Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2015

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.


February 28Edit

[Closed] Under the Dome (film)Edit

No consensus to post; if eligible, can be nominated for DYK. SpencerT♦C 03:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Under the Dome (film) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Chinese documentary film Under the Dome condemning China's air pollution viewed more than 150 million times in three days since release.
Alternative blurb: ​Chinese environmental protection minister welcomes documentary film Under the Dome condemning China's air pollution.
News source(s):

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Unusual for Chinese censors to allow and welcome criticism of China FunkyCanute (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose While this has a lot of views and is indeed unusual, I'd prefer to post reforms that result from the attention rather than the release of a freelance documentary. Though, this may be a good candidate for WP:DYK. Mamyles (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Mamyles. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support later if this gets awards. In the meantime, nominate it for DYK. That's a twofer! μηδείς (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's much better suited to a DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Contrary to popular belief, China does allow some limited criticism, so long as it's the sort of criticism that the party agrees with (as here). Pollution is not a subject mentioned in the article on censorship in China. The fact that a film has used that is hardly earth-shattering. I agree with those above that this would be a better story for WP:DYK if eligible. Modest Genius talk 00:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] RD: Anthony MasonEdit

Snow close. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Anthony Mason (basketball) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American professional basketball player Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORDmy strength 07:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Nope, not important enough. –HTD 07:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose can't see how he was significant in his field. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Does not meet the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • No, not a significant enough player. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose definitely doesn't meet the criteria. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm a Knicks fan, I grew up watching Mason and Oakley and Starks and Ewing. I have more nostalgia towards Mason than most, but even if the Knicks had won in 1994, this wouldn't meet RD criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

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

February 27Edit

[Closed/Posted] Boris Nemtsov killedEdit

Enough, it's posted. Any further discussion over the title of the page and its consequential blurb should be conducted elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Boris Nemtsov (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Russian opposition politician Boris Nemtsov (pictured) is killed in Moscow
News source(s): [1] (Russian) [2] (Russian) [3] (BBC)
Nominator's comments: Developing story, but it's being reported that Russian (former) opposition politician and Putin critic Boris Nemtsov has been assassinated in Moscow. Connormah (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Added a BBC source too. RT has picked it up too it seems. Connormah (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The Grey Lady has it also. [4] I suggest waiting a bit for the news to come out, and for the target article(s) to be updated. Unclear at this time whether he was assassinated or merely shot, and we should discuss whether to call him an opposition politician or opponent of Vladimir Putin, or both. Jehochman Talk 22:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I suggest this as well. I think a blurb is worth consideration however - a murder is unexpected, and makes nature of his death a notable subject. He was active up until recently too (I see some articles from up to 10 days ago of him criticizing the government). From what I'm reading it seems that he was one of the more prominent and outspoken critics of the government. His previous political experience helps out in this case too (he's not merely notable for his opposing views). Connormah (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD as he is top of his field as Russian opposition. I would oppose a blurb at this point. RD is sufficient, unless something more is here than a single murder. Mamyles (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb He was one of the best known opposition politicians in Russia for many years. --Երևանցի talk 22:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Probably just the beginning of a major news story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD as notable, oppose blurb as undue. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Changed my mind. Support blurb, as this seems to be a big story in Russian politics and it is fairly unusual for a Russian politician to be assassinated. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as blurb only this is an assassination of one of Putin's biggest rivals, I am not sure what more can be said. μηδείς (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per Medeis. The article needs work on referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - another Putin supported murder.... --BabbaQ (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD only – It seems some of the above users are making political inferences that are not supported by RS in order to lend gravity to their position. This cannot be tolerated. This is certainly a notable fellow, and he deserves RD. That's all he deserves. RGloucester 23:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not too sure about that. I think that his notability, plus the fact that he was shot to death are warranting of a blurb, independent of any political speculation (though I suppose it's difficult not to speculate on that). Connormah (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb this is an assasination of fairly important political figure. SeraV (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The BBC source cited above says nothing about "assassination". We follow RS. RGloucester 23:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
"Assassination is the deliberate killing of a prominent person or political figure, usually for payment or political reasons." It is highly unlikely that this was an run of a mill murder. SeraV (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
That's speculation, i.e. WP:OR. RGloucester 23:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Alright but it is also highly likely and it is my personal view. Nevertheless the fact that he was indeed murdered makes him worthy of blurb instead of rd, our blurb doesn't say anything about assasination nor should it before we know more. SeraV (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
According to the reports, it was a deliberate killing, but seemingly gangland style, so his murder might have nothing to do with politics. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Possibility is there certainly. I just find it a bit unlikely. SeraV (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. High-profile murder of major political figure, very likely to be politically motivated. I'm not saying we should claim that in the blurb but it's a relevant consideration when deciding a blurb. The top story in most tested news media, and the top foreign story in all of them. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Murder of leading opposition figure in Russian politics. Added a cropped image from 2008. Bruzaholm (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note according to al jazeera [6] Putins spokesman says that "The murder bears the hallmarks of a contract killing". SeraV (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • The usual hallmark of a contract killing being, of course, that you have a copy of the contract folded inside your breast pocket. Formerip (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course! SeraV (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. The murder of a prominent opposition leader and former top politician in a major country like Russia is highly notable. -Zanhe (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Murder of Boris Nemtsov should be linked. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Some help would be appreciated at the article. There is a user edit warring over the lede length among other things. Connormah (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD unless the murder article and the Bio article are merged. It will be too confusing for people to have to go to both to get the full story. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Administrative note: Once again we have an overwhelming consensus to post this to the main page, but the article is currently tagged with having referencing issues. Until that's fixed, this can't be posted to the main page. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • The article in general is kind of a nightmare. It needs a lot of work, IMO, before it can go up for ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
      • The tag seems to have been removed already. Jehochman Talk 12:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. He was a high-profile politician and his murder is one of the notable assassinations in the country. --Egeymi (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb I don't think that we should assess his biography to see whether he meets any of the death criteria for inclusion. The main news here is the act of his assassination, its worldwide coverage and its implications on the Russian and world politics. That said, Boris Nemtsov would have probably not merited inclusion for a blurb if he had died peacefully but this is a different story.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted - Jehochman Talk 12:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Do we want to use the word "assassinated"? I'm not seeing it in BBC coverage. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • NYTimes - " Boris Y. Nemtsov, a prominent Russian opposition leader and former first deputy prime minister, was shot dead Friday evening in central Moscow in the highest-profile assassination in Russia during the tenure of President Vladimir V. Putin." Connormah (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In the absence of evidence, NYT seems to have jumped to a conclusion. I don't think Wikipedia should perpetuate that jump. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It does not take a genius to figure out that it is not a claim but a fact that it is an assassination. It follows in line with Putins standard cowardly strategies. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It also does not take a genius to realize that no one has been arrested and nothing about the motive is known at this time. If it was a mob hit, for example, would that still count as an "assassination"? How does the NYT or you know who's enemies' lists he's on? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree here with BB: "murdered", yes, no question, but "assassination" is assuming that there is a political motive here. No question there's a chance there was a political motivation here due to Russian politics, but without an investigation it is improper to call this an assassination. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, several people jumped out of a van and shot Nemtsov four times in the back before fleeing. Not an attempted robbery, or a random shot. I suppose we could say gang-syle hit, but assassination is what all the sources are saying. μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
There's no question it was a deliberate killing, but the motive is unknown at this time. The sources are jumping to conclusions without evidence, and Wikipedia shouldn't allow itself to get sucked into that. (And by the way, I would be surprised if Putin's not behind it, but that's strictly OR.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
BBC doesn't say "assassination" at all (and says it was only one person from a car, shooting four times) - the article does postulate that there was an intentional political goal here but the strongest language used is "brutally murdered". --MASEM (t) 17:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I checked the coverage from ABC News, Washington Post, LA Times, CNN and USA Today. Of these, only the Washington Post declared that it was an "assassination". ABC News and LA Times said it could be an "assassination", but hedged rather than being definitive. CNN never used the term "assassination", choosing instead to mention "political murder" as one possible motivation. USA Today was probably the least explicit in its terminology, avoiding the term "assassination" and other obvious synonyms, though it does mention that Nemtsov feared being killed by Putin or his supporters for his politics. From that sample, I'd say the sources are not yet saying this was an assassination, though they generally acknowledge it could be. Dragons flight (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Before posting the blurb I checked and found multiple reliable sources using the word "assassination". What happened fits the definition of the word. "Assassination is the deliberate killing of a prominent person or political figure, usually for payment or political reasons," according to our article's sourced lede. This killing was deliberate. Nemtsov was a prominent political figure, and the conditions in the "usually" clause are not requirements, though they do appear likely given what is known. Jehochman Talk 19:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I was going to post exactly this as well (but got edit conflicted). Connormah (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It's still speculation. No one has identified who the gunman was. That it was likely politically motivated is true, but we should be more careful than the press when the evidence is clearly not established yet. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There are lots of assassinations where the gunman has never been identified. For example, Grandpa Hassan was assassinated in Moscow not too long ago. And a political motivation is not required. Essentially, any killing of a prominent person that isn't an accident or street crime is considered to be an assassination and there are multiple reliable sources using that word. Jehochman Talk 19:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • How are we sure this wasn't a street crime? In time, I'm sure that the authorities will come down and say "we don't know who shot him, but we are treating this as an assassination" which at that point, we can follow suit. But the quotes from the authorities right now are only saying "brutal murder". It's engaging in speculation, even if all the signs point to a assassination. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The dictionaries I perused seem a bit divided about whether to label all murders of prominent political figures as "assassination" (which seems the be the definition you are espousing), or only to use the term for murders explicitly motivated by political (or religious) considerations. Given that the definition seems at least a bit fiddly, I would tend to give the deciding vote to the presentation offered by reliable sources, which in the majority don't seem be describing this as an "assassination" just yet. Personally, I suspect it was a politically motivated assassination; however, I would still probably stick with "murdered" for ITN. Dragons flight (talk)
The term "assassin" is derived from Arabic for "hashish user(s)", but from the beginning it was about murdering political opponents.[7]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The front page still reads "assassination", and it still is over-strong. What's wrong with just calling it murder anyway, which is indisputably accurate? (Obligatory note that yes it probably was an assassination, but it was *definitely* a murder.) SnowFire (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Fixed by Tariqabjotu now. GoldenRing (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia cares not one whit about any disinformation spread by the Russian government that this was a crime of passion or related to Charlie Hebdo, or any other nonsense theories that are being laughed at around the world.[8] Nemtsov was (more than 50% likely) killed for his politics. As such, this was an assassination. Yes, the evidence is circumstantial, but there is no evidence that this was street crime or anything other than a political hit. As such, Wikipedia will go with the preponderance of reliable sources and avoid whitewashing or weaseling.[9][10][11][12] Feel free to discuss and we'll see if a new consensus emerges. If some weaseling has invaded the target article, we should fix it, not propagate the error to ITN. Jehochman Talk 13:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Your argument is that the preponderance of the reliable sources declare this an "assassination"? The other day, I pulled five articles from the top of Google News and only got one to declare it as such. But for the sake of argument, let's try again. Stories currently highly ranked for "Boris Nemtsov" on Google News: The Guardian, CNN, NYTimes, Euronews, ABC News, Telegraph, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal. Of those eight, I find that three (Guardian, CNN, Washington Post) say "assassination"/"assassin" as a definitive statement, one (Telegraph) says "assassination" as a likely but not certain characterization, and four (NY Times, Euronews, ABC News, Wall Street Journal) says only "murder"/"killer"/"killing". Not exactly overwhelming. Personally, I think he almost certainly was assassinated, but with less than a majority of reliable sources definitively labeling it that way, I would still prefer to say "murder" in ITN. Dragons flight (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we have a bit of editorial liberty to use the English language according to its plain meaning. Sources might choose "murder", a synonym for "assassination", because it's shorter or more alliterative with the other words in the headline. Our blurb is short, and Boris Nemtsov has an s sound in each word, so the blurb reads better with "assassination" than "murder". Given the level of prevalence you have identified (thanks!), I think we could use it or not. Another interesting statistic would be to make a list of the top 10 reliable sources and see if they have ever used the word "assassination" to describe the Nemtsov killing. You have NYT as a "no", but one of my links [13] shows them using the word "assassination" in the headline of a different article. If after considering what I've said here you still think it should be changed, please feel free to do so, because I know Tariq also wanted to change it. Jehochman Talk 14:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I suggest someone just close this, but when a politician is shot in the back by assailants who didn't rob or rape him, and who had no sexual or financial connection with him, and there are a list of over a dozen opponents, like him, of Putin, who've ben poisoned, shot or killed, it's deliberate obfuscation to delete the word assassinate. μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jehochman: My objection to the word "assassination" in the blurb had nothing to do with whether I, or even sources, called it one. Our article was titled "Murder of...", even multiple days after the incident. As my edit summary said, it made no sense to use "assassination" on the Main Page, but only "murder" in the title of the article. The article name, of course, has been changed now, so I no longer have an objection. -- tariqabjotu 18:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but I'm the one who moved the article, so that's kind of circular. I suggest that if the article moves, we update the ITN item to match. So far the discussion on the talk page is unanimously in favor of "assassination". What I don't want to do is inflict my opinion if others don't agree or aren't convinced by my reasons. Jehochman Talk 19:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I assumed it was you who moved the article, but I saw the talk page thread and it didn't seem like you were shoving your position down anyone's throat. I realize it's often faster to just enforce an obvious consensus yourself rather than go through the process of finding someone else to do the exact same thing. -- tariqabjotu 19:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Servando Gómez Martínez detainedEdit

Article: Servando Gómez Martínez (talk, history)
Blurb: Servando Gómez Martínez, Mexico's most wanted drug lord, is detained by Mexican authorities.
News source(s): CBC, CNN, The Guardian

Nominator's comments: Martínez is (was?) the leader of the Knights Templar, which once controlled all of Michoacan, in addition to being the most wanted drug lord in Mexico. Thus his detainment seems significant. Everymorning talk 20:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  • support - as significant in the fight against drugs.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - was looking into this before the Nimoy news broke, appears to be significant. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Although this isn't a conviction, the arrest is notable because he was Most Wanted. SpencerT♦C 21:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Question. Why is this being phrased as a 'detention' and not an 'arrest'? 331dot (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think it should be changed to an arrest before posting.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
      • CNN says detained (see above link). Everymorning talk 22:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I guess my question is, what is the difference (in Mexico) between being detained and being arrested? Or is there none? 331dot (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose we have the same story every three months, biggest druglord.... and he's not been convicted of anything. Meanwhile, in Russia... μηδείς (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We should stick to our usual practice of waiting for convictions before posting. There are sound BLP reasons for this - we shouldn't be branding someone as a "drug lord" on the front page of Wikipedia before they've been convicted. Note that the article refers to him as a "suspected drug lord", which is more appropriate. Neljack (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    I don't know about you, but I tend to reduce my "presumption of innocence" when the person is in the habit of distributing recorded videos that aim to explain how their admittedly illegal drug enterprise is actually a benefit for the people of Mexico. Mexico, the US, and most of the news reports label him as a drug lord without trying to couch it as a mere suspicion. Dragons flight (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    Maybe we could split the difference and call him a "quite strongly suspected drug lord". Formerip (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    "Quite strongly suspected drug lord"? Seems a bit like saying Osama bin Laden was quite strongly suspected of being a terrorist. (Osama was never convicted either.) Or we could just call him a "most-wanted drug lord" with a link to Mexico's official list of most-wanted drug lords. With his capture, only five such individuals remain free. Dragons flight (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, consensus is only to post convictions. Abductive (reasoning) 05:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
While that is generally the case, occasionally notable arrests or captures of notable fugitives make it through (like this one and this one). 331dot (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose there'll always be a "most wanted drug lord". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Leonard NimoyEdit

Article: Leonard Nimoy (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYTimes

Article needs updating

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

 MASEM (t) 17:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support One of the most iconic modern cultural figures in modern society. Joshua Garner (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: An internationally recognized and beloved figure in popular culture. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for RD Obviously. Canuck89 (talk to me) 17:26, February 27, 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. He has been - and always shall be - our friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support including blurb (Like Tom Baker, truly a huge icon in his field) The article still needs to be checked for tense, I have fixed some verbs. Opinions expressed in that article need citations. I would remind editors that citations are not needed for specifically named roles for which he was credited in a film or TV episode, but his appearance on the Jon Stewart show, for example has to be dated to a specific episode. Given that, I think this should go up ASAP. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    • This is the type of case I'd be really careful for a blurb just to maintain integrity of the ITN system. His death was not a surprise (he announced he had COPD last year, and was in the hospital last week for issues relating to it), and while he is a pop culture icon, he was just that - great actor, great person, but hard to argue - beyond the level of RD criteria - of importance to include a blurb, as that would set a precedence for others. This is the type of case RD is perfect for. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I'd argue his long career, the fact that he worked until his death, and his hugely iconic status, without which English-speaking culture of the last 5 decades would be a little bit poorer, justiies it. He was at the top of the field in sci-fi. Looking at the number of cameos, spinoffs, parodies, his own vital input to the role of Spock, he wasn't just that guy who played Robin with Michael Keaton. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Mind you, I'd love a blurb, but I can see this case biting us down the road when any 'beloved' person from a field died from old age or other similar complications, arging blurb over RD. He's not Nelson Mandala, Margaret Thatcher, and his death wasn't the shocker that Robin Williams was (what I internally use for death blurb worthiness). I mean, take Joan Rivers, who was an RD posting despite having a huge fanbase and importance to entertainment (equal or surpassing Nimoy's). --MASEM (t) 18:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted RD, might be eligible for a blurb later on. Nakon 17:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    • The article , as pointed out, is not yet in shape for posting. There's several CN tags that need to be dealt with. Please pull until ready. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Rather than pull, I have hidden those comments. (Someone should still read the entire article for tense, although I think I caught much of it) I will be busy but can get back to it tonight if someone doesn't fix it in the meantime. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support after posting - obviously good enough for RD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabbaQ (talkcontribs)
  • Post-posting support for RD. Support blurb, though it's obviously less clear-cut. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. He's an obvious candidate for RD, but beloved 80+ year old actor dies after prolonged fight with COPD doesn't feel like much of a justification for a blurb to me. Is there a story here that needs a blurb for elaboration? Can anyone even suggest a blurb they'd like to see? Right now I don't see that any specific suggestions have been offered, and story of his death (as I understand it) doesn't seem to rise to the level of justifying a blurb, in my opinion. Dragons flight (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Obvious post-posting support for RD. Oppose a blurb; that should be reserved for when secondary effects of a death are themselves news (a major state funeral, for example). If folks are concerned that he'll scroll out of RD too quickly, then please be more selective about adding individuals like amateur sports coaches (from whichever side of the pond). —Cryptic 18:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Is 40 minutes a record? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC) .... "Insufficient facts always invite danger."
  • Agree that a blurb would be highly illogical. Formerip (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for RD - major cultural icon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for RD and possibly blurb - He was definitely a huge cultural icon, but I don't know if he is big enough for an actual blurb, although I would not be opposed if this were bumped to a blurb. Andise1 (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for RD; the Star Trek fan in me would like a blurb, but I'm not sure it's warranted. If it's done, though, it wouldn't bother me. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The eyebrow alone deserves its own blurb. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Let's not get carried away here. Wikipedians are probably much more likely to be Trekkies than the general population. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. Nimoy was a prominent and gifted actor, but not a figure of worldwide importance. MoreTomorrow (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Oh, yeh, right. That must be why international has a front page article: "Star Trek legend Nimoy dies at 83." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Loads of stories appear on the BBC front page - dozens per day. They don't all get ITN blurbs. Modest Genius talk 16:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb: The "Michael Jackson" or "Whitney Houston" of his field. I doubt even Shatner is as revered in sci-fi. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
... even if his records were almost as good. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. "Revered in sci-fi" is perhaps not sufficient a justification. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support RD, oppose blurb. Important in his field (acting), but not a major figure in world history and there are no major ramifications from his death. This is exactly what RD is for. Modest Genius talk 16:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
RD for Nimoy, blurb for Spock? Except, of course, thankfully he's not dead. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

February 26Edit

RD:Theodore HesburghEdit

Article: Theodore Hesburgh (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT CNN ABC

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: Priest of the Congregation of Holy Cross, was President Emeritus of the University of Notre Dame and the namesake for TIAA–CREF's Hesburgh AwardṪ Ḧ the joy of the LORDmy strength 05:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support with caveats: While there are lots of other deaths on this day, Hesburgh was both prominent in his prime and popular in his later years. He had been considered as George McGovern's running mate, served on the Civil Rights Commission for 15 years until his dismissal for political reasons, and was involved in developing policy to curb violence on college campuses. The latter two are actually very topical again. My caveats, though, are that the article needs some improvement. Some refs are dead links, for instance. But I want to make clear that Hesburgh isn't just a recently deceased university president. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • There was a story circulating at the time of all that 1970s activity. Q: What's the difference between God and Father Hesburgh? A: God is everywhere. Father Hesburgh is everywhere except Notre Dame.Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's completely unclear what field this individual was significant in, sure he was popular and all that, but hardly RD-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I'd be glad to clarify for you. First there's Hesburgh's contributions as President of the University of Notre Dame: During his tenure, the University's budget increased eighteen-fold, enrollment doubled, and endowment increased by nearly 39 times, and the University first admitted women. But his contributions go far beyond a humble Catholic university in Indiana. He held some sixteen presidential appointments, including the Civil Rights Commission (which he chaired from 1969 to 1972). He was considered as a running mate by McGovern. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal. He received over 150 honorary degrees (supposedly the most of any person). He was on the February 9, 1962 cover of Time. He was the permanent Vatican City representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1956 to 1970. He was at one time the chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation;. He served as an ambassador to the 1979 U.N. Conference on Science and Technology for Development (held by the U.N. CSTD). He was the first priest elected to the Harvard Board of Overseers, of which he was president in 1994 and 1995. He co-chaired the Knight Commission for thirteen years. These are only a few selections of the substantial influence Hesburgh had during his life. Much as Bugs says above, Hesburgh was just about everywhere during the prime of his life. That he did fade into relative obscurity in his retirement shouldn't be counted against him here. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Yep, sounds like he did a lot of stuff, but none of it so notable that, in my opinion, he qualifies for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Notable to Notre Dame does not qualify him for ITN. This gentleman seems to have lived a very full and distinguished life, but it seems fate and circumstances conspired to keep him below the leading edge of celebrity. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    • See my comment above. The nominator's statement regrettably overstresses Hesburgh's contributions as attached to Notre Dame, when his work went far beyond. Especially in the 70s, but into the 80s and 90s, Hesburgh was a mover and shaker in national policy. His contributions and involvement in education and civil rights were substantial (as briefly noted in my comment above). I admit, I'm not a regular here, but I don't see why this doesn't obviously meet criterion 2 in WP:ITND. Hesburgh's role in higher education, at the very least, cannot be overstated. That he held the most honorary degrees of any person pretty clearly attests to that. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I get what you are saying -- I just disagree. I don't see that any one of Mr. Hesburgh's accomplishments elevate him to the status of someone we would list as an ITN death. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'd point out that being on the leading edge of celebrity is not a relevant criterion, but neither is sitting in a lot of seats an accomplishment. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Clearly a polymath, but equally clearly not a leading figure in any specific field. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Avijit RoyEdit

Article: Avijit Roy (talk, history)
Blurb: Avijit Roy, a secularist activist and blogger, was killed in Dhaka, Bangladesh on 26 February
Alternative blurb: Avijit Roy, a freethinker activist and blogger, is assassinated by Islamic fundamentalists in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
News source(s): BBC, CBS, UN has condemned

Article updated

Nominator's comments: His murder is the 5th story on the front page of the UK version of the BBC news page, suggesting a high degree of importance. Murder being reported worldwide. Doesn't seem to fit RD as the story is the killing itself, and it might be difficult to say that he was widely regarded as very important in his field. Alt blurb suggestions welcome. BencherliteTalk 13:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Note, his story moved to the number 1 spot on the front page of the BBC. Also on the front cover of "U.S. Blogger Hacked to Death by 'Islamist Radicals'" and below the fold. Interesting because people are campaigning for the release of Raif Badawi, and the ability of bloggers to use modern technology to challenge conservative ideas is of global interest. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The BBC positioning as first story must be for people outside the UK - the UK version is still a Labour Party pledge on tuition fees. BencherliteTalk 14:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The story is on the front of, and, and using Hola unblocker's UK VPN, I see it's the second story on under the "news" tab, after "germany votes to extend financial aid to Greece". -- Aronzak (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm at a desk in London. It is still the fifth story on the website and it is also the fifth story on the BBC iPhone news app, but the fact that elsewhere in the world it's shown as the top story shows its importance worldwide as opposed to the domestic stories that take the first four places (Labour tuition fees, Gary Glitter, Jihadi John and Lloyds Bank dividends). BencherliteTalk 17:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I could support this if he were a notable figure before the assassination, but his article was only just created after his death. μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The website he founded, Mukto Mona was involved in protesting 2013 killings and imprisonment of bloggers - see Ahmed Rajib Haider#Islamist attacks against atheist bloggers -- Aronzak (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Apparently his assassins thought he was notable enough to be worth killing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support- Got worldwide coverage. Google news search results 15,000 news articles. - Rahat (Message) 06:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - seems to have recieved plenty of coverage worldwide.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Lots of coverage, good article. MoreTomorrow (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Not just a terrible crime but an example of a trend of violent suppression of atheist opinion, and associated with significant protests. This is continuing to receive lots of coverage in the UK. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters without Borders have condemned his killing, comes during rising repression against journalists and bloggers across the world. The article should now be in better shape. -- Aronzak (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. It is certain that the event is not an ordinary murder. --Egeymi (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support has received worldwide attention (yesterday it was the most read article on Guardian), is an important issue relating to freedom of speech and the article is in decent shape. Legaleagle86 (talk) 10:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

