Open main menu

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

Contents

July 31Edit


[Closed] 2015 Blackbushe Airport crashEdit

UNANIMOUSLY OPPOSED:
--George Ho (talk) 21:02, 1 August 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 Blackbushe Airport crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A private jet crashes at Blackbushe Airport in Hampshire, United Kingdom, killing all four people on board, three of whom were related to Osama Bin Laden.
Alternative blurb: ​A private jet crashes at Blackbushe Airport in Hampshire, United Kingdom, killing all four people on board.
News source(s): The Guardian Wall Street Journal BBC (among others)
Nominator's comments: Low death toll but the Bin Laden connection seems to add a lot of significance. Also this crash is rather strange because as the Guardian noted, the plane was "fitted with hi-tech safety features" and had previously landed at the same airport many times before without incident. Everymorning talk 18:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait Oppose I'm not seeing anything that rings the ITN bell right now. Bin laden's relatives are not sufficiently notable in their own right to warrant any attention here. Of course this is breaking news so maybe something significant will turn up that makes this a good ITN candidate. For now I'm leaning towards oppose. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Added altblurb to your pleasure. --George Ho (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The body count is too low for ITN. Something that hasn't been reported so far needs to come up for me to be able to support this. Still leaning to oppose. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Don't see notability other than tabloid sensationalism. --bender235 (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not the first disaster at that airfield, but probably even less notable (unless a connection with the CIA is uncovered, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Obvious oppose. "Four people killed in light aircraft crash" is a routine story, and that some of the people killed were members of the (huge) Bin Laden family is of no significance; given the expense of aviation in the UK, a sizeable fraction of private aircraft are going to be carrying someone wealthy and well-known or their families. – iridescent 19:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I suspect that in four weeks time this article won't even exist. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 1 August 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: Howard W. JonesEdit

No consensus to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Howard W. Jones (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USA Today

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: The American surgeon, who died at age 104, created in vitro fertilization (test tube), resulting in some successful results. May he rest in peace. (EDIT: I could not summarize the notable event well. Anyway, I didn't realize he was the surgeon of David Reimer, a male-born sexually reassigned person.) George Ho (talk) 05:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. No issue I immediately see at article. --MASEM (t) 05:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support the image doesn't have a fair use rationale for use on this article so it should either be added or the image removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Rambling Man, no image shall obstruct the nomination. By the way, I removed the image and added an infobox image. --George Ho (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I quote from our IVF article "In 1977, Steptoe and Edwards successfully carried out a pioneering conception which resulted in the birth of the world's first baby to be conceived by IVF, Louise Brown on 25 July 1978, in Oldham General Hospital, Greater Manchester, UK". Jones did create the first IVF baby in the US, but the nominators comments as stated at best oversimplify the situation. Fgf10 (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Fgf10, I'm not proposing a blurb. I'm proposing his mere name to be shown as part of RD ticker. Of course, thanks for the heads up. George Ho (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD Looks highly notable and important within his field. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even his bio doesn't claim he "created in vitro fertilization", because it's completely untrue. He introduced an already-existing procedure to the United States, which is not to be sniffed at but isn't of any particular significance. (He's not even mentioned in either the in vitro fertilization article or the bio of the man who actually created it.) – iridescent 19:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose The Henrietta Lacks aspect is mildly noteworthy, but probably not to the extent of being worthy of RD. SpencerT♦C 06:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: Not seeing much coverage of this, and it doesn't seem like he was at the top of his field. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:46, 6 August 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: Roddy PiperEdit

Article: Roddy Piper (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): WWE.com, Variety, Esquire, CNN, The Independent, Associated Press

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: Called #1 best professional wrestling villain by the WWE; Hall of Fame member since 2005  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Support conditional on significant article improvements. Pro-wrestling is not really my cup of tea but the subject does appear to have a decent claim to importance in the field and probably satisfies ITNDC #2. That said, there is way too much unsourced material in the article at present to link on the Front Page.
  • Conditional support He's a notable name in wrestling and meets ITNDC#2. The sourcing, though, I agree is problematic. Is "wrestling-titles.com", for instance, a reliable source? "411mania.com"? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Wrestling-titles is as solid as the world has, for that sort of thing. 411Mania, though, is hit and miss. It's a freelance deal, like every news outlet on the Internet has lately. Depends on the author. Ranks high in Google News, for what that's worth. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:35, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
The page looks much better now than it did two days ago. It'll be nice when this is posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. A legendary and long lived figure in pro wrestling. (Sources are reliable enough given the subject; they'd definitely hear about it if they got something wrong.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support pending article improvements See sourcing issues above. Just for importance, I think this barely squeaks by given his importance the WWF at its inception. --MASEM (t) 02:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - An important figure in his field. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: Myself and a few other editors are currently working on references and other improvements to the article. Nikki311 02:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - adding mainstream sources for death to the nomination. CNN said The superstar of the 1980s was arguably the top bad guy in professional wrestling history. The Independent said the actor and wrestling legend ... famed for being one of the best heels, or villains, in his profession. starship.paint ~ KO 02:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks. They didn't have anything ready when I nominated. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support not only wrestling , but acting too..a very descent actor, not something you can say about any professional wrestler.--Stemoc 03:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    Not many, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
  • Support One of the most notable wrestlers to ever live.LM2000 (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once updated. Notable enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once updated. An absolute legend in the wrestling community and one of the few to speak out against WWE and still return. Miyagawa (talk) 08:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Article's in good shape. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Headliner for decades, lots of mainstream coverage, etc. It's a pleasant surprise to see a lack of "oppose, wrestling's not notable" votes this time around. -- Scorpion0422 11:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Death has four cited paragraphs now. Refs better, but not perfect. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Unmarking sorry, as a BLP this is still under-referenced; just take a look at "American Wrestling Association (1973–1975)" (1 ref for the whole section), "National Wrestling Alliance (1975–1980)" (1 ref for the whole section), "1989–1992" (1 ref for the whole section), first four paras of "Second return to WWE (2005–2015)" (entirely without a single reference). This isn't good enough I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, if and when the referencing issues are resolved. Roddy Piper was among the top figures in his field and one of relatively few to achieve mainstream fame (i.e., it was common for people who didn't follow professional wrestling to be familiar with him) at a time when that was less common than it is today. However, "reliable enough given the subject" is an unacceptable standard. (Unfortunately, it appears to be one to which many or most of Wikipedia's professional wrestling-related articles have been held.) —David Levy 21:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    Your comment was completely unnecessary. Professional wrestling articles are among the most highly edited on Wikipedia. That's a bit of a double-edged sword. It means people edit them thousands of times a day; unfortunately, a huge amount of this comes from IPs and other editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. However, the professional wrestling project is a small group of active, knowledgeable editors with a thorough understanding of verifiability and reliable sources. The "given the subject" comment did not come from a project member, and it would never come from a project member, because they take proper sourcing very seriously. It's particularly troubling to see this unwarranted attitude propagated by an administrator, who should be able to comment on an issue without taking a cheap shot. I certainly wouldn't say that the problem is no more prevalent in professional wrestling articles than elsewhere on Wikipedia. I just flipped through 10 random articles, and I came up with completely unreferenced articles about a Canadian town, ice hockey, commerce, soccer, religion, and a stadium. One article about a biathlon competition had one reference. Another was about a brewery and had 7 references for the 1270 words. That makes 8 out of 10 articles with reference problems. In fact, the only articles that were well-referenced in that random sample were Bathybuccinum clarki and Robert Alaine, two stubs with a combined three sentences. Nobody in the professional wrestling project would look at the state of the Roddy Piper article two days ago and think it was acceptable, but please note that the number of (unique) references has gone from 63 to 110, with the new references being reliable sources, and several of the old unreliable sources have been replaced. Yes, wrestling-titles.com is an unreliable source. Unfortunately, the history for many of those titles is only available in one book, which is out of print and costs a minimum of $130 on Amazon (one project member owns it but is on vacation). I would hope, however, that the project's activity on this article over the past couple of days has helped you see the extent to which you have apparently misunderstood the project. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    I'm only guessing, but I think the crux of what David was trying to suggest was that the article contained and still contains a surfeit of unreferenced claims. That fails WP:V and WP:BLP in this case. I believe David's quote was a direct response to Smerdis of Tlön's claim that: "Sources are reliable enough given the subject; they'd definitely hear about it if they got something wrong" which is purely subjective and without foundation. We need WP:RS to support claims within a BLP, especially one that's going to appear on the main page. Please also note, it's never the absolute number of references that defines whether an article meets BLP, it's whether the references provided allow someone to verify the claims made within the BLP, especially those considered controversial. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    Your response has me baffled. I'm not sure what aspect of my statement you are trying to address. If you look above, you'll see that I stated that the project members and I are familiar with verifiability and reliable sources (which you have conveniently linked for me, despite my previous statement). I was clear that nobody from the project would be fine with saying, "These sources aren't reliable, but they're good enough for the subject matter." People are working on the article. The number of references was obviously just an indicator of how the project has come together to source the article. My problem is not a complete lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, but rather with an administrator essentially saying, "The article sucks, but that's par for the course from that project", which is neither civil nor accurate. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry to have baffled you, to have patronised you, to have borderline insulted you and clearly upset you. To be fair I was just trying to interpret what David had said. He may be able to explain his position in far more elucidating terms. The bottom line is that until this is referenced per BLP then it "isn't good enough". Hope that unbaffles you. I have no dog in the fight other than not putting an article onto the main page with clear and obvious verification issues. Perhaps it'd be better to focus on that instead of on David's comments, if you really want this to be featured in RD? Just a thought. It is also worth pointing out that numerous other admins may well be happy to post this based on the sheer number of references and the innate reliability of the Wrestling Wikiproject, so it may be posted regardless of my personal concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    Your comments have me baffled, given that I neither mentioned the professional wrestling WikiProject (let alone suggested that Ihcoyc is a participant) nor asserted that similar deficiencies don't exist elsewhere in Wikipedia. It may well be true that "IPs and other editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy" have inserted most of the problematic material and that the professional wrestling WikiProject works tirelessly to improve the situation. You're defending yourself against accusations that I haven't made. —David Levy 01:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and Slam! Wrestling (a lot more reputable than it sounds) has a shitload of useful information (scroll to bottom). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:30, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
  • As three days have passed since this nom was opened and this has not yet been posted, close as stale.--WaltCip (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Significant (and ongoing) improvements to references make this a good candidate to post while still fresh. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for prompt posting. Personally, I'm not sure where I would come down on sufficient notability, but the consensus seems to be that this is post-worthy from that point of view. The referencing has now been improved, and is sufficient for posting in my view, especially that this is coming up on "now or never" time as a "recent death." Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I've tagged those claims which need sourcing. I would hope, in light of recent Arbcom decisions, that they are not "controversial" so the item can be posted as the work done has been impressive. Some other admins may disagree. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment People ridicule me when I talk about an anti-pro wrestling bias here, but this situation has really strengthened my belief. A month or so ago Dusty Rhodes had sufficient support for posting, then sat ignored for days before being rejected (in spite of several appeals from me for someone to post it). In this case, there is overwhelming support and a number of editors have put in some hard work to bring it up to par. Yet it still sits ignored. Meanwhile, a quick browsing of this page shows that things have made ITN and RD with half the support and in half the time. Can we stop with the games and please just post this already? -- Scorpion0422 23:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Aye. Time marches on. I hope if this happens again for Arn Anderson, we can close it as brainbustered rather than filibustered. There's a proposal on the Wikiproject Talk about sprucing up the big name articles, pre-obituary, so this wasn't completely in vain. And, if you think about it, being on Wikipedia's In The News means less, the heavier something is actually in the news. It's a drop in the bucket, then. The semi-famous like Lynn Anderson, Billy Pierce and Edward Natapei could better use the recognition. And no, that's not an insult. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
  • Support after some improvements. There's still a section in need of attention - otherwise the sourcing looks pretty thorough. One of the most notable of his sport's last half-century, his influence was felt throughout the sport. Challenger l (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted While not FA quality quite yet, that's not the standard we use for ITN. The article has much improved, and most of the major referencing problems seem to have been addressed. --Jayron32 16:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think WP:BLP is strictly related to FA quality. The article had an orange maintenance tag on the free-for-all filmography section. It has been posted with many BLP claims unreferenced and unverifiable, see the recent edits of User:Kww for context on protecting lists of awards from BLP violations. But that seems to be okay on biographies on the main page, just not on lists of awards. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't understand how a partially referenced award list or filmography for a non-living person is a violation of the biographies of living persons policy. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
      • In that case it seems you haven't actually read the BLP policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
        • I certainly have, thank you. Whether or not a deceased professional wrestler once appeared on the Super Mario Bros. Super Show! doesn't seem to fit with "Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
          • I didn't say it did. I said BLP still applied. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
          • And actually, unreferenced claims like "He was of majority Scottish descent, with some Irish on his mother's side" can easily be considered questionable or contentious. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

(outdent )User:GaryColemanFan, you've inadvertently stepped into the middle of a surprisingly contentious area. By way of just a small amount of background, when the BLP policy was initially created, it focused exclusively on still-living people, and it especially emphasized that negative information on living people could not be included in an article without a reliable source. Unfortunately, this turned out to be too narrow a policy: When a notable person dies, that should not be a signal that it's now okay to start adding unsourced negative information into the article! This is particularly true where doing so could affect still-living people such as the subject's family. As a result, the BLP policy was expanded to the recently deceased; and also over time, emphasis has grown on how it's desirable to have good sourcing for all content in BLPs (and for that matter, ultimatlely in the entire encyclopedia). That being said, there are obviously issues of prioritizing: if an article about an actor (living or recently deceased) says that he won 20 awards in his career and there are sources for 10 of them, then it would be ideal to source the other 10, but if there's no genuine doubt that he also won the other 10, many editors would consider it a stretch to call the situation a "BLP violation."

