aircraft involved. What is stated matches information available in forums etc, but these fail WP:RS (see article talk). Mjroots (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Registration now referenced. Mjroots (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The grounding of all of the same time helicopter in Norway and the UK makes this significant enough for me. I agree the article quality is now good enough. Thryduulf (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Article looks fine enough Sherenk1 (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Alt blurb added, reflecting grounding in Norway and UK. Mjroots (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    You might still want to include that it was a fatal crash with 13 deaths in that alt otherwise it somewhat "lightens" the impact. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    I've added a second altblurb, which includes that but I think is a little too long for perfection. Thryduulf (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    ALT1 tweaked. Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - important enough, article is good.BabbaQ (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 12:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 • Interesting to note that, although all three suggested blurbs above include the word helicopter, the posted blurb does not. Sca (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Equatorial Guinean presidential electionEdit

Article: Equatorial Guinean presidential election, 2016 (talk, history)
Blurb: Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo (pictured) is re-elected as President of Equatorial Guinea.
News source(s): Africanews, BBC News, Deutsche Welle

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.

Nominator's comments: Africa's longest serving leader remains in power. Results came out yesterday. Reaction from the African Union should come out soon. As a side note, you may recognise the background in the image from more recent African leader pics - all taken during the 2014 United States–Africa Leaders Summit). Fuebaey (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose This is not going to appear on the front pages of any newspapers with a remotely global circulation, anywhere. I would be surprised even it even made it to the front page in Nigeria. It only makes it to the top of ITN on Wikipedia due to some arbitrary notion that state sovereignty itself confers notability to all of its political elections. Colipon+(Talk) 13:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Numerous attempts at somehow limiting which countries' elections are posted have been made and failed many times, largely because any limit would be arbitrary and systemic bias would be worse. Learning about other countries' elections is a good thing for Wikipedia's readers. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Notability is pre-established by ITN/R. Article quality is good enough to post, but could use more sourcing for the results if someone has the time. Mamyles (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time until the article looks a bit better; for instance, it could use additional sources, a reaction from the A.U., and why is the opposing candidate neither pictured nor has an article?--WaltCip (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm guessing there is no picture of the opposition candidate because they only got about 4500 votes as that candidate's party had no seats in parliament. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Even your source states that this election is "official", which meets my definition of genuine. Governments in this area are all at least somewhat corrupt. Are we never to post any elections in Africa, then? Mamyles (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: It is not our job to determine what is a "genuine" election. The article can(and should) contain all information about how the election is viewed. 331dot (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It's our policy that: "Wikipedia is not a ... vehicle for propaganda". We should not present such staged PR events as if they were equivalent to what happens in proper Western democracies. It would be like presenting cosmetic advertising as science just because they have a guy in a white coat with some techo-babble about liposomes. Andrew D. (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • We're not, the article makes that clear. Now, if you believe what you say, that "ITN is dead", please stop these pointy opposes, please work on either improving the system by suggesting on the talk page improvements to, for example, ITNR, or please do something else. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • What we're discussing here is whether to have a blurb in ITN on the main page or not. The state of the linked articles is a secondary consideration because many readers won't look past the blurb. In any case, the bold linked article does not make the dubious nature of the election clear. The lead simply presents the result as a fact and doesn't even mention that the election was boycotted by the opposition parties. Again, many readers who get that far won't look past the lead. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • No-one is arguing whether your vote stands or not. You yourself have declared that ITN is dead (and you prefer the more tabloid WP:TOP25 as an indicator of what our readers need from an encyclopedia) yet you do nothing practical in any sense whatsoever to fix the root causes besides making pointed votes. We all acknowledge your position, WP:DEADHORSE applies. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • What TRM seems to be referring to is this comment. My observation was that it's the WMF that's moving away from ITN. Today, their app is highlighting the following 5 articles as the top read:
  1. Hertha Marks Ayrton
  2. Muzdalifah
  3. Prince (musician)
  4. Captain America: Civil War
  5. Hillsborough disaster
But we digress... Andrew D. (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to propose a blurb mentioning a boycott; we have done that before I believe. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: the point of ITN is not to highlight the most read articles, but to highlight articles about subjects that are currently in the news. While there may be some overlap they are different things, with different purposes and different methodologies. If you want to replace ITN's slot on the main page with a list of the most read articles, feel free to propose that. Until such time as that proposal gets consensus though, then ITN functions as a place to highlight articles that are in the news, regardless of how many people read those articles. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The WMF has already taken that decision for their new iPhone app. Presumably that's because they understand that readership numbers actually matter. There are many media outlets going out of business because they are failing to keep up with such trends – libraries, newspapers, Friends United, &c. ITN should be highlighting topics with a readership of 100,000+ If ITN is full of trivia instead then readers won't bother with it. For example, Hertha Marks Ayrton was top topic above because it was featured as a Google Doodle. It got a readership of about 1.1 million as a result. ITN only drives about 10K readers to a topic – about 1% of the Google effect. The WMF understand that they need to keep up or they (and us) will become increasingly irrelevant. Andrew D. (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to help Wikipedia, and to make up statistics as you go along without any basis in fact. In the meantime, please see WP:DEADHORSE. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Article is in good shape and the event is in the news. That's all that matters for something on ITN/R. If you don't believe that something should be on ITNR then propose it be removed in the proper place: WT:ITN/R. Thryduulf (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support -presidential election. notable.BabbaQ (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support ITNR and quality is of sufficient standard now. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 12:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

April 28Edit


[Closed] RD: Conrad BurnsEdit

Consensus against. BencherliteTalk 13:35, 29 April 2016 (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: Conrad Burns (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): LA 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: Served in the US Senate for 18 years, described by LA Times as "one of the most influential people in Washington". Article quality is decent. EternalNomad (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Senator Burns was an influential and longest serving GOP senator in Montana. Had huge influence in Washington. Article in good shape. News just broke so waiting on the NYT to publish their obit to update the death section of the article, but overall I give my support. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose this amounts to a huge lowering of the bar. We very rarely post the deaths of governors and congressman unless they had some great impact. Most of the recent US House Speakers who've been nominated have not been posted. If we have a link that shows how and why burns was so influential it could be considered. μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, huge influence on Washington? I suspect that anybody who reads the article on this filthy racist shitsack would beg to differ. Is this some sort of POINTY nomination? Abductive (reasoning) 05:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose no evidence of significance at a national or international level; state influence is not sufficient for a RD listing. MurielMary (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree that being notable to politics in Montana isn't a broad enough field. Many Senators have served far longer than 18 years. Occasionally US Senators get through, such as Daniel Inouye but in that case he had several awards and a distinguished military career. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2016 (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: Renato CoronaEdit

Article: Renato Corona (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Gmanetwork.com

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: Top Filipino law official. Was the Chief Justice of the highest court of the land and in 2011 was impeached and left office in 2012 after being found guilty. Death was sudden and article in good enough shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak support. Article quality seems fine, and notability is there but I'm unsure how much news coverage this is actually getting as I've only found one source in addition to the nom's [7]. That article is only about an hour old though so maybe I'm just too quick? Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support'. An impeached and removed Chief Justice would be very important to their field. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not making the news outside the Philippines. Andrew D. (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: It doesn't have to. As stated above, "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." 331dot (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • What I'm doing is evaluating the level of news coverage, which is poor. The cited news source of gmanetwork.com doesn't seem to be a serious news organisation. Where is the BBC coverage of the death, for example? They covered the impeachment so they are aware that the guy exists, but since he was found to be corrupt and disgraced, his death doesn't make the cut. Andrew D. (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Who cares how much the guy's death is covered? If this guy was a prominent national court justice, and the article is in good shape, let's go for it then. George Ho (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
"How much the death is covered" is actually a valid measure of notability. Previous discussions here have opposed the posting of deaths of people whose passing was not mentioned in mainstream media, despite their being prominent figures and having an article in good shape. If media coverage of a death is no longer a criteria, this will introduce some very interesting nominations. MurielMary (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment could we fix the bare URLs please. Even DYK manage to do that before most of the articles hit the main page. After that it's good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Bare URLs gone... Not gone but reformatted. Also, I moved sources and then added others. George Ho (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] S/2015 (136472) 1Edit

NOT POSTED TO ITN
No chance of this being posted at this point, so I'm closing this. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:05, 2 May 2016 (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: S/2015 (136472) 1 (talk, history) and Makemake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Astronomers discover a moon orbiting the dwarf planet Makemake.
Alternative blurb: ​S/2015 (136472) 1, a moon orbiting the dwarf planet Makemake, is discovered.
News source(s): New York Times

Article updated
 Found5dollar (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, moons abound in the outer solar system, and this one is barely characterized. "Semi-major axis: 21,000 km to 300,000 km, Orbital period: 12.4 days to 660 days", rest of infobox parameters: blank. Article will never be expanded. Abductive (reasoning) 23:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Article is too light on information for the main page, it's also proposed to be merged. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment might consider featuring Makemake instead, viz alt blurb. Banedon (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • SUpport in principle. This was the only dwarf planet in the outside Solar System without a known satellite and should allow precise determination of its mass. Nergaal (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support posting this item, but I think the article on the moon should be merged into Makemake - a featured article - and that used as the highlighted article. - OldManNeptune 05:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This time a relatively routine discovery without any interesting features, it seems (unlike the previously posted astronomical stuff). Brandmeistertalk 10:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose That's no moon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.250 (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Discovering a new moon seems a bigger deal than a helicopter crash, say. And the NYT coverage demonstrates that it is in the news. Andrew D. (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    Where is this being reported in the Philippines? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    Well, I failed to find a Filipino source, but I found a half dozen or so SEA newspapers reporting it in English, if that's all you want. But why are you even bringing this up? Surely you're not questioning international coverage of astronomy? I get that you oppose this but you're being bizarrely dismissive of an entirely neutral topic. - OldManNeptune 22:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    Firstly, the comment was not directed to you at all, so why you feel the need to jump in here is bizarre. Secondly, if you cared to read around ITN, you would know that this particular user objects to ITN items that aren't receiving global coverage (which is contrary to the purpose of ITN, although that doesn't seem to count with all the flogging and pointy comments), so I was simply asking where the coverage of this massively significant event was covered in the Philippines. It was a straightforward enough question, but you seem to jump on it like a tramp on chips, I don't know why, perhaps you're tired or having a bad day or something. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose this will make no difference to anyone ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
You have absolutely no understanding of the scientific process if you can say that with a straight face. However, you can say with absolute certainity that in 10 years from now nobody will remember what happened with the elections in the Equatorial Guineea. Keep fighting this honorable fight! Nergaal (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm really interested in your opinion, I am. Honestly. I'm also fascinated that you attack me, but not the others who oppose your personal opinion. If I were you, I'd spend more time working on improving articles and not wasting the community's time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2016 (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] Ongoing: 2015–16 protests in BrazilEdit

This isn't going anywhere productive. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2016 (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: 2015–16 protests in Brazil (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Ongoing nomination; blurb not applicable

Article updated
Nominator's comments: There is no single "post now" event, but the entire sequence of events has been big local news with some international coverage as well. Further developments are almost assured too. Banedon (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose My understanding is that ongoing is for articles receiving current updates. This article isn't being edited all that heavily right now. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. The article is not being frequently updated with the daily developments. If you wish to make yourself the caretaker of the article, and make all of the recent updates, and keep it going for a few days, renominate it, and I'd support it. --Jayron32 18:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
A few things - one, I don't own the article (or this nomination for that matter, so e.g. if someone says "this should point to Petrobras scandal or Impeachment process against Dilma Rousseff", I won't object to the different page. Two, I don't see ITN as a platform to advertise my work. Everything featured should be featured because of merit, not because I or anyone in particular authored it. Three, individual day-to-day updates such as "Judge questions Brazil impeachment process" (just searched via Google) may not be encyclopedic enough to enter into the article. To some people, such 'updates' may not even be interesting. Banedon (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
ITN is not a platform to highlight your work. Wikipedia's main page, however, is a platform to highlight quality Wikipedia work, and each bit of it has requirements to meet. In the case of the "ongoing" part of ITN it is to highlight quality work about an ongoing story, where the work is ongoing as well. The articles you are asking to be put on ongoing do not themselves have any ongoing information being added to merit inclusion in this section. The first, last, and only criteria you should look for in a nomination is the quality of the work. All else is of secondary importance, at least insofar as substandard articles should not ever be posted to the main page. --Jayron32 00:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Then you should not say "if you wish to make yourself the caretaker of the article ..." - your reason for opposing has nothing to do with something I (key word being "I") should or should not do to the article. Banedon (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
You should really look into how conditional statements work in English. I never compelled you to do anything. Also, someone else could do the same. It doesn't have to be you. The article, however, does need to be up to standard, and this one is not. You have the ability, but not the requirement, to fix that. --Jayron32 11:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
If you did not wish to finger me, you could have invoked the passive voice with "if all the recent updates are made and kept going for a few days ..." instead of "if you wish to make yourself the caretaker of the article, and make all of the recent updates, and keep it going for a few days ..." (my emphasis). By using the active voice you empahasize the agent not the patient, and make it seem like it is my responsibility to update the article. If that is not your intention, conscious or not - your English needs work. Banedon (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
My English teachers always taught me to avoid the passive voice. Jayron said "if you wish", not "you'd better". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
My English teachers taught me that there is a time and place for passive voice. When the priority is to update the article, not who is updating it, the passive voice is preferable. And even if active voice is really essential, terms such as "anyone" or "someone" could have been used instead of "you". Don't tell me that if Jayron32 had said "if Muboshgu wishes to make himself the caretaker of the article, and make all of the recent updates, and keep it going for a few days ..." you won't think he's fingered you as responsible for it. After all, everything he's said applies to you, too. Banedon (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I will note that I, nor anyone else, am not stopping you from making the requisite changes. This is a volunteer project, and I am not more important than you in that regard. You have the full freedom to choose to improve articles or not. However, substandard articles still cannot be posted to the main page, even if you don't feel like fixing it yourself. --Jayron32 03:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Then oppose posting it to the main page, and don't word your oppose to make it seem like I am responsible for updating the article. Is it that hard? Banedon (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, no point in these nominations if nothing is being added to the article to demonstrate to our readers that this is something ongoing that they need to know about. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2016 (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] Ongoing: 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandalEdit

No consensus. Stephen 12:13, 30 April 2016 (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: 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Ongoing nomination; blurb not applicable

Article updated
Nominator's comments: There is no single "post now" event, but the entire sequence of events is big local news with some international coverage as well. Further developments are almost assured too. Banedon (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose My understanding is that ongoing is for articles receiving current updates. This article isn't being edited all that heavily right now. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, no point in these nominations if nothing is being added to the article to demonstrate to our readers that this is something ongoing that they need to know about. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2016 (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] Indian GPSEdit

NOT POSTED TO ITN
No consensus to post to ITN. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:14, 2 May 2016 (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: Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (talk, history) and IRNSS-1G (talk, history)
Blurb: ISRO successfully launches the seventh and last satellite IRNSS-1G of the Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System.
News source(s): The Hindu