RD: Earl LloydEdit

Article: Earl Lloyd (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NBC Sports Bleacher Report Daily Mail SBS

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 Black player in the NBA as well as the first to be on a championship team, and the first Black assistant coach in the NBA. Described as "One of the NBA's most important -- and least recognized" players [14]; "Although Lloyd may not be considered the greatest player to have ever stepped onto a basketball court, he was one of the most influential". Inducted in the Basketball Hall of Fame, and a few other honors. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Heard this in the sports bulletin on BBC Radio 5 this morning (the British national news and sports radio station, for those of you unfamiliar with it!) - and can't remember the last time I heard the death of a retired American (or indeed any nationality) sportsman being mentioned in this way, so leaning towards thinking that this indicates a high level of importance in his field even if his career was less than outstanding (I note he was inducted into the Hall of Fame as a contributor not a player). BencherliteTalk 10:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • This one is a bit confusing. The NBL integrated in 1942. In 1949, after the BAA and NBL merged, they played one season under a color barrier. Lloyd was the first to play a game after that, when the joint organization was known as the NBA, but he was not the first to be signed or drafted. Instead, his team's schedule started ahead of the other three black NBA players at the beginning of that season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, but it's just a death of another American arsehole. Do you really think that we should post this because he was the first Black player in the NBA as well as on the championship team? No indication that he was one of the greatest players in the game implies no chance to consider this to go on the main page.--Droneanddrone (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems like two-thirds of your contributions consist of griping about "American shit" or an "American arsehole". Please reconsider your language. Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 18:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There is also no requirement that only the greatest players are posted; it is those who are very important to their fields. You don't have to be a great player to be important. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Pioneer, Hall of Famer - and also, to counter the extremely offensive comment immediately above. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support He'll always have a place in the history books, and his death has received a decent amount of media attention. That said, his debut really wasn't comparable to Jackie Robinson in baseball (something Lloyd himself emphasized in pretty much every interview I read). Zagalejo^^^ 18:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Baseball Bugs. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose perhaps the "supporters" have failed to read the article, but it has (and has had) a bright orange maintenance tag at the top of it for OVER SIX YEARS. E.g. the "NBA career" section has one citation referencing just a single fact. On top of that, it has unreferenced quotations and it has nothing of his death other than the fact that he's dead. In short, the article is crap and way off the quality we should be posting to the main page. As for the notability of the individual, it seems borderline (as an outsider who doesn't hold individuals like this in any affection). He won very little in his career as a basketball player and it's notable that his induction to the over-hyped HOF was not as a player. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Baseball Bugs --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article quality is severely lacking. His college career looks like it was excellent, his professional career significantly less so - and there's nearly no references or citations in the entire article. Challenger l (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • No one has said he should be posted as a great player(he is not in the Hall of Fame as a player) but that doesn't mean he isn't important, as the sources I posted state. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

::* Fair enough - but this leaves me completely mystified as to what the man actually did that makes him notable - if it wasn't as a player, than the opening section should be re-written to reflect just what he was most known for in his career, I would think Challenger l (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Boy, I really did miss something - first black player in the NBA - that makes him notable enough - but the article still needs a TON of work. Challenger l (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - notable enough for RD mention.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] FCC Affirms Net NeutralityEdit

Article: Net neutrality in the United States (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States Federal Communications Commission votes to reclassify Internet broadband as a utility, enforcing net neutrality rules for the service.
Alternative blurb: ​The Federal Communications Commission votes to reclassify Internet broadband as a utility, including enforcing net neutrality rules for the service.
Alternative blurb II: ​In the United States, Internet broadband is reclassified as a utility, including enforcing net neutrality rules for the service.
News source(s): [15]

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: While this is US-centric, as this is an Internet-related issue, it was expected that the impact will filter through the rest of the world. Also, nearly everyone is expecting that this will be challenged in court but the when and how is unsure at this time. MASEM (t) 18:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - I haven't been following this too closely, but it looks like big news and a landmark decision. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - An important decision. Swarm X 18:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - important.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is a huge victory. Forbes says it's bigger than when Wikipedia (and others) went dark to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Is Wikipedia going to be blacked out in protest against this as well? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Before we have a rush to post this, where's the update in the article? Would it be the one-sentence sixth and final paragraph in the lead of the article? What about the fifth paragraph of the lead, which talks about this vote in the future tense? Where's the material in the body of the article about this? BencherliteTalk 18:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Indeed we shouldn't rush to post this. It needs an update. The section "Proposed 2014 US FCC policy" has an expansion tag, but that looks like it might be removable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm leaning towards supporting, but first: is anyone able to give an answer as to whether this is the first net neutrality law to be passed anywhere? Formerip (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with condition that it is noted that net neutrality is not the sole rule applied to broadband service. There are, at least allegedly, hundreds of other regulations that shouldn't be glazed over with the blurb. Joshua Garner (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • There are a lot of other things the FCC voted on today that are aligned with the idea of NN (such as this also applying to mobile data plans, that providers can't block local municipalities from installing their own services, etc.) and these should be included in the NN in US article, but I don't think there's room to cover all that in the blurb. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
      • How about something along the lines of " a utility, including enforcing net neutrality rules..."? Joshua Garner (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I would not be opposed to the "including" verbage. Adding as alt-blurb for this and Isanae's suggestion. Mamyles (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
          • I'm not a native speaker, but the "including" part sounds rather weird. I'd change it to "...broadband is reclassified as a utility, which includes enforcing net neutrality..." However, this just makes the blurb messier. I'd drop "including" entirely. Isa (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
          • I think this is not right. One thing they voted on today was to classify broadband as a utility, which thus allows them to enact NN because that's basically the requirements of a service called a utility. They also voted on several other issues that all align with the approach they were going - that broadband should be treated as a utility, however none of these other votes were on that specific point. So it's not that "including" NN rules, in this manner. It is not that these other issues aren't important, but everyone was on their chair about the broadband classification ruling. Our omission of these other points doesn't mean they aren't important, but this specific decision was the ITN item. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
            • I think that the distinction is relevant to blurb readers. Only part of the utility Title II rules are being applied: from the NYTimes, "...the new rules are an à la carte version of Title II, adopting some provisions and shunning others." The situation is complicated, and stating only one effect of the rules (net neutrality) unjustly ignores the broader impact of this reclassification. Mamyles (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
              • Blurbs have limited space and this vote is complex. In this situation, I'd mention the most popular effect of the decision and assume that interested readers will visit the article for more information. I understand your point that this makes the blurb incomplete, but it does not make it inaccurate. Isa (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is important. SeraV (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose yes it would be big news if this won't be taken down by some judge in a few months. Unless I am missing something, there will be some endless litigation following this 3-2 decision. Until something like Supreme Court decides on this or it actually comes into force, I suggest to wait on posting this. Nergaal (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • It is pretty much a sure thing that there's going to be a challenge to this. However, it should be noted that the FCC had has attempt to do this a couple times before but had to change their approach here (specifically the reclassification of broadband as a utility, something under their power) as to be able to set the NN rules, and so any challenge is going to likely be a SCOTUS case, and if and when that will happen, we don't know. --MASEM (t) 21:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Not everybody knows what the "Federal Communications Commission" is. Can we get the country name in there somehow? Something like "In the United States, Internet broadband is reclassified as a utility, enforcing net neutrality rules for the service." Isa (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Added US to the FCC part, which should make it clear on the country. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support due to significance not only within the US, but globally as movement grows to implement this type of regulation. I agree with JoshuaKGarner that it would be preferred that the article mention what Title II regulations apply here, as it looks like they cherry-picked authorities in this decision. However, I don't think that needs to be mentioned within the blurb, and I don't think that it necessarily needs to be included in the article at time of posting. Additionally, please link to the section for the bold link, not just the article.Mamyles (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support provided the article is acceptable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is lengthy but the update is a bit skimpy. I'd like to see it fleshed out a bit. But I agree that this ruling is important and worthy of a posting on ITN. Jusdafax 00:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Administrative note: There is clear consensus to post this, but there are referencing issues on the article that need to be addressed before this gets posted to the main page. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    It looks like there are sufficient sources in the paragraph now, anything else needed before it's posted? Nakon 01:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    Section 5 still has an unreferenced tag on it. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the whole thing. It was written in 2008 and has been unreferenced since then. Isa (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Apparently the regime has wasted no time in blocking many overseas websites from access to the US, in violation of the principle of no prior constraint. This is a huge, extralegal power grab. μηδείς (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Which regime? And do you have a link? I'd like to read about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, not the NK regime. The overseas sites being down seems to have been a glitch last night, perhaps due to the internet outage out west, the sites are back up now. That in no way downplays the importance of this huge power grab, the details of which the FCC is keeping secret from Congress. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • SupportMonopoly31121993 (talk) 09:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support issues like ACTA and the Trans Pacific Partnership make US relevant overseas. -- Aronzak (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Very nice, @Coffee: thanks for posting. It would be helpful though if the word "utility" could be wikilinked as utility. At the same time, the last three words "for the service" can be omitted to save space. --PanchoS (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Joshua LeakeyEdit

It's up now, it isn't pushing any other recent item off the main page, and the (admittedly fuzzy) consensus seems to be that next time, more discussion before posting should be allowed, but that pulling it isn't appropriate. Decent article, rare event, a break from the elections, sporting events, natural disasters, and massacres... just leave it there and for God's sake relax. If I didn't think it would degenerate into a dysfunctional argument, I'd suggest a discussion on the talk page about how we can make ITN/C less susceptible to dysfunctional arguments. Today's supervote is brought to you by Floquenbeam (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Joshua Leakey (talk, history)
Blurb: ​British soldier Joshua Leakey is awarded the Victoria Cross for his actions in the War in Afghanistan.
News source(s): BBC, Daily Telegraph, Time, Pakistan Today,

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Highest British/Commonwealth award for valour in the face of the enemy. First living recipient from the Afghanistan War (two posthumous awards, one not nominated, the other nominated but not posted, though Johnson Beharry's VC way back in 2005 was posted) and the 15th award since the Second World War. Not a clear-cut ITN case, I accept, but I thought it was worth a go particularly given the slow news week we're having (oldest ITN story is 9 days old, only one story more recent than last weekend's Oscars). New article that is in good shape for posting. BencherliteTalk 11:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support top honour and rarely awarded. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per nom but also for the hilarity of the names of both the living VC winners..--Stemoc 12:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
What's hilarious about them? Modest Genius talk 21:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support article is in decent shape and 15 occurrences in 70 years, ten years since we posted one; hardly means we'll be overrun with nominations in future years. Black Kite (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Stemoc for uploading and adding the picture. BencherliteTalk 13:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Rare event, target article in good shape; Victoria Cross article is very good thus in line with our commitment as an educational resource. Pedro :  Chat  14:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Handing out 15 medals in 70 years would be interesting and relevant if it was the only medal given out by the British military. There's dozens of similarly "rare" events happening every day. Picking out this one just looks like standard military history bias with a little British slant thrown in. Shame on y'all for not applying a bit more critical thinking. Peter Isotalo 15:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
      • It's an odd point of view. The award of the VC is rare as it gets, especially to a breathing human. The fact that other medals are awarded is not really relevant here. Could you provide us with, say, just a dozen of these "similarly "rare" events" that have happened today? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This needed more time for discussion from other parts of the world -3hrs is far too short. I'm not saying this shouldn't have been ITN, but we need to avoid this considering the timing and geographical topicality of the story (read: middle of the UK day). --MASEM (t) 15:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Agreed. The result of this very recent thread shows that a little more time should be given before events are posted. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    I also agree. I'm not saying "pull", but it's funny how Brits often complain when an American item is posted quickly at a time when they're not on their computers, and then this happens. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Well what are you saying about this nomination then? Is this just an opportunity to have a make that gulf just a bit wider, or are you actually suggesting this shouldn't be posted? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    (e/c with TRM) I have no problem with more discussion taking place, but please let's not turn this into a Brits-v-Yanks discussion, which would be particularly ironic when Leakey won his VC in part for risking his life to save an injured US Marine Corps captain. BencherliteTalk 16:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    I'm saying exactly what I said, which is that it was posted too quickly. I also can't help but notice that it's not receiving any U.S. coverage. Irony re: what Leakey did duly noted. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Perhaps you missed the point again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    What point is Muboshgu missing? This was posted far too hastily and anyone ought to be able to see that, whether they support posting or oppose posting. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Come on, keep up. The point is that it is a perfectly valid ITN. You don't like it the way it was posted. Noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Keep up with what? Stop being so patronizing. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Keep up with the discussion. Stop being so deliberately obtuse. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    It took you forever to acknowledge that part of the objection is that this was pushed through too quickly. Don't tell us to keep up. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    What are you talking about? It's amazing that you haven't objected at all to an item that I posted after just four or so hours. Because it didn't relate to anything British. Utter hypocrisy. Do some research, keep up, and stop whinging. Or go to RFA and become an admin and do all this yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Whatever. Believe what you like. I no longer care. This discussion isn't going anywhere anyway. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Ok, thanks, bye! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull this item'. It is not world news, and it is a political problem as well that wikipedia would choose to rpresent specific countries military medals and not others. Demonstrates worse judgment that usual even for ITN. Posting it with only four supports and after such a short period of nomination is further aggravating.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    It doesn't have to be "world news" to be posted to ITN, as well you know. Which other "specific countries military medals" of this nature have been overlooked? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support per WP:NOTBURO. --Jayron32 15:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull even the nominator admitted this was not a clear–cut case, so it certainly should not have been posted after 4 votes and 3-and-a-half hours, especially since no case has really been made for the international significance of this event. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    See above " Please do not ...complain about an event 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." International significance has never been, is not, and never will be a standard for making ITN decisions. It's fine to have a valid reason to oppose; perhaps the article quality is not what you'd expect? Oppose for those reasons. But complaining that this didn't happen in enough countries or "internationally significant" is not an actionable oppose reason that should sway admins to make a decision. --Jayron32 15:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    If what I wrote above qualifies as complaining, then the world has turned upside down. At any rate, I don't think this military award is significant enough for ITN and I certainly don't think it should have been posted so hastily. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    You were the one who said "no case has really been made for the international significance of this event". That isn't required. Thanks. (P.S. If you fancy it, you could picture this is a Brit risking his life to save an American in Afghanistan... doesn't get much more international than that!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, Jayron32 already pointed out that international significance is not required. I'm still not convinced that this award is significant enough in the UK for this nomination to be posted. Even if it is worthy for ITN, I still have a major objection to it being posted with such minimal input, considering that the nominator himself said it wasn't a clear-cut ITN case. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Odd. It's the highest award for gallantry available in the UK, and is rarely awarded to living people because usually they die in the course of their duty. Your objection is based on not understanding the significance, that's your problem, not ours. Read Victoria Cross, it may educate you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    My objection is also based on how hastily this was pushed through, but you keep disregarding that for some reason. If it is significant enough, great! But when it gets pushed through like this, the whole situation smells bad. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Well your objection is noted. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support. Rare and historic achievement. --Dweller (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull I've seen the word "parochial" used by many a Brit to oppose an American nomination. I wasn't going to say pull, but then I looked through some sources and I'm surprised that this is only covered by British sources. The New York Times and CNN don't have anything on this. This isn't a WP:ITSLOCAL oppose, since this concerns a British soldier in a war in Asia, but I'll say it's still too "parochial" a story. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Time magazine (which I think is American) and the Singapore News (which I think is not British) have it - did you find them? Clearly not. BencherliteTalk 17:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I did not have time to search every single source, no. Google News showed me only British sources, and it's still odd to me that NYT and CNN still have nothing on this. I will revoke my !pull, but still think this should've been an open discussion for longer than it was before it was posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull. It has no place on ITN. Yes it might be rare, but since when do we post military awards? Also, the posting was far too premature, this is what the Americans normally do, the Brits shouldn't be doing it as well! (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Regardless of your perceived prematurity of posting, why would this have "no place on ITN"? Since when "don't" we post military awards if they're significant enough? Especially when it's in the news internationally and represented a military award that is hardly ever given to a living person who was serving in Afghanistan who saved an American... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Not perceived, actual. Apart from that, for one, how is the 'saved an American' relevant. Also, Soldiers get decorations, big deal. Point me out when we last posted a decoration, of any country. The last thing wiki needs to do is cooperate in the ongoing militarisation of the UK society, it's getting to dangerously American levels already.... (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
So your argument is that "we haven't posted anything like this before, so we shouldn't start now"? Perhaps you'd like to modify the ITNC guidelines to ensure we don't post anything to "cooperate in the ongoing militarisation of the UK society" despite the fact this has nothing really to do with UK society, just UK forces in Afghanistan who act so bravely to protect others. You don't like war, we don't like war, who does, but ITN isn't the place to try to right great wrongs. You know that, don't you?! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's different and notable.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, given their rarity I would say the award of a VC to a living person is notable enough for inclusion in ITN. Bob talk 19:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull This was a) posted far too early. b)It doesn't belong, yes it might be rare, but that doesn't mean that it is in anyway important to us. c) does this now mean that we are going to post other military awards just because they are "rare". SeraV (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Sure, find one that's as rare as the VC with its context and we should consider it. Do you have any examples? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Soldier gets military decoration. Big deal? Move on. Seriously though, [16], [17], [18] [19] [20], indeed most of the highest gallantry awards are just as rare as victoria cross. SeraV (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. By all means tell me when we rejected an ITN for a military honour as significant as the VC to a living individual. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Right, so we never should reject them then? Perhaps we should but it in ITN/R then. SeraV (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense. ITNR has nothing to do with this. Are you sure you understand how this process works? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
And I thought you were the champion againts systemic bias here, obviously that is only when it is in your interest. SeraV (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
No, that's User:HiLo48. Keep up!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
But he is dead and buried (at least he is not here). We need a new champion! SeraV (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep posted. Significant awarding of a high military honor that is rarely awarded. International angle only adds to the good reasons to post this. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull - Clear example of English Wikipedia Systemic Bias. There are dozens of "rare" highest military awards for various countries (see Template:Highest gallantry awards). The awarding of such "rare" medals, however, is not rare in the global context. The only reason English Wikipedia editors are aware of this particular award is because they live in the UK and are no doubt bombarded with it in their local media. It has no significance to the rest of the world, however. MoreTomorrow (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
What's the US equivalent of the VC? I guess there is (less than) zero coverage of this story in the US? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I understand there is systemic bias but I don't usually see it described as a UK bias. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
it's usually considered anglophone bias, which includes UK. Martinevans, Medal of Honor is equilevant of vc in US. SeraV (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. This is a very rare event (a couple per decade), of general interest, and the article is good. If I remember correctly, we have posted recipients of the Medal of Honor (a similar US award) in the past. I agree that the item should have been debated for a while longer before posting, however most of the pull !votes above seem to be objecting purely because this is a British award. Modest Genius talk 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Do we really want to post every single highest gallantry award from every single country from now on. Because that is what we should do to avoid systemic bias here. SeraV (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not like these are given out every day or even annually; if they were, we likely wouldn't be here talking about it. If you have another similar medal awarding which gets just as much attention, I would be happy to consider and support it. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
But they don't get as much attention, not in the west. That's what systemic bias is about. That doesn't mean that they don't get coverage in their country of origins or that they are somehow less valuable. I really just doubt that we would post Nishan-e-Haider here, or even that anyone would bother to nominate it even. SeraV (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Well that's ridiculous. It seems that Nishan-e-Haider has been awarded only a handful of times in half a century. Of course it would be worth nominating. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Well agreed if this nomination is allowed to stand, but I am doubtfull someone actually would. SeraV (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Well you could do it, should it happen. So stop complaining about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Luckily I am not only one who complains about stuff here. But your point is noted. SeraV (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Were you offering to write that Highest military honour in every single country article? How else would we know what to nominate? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Um, no. We aren't purely objecting because it's a British award. Some of us are more than a little put off by how this was rushed through. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Me too, which is why I said so. But that should lead to more caution in the future, not to pulling this item. Modest Genius talk 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep posted per status quo, as I see no compelling reason why it should be removed. I agree that this was borderline qualified, and that it should have been discussed for a longer period of time; however, at this point it would take a consensus to remove. Admins are allowed to be a bit bold. That does not make this precedent, and that does not mean this short of a discussion should ever be done again for such a low-key, non-ITNR item. Mamyles (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull Systematic bias. wctaiwan (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Which system... the UK, the English Language, the West, the nominator's, the poster's, or which? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Anglophone / western world. The concern has been addressed above; suffice it to say I agree with those who think posting this does contribute to systematic bias, and disagree with those who think it doesn't. wctaiwan (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
News stories that appear in the West/ English speaking world often concern English speaking people? Should there be a requirement at ITN for non-English (or even non-Western) news item coverage? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note - Obviously an important award, but this might set a slippery-slope precedent. From the award's inception in 1856, until now, the average is about 8 or 9 of these per year. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Grossly distorted by 627 awards in WW1, 111 in the 2 years of the Crimean War etc - as the fact that it was only awarded three times for Afghanistan and once for Iraq shows, the VC simply isn't handed out in any like the same numbers as it was in the second half of the 19th/early 20th centuries. If they were dished out 8 times a year, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. BencherliteTalk 22:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Leave posted. This is probably borderline for posting, but it is certainly acceptable, and this page does not benefit from continued rehashing of decisions already made. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note part of the significance is that this individual is still alive to receive his VC. When calculating awards per year, it should be modified to calculate awards to live recipients per year. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
and why does that makes this more significant exactly? I doubt those who died to get this were any less gallant than those who lived. SeraV (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Wow, you need this to be explained? The significance is that he survived to be awarded his VC. It's super rare. It's not a comment on the gallantry of those who died, more it's a comment on how super rare it is to do enough to be awarded a VC and still be alive. You're either deliberately missing the point or you haven't read the VC article. Either way, I suggest you stop posting comments like that as it really isn't helping your cause.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
You're quite right, SearaV. The dead soldiers never seem to make the news. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that's going to be lost in transmission....! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Wow, super rare? That's sweet. Do you realise how inane you sound like? SeraV (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-Posting Support I'd certainly expect an American or French medal only given 15/70 years to be posted. Plus, if acts of terrorism are posted, acts of heroism fighting the Taliban should also be posted. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull it - Larry Silverstein agree. Moorrests (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull it. This item is laughable. Or should we take it that we are going to post it each time a Norwegian receives the Order of St. Olav? Bjerrebæk (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
No, because no one cares about Norway and its Order of St. Quisling. (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull it Couldn't agree more. This must be a joke.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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

February 25Edit

Afghanistan avalanchesEdit

Article: 2015 Afghanistan avalanches (talk, history)
Blurb: Avalanches in Panjshir Province, Afghanistan, kill at least 187 people.
News source(s): [21], [22]

Article needs updating

 --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support when ready That is a major event, but yes, the article needs work before it can be posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note I have moved the page to 2015 Afghanistan avalanches per the sources. Everymorning talk 17:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when ready 187 deaths obviously rises to ITN level. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - major catastrophe. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as major catastrophe, and an event of great regional significance. Note that the article could really use more details. Mamyles (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article has yet to be developed to the length/quality where it is suitable for posting. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - notable article. who cares about the length as long as the article is not a stub. we have posted articles in the past that are short.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    @BabbaQ:: Please provide a diff where we posted an article that was this short. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Three-parent babyEdit