A separate issue is whether the existence of an unsourced or only-partially-sourced awards section should disqualify the article from being mainpaged, such as on RD. ITN in general and RD in particular help keep our readers in touch with recent events and Wikipedia's coverage, but regardless of the importance of a event or of a recently deceased individual, our article on the event or the person must meet reasonable quality standards to be worthy of a place on the mainpage. For example, an entirely unreferenced article, or one with very few references relative to its length, certainly would not qualify.

There has been a longstanding debate on this page as to whether that means that to be worthy of an ITN or RD appearance, each and every statement or at least each and every section of the article requires referencing. In the past, I have taken the position that where an article as a whole has a decent degree of referencing, the fact that a given section (such as an "awards section") lacks inline cites should not stop us from including it on ITN or RD. Some other editors, including User:The Rambling Man, have taken the contrary view, opining that substantive unreferenced content is disqualifying for the mainpage—and if the content doesn't get sourced before (for example) the "recent death" is no longer "recent," then so be it. (An effect of TRM's and others position on this, operationally, is that holding the RD listing up until sources are added results in the sources actually being added—whereas if the article went onto the mainpage straight away, the incentive to improve it might not be there.) As with so many things on Wikipedia, this doesn't call for automatic, bright-line rules, but for editorial judgment and common sense. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I sincerely appreciate people willing to take the time to explain a situation in a helpful manner. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] India–Bangladesh land swapEdit

good faith, but terms already announced μηδείς (talk) 04:15, 2 August 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: India–Bangladesh enclaves (talk, history) and Bangladesh–India border (talk, history)
Blurb: India and Bangladesh have swapped control of some 162 small pockets of land on each other's territory.
News source(s): (BBC)
 Jenda H. (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment didn't we already post this, at least the proposal to do this (on 11 June, according to the talk page)? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose as we posted the agreement itself; maybe if it had fallen apart for some reason that would be worth posting. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment yes we posted agreement between India and Bangladesh. But this news is about actual border change.--Jenda H. (talk) 07:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We posted the agreement to make the swap. The consequent technical details of actually executing it isn't as important (unless it leads to a border war or something). SpencerT♦C 07:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above concerns. Duplicate nom/post. Suggest speedy close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:19, 1 August 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 PierceEdit

Article: Billy Pierce (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The 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: Among the greatest baseball pitchers of all-time. Seven-time MLB All-Star, won Sporting News' Pitcher of the Year Award twice (only one Cy Young Award was given out those years, and he lost both to pitchers from the other league). Not elected to the Hall of Fame, but he arguably belongs there. Article is GA, so we'll be featuring quality content. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support notability is reasonably clear, even to a non MLB reader, and the article is a tip-top high-quality effort, so this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable in the field and article is in good quality. Normally, I would consider the fact that he isn't in the Hall of Fame, but MLB HOF voting is a dramafest approaching ITN/C levels (I kid, I kid) and Pierce could conceivably make the HOF in a future vote. SpencerT♦C 21:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • You are not wrong about the problems with the baseball HOF voting. If anyone who doesn't know about what a farce it has become wants to know more, ping me and I'll show you some stories. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - a top pitcher in his day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. His career seems to meet DC2 as very important to his field. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per above comments. He appears to meet the applicable guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support There might be nit-picky things I see on sourcing (it gets less dense later in the article) but its far from being in poor shape for posting. Importance shown. --MASEM (t) 22:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment have to oppose a baseball player who didn't make the hall of fame which is a lower standard than RD in my opinion. The GA status helps though.--107.107.61.157 (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
ITNDC #2 says... The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field. That is well below HoF standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
We posted Minnie Miñoso, a teammate of Pierce's, when he died. Like Pierce, Miñoso is on the outside looking in at Cooperstown. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Minnie Miñoso shouldn't have been posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ebola vaccineEdit

No consensus to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:09, 31 July 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: VSV-EBOV (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Ebola vaccine VSV-EBOV is shown to be safe and highly effective in the phase three clinical trial "Ebola ça Suffit", which used ring vaccination.
News source(s): [1][2]

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: More than ten thousand people have died of ebola in the past year and a half, and nearly twice as many people have survived, but may suffer lifelong aftereffects. It has devastated healthcare systems and economies. Wild reservoirs mean that future outbreaks are a near-certainty. A vaccine is newsworthy.

This is a major step, and it was done in a difficult situation using an unusual method. The Ebola ça Suffit (“Ebola, that's enough”) phase three clinical trial uses ring vaccination(stub): when someone falls ill, adults they might have infected are vaccinated. In the trial, "where rings have been vaccinated, the transmission has stopped" according to Marie-Paule Kieny (an assistant director general of the WHO). This paper (in the Lancet) is a publication of interim results; the trial continues, but the control arm (vaccination delayed by one incubation period) has been dropped.

The authors of the paper describing the study thank the people of Basse-Guinée for their participation. The vaccine was developed by the National Microbiology Laboratory of the Public Health Agency of Canada, and the work done with the support of many organizations including the Wellcome Trust, UK Department of International Development, Guinean Ministry of Health, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, US Department of Defense, Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Health Canada, European Commission and the WHOHLHJ (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose The words "interim analysis," "preliminary," and "vaccine candidate" are sprinkled heavily throughout the paper. A new vaccine for this would definitely be notable, but I recommend waiting until the vaccine has been further tested and approved. Let's not jump the gun here. Mamyles (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with @Mamyles: we're not in a hurry. Better wait and see whether the results uphold, rather than posting "preliminary" findings. --bender235 (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait The creation of a viable Ebola vaccine is definitely newsworthy but as the BBC article points out, this is still preliminary results and we usually don't post that. I would expect that something akin to the World Health Org. or the FDA approving the vaccine would be the point of news-worthiness. --MASEM (t) — Preceding undated comment added 15:29, July 31, 2015
  • Support pending improvement. That there is an effective vaccine regimine is big news, if it is not to be reported now, when would it be? The article, however "pleased with the results of the result" is tagged, and a mess. μηδείς (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait per Masem. Nergaal (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that there is far too much reporting of tiny early trials in the media in general, but this is a phase three trial; it's not approved yet, but as far as I know this is the trial that will be used to decide whether to approve it. The WHO seem to think that it's news, and they are normally pretty cautious. I've asked for WP medicine's opinions. I've also fixed up the article a bit. If someone created an article for the trial (which is big and reported upon more than enough to be notable) we could link to that instead. HLHJ (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless/until vaccine is completed and approved for use. No need for a play-by-play of this vaccine's development. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • very strongly oppose - There is a bunch of media hype about this. The results are interim and WP does not communicate hype to the public. The 24 hour news cycle drives hype, but we are an encyclopedia that provides reliable information to the public. So no, and hell no. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't post "interim" trials and test results. If/When this gets the OK from the FDA it should be renominated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Redlinks on main page, well, ce n'est pas suffi.... --Jayron32 19:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Very support All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC).
  • Oppose posting results of a trial; when announced it is available for general use, then maybe. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 31 July 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.
  • Sorry, edit conflict with the closing; I'm posting this anyway since several people mentioned renomination later: As noted above, the Ebola ça Suffit redlink was in case an article on the trial is written; I've removed it. I've updated the article. I also toned down the blurb after reading a pre-publication review that contradicted part of the published paper (see VSV-EBOV#History on reporting of adverse effects). Since FDA approval will take the better part of a year minimum, it is to be hoped that the epidemic will be over before it gets FDA approval; the continuation of the trial in modified form is broad enough that vaccine may be administered to all the people who would get it were it approved for ring vaccination (whether this is a good idea is another question). When, if ever, do people think this should be nominated? HLHJ (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest renomination once the vaccine is approved by the FDA or its European counterpart for general use. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
If by "epdidemic will be over" you are referring to the outbreak in some west African countries, use of the vaccine in those countries doesn't depend on approvals in the US or its EU counterpart. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest renomination if the vaccine is approved by regulatory agencies. Jytdog brings up a good point - I would likely also support renomination if an African country decides to vaccinate a significant portion of their populace. Mamyles (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2022 Winter OlympicsEdit

Article: 2022 Winter Olympics (talk, history)
Blurb: Beijing is elected by the International Olympic Committee as host city of the 2022 Winter Olympics.
Alternative blurb: ​During the 128th IOC Session, Beijing is elected as host city of the 2022 Winter Olympics.
News source(s): New York Times NBCSports

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: Host city should be announced at 09:30 UTC on July 31. Only two cities are candidates. Could be a first if Beijing is elected, becoming the only city ever to host Summer and Winter Olympics. Hektor (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Maybe, once it's actually announced. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when the announcement is made and articles are updated. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Probably Although given the two choices it seems rather depressing. Apparently the IOC has no interest in barring authoritarian police states from this honor. Hello; 1936 and 2008? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - when host city announced. (probably beijing.. IOC loves awful regimes).--BabbaQ (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Isnt this nom made on the wrong day. As the vote is on 31 July? Might be wrong.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • The bot will create the July 31 section in a couple of hours. It would be wise to move this proposal there. Hektor (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on confirmation, and I would have no problem if it was Beijing to note it is the first city to host a Winter and Summer olympics, if there's space for such a blurb. Maybe The ICC selects Beijing to host the 2022 Winter Olympics, the first city to host both Winter and Summer events. --MASEM (t) 01:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Once announced. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once announced. I would use 'selected' rather than 'elected' in the blurb. Modest Genius talk 09:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It is Beijing. Hektor (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
By all means, this is an election. IOC members vote. Hektor (talk) 10:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Elections put people into offices. This is neither a person, nor an office being held. This is a group selecting something. Selecting by vote is not the same thing as an election. --Jayron32 19:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Not all elections put people into offices. The vote takes place, I believe(but could be wrong) by secret ballot. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Then it is your responsibility to find reliable sources and change the text of the Wikipedia article titled Election, the first sentence of which you claim is a blatant lie.(I don't claim so, but you seem to be proposing that it is). And a referendum is a vote and not an election. Not all votes are elections. Just those that put people into offices. --Jayron32 23:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not claiming anything is a lie or even that anything needs to be changed on that page; The IOC refers to the selection as an "election". [1] So do most RS: [2] [3] 331dot (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Looking up the definition on one site, it states "a public vote upon a proposition submitted". [4] 331dot (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
This was not a public vote. Still not en election then. --Jayron32 00:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
You should speak to the IOC and RS's then and ask them to use different terminology. My point is that a public vote is not necessarily about people. Merriam Webster lists one definition as "the right, power, or privilege of making a choice" which clearly the IOC had. [5] Other similar definitions not involving people are here [6]. 331dot (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
You can be right today. I don't need to win. Congratulations. --Jayron32 01:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to be "right" or "win". It's about using the terminology used by sources, not about what I want. 331dot (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 12:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

July 30Edit


[Posted to RD] RD: Lynn AndersonEdit

Article: Lynn Anderson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. Definitely looks notable enough - appears to have been at or near the apex of her field. Once the orange tag and sourcing issues are sorted, looks good to go. 2602:306:31D3:E5C0:11B1:A72B:A65F:E183 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on improvements - Sourcing in the article is hit or miss, but not too far off. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - no one expects to always find "perfect blooms". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, conditional on article improvements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I used to beg my father for quarters to play her on the juke box. The article is in pretty good shape. I hid a comment about collectable models of her horses and removed non-bluelink items from her selected works. I tagged four items as CN, some of those claims like later cameos can be hidden or deleted as unimportant. I'll be busy for a while though, so not going to be much help for referencing. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
You'll find those adorable li'l plastic horses now unstabled and fully supported, (y'all)... ye-hah!! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment we need to fix those [citation needed] tags, as right now I'm going through an Arbcom mudfest where one specific admin will delete all unsourced BLP claims on sight. Perhaps we should do that here. THen it would be ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I can count five. But two of those are chart placings?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Yep, so remove those, and we have three. BLP ain't gonna quit, and given Arbcom and "other admins", we're all in danger. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Unable to source her duetting with fiance Mentor Williams on his Drift Away at the 2007 CMA festival. All the rest have now got sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I removed the unreferenced source as no non-primary sources can verify it. George Ho (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready a few last claims with no verifiable support removed, no remaining tags. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT♦C 05:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Mohammed Omar confirmed deadEdit