Both articles updated
 §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Updater's Comments - This launch marks a historic point in the Space Research of India where India will formally join a select group of nations owning their own Navigational Satellite system . Yohannvt (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  • It's the sixth satellite navigation system, so not that inherently remarkable, and only cover the Indian subcontinent. It isn't confirmed as operational until June, so might be worth waiting until then. Stephen 12:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Isnt it 5th? (out of 200+ countires; if we are to do math). Also it would be stale by June. It wont be available to all in one go. It would start in phases, maybe military first then government works and then for civilians. It won't be in news much at that time. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
5th by most sensible measures. GPS (USA) and GLONASS (Soviet, now operated by Russia) are global, BDS (China) and Galileo (primarily EU) are partially operational and will be global, but are not finished. Japan has QZSS, which only has one satellite launched so far. France has a system called DORIS, which for some reason we include in Template:Satellite navigation systems, which isn't meant for sat-nav (it works the wrong way round) but has been used for the purposes. But given that GLONASS and Galileo are (or were) projects of international unions, it makes India only the ~50th country to be involved in a successful sat-nav system. Smurrayinchester 10:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think so- it's not a manned orbital spaceflight, a launch failure, the first/last launch of a rocket type, India's first orbital launch, the launch of a space station, or the arrival of a probe at its destination. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Hmm OK ... I originally interpreted this as ITNR since it is after all the launch of the last satellite for this system. Banedon (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't see this as a major achievement, as India routinely launches satellites. The article quality is also mediocre. Colipon+(Talk) 14:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Colipon This launch is not just a routine satellite launch. With this launch, India has successfully put up its complete constellation of Navigational Satellite which till date only a few countries have successfully done.Yohannvt (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
IRNSS is getting more page hits multiple times than the President who routinely gets elected that we posted earlier. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Per user below, I agree that had this been a launch by the EU or Russia, it would certainly not be posted on ITN. Probably would never be nominated. We should use consistent criteriaColipon+(Talk) 12:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Only a few countries have built their own navigation system, so it's definitely notable. FlickrWarrior (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait until the system is actually functional. Nergaal (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Per Sherenk1. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and Yohannvt. Banedon (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as not notable. The supposedly "few countries" that have a GPS system alluded to in this nom is misleading; The Chinese system has nearly 4 times the number of satellites in orbit and already has a higher precision, despite only being "in development" according to the linked article. The EU system is in a similar position. This means that this nom is focused on the 4th or 5th functional GPS system, with the least amount of infrastructure and unknown performance. This feels a lot like when the India mission to Mars was posted, despite being the 11th(!) such success by a multitude of other countries. There's a certain feeling that we should post things Because It's India, instead of using the normal criteria.128.214.69.166 (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support Notable, but the fact that it's only a regional system does make this a bit less interesting. Smurrayinchester 10:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Only regional. 65.95.137.223 (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Strong Indophobia? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose So are we going to post the 6th, 7th, 8th such satellite networks completed as well? This appears to be the smallest, least complete system of its kind and is limited to a single region as opposed to global networks already in place. - OldManNeptune 12:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
If the 6th , 7th & 8th such satellite networks when completed are put up by Developing countries without any help from an outside country, then maybe it might be worth mentioningYohannvt (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose agree with the oppose votes here. This is not ITN-worthy. 117.221.125.129 (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I somewhat understand the Indian editors here pushing for this to be included, to me, it just does not make the cut to being notable enough... And accusing editors of xenophobia just because they oppose an item is really not helpful. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
@Zwerg Nase: I did not accuse other editors or even the one IP before of xenophobia because they elaborated their rationale very well. This IP's rationale was not as per our Please do not... section calling it "only regional". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: The IRNSS-1G article lists a lot of technical specifications but not much text (if any) about how this is notable/important in a broader sense, which would be helpful. SpencerT♦C 06:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
@Spencer: Added some generic importance of the system. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:48, 2 May 2016 (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: Liu LianmanEdit

No consensus. Stephen 12:11, 30 April 2016 (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: Liu Lianman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Sina

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: He climbed four mountains, including the tallest Mount Everest. Very significant mountain climber apparently. George Ho (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose no evidence of significance in the field of mountain climbing - was he a guide or a teacher or a leader or mentor of any kind? Also article is very brief, lacks detail and needs to be proofread for non-native English expressions such as "first ascent of Chinese" - does that mean "first ascent by a Chinese climber"? MurielMary (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The first ascent of the 8ks was in mid-50s. He was part of the first team that scaled the north face of Everest, but didn't make it to the top. His other achievements in the field, the first to climb a 7.5k and one of the first Chinese to climb a 5.5k and 7.5k doesn't strike me as entirely significant in the field of mountain climbing. Fuebaey (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose not notable. Colipon+(Talk) 12:59, 29 April 2016 (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] Dennis Hastert sentenced to 15 months in prisonEdit

Consensus will not develop to post this. Stephen 12:04, 28 April 2016 (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: Dennis Hastert (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Dennis Hastert is sentenced to 15 months in prison for illegally structuring financial transactions to cover up his previous sexual abuse of children on a wrestling team he once coached.
News source(s): Washington Post New York Times BBC News
Nominator's comments: Hastert used to be the 3rd most important person in U.S. politics, and this was a serious crime (not to mention the fact that it has been getting a lot of news coverage over a long period of time). Everymorning (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As you say he used to be the third most important person in US politics, key words being "third most". Plenty of more locally-important people have been embroiled in scandals before, e.g. Dilma Rousseff in Brazil who is currently in danger of getting impeached, Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson of Iceland who resigned over the Panama papers, and Najib Razak in Malaysia who's come under severe pressure as a result of the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal. All these cases dominate local news sometimes for years, they've garnered more international coverage than Dennis Hastert's case, and they have more impact on their respective countries as well. I don't see this as worth posting. Banedon (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    • We posted Gunnlaugsson, agreed to wait to post Rousseff for when impeachment happens, and Razak, I assume will be nominated and posted if there's sufficient development. I was leaning oppose but I had to shoot down your false comparisons, since they have no relation to Hastert's situation beyond being in the news. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I think it comes to a judgement call. However Rousseff's case has literally captured the attention of the Brazilian media for months. It has placed many prominent Brazilian politicians under investigation, brought millions of protesters into the streets demanding the President's resignation, and caused the President's approval ratings to tumble into historically low points. Najib has done things like replace his auditor-general, shut down The Malaysian Insider (a newspaper), and replace his deputy prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin. The scandal continues to dominate Malaysian media, not to mention the media of neighbouring countries like Singapore. Compared to these upheavals in Brazil and Malaysia (leaving out Iceland for now) I think Hastert's case only has the advantage of there being a sudden, dramatic and natural "posting point" - on overall merit it is not worth posting. Banedon (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Lean oppose I would support this for sure if Hastert were in office, but he's not. That reduces the significance considerably. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. His crime had nothing to do with his time as Speaker. If he hadn't been Speaker, this would not have made national news- and he hasn't been for a few years, as Muboshgu points out. Bandeon has a good point. 331dot (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on 333dot and others' points. This wasn't the result of a crime committed while in office. It will have no affect on American politics. --MASEM (t) 03:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong support One of the highest-ranking politicians in American history to be sentenced to prison. 65.95.137.223 (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose trivial with no impact on anything significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - appears to be a formerly important person in one country who has been convicted of a personal crime (unrelated to his politics or work). No significant impact on the world. MurielMary (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2016 (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: Harry WuEdit

Article: Harry Wu (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, ABC News

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: Chinese human rights advocate, founded the Laogai Research Foundation – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Significant contribution to their country's history and culture - exposed a lot of the laogai. Challenger l (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Appears to be an influential human rights activist in China and death is covered worldwide furthermore the article is in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support If everyone says he is a prominent activist, let's give him an honorable mention right away. He didn't open a dedicated foundation for nothing. George Ho (talk) 09:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose on article quality - there are some unreferenced sections still, such as the whole first paragraph of the section "Focus on Laogai" MurielMary (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I just added a source to that particular paragraph. I don't see any remaining wholly unsourced paragraphs. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The article seems to be just fine. One of the most important 20th century figures in Chinese human rights advocacy, probably accomplished much more than Liu Xiaobo. Colipon+(Talk) 14:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] National Museum of Natural History, New DelhiEdit

 Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support on the merits, seems to be a notable cultural loss. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support this does seem to be a an important loss of cultural artifacts. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, though the article is disappointingly bare bones. Seems to be a significant loss and a potential scandal, given the earlier reports of poor maintenance. Modest Genius talk 13:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Huge, significant news worldwide, especially for citizens and tourists. --George Ho (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per User:331dot & User:Masem's rationale. --Fixuture (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Definitely a major loss both to India's history and a loss to the world's history here. Challenger l (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Amanullah KhanEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2016 (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: Amanullah Khan (JKLF) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Times of India

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: Founded the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, a major Kashmir independence organization. EternalNomad (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Significance isn't clear to me, article quality is poor. To wit: "According to him he is not an enemy of the people or the state of India or Pakistan (except Kashmir) but only of the governmental machinery which has kept his motherland under subjugation and of those politicians who deny to Kashmiris their inherent and pledged right of self-determination." – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose mainly on article quality, prose is poor, had no sources at all until today (even now the only two sources are obituaries). Notability-wise he was important at one point in history, but unsure if he rises to RD status. Laura Jamieson (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on both article quality and significance. MurielMary (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2016 (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] Hillsborough disasterEdit

Article: Hillsborough disaster (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Following a second inquest, the jury reaches a verdict of unlawful killing in respect of the 96 victims of the Hillsborough disaster (memorial pictured) in 1989
News source(s): (BBC) (CNN) (ABC) (CBC)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A landmark in this long-running case. There'll probably be more controversy whatever the verdict. Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - By all means this should be posted. This is a legal case of earth-shattering proportions within the U.K. and goes beyond the scope of a mere sports disaster. The article is quite an interesting read.--WaltCip (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as Walt puts it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Suppport - a comprehensive and well-written article and a subject which is going to make the headlines tomorrow. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support pending update, wait until its made public. Brandmeistertalk 20:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support pending update and improvements I found several unsourced quotes in the Controversies section, specifically under "The Sun" part. These must be fixed before posting, but the rest of the article looks fine. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Issues with the sourcing appeared to have been fixed, so once update is confirmed, should be good. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
      • I confirmed the update some time ago when I marked it as ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Tentative oppose - I don't see how this is "a legal case of earth-shattering proportions within the U.K.". Neither the linked source nor the article explains the case's legal significance; it only appears to be the latest (final?) twist in a well-known event. Further the disaster itself is something that happened more than 25 years, i.e. a very long time, ago. Undoubtedly some of the involved people will have died in this intervening period, and much forgotten into the mists of time. A brief search for "Hillsborough disaster" on Google actually turns up items dated two weeks ago, commemorating the anniversary of the event, as opposed to this case itself. I'm also barely seeing coverage in non-UK outlets as well. Willing to change my opinion if someone can explain why this will have lasting significance, but otherwise I don't see this as worth posting. Banedon (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Banedon: for a start, it's the longest inquest in British legal history (BBC TV this morning). If there was an article on the inquest, then I would have nominated that article, failing that, the article on the disaster is the appropriate one to nominate. Mjroots (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Honestly I don't find that a very impressive thing; something is always going to be the longest inquest in British legal history after all (and every other country in the world has a corresponding "longest inquest"). It's like, if I started selling burgers at the top of the Burj Khalifa, I could legitimately advertise my burgers as the "highest burgers in the world" ... except who cares? It's not something to really be proud of. If being the longest inquest is the only distinguishing factor about this case, I think it's not ITN-worthy, and at best DYK. Banedon (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) @Banedon: I would not expect to see international coverage of this before the verdict is released (which is still an hour away), but anyway international coverage is not relevant to ITN. The Hillsborough Disaster is a major cultural issue in the UK and certainly those who were involved in any way (directly or indirectly, even as fans) have never forgotten it - in the UK support for a football team is passed down through families* along with the associated traditions of the club making for very strong institutional memories. Over 25 years after the event, sales of The Sun in Liverpool are still significantly below other parts of the country. (*I can't immediately find it, but there is a map somewhere of supporters of London football clubs that shows a pocket of support for Arsenal in the Woolwich area of south east London, despite the team moving to north London over 100 years ago in 1913). Even to someone like me, who is not a football supporter and was only 8 at the time it happened, the Hillsborough Disaster is a big thing, and news about it on this scale will be massively featured by the media. Support. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Coverage from CNN, ABC (Australia) and CBC (Canada) added. There is also a large amount of non-English European coverage. Laura Jamieson (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support when updated with the verdict today especially given the unlawful killing verdict. I was going to write more in support of this but Thryduulf did it it for me above. Laura Jamieson (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Unlawful killing verdict, blurb updated. BencherliteTalk 10:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, reasons have been provided above Sherenk1 (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support actual interesting news of large importance to a notable English-speaking part of the world, and an unusual subject for ITN. Nergaal (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted Tweaked the blurb to link to Hillsborough disaster#Second hearing which contains the updated information. This is a huge article and readers could easily miss it if not linked to directly. --Jayron32 15:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I would have supported this because I myself find the subject matter interesting, but I am not sure I buy the arguments in favour here. It unfortunately gives the perception, prima facie, that Wikipedia to some degree still suffers from systemic bias, as an event of similar scale in other countries (let's say, a second investigation into the sinking of the Cheonan) might never get any coverage. Colipon+(Talk) 00:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    There is nothing here that suggests that other investigations wouldn't be posted. Nothing at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    That was not my argument. My argument was about the perception it gives to readers, and also that other stories in non-English speaking countries would (likely) never even be written about, let alone posted on ITN. In any case, it's very obvious that this case seems like a "huge deal" in the UK but really nowhere else; again this is not a reason to not post it, it's just an interesting observation. For instance this did not make it onto the headlines of the New York Times (one would have to try to locate the story or "search" for it), something of a reliable "test" for notability. Whereas Obergefell v Hodges was certainly the top story on The Guardian the day the ruling came down. Colipon+(Talk) 12:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    Well I guess you're aware that we have numerous foreign-language Wikipedias who are almost certainly better placed to cover specific cases should that problem arise. The story is global, just because the NYT didn't carry it, that's hardly a suggestion that it's a big deal "really nowhere else". Anyway, we have the ITN rules to cover that mis-complaint. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose post-posting. Probably futile, but here goes anyway: The bulk of the impact and encyclopedic content of the this nomination relies on events from over 27 years ago. The events that have transpired recently, that gave rise to this nomination, are less so. It's not clear what an "unlawful death" ruling means in this case (something for insurance?). If new charges were brought in this case, that would be more impactful than what this nomination is about, which amounts to "we kind of reserve the right to maybe charge someone." The bringing of a second inquiry seems, based on my reading of the article, to have been arbitrary and on the whim of Attorney General. As such, what closes the possibility of having a third inquiry, and the potential nullification of this one? There's a tradition of only posting top-level judicial actions here at ITN, and it's not clear that this event is either the top level or even the last action in this case. I appreciate that the event is a cultural issue, but the nomination is not for the disaster itself, but for (what appears to me) a minor ripple in its wake.128.214.163.204 (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    No, hardly a minor ripple. It's been headline news in the UK for a couple of days now. The ruling now means that criminal action can be sought against those who were respsonsible for the unlawful killings. For 27 years, the families of 96 people have been told that it was down to the bad behaviour of drunken fans that the disaster took place. Yesterday that was completely and utterly rejected in law. This is arguably one of the most newsworthy UK legal decisions for decades, far more so than the issuing of Lucan's death certificate which we posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. I too have got fed up of seeing this in the (UK) news almost continuously for the last ~5 years, but it's undoubtedly of major public interest. The event itself was important, albeit a long time ago, and the subsequent cover-up hugely undermined public trust in the police, which continues to be of relevance today. This verdict is a milestone in the affair and will surely lead to prosecutions. It's the best time to post the story we're going to get, so posting was a good move. Now I hope the media will let me stop hearing about it... Modest Genius talk 12:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

April 25Edit


April 24Edit


[Posted to RD] Tommy KonoEdit

Article: Tommy Kono (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Hawaii News Now

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 was one of the greatest weightlifters ever; he won 2 gold medals, was world champion for 6 years, and set 26 world records. EternalNomad (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Importance to weightlifting is significant enough. The article is missing some references. I've added one, but all of the "Early Life" and some of the "Career" sections are still unreferenced. Mamyles (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Importance is high. BabbaQ (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support although not prevelant in the news outlets I read, this individual is clearly notable with the number of medals and records. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose plenty of people win two gold metals at the olympics. There is no evidence he had any influence in the field. Had the article said he had developed new techniques I could support this. μηδείς (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    • But there are few who set multiple world records, which is one of the highest achievements. And according to the article, he's "the only Olympic weightlifter in history to have set world records in four different weight classes" (although the associated reference link is dead). Brandmeistertalk 21:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Are his records unbroken? I suggest you read Stephen J. Gould's essay on why there are no more .400 hitters in baseball. Or watch him here on the subject. Pioneers in a field tend to set all sorts of "records" that result from the statistical fact that they are first, not best. If any of his records stand, I'll change my vote. μηδείς (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't seem very fair to me. Records improve all the time, so this would imply that Usain Bolt is the only 100m sprinter worth featuring after death. 100m sprints don't have many new techniques also. Banedon (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly very important to weightlifting for being "the only Olympic weightlifter in history to have set world records in four different weight classes". 331dot (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD Stephen 06:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Billy PaulEdit