Consensus still against this. BencherliteTalk 11:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Three-parent baby (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The UK has become the first country to approve law to allow the modified version of IVF which means

creation of babies from three people.
News source(s): BBC News

Article updated
 20:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This was nominated when it was going into the vote (but before it was passed) [23]. There were issues then of it being too earlier for the ITN cycle but as well as being an ITN-worthy topic. --MASEM (t) 20:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as before. This nomination (no offense to the nominator) implies that three-parent babies are illegal everywhere until legalized, and that there was actually a law in the UK, rather than a regulatory decision preventing this. A legislature reserving to itself the right to overturn a decision by a bureaucracy which it itself created is not in itself notable, nor is this a new issue or Parliament reversing a decision of its own agent a first in any real way. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This isn't a nomination for the first three-parent baby (created in 2000), nor is it for a groundbreaking scientific breakthrough in genetic engineering. This is simply a law that allows an already known practice. Additionally, there are many countries where this is not explicitly disallowed, so the UK is actually not the first country to allow it. Mamyles (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasons given; this isn't the initial creation of this medical procedure, merely its being permitted. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. When there's a girl born from this procedure who's probably doing her trigonometry homework right now it seems too late to post. Abductive (reasoning) 04:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Uherský Brod shootingEdit

Article: Uherský Brod shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Nine people, including the gunman, are killed in a shooting in the Czech town of Uherský Brod
News source(s): BBC News, The Guardian, Associated Press

Article updated

 '''tAD''' (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. Wasn't 100% sure about notability, but the good quality of the article leans me in the support direction. SpencerT♦C 03:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Supprt per Spencer and also "worst mass shooting in the country's peacetime history". —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 05:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - ITN is not a death ticker, but eight dead in a shooting will almost always be posted, unless it takes place in a war zone. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - "It was the worst mass shooting in the country's peacetime history." Significant enough for me. Joshua Garner (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per number of casualties in a peacetime shooting. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Good article, universal support. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

February 24Edit

[Closed] Eddie Ray Routh found guilty of murderEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 02:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Chris Kyle#Death (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A jury finds Eddie Ray Routh guilty of the murder of Chris Kyle (pictured) and his friend Chad Littlefield.
News source(s): CNN USA Today Wall Street Journal
Nominator's comments: Very high profile trial, in part because of the movie American Sniper, which has made over $400 million. Everymorning talk 13:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Chris Kyle has an orange-level tag which means this can't be posted until the issues behind the tag are resolved and the tag removed. BencherliteTalk 13:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose relatively mundane legal proceeding in the US. (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per IP128. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per article quality and the fact that this does not to rise to the level of ITN. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - NBC announced the verdict with a breaking news crawl across the bottom of the screen, which I thought was a little odd - I don't think the news was big enough for that sort of treatment, and I don't think it's big enough for ITN. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Obama vetoes Keystone XL PipelineEdit

Snow close. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Keystone Pipeline (talk, history)
Blurb: Barack Obama vetoes a measure that would have approved construction of the Keystone Pipeline.
News source(s): CNN, New York Times, BBC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Lead story on CNN and Reuters, also on lead page of New York Times. Everymorning talk 23:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Internal US politics, expected to have a shot for overturning the veto due to the Rep controlled senate, so very much not likely the end here. --MASEM (t) 23:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Most agree it is unlikely the veto will be overturned as the GOP cannot get 67 votes in the Senate.331dot (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. In a sense this is an international issue(as the pipeline would enter Canada and carry their oil to US refineries) but this veto has resulted in simply the status quo; the State Department is still technically analyzing the pipeline and it could still be built. The bigger story would have been had Obama signed it. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a procedural thing. He vetoed the bill, because Congress was trying to usurp his authority in deciding whether to permit it or not, which is still pending an assessment from the State Department. It might still get built, it's just a turf battle. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose failure to pass some legislation is not an ITN issue. BencherliteTalk 00:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Not of significance outside North America. Sca (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
...which isn't required and specifically discouraged as an argument. 331dot (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – If I had tuppence for every time a bill was rejected in whichever country across the world... RGloucester 00:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd have enough cash to buy the Outer Hebrides? GoldenRing (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral. While the Keystone pipeline situation is a "hot-button topic" in U.S. politics, its actual significance is questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaKGarner (talkcontribs) 03:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note - The pipeline is mostly hype, especially as to the number of (temporary) jobs it would create. The much bigger US story will be if the Republicans manage to let the Homeland Security department shut down, due to their attempts to strongarm Obama's immigration initiative. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all of the above. This can probably be closed. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Chris Gayle double centuryEdit

Innings closed. BencherliteTalk 13:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Chris Gayle (talk, history)
Blurb: West Indies cricketer Chris Gayle becomes the first player to score a double century in World Cup history.
News source(s): Time, The Guardian

Article updated
 Vensatry (ping) 09:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Double centuries" don't seem to be a huge rarity in the sport of cricket. One player has scored up to 12 in his career. 11 different players have scored at least five. [24] --Tocino 10:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • That list relates to double centuries in Test matches, which last up to 5 days making big individual scores more likely. Today's score was in a One Day game, where time is limited so big scores are rarer. This was only the 5th One Day International double century and the first in the men's World Cup (it is also the first outside of India). ReadingOldBoy (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
      • That's an important distinction that you point out, and it makes Gayle's performance look more impressive, but ultimately I don't think that single-game, individual performances in team sports like this belong on ITN. --Tocino 10:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
        • While I think that some (usually ground breaking or extremely rare) individual performances are worth including, I'm not sure that this one is. We posted the first ever men's ODI double century a few years ago, and I think that was right, but I am coming round to a weak oppose on this one. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmm Notable, certainly, though I am unsure if it qualifies for ITN - but I wonder if the partnership between Gayle and Samuels (372) which is an an all-time international ODI record is possibly even more notable? Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • The partnership thing is a good one as it's unlikely to be bettered in the near future. But I'm not sure if it qualifies for ITN. Also it looks like World Cups have a special preference in ITN. Vensatry (ping) 11:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as cricket is not a notable sport in my corner of the world. Judging by the constant flow of nominations for this or that league/record/game, there is no established hierarchy of achievement for the sport, and as such I don't know how we can evaluate whether a particular nomination is notable or impactful. The winding discussions that following nominations like this one are evidence for this point. (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your first ever edit to Wikipedia, though clearly you've been watching this page for a while, or more likely you forgot to log in. The first part of your oppose is irrelevant, and the rest of it is wrong (though that's not surprising since you don't know anything about the sport anyway, as you admit). All of it, though, doesn't help us evaluate this particular nomination, and I'm going for not quite notable enough (I think a Test record partnership would have been, though). Therefore weak oppose. Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not such a rare feat to merit inclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Something that's never happened before (a double century in a World Cup) is not a rare feat? Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • A double century has happened a lot. That it happened in a World Cup? Now you're slicing and dicing too much. For a comparable, Roy Halladay threw a no-hitter in the 2010 MLB postseason, only the second time a pitcher has ever done that. But, it was the 269th no-hitter in MLB history. So, yeah. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm opposing this anyway, but I'll say it again - this is the first time this has occurred in the World Cup, and only the 5th time it has occurred in international play. Quite how something that's happened 23 times is "much rarer" I'm not entirely sure! Black Kite (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There have been 23 MLB perfect games, period. (Only one has been in the postseason, and I don't think there has ever been one in Olympic or other international play.) How many total double centuries have there been? – Muboshgu (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That's not comparable because there are three forms of cricket, this is a double century in one-day cricket, i.e. heavily time constrained. It doesn't invalidate the rarity of this record. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Not to mention that the MLB is not the only place that baseball is played anyway. To be honest though, I don't think you can compare the two that easily. Black Kite (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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

February 23Edit

February 22Edit

[Closed] Sinking of the ML Mostofa-3Edit

Although there was consensus to post this, the article has not been updated to the standards required for our main page. As this has now become stale, I'm closing this request. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Sinking of the ML Mostofa-3 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The ferry ML Mostofa-3 capsizes on the Padma River in Bangladesh.
News source(s): CNN BBC ABC News
Nominator's comments: Ferry sinking with many deaths. Andise1 (talk) 08:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Very Weak support due to the number of casualties, but as the CNN page notes, "Overcrowding of ferries and poor monitoring systems are persistent problems in Bangladesh, which sees scores of casualties from ferry accidents every year"; in other words, this unfortunately isn't that unusual an event in Bangladesh. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support based on the number of casualties. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support, due to the number of casualties. I'd like to take this time to say I'm leaving ITN/C (Not being a diva or anything, I'm just fed up with things here) and I'd like to thank and encourage 331dot, Mellowed Fillmore, Muboshgu, and Baseball Bugs for their kindness, tolerance, and common sense. --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support per 331dot, these accidents seem reasonably commonplace but this one has made news headlines so it's worth consideration. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article has not developed to the minimum length/quality required to post. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose if the only reason for posting is the number of casualties, then we need to start a recent accident ticker; wikipedia is not the news. Only when other notable facts are involved (e.g., sabotage, a criminal act, a notable victim) or the number of casualties is in the top 5 percentile for that sort of accident should we be posting transportation disasters, no offense to the victims here, of course. μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as a high-casualty, headline-grabbing disaster. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support – Alas, all too frequent. Sca (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvement - The article didn't even have a talk page, so I created one, but it is a stub and needs work. Jusdafax 05:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 87th Academy AwardsEdit

Articles: 87th Academy Awards (talk, history) and Birdman (film) (talk, history)
Blurb: Birdman wins Best Picture at the 87th Academy Awards

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

 MASEM (t) 04:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

  • They should be posted in about 1h. Nergaal (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The article is being updated as they air, and has been sourced including details of the ceremony, so this should be ready to go when Best Picture hits (this has been the historical way to present, unless something bigger happens). --MASEM (t) 04:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Noting that the Birdman article is in good shape for main page/ITN. Just a matter of the Oscars page being updated. --MASEM (t) 05:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. The minimum updates are there and the articles will be expanded further. I'll go with the standard prose for Oscars - X wins Y awards, including best picture (last year was special since Gravity won more awards). --Tone 05:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    @Tone: Really? Despite what Masem said about the ceremony article, there is virtually nothing in either of those articles that could not have been written before the ceremony. The only modifications are the addition of the sentence The film won four Academy Awards for Best Picture, Best Directing, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Cinematography to the Birdman (film) article. The ceremony article has no prose update whatsoever, but just bolding added to the winners. What are you seeing? -- tariqabjotu 05:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Hm, what else can you add? Whom people thanked upon receiving the awards? For sport events, it is reasonable to expect to have a game summary or something, but here it's just who won ... Admittedly, the winners could be written in prose but that's as far as it gets. I may be wrong, though. --Tone 05:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
See 86th Academy Awards. Granted, we don't need it to be a featured list yet, but, the ceremony article can talk about happenings during, you know, the ceremony. It doesn't even note extremely basic observations, like the fact that Birdman won four awards -- the blurb we have on the Main Page. -- tariqabjotu 06:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
This is stuff that can come in time - the basic foundations (including the wins, nominees, performers/presenters, and even some of the preliminary controversy) are in place that the article is clear and understood, but more details (such as what I believe will be commented on, the Lady Gaga/Julie Andrews part, will get more news tomorrow and the days after, but that won't change the core content). Adding this type of material is what engaging in editors/readers looking at the front page will help without confusing them with an article without that necessary structure or existing referencing to build up on. --MASEM (t) 06:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
And that's great, but ITN is not a news feed and "big events" should not get a special pass under the guise of "that can come in time". ITN is about showcasing articles updated to reflect current events. What is considered sufficiently updated is subjective, but 87th Academy Awards and Birdman (film) are woefully insufficient. We don't need to be the first to tell the world which movie won Best Picture. -- tariqabjotu 06:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The article was already in sufficient shape before the ceremony - it had the structure, the nominees sourced, and as the ceremony progressed, people updated it. There will be some reflect on the nature/criticism of the ceremony in the next few days, of course, and we're not excepting GA quality material for ITN items. We do this a lot with RDs too - the obits that come with a notable person's death are what often help to expand an article to GA or better quality, but we don't expect that to be in place when RD is posted, just that the major capture of the person's life is there and well sourced. (Note that I do agree the expedited way this was posted following my nom, I'm concerned with - even an ITNR element should be given a few hours to gain article quality input, but I don't think compared to past noms we are missing much here. ) --MASEM (t) 14:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Could an admin deal with the deletion tag on the infobox template? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that's possible unless the infobox in the article is "subst"ed and the warning removed... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    I think you'd have to "noinclude" the TFD tag, so that it only appeared on the template page and not on the pages using the template, but then fewer people would know that the template was up for discussion at TFD. BencherliteTalk 21:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Why are events that support commercial interests (NASCAR or some film company) being fast tracked onto the In The News Section? We normally spend far more time on discussing topics and reaching consensus than a couple of hours.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The Academy Awards are in ITNR, indicating that its importance has already been decided by consensus. It can be posted quickly, provided that it has been sufficiently updated and does not have a large amount of opposes at time of posting. Feel free to debate the inclusion of this event in ITNR if you think it lacks importance. Mamyles (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Daytona 500Edit

Article: 2015 Daytona 500 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In NASCAR, Joey Logano wins the 2015 Daytona 500, the first race in the 2015 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series.
Alternative blurb: ​In motorsport, Joey Logano wins the 57th annual Daytona 500, the first race in the 2015 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series.
News source(s): AP via ESPN

Nominator's comments: The subject of the article is certainly notable as this is arguably the biggest race of the season; the 2011 and 2013 runnings of the race were also successful ITN candidates. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose until the "Race results" table is filled in. Otherwise, it's a good article, and the Daytona 500 is the single most important race in NASCAR, second among American races only to the Indy 500. Winner of the Daytona 500 is often better known in any given year than the series champion at the end of the year. If the article is finished (and needs only a little polish to do so) I'd support fully on the significance. Plus, the green-white-checker finish made for some exciting racing... --Jayron32 03:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose we already post the Indy 500, there's no need for more of the same. Oh, and "Race details[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]" at the top of the infobox is bonkers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe both of the above issues have been resolved; the table is complete and the refs are no longer all in the infobox. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support no reason not to post it. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    That's an odd support rationale. Would there therefore be no reason not to post every result from this year's worldwide Formula One season in that case? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    I think you realize that the Daytona 500 is more significant than some ordinary Formula One race. The Daytona 500 is probably the most important race in NASCAR and I don't agree with not posting it just because we already posted the Indy 500. To me, your oppose just looks like another part of your 'anti-posting of American events at ITN' crusade. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    Not at all. I just question the value of a vote that says "no reason not to post it". I have no inkling about the Daytona 500 whatsoever, it's a bit too introspective for my liking. And yes, the Australian Grand Prix is significant, as is the San Marino GP, the German GP, the British GP etc. We've already got Indy 500, not seeing why this is necessary at all. But, in any case, thanks for your personal attack. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    Well, I haven't made any personal attacks, but you're welcome anyway. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    Well other than accusing me of being on an anti-American crusade, no. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, most important NASCAR race in America. --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I was under that impression too, which is why I'm surprised this isn't ITN/R. (I do know enough to know that this isn't in opposition to the Indy 500 in any way.) I'm no fan of stock car racing. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment can someone explain why this is "the most important NASCAR race in America"? (Do they have NASCAR races outside America by the way?) If it is of such high order, I would suggest it be added at ITNR as Muboshgu notes. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The "in America" part wasn't necessary (although I also don't know if NASCAR holds any races outside of the U.S.). I just don't know enough about stock car racing so I could be wrong on its importance, but I feel I've heard more about it than any other individual NASCAR race over the years. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
They tried to go to Japan and Mexico a couple of times, but the forays (which were tests - one was a series of exhibitions, the other was a series of lower tier races) didn't pan out. I think a better way to describe it would be the world's premier stock car race...and stock car racing does have prominence in North America, South America and Oceania. Opposing it bc the Indy 500 gets posted makes no sense. They are entirely different cars and series. That's like opposing the Epsom Derby bc the Grand National gets posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Like a lot of Americans above the Mason–Dixon line I don't know much about stock car racing. The best I can contribute to the debate is to quote the Daytona 500 article: The Daytona 500 is regarded as the most important and prestigious race on the NASCAR calendar, carrying by far the largest purse. The article Sprint Cup Series states Regular season races were previously held in Canada, and exhibition races were held in Japan and Australia. The Daytona 500, its most prestigious race, had a television audience in the U.S. of about 16 million viewers in 2009.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Glad to know I'm not totally off base (I'm also a blue stater above the M-D line). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
So, in absolute viewing terms, it's about as popular on the TV in America as a Christmas episode of Eastenders or Coronation Street in the UK, a country with 1/6 the population of the US? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
If the venerable Coronation Street, the world's longest-running soap opera on TV ever, were ever canceled, it would be brought to ITN and posted within minutes as being a very huge deal. The comparison seems amiss.--WaltCip (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
You missed the point entirely. The previous editor wasn't talking about the cancellation of the Daytona 500, it was about the popularity. Seems that the Daytona 500 is as popular in domestic television terms as a Christmas edition of Coronation Street or Eastenders. There was no discussion over the cancellation of the soap, and even then, it would never be posted within minutes because this isn't English Wikipedia, it's American Wikipedia. You know that, of course. The fact that 16 million Americans watch the Daytona 500 is, well, no big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not a big deal. But I think it may be as big as some other sports items that make it to ITN. In US terms in the sports consciousness (I really can't comment on it's significance internatinally) it's about as big as the Kentucky Derby, a golf major, the Indy 500 (which again is an entirely different type of racing), etc. It's bigger than any marathon I'd say. Of course some of those events have a substatial profile outside the US. I think the IP editor above hit it right that NASCAR is the preeminent Stock car racing competition which is a popular sport internatinally. The Sprint Cup, the season champtionship, is an ITN event so perhaps NASCAR is covered. But I think for Americans who are not week to week followers of NASCAR, the Daytona 500 is much more of a household name--everybody's at least heard of it. So I dunno. I'm not for or against this (I'm neutral).--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for some explanation beyond "It's important' or "why not post it" or "most significant NASCAR race in America" etc. I appreciate it. I still don't see why it's more important than any Formula One Grand Prix and certainly it's less global, although we're not allowed to say that. If it's such a shoo-in, it should be at ITN/R. Right now, it's not, and I can't see it's significance beyond a few fanboys in the US. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I'd argue that the Daytona 500 is leaps and bounds more notable than its series championship, which is more or less decided on a gimmick these days. It's an ITN/R discussion probably, but I believe you could probably drop the championship and add the Daytona 500. The Indy championship and the FIA World Endurance Championship aren't included, but the premier races of those series are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I am the nominator and obviously cannot vote based on that rationale; however, I would like to present my case again. The Daytona 500 is the biggest race of the season; it's nicknamed the "Super Bowl of NASCAR" for a reason. I've also taken care of the issues presented by others during the nomination. Also, The Rambling Man, you state above, "I just question the value of a vote that says 'no reason not to post it'," and yet, in your vote, you state that there is "no need for more of the same". To me, that basically says, "There is no reason to post it", which, by your logic, should be questioned as well. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to slam you or make a personal attack as I know you are an experienced and prolific editor (what you've done with The Boat Race is absolutely incredible), but I am trying to make an argument that this is more than just your typical Formula 1, IndyCar, NASCAR, etc., race. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
And just a side note, the "in America" part certainly is not necessary. The Camping World Truck Series runs one race in Canada, other than that all the races take place in America. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
No worries, I can't tell the difference between this and the Indy 500, but it's clear that after reading some of the comments, they're very different. However, Indy 500 is ITNR and yet NASCAR doesn't appear to have an ITNR. It would be instructive to see a discussion where the prominence of this race is discussed and acknowledged. Right now, I see it as a race on a calendar in the US. It doesn't seem any different to any Grand Prix, moreover it has more niche interest than the Grands Prix. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: It's a prestigious race which receives the most media coverage and awards the highest amount of prize money, similar to Formula 1's Grand Prix of Monaco or IndyCar's Indianapolis 500. NASCAR's biggest and most prestigious race is the Daytona 500. Also, while it's not ITNR yet, as I mentioned above, the 2011 and 2013 Daytona 500s both made it onto the main page at ITN. Finally, I guarantee that the Daytona 500 is going to garner much more attention than this week's upcoming race, the 2015 Folds of Honor QuikTrip 500. Suffice it to say I certainly won't be nominating that one here next week. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but as it's not ITNR, why is this year's Daytona 500 more important than last year's which wasn't posted? I'm genuinely curious. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
That I cannot fully explain, but I'll try my best. I truly believe this is notable enough to be a ITNR, I'm just unsure why it wasn't posted last year. Perhaps nobody in the WikiProject thought of nominating it. But as I've said before, it's not like it hasn't been posted before; as the banners on the talk pages note, the 2013 race was posted as was the 2011 race, but those happened before I joined the NASCAR WikiProject, so I don't know why those two passed nominations while the 2012 and 2014 races were not even nominated to begin with. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, two things then: (1) place a suggestion at WP:ITN/R so this can be fully debated for perennial inclusion and (2) good luck with this nomination. It has plenty of support, and the article, while in need of a few more references in the main race section, is in decent condition. It's a lovely American tradition, watched by Americans and supported by Americans, and declared super notable by Americans. I still can't see why it's more notable than, say, the San Marino Grand Prix, but I've tried to make my point too many times. It is what it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Would you recommend me doing that now or after the nomination is either posted or closed? --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you'll be fine to do it now. This nomination, in principle, has complete support other than from me, so there's no indication that you're trying to bypass the system. A couple of editors have indicated surprise that it's not already an ITNR article, so it should be a safe bet that, at the very least, you can initiate the discussion. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. I admit to not being terribly familiar with auto racing but I don't see why the first race of NASCAR is important enough to post any more than posting the Opening Day of baseball or football. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to explain as it seems you are not familiar with the subject. Opening day of baseball does not award players with as much prestige, money, and fame as the Daytona 500 does. The race is more than just opening day, just as the Indy 500, an ITNR, is more than just the 5th race of the IndyCar season. Hopefully this makes some sense, feel free to comment again if you still don't understand. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Regarded as the biggest event in the NASCAR season. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are already 8 annual ITN/R events in this area of sport, which is more than any other sport. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict: I think I have to curiously challenge the above opposition. So you're saying that because there's eight, that means we can't have another one? I'm not sure the argument is justified here. To me, all it's saying is that there are because we already have X number of annual events, we can't have another newsworthy item in this area of motorsports (NASCAR only has one, by the way, the rest are all other forms of motorsport) be featured in ITN. This isn't even an ITN/R, so I don't see how "There are already 8 annual ITN/R events" is a legitimate reason to oppose. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
One could rephrase my objection that there are eight events annually in the motorsports area that consensus has deemed more noteworthy than this one. Given the frequency of sports events worldwide, I don't feel that including non-ITN/R sports events promotes diversity of the ITN content, unless there is some unusual reason to do so, such as an important world record. As a side issue, I find it strange that motorsports has such a high representation on ITN/R; with 8 events it is joint top, with film and exhibitions/fairs/summits. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Espresso Addict for the clarification, I greatly appreciate it. I'll make one last argument; as I've stated above, the Indy 500 is to IndyCar as the Grand Prix of Monaco is to Formula 1 as the Daytona 500 is to NASCAR. With that, if IndyCar and F1's biggest races are notable enough, why wouldn't NASCAR's be? The sport is just as big, if not bigger, in the United States as the Indy 500, and Grand Prix of Monaco, not to mention, as Johnsemlak states above, the Kentucky Derby or U.S. open or a golf or tennis major. Thus, I believe this is a big enough event to make it onto the main page at ITN.
Also, the race is now over 24 hours old, so if this is going to pass I'd like to see a decision soon. Would it be possible for an admin to look over this once one gets a chance? Again, this is my first attempt at ITN, so if the answer to posting this is no, I completely understand; however, I hope my fellow editors will consider the arguments given by me and all those who have supported this nomination. Again, many thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Not a fan of car racing--I am totally uninterested, yet know scores who are---but this is once again huge in comparison with many other sports events, and when one hears the word America in every single oppose one expects an admin to summarily dismiss such opposes per the policy at the top of the page. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Article and update seem up to snuff, and this nomination has sufficient support. Whether this should be ITN/R, or whether the Sprint Cup champion should be removed from ITN/R, is a discussion for elsewhere. -- tariqabjotu 04:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't know how this has been posted. There are actually more opposes listed here than supports. Can an admin please take this down.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    Because consensus is not counting of votes, and the posting admin considers the strength of the arguments for and against when deciding what to do. --Jayron32 09:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Tomb of the Suleyman ShahEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 20:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Tomb of Suleyman Shah (talk, history) and Turkey (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Turkish forces cross into Syria and relocate the Tomb of Suleyman Shah
News source(s): Rueters

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is an interesting item. Turkey has moved an enclave of its territory within the territory of Syria. Abductive (reasoning) 02:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose a temporary removal covered under the ongoing ticker. μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per μηδείς. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as covered by ongoing. Sadly, the article is quite bad. Virtually the entire article is about the political aspects of the Tomb, and there is almost nothing written about the Tomb itself, it's history, architecture, etc. If this were an encyclopedic article I would support posting this, but as it is, it's just an aside in the ISIS story. (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not a significant enough development/story to warrant its own entry. BencherliteTalk 14:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