Article: Mohammed Omar (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Taliban confirms that its former spiritual leader, Mohammed Omar, died in April 2013.
Alternative blurb: ​The Taliban confirms that its former leader, Mohammed Omar, died in April 2013.
News source(s): New York Times CNN Christian Science Monitor

Nominator's comments: Previous nomination by me yesterday was closed due to lack of confirmation from reliable sources. However, now the Taliban themselves are confirming it, and their doing so has been covered in many reliable sources. Additionally, it appears that the consensus among editors of Omar's article is that he is definitely dead. Everymorning talk 18:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - April 2013 is as stale as stale can be.--WaltCip (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support One of the most wanted terrorists/war criminals in the world. Even ignoring the problem of the date of death (which realistically precludes RD), I'd support a blurb here on the merits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - A major figure in the War on Terror. It's not his fault that it was announced two years after the fact. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I think we've, by now, agreed that contentious reports of death surpass the "staleness" test. This is notable, that's why I'm seeing it on the main BBC News page today. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support He's dead Dave. --109.149.122.191 (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with this confirmation. It's not "stale" since this was unknown until now. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment marking as ready with a reservation that "spiritual leader" is a little too POV for a blurb. I would suggest we use something more like "Taliban leader..." as a blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • It already says he was the supreme commander of the Taliban, which would seem to make "spiritual leader" kind of redundant as well as being nebulous. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose again, this is the Taliban confirming. And if you can't confirm the death of your CEO for two years, either your corporation is a sham or a front. Has one single Western intelligence source confirmed this, or did the times get it in an email from a minor Nigerian princeling? Will we be nominating Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead as a followup? μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
If the world only just found out that Francisco Franco was dead, I would definitely consider that to be blurb worthy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - both parties have confirmed the death of one of the most wanted people of recent times. '''tAD''' (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added a (hopefully more neutral) altblurb. Everymorning talk 02:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Reiterating from my support from the previous ITNC (before Taliban confirmed). --MASEM (t) 03:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
We still have no reliable source comfirming this, even if they did, that he died two years ago would be stale. Neither a blurb based on facts nor a stale RD is justified. μηδείς (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. Significant individual and potential implications on the ongoing insurgency. Modest Genius talk 10:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment — There're report floating that Jalaluddin Haqqani is dead also. Perhaps we can mingle both in one blurb? --Saqib (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

[Removed] Remove ongoing: Greek debt crisisEdit

Greece has not made news for some time, and no longer seems to be having any impact on the stock markets or commodity trading. Granted, part of the reason for this is due to earnings season having most of the economic impact right now, but if or until Greece threatens default again in the distant future, I see no reason for this to remain as an ongoing blurb on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support removal it's all gone quiet over there. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support removal for now per TRM; we can always readd it should things heat up again. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Makes Sense μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support But you just know that something major will happen over there 24 hrs after we take this off ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It's still ongoing, but not really in the news much anymore. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove for now, though I suspect it will come back at some point. This has indeed drifted off the front page and into the business section while the details of the bailout implementation are worked out. Modest Genius talk 10:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Removed --Jayron32 12:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD/Blurb: Yakub Memon hangedEdit

No consensus to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:36, 4 August 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: Yakub Memon (talk, history) and 1993 Bombay bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: Yakub Memon, a perpetrator of the 1993 Bombay bombings, is hanged on his 53rd birthday after multiple rejections of mercy petitions.
Alternative blurb: Yakub Memon, a perpetrator of the 1993 Bombay bombings, is hanged.
News source(s): The New York Times The Wall Street Journal The Los Angeles Times Time

The Hindu

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: The candidacy is the brother of Tiger Memon, a prime suspect of the 1993 Mumbai blasts. He is known to have provided financial assistance to his brother in the execution of the blast. Topic seems to be of international interest, as evident from the sources. Vensatry (ping) 05:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This needs some sort of rationale in the nominator's comments other than that it was updated. μηδείς (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Done Vensatry (ping) 06:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • support - notable and newsworthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. I don't usually support giving attention on ITN to executions, but this was a perpetrator of one of the bloodier terror attacks in history (350+ killed). However the related article on the actual bombings has some issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The bombing and arrest were notable news. This execution, however, is a run-of-the-mill event. Convicted mass murderers are always executed (in countries that allow it). I'm neutral on posting to RD, as a famous and successful figure in the field of terrorism. Mamyles (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually executions in India are extremely rare, even for heinous crimes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, none of the other conspirators were sentenced to death and instead got various lengths of imprisonment. Wer902 (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD - I'm convinced that the hanging execution would be overemphasized as a blurb. Merely mentioning his name looks fine. George Ho (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
After reading capital punishment in India and Ad Orientem, I'll switch to blurb instead. Yes, the story will be overemphasized. Even with death sentences, executions are rare. This is the first one in India this year (or second). We shall display this obituary and attract readers with this. George Ho (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose what's notable is the crime, not the man. μηδείς (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Then why do we post the results of criminal trials? -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Did we not post Ajmal Kasab when he was hanged? Vensatry (ping) 18:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
A blurb implies the news item is notable--it isn't really major news outside India. An RD listing would imply the creep himself were notable. I am happy he's dead, but neither the man nor the hanging will be remembered in the years to come. μηδείς (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Being a creep is not incompatible with notability. The man killed 350+ people. That makes him highly notable, in India and pretty much anywhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Not a major news outside India? In addition to the listed ones—LA Times, The Wall Street Journal, TimeBBC had covered this. Vensatry (ping) 08:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not really notable or interesting. It was inevitable that he would be executed, it has happened and it's barely rippled mainstream news. Gone already. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not a notable enough person for his hanging to feature on MP. Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Just re-asking what Ad Orientem had told, "Then why do we post the results of criminal trials?" Vensatry (ping) 08:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support blurb: I don't think RD is appropriate since Memon is only notable because of one incident, which itself is blurb-worthy. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:54, 30 July 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.

July 29Edit


[Closed] Mohammed Omar reported deadEdit

No consensus to post at this time; wait for confirmation with reliable sources. SpencerT♦C 16:48, 30 July 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: Mohammed Omar (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The government of Afghanistan announces that Mohammed Omar, the spiritual leader of the Taliban, died in 2013.
News source(s): BBC Wall Street Journal
Nominator's comments: Not an RD, because the death is, of course, not recent. Still, it seems significant that the "Spiritual leader" of the Taliban, as well as the former head of state of Afghanistan, has died. Everymorning talk 17:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait but support if confirmed Given that reports of his death have been issued before, let's give this just a few hours/one news cycle to make sure that it as true as we can assure. This does sound like as-definitive-as-possible report, but both linked sources are cautious to assure true. If affirmed, clearly support. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this can never be confirmed. Abductive (reasoning) 18:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait If/when confirmed this would definitely meet the RD guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not actually sure Recent Deaths would be applicable here; I think it would need a regular blurb(given his wanted status and career, so to speak). 331dot (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait; while a government agency stating they believe him to be dead is significant, they haven't really said AFAIK why they think that(and may not). I think waiting for that, or a Tailban admission that he is dead, is prudent here. 331dot (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

They have claimed his son recognised the body. Obviously its not independently verified, but just updating on the latest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.18.106 (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment As of right now it appears to be only the Afghan government that is reporting this. To be frank, I am not sure I consider that to be a sufficiently reliable source on this topic. I really think we need to hold off until some confirmation is obtained. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose a blurb for "declared dead" is simply out of the question, and "spritual leader" of the taliban is rather stale to consider even notable at RD. It would be like posting minor news from the Watergate era during the Clinton administration; below the fold. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until or if confirmed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:11, 30 July 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 speaks to African UnionEdit

No consensus to post. Everymorning talk 20:33, 29 July 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: Barack Obama (talk, history) and African Union (talk, history)
Blurb: Barack Obama is the first US president to speak in front of the African Union. He encourages the world to increase trade with the continent, but also criticises the lack of democracy.
Alternative blurb: Barack Obama is the first US president to address the African Union.
News source(s): WSJ BBC

White House (among others)

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: This was just yesterday and today really spread across the media, it's highly relevant for the whole African continent and for Obama/US diplomacy in general. Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Seems more appropriate for DYK; calling for more trade and democracy is not significant unless backed up by action. We don't generally post 'firsts' written as trivia. Obama was also the first sitting US President to visit Kenya, but we didn't post that. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment I think, in diplomacy, the AU is of a whole different weight compared to Kenya. You may read the linked speech notes by the White House to get a more comprehensive grasp. Sometimes speaking can be much more relevant than acting (or induce the latter), as well. This definitely is of historical scale. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Speaking can indeed be transformative(as Obama himself demonstrated in 2004) but I don't think that's the case here, as he is not expressing a new position but one consistently held by the US government. He also spoke on gay rights in Kenya which was already dismissed by the government there. Speculating that it is transformative is crystal ball-ing unless, as I said, there is hard action. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Excepting the fact that he is the first President to address this particular body, which might rate a sentence in an article somewhere, the speech is entirely run of the mill. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose He's also only the second U.S. president to serve during the African Union's existence. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Ha! Abductive (reasoning) 18:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose If this could be a DYK, it should be there. But as for ITN, it would have been a better candidate if the meeting ended with say, a new trade deal or similar firm result. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose trivia goes to DYK. -- Callinus (talk) 20:26, 29 July 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.

[Closing] RD: Jan KulczykEdit

Consensus is against posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:21, 29 July 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: Jan Kulczyk (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Gazeta.pl, Bloomberg, New York Times, Reuters, Financial 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: Wealthiest person of the country with the 34th biggest population and 23rd largest GDP. Died unexpectedly aged 65. 2A02:582:C55:2A00:A96E:DC91:BCFE:94FF (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Richest man in Poland for the last several years. Note: I've added links to English-language sources. — Kpalion(talk) 12:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Significance of the subject outside of Poland appears to have been fairly limited. Basically we have a wealthy businessman who died. He was ranked 384 in the list of billionaires, so I'm not seeing his importance in the ranks of the super wealthy. I don't think this nom meets ITNDC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Being rich isn't a field. Otherwise, Paris Hilton would make it here some day. I'm not seeing the significance from his business ventures, aside from making him rich. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hilton almost certainly will be posted, not for being rich, but for the whole socialite/"famous for being famous" thing she does. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, she might. I guess it depends on how we define her "field" whenever that happens. Is "famous for being famous" a field? Anyway, it's not the most apt analogy. It seems this individual built his own fortune. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Being "famous" is not a criteria listed under ITNDC. As of this point I don't see anything that would qualify Hilton for an RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe society will view her as one of the "founders" of reality television. Or she'll become one of the greatest DJs of all time. Who knows. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The future is unknowable. Maybe she will become a nun and spend the rest of her life feeding the poor in Africa. For now all I can say is that I don't ever remember a "reality TV star" being accepted for RD and being a famously wealthy libertine is not a "field." -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above; just being rich is not significant enough on a worldwide scale. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: Seems like just a random rich dude. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose; being rich is not a field, and I don't see in what other way he meets the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Random Polish businessman who seems to have contributed to the contents of expensive suits and very little else. Being the richest in a nation does not meet the RD criteria, AFAIK. Challenger l (talk) 20:12, 29 July 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] Ongoing: Turkey–ISIL conflictEdit

we have two open nominations regarding this, close as duplicate in essence. μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 29 July 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: Turkey–ISIL conflict (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
Nominator's comments: After failed nominations on post-bombing events, this article should be most suitable for upcoming events. George Ho (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Why limit it to Turkey? There's a lot more that's going on with battles in Western Syria regarding ISIL recently than Turkey's involvement. If anything we should put ISIL back on ongoing. If not, it would be kind of strange to just put Turkey's involvement on ongoing. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:58, 29 July 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.
    • Comment I think, in diplomacy, the AU is of a whole different weight compared to Kenya. You may read the linked speech notes by the White House to get a more comprehensive grasp. Sometimes speaking can be much more relevant than acting (or induce the latter), as well. This definitely is of historical scale. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Microsoft releases Windows 10Edit

Closing good faith nom per WP:SNOW. There is no chance that this will be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:56, 30 July 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: Windows 10 (talk, history)
Blurb: Microsoft releases Windows 10, a new operating system offered free to those who own a genuine copy of an eligible edition of Windows 7 or Windows 8.1.
News source(s): Multitudes available, see e.g. The Verge
Nominator's comments: One day late, but since I imagine most of us edit Wikipedia using a computer, and most computers run Windows, that makes the Windows 10 release immediately relevant. Not sure if the fact that it's being offered free is something to mention though: the blurb could simply be "Microsoft releases Windows 10".
  • Oppose. Simple product release; doesn't seem to be anything particularly revolutionary about it. Microsoft can give away its products if they want to; doesn't seem significant. 331dot (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Wikipedia is not an advertisement. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose we usually give 6 hours before closing, but not always, and an advertisement for a long predicted product doesn't merit the wait. μηδείς (talk) 05:24, 30 July 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.