No consensus. Stephen 23:05, 26 April 2016 (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: Billy Paul (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC News

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.
 §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • (Weak) Oppose - He won lifetime achievements last year, but they may not hold up well. The achievements are of AllMusic; I'm uncertain whether it is prestigious enough. As for Grammys, he won just one Grammy for the well-known "Me and Mrs. Jones". There is "Am I Black Enough for You?", but it is another the only song that makes him more than just a one-hit wonder. Too bad he is known for just two songs. George Ho (talk) 07:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I agree with George Ho that while this individual had some success, his contributions to the genre do not seem to meet the RD criteria of "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." The article pretty much needs a rewrite, as well. Mamyles (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - A lesser-known but significant R&B musician who had a #1 hit on the Hot 100 and won a Grammy for it. Kurtis (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Seems to be above average in, but not "very important" to, his field. 331dot (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doesn't seem to be significant in his field - one Grammy. MurielMary (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not sufficiently important in his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just barely more than a one hit wonder; he doesn't have the significant career to be included, re: Doris Roberts. Rhodesisland (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2016 (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: Inge KingEdit

Article: Inge King (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald

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: Well Accomplished Australian Sculptor. Created well praised sculptors. Was a member of the Order of Australia. Article in good condition. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Article is in good looking shape, importance to Australian art seems significant. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Meets RD criteria. Article quality is good. Mamyles (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose highly derivative, and of no influence in her field, just a reflection. An article being in good shape is a requirement, not a reason for posting. μηδείς (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose per Medeis; weak due to good quality article that does a good job explaining the subject's role. SpencerT♦C 05:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I thnk if someone is called " a pioneer of contemporary sculpture" they can justifiably be included in ITN's RD section. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Meets RD criteria of significant in her field, and article is thorough and well referenced. MurielMary (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I saw this marked as ready but on checking the article that at least one section was in the wrong tense (even referring to 2014 in the present tense). I've fixed that section, but I've run out of time to do more checking. I've removed the "ready" marker until someone else has confirmed the whole article has actually been updated to reflect her death. Thryduulf (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Article looks like it's in good shape, marking "ready". SpencerT♦C 19:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 20:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] 2016 London MarathonEdit

Article: 2016 London Marathon (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Kenyans Eliud Kipchoge (pictured) and Jemima Sumgong win the men's and women's London Marathon
News source(s): The Guardian, 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.

Nominator's comments: The men's race was won in a course record (and just shy of the world record), the women's race was eventful with the winner falling at about 23 miles and hitting her head - these could be reflected in the blurb if anyone can do so succinctly. I've chosen to picture the men's winner solely because that's a much better than the one we have of Sumgong (and I didn't manage to take a better one today). Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support on improvements We need more prose in the article (info on the course and some documentation of the results/recap as described above). --MASEM (t) 21:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Improvements now made. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Now prose has been improved. Whizz40 (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support But you buried the lead... They ran the race in outer space! But seriously, the article is in sufficient shape now. --Jayron32 13:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Papa WembaEdit

Article: Papa Wemba (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, CNN, France24

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.

 If Prince is given a blurb, Papa Wemba at least should be included in RD. 84.161.244.15 (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support after improvements - Notability is there, but this article is poorly referenced and entire sections are not even sourced; also too many "red links." Of course, these things would need to be fixed before I will give my unqualified support: obviously a world music star and fashion icon ("sapeur” youth culture & their adherence to La Sape). Christian Roess (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on improvements - Serious lack of sourcing through the article, absolutely needs to be fixed before posted RD. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. Could reconsider if it's improved, but it needs a lot of work. Also, I don't see what Prince has to do with this, or why he was brought up by the nominator at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I could support this but, like others have stated before, the article will need a full overhaul before it can appear on ITN. The prose is a bit too colloquial and unsourced for my liking. Fuebaey (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that this individual meets RD importance criteria, however the article needs improvement before it is postable. Mamyles (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - A Congolese cultural icon. Kurtis (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time on article quality - almost completely unreferenced. MurielMary (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • support after improvements. He was clearly top of his field, essentially defining a genre of music, but the article quality is far too poor to post currently. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment- I marked as Ready after checking the article over. Lots of editing done by different editors, including me. Sourcing and citations and encyclopedic tone, all much improved. But please check it over and unmark the "Ready" if you think it needs more work to be ITN/RD ready. Christian Roess (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Not ready. There are fully unsourced paragraphs. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Including some extremely controversial claims under the Yoka Lokole section. Stephen 01:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
        • ok, I'll check into these suggestions, make the necessary changes and check back in with you later tomorrow Christian Roess (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD, great job on the clean up. Stephen 05:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Glad to hear and thanks to each of you who helped with edits, appropriate CN tags, and suggestions for improvement. Christian Roess (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

April 23Edit


[Closed] Chinese censorship of Apple's iTunes, Ten YearsEdit

No consensus. Stephen 23:14, 25 April 2016 (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: Ten Years (2015 film) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In an effort to censor the movie release of Ten Years, Chinese authorities shut down Apple's iTunes Store.
News source(s): (South China Morning Post), (The Guardian), (Sydney Morning Herald), (Bloomberg)
 bender235 (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Whole iTunes shut down to prevent dystopian movie from circulating. Yet another example of Chinese authorities' paranoia. Nom. --bender235 (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't wish to yet formally oppose but Chinese censorship is nothing new. How is this more significant? 331dot (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Is it just the subject matter of the film? Again, it doesn't seem unusual for the Chinese government to censor materials that criticize it. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
They shut down the entire business operations in China of the largest company in the world, a service that started only a couple of months ago. The sheer proportion of measures taken to prevent this low-budget independent movie from being distributed is remarkable, almost comical. --bender235 (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I get that they are so to speak using an atom bomb to kill a fly but does it really shock anyone that they did? 331dot (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, it did make news around the world (see sources above), even though I have to agree it wasn't surprising. --bender235 (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The Chadian election wasn't surprising, and business as usual, but was posted. Apples and oranges, some might say. All bananas to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:06, April 24, 2016 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: Elections for head of state are ITNR. Censorship in China is not. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
^^ This. What is ITN/Recurring should be a protracted discussion, not conducted here. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@CaradhrasAiguo: I wasn't seeking a protracted discussion nor do I seek a change in anything; just stating a fact. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Has made the news around the world. Shutting down iTunes for an entire nation of over a billion people is major.
Depends on the nation. Censorship is China is unsurprising- and I doubt all 1 billion+ people in China were using iTunes. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose iTunes isn't the ultimate source to get this film. Since the film from 2015, I bet it's available somewhere online at least. When Russian authorities blocked some websites which allegedly infringed copyright, multiple bypasses were made, including URL changes. Brandmeistertalk 16:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As noted by others, censorship of Western media in China is nothing new. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Business as usual when it comes to Chinese censorship. Also the blurb is not entirely true - none of the sources explicitly link the film to the shutdown and it doesn't say iTunes is completely down, only that book and film services are unavailable. Fuebaey (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Read SCMP source above. --bender235 (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I think you and I have different definitions of the term "explicit". I read it and the SMH article, both of which mention the film. What it doesn't do is synthesise:
Chinese authorities block access to Apple's iBooks and iTunes movies, shortly before film is released onto platform.
into what is written in the blurb. We don't ascribe speculation as motive without a reliable source stating so. Neither news source states: authorities censor Apple due to film. Fuebaey (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Fuebaey - the blurb linking the shutdown to the film seems speculative. Many news reports such as NYT and The Guardian do not mention the film at all. -Zanhe (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2016 (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: Banharn Silpa-archaEdit

Article: Banharn Silpa-archa (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Bangkok Post

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: Former PM, leader of Thai Nation PartyEternalNomad (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

  • support - top-field politician. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Reviewing his page he seems very important to Thai politics. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Former leaders of any country should be RD. There's a few unsourced statements but these all appear to be factual statements of his office positions, easily checked by blue links, so article seems ready. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - prominent and influential politician in Thailand, article seems thorough. MurielMary (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - former top politician of a major country. Article is in decent shape, except for a couple of unsourced paragraphs. -Zanhe (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've sourced all remaining unreferenced sections. Marked as ready. -Zanhe (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Article in good shape and former PM of Thailand. Notable subject. Full support. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doesn't seem to be getting much international coverage. He was only PM for a year as he seems to have been quite incompetent and something of a joke. "Queen Elizabeth Taylor"! Andrew D. (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

April 22Edit


[Posted] Discovery of Amazon reefEdit

Article: Amazon Reef (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Oceanographers discover an extensive reef system near the Amazon River, estimated to span an area of 3,600 square miles (9,300 km2).
News source(s): The Atlantic, The Guardian, Los Angeles Times, Phys.org, CNN

Nominator's comments: A significant find in the oceanographic and ecological community; one of the largest coral/sponge reef systems in the the world, larger than the Belize Barrier Reef, recently discovered near the mouth of the Amazon River, where it was unexpected that such a reef would even exist, let alone thrive. Philip Terry Graham 22:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - a major, unexpected, exciting discovery. Article is taking shape nicely. -Zanhe (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Covered in mainstream demonstrating the significance and surprising nature of the find, and the article is in decease shape for this. (And if there's opposition to this, keep in mind this is a great DYK too) --MASEM (t) 23:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Big time mainstream media coverage for this. I see that the ITN Nominator also initiated the Wikipedia article and, as Zanhe points out in his 'support' above, the article is coming along nicely.- Christian Roess (talk 02:01, 24 April 2016‎ (UTC)
  • Support as excellently argued by the nominator. Banedon (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 08:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Quantum tunneling of waterEdit

WITHDRAWN...:
...by nominator. --George Ho (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2016 (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: Quantum tunneling of water (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists discover the quantum tunneling of water molecules.
News source(s): Phys. Rev. Letters, Phys.org
Nominator's comments: According to one researcher, "This discovery represents a new fundamental understanding of the behavior of water and the way water utilizes energy". We haven't had science news for a while. Brandmeistertalk 16:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose It is good science news, but it's very difficult to tell what this result will lead to immediately (understanding that carbon nanotubes and water flow within them is a very potent area for tech improvements). It is not like, say, the Higgs-Bosen discovery where there was already a theory this would exist and the results were to confirm it. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    Just a comment on that - Higgs discovery has no practical applications either, and the theory governing quantum tunneling (i.e. quantum mechanics) is better grounded than the theory governing the Higgs Boson (which admittedly is very well grounded as well). In fact the Standard Model is built on Quantum Mechanics. With that said, I personally find this discovery to be rather dull as far as discoveries go, and the sources linked in both this nomination and the target article don't do anything to change my mind. Banedon (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Interesting but doesn't seem to be in the news. Andrew D. (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Withdrawing this, and we got some science news posted. Brandmeistertalk 13:13, 25 April 2016 (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] Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2016Edit

Consensus against posting. Feel free to renom in three weeks for ITN/R. Fuebaey (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2016 (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: Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2016 (talk, history)
Blurb: Romania is expelled from Eurovision Song Contest 2016 after its national broadcaster, Romanian Television failed to pay outstanding debts.
News source(s): BBC Telegraph Sky News
Nominator's comments: It is an unprecedented decision in the history of Eurovision. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is a big and important song contest, but it is after all just a single contestant in a song contest. Thue (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose A Romanian has never won, and a Romanian wasn't about to. I like how they planned on "Moment of Silence", though. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:57, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. How this contest chooses its competitors isn't ITN worthy; as I understand it while some countries participate all the time it is not unusual for a country to not do so one year. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a rare happening. And has had major implications. A suggestion could be to change the blurb to reflect that Romania was expelled from the EBU.BabbaQ (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The reporting, though, seems to be focused on the contest. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Look, I get that Euros love this reality TV contest, but it's still a reality TV contest. Let's just leave it with posting the winner, huh? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose A country fails to follow rules for participation, is expelled. Nothing significant here. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 23 April 2016 (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] Chadian presidential electionEdit

Article: Chadian presidential election, 2016 (talk, history)
Blurb: Idriss Déby (pictured) is elected to a fifth term as President of Chad.
News source(s): BBC News, NYT, Reuters

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.

Nominator's comments: 25-year incumbent remains in power. Results came out last Thursday. Fuebaey (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose The landslide seems to have been a foregone conclusion. Business continues as usual there. He's beaten the same guy three times now. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:10, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
  • I think despite the predictable outcome this should still be posted; this has gotten some degree of news coverage, perhaps due to the alleged irregularities and the fact he is viewed by the West as "a bulwark against Islamist militants in central Africa" according to the BBC. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • support - a presidential election is notable.BabbaQ (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support While this is almost at the point where this specific ITNR is small and unexpected, the questions around the election make it significant enough to post still. Article seems ready. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
What questions? If they're significant, they should be made clear in the article first. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:06, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
They are there - under the Conduct section. What's there explains why this wasn't simply a run-of-the-mill election with well-predicted results. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
If the implied significant question is "What didn't the government want the media to see?", that might be good to note in the blurb (and flesh out in the article). Otherwise, I'm not sure the average reader is going to recognize that as the point. Mainly appears to have been a fair contest with relatively low viewership ending in a clean sweep for an incumbent who will carry on as usual. Andrey Koreshkov also gets some degree of news coverage for that (or Jon Jones, at an AP level). It may seem odd to hold a president and champion to the same standard, but it's also a bit odd to paint this president with the same "inherently notable" brush we use for G20 leaders. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 08:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

April 21Edit


[Posted to RD]: Lonnie MackEdit

Article: Lonnie Mack (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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: RD has been busy for the past couple days, but the article seems to make a strong case for his importance as a guitarist and in Americana music. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - Quite the influential musician.--Catlemur (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support notability, quality isn't the greatest but it seems to be good enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Importance is there, and the article looks to be at a reasonable good quality level (with room for improvement) to post. --MASEM (t) 21:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The notability is there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Never heard of him, but guitarists I have heard apparently sounded better because of him. That works. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD Stephen 02:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This individual has not won any awards beyond a state level (and then only one) and does not seem to meet the criteria for "significant in his/her field". Does not appear to have had any chart-topping hits either. This was a very rapid posting, only 5 hours from nomination to post - could there be more discussion to allow for other viewpoints?? MurielMary (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. The key point is that sources report that in his style and technique he was highly influential on many important rock musicians - not that his own personal achievements, number of pop hits, etc., reflected that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Ferenc ParagiEdit

No consensus. Stephen 23:05, 25 April 2016 (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: Ferenc Paragi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): IAAF

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: One of the best javelin throwers in the world in the late 1970s and early 1980s; he held the world record for 3 years, and won the national championship 5 times, although his results in the Olympics were somewhat disappointing. EternalNomad (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Part of it is the article quality, but that leads to being unsure how important this athlete is just from what we cover about him. The lack of news of his death beyond the IAAF that I can presently find is a bit worrisome. --MASEM (t) 01:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
support pending improvements. Clearly top of his field...and no mean featLihaas (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, as I can't see that this actually is in the news which is a shame. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 16:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose due to lack of news coverage. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2016 (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] PrinceEdit

Article: Prince (musician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: American singer, songwriter, and producer Prince is found dead at the age of 57
News source(s): Telegraph, Billboard, TMZ, Daily Mail, Entertainment Weekly, BBC