February 21Edit

[Posted] RD: Clark TerryEdit

Article: Clark Terry (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NPR, Rolling Stone, NY Times

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: I've never heard of him before coming across this NPR story. From the lede of the article, he was "an American swing and bebop trumpeter, a pioneer of the flugelhorn in jazz, educator, and NEA Jazz Masters inductee." Article mentions several other awards/honors, so he appears to be at the top of his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong support, a major figure, over seven decades, played with all the jazz greats. Many awards. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, when article improved. Influential jazz musician; the Telegraph obituary [25] states he had a "deep and lasting influence on the course of jazz" and was the "first African American to become a regular in a band on a major US television network." The article requires work on the referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality only Was on my way to possibly nominate this myself. Clearly a great in his field, a pioneer in his field, broke racial boundaries being one of the first contract African-American musicians on network television. If only our article was given a little care, we could post this. It's not main page ready as of now, though. If anyone fixes the referencing problems, consider this vote a full support without me having to change it. --Jayron32 00:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Jayron (That is, opposing on article quality only). The bios from NYTimes and Telegraph would likely help in the short term. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Seems like there's been a fair bit of improvement of the article, seems fine to post. (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely meets the Jerry Tarkanian standard.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked ready No opposition, except on quality, and I do believe the quality has been addressed. There are no more "citation needed" tags remaining. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Dan TopolskiEdit

If you want a discussion about page views in RD criteria, ITN talk is thataway. Otherwise, this is getting needlessly acrimonious. GoldenRing (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Daniel Topolski (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Coached Oxford University in The Boat Race 15 times, winning 12 of them, including a ten-in-a-row streak. Easily equivalent to the many college basketball coaches we run here regularly, although the article needs to be improved. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support upon article improvement. Seems to meet DC2 for rowing. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. As a general rule I feel college coaches fall below the RD threshold but for those who judge otherwise he was certainly at the top of coaching UK college rowing. His coaching career also includes coaching the UK Olympic team. His personal rowing career includes a world championship gold medal, and his book about the 1987 Boat Race won a national award. The article is short but adequately referenced. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • On further research, support for RD, based on his personal rowing medals and award-winning writing, as well as being a leading UK rowing coach. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Meets the death criteria, but it's a niche field and I don't think this person is important or well-known enough in the big scheme of things. The article averages something like 10 views per day. Only two teams compete, so 12 wins doesn't particularly impress me. If the two college basketball coaches we posted were a mistake (I think only one of them was) then the way to fix that is by being more selective. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    It's called systemic bias. We can't be more selective when the majority of those voting here are in the demographic that support college basketball coaches with mediocre records. As for important, he was the most important rowing coach in the history of the Boat Race. As for "well-known", that's not relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    Bongwarrior, you say you oppose but concede it meets the death criteria. That's really the only consideration relevant(to the merits) for an RD nomination. "Niche field" is not relevant. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
That's not my understanding. It needs to meet the DC to be eligible for posting - eligibility is not a guarantee. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once the article is improved. Won a world championship as a rower and as a coach in the 1984 Olympics. Certainly qualifies as important in the field of rowing. -- Calidum 18:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - seems just as notable as Jerry Tarkanian. Looks a cert. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Except Tarkanian was kept out. If only he'd paddled on the Thames, maybe the Brits would like him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Tarkanian was posted and, despite several calls for pulling, remained up until replaced. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, although I think we should reconsider the notability of some of these college sports coaches for the purposes of RD. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    • If Jerry Tarkanian doesn't qualify, neither does this guy. Making a big thing out of a guy who paddled canoes on the Thames? Gimme a break. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, meets the criteria but the article could use a bit more expansion. Nakon 20:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment the article has been improved quite a bit since I nominated it, thanks to a courageous bunch of editors. This world champion rower, award-winning author, Olympic coach, winningest Boat Race coach, noted journalist, national commentator now should be fit for main page inclusion. Although he didn't do college basketball..... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Based on the evidence, he was a "top of the field" guy in rowing. Much like Tarkanian was in college basketball. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    I must have missed the bit where Tarkanian coached Olympic teams and won international awards for his own basketball playing and national awards for his writing skills and demonstrated a 20-plus year career in top-level journalism. Forgive me. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    Dude, let it go. He's supporting your nomination. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    Dude, it'd be better if it weren't with a sleight. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Marking ready. Article is in good shape now and there is conensus here to post. -- Calidum 22:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted, clear consensus to post. Nakon 22:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - It amuses me that the entire notion of this being posted is essentially "because we posted Tarkanian". Talk about WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--WaltCip (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    Actually it's not the entire notion by any means. Topolski was himself a world champion rower, he coached Olympic teams (including medal winners) and he coached Oxford University in the most-viewed rowing event in history 15 times. He was a noted author (as evidenced by awards) and wrote for the British press for over 20 years as well as being a commentator for the BBC. His CV knocks Tark's into the long grass. Tark led a college basketball team to one championship. That's it. The only crap that exists was that Tark was posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    He was referenced, directly or indirectly, in half of the "support" comments including the nomination. Tark had every right to be posted, just as Topolski was. It troubles me that you can't seem to get past that little fact.--WaltCip (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    No, Tark didn't deserve to be posted, that's why so many people opposed it and/or wanted it pulled. I didn't mention Tark by name, we posted two coaches in quick succession, remember? One seemed reasonably notable, but posting Tark was by sheer affectation; his notability bore no resemblence to our RD criteria. It troubles me that you think winning one championship at college basketball equates to our RD criteria, it really does. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    Don't be silly, Rambler, they don't even play on grass. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    Only two of the 8 support !votes referenced Tarkanian.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull, Daniel Topolski's lack of notability for RD is evident in the fact that, before his death he had like ten views a day, and the article is a pitiful 8,000 bytes. I would like to give a reason better than this for pulling, but I'm opposing based on what's not there. --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, the consensus is that the article passes the test set out (" the article must have been satisfactorily updated and have no major omissions of the person's life and effect"), and as for your other point, be sure to let us know when the RD criteria change to include "how many page views did the article get before the person's death?". Once again, someone is confusing fame with importance. Not everyone who is famous is important in their field; not everyone who is very important in their field is a household name. Post-posting support - given his coaching career, he easily passes the mark of being widely regarded as very important in the field of rowing. BencherliteTalk 15:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Lack of notability is not equivalent to page views. That would really encourage systemic bias! Article size, as long as it meets the criteria laid out at RD, is also of no consequnce. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
      • IMO, ITN should take page views into account. I think we should be concerned with making sure our front page contains information that is likely to interest our readers. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
        • It's entirely up to you to change the criteria. For now, page views is utterly irrelevant. Your approach would reinforce the systemic bias that is so prevalent, such that we posted a college basketball coach who won a single championship. And that was wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull per AmaryllisGardener and also per my opinion that TRM's loud and repititive complaints about 'systemic bias' are the main reason this got posted, not because it is an ITN-worthy event (which I doubt). Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    No, it was posted because it had strong consensus to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    My point was that it got consensus because others have been influenced by your complaints. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps that's because his complaints are perfectly valid in this case. SeraV (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I support TRM's complaints certainly in specific regard to the Jerry Tarkanian case and made my arguments clear in that discussion. I do think we're going to have to move on, but given the parallels between the nominations, comparisons were inevitable. While I do think some of the support !votes were a bit charged here with references to the previous disagreements, I think this nomination was founded on very good arguments that have nothing to do with any US basketball coach--including a long run of championships in a presitious event and a world championship medal. It's a borderline case for me but I'll support it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Leave posted. It's borderline for RD in my view, but the decision was made to post it, and there's little value to further debate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

February 20Edit

[Closed] RD: John WillkeEdit

No consensus to post. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: John C. Willke (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times, NBC News, 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: AP obituary (linked above in all 3 sources) says Willke "helped shape the modern anti-abortion movement". This seems to indicate he was important in his field if you define his field as being a member of the anti-abortion movement. Everymorning talk 19:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose awful article. As for the individual, well.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the article needs some significant work before I would be able to support. Nakon 20:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. Connormah (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very short article with each of the first two sections receiving exactly three sentences between them. I am not sure he's particularly notable either, opinions of the man notwithstanding. Challenger l (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is in very poor shape and makes it difficult to say whether he was widely regarded as very important in his field, particularly as we are given the same obituary syndicated by three different newspapers (although that in turn suggests none of them thought him important enough to spend their own time in writing an obituary). BencherliteTalk 23:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] The Marina TorchEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 01:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: The Marina Torch (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A fire rips through The Marina Torch, Dubai, the tallest residential building in the world.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated
 Mjroots (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait and see - I haven't seen casualty figures or anything like that yet. If it's a significant, high-casualty event, then it could be suitable for ITN, but as a curiosity, it doesn't really rock my world. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Eternal" cladding"? Freudian slip? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose fire hits tall building, nobody hurt, nobody dies, bit of a non-story... The really impressive thing is seemingly how well the local fire department and systems within the building worked... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - significant and reported world wide.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As TRM said, no one was hurt or killed. Further, it is no longer the tallest residential building in the world according to the source offered. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM - the fire was dealt with promptly with no loss of life and minimal injury. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Rambles. And thankfully nobody confused coincidence with irony too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's not really something anyone would want to make light of, is it? Formerip (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Relatively little damage to a tall building with no deaths. Not particularly significant. Joshua Garner (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] GemaltoEdit

This doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting consensus to get on the main page, so I'm closing this again to prevent us wasting time on this discussion. (The user who re-opened this has been warned to not continue that type of behavior.) Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Gemalto#NSA (talk, history)
Blurb: ​It is reported that NSA has stolen SIM card keys from Gemalto, enabling it to bypass encryption in affected devices.
News source(s): The Intercept New York Times

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: From The Intercept: "In all, Gemalto produces some 2 billion SIM cards a year. Its motto is “Security to be Free.” With these stolen encryption keys, intelligence agencies can monitor mobile communications without seeking or receiving approval from telecom companies and foreign governments. Possessing the keys also sidesteps the need to get a warrant or a wiretap, while leaving no trace on the wireless provider’s network that the communications were intercepted." We are talking about a hack affecting literally billions of devices here, so seems notable enough or ITN. Thue (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose (for now) Yes, this is major news, and it should go into ITN. But there is no proper article whatsoever to refer to. Once this is met, consider me a supporter. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose An intelligence agency is trying to get intelligence. It's not surprising or unexpected, and not notable in the slightest. Mamyles (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose A couple reasons: first this is "old" news only now just reported. Secondly, it is a significant claim of fault being assigned here to a source that while RS is not as RS as I'd like to see to state it as fact. (all the stories about it are being repeated from the Intercept's take. If this does end up true, I would expect serious legal action and that would be the point of ITN. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    • The claim that we should not post "old news" is strange IMO, since we don't apply it other items. Are we going to stop posting about politicians being indicted or convicted because their offences happened in the past? As for the lack of reliable sources, other entities have copies of the Snowden papers, so it is silly to suggest that The Intercept would post something false when it can be so easily checked by other news organizations. The Intercept has a very good track record, no reason to dismiss them as "not a RS". Thue (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
      • It's not what happened in the past but what is now - if it was a conviction of a politian, for example, the news for ITN is the fact they were convicted, not what was claimed to have been done in the past. And it's not that Intercept is not an RS, its just as not a good RS as the previous reports from the Snowden leaks. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Let's wait and see how and if this develops further. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait and see pending further development. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Kudzu1 and Mellowed Fillmore: What further development could you imagine that could happen. Everything significant that will happen has already happened, as far as I can tell. Thue (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The fact is, we know this is part of their modus operandi, per the Edward Snowden leaks. No new information has been gleaned here, and if people haven't caught onto it by now, they never will.--WaltCip (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I find the "this is what NSA does" opposes absurd - we know that intelligence agencies try to do stuff like this, but we normally don't know the degree to which they succeed. It is big news that they succeeded. Are we also going to stop posting athletes winning stuff, because winning stuff is "what athlethes do"? Thue (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Just as we don't post the results of every sports game, we should not get all excited about typical, normal, day-to-day operations of a government agency. Intelligence agencies around the world succeed at something every day. Sure, we don't usually hear about them, so this report could be somewhat notable to the field of journalism, but then I'd rather post if/when such journalism wins a Pulitzer prize. Mamyles (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course we should get exited, when what they are doing is at least unethical and at worst criminal, it is absurd to claim othervise. SeraV (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you feel that someone having a different opinion than you is absurd, but you cannot disregard others' POV just because they don't fit your worldview (like re-opening a closed discussion because some opposes are not 'real'). We are here to post notable new encyclopedic content in blurbs, not debate what is or isn't ethical. Mamyles (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Did you actually read zwerg nases oppose, it is not exactly full grown oppose now is it? Yes and it is certainly encyclopedic content to find out that governmental agencies have been guilty of breaking laws, and yes it is indeed absurd to claim othervise. SeraV (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Laws of any country do not apply to any other country, unless there is a binding treaty. Again, it is not productive to call others' opinions absurd. Mamyles (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if this is confirmed this is major news. I agree with Zwerg though, there is no proper article for this yet. SeraV (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean "if this is confirmed this is major news"? The discussion here is to determine whether this news is major enough to post to our In the News section. Mamyles (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I mean if gemalto admits that this has been happening for example. SeraV (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose frankly you're an idiot if you didn't think this was already happening, not just in the US but around the world. Spy agency gets caught spying. Big deal. Move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

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

February 19Edit

[Closed] Antonio Ledezma arrestedEdit

No consensus to post. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Antonio Ledezma (talk, history)
Blurb: Antonio Ledezma, the mayor of Caracas, Venezuela, is arrested on charges of plotting to overthrow the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
News source(s): NBC News Reuters ABC News BBC News
Nominator's comments: This seems to have had a considerable impact, e.g. according to the BBC "Hundreds of people gathered at the intelligence agency's HQ in Caracas to protest at the arrest." This event is also being reported on all over the world. Everymorning talk 18:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until a court decision is made, or if the protests get out of hand. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Venezuela ranks so poorly in the corruption index (about 15th from bottom in the entire known universe) anything could be claimed against anyone over there. This is theatre and until someone gets sent to prison for 400 years, it's far from interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per The Rambling Man. —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 06:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per The Rambling Man. Politically motivated arrests are a dime a dozen in Venezuela and countries like it, and unless it develops into full-blown rioting in the streets, I don't see the need to highlight it as an ITN item. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

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

February 18Edit

[Closed] RD: Jerome KerseyEdit

WP:SNOW close. No consensus for posting. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Jerome Kersey (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT TG IND

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: Helped the Portland Trail Blazers reach two NBA Finals and won a title with the San Antonio Spurs in 1999. Ṫ Ḧ the fury of the naturegiven flesh 07:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Appears to be a regular basketball player who had a nice career, but not really someone who stands out. He doesn't meet the death criteria, from what I can tell. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
This never always happen..Ṫ Ḧ the fury of the naturegiven flesh 08:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
If anything, it's more telling that the Blazers never retired his number. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not widely regarded as very important in his field. Sporadic career, one title, falls far short of RD requirements on importance. BencherliteTalk 08:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bencherlite. Some could argue an untimely death, but really not meeting the RD criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Does not meet the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose He had a solid career, but he's not the top of his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose certainly doesn't meet the criteria. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose He had a pretty solid career - but he really doesn't meet any of the criteria. No lauds, no awards, no influence beyond being a solid player of long experience. Challenger l (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Limpet teethEdit

Article: Limpet (talk, history)
Blurb: Limpet teeth are found to have the highest tensile strength among biomaterials, outperforming spider silk.
News source(s): Interface, BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Reportedly new strongest biomaterial. Once the orange tag is dealt with, I think the article is basically ready. Brandmeistertalk

  • Support. Well, "blister my barnacles"! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is propably not most exiting news for our readers, but it is important and interesting for us as an encyclopedia. SeraV (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Science articles have been under-represented here lately, and this is well notable to the materials field. Mamyles (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but most of the target article is unreferenced. Formerip (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support but like Formerip, the article needs work before it can be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support but article needs some serious TLC before posting. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting news.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support this will give our readers something interesting to chew on. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think we should be showcasing "this hot-blooded little beast, the randiest of the gastropods" on the front page! Wikipedia is a family show. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Very interesting and novel! Also, fairly wide coverage in the popular press. Also, I'm guessing the above post is a joke (though Poe's law may strike), so can it please be marked as such. It looks like a legitimate vote now. (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel that the part of the target article that discusses that teeth does not explain or describe anything at all about the structure of the biomaterial or why it is so strong. People turn to Wikipedia to get a better treatment than the lay media that alerted them to the story in the first place. Abductive (reasoning) 19:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I demand a refund. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pulled, sorry, I went straight to the section without checking the rest. Stephen 22:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Get a grip, man! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
This is like pulling, er... Formerip (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Now that the article has been tidied (thanks to everyone who helped) I've reposted. Smurrayinchester 09:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Picture This really needed an image as I initially had no clue where these teeth were and the article didn't make it clear. I was pleased to find that we have a good one which has been added to the article and I've added some other images to help readers understand the general anatomy of the creature. Andrew D. (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Battle of DebaltseveEdit

No consensus to post. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Battle of Debaltseve (talk, history) and War in Donbass (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: The Battle of Debaltseve ends with the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces.
News source(s): Finacional 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.
 --Jenda H. (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: It's a solid article and it's a major battle (not to mention a major victory for the pro-Russian forces).Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment We have War in Ukraine as an Ongoing item at the moment. Could the result of this battle be summarized there, rather than post a blurb for another Ukrainian retreat? Mamyles (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
To be more clear, I'm proposing that this blurb not be posted. The Ongoing link should be updated to a new section in the War in Donbass article that summarizes these developments, rather than the current "Into the new year" section. Mamyles (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with the new article. This is so significant that it needs its own article. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose should be covered by the Ongoing item. This is not that significant. Many items have their own article, this is no different, but it doesn't mean it should be on ITN, particularly when we have "War in Ukraine" at Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose; not significant enough to warrant anything other than the current ongoing listing. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Given the context of the failed ceasefire and the general deterioration of Ukraine's army, this is very significant news, the kind we should post even with the ongoing item. Thue (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per "Ongoing" rationale. Joshua Garner (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as covered by Ongoing. Debaltsve is not even in the 100 largest cities of Ukraine. It's significance depends on whether reader has read the entire cumbersone War in Donbass article, and how much stock one puts into ceasefires. (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Debaltseve is a small town, but it's a major railroad hub connecting cities Russia has already taken, but which are not connected by rail. See the article I linked below. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if we have a blurb saying "In defiance of last-week's ceasfire arrangement...." "Pro-Russian rebels force Ukrainian troops to retreat from railway hub, as Putin mocks cease-fire". μηδείς (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Medeis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment there's clearly no real significant argument here to post this as ITN, especially as we have War in Ukraine as Ongoing. The best argument to post this independently from the Ongoing item (which is the whole point of this) is "it's a good article". Well, that's not enough, so we shouldn't just try to claim some kind of original research-based blurb here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, just because there is a disconnect between words and actions does not mean that this event deserves to get a blurb on top of the ongoing item. If it is posted I would hope that the ongoing item be removed until the blurb cycles off. Abductive (reasoning) 19:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • On the plus side, it's a good thing ITN didn't make a big deal out of the "truce". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ongoing. We should watch out though. If there is major development in a peace process (and I thought at first Minsk could be a real thing), we should consider posting it in ITN as well (not hastily though as Minsk has proven). Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I've been following events in Ukraine pretty closely, but I think it sets a dangerous precedent to get into play-by-play coverage of a drawn-out conflict in Wikipedia's ITN section. If thousands were massacred, that would be one thing, but it's a strategic setback for the Ukrainian Army at best. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] New president of GreeceEdit

Articles: Prokopis Pavlopoulos (talk, history) and Greek presidential election, 2014–15 (talk, history)
Blurb: Prokopis Pavlopoulos was elected as president of Greece.
News source(s): Euronews
Article updated

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

 --Jenda H. (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment From President of Greece, it looks like this position is entirely ceremonial. The Prime Minister has all of the executive power. I think precedent is not to post ceremonial position results. Mamyles (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, but only if “elected” is the bold part. As Mamyles pointed out, the position itself is completely ceremonial. The indirect election, however, was held in an unprecedented manner (for Greek standards, that is), was instrumental for the current government to come in power and received much media coverage both there and abroad.--The Theosophist (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Changes in head of state are ITNR. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
As mentioned above, the President of Greece is not the "head of state." The Prime Minister is the head of state for this country, so this election is not ITNR. Mamyles (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The first line of the President of Greece article states: "The President of the Hellenic Republic, colloquially referred to in English as the President of Greece, is the head of state of Greece". The PM would be the head of government, not the head of state. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
You're correct. The Head of state article even states that "The role and functions of the office of head of state may range from purely ceremonial or symbolic to the real executive power in a state." I'll create discussion about this on ITNR talk. Mamyles (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per technically pertaining to ITNR. Joshua Garner (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I could support this in spite of the position being ceremonial, but the article is missing some updates. Why exactly was he selected by Syriza? Why would they choose a member of the opposition ND party? In what way was the "election, however, was held in an unprecedented manner" according to User:The Theosophist (above)? Abductive (reasoning) 02:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. It's ITNR and adequately updated. Yes, further info in the article would be good, but in terms of the reasons he was nominated, I wouldn't be surprised if no-one outside the governing circle precisely knows, other than that Greece has a coalition government, so horse-trading will be involved. Formerip (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - still high office. notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support it's still ITNR and still notable, and the article is reasonable enough, marked as ready as there's decent support for it too, beyond the argument over whether this should or should not be ITNR (which is a discussion going on at another place....) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I would think it would be standard procedure to post info about a change at the top levels of a nation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted with the presidential election article as the bold link. BencherliteTalk 09:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: D. RamanaiduEdit

Article: D. Ramanaidu (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Indian Express, International Business Times, The Times of India

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: Produced 150 films spanning 13 Indian languages. Made it to the Guinness book of records for the most films produced by an individual. Recipient of the Dada Saheb Phalke Award, highest award in Indian cinema. Vensatry (ping) 17:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. The article will need work at least to fix the orange-level tags before being suitable for posting. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Sure thing. I'm in the process of improving it. Vensatry (ping) 18:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I've asked the editor who placed the PoV tag to revisit the article & explain what the problem is. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I suspect phrases in the article like "Fortunately, as the film was a huge success" might have something to do with it. BencherliteTalk 18:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 :) That kind of non-encyclopedic tone is relatively easy to purge; I was worried there's something more pernicious and/or less obvious. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is in no way of suitable quality for the main page, regardless of the possible notability of the individual, which is marginal. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above rationale. Joshua Garner (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose solely on article quality. I would have wholeheartedly endorsed on significance grounds, but the articles problems are legion, and we should not advertise such an article as "the best Wikipedia has to offer". If anyone cleans up the article to a reasonable point where we'd be proud of putting on the main page, let us all know to reevaluate it. Article quality should be the first, last, and only concern here, and this one is dreadful. --Jayron32 00:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

*Strong Oppose - dubious claims, improper referencing - I can't sort fact from fiction enough to tell who this person actually is. Challenger l (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I've made some copy-edits and the article is adequately referenced now. Vensatry (ping) 20:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support You certainly did - not only does this article meet the quality standards, but someone winning a Guinness record for the number of films made in multiple languages elevates his status. This is clearly among the most influential people of his field (Indian filmmakers). Challenger l (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support great work by Vensatry (if you can fix the dab link to "Bengali" in the second paragraph of "film career", even better). Pinging Jayron32, The Rambling Man, JoshuaKGarner and Espresso Addict for them to take a look at the revised version of this article, which I think shows clearly that he was widely regarded as very important in his field. BencherliteTalk 08:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support agreed, good work on article quality and on highlighting the notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted - all opposes appear to have been based on article quality, which has been addressed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

February 17Edit

[Posted] 2015 Haiti carnival accidentEdit

Article: 2015 Haiti carnival accident (talk, history)
Blurb: An accident at a Mardi Gras parade in Haiti kills at least 16 people.
News source(s): Guardian Associated Press USA Today BBC