July 28Edit


Emergency NATO meeting on TurkeyEdit

Articles: 2015 NATO emergency meeting (talk, history) and Operation Martyr Yalçın (talk, history)
Blurb: NATO holds an emergency meeting in Brussels after Turkey launches airstrikes and police raids (pictured) against ISIL and the Kurdistan Workers' Party.
Alternative blurb: After Turkey launches airstrikes and police raids (pictured) against ISIL and the Kurdistan Workers' Party, NATO convenes to hold an emergency meeting in Brussels.
Alternative blurb II: ​After a suicide bombing in the Turkish district of Suruç, Şanlıurfa, NATO holds an emergency meeting in Brussels.
Alternative blurb III: ​After a suicide bombing killed 32 people in Suruç, NATO holds an emergency meeting in Brussels while Turkey launches airstrikes against ISIL and Kurdistan Workers Party camps in Iraq.

Alternative blurb IV: NATO allies meet in an emergency meeting at Turkey's request about its ongoing conflicts with the Islamic State and Kurdish rebels (PKK) amid a spike in cross-border regional violence.
News source(s): Business Insider, BBC, VOA, AP

Second article updated, first needs updating

Nominator's comments: This is an alternative nomination to the 'change Turkey blurb' section under July 24. This is because this event has now reached a different magnitude of importance resulting in NATO calling an 'extremely rare' (according to the Business Insider) meeting to discuss recent terror developments in Syria and Northern Iraq. I suggest we leave the Suruç bombing entry on the ITN as it is (its towards the bottom now anyway) and post this as a separate entry entirely. Nub Cake (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


  • support - notable event. ITN worthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: rather than a blurb, I think it would be better to bring events in Syria and Iraq back into the Ongoing section. Individual developments such as the Turkish airstrikes don't fundamentally change the war(s), but are part of a long-running conflict. Better to cover that via Ongoing than attempt to select individual events for blurbs. Modest Genius talk 13:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree, the main reason why I thought it would be worthy of ITN is specifically because of the NATO security meeting, which apparently is a rather important and rare event that is all over the news. Nub Cake (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the general blurb - ITN would rather see what the net action is of the meeting than the fact there is going to be one. However, I do generally support the idea of bringing back an ongoing here as the situation develops. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait per Masem. It would be better to post the culmination of the meeting, if any notable events come of it. Mamyles (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this meeting was called by Turkey, not called to rein in Turkey. Now, if the outcome is a ground invasion, then that is huge but would require its own article and blurb. Abductive (reasoning) 15:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't usually post this kind of stuff until after the event and then only if the results warrant it. Beyond which this is all part of the growing Turkish involvement in the fight against ISIS and their waging war on the Kurds. I am increasingly looking at this situation as a good candidate for ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on conclusion of the meeting - this is a major development in the region and a very important development in the Syrian Civil War. Most of the Western jihadist sympathisers that are recruited to ISIL travel to Turkey and cross the border - Turkey is a key player. -- Callinus (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: A very significant event on its own; only the 5th such meeting in NATO's 66-year history (going back to Korean invasion). NATO can require member states to come to the aid of any other member state, such as Turkey, subject to an armed attack (i.e. 9/11). --Light show (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - How is an emergency meeting bigger news than the incidents, which are subjects in meetings? The background has more context than emergency meeting section. I can't allow this to be posted this way. George Ho (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
It's bigger news because it's unique and potentially a major turning point. The other "incidents," (aka "slaughters,") throughout the region are happening daily. --Light show (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I know it's NATO, an intergovernmental military alliance. Still, I don't see how newsworthy a meeting is aside from incidents in Turkey. Also, I already voted on the other nomination way below (#Change in Turkey). — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Ho (talkcontribs) 02:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: if we were to post this, neither blurb seems accurate. The emergency meeting was called because of a suicide attack by IS in Turkey. Yet the proposed blurbs make it seem like the meeting was called because of Turkey's response. Calidum T|C 02:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm still against making the meeting front page news, but here's altblurb2. George Ho (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
And altblurb3 too. George Ho (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I think that starting any blurb with "after" some incident, will be misleading and imply a direct cause and effect. NATO wouldn't convene because of any single incident. The phrasing should be more general, ie. "NATO allies met in a rare emergency meeting at Turkey's request about its ongoing conflicts with the Islamic State and Kurdish rebels (PKK) amid a spike in cross-border regional violence." --Light show (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Added altblurb4, but I made some modifications, like dropping "rare" and using present tense. George Ho (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is an ongoing crisis so if we have an item that's properly updated, let's post that to Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Edward NatapeiEdit

Article: Edward Natapei (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Radio New Zealand

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: One of the most famous politicians from Vanuatu. Died aged 61. Prime minister three times and president once. 2A02:582:C55:2A00:1DB8:6C86:4933:9E03 (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support on notability, since head of state and head of government. Might need a little more work, but to me, it seems OK. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - head of state. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Article generally in good enough state for posting. Given that for Vanuatu ,the PM holds more power than the President, this is definitely meeting importance as the former leader of a sovereign nation. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as a head of state and head of government. Article is acceptable, although I wish it had more details on his first stint as prime minister and his time as president. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD Clearly meets ITNDC guidelines. (Oppose blurb if one is proposed.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD Definitely meets guidelines, but I must agree with Kudzu - could use more details. Challenger l (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Questionable "fame," seeing less than 10 article visits daily. Lead sentence says only, "was a politician from Vanuatu." As the country has about half the population of Oakland, this could set a precedence for adding all politicians anywhere. --Light show (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Light show. I've never liked the school of thought that says prime minister/president = automatic post. This isn't something our readers will be looking for, this is filler. We don't need filler. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
If we′re against ethnocentrism, then we have to look forward to adding people from all countries. Really, this is how famous someone from Vanuatu can get, domestically at least. 2A02:582:C55:2A00:1CE2:7191:C4B1:20DF (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Light Show. Politician is one thing, world statesman is another. Unless there were some other notable accomplishment than holding office there's no justification for posting this. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Vanuatu is an island (or group of nearby islands). The article doesn't mention greatest accomplishments, even when he was PM for non-consecutive years and an acting President for less than one month. However, as long as his obituary is not a blurb, mentioning merely his name in the Recent deaths list won't hurt much. Also, the article quality is exquisite enough to mention his name. George Ho (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It seems to me that Natapei meets the second death criterion as a person who had a significant impact on, or made a significant contribution to, Vanuatu. Except for Walter Lini, he was probably the most significant and prominent politician Vanuatu has produced, so I find it hard to see how it could be contended that he doesn't meet the criterion. Neljack (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per IP,Masem and Neljack. -- Shudde talk 06:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

July 27Edit


[Closed] Boy Scouts lifts ban on openly gay leadersEdit

Personally, I am surprised this doesn't have support. But the trend here is overwhelming. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 28 July 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: Boy Scouts of America (talk, history) and Boy Scouts of America membership controversies (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Boy Scouts of America lifts its ban on openly gay adult leaders and employees.
News source(s): Reuters BBC USA Today (among others)
Nominator's comments: The BBC link above states that this decision "end years of criticism that the Boy Scouts discriminated against gay people." In addition the USA Today link above describes this vote as "historic". Everymorning talk 02:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when article is fully updated. Significant development for an internationally prominent organization. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the organization has no impact on outside US. Since we posted the supreme court decision, I am not sure what would be the point of posting this too. Nergaal (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This would have been big news twenty or even ten years ago. However, given the shift in cultural norms in the United States, it rates a yawn. As I noted after the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage, I think the whole gay rights battle is pretty much over, at least in the West. Someone ping me if Russia or Saudi Arabia legalizes gay marriage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not really true. The pieces of shit still allow individual chapters to discriminate. Abductive (reasoning) 05:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Can we please keep the editorializing in check per WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
It's religious chapters only, which they have every right to do, and you have every right to disagree with, but this isn't the forum to fight giving offense with more giving offense. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Parochial and of no importance these days. Fgf10 (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose because this seemed to be the trend since they lifted the ban on gay members and given recent comments by former DoD secretary Gates. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose exactly per Abductive.--WaltCip (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ad Orientem and Nergaal. One organisation, which had been maintaining its outdated stance in the face of clear changes in public attitude, finally comes to its senses and updates its policies to become normal. Not even a particularly important organisation at that. It's amazing they managed to hold out so long without being sued to oblivion for discrimination. Welcome but hardly trailblazing. Modest Genius talk 13:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • There is no constitutional right to be in the Boy Scouts. However, I think they have been litigated for covering up child-molesting in the past. Secrecy works to the advantage of predators. Openness may discourage it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:42, 28 July 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/Blurb: Abdul KalamEdit

Article: A. P. J. Abdul Kalam (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former India President and scientist Abdul Kalam dies at the age of 83 in Shillong.
Alternative blurb: ​Former President of India and scientist A. P. J. Abdul Kalam dies at the age of 83.
Alternative blurb II: ​Former President of India and scientist A. P. J. Abdul Kalam dies of a cardiac arrest at the age of 83.
News source(s): Times of India

Nominator's comments: Highly notable personality. Deserves a full blurb. 117.216.149.112 (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support blurb pending article updates - There's some tense issues in the article but that's expected for this just happening. Sourcing is fine and not an issue. Clearly RD, but would support blurb as a former leader of the world's most populous country and recognized beyond that. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, but how on earth is that article GA? The writing and grammar is full of errors (even in the lede - "was intimately involved in the India's civilian space program"). Black Kite (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, I've fixed dozens of grammar, spelling and tense problems. I might have missed a few, because the article was in a shocking state prose-wise. Hopefully it's at least acceptable now. Black Kite (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support blurb, although RD might be preferable. I have gone through and corrected tense issues and some grammatical mistakes where I spotted them. Referencing for the article is strong. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • strong support, he is a very famous person in India, each and every one knows about him. --Dineshkumar Ponnusamy (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Surely notable enough for a full blurb. ƬheStrikeΣagle 16:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    •   Doing... Updating -- Tinu Cherian - 16:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
      •   Done . Can someone protect the commons image --> commons:File:Apj_abdul_kalam.JPG ? -- Tinu Cherian - 17:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
        • c:User:KrinkleBot got it eventually. That edit notice with the huge blinking stop sign is there for a reason; you left the main page vulnerable to goatse vandalism for five minutes. —Cryptic 17:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
          • Yes. I'm familiar with the rules and procedures and have updated ITN many a times. Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 02:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
            • Then you should know that you never upload an unprotected image to the main page. Please do not do this again. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
              This rule wasn't there earlier (for ITN), if I remember correctly (<2013). I did leave a note here (for a commons admin) for protecting the image. Nevertheless, Will keep in mind. Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 08:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Blurb - Bharat Ratna + People's President + Missile Man of India + Extraordinary Indian (Beyond Doubt) #RIP KalamSahab Regards, theTigerKing  17:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the quick blurb was a bit generous here. He is undoubtedly RD material at least, but I'm not seeing a large amount of news coverage outside of India - the death of Whitney Houston's daughter seems to be generating more prominent coverage than this. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    Re: Bobbi Brown, definitely getting more news than this, but then again, you have to wonder why.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    Bongwarrior did strongly oppose that other nom, and I do see his point here - but can we assess this mans legacy from the facts in the article instead of relying on depth of coverage? --109.149.137.113 (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    Google News gives a few thousand results on the news of death. Some other "international coverage":The Wall Street Jounral,CNN, NewYork Times, BBC, The Washington Post -- Tinu Cherian - 02:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I had no doubt that coverage existed, but it's not being prominently featured on many of the websites I've checked. Ideally, this should be front page news somewhere besides India (see Mandela/Thatcher), although that's not an absolute requirement. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Now that is posted I don't mind keeping it, but for future I think full blurb RD should receive slightly a more substantial consensus and voting pool before being pushed on. This guy should probably be posted because he was quite notable in India where a huge chunk of the English wiki readers are, but otherwise it doesn't really strike me as a full blurb material. Nergaal (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  •   Question: Shouldn't the blurb say "(pictured)" (unless the guidelines have changed about this)? It Is Me Here t / c 21:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support saying pictured. Not to do so is bizarre. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Is pictured still the practice? I checked the last 5 blurbs with an image and none of them had one. I saw that it was removed from one of them, when it was added. -- Tinu Cherian - 02:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • The "(pictured)" was removed from blurbs when the ability to use captions for an image was included within the last couple weeks. --MASEM (t) 02:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
      Thanks MASEM for the confirmation. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support keeping blurb: he was a top figure in two different fields, his birthday was officially observed by the UN as "students day", he had been the recipient of highest civilian awards of India and numerous titles from other countries. We did post Hisham Barakat's death (I know his death was significant because it was an assassination), but here you have the death of one of the most influential people in India since 1947. Just read the article and you'll understand why this got posted so quickly. 1.39.61.245 (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've added another blurb which could be used. Cheers! Jim Carter 04:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support for blurb. However... I must join some of the other editors who have expressed concern about the speed with which this was posted. The same thing pretty much happened with Jules Bianchi. And unlike the current nom which does not appear controversial, the Bianchi one was. Had more time been allowed for comments I doubt it would have been accepted for posting as a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting concerns this blurb was posted within an hour, and while he is clearly a notable individual, we need to avoid this kind of knee-jerk posting of blurbs, particularly as the death wasn't remarkable or unexpected. Add to that the use of an unprotected image on the main page for a while, and, well... messy. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    Accepted that it was a slightly quick decision on posting the blurb - It was primarily because the subject/said person was non-controversial, snowballing support so far, this side of the world was heading to sleep; and a very notable world figure, a very popular President to approximately one-fifth of world's population at a time. Again, with all due respect to regulars at ITN, Point taken. -- Tinu Cherian - 08:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    I do agree that we may have waited a bit longer for creating consensus; as for the death 'needs' to be unexpected and remarkable - most of the deaths are unexpected (if you discount old age and other medical problems - only surefire way to expect a death is if a person is being hanged or someone is at a hospice), Dr. Kalam was 83 yrs old, but his health seems to be ok for the age, so we may argue that the death was unexpected. Describing 'remarkable' is bit more difficult, lets say it has to be something out of ordinary, so a person's death in a car crash might be considered remarkable, Dr. Kalam died while giving a lecture, so we may argue that the circumstances surrounding his death was out of ordinary, hence remarkable (or at least different than supermajority of other deaths). Legaleagle86 (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Can we please use 'passed away' instead of 'dies'. 'Dies'seems to trivialise the context. --Lahariyaniyathi (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Bobbi Kristina BrownEdit