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: Major singer, with multiple hits over the years Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Has it been confirmed it is him? The Telegraph article I am reading says there has been a death at his house and they fear it is Prince. Other US news sources are citing TMZ, a gossip site, but not saying it's definitely him yet. TheBlinkster (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    • No, not confirmed yet. Though TMZ did break the Michael Jackson death, and Prince had some illness issues last week. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Now confirmed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Premature They haven't confirmed who died yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak wait: A lot more reports are coming out, but we need to be absolutely sure before we declare him dead and blast it all over the front page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - shocking and huge news. Jusdafax 17:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait for more confirmation, but support otherwise. -- KTC (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I just added a blurb, so feel free to fix that as needed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb The highest support. Can it be in purple text? Miyagawa (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb once fully verified and updated. Prince is a history-making artist who was still extremely relevant (he released two top-ten albums in 2014), and his death was both premature and unexpected. -- Mike (Kicking222) 17:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb upon update; AP is reporting it is him. This is a case of the death itself being notable, aside from being the death of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support with blurb but can the blurb please be amended to add that he is also a producer? American singer, songwriter and producer? He was extremely respected within the music industry for his production skills. TheBlinkster (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
support RD social media is going mad too
as for his page, watch out that we don't link to a page that's got "Sorry, the servers are overloaded at the moment. / Too many users are trying to view this page. Please wait a while before you try to access this page again. / Pool queue is full"Lihaas (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - no question. Enormously influential. Blythwood (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Obvious support. - one of the all time icons. Sceptre (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support blurb - Though I have never appreciated his music he is a top-field musician.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Support blurb - in this instance I feel this goes beyond just RD; the article is good and detailed and the impact is significant given his relative early age and that he was still working in his field. Pedro :  Chat  17:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support One of the biggest stars of all time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted Article is minimally updated, but will no doubt be further updated as details are reported in the news. Thue (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • PULL, but Support blurb but article needs improvements - Importance is close to that of Bowie, and this was out of anowehere death. I can ignore some of the larger chunks of unsourced text in his musical career history (that's more a matter of checking against the blue links) to expedite posting, but there's things outside that that are subjective unsourced statements (one section tagged, and a handful of CNs). These absolutely need to be fixed before posting, but we should try to post this once these basic issues are fixed. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    • The counter argument to this is that posting it will bring people to the page, and they will help to fix some of the outstanding issues. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
      • FWIW, before this was posted, his page had to be locked down due to a flood of edits causing conflict. This is not a case of needing to post this to get people to help edit. Though I would support having the article in its current state at RD until the major CN and orange tags were fixed up. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - Suggest pulling out unsourced material, and reposting on the talk page for discussion. Also suggest a photo. Here's a decent one from Commons: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Prince_(musician)#/media/File%3APrince.jpg Jusdafax 17:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - obvious case for a blurb. The one section tagged does not contain any controversial material. No doubt it will soon be fixed. Mjroots (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep it up I just added a bunch of {{cn}} tags, but as Mjroots points out, none of the material is controversial. The article is in otherwise good shape, and hopefully interested editors will add needed citations as the day progresses. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support There will be plenty of people now willing to help source the cn tags. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • comment I'm fixing a few CNs now as time permits, but they don't seem bad enough to justify pulling the article in this particular case as the vast majority of the article is in good shape. TheBlinkster (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • support, use purple somehow. 107.2.90.199 (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong post-posting support For all the reasons we ran one for Bowie. Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose using purple somehow Bowie didn't get half-blue. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, April 21, 2016 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb This is a shocking news about the death of a very popular person in the music industry that certainly deserves full blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • We're under attack, we need to declare martial law. Count Iblis (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • So this is what it sounds like when doves cry. :( This one is a no-brainer - Prince more than deserves his own blurb. His impact on contemporary music (and to a slightly lesser extent, popular culture) have been almost unparalleled over the past three decades. Kurtis (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: ChynaEdit

Article: Chyna (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Post

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: Pioneer in wrestling. First female to participate in various matches, former champion at various levels. Well known in and out of the wrestling world. Thechased (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support One of the more notable wrestlers from the past couple of decades. Canuck89 (have words with me) 06:43, April 21, 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. A household name in her time and after it. She wasn't just top of her field, she basically caused a field which had been entirely dormant in North America to exist whole-heartedly again. And so help me if someone brings up the "but it's fake" argument—Meadowlark Lemon didn't play "real" basketball for a living, and Christopher Lee wasn't really Dracula either. GRAPPLE X 08:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, her obituary is currently the most-read news item on the BBC website, according to their own listings. GRAPPLE X 08:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Notability per above, article is in pretty good shape. - OldManNeptune 08:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Received mainstream popularity in the late 1990s. Still the only female wrestler I can name off the top of my head (being a non-wrestling fan). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with Chris. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support This is already ready, but I'll just point out she was the only woman with a serious run in professional wrestling, outside of a women's division. That's going back decades before The Fabulous Moolah was even born. And she's still the most atypical body in Playboy. Essentially Susan B. Anthony, but badass. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:07, April 21, 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no objection to this being posted (although her contributions to women's wrestling are usually over-emphasized). But this being posted so quickly really exposes the ITN process as being more about fame than influence. Dusty Rhodes, Nick Bockwinkel and Verne Gagne, three legitimate headline stars for decades, were all passed over and I basically had to harass admins to get Roddy Piper posted because it was heading for a good old "sorry too much time has passed". Chyna, who always was more of a tabloid curiosity than a wrestler, being put on RD ahead of those 3 (or 4) would be like posting Anna Nicole Smith but ignoring Alec Guinness. -- Scorpion0422 13:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
It's not because she's famous, it's because she's a woman. Piper was damn famous. That's my guess, anyway. And no, I'm not complaining. About time wrestlers got some promptness! InedibleHulk (talk) 13:52, April 21, 2016 (UTC)
Actually, reviewing the RDs in question, it appears more that this article at the ITN nomination point, was in good shape , while all the other mentioned examples had dubious article qualities that took time to work through or were never sufficiently improved upon. This reflects that ITN is meant to highlight quality rather than straight-up importance. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Could be. But Prince just made this posting look relatively plodding, and that article is fairly unsourced, as of now. He also wasn't your traditional woman. Certainly tabloid famous. It's probably a complex mix of things, as most things are. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:41, April 21, 2016 (UTC)
  • @Scorpion0422: See Apophenia for the explanation for your problem. To wit: You're attempt to assign agency (and thus blame) for a result you didn't like, when the real reason is random, unconnected events which have nothing to do with each other. There is no grand plan for ITN, and no set of standards beyond "whoever shows up that day to nominate and/or vote on and/or promote an article". The fact that one particular article gets posted in a timely manner and another does not has nothing at all to do with anything you are saying it does. There is no reason why Roddy Piper took a long time to post and this one got posted quickly. You're brain is seeking out patterns in the randomness. Those patterns don't exist. There is no reason, and thus, nothing broken we need to fix. --Jayron32 19:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
And I suppose this has nothing at all to do with your hatred of rock? All part of the same system, man. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:27, April 21, 2016 (UTC)
Seriously though, randomania is running fairly wild, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:32, April 21, 2016 (UTC)
I didn't remove your text, sometimes the system glitches and when two people post near simultaneously, instead of generating an edit conflict, it removes the text from the slightly earlier post. If this happens again, tell me, and I'll fix it myself. The second poster has no awareness of the glitch even happening, so cannot be blamed. If this happens again, either fix it yourself, or directly ask the person whom you conflicted with, and they can fix it for you. Help:Edit conflict notes that sometimes the system misses the edit conflict warning. There are lots of known bugs in the system; if you wish you can report this one, but this is common enough that I'm sure the devs are aware. More importantly, when you have a problem with something I do, don't leave hidden messages at random places around Wikipedia hoping I'll trip over them. Come to my talk page, speak in plain language, tell me of the problem, and I'll fix it. There was no need to involve anyone else in this technical glitch. --Jayron32 19:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Already fixed. I've done it before, too. Just figured it odd enough for a small note. Sorry for wasting your time. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:41, April 21, 2016 (UTC)

I think you missed the point Jayron. It's quite simple: Chyna was a somewhat famous wrestler at a time when wrestling was very mainstream and her name was kept in the news thanks to various tabloid-esque exploits. This got posted quickly based on name recognition alone and not any of the notability criteria. The three names I mentioned are considerably more influential and none were posted because they lacked the tabloid presence of Chyna. One user even opposed one of the nominations because they had never heard of the individual. This goes beyond wrestling: notable individuals who have been retired or inactive for decades get ignored because their deaths don't get much coverage. Chyna gets posted immediately because she gets twitter coverage. Dusty Rhodes was an exception: his was torpedoed because of the tried and true "I don't want this posted so I'll waste time with quality complaints then ignore the responses until too much time has passed" method. -- Scorpion0422 20:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I posted this despite having never heard of Chyna before today. I simply saw a nomination that was marked as ready, and had a clear consensus support for both notability and article quality. I had a look at the article and saw no reason there not to post, and so I updated the ITN template. There is no hidden agenda - I would have acted the same had it been anyone else's nomination I happened to be the first to see.
The only thing you can do to make the sort of people you think ought to be on ITN have a smoother, quicker ride here is to spend time making sure their articles are of good quality before they get nominated. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Aye. The words "pioneer", "trailblazer" and "opened the door" are getting thrown around a lot, but it's been fifteen years since she "made it known that women can compete and defeat men in wrestling" amd "inspired a generation of women to do the same", and nobody's come close since. WWE doesn't even let women wrestle men in video games today.
She was exceptional and extraordinary, but that's about it, as far as my voting agenda went. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, April 21, 2016 (UTC)
@Scorpion0422: It's quite telling that, instead of listening to what others actually say, you ascribe motive (and nefarious motives at that) to people whom you've barely met, and who's inner thoughts you have no way of reading. I'm not sure that doing so is a proper way to conduct business here, and when you do so, it makes others not want to listen to you. --Jayron32 10:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
So let me get this straight: Scripted-wrestling woman, not really known (other than tabloid fodder and a porn-mag appearance) outside of wrestling fan base, gets an RD - while Doris Roberts, an actress that entertained millions over several decades is (in the same week) slowly deliberated down to an RD no-go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.184.203.229 (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
She's lucky. Choppers, the last surviving member of the chimp family that made PG Tips the best goddamn tea in Britain, couldn't even catch a mere Deaths in 2016 nod. But Felix Simoneaux Jr. lives for 110 American years and they're all over him. Mysterious ways. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:18, April 23, 2016 (UTC)

April 20Edit


[Posted to RD]: Leonie KramerEdit

Article: Leonie Kramer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald‎

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: Dame of the Order of the British Empire and Companion of the Order of Australia. First woman chancellor of University of Sydney and as per our article first female professor of English in Australia. Also voted in the Australian National Living Treasures. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support on notability but the article is under-referenced at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on improvements Agree importance is met by the OBE/OA titles, but does need a bit more referencing. --MASEM (t) 21:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
@Thryduulf and Masem: I have cleaned up the article. Please have a look. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Yep that is much better. If I was reviewing for GA though I'd prefer fewer than the current 9 uses of "she was", but that's not a barrier to an RD listing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Also agree these improvements are sufficient for ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in good shape now. AIRcorn (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support notable Australian and article is in good shape. Capitalistroadster (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD Stephen 01:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Harriet Tubman to appear on the US $20 billEdit

Consensus against. BencherliteTalk 23:15, 20 April 2016 (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.

Nominator's comments: Tubman will be the first real woman to appear on US currency, i.e. not Lady Liberty. I believe this is notable because many other large nations have had women on their currency and therefore this is notable. Plus there's the fact that US currency is accepted/used many places outside the US. Dismas
  • It might be better to post this in 2020, so that we can show the design to our readers. My reading of the articles indicate that is when the design will be announced. Jolly Ω Janner 19:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with this - Wait. Without getting too political, let's make sure it actually happens first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.250 (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - it should be the first real woman on bills. Suzanne B. Anthony and Sacagawea have been on circulated dollar coins, and Queen Isabella was on a commemorative coin for Columbus' expedition '''tAD''' (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose As big a fan as I am of replacing that genocide-supporting racist with a hero like Tubman, I don't think I can support this. Many nations have women on their currency, as you note, so the fact that we're slowly catching up is a hard sell. Also note that it's the design concept that will be released in 2020, and it won't go into effect until 2030, six years after the end of President Hillary's second term. So the impact seems negligible to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • She won't even be the first on US paper currency - Silver certificate (United States)#Large-size United States silver certificates (1878-1923). —Cryptic 19:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Any idea if there's the niche that she would be the first African American woman on currency? I know that Duke Ellington was on the D.C. quarter '''tAD''' (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
      • I can't think of any others. Worth mentioning that Sojourner Truth is set to appear on the back of the $10, and that'll probably be printed first, though. —Cryptic 20:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – It's a step forward, but nothing is actually happening for a long time. As Muboshgu brought up, 2020 is only for the design and barring any political snarling, it will only start circulating in 2030. It's a news-worthy announcement, but I don't think there's enough concrete action to post this. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait I think that this would best be posted when the design actually changes in 2030, or at least until there is a design. Mamyles (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We can't wait; let's reject this sensational economic story about honor. The only big news about $20 would be when it will be discontinued *sarcasm*. True that Harriet Tubman deserves common honor, but as said, other women appear in other currencies. Even when Trump might... or might not... abandon the plan, at an American level, this doesn't rise to the minimum Wiki-level of newsworthiness. --George Ho (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL. Andrew D. (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    Nonsense. This is verifiable, something that will happen. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    Though unlikely, the next Treasury Secretary could reverse this on their own authority. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose see you in 2020. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait until 2020. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2016 (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: Victoria WoodEdit

Article: Victoria Wood (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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: One of the biggest names in British comedy and won buckets of awards - one sign of her notability was that almost everything she starred in had her name in the title. Smurrayinchester 14:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support While I see a few unsourced statements, these appear to be on non-controversial facts (namely the programs she had been involved with and when they ran, things easily checked from the blue links). --MASEM (t) 14:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - One of the UKs top comediennes for many years. Mjroots (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I came here to nominate this but was too slow and got edit conflicted. Quite possibly the top female British comedian of all time. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support A trailblazer for British comedians and writers. And she once came out top in a poll of "People You'd Most Like To Live Next Door To"... Lemonade51 (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support obviously, per nominator's rationale. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Article looks good. I wouldn't be opposed to TRM going ahead and posting this.--WaltCip (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Obvious support. She was one of the best British comedians. I've added a few sources to the article too. - JuneGloom07 Talk 16:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted so sue me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

April 19Edit


[Close] RD:Walter KohnEdit

Stale. Stephen 02:13, 23 April 2016 (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: Walter Kohn (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): RSC Obituary The Nation

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: Nobel prize-winning chemist who was one of the founders of density functional theory (DFT). He died on the 19th but the news only emerged on the 22nd. Modest Genius talk 13:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support with improvements The only major problem is an entire unsourced section labelled "Scientist with a great following" which is clearly subjective (not necessary false) and needs sourcing. There's some areas of weaker sourcing elsewhere in it but far from a major problem. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with this assessment and I will Support too, but only after improvements, specifically the citations and sourcing. Just went throughout the article and I will make improvements during the next day, if possible. (Ie., the obituary at legacy.com no longer links to Kohn). I'll also be checking for an obituary from a mainstream media outlet. Christian Roess (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Unsure Seems to have been a fairly big deal in theoretical physics, but that's a small pond. Have density functional theory or the many-body problem had any practical ramifications affecting the Average Joe? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:19, April 22, 2016 (UTC)
    • Hugely. DFT is a workhorse technique used throughout physical chemistry and biochemistry. Applications include drug design, semiconductors, novel materials, spectroscopy, protein folding etc. That might not sound like much, but those techniques underlie everything from medicines to computers to aircraft materials. Modest Genius talk 14:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Besides what Modest Genius says, we should not be trying to second-guess the practicality of research that earned one a Nobel prize; the key is that that prize represents importance in the field of chemistry (in this case) so that's the line we need to judge, not how much they touch everyday life (unless we were asking for a blurb, that would be different). --MASEM (t) 14:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Fine, Support. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:47, April 22, 2016 (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 to RD] RD: Estelle BaletEdit