Nominator's comments: Coverage around the world. Fairly deadly, and the prime minister of the country has declared three days of mourning. This seems significant. Everymorning talk 00:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose an unfortunate accident (and I have read 20 dead) but the power line falling is not being reported as sabotage or having notable victims or long-term encyclopedic import. μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on the contrary, I think 16-20 deaths in what is supposed to be a holiday celebration is something that qualifies for an ITN posting. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Mellowed Fillmore. Highly notable and an underrepresented country on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - significant number of deaths. A country that almost never appears on ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I guess human stampedes aren't as rare as I thought, third one we've posted within a few months. Nonetheless notable. Mamyles (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I am wondering if the blurb should be more specific as to what the accident was? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
If we do get more specific, I would prefer that it say a stampede, as that looks to be the cause of all deaths. In fact, it may be preferable to rename the whole article as "2015 Haiti stampede". Mamyles (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Precedence suggests we should use "crush" and not "stampede".--WaltCip (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it's the opposite. There was a real outcry at the use of the word "crush", many sensitive editors thought it was "disrespectful" although it was still 100% accurate. Wikipedians generally prefer to obfuscate the actual cause of death and use the euphemistic "stampede" instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Arguable the situation when they tried to move the power line to get a float underneath, the live line fell and electrocuted those nearby, and in the rush to get away, others were run over/etc by the crowd. I think "accident" here is the right word because it's not just electrocution, and not just a crush/stampede. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Precedent is actually overwhelmingly toward using 'stampede' in our articles on the subject, for example of these none use 'crush.' Mamyles (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
That's what I said. We use "stampede" even though it's often inaccurate and obfuscates the actual events, to placate the more sensitive editors around here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article still seems a little short and underdeveloped to me. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the article is bare bones, but it still seems to meet the ITN guidelines to me. Of course it could be better, but at least what's there is sourced, well presented and covers a topic we rarely touch in a location we rarely feature. Bound to have an impact on the way in which these carnival processions are conducted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted, Nakon 00:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

February 16Edit

[Closed] RD: Lesley GoreEdit

Clear snow close, no more time needs be expended here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Lesley Gore (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): MSN, Fox 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.
Nominator's comments: Is the artist of multiple hits. Was nominated for an Academy Award. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support huge, huge white iconic singer of soul liberating music, Oscar-nominated composer, celebrity performer, the entire basis of John Water's career, the American Dusty Springfield. Watch this if you are too young to know her name. μηδείς (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with Medeis.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support even though the article doesn't mention her lengthy post-singing college basketball coaching career. Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Note that not all Lesbians are into basketball. "It's my condo, and I'll sell if I want to." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Marked ready as supported and updated, (and as unaware she was a Lesbian until this nomination). μηδείς (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Probably wise to give non-Americans a chance to review. Not all of us are up at 4am. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Marking as ready at that stage was absolutely ludicrous. (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I hate to spoil the party (pun intended) but I agree with Espresso Addict that this should not be rushed to the front page. Looking at the article there was one No. 1 song and a few other top ten hits as a teenager, and one Academy Award nomination about 15 years later. I think that is stretching the defintion of "widely regarded as a very important figure in her field". If I am missing something about how important she was to the music industry even after her star as a teen sensation faded (circa. 1968), then it is because such information is missing from the article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
    • She had several hit song and one world wide hit song. That her star "faded in 1968" is not a reasoning to oppose. Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
      • WP:NOTTEMPORARY is a reason not to delete the article about her, not a reason to feature her in "Recent Deaths". I don't know why you've confused the two issues. BencherliteTalk 17:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
        • The user above claimed that his reasoning to oppose was that her star had faded in 1968. Then I claim that notability is not temporary. I do not see how you can confuse that really. I dont see really why you are getting involved either. But that is another story.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Several hits, and a former household name, but not an extraordinary career. Not at the top of her field as I'd define it. (talk) 07:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Several hits and a former household name, you just made the case for Supporting not Opposing dear.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Patronising comments like "dear" don't help the discussion. BencherliteTalk 17:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Reading stuff into a comment that does not exist simply because you are of a different opinion than me doesnt help either, dear.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not in any way particularly notable in the field of singing. No major awards, one (?!) number one record... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
    • One number one record is more than zero. One world wide hit song and several known songs is more than zero. She has definitely left a mark in the history of music that makes her eligible for RD.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, I'm aware than one is more than zero, she is clearly not important in her field. Your opinion is noted, but you don't need to keep repeating it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Take that advice to heart my friend. Not needing to repeating stuff. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
          • I don't understand most of what you have said. Time to close this particular nomination in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Nowhere near the top of her field. (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, famous but not DC2 important as others have identified. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Masem hits the nail on the head. Not every famous person merits a place in RD (and, indeed, not every RD-worthy person is famous). If the bar is to be set as low as one world-wide hit, or one Oscar nomination (not even the award of an Oscar) then the phrase "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field" would be distorted immeasurably. Plenty of people can have a world-wide hit without becoming important, let alone very important, in the music world. BencherliteTalk 17:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose She's not near the top of her field by a mile, she's neither especially influential, nor lauded. I understand why she was nominated, but she doesn't fit the RD criteria at all. Challenger l (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Offensive the notion that somehow this should not have been marked ready after a full update, and 5 supports including the nominator, after six hours, as is normal procedure, because the British had not yet been afforded the chance to oppose her is insulting in the extreme. Gore's work was important as a performer, composer, TV actress, and celebrity, and an LGTB activist. We've had the absurdity of the Deep Purple drummer being posted because he had a BBC special, and Louis Jourdan below was posted because he had two starts on the Hollywood walk of fame, but this pioneer in many fields is belittled for really no reason other than that her support is American. Of course she's not Einstein, but Einstein would get a full blurb, and she certainly outranks two of our currently posted RD members in notability and public interest with no lack in article quality. I suggest admins disregard most of the above opposes as irrelevant, to keep my remarks charitable. μηδείς (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I'll ignore your bad faith assumption, save to say that it discredits your position more than it does any of the opposers. And I don't know which drummer you mean - Ian Paice is still alive, and the only drummer I can find mentioned in ITNRD discussions is an American, Tommy Ramone. BencherliteTalk 18:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't believe we should publish any RD with less than ~12 hours of discussion, because there are clear differences of opinion associated with time zones. (The obvious exceptions would merit a full blurb.) By the way, one of the reasons I posted Louis Jourdan (after 18 hours of discussion) was your support stating iconic figure, known worldwide by anglo- and franco-phones. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I'll just point out that I supported, and am British. No voting along silly party lines here. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not near the top of her field. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem and Bencherlite. A few hit songs does not make one top of the field. We need to set our bar higher than that. Mamyles (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasons given. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] 2015 Mount Carbon train derailmentEdit

It's been eight days since the initial derailment and there haven't been any additional significant developments. Nakon 19:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 Mount Carbon train derailment (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A CSX Transportation train carrying crude oil derailed in Mount Carbon, West Virginia, causing fires and local evacuations.

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Most significant train and industrial accident in the US this year to date. User:Michaelh2001
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.

February 15Edit

[Posted] Beheading of Copts in LibyaEdit

Article: 2015 kidnapping and execution of Copts in Libya (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A video released by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant shows the beheading of 21 Egyptian Copts in Libya.
Alternative blurb: ​Egypt strikes Libyan ISIS targets after a video is released showing the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians.
News source(s): The Washington Post The Telegraph The Daily Star Press TV

Nominator's comments: I've just created the stub article. Regarding the merits, this is clearly notable and comes a day before the Egyptian military was about to sign a breakthrough deal with France that would make Egypt the first overseas operator of Dassault Rafale jets, a deal which is very likely linked to the threat of Libya's conflict spilling over into Egypt's borders.[26] And as far as the Ongoing section is concerned, I think it is largely limited to the conflicts in Iraq and Syria, not Libya. Can't promise I will work on the article though, because I will be very busy these next few days. So I hope someone gets there soon. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, I had noticed the, "in other news, ISIS has a presence in Libya that nobody knew about until now" aspect. Abductive (reasoning) 00:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support One of the largest actions so far by one of the most newsworthy topics, and as noted, now in Libya. Joshua Garner (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if article is expanded or merged into ISIL article. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Different from the scope of the article in ongoing, represents an expansion of the conflict as well as a potential religious factor. SpencerT♦C 04:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per above. --AmaryllisGardener talk 04:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Only focuses on tip of the iceberg.[27], [28], [29]. The incident might better be part of a more general article. (The British alone lost 35,000 men getting the Nazis out of there in WWII).--Light show (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as covered by ongoing. To address some points from above: ISIS/L has always been formally a Sunni sectarian effort, so the "religious factor" has been present all the time. This is not even the first time that ISIS has publicized their killing Christians. Nobody believes that ISIS is operating strictly in Iraq and Syria. That they get support from various Gulf clients, Turkey, and have material cooperation with other Islamist orgs is well know, and you can go all the way back to their founding and see that. So, the geographical point doesn't hold either. This is yet another tragic and awful event in the ISIS story, but it is not a dramatic change in the status quo. (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if this is expanded or merged. A rebranded Al Qaeda killing Egyptian in Libya is a new topic, not included in ongoing unless we change the ongoing pipe to "Jihad Worldwide". To adopt a recent trope, "Copt's lives matter too." μηδείς (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support To add Egypt has responded by bombing ISIS targets in Libya. --MASEM (t) 06:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Added it (Reuters). Sca (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Marking ready, article has been expanded. SpencerT♦C 16:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The Blurb should probably be updated to reflect the political and military response; the Fact Al-Sisi's protecting the Copts as Egyptians in the wider world context is significant. μηδείς (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I think that's a good suggestion, do you have any ideas for a blurb? I can't think of anything that's not too long. SpencerT♦C 03:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I've added an alt-blurb, and would be as happy with Copts as Coptic Christians, which I added only for clarity to those not aware Copts are Christian. μηδείς (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. The military response makes this particularly notable. (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Updated blurb posted Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am currently developing 2015 Egyptian military intervention in Libya and I believe it should be linked in the blurb → Egypt strikes Libyan ISIS targets after a video is released showing the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians.. @The Rambling Man, Spencer, and Medeis: I'd be glad to address any recommendations you have for the article before it is posted. What say you? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Louis JourdanEdit

Article: Louis Jourdan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety

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: Was a notable French actor during his time, has two stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and has appeared in some notable films --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support iconic figure, known worldwide by anglo- and franco-phones. μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems to meet DC2, as indicated by his body of work and Walk of Fame stars. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Another of a fading generation departs; definitely looks more than notable enough. Article is also in good shape. Challenger l (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. A film career that spanned 53 years and was also a Chevalier de la Legion d'honneur. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Philip Levine (poet)Edit

Article: Philip Levine (poet) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times, Publisher's Weekly

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: Was the U.S. Poet Laureate (They don't give this title to any poet), won the Pulitzer Prize, and the article is in good shape --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as meeting DC2. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Pulitzer Prize & laureate positions, once article adequately referenced (the Work & Awards sections are currently largely unreferenced). Espresso Addict (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts on this, TDKR Chicago 101, but the "Work" section still needs attention. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Added more sources. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with article in good enough shape for posting (I'd recommend expanding about his works, but that can come in time). --MASEM (t) 21:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support appalling that such a prominent person has such a weak article. No doubt as to his significance, the article needs work but it's probably good enough considering "modern standards". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I seem to remember you wanted to cut back on the sarcasm? Does not help anyone. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
You clearly misunderstand "sarcasm". My point is completely true and reflect "modern standards". It would be better if you stopped trying to create conflict and started to act constructively here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is anyone minded to post this before it goes stale? I think there's agreement that the subject is sufficiently notable but concern over the article's quality; no-one appears to be working on it significantly. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted' Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

February 14Edit

[Posted] Protests over murder in TurkeyEdit

Article: Murder of Özgecan Aslan (talk, history)
Blurb: Protests take place in several cities across Turkey following the attempted rape and murder of a student.
Alternative blurb: ​The murder of a student sparks protests in several cities across Turkey.
Alternative blurb II: ​The attempted rape and murder of a student sparks protests by women across Turkey
News source(s): BBC Russia Today LA Times The Telegraph

Article updated

Nominator's comments: While violence against women is widespread in Turkey, such cases are very rare, and anger and protests to this extent are unprecedented. Third most popular/shared story on the BBC at the moment. GGT (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak support based on the fact that this is a really significant story in its context, per GGT. It won't strike to the hearts of many of our regular demographic, but nevertheless it's important. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, especially given the unprecedented developments of the Protests section. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support seems to have caused significant reaction in Turkey. SeraV (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Widespread protests garnering much attention, related to a significant issue in Turkey. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable protest movement with solid article updates. Someone should mark this as ready. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Marked ready, I didn't see any problems with the article, added altblurb linking to protests, since they are what makes this an encyclopedic issue. μηδείς (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Michele FerreroEdit

Sadly the chocolates are still available. Clearly no appetite for this to be posted in any form, stretching the "important in their field" beyond ... well ... many insignificant fields.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Michele Ferrero (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, CBS 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: BBC describes him as the "richest man in Italy", this seems to indicate he was at/near the top of his field. Everymorning talk 16:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose But he didn't do anything. He inherited his wealth from his father, who had an undeniable impact on his field. "Heir" or "heiress" isn't a field. I hope RD doesn't ever come to accept those who are famous for being famous. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Muboshgu. --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but I don't think being rich is a field- and the article doesn't indicate how the person might be notable in some other way. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Ah, Mr Ambassador, you are spoiling us." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 2015 Berlin Film FestivalEdit

Articles: 65th Berlin International Film Festival (talk, history) and Golden Bear (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At the 65th Berlin International Film Festival, "Taxi" by Iranian director Jafar Panahi (pictured) wins the Golden Bear.
Alternative blurb: ​At the Berlinale 2015, "Taxi" by Iranian director Jafar Panahi (pictured) is awarded the Golden Bear.
News source(s): BBC, NY Times

Both articles updated

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

Nominator's comments: Among the regular top 3 film festivals (Berlin, Cannes, Venice) we list here. Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I don't think Golden Bear needs to be an article topic , since that's tied directly to the film festival (though obviously the winner of the festival's premiere award should be named in the blurb). --MASEM (t) 15:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, the way I used wikilinks there is inspired by how Oscar entries were made (with both the Academy Awards ceremony and the trophy linked). I'm not emotional about it, but definitely the newsbit should be ITN. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Taxi article is just about adequate. ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ITNR. SeraV (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ITN/R. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Tariqabjotu, David Levy, Stephen, Espresso Addict? :) -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as per above. Cheers from - surprise - Berlin! ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted with 65th Berlin International Film Festival bolded. I have left the image for those more capable with such matters. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    I've updated the image. —David Levy 19:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Copenhagen attacksEdit

Article: 2015 Copenhagen attacks (talk, history)
Blurb: A shooting at a free speech event in Copenhagen, Denmark kills one person and injures three.
Alternative blurb: ​Two people are killed in attacks at a free speech event and a synagogue in Copenhagen.
News source(s): Fox News, Wall Street Journal, NBC News

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Lead story on Wall Street Journal, CNN, and the BBC. This seems to be pretty big news. Everymorning talk 19:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - Fairly obvious candidate. Joshua Garner (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support low damage attack but judging by the category, shootings in Denmark are rare as rocking horse poop. Add to that the deliberate targeting of controversial cartoonist, you have a story just about worth ITN. Article is just beyond stub, so all well. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Shootings are not really that rare. A few years back some rockers and immigrants gangs went at each others in a fight over the market for marijuana. Politically motivated shooting are very unusual, though. Thue (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support only if determined to be terrorism, which the police(while investigating it assuming so) do not know yet. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the Danish are counted amongst the righteous gentiles. I cannot imagine a better rationale than that. μηδείς (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - another attack by (presumably) coward muslim terrorists. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    • How are they cowards? Attacking a place with multiple police officers is hardly the act of a coward. Thue (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I would label anyone using guns and shooting at unarmed people cowards, so they are muslim terrorist cowards.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose based on current information. If it does turn out to be terrorism-related, then yes, but this is akin to similar public shooting incidents around the world; it's tragic but ultimately not a significant event in the larger scope. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, obviously it is terrorism-related. While we don't have the a court's word for it, the context makes it blindingly obvious what the intent was. Any normal criminal activity would not target a place with multiple police officers present with that kind of attack. It wouldn't be on the front page of the New York Times right now if they did not think it was virtually certain to be terrorism-related. Thue (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
      • The word "terrorism" is thrown around a lot these days to tag things that aren't really "terrorism" to make them sound more ominous than they should be. It's a weasel word for all purposes. Yes, the intent was to terrify one or more people, but this is far different than what is normally called "terrorism". Technically, that shooting in the US was terrorism too, by the same logic, but it's not being called that. Now if it does turn out that there's connection to, say, ISIS here, and was purposely done for that, then yes, that's fair game. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Come on now. Obviously this is terrorism. I know that "terrorism" is thrown around a lot, and that is stupid, but it is equally stupid to refuse to label obvious terrorism for terrorism. And I have no idea what you are referring to with "that shooting in the US". Thue (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, notable shooting, very likely that Islamic terrorists are behind the attack. --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. "Presumably" and "very likely", to quote from two supporters above, provide no basis for an enyclopaedic response to a developing event. Until the motive for the attack can be more safely confirmed, there is nothing about it that warrants coverage. It is interesting that Chapel Hill has (correctly) not been posted on the ground that the motive as a hate crime or terrorist incident has not yet been clearly established. Yet we are much more ready to assume motives here.... --Mkativerata (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    @Mkativerata: I must say, the Muslim students were not famous, they did not draw caricatures offending Christians, and they were not hosting a freedom of speech event when they were killed. Quite absurd to make the comparison you have made. --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    The comparison is entirely apt. Your full rationale for support is "very likely that Islamic terrorists are behind the attack". At the time of writing, you had no basis for that view other than your own original research. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I think after the subsequent attack targeting a synagogue, the motive as a copy cat terrorist attack following the Paris attack is clear. But, that said, there is no requirement that a motive be established before postings for in the news article content.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The Danish PM has said it is terrorism: [30] 331dot (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "We feel certain now that it was a politically motivated attack, and thereby it was a terrorist attack" from that article, to me, is very poor logic, because there are a lot of politically-motivated attacks that happen every day, and as such would qualify as "terrorism". This is the issue with sensationalism. I don't question it being politically-motivated but we really need to be caution at ITN about taking anything that is arbitrarily labelled as "terrorism" as such. --MASEM (t) 22:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now Tragic, but shootings with one fatality happen almost everywhere. I'd say even for Europe this is not an outstanding terrorist incident. Brandmeistertalk 21:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Do you still oppose following the shooting at the synagogue, the shooting of the suspect, and the massive international response?
  • Support - Current thinking is that it was an assassination attempt, not exactly run-of-the-mill terrorism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose As 2015 Chapel Hill shooting is not a terrorist attack so is this incident. Think for yourself and stop being mouthpiece of dictators and their proxies like CNN. Moorrests (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
This is not a matter of your personal perception of this being a terrorist attack and our "brainwash" by CNN. It is a matter of if the incident is to be posted or not. Otherstuffexists is not a good reasoning either.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Moorrests clearly knows nothing of which he speaks, unless he's being satirical. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
+1 Bugs and BQ. His comment has nothing to do with this getting this to discussing the appropriateness this has for ITN. --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's hope not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The top story for me on is "Terror attack in Denmark". I'm not saying ITN should call it terror yet but it seems far more likely than Chapel Hill where a neighbour shot three unknown people in a private home, in a country with huge numbers of shootings. It's already widely assumed to be terror. There has been a second shooting with three injured at Great Synagogue (Copenhagen). It's not known whether it's connceted but such shootings are extremely rare in Denmark. The first attack used an automatic weapon, also very rare in Denmark. I haven't seen reports of the weapon in the second attack. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment There has been a second shooting in Copenhagen, though it hasn't been verified it is related to the first. This increases the severity and conspiratorial level of the incident. BBC — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaKGarner (talkcontribs) 01:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Two shootings, with the French Ambassador a target, in the first attack, and police wounded in the second, with a victim shot in the head? This is Denmark, not Dallas, (no offense to Texas), and the attack on this liberal, and righteous among the nations that stood up to Hitler on on Valentine's Day is a symbolic and heinous attack on freedom and human rights. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Can we dial down the soapboxing please? Thanks. -- tariqabjotu 01:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Marked ready, well updated and heavy support for posting. μηδείς (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Shootings are not encyclopaedic, unless they involve the deaths of significant people. No significant people died, and hence this is not significant. RGloucester 02:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, people will be looking for this. Abductive (reasoning) 02:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not that deadly and little longer-term significance. Neljack (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. 1 dead is way below the threshold for ITN. That goes for spree shootings and for terrorist attacks. -LtNOWIS (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Removing "ready". Doesn't seem like the discussion has reached consensus. SpencerT♦C 06:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as obvious candidate. The shooting has grabbed headlines worldwide. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This appears to be a copycat of the Paris attacks, first attacking a free speech event with Mohammed cartoonist, later attacking a synagoue where a Jewish guard was killed. May just be luck that the fatalities was lower. These kind of attacks have a major effect on the political and societal climate in many European countries which are having much of the same issues with extremism and terror threats. Iselilja (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment it's worth taking a second to put this into context, gun attacks are extremely rare in Denmark, especially those related to terrorism. The low death count (three including the gunman) should not cloud judgement when it comes to assessing the significance of this. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Not an everyday thing in Denmark, headline news around the world and article is in pretty decent shape. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb will need tweaking to take account of this morning's developments but this is a leading international story and is ready to post. BencherliteTalk 09:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    Tried an alt blurb, it's rubbish but closer than the original blurb... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The notability of a terrorist or any other type of attack does not depend on "body count". Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support- this is a big story and this is also a good article.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Has this not been posted yet. It is kind of ridiculous that a world wide covered story has not been posted so many hours after it happened.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    • We are not a news ticker, nor a newspaper. We can and should take time to assure that we are posting quality articles and appropriate ITN stories. People who are coming to WP to learn about breaking news are coming to the wrong place - its like going to McDonalds to get gourmet food. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Not posting a news story like this within atleast a couple of hours after the synagogue attack is weird. If we are not a "news ticker" then why do we have a ITN section. Well, now it is posted. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
        • As long described, to highlight articles of good quality that are in the news as to attract editors to help improve those articles, like we have for all other main page sections. For things like ITNRs and RDs, where the articles have likely been established, we're judging on article quality and the like, but for other things like events, we need to make sure that enough information about the event is know to 1) assure the article will be notable per NEVENT, 2) we can write more than a stub about it and 3) make sure that the article is in good enough shape so that new editors know where to inject new material. In this case, details of what actually happened and likely cementing the shootings as notable was after the second incident and the subsequent take down of the suspect as to learn identity and motive. That takes time for the news cycle to actually catch up; further, as long demonstrated before, we want to make sure that we allow for about ~12 hr to give editors from across the world a chance to comment. Given that we do often reject articles on single public shootings (see the Chapel Hill shootings below), this was not a clear-cut ITN story. Hence, waiting for both the assured details of the story and the article quality are necessary elements of ITN. If people need news, that's what BBC and CNN and other sites are for; we're going to provide good quality summary articles once we can actually write to that. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
          • I know that the Chapel Hill shootings was a reason for this delay in posting this particular article. Some users felt that why should this be posted if the other one was not. Anyway, it has been posted. Time to move on.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted -- KTC (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Gary OwensEdit

No consensus to post. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Gary Owens (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times Los Angeles Times CNN Variety CBS News NPR

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: Announcer on Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In. He also voiced Space Ghost in Space Ghost. He voiced Roger Ramjet in Roger_Ramjet as well. Andise1 (talk) 07:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note - Very well-known in his day, at least in USA. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose can't see the notability and article is certainly nowhere referenced enough for consideration right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't see how he meets the criteria; well known does not always mean 'important'. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Sadly just not notable enough for RD.--WaltCip (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As noted by others, animation fans are mourning, but the question even is begged if he was top of the field here. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Another I will miss dearly, but sadly, he doesn't come close to the notability or influence criteria for RD. Challenger l (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose clearly doesn't meet the criteria. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

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

February 13Edit

[Closed] John Kitzhaber resignsEdit

Absoulutely no consensus, WP:SNOW close. --AmaryllisGardener talk 13:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: John Kitzhaber (talk, history)
Blurb: John Kitzhaber, the governor of Oregon, announces his intention to resign amid accusations of misconduct.
News source(s): Washington Post, New York Times
Nominator's comments: More controversial than a typical resignation because of the accusations that had been made against Kitzhaber leading up to it. WaPo link above states that "he and his fiancee, Cylvia Hayes, continue to be investigated for misusing their influence for personal financial gain." Everymorning talk 05:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Don't necessary want to elevate state level politics to be as important as national, but this is a rare situation. I would suggest that if we can hold off till Weds, when this should be made official (the transfer will be officially made) (per the sources), that would be the better ITN injection point, than this. --MASEM (t) 05:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Run of the mill US political scandal. Gamaliel (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Of no national, let alone international, significance. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    • You have no way to know that. In fact, bbc links to it from its front page.[31] So someone thinks it's of international interest. That doesn't mean it should be an ITN item, as ITN doesn't cover as many news stories as bbc does. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Right below "Are yoga pants really a threat to public decency?" -- tariqabjotu 09:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. State-level politics in the US is almost never worthy of ITN. -LtNOWIS (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose trivial in the big scheme of things. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'd probably even oppose if he was actually charged with something; only state level politics. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Possibly more significant than the resignation itself is that Oregon now has an openly bisexual woman as its governor. I don't know if that's a first, but it's a rarity. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Cristina Kirchner accusedEdit