SNOW close; notability is not inherited; she was not yet notable on her own. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 27 July 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: Bobbi Kristina Brown (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Extensive coverage of family life, coma and death. Thechased (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Subject does not meet ITNDC standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Only "notable" for being Whitney Houston's daughter; probably shouldn't even have an article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sad as it is, it's tabloid fodder. Not notable for accomplishments, notable for her parents. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not notable enough to meet ITN's RD criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Stale, she died 178 days ago. Abductive (reasoning) 06:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I considered nominating this death, but she really is only a celebrity because of her parentage. Doesn't meet notability criteria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose and SNOW close, tragic yet not ITN material. Not notable enough for RD and her death simply isn't blurb worthy. 94.197.121.179 (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose - being the daughter of a former singer turned junky is not notable. sorry.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:39, 27 July 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.

July 26Edit


[Posted] RD: Flora MacDonaldEdit

Article: Flora MacDonald (politician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CBC News Cape Breton Post The Globe and Mail

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

Nominator's comments: A trailblazer in Canadian politics. Canada's first female foreign minister, recognized with civilian honors at home and abroad (including the Order of Canada), and key player in the Canadian Caper (dramatized a couple of years ago in the film Argo). Kudzu1 (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose almost no cabinet-level ministers ever get posted, including US House Speakers, who are third in line for the Presidency. A much better rationale is needed. μηδείς (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, the fact that she was the first woman to serve as Canada's foreign minister (a position with international prominence, by its very nature) elevates her above being a run-of-the-mill cabinet official. Her national and international honors are also highly noteworthy. There are fewer than 150 living Companions of the Order of Canada, and it's not every day that one of them dies. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't think your nomination is in bad faith, Kudzu1, but I think "first woman to ex" is about as patronizing and meaningless as one can get at this point, given we've had lesbian PM's, and US supreme court justices and VP and presidential candidates. Merkel, for goshsakes. The implication is that there's some reason why we should not expect female office holders. That's sexist in the extreme. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Which is great, but MacDonald became FM back in 1979, way before the rise of Angela Merkel or Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir or even Madeleine Albright. She was a trailblazer for women in Canadian politics, and pretty much every news story and obituary I'm seeing now makes reference to that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
          • Or Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Eva Peron, Golda Meir, Queen Victoria, Katherine the Great, Joan of Arc, Catherine de Medici, Cleopatra, or Elizabeth I? I suggest a long hot bath with some bubbles, a cat, aromatherapy candles, and a copy of Sexual Personae. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support I find Kudzu1's argument convincing. Lots of honors (or "honours", as they say up north), in addition to the position. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - One of the first women... Great accomplishment. This is the RD nomination, not the blurb nomination. Just name her in the front page, and you attract readers. George Ho (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • On the question of firsts: The Globe and Mail notes that she was "the first woman in the western world to serve as foreign minister". Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Not only is this special pleading (Indira Gandhi was a PM of india in the 60's) it's also simply false, as Golda Meir was a foreign minister before McDonald, as well as an Israeli PM before MacDonald was an FM. μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Adding to that, even if you don't consider Israel as part of the "western world" (the definition varies depending on where you are) it's still demonstrably untrue, since Karin Söder's stint as FM of Sweden also predated MacDonald's. (The first female FM of a major country in the modern era would be Ana Pauker in Romania, 1947–53.) – iridescent 08:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It seems to me that MacDonald meets the second death criterion by being a person who had a significant impact on, or made a significant contribution to, Canada. Neljack (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support While somewhat on the border of DC2 based on her impact in Canada, the good quality of the article pushes this toward something worth posting. SpencerT♦C 16:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Marking ready – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD Conceding that cabinet level officials don't usually make the cut for RD, her unique place in history makes a compelling case for an exception. (Oppose blurb if one is proposed.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted RD. SpencerT♦C 17:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Chris Froome wins the 2015 Tour De FranceEdit

Articles: 2015 Tour de France (talk, history) and Chris Froome (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the 2015 Tour de France, Christopher Froome (pictured) wins his second race
Alternative blurb: ​In cycling, Chris Froome wins his second Tour de France title.

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.

Nominator's comments: ITNR Torqueing (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Pending updates. Both articles in great shape. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    Tour article needs to be "past tensified" but otherwise I'd agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I came here to nominate so of course I support. Have been working on 2015 Tour de France for a GAN. I've just sorted the tenses and will do the lead and other bits and bobs. Change Christopher to Chris though. BaldBoris 19:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    Hence the alt blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, first time here. BaldBoris 20:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
No stress, see next comment... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted excellent work on the race article, this is a gold-standard example of an ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Mexico win the CONCACAF Gold CupEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 18:45, 29 July 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 CONCACAF Gold Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Mexico national football team win the 2015 CONCACAF Gold Cup, defeating Jamaica 3–1 in the final.
Alternative blurb: ​In soccer, Mexico win their seventh CONCACAF Gold Cup title.
News source(s): Sports Illustrated, Reuters (UK)
 TheBigJagielka (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Regional tournament; not the highest level of competition in the sport. Coverage also seems limited. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Was not posted in 2013 (Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/July_2013#.5BClosed.5D_2013_CONCACAF_Gold_Cup), undetermined for 2009 and 2007 (used Ctr+F "Concacaf" to find the discussions), but doesn't look like it was either then. SpencerT♦C 16:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I didn't see anything about this in the US news even though it is hosted here. If this was every 4 years might manage to be notable enough. Nergaal (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: BBC didn't report on this until the final, although they had wall-to-wall reports on Africa Cup of Nations and Copa América. That shows its appeal to the wider world '''tAD''' (talk) 22:21, 28 July 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.

July 25Edit


July 24Edit


RD: Ingrid SischyEdit

Article: Ingrid Sischy (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Vanity Fair The 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: Fashion and art critic for decades for several prominent publications, including The New Yorker, Interview Magazine, and Vanity Fair. Certainly appears to have been at the top of her field. Kudzu1 (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak support not a bad shout for notability, pretty poor article, but overall can't oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support - this should be posted.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
"Weak Support" means this should be posted. You don't give a reason. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Having worked in the gay press at the time she was at the New Yorker covering AIDS I can assure you there were dozens of names more prominent. I don't actively oppose this being posted, but I don't see any compelling reasons why it should be either. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Merely mentioning her name is good enough to prevent another obituary blurb, which would have been opposed if not for the "Recent deaths" ticker. Well sourced, writing decent (if not good), and well accomplished as a journalist. Then again, readers may not be familiar with this person, but at least featuring her name in the front page will attract most curious ones. George Ho (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I am removing the ready, since the net consensus here is two week supports, and two supporting editors have commented on the poor writing. I could just as easily have closed this with my oppose yesterday. A nice overhaul of the article would certainly improve the nomination, but I don't think we should be posting out of acquiescence to "meh"s. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Though claims are made that she is an influential figure in her field as a published artist of long experience - the article seems to be largely a bullet list of places she worked, without really explaining her connections or influence, beyond a vague mention in the lead. My opinion is that the article could use a very thorough re-write by someone familiar with the community and the subject alike. Challenger l (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Hulk HoganEdit

Closing hopeless, if good faith nomination. μηδείς (talk) 20:01, 25 July 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: Hulk Hogan (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The WWE terminates Hulk Hogan's contract after a video revealing Hogan going into a racial tirade was leaked.
News source(s): http://www.rollingstone.com/sports/news/hulk-hogan-fired-by-wwe-over-racial-tirade-20150724
Nominator's comments: One of the most iconic wrestlers of all time gets the can by the organization that made him a star. Also making big headlines across the world. RowingHorseman (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Let's not sink the ITN lower than it might have been. --George Ho (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. This isn't remotely ITN-worthy, not by any measure. Challenger l (talk) 19:25, 25 July 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] Change Turkey blurbEdit

Articles: 2015 Suruç bombing#Aftermath (talk, history) and Military_intervention_against_ISIL#July_2015_Turkish_airstrike (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Following an explosion in Suruç that killed 32 people and injured more than 100 others, Turkey launches airstrikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
Alternative blurb: ​Following a suicide bombing in Suruç that killed 32 people and injured more than 100 others, Turkey launches airstrikes against ISIL.
Alternative blurb II: ​After a suicide bombing in Suruç that killed 32 people, Turkey launches airstrikes against ISIL and Kurdistan Workers Party camps in Iraq.
Alternative blurb III: ​After a suicide bombing in Suruç that killed 32 people, Turkey launches airstrikes and police raids against ISIL and the Kurdistan Workers' Party.
News source(s): Guardian, CNN, Reuters.

First article updated, second needs updating

Nominator's comments: The airstrikes article still needs updating. We could also just put ISIL back to Ongoing. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Turkey finally intervening in the Syrian/Iraqi conflict is important considering they are a regional power. I also think we should wait for more information on the reported PKK air strikes and the potential breaking of the ceasefire and maybe mention that as well. Jeanluc20 (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This is also major development in Turkish-Kurdish conflict, which shoud be included within blurb. --Jenda H. (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I am open to that, but the blurb will probably get quite long then? Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • SupportAltblurb II including Kurds offered above. Source footnoted in article, which alas mentions these developments only in the concluding Aftermath section. Sca (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support switching to alt-blurb II per Sca, but oppose changing the date. It's still at the top of the ITN news feed. It is possible that this could be the beginning of a serious escalation in Turkish military action. If so we may want to consider an ongoing nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb important developments - the involvement against the PKK is noteworthy, and has implications for US led efforts against ISIS and the interaction of the US with the YPG/PKK.-- Callinus (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd be ready to post this soon, but would Turkey–ISIL_conflict#July_2015_conflict be a better link for the new bolded article on the airstrikes? The article itself is more directly relevant, fairly comprehensive and well referenced, and has information that seems to be being updated daily. --Jayron32 16:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That article seems to have a very strongly anti-Turkish slant. -- Callinus (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • How so? Can you explain and give examples? --Jayron32 17:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • See my change here. That was one of the more notable examples. -- Callinus (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The Operation Martyr Yalçın article is fairly new and currently undeveloped, but I'm developing it as quick as I can. Nub Cake (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Update: The article, I think is now up to an appropriate standard to go into ITN. Nub Cake (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, NATO has now held an emergency meeting on the issue. This event has reached a different magnitude of importance and I'm of the view that we should be posting a new entry entirely. Nub Cake (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support only airstrikes blurb - The airstrikes article is ready, but the police raids page has one issue, which I tagged. George Ho (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted ALT2. It would be helpful in the future if a particular blurb is identified as "ready" for posting, since in this case there were 4 blurbs and 2 bolded articles under consideration. Thanks, SpencerT♦C 18:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The "police raids" story was proposed, so I wrote down "Airstrikes only". George Ho (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Burundian presidential election, 2015Edit