Article: Estelle Balet (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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: World champion snowboarder killed at the age of 21. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support on expansion As TRM notes, two sentences is not an article. We should be able to include sports stats, if anything, if she is a World Champion. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm always skeptical of RD noms where the article didn't exist before the individual's death. Also the red links at Freeride_World_Tour#World_tour_winners makes me wonder, is this too niche? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Weak support as sources are calling her a "snowboarding champion". Concern about the lack of articles among the champions can be taken as a proxy in a way, as Nohomersryan suggests, hence my reservation. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Oppose the article is a stub, and the article on the championship she won is a stub full of redlinks, indicating little importance. Calling this person anywhere near the top of the snowboarding field, or even "widely regarded as a very important figure", would be pushing it. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on expansion As TRM notes as well. She was on the top field of her sport. Her death has been mentioned in media all around the world. BabbaQ (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose see below per Nohomersryan. Tragic and unexpected death, but she was at the top of an extremely niche sport. As Muboshgu has noted, most Freeride World Tour champions don't even have articles (neither did Balet until a few hours ago). -Zanhe (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Number of articles are irrelevant to notability.BabbaQ (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It's ok, it's a pointy oppose. The fact that the New York Times has reported this is clearly indicative that this is of no interest and that she was of no importance. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • NYT reports many deaths (I've been a subscriber for 20+ years), including Doris Roberts below, but only a fraction are ITN-caliber. This one is not. -Zanhe (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Actually you're right. I now realize that she was the youngest Freeride World Tour champion, and the article has been expanded a bit. Changing my vote to Support, once the citation tags are fixed. -Zanhe (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Twice world champion, youngest ever world champion. Article taking shape nicely now. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment a quick check on Google News sees this individual's death being reported prominently in the UK, the US, Canada, Spain, Poland, France, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, Romania, Sweden, Peru, Norway and Macedonia, to name a few. I think the newsworthiness and notability is thus asserted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I agree with Muboshgu's take on this issue (above): why wasn't there a Wikipedia article for this skier before her death? If her accomplishment(s) in this sport were noteworthy, there would've been an article (or a stub at least) before her death. IMO (this is only my opinion) this woman was stunning in every detail: stunning in her daring, her talent, her moxie, stunning in her physical appearance and beauty. And now stunning, too, is the manner of her horrific death. The media is grasping at every stunning and sensational detail for the sake of spectacle and to sell copy (or "click bait" as it's called now). When it comes to a RD, spectacle and sensation should not be the over-riding detail that makes their recent death noteworthy and newsworthy. If it is the over-riding detail for why the death is being reported then it isn't ITN-worthy.– Christian Roess (talk)
    It's not. The reason for the death being reported globally is that she was a double-world-champion and was killed skiing aged 21. Your personal analysis is fascinating, but the objective answer is obvious, hence why it is making headlines around the world, with or without "stunning and sensational detail" (which I haven't seen anywhere). And if you agree with Muboshgu's take, then you should be supporting. How odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    TRM is right, she was known for her achievements in sports, her death is sad but has not been sensationalized at all. Christian Roess seems to have strong opinions about her, but that is POV and not guideline based. I also do not see any relevance to Estelle being beautiful and her article not being ITN worthy. That I created her article today after her death is purely coincidental, had I known more about her before that I would have created her article earlier. So that is no indicator for ITN either, a person can be notable and have their article created the same day as the ITN nom. BabbaQ (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    Let's be clear, Christian Roess: it gave me pause, but didn't prevent me from supporting the nom. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    ok TRM and BabbaQ, and Muboshgu (so noted, thanks): you all make valid points, and if there's more input later making a strong case for support, I'd be willing to drop my "oppose" (but at this point I can't see changing it to "support"). But once again I did stress the point above:"IMO (this only my opinion)" because obviously my own opinion is not a criteria for judging whether or not an RD is ITN-worthy. I won't support for two reasons: (1) her fame is in a niche sport; and (2) there was no Estelle Balet wikipedia article before her death. Christian Roess (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    After considering the issue, I have to agree with Mamyles' opinion below that the lack of an article is more a sign of how Wikipedia is incomplete, than that she's not notable or RD material. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Given that snowboarding is a well-known sport (at least in the US), and she is at the top of the field for snowboarding, she meets the RD criteria. The lack of an article only goes to show how incomplete our encyclopedia is, and itself has no bearing on notability. Mamyles (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Provisional "oppose" given that I have classified the article as a stub with only a few lines of text. Have seem articles with more information than hers knocked back on quality grounds. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Your classification is wrong as it is not a stub anymore. The stub template was removed.BabbaQ (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I beg to differ. It's 992 B of prose. If it's not long enough for DYK (which has a 1500 minimum), how can we think of it as anything other than a stub? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
My general rule of thumb is that there must be roughly a page of text not including lists, refs etc. I will have a look at it again and further discussion should be on her talk page. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I've marked it as start class. There is an infobox, an image and the article has structure. It is clearly not a stub, and wasn't a stub when you marked it as one, Captialistroadster. Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support upon expansion. "Niche sport" is irrelevant(even if true); what matters is if she was very important to her field- which she seems to be for being the youngest world champion in her field. 331dot (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • If she had an article before her death I think this would get posted as full blurb. RD is enough. Nergaal (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Even if there had been an article, it would never have been a full blurb. Never.Correctron (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD Stephen 06:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Patricio AylwinEdit

Stale. Stephen 02:11, 23 April 2016 (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: Patricio Aylwin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): 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: First democratically elected president of Chile after Pinochet. Brandmeistertalk 16:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support pending updates As noted, one section is tagged and completely unsourced, but once that's taken care of this appears ready. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Former head of state will get my support if the article improves. Will check back later. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - notable head of state, but article has been orange tagged since 2010. -Zanhe (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support should go before it's stale. 190.46.17.167 (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Quality is still poor. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support notability / undecided regarding quality. He is clearly notable enough for RD, and the article is improved since it was nominated but while there are no orange/red tags or explicitly marked {{cn}}s there are still quite a few unreferenced paragraphs. At this point I'd say the article quality is borderline good enough, but I can't decide which side of the line I fall on. Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm marking ready per above, as I didn't have enough time to fix it myself. Brandmeistertalk 07:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Not ready, multiple paragraphs without a reference, including serious allegations. Stephen 07:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support and call for contributions. I know this is not the standard procedure, but this really disappoints me.
As a Chilean who was never his supporter, I think he is a most remarkable figure in local (and maybe Latin American) history. He is one of the few politicians who remained active all the way from the sixties to the begining of this century, playing a leading, conciliatory role all the time (in several difficult episodes of our history). I think that role raises him above all of his successors as President of Chile. Even his change of mind about the coup d'etat, which I consider one of his biggest faults (among others I disagree with) -at first a supporter, then denying even having supported, there are videos of that on YouTube-, in some way reflects a massive cultural change in society.
I really, really regret not having time for proper research, as well as being so young not to remember more. (I was 12 at the end of his term, and most I know I have learnt afterwards) 200.9.73.104 (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2016 (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] 2016 Kabul attackEdit

Article: 2016 Kabul attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 28 people are killed and more than 320 injured in an attack in Kabul, Afghanistan.
News source(s): BBC

 The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support as this is a mass murder with high number of casualties, which recieves decent media coverage globally. But wait until the article is tagged for work in progress.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, but give a few hours for more details to filter in and make it to the article. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - If it bleeds, it leads.--WaltCip (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Note Article is fairly complete and well-referenced. Tweaked the blurb with accurate count. --QEDK (TC) 17:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - major attack with high casualty, widely reported. Article is short but decently sourced. -Zanhe (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - major attack.BabbaQ (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – agree with the assessment of QEDK and Zanhe above. Christian Roess (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I made the article actually. --QEDK (TC) 09:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – per article quality and significance. Though tragic, near routine in Afghanistan. Baking Soda (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: Mediterranean refugee drowningEdit

No article or update, and no consensus for ongoing. Stephen 01:53, 23 April 2016 (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: European migrant crisis (talk, history) and List of migrant vessel incidents on the Mediterranean Sea (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 400 refugees die due to drowning in Mediterranean Sea.
News source(s): Multiple
Nominator's comments: Number of deaths are high and is an international news of an on going issue. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 06:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose we should have an article on this, there are many similar ones which can be used as a starting point, e.g. 2013 Lampedusa migrant shipwreck. We also have List of migrant vessel incidents on the Mediterranean Sea as opposed to the one you have redlinked. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose an nominated. Neither of the articles in the nom are updated, and while 400 feared dead is a lot, it is not unprecedented: see AP report of 15.04.2015 for example. I don't know why on going is bolded in the nomination, but if it's the nomintor's intention to re-introduce the EU migrant crisis to Ongoing, then the nomination should be changed to reflect that. As it is, there's no way forward for this as a stand alone ITN entry.128.214.53.18 (talk) 10:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for ongoing - ongoing is for developing stories that change over the course of weeks, not multiple discrete events in a larger narrative. As a comparison - there are about a dozen major ongoing wars at the moment, and sometimes we post battles and massacres from these. However, we don't add all these wars to ongoing. Can't weigh in on anything else until there's an article, but would certainly be newsworthy. Smurrayinchester 11:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing but Support if nominated as a stand-alone – Ongoing is primary used for when events fall off the main ticker but retain substantial notability. The ship incidents specifically are haphazard in nature and occur at random; events that are continuous close-to are much preferred. The migrant crisis was removed from ongoing by consensus on March 29 for reference. However, the stand-alone disaster is most certainly notable if hundreds did indeed drown. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 12:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing (just because the migrant crisis is not listed doesn't mean its not still news), but would support this specific incident should there be an article on it. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait – Ditto. Details haven't been confirmed. The BBC's Arabic service on Monday reported 400 drowned, and this was picked up by other media, but a spokesman for the International Organization for Migration, Flavio Di Giacomo, Tuesday was quoted as saying, "It's really a mystery. We can neither confirm nor deny that [such an] accident occurred." Sca (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sca. Ignoring the fact that there is no update, and while horrific if confirmed, there are no reliable sources for the number in the blurb. That is a basic tenant for inclusion, even for ITN. We don't post speculation. Fuebaey (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait per Sca. Details are too scarce at the moment. -Zanhe (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Update – On Wednesday, two sources, AP and NYT, said up to 500 "were feared dead" or "may have died" in this still unconfirmed disaster. Seems we should continue to wait for confirmation. Sca (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Considering past stories like the Malaysian Airlines flight or the upturned ship in the Chinese river, that we posted on the assurance that something very bad had happened but unsure on the fate of all aboard, I think this is a reasonable point to say something has happened. That a boat with 500+ immigrants on it sunk seems to be story coming from 41 survivors, and the problem is that if this was an illegal immigration move, its unlikely anyone is going to step up to help the investigation. The reports from authorities all seem to be working on the side of caution, that there is a sunken boat, but they just haven't been able to find it or necessarily what to look for. So this might be a reasonable point to post. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 21 April 2016 (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] Historic flooding in Chile and TexasEdit

No consensus. Stephen 01:51, 23 April 2016 (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: ? (talk, history)
Blurb: Severe flooding kills 8 people and prompts more than 1,800 high-water rescues across the Houston Metropolitan Area in Texas
News source(s): Washington Post Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Nominator's comments: 4 million people are without tap water in the capital of Chile due to flooding and the capital's entire 7+ million population is under "red alert" for dirty water. The world's biggest copper mine is shut down. Also, Mother Nature sends a freak thunderstorm to cripple Houston with flood at the same time just because it can. With its 2nd rainiest day in history happening in half a day despite the frequent hurricanes and lack of any tropical weather this time. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose No article. The events seem disparate as well. If there were a good meteorologic page to explain the connection between the two, that would be a good candidate.128.214.53.18 (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per IP. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support "2016 Houston floods" - The 2016 Houston floods should be featured on the main page, since there is now an article about them. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral but leaning support if the article is expanded. Seems reminiscent to me of the 2013 Alberta floods, which was posted. Resolute 15:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support Houston per Jax and Resolute - if 2016 Houston floods is expanded. -Zanhe (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Houston article right now. The article isn't any longer than a blurb would be. We shouldn't be posting ultra-short stubs on the main page. --Jayron32 12:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Impact section in the target article could definitely use some more expansion. SpencerT♦C 04:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sort of historic, in the context of a normally-drier-in-April region (which was wetter in June 1989). Pretty mundane, as far as disasters in general go. Eight people die of other related events in Houston every day, and 744 houses is under 1% of those in the area. Schools suspend classes for two days every Friday. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:00, April 22, 2016 (UTC)
  • Still opposed. The Houston Flooding article wasn't expanded, it was merged into Mid-April 2016 United States storm complex, which still contains basically one line of usable text on the Houston floods, which still means the content we're directing readers to is functionally identical to the blurb we'd be posting. It's nicer than the original stub article, since it provides meteorological background, but the Houston floods have been a major news story for a while now, there's plenty of source text out there that needs to be incorporated regarding the impact, which this article is lacking. --Jayron32 15:48, 22 April 2016 (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 18Edit


[Closed] RD: Doris RobertsEdit

No consensus. Stephen 23:18, 19 April 2016 (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: Doris Roberts (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): news is only breaking Emmyvinnaren Doris Roberts, 90, är död 2016 Superbowl

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: Quintessential NYC character actress, international press re reath, multiple awards from 1950's to present, five Emmy and Screen Actors Guild μηδείς (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - She won five awards for just two roles, most four of them for Everybody Loves Raymond. She was just an actress with major supporting roles. Also, as for SAG Awards, she didn't win individual entities; she won as part of the cast ensemble of the well-known sitcom. Also, article is poor, but the point is her significance in her field. She doesn't meet the standards. George Ho (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as nom. Well, let's agree here, I too hated "Everyone loves Raymond" but Robert's career spans 1951 to the present, and even in such films as 1971's A New Leaf she played a pivotal role. I'd really hold off on the, I didn't like her most recent show opposes, and do some real research, like looking at her 1970's roles. If you are not American, it is very likely she is one of the key personas to have formed your idea of what it is like to be an American. 00:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
This was Medeis editing, but not signing properly, just so that everybody keeps track of things. Fgf10 (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose One particularly noteworthy role, not that important in her field as far as I can tell. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Suggest you read her article, as she has 35 roles in blue-linked Hollywood movies, not to mention her 1980 Remington Steele and 2000's Everyone Loves Raymond TV episodes. But most Americans knew her from the early 70's, long before these roles. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I read it. She had a long career, but that in and of itself isn't sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is very poorly referenced. Would fully support if article were cleaned up to be main-page ready. --Jayron32 01:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality, but will support as RD-worthy when the article is improved. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose article quality is weak, individual is popular but hardly important in the field of film and television acting. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Popular and above average, but not "very important" to her field. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support "Not important to her field?" Roberts has won a lifetime achievement award, as well as five Emmy awards for her performances as Cora and Marie Barone, a role which has made her extremely well-known in the U.S. and likely elsewhere. Also, I wish to state that liking or disliking the show Everybody Loves Raymond or Marie Barone is NOT a viable reason for supporting or opposing this decision. The show was (and still is) immensely popular, and made Doris Roberts famous enough for inclusion "in the news." ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Predominantly known for one show these days and hardly at the top in her field given the rest of her career. Fgf10 (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - She had a good long career but neither her roles nor her award indicate that she is "widely regarded as a very important figure in her field". There is also nothing additional like being president of SAG or major charity work to add to her notability. TheBlinkster (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose regrettably - RIP to my favorite actor in Everybody Loves Raymond. As much as I loved her performance, she was best known for a supporting role. -Zanhe (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2016 (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] Boston MarathonEdit

Article: 2016 Boston Marathon (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Ethiopians Lemi Berhanu Hayle and Atsede Baysa win the Boston Marathon.
News source(s): CNN, ESPN, NYT

Article needs updating

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.