Consensus against. BencherliteTalk 09:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is accused of conspiring to cover up Iran’s alleged involvement in the 1994 AMIA Bombing, under the criminal complaint written by the dead prosecutor Alberto Nisman.
News source(s): The Guardian

Article updated
Nominator's comments: A sitting head of state has been accused of conspiring to cover up the perpetrators of a terrorist bombing, and the judge has considered that the proof provided is enough to warrant a judicial investigation. Sounds like very heavy stuff, I think. Cambalachero (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The accusations have been filed, but that doesn't mean there will be a court date. I think in this case if there is a court date against a sitting leader, that would be a possible ITN item (when we'd normally do the results of the court's decision) but not before. --MASEM (t) 01:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, let's wait, something more notable than this could occur, but I don't see the big deal with this. --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note - The headline in say "MAY face bomb probe."[32] By implication, might not face bomb probe. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait for events to clarify. When something formally happens, we can post an item. As an amateur news watcher, I think the inevitable result will be that she is forced to resign, either because she is guilty, or because the guilty parties make her a scapegoat. Jehochman Talk 01:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now; the headline in the given article says "may" face charges. If there are actually charges or she resigns, either would be significant. 331dot (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • How often do ACTING heads of state get real trials like this one? Nergaal (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    • What trial? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Exactly. If it does get to trial, that might be something, as I noted, but this is only the filing of the paperwork. The judge has to approve the case and that's not an assurance or there might be something that happens before that. --MASEM (t) 05:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Then the article is somewhat misleading. I still think that if the judge allows for a trial to start this should be posted regardless of the final outcome. Nergaal (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
          • Putting a president on trial would certainly be a significant event. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
            • I would tend to agree, if there is a court case, that itself would be something to consider for ITN. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As of now, he's only "seeking to charge," per NY Times. Light show (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose until something happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Let's wait until this develops further, if it does. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: John McCabeEdit

Article: John McCabe (composer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, Gramophone, Telegraph

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

Nominator's comments: McCabe was a prolific composer, who wrote over 200 works, including seven symphonies. He was also a pianist, who made several recordings. He was awarded a CBE in 1985. Gramophone call him "One of Britain’s finest composers in the past half-century". JuneGloom07 Talk 15:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support but some work needed to flesh out the article and improve the referencing. He won the Ivor Novello Award for classical music last year, described in various features as "prestigious" or similar, and that plus his long and distinguished career makes him suitable for RD. BencherliteTalk 16:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Bencherlite, the article needs a bit more work. Otherwise a notable RD candidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose He has two awards in his article, which are the only notable features besides a list of music he wrote. He was awarded the Ivor Novello Award once, which is given to about 15 musicians/composers in Britain a year. He was also appointed a commander in the Order of the British Empire, which is given to around 100 people a year. While it looks like he was a good composer, neither of these awards make a strong case that he is top of his field. Mamyles (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • To be fair, whilst there are indeed a number of Ivor Novello Awards in different musical fields, there is only one for classical composers each year. Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I think the article belies his importance based on the BBC; while my understanding of the awarding of the CBE is that it's uncommon but not rare (unlike fully named "Sir"s), it's equivalent to a US Presidential Medal for civilians, and as such puts him up there. But that begs the question on the article quality (not so much in sourcing) if this could be improved better. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per the "One of Britain’s finest composers in the past half-century" assessment from the author of his entry in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. The article could be further fleshed out but appears to have no major issues on a quick scan. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, as per Espresso Addict. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I have done some expansion of the article and believe it is now reasonably fleshed out & referenced. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - after additional work from Espresso Addict I think this article is ready to be posted.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Please revert if this is inappropriate, but no ITN admins appear to be active this afternoon & consensus seems adequately clear. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Val FitchEdit

As this item is already older than the oldest RD on the main page (Deng Liqun, died 10th Feb), it is too old to post. BencherliteTalk 11:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Val Logsdon Fitch (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times Washington Post MeteoWeb physicsworld Princeton University

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: Washington Post: "physics pioneer and Nobel laureate" / New York Times: "Discovered Universe to Be Out of Balance" / physicsworld: "Particle pioneer" / Princeton University: "A towering figure in physics who helped shape our understanding of the universe" Andise1 (talk) 07:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose article is not impressive but Fitch's Nobel prize and notable positions make him a suitable candidate for RD. Having said that, the news is stale, given he died eight days ago... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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

February 12Edit

[Closed] RD: Steve StrangeEdit

This item is older than the oldest current RD and is therefore stale. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Steve Strange (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety Time Billboard, TV New Zealand, SF Gate, Spiegel online, Le Figaro, The Independent, 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: One of the most important figures of the New Romantics era, who IMO, helped led the Second British Invasion in the US. I hope this nomination doesn't "Fade to Grey". Donnie Park (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose definitely significant individual, all over the BBC as of last night (still top of the shared stories as of around 5pm here). Biggest issue is that the article isn't by any means decent and needs some proper referencing. Certainly worth noting that he is variously described as an "icon" and a "pioneer" of the New Romantic movement, even by mainstream sources outside the UK. Others note him as "the custodian of New Romantic pop" and "one of pop's secret architects". The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose notability is based on his lifestyle more than on any artistic influence. μηδείς (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - mostly per nominator, but also because he has been described as the "father of the New Romantic" movement. Untimely death at a relatively young age. Mjroots (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose From reading the article, the only especially notable achievement I can see is founding Visage (band), which had one UK top-10 record. Founding a band that has one hit record does not seem to get close to the bar of "top of his field." Mamyles (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Medeis and Mamyles. --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, an iconic figure in the New Romantic movement. But, if he doesnt make it, alongside those famous college basketball coaches, I wont cry. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
In the US this was called New Wave and there were huge Second British Invasion acts like Duran Duran, Eurythmics and Culture Club. Even Modern English's Melt With You. But Ultravox (whose work I had on vinyl) was never a hit, let alone Visage. Mr. Strange deserves his article, he seems to have become a minor celebrity for his misgressions, but he simply does not rise to the level of any of the frontmen of the era. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
He was quite big in Newbridge, boyo. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Menya nye zavut' "boyo". μηδείς (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
If only I knew what that meant. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
It looks like it's starting with "many a night..." Does that connect with the subject's lyrics? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Translation: I'm not called "boyo". μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
... unlike everyone in Newbridge, obviously. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment although it's abundantly clear from third-party reliable sources (rather than conjecture and WP:OR) that Strange was clearly a notable individual, certainly notable enough for RD, the article remains underwhelming. Anyone who could help with that would be great. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Notability should be based on referenced facts and statements from the article. If you have sources that bolster this nomination's notability, please feel free to add to the article so that it is more complete. Additionally, if you see any OR in the article please tag or remove it. Mamyles (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
In regard to your claims of notability, consider comparing this to your recent comment about having no awards and one #1 record. This individual also has no notable awards, but with zero #1 records. Mamyles (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Nik Abdul Aziz Nik MatEdit

Article: Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal

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.

 Mkativerata (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as nom. Nik Aziz was a giant of Malaysian politics. For over two decades he was the "Spiritual Leader", and national figurehead, of the opposition Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party. He also governed the state of Kelantan for 23 years, often standing alone during a period in which the Barisan Nasional coalition dominated the rest of Malaysia. During this time he achieved the unique feat of governing with quite conservative, often hardline, Islamist principles, yet maintaining a very high level of popularity. But it is not his tenure leading a state government that makes him significant; it is his national standing as the Islamist leader of his generation. Bloomberg quotes an expert who, correctly in my opinion, says, "Nik Aziz was the face of political Islam" in Malaysia." --Mkativerata (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The article says he was born to a single father. Can this be clarified? μηδείς (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed this somewhat; unfortunately I can't find anything about what happened to his mother and when. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, seems to be an important figure in Malaysian politics. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems to be important to his field. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The nominatee seems to have held a governorial position, and that of minority party chief. We would not post an American with such a small resume, so I have to Oppose at this point. μηδείς (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Granted, but it doesn't tell the full story. A Western comparison would be Ted Kennedy: an elected official for half a century who was the figurehead for a political movement (liberalism/Islamism). --Mkativerata (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a sufficiently prominent politician in his country to merit an RD posting, and the article is in decent shape. Medeis FWIW, ITN posted (with your support) Mario Cuomo, a US state governor who was never even leader of his party. Comparing non-Americans with Americans is not an exact science, and I'm not sure that an approach which works on the basis of converting non-American RD candidates into their American equivalent is a good one given the obvious differences. BencherliteTalk 17:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll withdraw my oppose if those with more direct experience have a higher view of the gentleman, but the article doesn't convey his importance that well. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Another peace agreement on UkraineEdit

Snow close, even the nomination title shows cynicism over the significance. μηδείς (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Minsk II (talk, history) and War in Donbass (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Representatives of Ukraine, France, Germany and Russia have reached a peace agreement on Ukrainian conflict.
News source(s): Euronews, BBC, RT ect...
Both articles 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.
 --Jenda H. (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Support - a breakthrough in this conflict. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This deal is nothing new, and is quite weak. It is merely a slightly clarified update of the failed Minsk Protocol. There is no reason why the ongoing bit cannot handle this matter, as it already does. RGloucester 19:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose we have an ongoing already, besides there is nothing saying currently that this deal will be any more effective dealing with this war than Minsk protocol which collapsed. SeraV (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing can handle this. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    Can/ does Wikipedia collect data on number of clicks on each link of the Main Page? I'd be very interested to see the statistics. Maybe it's policy that an ongoing has to cover any news event. But I'm sceptical - regular readers will not be prompted to click on anything new, irregular readers may not even realise where to find that news. Does ongoing ever get dumped in favour of a new event? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    Not clicks but you can look at page views. An article linked to on the Main Page will generally see an increase in page views, which might measure what you're looking for. SpencerT♦C 20:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks, but it seems unlikely that will be useful in showing anything. Not least as the peace agreement is not a separate article posted at ITN. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose; covered by ongoing. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose & snow close, assuming no one objects. μηδείς (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't object, although 7 hours seems a bit of a short time. I'd dispute that "nothing saying currently that this deal will be any more effective..." is a valid reason to oppose. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing untoward about this nomination. If something like a pull-out or a third party inspection force is installed, I don't think anyone will oppose either a new nomination or reopening this. But this is about the third "agreement" that's been nominated followed the within the next day or so by some sort of horrendous blast. μηδείς (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reiterating Medeis' point, this is an "agreement" that doesn't go into effect until Sunday at midnight - and even now there are more Russian munitions being sent in to try to secure additional territory. But if the truce occurs, and holds, then it will definitely be worth reporting here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Bob SimonEdit

Article: Bob Simon (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): *"Bob Simon, ‘60 Minutes’ Correspondent, Dies in Manhattan Car Crash at 73", New York Times, Feb. 11, 2015; *"CBS News correspondent Bob Simon, 1941-2015", CBS News, Feb. 11, 2015.

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: Longtime CBS news correspondent, recipient of over 40 major awards, and a senior foreign reporter for 60 Minutes and 60 Minutes IILight show (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - wanted to add this nom the moment it happened, didn't know how to..he qualifies easily though with 27 emmys, a blurb is also a needs a bit more update, it really doesn't reflect his 50 year career and achievements.. --Stemoc 09:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if article is up to snuff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the dead American ticker. Article has serious BLP issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    • What "serious BLP issues"? The article has references, no orange tags, and on a surface read appears fine to me. Also, "dead American ticker"... real helpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
      I think it's 100% accurate, don't you, especially considering the next two RDs lined up are yet more dead Americans? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I think comments like these are nonconstructive. We can't help that there's been a run of Americans dying who meet RD criteria. If you want to break it up, nominate some worthy non-Americans. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, many of them don't meet the criteria, yet the consensus being mainly American and the posting admins being mainly American means we're inundated and hence RD has now become the Dead American ticker. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree that they don't meet the criteria, and I don't agree that there's a group of Americans pushing these articles. I think we need to find a better way of dealing with this than smearing each other from across the Atlantic. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Pushing niche fields like "college basketball" as being significant enough for the English language Wikipedia has gone too far. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes I wonder why I bother at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: Please stop with the "dead American ticker" disrespectful nonsense. If Bill Gates died tomorrow, would you object to RD because there's been too many Americans listed on RD lately? And if Bob's no more important than just a "dead American ticker", then why does have his death listed as one of the top stories? --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @AmaryllisGardener: Please stop with the "disrespectful nonsense" nonsense. It's a statement of fact. Right now we have a mediocre golfer and two other US sports personalities on RD, we're about to sanction two more, it's nothing more than fact. does not have it listed as one of its top stories. It has it listed as an American/Canadian story ranking right down the bottom of the page. If your measure of notability is that it appears on the BBC main page, then be prepared to see a raft of dead Brits coming your way soon, since beyond that, there seems to be no real justification for many of these RDs, other than sheer number of US voters and admins here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: On, below the top top story, is "CBS newsman Bob Simon dies in crash". And I also check,, and --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That's not the version we see in the UK, obviously, we use where this story isn't featured at all on the main page. And is that the same Fox News who declared Birmingham a no-go zone for non-Muslims? Sure, there's plenty of US coverage, no doubt at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I also don't see any issues. Could you elaborate so that we can improve? Mamyles (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: if the article has issues, we should fix them. This is a wiki, after all. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    Go ahead. And nice rationale for support by the way. Seems more and more commonplace these days to just !vote and not actually offer any rationale whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • So what? Your rationale didn't explain what's wrong with it, it has no tags. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
TRM: Err, the man won 27 Emmy Awards and 4 Peabody Awards. Is there anyone questioning Mr. Simon's notability to appear in the recent deaths section? Broadly, my understanding of having an "In the news" section on the main page is that it gives us an opportunity to highlight our articles and allow them to expand and improve. This line of reasoning seems to stand in direct contradiction to the idea that we would intentionally omit a notable recent death because of the poor shape an article is in. Linus's Law and all that. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps both of you have forgotten how Wikipedia works. When I made my comment, there was a CLEAR BLP violation, as evidenced by this subsequent edit. Just because I haven't rushed back to the Dead American ticker to confirm it's been removed, it doesn't mean the objection wasn't completely valid to start with. But hell, who am I to stand in the way of posting crap quality Dead American articles, regardless of such clear policy violations? Yes we definitely should omit a recent RD because of poor article shape. If you want to change that, let's update the RD criteria accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, very notable, his death has gotten very much coverage. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as a notable journalist. I recommend that an image be found of him for the article, if possible. Mamyles (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Recognizing that the press/media is very self-congratulatory about itself, he still had a good number of awards from the field, so seems to meet our criteria. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked as Ready, since article is in acceptable shape and has strong consensus. BLP issues discussed above have been remedied. Mamyles (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support per Masem. I was going to oppose, basically because I haven't watched 60 Minutes since The Simpsons premiered. But the list of awards is pretty impressive, and it seems like he actually did in-the-field journalism. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  •   Done. --Jayron32 22:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

February 11Edit

Costa Concordia captain's convictionEdit

Articles: Francesco Schettino (talk, history) and Costa Concordia disaster (talk, history)
Blurb: Francesco Schettino is convicted of manslaughter in the grounding and capsizing of the Costa Concordia.
News source(s): CNN

Nominator's comments: Should this be posted? Abductive (reasoning) 23:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: A conviction relating to a notable maritime disaster '''tAD''' (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Culmination of a widely-discussed international story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this was posted when it happened, re-listing it now is an anticlimax with no actual purpose. μηδείς (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Medeis. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Medeis. While the event itself was interesting, it has already been featured. Mamyles (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable criminal conviction in a notable event. Convictions are usually what is posted in other cases. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle per 331dot - I don't think it matters that we posted the event because not every major disaster also then leads to a substantial prison sentence for one of the main actors. However the article needs some work. BencherliteTalk 10:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Of course. Conviction in a large criminal case following on from a major disaster. We often post convictions, the fact that the case arose from a previously posted disaster is irrelevant. Also, puzzled why people say this is 're-listing' or 'it has already been featured', when it clearly hasn't been? Surely people can tell the difference between a disaster and the legal cases arising from that disaster? (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unencyclopedic. The story here was the sinking itself. This particular spin-off is merely soap opera. (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless the Sinking of the MV Sewol's conviction is also included as a dual blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose combined blurb. The two events are unrelated and so should be individually featured or not featured on their own merits. That they coincidentally happened about the same time is nothing more than a coincidence. Thryduulf (talk)
  • Weak Oppose We've had 2-3 items posted related to this already. Also worth linking here (but not related to my position): Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/July_2013#.5BClosed.5D_Costa_Concordia_trial. SpencerT♦C 21:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note - bbc is reporting about the other captain's conviction today.[33]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - conviction and sentence in a worldwide news story.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Deng LiqunEdit

Article: Deng Liqun (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT, South China Morning Post, Japan Times

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Major figure of Chinese politics during 1980s, was particularly influential in Communist propaganda in the lead up of Tiananmen; Article is in good quality. Colipon+(Talk) 21:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. I think this person could meet the death criteria, but the article might need some expansion to make that clearer. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - influential propaganda chief of China and one of the most powerful hard-liners. He was instrumental in ousting two liberal Chinese leaders (Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang). -Zanhe (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks in good shape and the subject appears notable. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support notable individual and the article is decent enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, notable politician, former Secretary of the Central Secretariat of the Communist Party of China. --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 20:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted/not pulled] RD: Jerry TarkanianEdit

It did its time at RD despite unclear consensus and several unanswered queries from those outside the college basketball fraternity. It does beg further question, but that's not for here. However, we will certainly be seeing a "Tarkanian precedent" being used in weeks and months to come... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Jerry Tarkanian (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN, Las Vegas Review-Journal Independent Bloomberg