Article: Burundian presidential election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: Pierre Nkurunziza is re-elected president of Burundi in a disputed election that was boycotted by Nkurunziza's rivals.
Alternative blurb: Pierre Nkurunziza is re-elected president of Burundi, marking his third term.
Alternative blurb II: Pierre Nkurunziza is re-elected president of Burundi, whose third-term is disputed.
Alternative blurb III: Pierre Nkurunziza is re-elected president of Burundi in a controversial election.
News source(s): Reuters New York Times Al Jazeera

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: My understanding is that this is ITNR because Burundi is on the page List of sovereign states, as required by Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Elections_and_Heads_of_State. However, given the controversial nature of the election regarding whether Nkurunziza was eligible to run for a third term, I think we should mention the election's disputed nature in the blurb. Everymorning talk 20:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support I agree that for NPOV reasons we should mention the disputed nature of the election. Neljack (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This ITNR election is especially interesting due to its disputed nature. Mamyles (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once the article is ready. However I would caution that we on ITN have generally avoided making references to controversy in blurbs about elections. Some very hinky elections have gone through with just a bland statement about the official results. I vaguely recall supporting a similar suggestion about an obviously bogus election somewhere or other and getting shot down. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I wish to reiterate that I have serious NPOV reservations about the blurb which does not appear consistent with normal practice on ITN. We do not generally add cometary about controversies to blurbs about elections.-Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Added altblurb to your pleasure. George Ho (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
That works. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Well I have serious NPOV reservations about the altblurb. The original blurb is entirely factual - the election was disputed and boycotted by opposition rivals. Failing to reflect that in the blurb would fail to reflect the various points of view on the election. As is evident from the news coverage, reliable sources are prominently featuring the fact that the election was boycotted. We are not putting commentary in the blurb - that would be if we said something like "in an unfair election" - we are making factual statements about the election being disputed and boycotted. Neljack (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alternative blurb. --bender235 (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • SupportAltblurb III. (Grammar: In Altblurb II, "whose" refers to Burundi, not to Nkurunziza.) Sca (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support we posted the coup attempt. -- Callinus (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted a completely neutral and factual blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @David Levy: Can we update the picture to the Burundian President? With the new captioning system, it's gotten more technical to do so. Maybe on the instructions page here we can list admins who are comfortable updating pics? That may be useful so we know who to contact when it is needed. --Jayron32 16:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    I've already added it to the media protection page here, just waiting for Kinklebot to sort it and then we can list it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    In fact, already protected (Krinklebot seems to work on new material within 15 minutes, which is better than heaping all this on poor old David, especially since he kindly set this alt-method up for us), so I've replaced the image. Only thing is that the width of 120 was way to wide, so I set it down to 100, not sure if that was appropriate.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    Looks good. Thanks! --Jayron32 17:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    Shouldn't the blurb say "(pictured)" after Nkurunziza's name? Everymorning talk 19:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    Pictures now have captions. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    Looks good. Sca (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    We are no longer encouraged to place (pictured) in the blurb (although this is the second time in quick succession that it has been noted that its absence is confusing...... the irony) as we have the grotesque captions that received some consensus somewhere, I can't point you to it because I never saw a clear indication of such a discussion. It just happened. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Anthem Inc. buying CignaEdit

No consensus to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 27 July 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: Anthem Inc. (talk, history) and Cigna (talk, history)
Blurb: Anthem Inc. announces that it has reached a deal to buy Cigna in a deal valued at at least $48 billion.
News source(s): Wall Street Journal New York Times Reuters
Nominator's comments: Aside from the large amount of money involved (estimates range from 48 to 54 billion USD), the Reuters link above tells us that this deal will create "the largest U.S. health insurer by membership." Everymorning talk 14:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If this does run, it needs some kind of explanation as to what makes this significant. I consider myself fairly well-informed, and have never heard of either of these companies. – iridescent 15:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose yet another consolidation during bad economic times. They will fire middle managers and there will be one less choice available in American health insurance carriers. No innovation, no impact outside America. μηδείς (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • support - significant enough for inclusion,--BabbaQ (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unlike the merger between Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky (discussion still open below), this one is unlikely to have really significant ramifications to its broader industry/sector. Not every big merger is ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:40, 24 July 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.

July 23Edit


[Closed] RD: Aung ThaungEdit

no move toward support μηδείς (talk) 00:34, 27 July 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: Aung Thaung (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY Times Myanmar 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: Although Burmese-centric, one of influential Burmese politicians involved in only domestic affairs. Well-sourced. Obviously notable, but I hope he is on top of field. George Ho (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: No apparent significance outside of his home country. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Article is mostly about his alleged links to political provocateurs and allegations of corruption. All of this is referenced to political sources that seem difficult to evaluate as to reliability. May not meet the BLP test. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Does not appear to have been one of the leaders of his nation, significant only in corruption and human rights violation allegations. Doesn't meet the RD criteria. Challenger l (talk) 17:52, 26 July 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] LaFayette Grand Theatre shootingEdit

SNOW Close. SpencerT♦C 18:11, 24 July 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 Lafayette shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A shooting at the Grand Theatre movie theater in Lafayette, Louisiana results in the deaths of 3 people, including the shooter, and 9 injuries.
News source(s): NOLA, BBC
Nominator's comments: Might as well throw this one out there. WaltCip (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While an unfortunate event, it does not have the scale to be posted to ITN. It also sadly is not that unusual these days. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I think the fact that it's no longer considered unusual is rather unusual in itself.--WaltCip (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Looks like The Smoking Man, otherwise random murder suicide of no grander importance. μηδείς (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose just another day, another three deaths to add to the 7,000+ so far this year in American due to gun crime. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it disgusting how stories like this continue to happen despite all the public outcry?--WaltCip (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but this isn't a place to right wrongs. It's simply not newsworthy, tomorrow it will be completely forgotten about. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Somebody needs to right these great wrongs. I agree ITN isn't the place to do it but I hate that these shootings keep happening and that the powers that be stop us from doing anything to stop the next one. </rant> – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I think most of the civilised world think it's disgusting that this is allowed, nay encouraged, by the free and easy gun laws in the US. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
There were 14 reported murder-suicides in the U.S. from July 17-23. And our elected politicians are doing nothing about it, save a few who are being stymied by the majority. Gun nuts even made Buzzfeed back down today. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - still major shooting. Have received national and international attention.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - It's basically minor relative to all gun-based murders in the US on an annual basis but the notion that it was at a public shooting is something of some weight. But still a minor story and unfortunately all too common. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    Most of the 7,000+ deaths by firearm so far this year in the US have happened in public, that this happened in a cinema is nothing novel nor newsworthy given the regularity of this kind of event. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Another day, another mass shooting in the United States. Barring a high body count, terrorist motives, or something else that really sets it apart, these events are sadly becoming too common to be constantly posted on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • can this be snowclosed already? Nergaal (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I've no objection to snowclosing it. I mainly just wanted to gauge the response that items like this will get for reference for future nominations.--WaltCip (talk) 17:58, 24 July 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] Kepler-452bEdit

Articles: Kepler (spacecraft) (talk, history) and Kepler-452b (talk, history)
Blurb: Kepler finds Kepler-452b, the smallest planet discovered so far orbiting in a circumstellar habitable zone.
Alternative blurb: ​The Kepler space telescope discovers Kepler-452b, the smallest planet yet found in a habitable zone.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Kepler space telescope discovers Kepler-452b, the smallest planet discovered so far orbiting the habitable zone of a star similar to the Sun.
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: It seems they have found the most Earth-like planet so far. Hektor talk 16:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support on suitable article improvements. This is very interesting news that is getting a decent amount of coverage. I would however strongly suggest that the primary link be to the newly created article on the actual planet once it is ready (it's currently a work in progress). -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the most Earth-like exoplanet yet found is obviously a great discovery. Thue (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support after article improved. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Fairly routine exoplanet discovery. Many similar worlds have been found, and very many more will be found. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    • So can you point out another similar world which has been discovered? Thue (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Sure: Kepler-438b, which actually ranks as more Earthlike than Kepler-452b. More listed at Earth Similarity Index. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Well, that one is circling a red dwarf. I think it is noteworthy that we found the first earth-like world in the habital zone around a Sun-like star. Thue (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I would prefer an improvement on the current article before posting this. With a surface gravity of 2G is not really that much Earth-like. Nergaal (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kudzu1. Another planet just like this was found earlier this year. This type of discovery is now rather routine. Mamyles (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. While not an expert in this field, I'm a bit concerned that due to the planet's mass, it could be a toxic volcanic world with an atmosphere like that of Venus. However, we must stick to what the media writes about this, and they have declared it to be the first Earth like planet in the right place that would potentially allow life to exist within the same sorts of constraints as exist here on Earth. Count Iblis (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Question is it a sun-like star which making this discovery special? --Jenda H. (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    • It's the combination of the Sun-like star that has the same sort of properties like our own Sun, the fact that the planet is not much smaller or much larger than Earth, the fact that it orbits at a distance where the energy from its Sun will warm it so that water can exist in a liquid form. Count Iblis (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely newsworthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support fascinating news getting coverage even during the hourly minute news summary on the car radio today. μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support although I'd like to see the blurb tweaked a little, perhaps just to say that the first Kepler is a space observatory. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support although as The Rambling Man mentioned, it would be a good idea to modify the blurb to "The Kepler space telescope discovers Kepler-452b, the smallest planet yet found in the habitable zone." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wer902 (talkcontribs) 22:23, 23 July 2015‎ (UTC)
  • Support, but there a billions of stars in this galaxy, so please correct it to state "... orbiting a circumstellar habitable zone". Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Not ready: Blurb is inaccurate, as Kepler-438b is a smaller planet in its star's habitable zone. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Added an altblurb to clarify that this is an earth-like planet around a sun-like star. Stephen 05:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Not Ready: The article needs some editing, then I would support the Alternate Blurb or Wer902's proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutster (talkcontribs) 07:10, 24 July 2015‎ (UTC)
What kind of editing? Which part needs to be improved? George Ho (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Just want to reiterate that only Alt Blurb II is accurate. This is neither the smallest planet in the habitable zone, nor the most habitable. Mamyles (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I have modified the altblurb to remove circumstellar as redundant given "around" and "star" are already there. μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Attention needed: As discussed above, the blurb that was posted is not accurate. There have been smaller planets discovered orbiting within the hypothetical habitable zones of their stars, the difference being that those stars (unlike Kepler-452) are not Sun-like. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, the "similar to the sun" phrase can't accurately be ommitted. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment please take issues to ERRORS. Also, before marking ready, please ensure a "ready" blurb has been agreed upon. Sorry for posting something that wasn't accurate, but this nomination is a bit of a mess of blurb suggestions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

July 22Edit


[Closed] China returns Ai Weiwei's passportEdit

No real reason to continue this debate which is almost wholesale in its rejection of the proposal. Once again, DYK seems an appropriate alternative. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 23 July 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: Ai Weiwei (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Chinese artist Ai Weiwei is returned his passport, four years after it was seized by government authorities.
News source(s): The Guardian NPR CNN
Nominator's comments: It seems we posted when he was detained and had his passport seized in April 2011, so now that he has gotten it back it seems significant as well. Everymorning talk 19:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think the passport was the defining issue. I guess hundreds, if not thousands of people get their passport returned to them every month. No big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per RTM. Passport problems are not generally ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    Rambling The Man? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Well sometimes you do go on a bit... ;-) -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, it's all about obfuscation.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support huge in the news when this happened, but doesn't seem to be getting reported on much in the West. A good update might make the case. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh good, totalitarianism over. Sarcasm aside, I don't think this is significant/notable enough to be posted, so I'll oppose. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm assuming this was nominated because of its political significance rather than "man receives passport". Unfortunately, I'm not seeing what political impact this event has. Fuebaey (talk) 16:15, 23 July 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] Birmingham Quran manuscriptEdit

overwhelming math μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 23 July 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: Birmingham Quran manuscript (talk, history)
Blurb: A Quranic manuscript in the collection of the University of Birmingham is identified as one of the oldest to survive.
News source(s): BBC, CNN; Guardian; NYT; many others.
  • Support as nominator. Note that the article has a PD image. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tiny article with a grand total of three references. --Tocino 14:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Tocino, but screams for a great DYK nomination, which this is best suited for. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose DYK will pick up that hook. -- Callinus (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is getting good international coverage in mainstream news media. The size of the article is unimportant; it's big enough. The image is the main attraction and the close-up would make a good replacement for the picture of Jules Bianchi who's been getting far too much attention for someone who never won a single F1 race. Andrew D. (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, no indication that the text is in any way different or of interest to scholars. Age established by only one method—radiocarbon dating—means over-reliance on a primary source. Abductive (reasoning) 16:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - agree that this would make a great DYK but doesn't seem to be sufficiently big a deal for ITN even if the article was GA quality. Pedro :  Chat  17:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree that there would be something here if this version differed from the commonly used Quran, or provided something that theologians could study. But, this is just an old copy, so hooray it survived, but it's not really fit for ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not the Dead Sea Scrolls or similar, which actually are of value to academics; all this non-story is is "book was written at about the time we thought it was written". – iridescent 18:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This really isn't ITN material. That said, I agree with the suggestions above, this would be a great DYK candidate. I suggest the discussion be closed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's a DYK. The proposed image, considering it's only a suggested oldest Quran, is mildly interesting, but nothing more, and certainly doesn't bolster the reason to post this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 22 July 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.