Nominator's comments: Is a stub, needs a race summary. Fuebaey (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment The male winner is? The female winner is? Did they come #1 and #2?Correctron (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I believe that it's common sense that how the current blurb is worded is standard form for this result, implicitly stating that the first name is the winning male runner, and the second the winning female runner. I don't think clarification is needed on this given the expect result from the sport, but it also can't hurt to add "..win the men's and women's Boston Marathon, respectively." --MASEM (t) 23:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Why is it "common sense" that the male winner would be listed first? For that matter, why do we almost invariably list the male winner before the female one in events featuring both? There does not seem to be any good reason for this practice, which could be regarded as reflecting systemic bias. Neljack (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
That's a universal system bias, across sports and other accolades too (Oscars, Emmys, Grammys). And arguable for the marathon, the men's winning time was better than the women's. By all means, let's identify who was who, but I don't think this is necessary a systematic bias that WP readily can fix - one of the two needs to be stated first and its near universe that the men's result is the highlighted one. --MASEM (t) 01:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Well yes, you've just summed up the problem nicely: "the men's result is the highlighted one." That fact that the systemic bias exists elsewhere is not a reason for us, in exercising our editorial judgement on blurbs here, to perpetuate it. Now none of this says that the women's winner must be listed first here, but we should not automatically assume that we should always list the men's winner first. Perhaps, as you suggest, there is good reason for listing the men's winner first here on the basis of winning time (though I have some doubts about this), but there are other events where you could give reasons for listing the women's event first (e.g. women's finals occur first in tennis grand slams). Neljack (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose in article's present state. Obviously the race summary must be added but I would think that it should be relatively easy (within the day) to get an article of the same quality as 2015 Boston Marathon in place. Support otherwise in ITNR. --MASEM (t) 23:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose we can't highlight an incomplete stub on the main page. What would be directing readers to in order to learn more about the topic? Woefully inadequate article. --Jayron32 01:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose obviously. Not ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted, quality is not quite at the level of the 2015 race, but the details are fully referenced. Stephen 03:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • This is a confusing posting. Normally a consensus is reached regarding the quality of the article, when it is agreed that it is up to the standards of ITN. No consensus was reached here. If an article does not meet the quality standards as determined by consensus, it does not get posted - simple as that. It was the case with the 88th Academy Awards this year. It should be the case now.--WaltCip (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support The article is now of sufficient quality, the problems I noted above have been fixed. --Jayron32 12:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Polio vaccineEdit

An interim technical step on the road to complete eradication. Stephen 23:16, 19 April 2016 (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: Poliomyelitis_eradication#2016 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​As a result of eradication of type 2 Poliovirus, the World Health Organization switches to a new Polio vaccine.
Alternative blurb: ​After eradicating the type 2 Poliovirus, the World Health Organization moves to the next stage with a new Polio vaccine.
News source(s): BBC, PGEI
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Type 2 was reported eradicated in Sept 2015, and the WHO removed one of the 3 strands to decrease the vaccine-derived infections. I am guessing polio will not be declared eradicated for another 2 years so posting this intermediate development should be ok. Feel free to propose a better blurb. Nergaal (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think it's the eradication of polio 2 back in 2015 that was postable (don't remember whether it was posted). The transition to a new vaccine looks like a technical formality after that, like election and inauguration (aside from giving an impression of vaccine advertisement on WP). Brandmeistertalk 19:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Suggesting an alt blurb, the first blurb sounds as if the first vaccine failed and they are trying another. (Let's just hope I understood the nom's comment correctly, the blurb was a bit fuzzy.) w.carter-Talk 19:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I like sciency news. Even a partial victory against polio seems very important to me, much more so than various inconsequential elections and sport events. Thue (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment whether this is in the news or not, neither blurb really gives our readers a clear indication as to the significance of "switching to a new vaccine" or "moving to the next stage" (whatever that is). Why is this actually important to our readers? Is the new vaccine better but less potent? Is it cheaper? What is the actual story? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Read my comment for the description. Feel free to propose an adequate blurb. Nergaal (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I did, the point is our readers won't have the luxury of your magnificent prose to assist them in understanding the significance of this. Feel free to propose a blurb which helps them understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Roughly would belike us noting each new flavour of flu vaccine, alas. Collect (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose For one thing, the entirety of the update is "Because cVDPV2 strains continue to arise from the trivalent oral vaccine that includes attenuated WPV2, between 17 April and 1 May 2016 this vaccine will be replaced with a bivalent version lacking WPV2 as well as trivalent injected inactivated vaccine that cannot lead to cVDPV cases. This is expected to prevent new strains of cVDPV2 and allow eventual cessation of WPV2 vaccination." To the general reader, this is just gibberish. To be worthy of posting on the front page, there needs to be at least some explanation of this actually means. Smurrayinchester 08:23, 19 April 2016 (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] Democracy Spring arrestsEdit

No consensus. Stephen 23:14, 19 April 2016 (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: Democracy Spring (talk, history)
Blurb: ​900+ arrests are reported in the past week during the Democracy Spring protests at the United States Capitol
News source(s): USA Today, Democracy Now!

Article updated
 Nominator's comments: Since today (Monday 18 April) is the final day scheduled for protests, there may be more arrests reported. Also of note, but perhaps not very reliable because it's not reported in the mainstream media→(Ie., here Vice.com), is that the organizers of the event are stating that the 85 arrests made on April 12 is "an all-time record for a mass arrest at the Capitol Building." Although the latter is not especially ITN-worthy in itself (and it is hard to verify at this point), it's worth mentioning because, IMO, it highlights that this story is worth keeping an eye on in the coming day(s) as a future ITN candidate. Christian Roess (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • One of the linked sources is a primary source and likely should not be used as a basis for writing the blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose A bunch of people receiving misdemeanors for a law they intended to break is not interesting or impactful news. Perhaps that's why it hasn't been covered much by mainstream media. Mamyles (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Wrong on the second count and nothing more than WP:OR. What criteria the infotainment U.S. MSM uses to select breaking stories (or to even report on them at all) is both meaningless to anyone with a critical eye and irrelevant to this discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Respectfully, the notability of this item as judged by ITN criteria is entirely subjective. I am putting in my opinion that this bunch of arrests does not meet the notability criterion. Mamyles (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Just pointing out that "it hasn't been covered..." does not help your point. Personally, I fail to see how this wave rises to the level of the Occupy movement, which was featured on ITN on 2 October 2011, and the reported figure there was 700 arrests. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Excellent point as they did indeed plan on getting arrested as a signature they quite purposefully (and overtly) wanted to place on this event; except that I would hardly characterize 900 people (and the Capitol police are verifying numbers close to this) as only just a "bunch" of people, whether they wanted to get arrested, or not. – Christian Roess (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose per Mamyles; this is exactly what was intended, and news coverage seems minimal. It's unlikely this will influence any policies. If things change I would be willing to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose A mere indication of a ripple of disquiet and nothing more. Thousands of people are arrested every day for protesting against things, this just happens to be in America, the only surprise is that none of them have been shot yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2016 (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] Mehmet Kaplan resignsEdit

No consensus. Stephen 00:33, 19 April 2016 (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: Mehmet Kaplan (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Minister for Housing and Urban Development in Sweden Mehmet Kaplan resigns after making comments about Israel, and association with Turkish extremists.
News source(s): [8], [9]

Article updated
 --BabbaQ (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - His only claims to fame are contrived controversies.--WaltCip (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think a resignation of a minister is worth posting except for extraordinary circumstances when it has major implications immediately. This also doesn't seem to receive wide media attention.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This got some coverage in Sweden, but on an international scale it's nothing. w.carter-Talk 18:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasons stated. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose local politician turns out to be a bit of a dick, gets caught. Not newsworthy, probably not even in Sweden, just trash. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
While I oppose the posting, there is no need to get rude. It is newsworthy in Sweden since Kaplan was the first Muslim minister in Sweden, also in charge of housing. With over 160,000 refugees (most Muslims) seeking asylum in Sweden last year, any story involving the words "Muslims", "housing" and "government official" is incendiary here. w.carter-Talk 21:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
TRM post these kind of comments to get attention.. you just gave him that attention..BabbaQ (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
It's on the house. :) I'll be here all week, remember to tip your waiter on the way out. w.carter-Talk 21:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • SNOW Oppose A prime minister resigning is ITN-worthy. A HUD minister is not. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2016 (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


[Closed] Impeachment of Dilma RousseffEdit

Consensus is to wait until the Senate vote in early May. Stephen 00:31, 19 April 2016 (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: Impeachment process against Dilma Rousseff (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Brazilian Chamber of Deputies votes to impeach President Dilma Rousseff (pictured).
Alternative blurb: ​The Brazilian Chamber of Deputies votes to open the impeachment process against President Dilma Rousseff (pictured).
News source(s): BBC News, CNN, NYT

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: This has been simmering for a while. Protests over political corruption in Brazil have led to the lower house voting on whether to remove the head of state/gov. If this passes, Rousseff could be suspended for up to six months, missing the entirety of the Summer Olympic/Paralympic Games in Rio. The article is poorly translated and formatted, but I'm working on addressing that over the next few hours. Any help in copyediting is appreciated. Fuebaey (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – Oppose Wait – Premature. Sca (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait Support - to quote Masem below, "This is absolutely an ITN story, but ...". The 'but' in this case is that the article is awfully poor quality right now. I took a brief look at it and copyediting it will not be easy; I'll try to work on it later though. Banedon (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, that was pretty fast. Banedon (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Couple of notes: the article is still pretty terrible right now (the first half has been copyedited, but the second still reads badly). That said, I'm of opinion this should be posted even if she were not impeached. Banedon (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I believe this could be posted anytime assuming the article Impeachment process against Dilma Rousseff is good enough. I propose altblurb1 if admins want to post before the impeachment process is completed. Brian Everlasting (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Huge news indeed, with international implications. Jusdafax 03:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support now that its confirmed to be in favor of impeachment.Wait for Senate confirmation in May. Still definitely a topic to post assuming that happens. I think the article can be better before posting though. --MASEM (t) 03:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the blurb (while completely accurate) might lead some readers to incorrectly conclude that Rousseff has been removed from office. I'm sure not how to address that (add something to the blurb perhaps?), though I would welcome suggestions. Neljack (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait The Brazilian Senate also has to vote on this (a majority vote would suspend her, and a supermajority totally impeach her). Smurrayinchester 06:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support once Senate goes through it. Big news and big lady...-The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 06:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. It can be posted now because the Senate will hold a trial; the result of the trial will be just as noteworthy as impeachment(which is basically deciding to hold a trial). 331dot (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Pardon my bias; the Senate also needs to vote on holding a trial. We should wait until that occurs. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I've stripped the "[ready]" tag off. As it stands, this blurb is misleading as several commenters have said above. Rousseff has not yet been impeached - one of two houses has voted for impeachment, but until the Senate votes nothing happens. Smurrayinchester 09:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Question/Comment I would just like to point out that under wikipedia's article on impeachment it says Dilma has been impeached, and it says impeachment is only the process of removing someone from office and not necessarily the outcome. Brian Everlasting (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Impeachment proceedings don't begin until the Senate votes, as far as I can tell. Smurrayinchester 12:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Yup. As NYT says in second paragraph, the Senate will vote on whether to hold an impreachment trial of Rousseff, and "that vote is expected to take place next month." See you in May. Sca (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support "to impeach" is analogous to "indict" when applied to a sitting head of state, and upon conviction (using US terms) she'd be removed. It's absurd to think we would not have posted Bill Clinton's or Alexander Johnson's impeachments, or Richard Nixon's, had the last occurred. Not to post Rousseff's is like saying, "Well this sort of thing is expected in banana republics." I'd prefer we respect the importance of Brazil on the world stage. μηδείς (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
But she hasn't been indicted yet - Senate needs to confirm. Smurrayinchester 14:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Sca (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - major development in this story.BabbaQ (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Alternative added. ArionEstar (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait Impeachment proceedings are at most one third done. There's no guarantee that there will even be an impeachment trial yet, much less an impeachment. Mamyles (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Sca (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support iff the article is expanded with a section describing what are the following steps. This development is notable enough but the article does not explain the next steps very well. Nergaal (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2016 (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] Ecuador earthquakeEdit

Posted, won't be merged. Stephen 23:43, 17 April 2016 (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: 2016 Ecuador earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A magnitude 7.8 earthquake hits Ecuador, killing at least 77.
News source(s): ABCCNN

Article updated
Nominator's comments: It is still early, but pretty sure this is going to be important. Dragons flight (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support but give this a few hours to assure of the details before posting. --MASEM (t) 03:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Major quake and significant death toll. Jusdafax 04:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge - with the Kumamoto earthquake blurb. They're unrelated to one another, but they're still both earthquakes. Banedon (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant due to death toll. However the article is not ready yet to be posted. Should be posted after more additions are made. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Obvious Support when updated, but is past my bedtime. μηδείς (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Easily satisfies notability, but the article is far too short. It's currently at 731 characters with the minimum required at about 2,000. Jolly Ω Janner 06:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @Jolly Janner: I've expanded it above 2,000 prose characters. Still a bit short, but details are likely to remain limited until daybreak. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support (there is no minimum character count, no let's not merge it with the other earthquake, they are entirely unrelated). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Agree strongly with both points made by TRM. Jusdafax 07:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
propose merge link the two under the Ring of Fire area.Lihaas (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose merging blurbs. The two events may be connected by the ring of fire, but the ring of fire is not in the news and the mainstream media are focusing on these quakes as separate events. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose merging blurbs – Completely separate events on opposite sides of the Pacific Ocean that have no connection aside from both being earthquake events. Merging them doesn't help readers at all. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose merge of unconected events. Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
The article is gross and with 2 sectional orange tags (and they aint mine either).Lihaas (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2016 (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


[Posted to RD] RD: Bill GrayEdit

Article: William M. Gray (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Eulogy from CSU, Obituary, WaPost

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: A giant in the field of meteorology, especially with tropical cyclones, Dr. Gray had a tremendous career spanning over 60 years during which he created the framework for how we study and forecast tropical cyclones to this day. He pioneered seasonal hurricane forecasts, and issued these for over 30 years. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Wait until this hits the news. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for such a "giant", his article is weak and he as an individual certainly doesn't appear to have been showered with awards: most of those listed are so inconsequential it would seem that they don't even warrant a Wikipedia article. If the claim that "Gray pioneered the concept of "seasonal" hurricane forecasting" is true, then it should have more than a couple of words on it in his article, and certainly more than the unreferenced muddle that currently exists. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't have time to delve into fleshing out that section today but here are additional sources backing up his status as a pioneer of seasonal hurricane forecasts. If I have time tomorrow, I'll work on expanding the section. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @The Rambling Man and 331dot: I've cleaned up the section in question and expanded more about his career. Where does the article stand now? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits as very important to his field, but I concur with TRMs assessment of the article and as such oppose on quality. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I've noted the WaPost has taken note of his death, and with other sources, I think his importance to the meteorology field is apparently clear now. --MASEM (t) 16:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support and marked ready--article is now full referenced with quotes attesting to his respect among the field and his discovery of the N Atlantic hurricane cycle. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD Stephen 23:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Why was this posted at a title the article isn't at? Nohomersryan (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Your question belongs on the errors page or at Step's door. There is no way we would have posted John Ronald Reuel Tolkien in full. μηδείς (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I Mean Tolkien's article's not called that. I asked at errors before and didn't get a real answer, so I just want to know the status on what version of a name goes up on the ticker. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
We'd go for the common name. If the article needs to be moved, that's a subject for WP:RM. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

April 15Edit


[Posted to RD] RD: Malick SidibéEdit

Article: Malick Sidibé (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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: "Pioneering" and award-winning photographer. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Seems to meet RD criteria. Needs some more sourcing before it's postable, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support According to obits appearing all over mainstream media (ie., NYTimes, BBC, AP, Telegraph, Time) he's a major photographer with international fame and reputation. More sourcing has now been added and the CN tags removed. Christian Roess (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Meets RD criteria IMO. Can go once tags are down. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 12:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Tags have been removed. I have checked and rechecked sources after making numerous revisions. I have marked as Ready. Christian Roess (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Not ready, there is an unreferenced section with a controversial assertion and an OR observation. Stephen 23:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    Posted to RD after further improvement, thanks. Stephen 05:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Czech Republic renames itselfEdit

consensus to wait til event occurs. μηδείς (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2016 (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: Czech Republic (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Czech Republic renames to Czechia.
Alternative blurb: ​The Czech Republic adopts Czechia as a short name.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Czech Republic adopts the name "Czechia".
Alternative blurb III: ​The Czech Republic moves to adopt Czechia as its official short-form name.
News source(s): Guardian, BBC, AP. Google finds a lot more