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: Hall of Fame basketball coach who won NCAA national championship in 1990. Allen3 talk 20:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Membership in the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame demonstrates his importance in his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with Muboshgu.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose under-referenced article and do we suddenly post everyone who dies that's been inducted to the "Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame"? I guess with our new American sportsperson death ticker, quality and notability are both somewhat irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, never even heard of him until now, surely we don't post everyone on the BHoF. --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Whether you've heard of him or not isn't relevant. Nor is his nationality or the number of similar people to die recently, TRM, but you know that already. We can't help who dies when. His induction to the basketball hall of fame and sources calling him a "coaching legend" put him in DC#2. I agree the article is underreferenced at this point and time, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Rambling Man. Enough already.--WaltCip (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd support, but the point is moot while the article fails to convey his impact to those not familiar with him.Bagumba (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Striking. I've updated the article per my support below.—Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Per Muboshgu. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Meets DC2; very high win percentage, championship coach, described as one of the more successful coaches and notable for his behavior. I also think it is important to remember that no one can help when people who meet the RD criteria die or where they come from, so let's please stop calling this the "American sportsperson death ticker" as there is no concerted effort to make it such. Anyone who would like to see others posted, please nominate them(such as the Chinese politician above). 331dot (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Well-known and sometimes controversial figure in college basketball; a winner and perennial presence at the NCAA tournament. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I added new section summarizing his legacy at Jerry Tarkanian#Legacy. He's in the Hall of Fame, the highest honor in the sport of basketball. His offensive and defensive strategies revolutionized the game. He transformed the UNLV from a small college into a national powerhouse. He took chances on players that other big programs wouldn't, which was polarizing because of their troubled backgrounds and their urban upbringing. He allowed his players to express themselves, and their style impacted popular culture decades before the more recent Fab Five phenomena; UNLV sweatshirts became nationally popular. Tarkanian was a celebrity in Las Vegas in an era before the town became the glitzy destination that it is today.—Bagumba (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Bagumba (I guess that's easy to say). One of the winningest basketball coaches in NCAA history, coached the Runnin' Rebels to back-to-back Final Four appearances including winning the national title once. - Bossanoven (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A pretty significant figure in college basketball. Virtually all major news agencies reported his death. --Երևանցի talk 02:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The text on his NCAA career is extremely paucous. The section on his granddaughter, etc., is twice as large. That's quite odd for an NCAA legend. μηδείς (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "paucous"?!?!?!?—Bagumba (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I suppose winning multiple NCAA championships must be our baseline for college basketball coaches. While this may limit our RD "pool" to fewer coaches, what's left would be truly deserving of an RD post. It's too bad Tarkanian didn't coach a big enough program for him to merit multiple titles, but that the way it is. –HTD 08:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Best I can tell this gentleman only ever coached amateur university teams? Clear lack of notability in that case. (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, a university coach who got a sympathy vote into a club of more than 330 people when he was in his 80s. This idea that entry into a "Hall of Fame" confers immediate posting rights really has to end. It's a particularly American construct, with a not particularly exclusive membership. Stephen 11:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Sympathy vote? Where on earth did you get that idea? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Where is your citation that it was a sympathy vote? In addition, there are 335 members of the Basketball Hall of Fame, which was opened in 1959, including players and coaches. Between men's and women's college basketball, there are 750 NCAA division I teams and 10,619 players this season alone [34]. So yeah, it's pretty damn exclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:18, 12 February 2015‎ (UTC)
  • Support Tarkanian was definitely a very prominent figure in college basketball. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I wasn't going to comment on this nomination but some of the oppose votes are so fucking dumb I feel I have to. -- Calidum 15:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    Nicely put. But hardly a suitable vote, a bit like saying "Yeah!". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • note from admin I'd have posted this on support based on significance, but article quality is still an issue. Much of the career synopsis is unreferenced. Please try to find references for all of the information in that section, and an admin can post this. --Jayron32 17:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Only one NCAA championship--that's certainly not enough on its own. He really was only a very famous figure on the national scene for a few years in the late 80s/early 90s. His high winning percentage was in part due to playing in a weak conference. I would argue that if it wasn't for that one single team he coached to a championship in 1990, this wouldn't be a discussion at all. Unlike other prominent college coaches of the era he never coached an Olympic team or other international competition.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
That one single team? The following year his team started 34-0! His teams won like 40 games in a row. - Bossanoven (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
UNLV were so good that they were name-checked by A Tribe Called Quest on the fourth track of their debut album People's Instinctive Travels and the Paths of Rhythm, albeit it was not Tarkanian by name. - Bossanoven (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support He is considered a legend in college basketball history. His death made headlines throughout the American press. I don't see why his name shouldn't be posted in recent deaths. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A big fish. But a big fish in what, internationally speaking, is a relatively small and insignificant pond (US college basketball). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Update Article has been updated with citations to address admin Jayron32's only barrier to posting at 17:55 above. Marking "Ready"—Bagumba (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  •   Done. Thanks to Bagumba for improving the article. --Jayron32 22:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Sigh, utterly symbolic post-posting oppose. I would advice a lot of the voters here to gain some perspective on the world and understand why this has no place whatsoever on the Mediocre American Sports Persons Ticker RD ticker. Oh well, a man can dream. (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I could suggest the same for you, just vice versa; take the time to gain perspective and see why this person meets the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I guess that's the point of contention, on how Tarkanian passes the criteria. Let's not even go to "it's college amateur basketball" argument. Let's focus on those two seasons he coached UNLV. He won some 40 consecutive games, but he was on a conference where aside from his team, there was only one ranked team, and that was ranked #24 (out of 25). He could had very much inflated his winning percentage at that time. –HTD 23:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not about the win's per se, which is why I have spent [too much] time expanding the article, ITN or not. He used junior college transfers, started a mostly black lineup, and recruited those with a checkered background before anyone dared to. Tark adapted to his players, as opposed to iron fist coaches like Dean Smith, Coach K, Bobby Knight. UNLV teams were Fab Five before Fab Five in Michigan. He challenged the NCAA, which only in this decade people are starting to realize is flawed. Consider UNLV was in the middle of a dessert, Las Vegas was not the city it is today, and he turned a mid-major program (before the term mid-major probably existed) literally in the middle of nowhere into a powerhouse. Whatever your opinion of his style, it's pretty clear he has impacted basketball.—Bagumba (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
There are no shortages of coaching styles in any sport. The likes of Smith and Coach K had far more success (and opportunities for success) than Tark. It's not like the UNLV were the first "Fab Five"; I guess that distinction belongs to the Texas Western team, right? The first NCAA basketball champs, Oregon (GO DUCKS) are in a middle of a forest, and while they didn't become a powerhouse, perhaps Oregon's conference was probably a little tougher than UNLV's. Smith and Coach K truly was/is widely regarded as very important figures. Tark might be "important", but not "very important". –HTD 00:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose and agree with IP and HTD: how many "college basketball coaches" do we need to post at RD? We barely posted Lauren Bacall who was known globally for works of significance and was instantly recognisable around the world yet we're here posting college basketball "icon" after college basketball "icon". Really, we need to re-assess what is actually important here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
    • And how would we compare fields without being subjective? DC rightly don't have any hierarchy of field. BTW Bacall was easily posted, though there was some argument about RD vs. blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm fully aware of that posting, it's useful to go back to it to determine whether or not this recent spate of US college basketball coaches will have the same long-lasting impact. I begin to yearn for the day User:HiLo48 returns to remind us all about the appalling and oh-so-apparent systemic bias we have here, so much so that we're doing little more than posting amateur US sports coaches every other day with the full support of a US crowd. It's time this changed, and I regret ever suggesting to HiLo that he was ever wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
        • So then I'm not sure why you said we "barely posted" Bacall, since that's not the case. Systemic bias is indeed very real, but we shouldn't address that by ignoring the death of a Tarkanian just because Dean Smith died a few days prior. Same with Sifford and the other golfer whose name is escaping me at the moment. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
          • We should address it by realising that Hollywood greats do not equate to college basketball coaches. That's a serious issue and until we address it, the RD ticker will remain the territory of minor college-level sports "celebs" who have no real impact outside their tiny sphere of college basketball, yet get great support because we have so many US voters and admins. I would credit you and most other contributors here with the level of intelligence to see that on a global encyclopedia, repeatedly posting US college basketball coaches as the most significant people to die lately is absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
            • All of that is your (valid) opinion- just as it's other people's opinion that this man does meet the criteria and should be posted despite a few deaths coincidentally occurring around the same time. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
              • And that is the problem, you all still think a college basketball coach is as notable as Lauren Bacall? A reassessment is needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
                • Nobody said they view Tarkanian to be "as notable" as Bacall. Only that they both cross the threshold as defined by WP:ITN/DC. In fact, the fact that Bacall was posted as a blurb and the unanimity in posting Bacall in the first place shows that we didn't view these two equally. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
                  • Yes, that's entirely the problem. That RD would equate a college basketball coach to a Hollywood legend is absurd. We need to root out the trash, like this college basketball nonsense, right from the start. The fact that RD recently had two US college basketball coaches is indicative of the problem. No-one outside the US college basketball system gives a damn, yet Bacall was a global and historical legend. You see that something's not right at RD, right, or is it just about flooding the English language Wikipedia with trivial American amateur coaches? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
                    • From the "Please do not..." above: "complain about an event 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." Based on that argument, we shouldn't have posted that Malaysian politician either. And again, it's not a conspiracy that two legendary college basketball coaches died within a week of each other, and that fact doesn't diminish the accomplishments of either of them. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
                      • If you continue to believe in the odd microcosm that circumferences your universe that you'll happily equate some minor league basketball coach to Lauren Bacall, there's no point in any further discussion whatsoever, you and I clearly have wildly perspectives on what should go onto the world's biggest online encyclopedia's main page. You can stick to your "legendary" minor league basketball coaches, and I'll stick with globally and historically significant actresses. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
                        • The inclusion of one doesn't diminish the accomplishments of another. The death ticker is a yes/no thing, without tiers or gradation. So your argument that we should exclude certain people just because some other people go there makes no sense. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
                          • I don't appreciate you making up things to promote your position. I have never said we should "exclude certain people". I'd rather just stick with attempting to acknowledge that a Hollywood legend is a suitable RD candidate, particularly compared to a basketball coach who worked at US college level. It's literally apples and pears. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
                            • That's what you seem to be suggesting, when you say things like "We need to root out the trash, like this college basketball nonsense". You're arguing that we shouldn't be posting these figures who are at the top of a field that only happens to be relevant in the United States. Since ITN doesn't discriminate between local and global figures, that some are apples and others are pears doesn't matter. The question is merely: are they recognized as being towards the top of their field(s) or not? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
                              • Yep, the bottom line is "top of the field" of something like "college basketball" cannot ever be equated to Lauren Bacall. These individuals are not suitable for a global encyclopaedia. You know that, and many of your compadres do too. But it's all too easy to push them through. Such a shame it denigrates the global encyclopedia we're trying to build. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
                                  • Never heard of Lauren Bacall in my life- yes, which means virtually nothing- but I take your word that she met the RD criteria. People can in good faith disagree about who is very important to a field or even if a field is important enough. But just because you don't care for a field doesn't mean that it shouldn't be posted. Same goes for me. Part of our mission is to educate people, which having a wide variety of figures from varied fields does. Sometimes figures from the same field die within a short period of time (how dare they) but that should not be held against the nomination. Instead of criticizing it, make some nominations. You just posted a Malaysian politician, for example. 331dot (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose and pull it is indeed absurd that people like this are posted here. We should have some standards on who we post here and if this man indeed does meet the criteria, then it would be high time to change our criterias a bit. SeraV (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
    • There's good reason to believe Tark doesn't surpass ITNDC's "very important" threshold. Unlike Dean Smith that won 2 NCAA titles, and more importantly, an Olympic gold medal, Tark's coverage of his death isn't as deep as Smith, which wasn't deep to begin with, unlike say, John Wooden's death some years ago. When ITNDC says "very important", it has to be "very important". –HTD 22:59, 13 February 2015
  • I broadly agree with TRM. If we post two college basketball coaches in short order, it's at least worth asking if our criteria are working. Tarkanian is significantly less notable than Dean Smith. Some of the arguments for Tarkanian were very trivial: He recruited junior college transfers--is this a notable revolution in the game ? Support pull.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    Exactly, with our editing demographic, it appears all too easy to rush these nominations through without any real consideration to the actually notability of the field itself, let alone an individual's notability within such a field. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Condensing side discussion 331dot (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • On what do you base the contention that there was no "real consideration to the actually notability of the field itself"? I certainly considered it. I think a sport watched by tens of millions around the world and that is a cultural phenomenon for an entire month(when even the President makes a show of filling out a bracket), and described by our own article as "one of the most famous annual sporting events in the United States", is notable; just as I think the same about The Boat Race. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    Why do you feel obliged to bring the Boat Race into everything? College basketball is not the top level of the sport, coaches aren't coaching at the top level, it shouldn't be RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    There is no restriction AFAIK in RD about a field being the "top level"; and the contention is that these coaches are notable to basketball period, not college basketball. I bring up the Race because there are many similarities between them that you do not seem to see. The Race is not the top level of the sport, for one.(leaving aside the Olympics) 331dot (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    And when has there ever been an RD nomination related to the Boat Race? College basketball is second-class and we shouldn't have one RD let alone two for coaches who coach below the top level of the sport. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    That can certainly be your view, but it doesn't mean that there was no "real consideration to the actually notability of the field itself, let alone an individual's notability within such a field". If you feel that the posting admin acted improperly you should take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    Which was precisely what this discussion was about until you started bringing non sequiturs in like the Boat Race. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    I responded to your consideration claim, as I state above, and made a perfectly valid comparison that you either reject or do not see for yourself. You were the one who brought up notability of the field. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    Not sure you read what you wrote yourself. We were taking the issue up with the posting admin, here in the right forum. Then you started taking us down rabbit holes claiming the Boat Race had some comparison here. Not at all. How many dead Boat Race coaches have made it to RD? I can tell you the answer to that, but it might be fun for you to guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    I don't see a comment addressed specifically to the posting admin(Jayron32); just general requests, but if they're for that person, whatever works for you. You can certainly feel that there is no comparison; I obviously take the opposite view. If there was a dead Race coach who was important to rowing, I would support it. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    Apart from the requests to pull it with explanations as to why? It's clear there's no point in discussing this further, as I noted, the demographic here is such that college basketball coaches get a free pass despite being meaningful only to a handful of the English-speaking community and relating to a second-tier sport (at best). The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Lets look at what makes Tarkanian notable : He won one NCAA championship. He's a member of the Basketball Hall of Fame, oe of 335. He had a high win percentage in a weak conference . Is that enough ? He was not a perennial contender. He had no real notable accomplishments except one championship.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    No, it's really not enough. And if this BHoF is deemed sufficient to allow all dying members onto RD, we should get consensus for that so we no longer have to debate it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    Have either of you read the news sources? The ESPN page: "who built a basketball dynasty at UNLV but was defined more by his decades-long battle with the NCAA"; "Tarkanian was an innovator"; "His teams helped revolutionize the way the college game was played". 331dot (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    So he coached second-tier basketball and was argumentative? No big deal, certainly not like a successful NBA coach or Olympic coach. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    Even British media calls him "iconic". I'm not even going to get into the "second tier" statement about a sport watched by tens of millions and not just in the US. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    If he was so revolutionary and iconic, where are all his titles? Clearly his revolution wasn't all that successful... College basketball is second tier. It's not NBA nor is it Olympics. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    The Bloomberg piece refers to this as a "sad week" for basketball- not "college" basketball, just basketball. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    Not even going to say it. 331dot (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC) often puffs up sports figures. Again, what are accomplishments besies one NCAA title.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Please read the associated news stories; Googling his death also brings up many to read. One doesn't have to win titles to be important. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Ive read several sources and i see NOTHING notable except a single title.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    If you have and still don't see it, which is unfortunate, there isn't much more I can do, but I thank you for the discussion. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    So noone can explain why he's notable. And hes posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
It's been explained; if you don't agree, that is your right. 331dot (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
It has not been explained. He has a few choice quotes about his "revolution" which gained him precisely one title. In second-tier basketball. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • And what does the Boat Race have to do with this nomination of a college basketball coach who one won title in second-tier basketball? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    I'll say it once more; a race between two universities is not "top tier"; it is also a notable sporting event in general. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    But this nomination is for an RD for a mediocre college basketball coach, it has nothing to do with the Boat Race. It's best if you stick to the facts of this nomination, a second-tier sports coach who won next to nothing in college sports should not be an RD. It's obvious. But then you know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    What I know is that further discussion on this with you will serve no purpose if you choose not to see obvious similarities between the two sports/events. Thanks 331dot (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    You're not making any sense. This is an RD, nothing else. It has nothing to do with the event called the Boat Race. You're going down the wrong path altogether, and not helping your cause in doing so. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    Sigh. You keep talking about how college basketball is not "top tier". Neither is the Race, which I bring up as a similarity to demonstrate that, even if true, it shouldn't matter. This coach is one of a very few people recognized for their career(which isn't just measured in title wins) in the hall of fame for the entire sport(not just college). I'm finished now; whatever happens here will happen. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    Sigh? Sigh? You're getting it all wrong. This isn't about the posting of a notable event in ITN, it's to determine whether an individual is notable enough to be posted to RD. Don't get confused and mix the up. The coach is almost invariably measured in title wins. Your continual throwback to Boat Race is a non sequitur, a straw man argument. If we were to discuss posting a Boat Race coach for RD then yes, no chance of posting. But I'm clear on that. Are you? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    You are the one bringing up the notability of college basketball, not me. And I have noticed you are now using the euphemism "demographic" for "American". I get that you are trying to be more civil per the recent ANI discussion but there is no reason not to be open about what you are talking about. Per Muboshgu below, I will have no further comment about this; whatever happens will happen. 331dot (talk)
    No reason that the word demographic isn't exactly what I mean. There's a huge voter base for this kind of thing, as demonstrated for the fact we posted two college basketball coaches. And for the last time, you continually bringing OTHERSTUFF into this is a waste of time. This is not about the recent death of anyone related to the Boat Race. Stop trying to bring in non-sequiturs, it's really not helping your cause. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • TRM the only solution here is to get more input here. I'm surprised this nom didn't receive more opposition. I guess for most people an RD mention is no big deal.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • This is still going on? Maybe it's time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    I'd say it's important that we realise that posting this was a huge mistake and serve to reinforce the hideous systemic bias that afflicts this place when it comes to the votes of sports-obsessed Americans. It needs further discussion to prevent this from becoming a grotesque parody of Fox News. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    in the past I've been on the opposite end of these debates. I've argued for the inclusion of the college basketball championship. I've argued against the charge of US Bias before. But I agree that this is the case of systemic bias and should be corrected. College sports have long been a tough nut here. It is clearly a "second tier" competition but for Americans it has a wider significance. But let's compare Tarkanian to other pro figures. Would one NBA championship be enough for RD? Would one NFL championship? Would one English Premier league title be enough? Would one French league or Scottish league title be enough? All 335 basketball Hall of Fame members eligible? Because that's really all the notability that Tarkanian brings to the table. He was the coach of a very famous team for a very few yearsand was not a perennial contender for any championship. The opposition is in the minority but they have asked very good questions that have gone unanswered.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • looking at this nom the !vote count was not strongly in favor. Notability has not been clearly established by a long shot and as been validly challenged. How is there a consensus for this to be posted? Should be pulled.-- (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC) (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    Yes it should have been, though since it is no longer in main page I guess the point is moot, however bigger problem here is that it got so much support in the first place even though it obviously doesn't belong. SeraV (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] RD: Marshall RosenbergEdit

Clearly no consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Marshall Rosenberg (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Marshall Rosenberg passed from this life on Saturday, February 7th. 2015

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American psychologist, creator of Nonviolent Communication (NVC) and founder of the Center for Nonviolent Communication (an international non-profit organization), who was honoured with many awards (e.g. Bridge of Peace Nonviolence Award from the Global Village Foundation in 2006). NVC helps people to resolve conflicts peacefully and was successfully used in peace talks, too, so it is particularly important the the current global situation Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional support until the orange tag is resolved. Never heard of him before, but Nonviolent Communication is a GA and looks like a huge deal. This should have been nominated under Feb 7 section, though. Brandmeistertalk 14:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is way off the quality required, and there's no indication that this death is truly "in the news" outside the individual's own organisation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No indication this death is in the news. 331dot (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article needs a lot of fixing and more sources are needed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Besides the fact this guy was for peace, nonviolence, and the globe, what did he do? We need a much better rationale. μηδείς (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose his death is not in the news (can't find it anywhere apart from a Buddhist news publication, Lion's Roar), the article is far below main page standards, the awards that he was apparently given are hardly leading awards from major bodies, and he's overall far below the level of importance and prominence that the RD slot is for. BencherliteTalk 11:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I work in the field, and while I've heard of NVC, I haven't heard of him. He's not on a level of an Ellis or a Beck. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Delhi Legislative Assembly election, 2015Edit

Thank you for the nomination, but ITN does not post local election results. BencherliteTalk 12:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Delhi Legislative Assembly election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the current Delhi Legislative Assembly election, 2015, the Aam Aadmi Party led by Arvind Kejriwal won the maximum votes i.e, 67, and is elected chief minister of Delhi for the second time.
Alternative blurb: Arvind Kejriwal is again elected as chief minister of Delhi, the capital state of India. He will assume his position on 14 February 2015.
News source(s): [35], [36], [37], [38]
Nominator's comments: Global news. Election results. AAP wins again.  HPD   talk  05:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, a local rather than national election. Stephen 05:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, agree with Stehpen, this is not a national level result, nor a massive upset of power. --MASEM (t) 06:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose; not a national election. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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

February 10Edit

2015 Chapel Hill shootingEdit

Article: 2015 Chapel Hill shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: A shooting in North Carolina leaves three Muslim students dead.
Alternative blurb: A shooting in a North Carolina apartment leaves three students dead.
Alternative blurb II: A shooting in a North Carolina apartment kills three students.
News source(s): The Guardian, Reuters, New York Times

Nominator's comments: This is getting a lot of media coverage, including from countries besides the US (e.g. see Guardian link above and The Telegraph). It is also on the homepages of BBC and CNN (although it is not the lead story on either). Everymorning talk 21:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose certainly not on the "homepage of the BBC"and a parochial incident which will have no long term impact. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, when I go to and look below the story about the Costa Concordia captain on the left side, I see this story, which states that the murders "sparked global outrage." Seems significant to me. Everymorning talk 21:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, did you mean "will have long term impact" or "will have no long term impact"? Because the latter certainly makes more sense. Everymorning talk 21:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait If it's a hate crime, then there's potentially something here. If it's about a dispute over a parking space, then it doesn't belong. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The perp is white, so no doubt he will not be branded a terrorist, and we all be told to calm down and accept an explanation of this which ignores race and religion. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait as per Muboshgu's reasoning. It's linked from the front page of, but it might be reporters jumping to a conclusion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb Neutral, see my comment below. It's been getting a lot of attention, and it's on the front pages of my go-to news websites to check a story's importance (,, and Sad, horrific incident. But I'd leave out "Muslim", let's keep it neutral for now. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Commnent. I've seen coverage of this on French TV, and the story was not the murders, but the fact that they have had so little attention from US media (whereas if the killer had been Muslim and the victims non-Muslim...). Not sure if that points to we should post (in the name of consistency) or we shouldn't (because it's not in the useless racist news). Formerip (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It's been getting plenty of coverage in the US. Whether it's non-muslim killed the muslim or muslim killed the non-muslim it's a big deal here. #AllLivesMatter --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as parochial routine crime. RGloucester 23:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: a neighbor has killed three people and a motive is not confirmed. This is not global news. Putting "Muslim" in the blurb is stirring as a hate crime motive is not confirmed. They are also students, neighbors, Americans and humans. '''tAD''' (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait I agree with Muboshgu, If it is a hate crime we should post it. SeraV (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I heard world leaders are gathering in Chapel Hill to protest at Je suis Muslim rally. Also the story is trending on twitter. Moorrests (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    • The true motive is unknown to anyone except the perp at this point. But the global response to this may prove to be a bigger story than the murders themselves. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose we did not post the shooting of two cops in NYC or the French Deli shooting. The fact that this may have been a hate crime in no way brings it to the level of the Korean airline crash of the Russian bombing of a civilian bus we totally ignored. To address Evereymorning above, where is the nomination for Obama's request for a formal declaration of war against ISIS? In the long term, this will be a footnote's footnote. μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Good point about Obama's request for essentially a war declaration, although it might make more sense to post that when or if Congress approves. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, changed to neutral above, perhaps me being from North Carolina and all prevents me from seeing what the rest of the world sees...   --AmaryllisGardener talk 04:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose it doesn't appear that this was a hate crime and either way it doesn't really rise to ITN level. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    • The motive is unknown, and the story has received global coverage, so you've got it wrong on both counts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • If we don't know the motive, we don't know if it was a hate crime. If it wasn't a hate crime, there's no reason to post it here. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not prominently reported in UK. Seems like a routine (for US) event. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment it's not being notably reported in the UK, nor is it linked from the UK BBC homepage. A trivial neighbour bust-up which resulted in a standard US finish with gun crime and deaths. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Anyone who claims it's a standard shooting has no basis for that claim. The motive is unknown at this time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait I agree with Muboshgu's opinion. Thus we should wait on this and consider again once we know more (specifically about the actual motives of the suspect). Palmtree5551 (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    Well according to the BBC, and digging down in the US section of the BBC website and finding the second from bottom story here, he "gave himself up to police". His wife "said that the incident had nothing to do with religion". The report goes on to note that the perp "apparently had a history of conflicts with neighbours over parking spaces". And because it's the US, you can shoot your neighbours because guns are freely available. That they were Muslims seems coincidental. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I found this [41] which seems to say the opposite of what you're saying. Thus the point that we should wait on this until we know for sure outside of media speculation and speculation by the perp's wife and by people close to the victims Palmtree5551 (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The motive is unknown at this time, and anyone on this board who claims otherwise is engaging in pure speculation with no factual basis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    You don't need to keep posting this same statement every half–an–hour. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    Well, you're the first one that hasn't ignored it. Update: The motive is still unknown. Hate crime? Parking dispute? Maybe both? The alleged perp was known for wearing a sidearm in public, to intimidate others in the course of these disputes. And he called the towing company so often that they banned him. Whether the Times of India has it right that he also hated religion, I have not seen in American coverage. But to the family of the victims, it feels like a hate crime, and until proven otherwise, the possibility of it being a hate crime is still on the table. And the FBI has come into it now, too. The only valid answer here is "Wait and see." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note - In America, I cannot access the British version of bbc online. So I asked about it, and those who can see it have told me that the British version of bbc online not only links to the story, but that it's currently in the top ten most-read in the UK version of the website. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Lunatic from everything I have heard today, the shooter was a madman, divorced in the 90's, whose "beef" was about a parking space. Given we're not about to post that a lunatic shot three children over a parking space, I continue my opposition to the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Baseball Bugs, is the motive known yet?--WaltCip (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support In the news, along with news about how it isn't in the news enough. Though "leaves three people dead" is wordy and passive. I've added an alt blurb, if you don't mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:44, February 13, 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral/Comment This seems to be increasingly prominent in news sources, including the BBC. Why the BBC is so often used, I don't know, but, yes, it's prominent on the BBC's site: I see a headline about the Turkish president questioning Obama about this, and then four more additional links discussed different angles of the story.
The problem is that while "Turkish President challenges Obama on murders" is fine for a 24-hour news website or channel that updates details as things going along, it doesn't work as the sole headline for the entire story, which is what we need here. As Baseball Bugs has (repeatedly) said, the motive is unknown at this point. So the proposed blurb is about all we can say, and, frankly, it's not very interesting. In a strange twist, I feel the media seems to be promoting this story in response to criticism for... not promoting this story (supposedly because the victims were Muslim). And to do so, they have to explore unfortunate and bizarre angles -- as a hate crime and a parking dispute. But, again, this doesn't work for us, because we can't put speculation as an ITN headline. -- tariqabjotu 05:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Obama has finally condemned it after pressure from the Turkish PM (who knew?) so this clearly will gain more traction. But ultimately let's not forget it's a standard local American gun crime, this time with three victims and a captured perp, whose victims happen to be Muslim. Until he confesses he hates the Muslims, it's just a neighbourly shootup. While it's making headlines, I can see the desire to post it, but is it really a long-term thing? You decide. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note - "Hicks described himself in online posts as a 'gun-toting atheist'."[42] The notion that this is solely about a gun fanatic and not about religion is baseless speculation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
As is the notion that this is about religion.--WaltCip (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Which is why "Oppose" is the wrong answer. The right answer is "Wait and see." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note - Quba Islamic Institute is burned to the ground in Texas today. Is their a link with Islamophobia spread by media like CNN, Foxnews and BBC. Moorrests (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Disregarding your second sentence, I must say that is a hate crime, quite disgusting, but hate is not limited to one group of people you know. --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Moorrests: I must repeat what I said above, the Muslim students were not famous, they did not draw caricatures offending Christians, and they were not hosting a freedom of speech event when they were killed. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Moorrests: The general belief is that it was over a parking space, killing a white person over a parking space, or killing a Muslim over a parking space, it makes no difference, he's a nut, and every once in a while we hear that a nut shot a person over nothing. Posting it because you think that it has to do with religion would be pushing a POV. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @AmaryllisGardener: Did you check Mr. Hicks Facebook page? I'm starting to think 9/11 was a dispute over baggage fees.Moorrests (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It has been taken offline by Facebook but it was up couple of days ago. It was very incriminating, a typical anti-theist or atheist posting. Moorrests (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Then I don't know why you'd want me to check a Facebook page that was taken down. And now you've absolutely insulted the 9/11 victims and their families. --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - From what I can tell this story has recieved undue weight because the victims were Muslims. Not the opposit, sad and tragic case but really nothing out of the ordinary, except the fact that media now is reporting on medias uninterest in the story which is simply not true. There is a difference between a mad man killing three people in a fight over parking space in a gun crazed USA. And a terrorist shooting into a gallery towards people in Denmark. Terrorism in Denmark, crazed gunman in the US.. period. Secondly I would not have minded posting this article, as it has recieved major attention even though it is undue weight. But the consensus seems to be not to post so.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
In my personal opinion it is another case of how the world overreacts when muslims are the victims, while at the same time downplaying Muslim terrorism like the story from Denmark. It is a sad case certainly, but had it been three white average Americans it would have recieved press but not even half of what it has recieved because of the fact that the victims were muslims. And that is todays truth.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, some people are like "they were from a minority, this was a hate crime" and on the other side you have "They were Muslims, they aren't humans", can't we get across that people are killed, not members of a majority/minority group were killed, that it's tragic regardless of religion/race/ethnicity? --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Question What does the motive or details have to do with anything? The Copenhagen killings are topping the front page, despite being a third less deadly. Isn't that because they're being extensively covered "in the news"? Isn't that why anything goes there? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, February 15, 2015 (UTC)

Premier LeagueEdit

Article: Premier League (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The English association football Premier League sells its domestic television rights for a world record £5.14 Billion ($7.78 Billion) to British Sky Broadcasting and BT Sport
Alternative blurb: British Sky Broadcasting and BT Sport buy the domestic rights to the English Premier League for a world record £5.14 Billion ($7.78 Billion)
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian, Le Monde,

Nominator's comments: Global news. World record. Torqueing (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