July 21Edit


[Closed] RD: Nicholas Gonzalez (physician)Edit

Clear consensus against posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 25 July 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: Nicholas Gonzalez (physician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Official website
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 alternative medicine physicians considered to be fraudulent and dangerous. He faced lawsuits. George Ho (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Not top of his field, in fact, from a read of his bio appears to be the bottom of his field, without any lasting impact aside from the damage caused by his "alternative cancer treatments". Reminds me of a less funny Dr. Nick. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose given no one has even nominated this. μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Random quack doctor whose death wasn't even reported by any sources aside from his own website. Muboshgu's comparison to Dr. Nick seems an apt one. Challenger l (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per preceding comments. This does not even come close to meeting ITN guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:33, 25 July 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] World Santa Claus Congress starts in DenmarkEdit

Closing per WP:SNOW. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:58, 22 July 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: Santa Claus (talk, history)
Blurb: ​World Santa Claus Congress starts in Denmark
News source(s): ABC

Article needs updating
 Count Iblis (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose No article for the event. @User:Count Iblis, with all due respect, is this a serious nomination? If so, you may want to include nominator rationale for explaining the event's notability. SpencerT♦C 16:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I hope it's more professional and less annoying than SantaCon. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am assuming the nomination was made in good faith, but this is so far removed from ITN standards that I would normally expect it on April 1st. I think it's about to snow. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:SNOW, no target, fluff news -- Callinus (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support What are we, Grinches? Should probably wait for the formal report on the conservation status of Abominable Snowmen, though. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 22 July 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: E. L. DoctorowEdit

Article: E. L. Doctorow (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times, BBC, Vanity Fair, Time

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

Nominator's comments: Famous. Abductive (reasoning) 01:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose solely for some referencing issues. Would support if references were fixed, clearly important enough to his field and a recognizable name. --Jayron32 01:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD conditional on article improvement. Clearly rings the RD bell. (Oppose blurb if one is proposed.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on article improvements Subject is notable, but needs more sourcing and the lead is short. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. Definitely notable - but the article is in need of a lot of work. Challenger l (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is woefully under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Widely known and respected U.S. novelist, with the article covering the key facts. --Light show (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Referencing should be solid now, or at least, I'm not seeing anything glaring that would prevent this from being posted. Notability of the subject is established through critical acclaim, cultural currency, and a boatload of awards and honors. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    I've tagged a bunch of completely unreferenced paragraphs in an attempt to help updaters avoid violating BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    Those issues appear to have been addressed, and the intro has been significantly expanded. Is there anything at this point that should hold up posting? -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    No, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Theodore BikelEdit

Article: Theodore Bikel (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): New York Times; http://bnonews.com/news/index.php/news/id933

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Important US actor and folk musician. Strongly identified with the role of Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof. Co-founder of the Newport Folk Festival. And he was Lt. Worf's adoptive dad. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support on article update/improvements - I think the bar for importance is there (I'm looking at the Austrian medal of honor in the arts as a prime demonstration), but the article is lacking in inline citations and has tense issues. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose based solely on article quality/referencing inadequacy. Would support if the referencing was brought up to standard, clearly a major figure. --Jayron32 01:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on article improvements Subject is notable. I'll work on the article tomorrow. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

*Support. Article looks clearly sourced now - definitely both well-known and remembered as well as influential. Challenger l (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose article is under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Long, distinguished career; influential in music, film and theater. (Target article now contains 41 refs.) Sca (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    It's never the absolute number of refs, you know that. BLPs need all claims that are contentious, such as marriages, children, releases etc, to be cited. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support there are a few claims which need references, the primary sources which name an episode or album, and the tv show or publisher and date are primary sources. I have hidden a few items that say he was uncredited--those need sources. The man himself was important in three fields, acting, singing/voice, and activism. μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment just claiming that a source isn't needed because a "title", "publisher" etc are supplied is entirely inadequate for a BLP. More sources are required if those claims remain in the article. There seems little doubt that the individual is notable, it's just that his article is full of unreferenced and unverifiable claims, despite other opinions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Two refs to NYT obit added. Sca (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    Great, if you can address the remaining unreferenced and unverifiable material, we're good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
There are six unrefed entries in the discography, out of 40. At this point   my inclination would be to delete them. Sca (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Three remaining unrefed discography items deleted; marked as ready. Sca (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted not perfect, but good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

July 20Edit


[Closed] Philip II remains identifiedEdit

This doesn't look like it's going anywhere. No apparent effort to get the article up to ITN standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 27 July 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: Philip II of Macedon (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The remains in Tomb I at Vergina are conclusively identified as those of Philip II of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great.
News source(s): PNAS, IB Times

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I've updated the section in Philip, but the article currently has one orange tag. The authors of the study write it's "conclusive", while previous suggestions were uncertain. Brandmeistertalk 11:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Feels like a good DYK though. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - after is sourced and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support conditional on significant article improvement. It really needs work. That said, I think the subject is ITN worthy. It can't always be bloodshed and massacres. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support: Wouldn't be a bad DYK, but it's something that just happened (as opposed to a process, like in Timbuktu, that is just now getting play in international media), it involves a very prominent figure in European history, and it's been a bit of a slow news week. Of course, the article must be brought up to Wikipedia standards before posting... -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when article is adequate. I can remember nominating the findings of the remains of the substantially "younger" Miguel de Cervantes, which was pulled for lack of references '''tAD''' (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Seems like a significant story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article has serious WP:V problems, evidenced by the bright orange maintenance tag at the top of the page. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 24 July 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] Death of Sandra Bland in police custody to be investigated as murderEdit

No consensus to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Death of Sandra Bland (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Texas authorities announce they will investigate the death of activist Sandra Bland in police custody as a possible murder.
News source(s): [8]

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: Sandra Bland's death has been all over the news and social media, and the coverage appears to be increasing. --Darouet (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • weak oppose. I think we'd normally post the results of an investigation (and the outcome of any criminal proceedings) rather than an announcement that an investigation will happen. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose notice this is not an indictment or even a coroner finding of homicide as opposed to suicide, but just an announcement that the police will investigate it as a bossible murder. There's absolutely no basis for posting this on such preliminary grounds. μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Significant to the Bland case, not yet significant enough for ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Individual cases like this are not important enough for ITN unless they're USSC material. (98.180.69.27 (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC))
  • Oppose per my comment at the AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:52, 21 July 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] Lockheed Martin to acquire SikorskyEdit

This doesn't appear to be going anywhere and no discernible effort has been made to improve the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:37, 25 July 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: Lockheed Martin (talk, history) and Sikorsky Aircraft (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American defense contractor Lockheed Martin agrees to purchase Sikorsky Aircraft for US$9 billion.
News source(s): [9]

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Not the largest price tag, and I'm aware of ITN's usual stance on business news and acquisitions, but I feel this is an interesting story involving two notable companies; Lockheed Martin, in particular, is an absolute giant in the defense and aerospace industries. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support once the article is updated and the relevant section expanded beyond the current one sentence. I would also suggest adjusting the link so it goes to the applicable section of a rather long article. The merger has considerable significance in the military and defense related industry. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Striking my "weak" in favor of full support per Medeis' comment below. This is more significant than I had realized. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per Ad Orientem. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Major business news, especially considering the history. Sikorsky was a pioneer in helicopters and has quite the pedigree. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The source article explains its an acquisition based on a shrinking domestic market, one that will not result in the creation (as opposed to simple purchase) or a new product stream, and one that threatens 17,000 middle management jobs. I do suggest reading the article, and the picture at the top is quite cool, I am using it as my wallpaper. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't know; the agreement deal is explained in just one sentence in each page. George Ho (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support because for those who know aviation well are bound to vote support as the pair are two of the most major aircraft manufacturers. This news is just as major as Boeing buying McDonnell Douglas in 1997. Donnie Park (talk) 20:27, 23 July 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.

2015 Open ChampionshipEdit

Article: 2015 Open Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, Zach Johnson wins the 2015 Open Championship
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: ITN/R and one of golf's four major championships. Article has had the result updated and a brief prose update but could do with more prose, particularly for the third and fourth rounds. Bcp67 (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  • not yet ready only the second round has more than a sentence of prose. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • support - when ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when ready per recurring. Curiously, I thought Johnson was young and new as I had never heard his name on the radio. How wrong I was '''tAD''' (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: The update is sufficient to post. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment no, it's really not. Barely a couple of short sentences for the third and fourth day reports, given this was one of the most exciting Opens for decades, we should easily be able to write a couple of good and referenced paragraphs. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] UN unanimously approves Iran nuclear dealEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 14:05, 23 July 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: Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United Nations Security Council unanimously approves the agreement between the P5+1 countries and Iran regarding its nuclear program.
News source(s): Reuters

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Not all UN resolutions are Wikinewsworthy, right? Out of all UN resolutions, this would affect the US Congress's ability to reject the deal with Iran. George Ho (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose We have already posted about the main agreement which we knew was/is going to be hugely controversial. This is just the beginning of a lot of news that is going to surround the fight over this agreement. Congress is going to have a fit over this, and there are reports that the Iranians may try to amend the agreement or reject parts of it. I doubt this belongs on ITN, but if it does it should be in ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Say "support 'Ongoing'" then because I believe there will be updates over this if you like. George Ho (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose blurb/weak support for ongoing per my comment above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This was part of the deal, which we posted the agreement to. If this had not passed, it might be notable, but the deal wouldn't have been made unless the parties agreed this would occur. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm neutral on Ongoing; I'm not sure there will be regular, incremental updates to this, but I'm not sure there won't be either. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support either as news item or as ongoing - there have been decades of tension between the U.S. and Iran, and this particular negotiation is the outcome of over ten years of international negotiation, so the outcome is notable. -Darouet (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 331dot. This still has to get Senate approval. That would have been the correct time to post this in any case. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Just another step in the process. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Medeis and Kudzu1: What about "ongoing" then? George Ho (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose ongoing. Abductive (reasoning) 01:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I think ongoing is unnecessary. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The hard part is presently posted. Abductive (reasoning) 01:40, 22 July 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.

[Withdrawn] RD: Fred ElseEdit

WITHDRAWN:
--George Ho (talk) 06:07, 21 July 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: Fred Else (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ITV

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: Had a long football career as a goalkeeper. George Ho (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Based on the article, he doesn't look like he comes anywhere close to meeting the death criteria. "Long career" doesn't necessarily equate to "very important". --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bongwarrior. Not close to the top of his field. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No awards, seems to have had a long sub-par career. Does not seem noteworthy. Challenger l (talk) 05:54, 21 July 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: Alex RoccoEdit

Consensus appears to be against posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:09, 20 July 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: Alex Rocco (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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: Actor from The Godfather who later won a Comedy Emmy. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am not seeing him as particularly influential. A single Emmy win for Best Supporting Actor back in 1990. I don't think he quite meets the bar, here. Challenger l (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't see how he meets the RD criteria; how is he "very important" to acting? 331dot (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support instantly recognizable face and voice with a long, respectable career, just not a household name. μηδείς (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose He was in the greatest movie of all time, but not much else over the course of his career. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Giving a polite nod to the Emmy, I don't think it is enough on its own to meet RD requirements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose far from important in his field, just because he was "popular" and people in America recognise him, that doesn't mean he's RD standard by any means. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 20 July 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] Suruç, Turkey explosionEdit

Article: 2015 Suruç bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: A bombing, allegedly initiated by Islamic State militants in Suruç, Turkey, kills at least 31 people and injures over 100.
Alternative blurb: An explosion in the Turkish district of Suruç, Şanlıurfa, kills at least 31 people and injures over 100.
News source(s): BBC, RT, The Guardian