Article updated
 Banedon (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. If I read the linked source correctly, it states that they are proposing to change the name, not that they have actually done so. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Changed the source to a more recent one. New source says "The choice, agreed on Thursday evening by the president, prime minister, heads of parliament and foreign and defence ministers, must still win cabinet approval before the foreign ministry can lodge the name with the United Nations and it becomes the country’s official short name." - effectively the question then is whether to post this now or wait for cabinet approval (which admittedly might not happen). Banedon (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the nominator's comments, this hasn't happened, it may not happen, and if it does, it's not renaming itself, it's just getting a new "short name". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Article is extensive and of sufficient quality for the main page. Referencing is good, not comprehensive, but I can't find anything controversial or contentious which lacks a reference. The information in the blurb is prominent and easy to find in the Etymology section, with a full paragraph of background on the recent name change. --Jayron32 11:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    I take it that you also read that this hasn't actually happened then? What a bizarre support. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    Maybe it has somewhere. How do we even know if anything has ever happened? Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is? Does anybody really care? --Jayron32 20:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The approval (if that happens) of an official short name is not a rename. The full name of the country remains Czech Republic. -- KTC (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No they're not, as per KTC. The nom, and more shockingly our article on the country, is incorrect. Fgf10 (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
A little surprised you've not nominated an alt blurb. I've gone ahead and done so. 12:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Which is also incorrect. Suggest you withdraw this until something actually happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, ALL blurbs are incorrect, as the country has not been renamed. It merely added an alternative name. Fgf10 (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait but will support when they lodge with the UN. We actually have a good article about the complicated situation: Name of the Czech Republic. I've added it as an altblurb and will update it a bit. Smurrayinchester 12:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
(As for the "short name" thing, this is in everyday use the official name - Czech[ia/o/ Republic]'s southern neighbour is officially the Slovak Republic, but Slovakia is the name that it is known by in all circumstances except legal documents. Ditto French Republic, Swiss Confederation, Hellenic Republic... For all intents and purposes, this is the real name that we're talking about) Smurrayinchester 12:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support we are generally posting important geographical renaming/name changes, such as Denali for example. This one is seams at least equally important, to me. --Jenda H. (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
In the case of Denali, the name actually was changed. It is not yet certain that this change will happen. Further, the name of Denali is just Denali, both officially and otherwise; this proposal is for a 'short name' of the country, not the official name. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Well it is certain that Czech government will ask the UN to rewrite papers in near future. My point is: Denali and Czechia are both geographical names which were relatively recently changed. So is a mountain more important than a country? --Jenda H. (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is certain they will ask- not that it will happen. When it does, we will see. 331dot (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait per Smurrayinchester. If this happens I will likely support, but posting at this point is premature. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait until it's official. It seems like a done deal already, (though perhaps not; i'm not an expert on Czech politics) I don't think there's a rush to publish this.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Alt3 – Very unusual for a European nation to change the name by which it's generally known. Use of Czechia was discussed after the split with Slovakia in '93, and seemed handier than the official Czech Republic. (I'm surprised it's taken them this long to make the move.) As to waiting, it's been in the news for two or three days and there appears to be little or no domestic opposition.... Sca (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    The Czech Republic is staying exactly where it is, alt 3 is poorly worded and journalistic. And indicative, once again, that nothing has really happened. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait This is absolutely an ITN story, but we should wait until the change is officially recognized in the international community. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose not a renaming as such, just confirming the "official" short name, and per the BBC article, this is no different to stating France instead of The French Republic. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
From what I've seen, since 1993 Czechia hasn't been in general English-language use, either written or spoken. (The same is true of Tschechien and la Tchéquie, the German and French equivalents, respectively.) This move would provide an official impetus to broaden use of the short forms. That would be a change. Sca (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2016 (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] 2016 Kumamoto earthquakesEdit

Article: 2016 Kumamoto earthquakes (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A magnitude 6.2 earthquake hits Japan, killing nine.
Alternative blurb: Eleven aftershocks after the magnitude 6.2 earthquake hit Japan, killing nine and injuring 700+.
Alternative blurb II: Two earthquakes kill at least 12 people and injure more than 1,000 others across Kyushu, Japan.
News source(s): CNN; "the update is the article"

Article updated

 Banedon (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - Article is quite brief right now, needs more work after which it can be posted. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not even the strongest earthquake that happened today. Stephen 11:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Stephen, doesn't appear to be out of the ordinary, a small death toll all things considered, article is poor. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Seems relatively minor as far as Japanese earthquakes go; Japan is an earthquake-prone nation and they usually do well in adapting to it to reduce damage and casualties. Unless something changes I don't think this needs to be posted. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As others have pointed out, not as significant as other quakes even with a 6+ magnitude, and the death toll is relatively small. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Change to Support, as multiple quakes now are more damaging. --MASEM (t) 23:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Added alt1 - Pinging Masem, 331., Rambler, and Stephen. --George Ho (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Forgot Sherenk1. George Ho (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
So it would seem that the earthquake actually nominated was a foreshock. I'll reserve judgement until more info comes in. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The region was just hit by a magnitude 7.0 earthquake (~10 km from the prior epicenter). I assume we can expect additional damage and casualties. Also, on the general theory that more ITN posts are better, I don't think the threshold for death and destruction needs to be all that high to justify posting an earthquake story. Dragons flight (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Article has been expanded with new quake information. Timely story and the damage is considerable. Death toll is notable and Japan is a leader in earthquake resistant structures so death toll is less than it would be in many countries. Capitalistroadster (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – Widespread disruption, damage, and numerous casualties. Added ALT2 to reflect that there are two major earthquakes involved in this story. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Fixed it for you. George Ho (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

April 14Edit


New hormoneEdit

Article: Asprosin (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists discover a new hormone in humans, asprosin.
Alternative blurb: ​Scientists discover a new hormone in humans, asprosin, which controls blood sugar.
News source(s): Cell, The Scientist

Nominator's comments: Discoveries of such biological stuff in humans are almost always newsworthy, it seems. Putting it under the date of Cell publication. Article is open to further expansion. Brandmeistertalk 11:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak support I don't think hormones are like elements in that there are a finite number (though there likely are a finite number that would appear naturally), but the linkage to various medical conditions in humans can lead to treatments and cures. It is a shame that I can't find anything more mainstream than New Scientist talking about it, sorta failing the "ITN" part, but science news can be useful to include. --MASEM (t) 03:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support - The article is currently very technical, but I suppose there hasn't been much popular science coverage yet. Still, some of the information from the New Scientist article might be useful for making this more accessible to the general reader. Smurrayinchester 08:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Suggest DYK The article is such that only field specialists can appreciate it. That's a product of the press that it has gotten so far (that is, subject journals and a few pop-sci write ups), so I won't hold that against the nomination. But I also note a general lack of news coverage on this item, and the impact that this discovery has is not apparent, and will probably remain that way for many years to come.128.214.163.138 (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Volodymyr GroysmanEdit

Articles: Volodymyr Groysman (talk, history) and Arseniy Yatsenyuk (talk, history)
Blurb: Volodymyr Groysman (pictured) is appointed Prime Minister of Ukraine following the resignation of Arseniy Yatsenyuk.
News source(s): BBC

Both articles updated

 Smurrayinchester 09:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support because consensus was to post once the resignation became official. Brian Everlasting (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Both bolded articles look good to me. --Jayron32 12:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – Per preceding comments, previous discussion. Sca (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - thanks for nominating. Banedon (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted per both the previous blurb discussion and a double check that both articles are at quality per above supports. I have not brought the picture in as it doesn't appear to be protected at Commons, but once that's done we should swap that out. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    The one used in the article will be protected by Krinklebot at 4pm. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    16:00 UTC? (eg about 45 min from when I write this?) I'll replace then if no one else does. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    I think you need to re-appraise the admin instructions. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    I've been appropriately schooled. Picture updated now. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    It's that easy, thanks to David Levy and Krinklebot. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

April 13Edit


[Posted to RD]: Nera WhiteEdit

Article: Nera White (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Tennessean

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: If we believe her article, this basketball player " was considered one of the most outstanding female players in history" The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak support will remove the weak if and when the lead is expanded to a complete summary per WP:LEAD. Otherwise, article is tolerable for the main page. Not the best, could use expansion in some areas, but significance is clear, and the article isn't lacking any referencing. --Jayron32 12:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    Please do so, it is easy to expand the lead, anyone can do that, including you! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    I did, along with several other editors. Looking much better. Thanks for the encouragement. --Jayron32 18:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - She is certainly at the top of her field; but I agree that the lead section should be expanded. Blue Adventure (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    Please do so, it is easy to expand the lead, anyone can do that, including you! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Lukewarm support - She's not a particularly well known individual and this is barely in the news. However, I do think being the first woman elected to the Basketball Hall of Fame is pretty impressive. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I never heard of her, but she appears to be an important women's basketball player. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose not in the news. Compare with the Golden State Warriors story, for example, which is getting major international coverage. This item hasn't even gotten out of Tennessee. Andrew D. (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Her article indicates she was very important to her field. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support First female basketball player in the hall of fame gets my vote. Miyagawa (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD, Stephen 23:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] NBA best recordEdit

Cleary no consensus to post. --Tone 13:20, 14 April 2016 (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: Golden State Warriors (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After defeating the Memphis Grizzlies, the Golden State Warriors end the regular season 73-9, making it the best record in NBA history.
News source(s): Wall Street Journal CNN BBC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: No idea how "notable" this truly is in the eyes of Wikipedia, but I thought to nominate it just to see. Andise1 (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • But a double maiden over probably isn't? This is the winningest team ever in a major North American sports league (besides the National Football League but I wonder if their 16-0 was just luck. They lost to the weaker Giants only 1 month later after all). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't understand your cricket analogy but good try. Can you point me to the last time we posted a "double maiden over" (and then tell me exactly what one of those is?) The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Breaks a 20-year-old record that is unlikely to be bested again soon, and establishes the current Warriors team as one of the greatest of all time (though they still have to win the playoffs to complete their dominance of the season). Dragons flight (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - I very rarely support sports articles, but all-time-greatest is obviously in the news, and highly notable. Jusdafax 06:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't see how Americans care about this; I don't see how the world does either. Even as a Californian, it's a great, exciting feeling to have one of the teams to win the best; however, this is just as significant as Kobe's last day, which consensus oppose. Perhaps we should post the same to other sports? George Ho (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Kobe's last day, while sad, is ultimately insignificant in terms of anything being notable. This is a big record broken that will probably not be broken for a while. Even if it is broken sometime soon, the fact that the record was broken after so long makes this significant. Andise1 (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
But this means if it's broken next year, we post it again. And again and again. It's really not significant. We have sports leagues all across the world where records are broken every year. This is no different. (As an example, PSG won the French league in "record time" this year, see this report – it's interesting, but ultimately nothing more than sports trivia). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't necessarily support posting this now, but it seems unlikely to be broken anytime soon; it took 20 years and they only broke it by a game. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose article contains a single unreferenced sentence on this update, which just reiterates the blurb. Have they won the NBA or what? Surely that is more important? Jolly Ω Janner
  • Oppose - Poorly referenced sports trivia. Take it DYK. Fgf10 (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Regretful oppose - The problem is that, right now, two of the five blurbs on ITN are sports-related. For a new sports-related blurb to be featured then I would require higher-than-normal significance, and I can't consider this record to be that. It's only going to be interesting to followers of NBA, and while basketball is by no means an obscure sport, it's also by no means a sport that captures the imagination of most people (there are only a few that does that - the 100m sprint for example, perhaps the FIFA world cup). On another day when ITN is having trouble with new blurbs and / or when there isn't as much sports-related news, I'd probably have supported this. Banedon (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
We have no control over the timing of events; we nominate them as they come. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is the kind of factoid I'd have no trouble including as an aside if the team won the NBA this year ("X wins the 2016 NBA finals, with a record winning record of 73-9") but not if it's just its own item. It's perfectly possible that any sport or league sees a record set in a given season that's separate from the actual winning result and I don't think we want to open the door to posting all of them (and we all know that if we post one, it'll be seen as precedent). GRAPPLE X 07:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The potential to break the record has been one of the biggest sports stories of the past several months, given the sustained nature of the coverage. Article is of sufficient quality for the main page. --Jayron32 08:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a trivial record with very limited notability that can easily turn irrelevant if they don't win the title. Yet, this could be still posted as a DYK item.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    DYK only allows articles that are either newly created, expanded by at least 5-fold in last week, or promoted to GA status in the last week. I can't see how this would be eligible for DYK. Dragons flight (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    The article could be expanded or improved to GA status. After all, we're here to improve the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    It's 60,000 characters already. I'd say a 5-fold expansion would be unreasonable. As for improving the encyclopedia, I'd say the 160+ people who have worked on documenting the current season have been doing that. If someone doesn't believe this item deserves to be on ITN, then fine. But we shouldn't pretend that this information belongs on a different part of the main page if that other section is even less likely to post it than ITN. Dragons flight (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    If it's such an incredible documentation effort by so many great people, GA should be simple. Then it can be featured at DYK. It's newsworthiness is really irrelevant, as to whether it's posted today or in a week or month. The "wow" factor is simply that they have a slightly better record than the previous best, but they haven't actually won anything for it yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait to see if they get to and win the NBA Finals, where this record could be mentioned if they do. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    @331dot: I don't think that someone would still give a damn about this record after the finals, no matter if they win it or not. The point is that the regular season and the playoffs are two different things, where the former is a sort of qualification for the latter. Put it this way, if the team with the best score after the regular season were the champions, it would definitely make the record score worth including in the blurb. But since the season continues in a different format with fewer teams to go and this record only secures home advantage in the seventh game in each match they will play until the end, it doesn't make much sense to squeeze notability from something that simply doesn't earn it. Perhaps it would be a better option to combine the blurb with records in the playoffs if such happen (e.g. least games played).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • DYK yes. ITN. No. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose the first ever 82-0 I'd consider as that couldn't be beaten, but this seems entirely arbitrary. By all means mention it if we post the conclusion of the season but not on its own. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    Agreed, this could be a footnote to the ITNR blurb if they win the finals, if they don't then the record is really meaningless. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    Indeed; as it was with the 2007 New England Patriots who did not win the Super Bowl. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    Maybe it is the statistician in me, but personally, the record for most dominant team in the history of a sport is rather more interesting than who wins the title in any given year. There will be a new title holder every year. but performances like this are much rarer. Stephen Curry and the Warriors are "Breaking The NBA" [14] and showing us a style of play that most people didn't think possible. Stephen Curry has 402 three point baskets this season, which breaks the previous single season record (also held by him) by more than 100 baskets [15]. Their surprising style of play and its undeniable success is likely to change how other teams approach the game for years to come. Whatever happens in the finals, their record setting performance this season is far from "meaningless". Dragons flight (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    I'm afraid it is, certainly to 99% of our readership. If they went undefeated (like The Invincibles (football)) then I'd be more interested, particularly as their invincibility resulted in more than just an update in stats books, it resulted in a trophy. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Yes, it's true we have posted record-breaking events like Lionel Messi breaking the single season scoring record, but widespread consensus usually opposes posting events like this. The significance is purely internal.--WaltCip (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2016 (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] Kobe's last gameEdit

Consensus is clearly against posting this. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2016 (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: Kobe Bryant (talk, history)
Blurb: Kobe Bryant scored 60 points in his last game in the NBA
News source(s): (LA Times)