  • This may be a record for association football, but not for sports in general. The numbers are giving me a headache, but it appears that this is less than the value of the National Football League's various television rights. I could be mistaken, however. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support I was going to oppose this as a routine contract deal between businesses, but on researching it turns out that this is indeed notable. The rights sold for double what they did in the last contract, and is a record (on amount per year). This bidding war demonstrates the increasing national significance of the Premier League. Mamyles (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Presumably, almost every time the TV rights for the Premier League are sold, it is going to set a new record for domestic football/soccer. None of the sources are very clear about what sort of record has been set, but it is almost certainly going to be narrower that "sport" (because NFL and the World Series appear to make more in TV rights) or "football" (although it's possible that this is the biggest ever single deal, the Champions League is probably more lucrative overall). Does anyone have any information that this is more than a "well, of course" type record? Formerip (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately the significance is not yet outlined well in the article. Based on my (brief) research, the price paid for this national contract was almost twice the previous contract. This contract ($2.5 bil/yr) cost more per year than the current NFL contract ($800 mil/yr), even though this Premier League contract is for one relatively small country. Basically, television rights for the Premier League in the UK (population 66 million) are now worth three times as much as those for the NFL in the USA (population 320 million). Mamyles (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Where are you getting your figure for NFL rights? According to this source the last NFL deal was $27 billion over 9 years, so that's more than $2.5 billion per year. Formerip (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually the headline figure above doesn't include foreign sales, it's just in the UK alone, is that the same for the NFL? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Formerip (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so in a country with a population over six times the size of the UK, the main sport sells TV rights for the same amount of money. Understood. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think you've roughly got it. The question is whether that feels right for an ITN blurb. Formerip (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
On the radio, the ballpark calculation was that it came to £10 million per match for broadcasting rights. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I used this source to come up with my figure of $800 mil/yr. Just goes to show that Wikipedia may not always be right. In any case, that the amount paid for these television rights doubled in 3 years seems interesting and notable enough for me. Mamyles (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per FormerIP, the rights to broadcast the English Premier League in the UK have just been purchased, per capita, for over six times the rights to broadcast the NFL in the USA. This is big potatoes. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
But we don't seem to have a source for this per capita record. Plus, if the rights to the Faroese Premier League sold for a little over $2 million, that would break this per capita record. Would we post that? Formerip (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
You can do the math(s), the USA has a population that's around 330m vs the UK at around 60m? And no, your straw man is pointless. This is all about the record amount. The per capita argument is simply contextual to refute any possible argument that the NFL rights are in any way comparable for the audience the TV is sold to. I think you know this but I guess it needs spelling out. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Except, what record are you referring to? The only thing we appear able to either source or calculate is that this is a record for EPL UK TV rights. Formerip (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and thanks to your contextual evidence, it's clearly a massive business deal that's ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the record is based on the fact of (worldwide) inflation, and has nothing to do with actual accomplishments by an objective standard. μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not against having association football stories in ITN, but this seems to be more suitable for International Business Times or Forbes. Impressing sum, but so what? Everyone would still watch Premier League without any glaring difference. Brandmeistertalk 22:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support but leave out reference to the 'record '. The number speaks for itself.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose routine business deal. SeraV (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, posting this would be disruptive to years of work building consensus that news stories such as this don't deserve an article, let alone increasing readership by display on the main page. Abductive (reasoning) 06:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    It doesn't have its own article, and in what sense is posting a huge business deal not something we could (and should) consider for the main page? I grant you it's not an American sport, but it's world-wide... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the 'record' being set is too pigeonholed and/or unclear to be broadly appreciated. (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note - This commentary from may be of interest. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This seems starkly routine to me, and we certainly would not post the national equivalent anywhere else in the world.--WaltCip (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    "starkly routine" - that's funny. I'm not sure when else in the rest of the world that a deal like this would equate to finishing 20th out of 20 teams would now result in prize money of £99 million. But hey, it's soccer, who cares about such a parochial game? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    Where I come from, we call it football.--WaltCip (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    In that case, if the NFL domestic TV rights were sold tomorrow for over $50 billion, are you suggesting we wouldn't be inundated with claims to post it as a "significant business deal"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: Not everything has to be about American bias at ITN/C, TRM. And it doesn't all matter about where we are from. But do you want us to include the "flagicon" template in our signatures to announce our nationality? That's what I have gotten from the four months I've contributed to ITN/C. Some Americans know that the Premier League is a big deal, and likewise I'm sure some Brits know that the NFL is. --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Even if the NFL were to sell all of its television rights to ESPN (which in terms of the NFL viewing audience would be earth-shattering indeed), I would not support it, because it's not internationally significant enough.--WaltCip (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • But that's the point. The Premier League is truly global, unlike NFL. It's a global phenomenon. The fact the domestic rights are sold for £10m per game is incredible. Don't forget we're talking about hard cash here, not just viewers. It's internationally significant, can you show me another sport that's sold globally in such a fashion? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, big record, and a big deal. (American speaking here) --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose routine business deal, a side detail to sports. On a slightly different topic, I'm a bit surprised that the Premier League is the only league where its winner gets an ITN mention, when Spain and Germany get worldwide attention too...I'd rather just the Champions League '''tAD''' (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose we've got a standing precedent against deals with sports channels. μηδείς (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This isn't just "another routine business deal" - this is the largest deal ever made for the League. The sport isn't the focus of this, it's the record that is. Challenger l (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, it's great to see people other than yours truly making up stats to justify importance. –HTD 23:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Would you elaborate on that comment? Mamyles (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Swiss LeaksEdit

Article: Swiss Leaks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A journalistic investigation labelled Swiss Leaks revealed details about the business conduct of the private bank HSBC.
Alternative blurb: ​A leak of data from the bank HSBC in 2007 is revealed to contain information about tax avoidance schemes and other questionable business conduct.
News source(s): CBS (US), Le Monde,, The Guardian

Nominator's comments: on the news globally / involves clients of HSBC from around the globe Luxsarl (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Generally we don't post investigations; possibly notable arrests but usually convictions. ITN is not for telling the world about causes. This is also a private investigation and not that of a governmental body. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Inappropriate promotion? Your comment and link to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause is misleading. The article is not about “promoting a charitable, non-profit, or quasi-charitable organisation, such as a community group or legislation.” The article is about facts made available to the public - far from being promotional in any sense. Luxsarl (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I thank you for the nomination; Perhaps it was a little misleading, but my overall point is that I don't really see a reason to post this other than to embarrass this big bank and get them in trouble- which may be valid- but isn't what ITN is for. As I said, usually investigations are not posted, maybe an arrest but usually a conviction. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Please do not confuse the involved International Consortium of Investigative Journalists with a NGO or a political group. They are just journalists. Most articles in ITN are based on some sort of "journaistic investigation". You should not insinuate that the event is to embarrass a bank or a business. Journalism is about reporting to the public issues of general interest. ITN pursuits the same goal. Whether the event may be perceived as positive or negative doesn't matter here. Luxsarl (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Just journalists" is still a private organization. ITN is not a newspaper for reporting on the public interest; it is for highlighting Wikipedia articles about subjects that are in the news. Wikinews might be better suited for that kind of story. I'm not sure what you mean by "most articles in ITN are based on some sort of journalistic investigation"; most nominations regarding criminal activity are, as I said, regarding arrests or convictions by governments. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • News organisations such as newspapers are private organisations. So? The ICIJ is a network of jouralists from reputable media organisations. "The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists is a global network of 185 investigative journalists in more than 65 countries who collaborate on in-depth investigative stories" [43]. The article Swiss Leaks is "in the news". The article is about a leaked dataset. This dataset has been investigated by journalists (Le Monde, CBS, Guardian, NDR, etc.). The article is not about criminal activity per se. Luxsarl (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • This page states that a Belgian judge might issue arrest warrants, along with other countries taking legal action(like the US); I think that would be a much better hook for this story than the release of an investigation- or at least making the blurb more about the leak instead of the investigation(though this leak occurred in 2007). 331dot (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I've suggested an alternate blurb. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for critizising constructively! I support your suggestion. Luxsarl (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm willing to support this now, I've also added some other news sources. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Support bank colluding with tax dodgers hiding tax money worth of billions is certainly ITN material. SeraV (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose the article is unbalanced, POV and unfit for the main page. BencherliteTalk 14:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
What would you suggest to make it more balanced? WikiLeaks stories were posted without such concern. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, the old "we've posted stuff before so let's post stuff again" line of argument. Some balance would make it balanced. Three out of the five sources used in the article are from the ICIJ itself. We have allegations presented as fact: HSBC helped dictators such as Hosni Mubarak (Egypt), Ben Ali (Tunesia), Bashar al-Assad (Syria) to steal money from their countries. (And isn't "dictator" a non-neutral term anyway)? The leaked documents prove – "says the ICIJ / according to the ICIJ"? No, this is just presented as plain fact in Wikipedia's voice. Where's the coverage of HSBC's response in all this? I have no great love of banking practices but this is just completely unsuitable for the main page in anything like its current state. BencherliteTalk 14:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
There can only be balance so far as what reliable sources provide. If there are some detailing the bank's response, certainly those should be included. My point was not a line of argument, just an observation. I also don't believe "dictator" is a non-neutral term if it is applied to people elected in elections generally regarded as unfair or rigged. Saddam Hussein was reelected many times with 99% of the vote; that doesn't mean he wasn't a dictator. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Understanding that the leaks and what it implicates to the bank being important, I think we need to wait for the likely inevitable legal case against the bank that will result from this (assuming the leaked information is true). I'm not sure if now is the time to post this. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 331dot, we have no balance in this story. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by balance, it is not very likely that HSBC have followed all relevant laws here after all. This is also same bank that was found by the US to have been laundering drug money for mexican drug cartels, and have been accused to have done the same for terrorist, so this bank have known history of criminal conduct already. SeraV (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
WP is objective and neutral so we cannot assume that the leaked information is valid until law officials tell us this or that the bank has done anything wrong in this specific manner. As such, the article is written in a manner that already presumes the bank has done these things. We can cite that the leaked information claims that the bank did it, but we cannot say factually that they did. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Countries are very unwilling to prosecute these banks because they are apparently too big for that. See that money laundering thing, HSBC was penalized for 1,9 billion and effectively found guilty yet no one from the bank was prosecuted, probably because US didn't want HSBC to lose it charter. However on this specific case, people who have used HSBC to evade taxes have been prosecuted in several countries, including France, doesn't that already prove that HSBC have done the things it is accused off. SeraV (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
This is an encyclopaedia, not designed to right great wrongs. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
TRM has it right. We can't assume just because these cases are all associated with the bank's past wrongdoings that they are necessarily in the wrong here even if the evidence is overwhelming in that way. We cannot make the same assumptions that some in the press commonly do, presumption of guilt before any legal findings have been completed, though we can certainly express the opinions with citation that some believe this implicates the bank in guilt. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
We don't make assumptions here, we go what reliable sources are saying. And in this case they are overwhelmingly saying that HSBC has broken laws in multiple countries even. We don't have to pretend that news aren't saying that. SeraV (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
If these sources are only reporters and the like, and not police, investigators, judges, or others in a position of authority to make that determination, then we can only express that as their opinion. The court of public opinion is not an authoratative source. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Unhelpful digression. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Expect when they are wrongs that you want to right, like no-one giving a damn about a cricket expect for you. SeraV (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Genius! Do carry on. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I will! Thanks for the high praise! SeraV (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
No problem. See you in a year or so. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I doubt you see anyone ever from your high horse. SeraV (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is factual. Otherwise please make the appropiate changes! The question of guilt is not dealt with in the article. It's not really important whether the business conduct of the bank leads to charges or not for deciding whether the leak is "in the news" or not. Neudabei (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not one for conspiracy theories per se but here we have an editor called "Lux sarl" and an editor called "Neudabei" (registered five days apart) both adamant to post this. Both are relatively new editors and both have edited mainly Luxembourg articles. Just saying.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose These are simply allegations at this point, and are being denied by some parties involved. I don't see why we should give credence to this report so soon. It would be better to wait for a related event of international significance, such as a conviction or sanctions. Mamyles (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose that an anti-business party is making allegations that assume one believes businesses should pay more taxes than they are legally obligated to pay is a joke, and a bad one. μηδείς (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
You seem confused, this nomination is about actual tax dodgers who have hidden their money in effort not to pay all taxes they are legally obligated to pay and an bank who have been helping them to do that. SeraV (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
What? Please repeat that in proper English. It's not otherwise comprehensible. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is not the place to "right wrongs" - and allegations of criminal acts have even been placed by some editors into BLPs as though the cries were proven facts alas. Collect (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Tentative oppose until or if someone gets arrested. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Anwar Ibrahim imprisonedEdit

Article: Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials (talk, history)
Blurb: Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim is imprisoned for five years after the country's Federal Court upholds his conviction for sodomy.
News source(s): [44], [45]

Article updated

 Mkativerata (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose. The blurb says his conviction was upheld, meaning he had already been convicted; we usually post this sort of thing when convicted, if I'm not mistaken. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In my view, it is this decision that is the "big news moment". His conviction by the Court of Appeal was immediately stayed pending an appeal, meaning that he never went to prison and politics pretty much continued as usual. But this is the end of the road - the highest court. It's now that he's been driven off to gaol; it's now that he's removed from the Malaysian political scene. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • FWIW, we posted his original acquittal in 2012, but I cannot see (using "What links here") that the reversal of this decision by the Court of Appeal was ever nominated for ITN. BencherliteTalk 10:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is not about the crime or the sentence, it's about Malaysian politics. With this sentence, the only effective challenge to the ruling clique for decades is effectively over. Perhaps the blurb needs to be updated to reflect some of that background, though it's hard to see hour it can be done neutrally. GoldenRing (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This wouldn't be legal in the US, given he was acquitted. But the fact that the SUpreme Court has reupheld his conviction speaks volumes, and is of course an ecyclopediclly historical development. μηδείς (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

February 9Edit

[Closed] RD: Ed SabolEdit

Now older than the oldest RD on the template, so too stale to be posted. BencherliteTalk 17:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Ed Sabol (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post Sporting News ESPN CNN/BR

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Described as having "completely revolutionized the way fans watch sports", and "When you talk about the popularity of the NFL, Ed Sabol is one of the seminal figures in the history of the league". Inducted into the Football Hall of Fame, and has other honors. Football would not be the same without the filming techniques he developed. 331dot (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - major figure in the evolution of coverage of the sport. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Unopposed as the founder of NFL films, this certainly seems reasonable, although we seem to be all about elections, sports, and terrorism. μηδείς (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. μηδείς (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
        • The NFL Films approach revolutionized the way sports films were made. Prior to that, they looked like newsreels, complete with music tracks seemingly done by a college marching band. Superior filmmaking techniques, combined with dramatic music and dramatic narration, made for a much improved package. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support seems notable enough for the dead American sportspeople ticker. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
It does seem like a lot of them have died this week. There haven't been a lot of other RD nominations, either. I might add too that Sabol is kind of half-sports half-film/entertainment. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. 91 Emmy Awards. 91. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Ready sufficiently updated for RD policy and well supported. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: His biography, particularly Ed_Sabol#NFL_Films, seems rather sparse. Sure this may possibly meet minimum update criteria to some, but there's nothing in the article that talks about what he did between 1964 and 1995, a period of 30+ years when surely something worth noting in his article must have occurred. SpencerT♦C 19:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The poor man lived 101 years, I assume the 30-year gap was called "retirement". μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
He retired in 1995. I was hoping the article would shed more light on his work with NFL Films, which is what he's notable for. SpencerT♦C 06:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree. The article possibly meets the bare minimum for posting, but it's pretty bare-bones. The rest of the article is fine, but the section that details what he's most known for is pretty disappointing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Allow me to summarize that section as it currently reads: Started company, filmed NFL Championship Game, changed name of company, quote by son, retired, Hall of Fame, Hall of Fame. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • And is there no-one better to quote about the work that NFL Films did than his son? Surely some of the obituaries can be used to flesh this out a bit more before it gets posted. BencherliteTalk 19:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • His son died 3 years ago so probably won't give too many great quotes these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:36, 10 February 2015‎
  • The question was isn't there anyone better to quote about his work than his son, your comment is completely irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Marked ready again, CN tags taken care of and obvious support for nomination. μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose, and not ready. Reading the article says little about what he did. Also, fails the RD criteria; clearly the Emmy Awards were for a team effort, or they would have awarded them to him, not a company. Extremely narrowly defined field he is supposed to be on top of; in-house sports documentary company co-founder? Abductive (reasoning) 06:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, very sparse article, not in any way showing he is relevant under any of the RD criteria. Not sure why Medeis insists on marking this ready when it clearly inst? (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't insist on anything. The article had been tagged, I addressed the tags, there was not a single oppose vote, and the article does indeed meet minimal requirements. What I find really interesting is an IP editor from Britain who had nothing to do with the nomination or anything else current on this thread swooping down anonymously to criticize me personally. μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - His notability is greatly exaggerated and mostly contained to a niche field of entertainment.--WaltCip (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    • smh re: "niche field of entertainment". Per WP:ITND No. 2, "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field."—Bagumba (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Hard to approve while the article doesn't expand more on his impact, aside from a list of awards.—Bagumba (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if article can be made ready. The term 'niche field' blatantly mischaracterizes the situation. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ready, per update. μηδείς (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Procedural oppose Four days ago and hardly "recent" anymore. With the article a sparse to paragraphs and all the comprehensive obituaries available, there has been nary an update to the article on his impact. Sigh. RIP Mr. Sabol.—Bagumba (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 57th Annual GrammysEdit

Article: 57th Annual Grammy Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: Sam Smith wins record of the year, and Beck wins album of the year at the 2015 Grammy Awards.
News source(s): USA Today

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: INTR. MASEM (t) 01:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support once the intro is updated to more than two lines. And when the blurb includes Pearl Jam's win for Best Recording Package... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless and until some referenced prose shows up in the article. There's no prose describing the ceremony, no prose giving an overview of the major awards. A bunch of tables and charts is not enough for an article to be posted on the main page. We've got about 4 complete sentences in the whole text. If and when that is fixed, consider it ready to post. But not the state it is in right now. --Jayron32 15:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't disagree that the lede needs improvement to reflect the results, but consider the BAFTA award page below, which was posted without hesitation but which the page is just basically a lead and award tables, the rest of the detail of the ceremony itself can come in time. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Just because something substandard was posted, it shouldn't set a precedent for something else substandard to be posted. Remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once updated. Is it worth mentioning in the blurb what the winning titles were - or is there currently no precedence for this?-- (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Past years only have mentioned the artists, not songs/albums that have won (on the basis that artists are more recognizable than the names of these. --MASEM (t) 18:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Ready The tense and prose seem sufficiently updated a of this edit. We're dealing with an article that was largely written ahead of time, so unless we go into Kanye territory... μηδείς (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I was going to note that (when I added some bit of a lede to this) that past ceremonies, which have all gone through ITN/C without too much hassle, have several similarly thin pages - in that the bulk is the awards tables and very few details of the ceremony. I will agree these articles can be better, but in terms of ITN/C, this improvement is what we hope come to the table from editors seeing the ITN item and wanting to help out. The core news details (why is this important, who won, etc. ) are the things to make sure are in place. --MASEM (t) 02:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Time's a' wastin'.... Sca (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Postin' --Tone 15:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Beck looks rather yellowgold in the accompanying pic! ---Sluzzelin talk 20:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeck! --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Africa Cup of NationsEdit

Article: 2015 Africa Cup of Nations (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In association football, the Africa Cup of Nations concludes with Ivory Coast defeating Ghana in the final.
Alternative blurb: Ivory Coast wins the Africa Cup of Nations in association football defeating Ghana 9:8 by penalty.
News source(s): The Guardian

Article updated

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

 Ali Fazal (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support, but there should be at least a minimal prose update with regards to the final. Formerip (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Major tournament, ITN/R, etc. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support No question that this should go to ITN, it is on the list of regular events. I wonder though if the blurb should have info about the nature of the penatly shoot-out or would that make it too long? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and agree that the penalty should be mentioned, see my altblurb. --PanchoS (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ITN never mentions the score, margin of victory or the equivalent in sports updates, so if posted this shouldn't mention the penalty shoot-out. BencherliteTalk 10:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose pending prose update to either (or both) of the main article about the 2015 competition and the article specifically about the final; if the article about the final is updated first, then that can be the bold link instead. BencherliteTalk 14:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 09:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

February 8Edit

[Posted] British Academy Film AwardsEdit

Article: 68th British Academy Film Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: Boyhood wins three awards, including Best Film, at the 68th British Academy Film Awards.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Notable event in film calendar, ITN/R. I've had a go at expanding/updating the prose. JuneGloom07 Talk 21:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support pending updating the tense of the article (presently in future tense) --MASEM (t) 22:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support whole article is based on this news item and has been updated accordingly. Ready to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - important awards show. Looks good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Alexander VraciuEdit

Notwithstanding the poor article, this is stale and would already have been bumped from RD. Stephen
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: Alexander Vraciu (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Not many WW2 veterans get attention. NYT quote: "[he] reigned as the Navy’s top World War II fighter ace after downing 19 Japanese aircraft and destroying 21 more on the ground in only eight months in 1944" Nergaal (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Does the format of the nomination imply that Nergaal who comments is a sock of Andise1 who gets credit as nominator?
No, and I am certain Nergaal just copied my nomination to make this one and forgot to switch my username as his. Andise1 (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Suppport an interesting story from a minority topic. μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment it isn't a case of socking, but rather Nergaal copied and pasted from the thread directly below and forgot to change the nominator (which I have now done). Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I suspected an innocent explanation, but it never hurts to keep Nergaal on his toes. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per nominator - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 20:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Stale? It says he died on January 29. Also, the article isn't updated, as the prose makes no mention of his death (how, where, etc.). – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
RD nominations are logged based on date of death; the 29th is too late. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
No, there is no such policy making RD differ from ITN. General ITN policy is that information that only became public at a later date is acceptable at the date of publication. The Times article dates to Feb 7. Unless we have other major sources that were published on the 29th, there's no problem with this. μηδείς (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't claim it is a policy, but it has been my experience that is general practice for deaths. --331dot (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose article is woeful, not of sufficient quality for Wikipedia's main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Billy CasperEdit

Article: Billy Casper (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USA Today NBC News New York Times

Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: 51 time PGA Tour winner and 2 time US Open winner. Andise1 (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - indeed one of the best golfers. RD seems appropriate.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • MildSupport certainly a notable golfer and a remarkably prolific winner. Article is in an okay state, the lead is too short and it is under-referenced but it's vogue to let that slide these days. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
    Lead is much improved and article is way into decent RD territory nowadays. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - an important figure in the game. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose 3 majors only. Pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. Its minor headline in most news sites. No interest for non-golf fans. Article is lousy.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The article states "was one of the most prolific tournament winners on the PGA Tour from the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s" and "Casper had 51 PGA Tour wins in his career, with his first coming in 1956. This total places him seventh on the all time list." He has also been inducted into the World Golf Hall of Fame and has other recognition. Also, very little would be posted to RD if nominations were required to be of interest to people outside a nominated field. What matters for RD is the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Seems to meet the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Charie Sifford was black. I mean Support: Casper was merely a much better golfer. μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Do you have anything to say about the merits of this nomination? If opposing something because we disagree with something else that was posted was a valid oppose, very little would get posted. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
If you are asking for a point, then Sifford, whose best result was to be tied for 21st in a national competition, should be bumped if we are going to post this otherwise much more worthy candidate. Either that, or an ongoing section for deceased athletes, which might not be a bad idea. μηδείς (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Billy Casper did not have to overcome race prejudice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Once Sifford was on the wider field, did he face further race prejudice that explains his mediocre record compared to Casper? I simply think it would be absurd to have both players at once. Nor do I need personal education on prejudice, racal or other, I have seen it and experienced it physically. I assume my stand is clear, and don't want to further interrupt the nomination discussion itself. μηδείς (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Sifford wasn't allowed on the PGA tour until he was nearly 40. Stop comparing apples to oranges. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I said I didn't want to comment further, but being told to shut up doesn't help. Casper had twice as many PGA championships after 40 as Sifford had and Sifford's best national tournament score was to tie for 21st place while Casper won three times. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Mild support important golfer, if not one of the most famous. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Top of his field. RD notable. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvements Meets D/C as important to his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Good to go, marked as ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted BencherliteTalk 20:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] When Will You Marry?Edit

Article: When Will You Marry? (talk, history)
Blurb: Gauguin work When Will You Marry? sells for £197m ($300m), the highest known price ever paid for any painting
Alternative blurb: Gauguin work When Will You Marry? sells for $300m (£197m), the highest known price ever paid for any painting.
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A notable story in the art world. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: Original nominator has withdrawn, nomination "taken over" (if that makes sense) by 331dot. See history for "authorship" of original blurb wording. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems a notable event in the art world, getting