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Making headlines. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose If 60 pts was a record (it's not) that might be a reason to post, but the retirement of a player is not really an ITN worthy piece. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article needs to be updated with far more than just a single sentences for ITN. On second thoughts, this would probably give undue weight in the article. This makes a good news headline, but I don't see how it could work on Wikipedia. Probably best to show more than one news source to show how much coverage it is receiving anyway. Even the LA Times don't give a particularly in depth coverage of the event. Jolly Ω Janner 05:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose sporting statistical trivia. He himself has done better before. And retirement was announced in November 2015. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The retirement itself is the real story here, isn't it? I'm not outright opposed to posting sports retirements, but they'd have to be ridiculously notable for me to support, like Gretzky/Pelé/Jordan notable, or those among the top two or three players to ever play their respective sport. If we post the retirements of players who were merely excellent, that's a lot of retirements. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose sports trivia, soon to be forgotten and will have zero long-term impact on anything or anyone anywhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as is (cut out the points score, just cut it down to "Kobe Bryant plays his last game in the NBA and resigns"), but not totally opposed if someone more knowledgeable about basketball can weigh in. The only sports resignation that we've posted as far as I recall is Sachin Tendulkar, who is without a doubt the greatest cricketer of the era (and an idol to a nation of one billion). I don't know enough about basketball to know whether Bryant is the greatest of his generation - is he? He is the only basketball player I've heard of because of his basketball playing (as opposed to acting or whatever). Smurrayinchester 08:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    Smurrayinchester, in answer to your question - well, maybe. He'd be a strong contender - but then you have to consider the likes of LeBron James, Tim Duncan and Shaquille O'Neal. Having said that, I would dispute the suggestion that Tendulkar was "without a doubt" the greatest cricketer of his time - there are plenty of cricket fans who would argue for, say, Muralitharan or Warne instead. So I don't think that the fact that Bryant isn't indisputably the greatest of his generation distinguishes him from Tendulkar. Neljack (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As stated, posting retirements is very rare here, and I don't think Bryant(though close) rises to the high level needed. The aforementioned cricket player was generally seen as the best ever in his sport, which I don't think is the case here. Perhaps if this was the 90s Michael Jordan's final retirement would make it,(or even further back, Wilt Chamberlain) but I don't believe Bryant should. It's also been known he was going to retire for a year now, I believe. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2016 (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]Peabody BankruptcyEdit

No consensus to post..-The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 12:57, 17 April 2016 (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: Peabody Energy (talk, history)
Blurb: Peabody Energy, the largest privately-owned producer of coal in the world, files for bankruptcy court protection but plans to continue mining operations as usual.
News source(s): (Reuters) (ABC News Australia)

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Thanks to portal:current events for this story. My question is: since this was a publicly traded company should this be "publicly owned producer of coal" instead of "privately owned producer of coal?" Brian Everlasting (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose As the articles states, they will continue to operate their mines and assets are protected, this is simply an accounting step as to be able to handle debts they currently cannot pay. --MASEM (t) 01:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Good point. I changed the original blurb to addresses your concerns. Brian Everlasting (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. An overly indebted company got bit by a fall in prices of their core product? Not exactly a huge shock, and the $11B restructuring is not particularly large in the history of all bankruptcies. There might be an interesting side story related to global warming, natural gas expansion, energy policy, and other side topics on the fall in coal prices, but that's at least two steps removed from the bankruptcy itself, and I don't think that is enough to justify including this. Dragons flight (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose – Symptomatic of the U.S. coal industry; Ch. 11 filing not particularly surprising. Sca (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose the difference between a restructuring and a liquidation is an essential one. We don't post robberies and infamous murders under the rubric of "crimes". μηδείς (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2016 (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] South Korean electionEdit

Article: South Korean legislative election, 2016 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In an upset result, the liberal opposition Minjoo Party of Korea wins a plurality of one seat in the South Korean National Assembly.
Alternative blurb: ​The Minjoo Party of Korea wins the most seats in the South Korean National Assembly.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Minjoo Party wins one seat more than the ruling Saenuri Party in the South Korean National Assembly.
News source(s): Wide coverage of the election, but shock result is very fresh. Reuters, Washington Post, Daily Mail, Vice, etc.

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.

Nominator's comments: National election, additionally notable for a range of reasons: the upset win that defied all previous opinion polling including the exit poll, the party system upheaval with a new third party, and the problems this poses for President Park. —Nizolan (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Not very significant in South Korean; not around the globe either. The President Park Geun-hye is still in control. George Ho (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
ITNR probably applies (there's some conceptual subtlety about whether it's a "general" election since the ROK is a presidential system, but the term is widely applied to it in reliable sources (Google "South Korea" "general election")). Anyway, it's odd to claim it's not very significant around the globe when it has received international media coverage for going on a week now (Nikkei, AFP, Economist, all from before the election). —Nizolan (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Rescinding my !vote due to ITN/R listing of general elections and mass coverage. I still don't believe it can change a thing. After all, the president is the daughter of the assassinated dictator, and she might do some influence in the future. --George Ho (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
It's significant for the same reason different parties controlling Congress and the presidency is significant in the U.S. (divided government). Her legislative agenda is now impossible, and she's a lame-duck president. Have a look at the Nikkei article I posted above, which talks about the significance of the election. —Nizolan (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • General elections are ITNR so we don't need to address notability. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment added altblurb. A hung parliament isn't really a victory in any sense. Needs a prose summary of the result. Fuebaey (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@Fuebaey: I can see the concern with the "victory" phrasing, but the proposed blurb also removes most of the context. Specifically: removing "liberal" is unhelpfully decontextualising, since "Minjoo" will mean nothing to most people, and the upset of previous opinion polls and wider expectations needs to be mentioned. I also think the margin of one seat should be mentioned either way. I've edited my blurb to remove the "victory", let me know what you think. —Nizolan (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support but I think the article would be helped to explain - outside of the lede - why the surprise and the projected impact of the Minjoo's upset victory, if that is going to be part of the blurb. (If was just that the result defied the last public opinion polls, eh, not so much). AltBlurb seems fine otherwise. It's otherwise in good shape from what I can tell. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@Masem: I added a brief analysis in the Results section of the article touching on and citing these points. There are a wide range of sources using phrases like "surprise", "upset", "crushing" etc. It's difficult to find sources discussing specific impact precisely because nobody expected it until it actually happened, but the general significance is now there and cited. —Nizolan (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
You're right, it's probably going to take a few days for any impact analysis to come into line. (I have no knowledge of how this would affect NK/SK relations and subsequently the rest of the world but I could see that being one of those points analyzed). I would be fine with the first blurb now with the explanation this being a surprise result. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Quick note: I altered the wording of the last part of my blurb to follow the condensed style of the alternate; I haven't changed the content otherwise. —Nizolan (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Please, anything to get horse racing and golf masters pushed down the page. Articles look good. Brian Everlasting (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 05:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The blurb as it stands is inadequate. Minjoo has 123 of 300 and Saenuri have 122. Neither party is a clear winner here. Can I suggest as a blurb: "The Minjoo Party wins one seat more than the ruling Saenuri Party in the South Korean National Assembly." Smurrayinchester 08:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I think the blurb as it stands is ok because it says plurality which should be clear enough that no majority was won. Brian Everlasting (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] End of Argentine defaultEdit

Article: Argentine debt restructuring (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Argentina reaches an agreement to pay the holdouts, ending a 15 year sovereign default.
Alternative blurb: ​Argentina reaches an agreement to issue bonds and pay its creditors, ending a 15 year sovereign default.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Argentine government reaches an agreement to issue bonds and pay its creditors, ending a 15 year sovereign default.
News source(s): Financial Times, Bloomberg, Reuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: As said, it is the end of a sovereign default that lasted for more than a decade (and 5 presidents since then). Clearly newsworthy. Cambalachero (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - Noting that there are a couple CNs in the lede and a few paragraphs in the latter half that are unsourced, overall this looks like a fairly comprehensive article on this debt situation, and once those CNs are fixed, should be ready to go. Topic is definitely of interest and appropriate for ITN. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support I found the updated information in the article, but it would be nice if it were added to the lead and/or made more prominent (such as a section header) so that readers could find the update easier. But it's there, and the article is in good shape, I see a few CNs in the lead, but the article is essentially completely referenced in the body. Ideally, the CNs would be resolved, and the update made a bit more prominent, but it's not in bad shape right now. --Jayron32 18:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I have fixed the two citation needed tags (they were referenced elsewhere in the article), and mentioned the end of the default at the end, linking to the section. Cambalachero (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support looks pretty clear to me. Banedon (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support but I don't understand why the blurb pipes "pay the holdouts." I would like a blurb without any pipes better so I could understand it. Brian Everlasting (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Have added altblurbs. I personally hate turns of phrase like "Argentina agrees to..." when "The Argentine government agrees to..." is meant, but maybe that's unavoidable for length reasons. Smurrayinchester 08:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per the above comments. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sorry for the mistake, but the default was declared in 2001, not 2002 (December 23, 2001, to be precise), so it was 15 years ago. The article was mistaken in that detail, and I confused it with the end of the convertibility law, which was also part of the crisis of the time but a completely different issue. Cambalachero (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Singapore rape rulingEdit

Clearly not happening. Banedon (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2016 (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: Penal Code (Singapore) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The High Court of Singapore rules that women cannot be guilty of rape
News source(s): e.g. [16], [17]; Google turns up a lot more

Article needs updating
 Banedon (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment It turns out the decision was made because the accused rapist is transgender (biologically female but had lived as a man since she was 16, and had even "married" two women). Don't know the exact wording of the court ruling, but I think the blurb should clarify that. Brandmeistertalk 07:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose a backward-thinking set of policies just got tweaked. That they do not even acknowledge the concept of male rape (...rape is narrowly defined under S375, Penal Code as the penile penetration of a vagina...) underscores a failure to get with the program. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral - It's... bizarre. But I'm not sure whether or not that in itself is newsworthy.--WaltCip (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This such an anomalous case that it doesn't pose wider significance. Rather a straw in the wind. Sca (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this is an instance of a court telling a legislature to update some laws. Abductive (reasoning) 16:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not seeing a substantive update in the highlighted article that makes the blurb stand out. --Jayron32 16:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Please note that rape is defined differently around the world, even in the US. Rape used to be narrowly defined as coercive sexual intercourse committed by a man on a woman in several jurisdictions, and still does in some. As the West became more sexually liberal, laws were introduced to address the complex issue of sexual assaults. In some places, a term that was used to describe a specific crime began to encompass an entire spectrum of sexual assaults. Others went a step further and got rid of the phrase "rape" altogether.
This case did not involve legal rape in Singapore, let alone the High Court deciding on whether it did or did not occur. The accused was charged with sexual penetration of a minor, i.e. sexual assault on a person under the age of consent, and seems to have been acquitted on a technicality - a legal loophole. The suggested article does not mention the case or even list the section of the law involved - s. 376A Fuebaey (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2016 (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


[Closed]RD: Balls MahoneyEdit

Not happening here...-The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 12:59, 17 April 2016 (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: Balls Mahoney (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): WWE

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: Multiple title-winning sports entertainer The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A professional wrestler who is virtually indistinguishable from any other pro wrestler. Because all events are scripted, "title-winning" is a bit of a misnomer. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    In your opinion. The facts speak for themselves and don't rely on your personal attitude. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes. In my opinion, a professional wrestling championship is more analogous to an employee of the month award than an actual competition to determine skill and proficiency, and this is something we ought not to waste a great deal of time on unless it can be demonstrated that he had any sort of impact either inside or outside of professional wrestling other than "winning" some kayfabe "championships". Any impact whatsoever. Even a Slim Jim commercial will do. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
That's not required, but thanks for your input. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support A very comprehensive, well written, and well referenced article of a higher quality than most that make the main page for RD or ITN. An excellent example of high quality work. --Jayron32 18:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bongwarrior Nohomersryan (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No hall of fame? That's a shame. George Ho (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The kayfabe problem means that the sources are unreliable. Andrew D. (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2016 (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: Arnold WeskerEdit

Consensus and article quality will not develop. Stephen 04:48, 14 April 2016 (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: Arnold Wesker (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian

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: Sir Arnold Wesker. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose a large volume of works but little indication of being important in his field. Many people receive knighthoods. The article is also heavily under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM; the knighthood (and one award in 1959) might indicate he is above average, but not "very important" to his field. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Have added more awards in the article. Michael Billington (critic) says that he couldn't bring out the success of his early 1960s success, but "the radical bard of working Britain" has got plenty good reviews of his plays. As typical with old gen stars, this article also lacks attention because of probably uninterested editors. The article though created in 2004 has had little over 200 edits only so far. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 14:23, 13 April 2016 (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: David GestEdit

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 23:38, 12 April 2016 (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 Gest (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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: Unexpected death of prominent television celebrity and producer, per our article "Gest produced the highest rated musical television special in history"... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Major referencing issues, large blocks of text have no references, and a giant orange tag at the top warns of that. If this were cleaned up, I'd have no objection to posting this. --Jayron32 16:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Referencing is obviously an issue, but looking past that, it's hard to argue for importance, where really the only claim that can be made is being the producer of a music television special that featured, at the time, the biggest pop music star (Michael Jackson), which was bound to draw viewers. Ratings are different from quality for television, and I would not weigh too much on simply the ratings for it. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose based on the work required for the article to be improved before it could feature on front page. I'd put him up there based on the production work. I did once own a copy of his autobiography - the guy was nuts, he used to go into bookshops in London and sign copies that were just sitting on the shelf so they couldn't be sent back to the publishers. If the article was fully cited, then I'd switch to a weak support. Miyagawa (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose even if the quality is good. He was a well-known figure, but that doesn't qualify him for RD. His "producer" career which has been cited twice already was about as thin as a sheet of paper; 3 TV specials? big deal. All the obits I see mostly just tie him into Liza Minelli. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not seeing how he meets meets the RD criteria. That he had a high profile marriage and was a well known UK reality TV star over the last decade doesn't strike me as top and/or important in his field. BLP facts in the lead and his career section are virtually unsourced. Fuebaey (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Masem, Nohomersryan. – Sca (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2016 (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 11Edit


[Closed] US, UK, French foreign ministers to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial MuseumEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2016 (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.

 61.245.25.5 (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Highlighted article has not been updated (indeed, it looks like it has not been updated since 2009) and contains very little prose. We don't normally feature mere lists at ITN, generally some moderately extensive prose explaining the event and its context is needed. --Jayron32 13:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose not a sufficiently significant diplomatic event to merit posting. --LukeSurl t c 17:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose per above. An interesting "first" but not groundbreaking. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Ditto. Had Kerry issued a formal apology, that would've been news. Sca (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2016 (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.

[Withdrawn] 2016 Stavropol bombingsEdit

withdrawn as nothing but a suicide op at a cop outpost. Feel free to open if others want.Lihaas (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2016 (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: 2016 Stavropol bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: Multiple suicide bombings occur in Stavropol, Russia.
News source(s): Sputnik (JUST breaking so more to come)

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Keep an eye for notability as it just happened. but it should pass notability for page creaton on WP. Lihaas (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2016 (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 to RD] RD: Howard MarksEdit

Article: Howard Marks (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Both articles need 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.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

question Why do you , as nom, suggest hes top of his field?Lihaas (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I didn't. I said he was important. That is self evident. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Well RD is not "imoportant" cause if theyre notable enough they have pages and not all those with pages get posted to ITN. So there has to be more as that's not "self evident".Lihaas (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
"The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field" Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
As nominator, why do you think hes top of his field? "Just a punt" is not a reason.Lihaas (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
RAAD just had 2 controversial deaths in the last couple of months that had FAR bigger implications and the northern Ireland change of government (direcrly related) was not posted here. oppose meanwhile. (but changeable)Lihaas (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't really know what you're on about. Marks' death is featured on BBC News' global homepage. Your points are not relevant to this nomination, thanks though. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Notable drug trafficker/public figure. Baking Soda (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Notability is there, article is good. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not highly notable Sherenk1 (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support as one of the most notable people in the field of drug smuggling. Article looks to be in good shape too (although there is still a heavy reliance on his autobiography). Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I feel notability is high enough to merit an RD listing but I'm uncomfortable posting a biography to the main page whose dominant source is an autobiography. GRAPPLE X 10:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The majority of this article relies on a single primary source - once that is sorted, then we can see. Challenger l (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support The article is fully referenced and fairly extensive. Challenger 1 raises a good point, it is mostly sourced to his own autobiography, but said autobiography appears to have been published by a reputable publishing house, and meets the requirements of a reliable source. It should probably also have more sources, but I don't have any major problems with this appearing on the main page. --Jayron32 11:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support. The sourcing is a concern, but he qualifies on the merits and like Jayron I don't think it should be kept off the page for just the sourcing. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Yes there is a heavy dependency on Marks' book, but there are 24 other sources as well, which are a hell of a lot more than many RDs that have been posted here. Laura Jamieson (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Notability seems negligible. Sca (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - We have come to a curious time in ITN where, in any given nomination, support !votes simply claim "this is notable" and oppose !votes likewise "this is not notable", without substantiating evidence thereof. We need to set a benchmark for asserting or disputing notability, otherwise this is simply reiteration of WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE.--WaltCip (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
In any case, whereas this has been posted