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: A major terrorist incident with casualties expected to rise significantly as the event progresses. Nub Cake (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support article could use a little clean up and inevitably will expand as the news filters through, I would say it's almost good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Clean the article a bit first, it's not confirmed from the Islamic State yet (Decentman12 (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC))
Update: It's almost certain now that it was Islamic State. Nub Cake (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Brief target article seems OK, but suggest it mention involvement of local Kurds – or at least their predominance in Suruç. Sca (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I've added some information in the new 'Background' section of the article. Nub Cake (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Sca (talk)
  • Support altblurb - we posted the Kobani massacre, this border incident is related with the group planning to cross the border. -- Callinus (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2015 (U
  • Wait - Article still needs some minor improvements (citations, prose) G8j!qKb (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a notable event with significant potential ramifications (this could nudge Turkey into a more active role against ISIL). -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I think there are four {{citation needed}}s in there, so fix those, and we're good to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Update: I've fixed them. Most of them were unnecessary and were already dealt with in other citations elsewhere, but I've still added sources from different reliable news sites. Nub Cake (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - another notable and horrific muslim terrorist attack.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked ReadySca (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, secondary sources indicate that it represents a dangerous new escalation. ISIS had avoided antagonizing Turkey (until now). Abductive (reasoning) 18:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Update: The Rambling Man: The number of deaths seems to be finalised at 32 (though may increase if injuries prove to be fatal), and injuries at 104. Is it possible to alter the blurb to reflect this information, such as 'A bombing in the Turkish district of Suruç, Şanlıurfa Province, kills at least 32 people and injures 104.' Thanks. Nub Cake (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Nub Cake: this has been done, but for future reference the best place to ask for this sort of update is WP:ERRORS. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Cuba and United States restore diplomatic tiesEdit

Articles: Cuba–United States relations (talk, history) and Cuban Thaw (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States and Cuba restore full diplomatic relations after 54 years.
Alternative blurb: ​The United States and Cuba restore full diplomatic relations after 54 years.
News source(s): The Miami Herald The Associated Press

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: Consensus a couple weeks ago was to wait until the embassies were reestablished, and that has now been done. Major milestone that ends one of the world's longest-standing diplomatic freezes. Kudzu1 (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Yep - this is an obvious one. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Both need updating; I added the 2nd article. George Ho (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Of all the recent US/Cuba events, this seems like the one that assures that the thaw is complete. --MASEM (t) 05:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - An important milestone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - We posted the decision to renew ties in December, and we posted the removal from the state sponsors of terrorism list in April. While this is an important milestone, it does feel like this is just another step in an ongoing story that we have already covered, and perhaps not worth posting again. After all, we posted when they announced they were going to normalize ties, so I'm not sure there is a need to also post when they follow through with it. On the other hand, if the Cuban embargo were actually lifted, then that would be a good reason for posting again. But resolving the embargo requires US congressional action, and does not seem likely to happen soon. Dragons flight (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Historical EV. Sca (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely an historic event. Resolving some of the last unfinished business from the cold war. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and marked as ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely newsworthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted ALT blurb. SpencerT♦C 17:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

July 19Edit


[Posted] RD: Galina ProzumenshchikovaEdit

Article: Galina Prozumenshchikova (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): SwimSwam Expressen BezFormata

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: Not much media attention on this death, but Prozumenshchikova won five Olympic medals (including gold) across three Summer Olympics, plus other awards, as a Soviet swimmer in the 1960s and 1970s. She was the first Soviet athlete to win a gold medal in Olympic swimming. Kudzu1 (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support RD conditional on article improvement. (Oppose blurb if one is proposed.) However the article needs work. Although reasonably well sourced it requires updating and the awards section needs to be expanded with her Olympic medals included. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Her medal record is in the infobox. Glancing at other Olympic athletes, that looks pretty standard. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
You are correct. I missed it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support multiple gold-medallist easily notable enough, article is short but well-formed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per TRM. No issues with the article as it is at present, and clearly meets the criteria for an RD slot. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Multiple gold medal winner would seem to be "very important" to their field. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] UNESCO heritage of Timbuktu were rebuiltEdit

No consensus to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:49, 24 July 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: Timbuktu (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Fourteen sufi mausoleums in the city of Timbuktu in Mali have been rebuilt, three years after they were destroyed by Islamist militants.
Alternative blurb: ​Mausoleums in the World Heritage Site of Timbuktu have been rebuilt after they were destroyed in the Battles of Gao and Timbuktu.
News source(s): (BBC)
 Jenda H. (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Oppose It doesn't look like this is getting much coverage in the news. I found a few sources but not enough to ring the ITN bell. Also the article linked in the blurb is quite long and it does not reflect this development. Indeed I had to do a bit of looking to find any reference to the mausoleums at all, which is both minimal and clearly outdated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - still newsworhty. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Needs updates article Battles of Gao and Timbuktu not updated with reconstruction efforts. Added altblurb -- Callinus (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: This seems better suited for DYK than ITN. I don't think we usually post ITN items in passive voice. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:00, 21 July 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] Shark attack disrupts surfing contestEdit

Snow closing, no consensus to post this trivial story. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 19 July 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: J-Bay Open 2015 (talk, history) and Mick Fanning (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In surfing, the J-Bay Open 2015 is canceled after a shark attacks defending champion Mick Fanning.
News source(s): CNN The Australian The Washington Post
Nominator's comments: Extremely unusual incident receiving worldwide media attention. Individually, it doesn't seem like this particular surfing competition is considered major, but it is part of the World Surf League championships. Kudzu1 (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The first article looks short of prose and references. George Ho (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it needs a lot of work. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tabloid silliness. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Drop the dead donkey. Belle (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose As Fanning came out mostly unharmed, this is a trivial news story. --MASEM (t) 22:49, 19 July 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.

July 18Edit


[Closed] Westgate, Nairobi reopensEdit

Closing good faith nom per WP:SNOW. This does not meet ITN guidelines and there is no chance it will be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:42, 19 July 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: Westgate, Nairobi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Westgate shopping mall in Kenya, which was damaged in a terrorist attack in 2013, reopens.
News source(s): BBC CNN

Article updated
 Deryck C. 09:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I understand the emotions attached to this event for the families affected, but a shopping mall reopening, really? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's going to be 94 where I live, but I think SNOW is in the forecast for this nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose A nor'easter of consensus is moving swiftly into this region.--WaltCip (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not of any note other than a memorial to the terror attack. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 19 July 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] Charlie Hebdo ends Muhammad cartoonsEdit

SNOW close. SpencerT♦C 15:53, 18 July 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: Charlie Hebdo (talk, history)
Blurb: ​French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo discontinues caricatures about Muhammad after the January shooting.
News source(s): Washington Post, Deutsche Welle

Article updated
Nominator's comments: In a somewhat slow news period I think it's notable, especially after all those events after the shooting and previous attacks. Brandmeistertalk 09:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't really see the significance. If I'm understanding the editor correctly, he is saying the cartoons have made the point about freedom of expression that the magazine was trying to convey, so they are going to move on to other things. He doesn't want the magazine to be just about criticising Islam. They don't seem to be stopping because of danger or threats, so I'm not sure it's that newsworthy. Neljack (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The two do not seem to be connected. Even if it were, the wording is vague - everything Charlie Hebdo does is after the January shootings. Twirlypen (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Luz already left in May - it was his Muhammad that made people furious in 2011 and on the survivor's edition. -- Callinus (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Editorial revision at low-circulation magazine. Remember STRAIGHT after the attacks they had Mo on the cover? This isn't as sensational as it's being made out '''tAD''' (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Post hoc ergo propter hoc.--WaltCip (talk) 15:43, 18 July 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: Yoichiro NambuEdit

Article: Yoichiro Nambu (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: He died on July 5, but his death is announced on July 17. He discovered Spontaneous symmetry breaking, and was awarded Nobel Prize in Physics in 2008. 61.245.26.8 (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support on article update - In principle, Nobel prize winners typically are RD material. Article is not updated (present tense, and some paragraphs without sources). --MASEM (t) 06:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - He shared his Nobel with two other scientists, essentially receiving half-credit, and I don't think he is a well-known enough individual to overlook the extreme staleness of his passing (nearly two weeks ago). --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I do not find the reasons given in opposition persuasive. We generally treat the date the death is announced as the relevant date for ITN purposes, so I don't think this should be regarded as stale. The question is not how well-known he was, but how important a figure he was in his field. Highly significant scientists often aren't very well-known. It is very common for Nobel Prizes to be shared between three scientists, including when very important scientists go it - Crick and Watson, for instance. Nambu made highly important discoveries concerning spontaneous symmetry breaking. Like most Nobel winners, I think he clearly qualifies as a very important figure in his field. Neljack (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Other than Nobel Prize, the article mentions his other scientific awards and things named after him, such as Nambu-Goto action. Brandmeistertalk 10:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support An obvious RD candidate. Article is not long but it covers the essential points and is well sourced. Marking it as Ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad Orientem (talkcontribs) 16:11, 18 July 2015‎ (UTC)
  • Two paragraphs of his career are unreferenced, this is a BLP violation according to some, so we'd be better off citing them before we post this to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
    • BLP does not apply to dead people. Mjroots (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
      • BLP applies to those who are "recently deceased." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
        • (Roughly 6 months to 2 years after death, depending on circumstances. The instant someone dies does not mean we can suddenly drop unsourced claims about them on their article page.)--MASEM (t) 21:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, and these two para definitely need sources. The tense has been fixed but that's not enough. --MASEM (t) 21:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending Improvement - Definitely notable enough as a Nobel winner, but the sourcing needs some work - and for someone with that long a career, the article seems very short on information. Challenger l (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per above on notability of discovery assuming CN's are addressed. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I added sources (although bare URLs) to uncited paragraphs. All of us must work on it. George Ho (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This looks better now. Posting. --Tone 09:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Jules BianchiEdit

Article: Jules Bianchi (talk, history)
Blurb: Formula One driver Jules Bianchi (pictured) dies at the age of 25, nine months after suffering a serious crash and entering a coma.
Alternative blurb: Formula One driver Jules Bianchi (pictured) dies at the age of 25, nine months after an accident at the 2014 Japanese Grand Prix left him in a coma.
News source(s): [10], [11], [12]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Notable figure in Formula One racing, death at a young age, death is reported worldwide --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: Good article, accomplished racer, quite a detailed death update. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD Article is impressive and well sourced. Subject meets qualifications for ITNDC. A sad loss. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose blurb While a talented figure in his field, it is mainly the circumstances of his death that qualify him for RD under ITNDC. The bar for giving a blurb to the recently deceased is very high. I don't think he meets that standard. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Just a question: Would it be possible for this to be a regular In The News item rather than just a Recent Deaths item? Since Formula One hasn't had a driver fatality in more than 21 years (meaning, not since Ayrton Senna). Given that the death of someone who helped save Jews was on ITN despite being relatively obscure today, whereas Bianchi was a lot more well-known, maybe he could get a similar treatment? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Full blurb pls, as was the consensus more than a year ago when the accident happened. Nergaal (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ad Orientem, Kudzu1, and Narutolovehinata5: RD or blurb? George Ho (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm satisfied either way. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb I don't think Bianchi meets the RD criteria - he never won a Formula One race and only picked up two championship points, so it's hard to describe him as a very important figure in the field of motor racing (or even Formula One). But a driver dying from injuries sustained in a Formula One crash is sufficiently noteworthy news to warrant posting as a blurb, in my opinion. Neljack (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - first death due to F1 race for 21 years. Mjroots (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per others, but feel it should make mention of the 20-year gap as that is what makes it newsworthy beyond RD. Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, though if added, should mention the event at which the accident occured, the 2014 Japanese Grand Prix, as weather conditions played a very significant role and we don't want to send the reader through hoops to get to the information. The time difference gap, though what makes this significant to be blurb-worthy, is a technicality. It is 21 years between driver deaths from injuries sustained at a Grand Prix event, though since 1994, several other people have lost their lives directly involving Formula One crashes, and indirectly as well, as speculated with Maria de Villota. The distinction would be too long to explain in a blurb. Twirlypen (talk) 06:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Post this as a blurb. Article is GA. Death is tragic and highly notable. 117.192.178.212 (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - sad, but important enough for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted (by Bongwarrior) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Non notable whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.181.22 (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull He came in first in three minor races. Pardon me, but it's not like he won the final race and then died because someone hit him. That a person dies in a risky occupation does not elevate his notability. μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support blurb - Notable enough despite appearing in minor races, as noted. His death should prompt aspiring racers to be careful from now on. Death might not be unusual, but it's so sudden and heart-wrenching. George Ho (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull, although I certainly have no say in this. When I saw this posted I nearly fell over. No one can argue the only reason this is supported is because it is not in the United States. If you will, flashback for a moment and just imagine trying to post Dale Earnhardt's death as a full blurb. I can see the replies now: ("US centric", "Indeed tragic, but Wiki is not ESPN", "A redneck who didn't wear his seatbelt correctly", etc.) Additionally, Earnhardt was far more successful in his racing career, regarded as a legend by some. I know this is not about him; however, this young man had not established such a career to merit such exposure on here. Don't get me wrong; I know this is already posted, and again I have no say in this, but you are blind if you don't see a double standard. While this is tragic to the international racing community, this is not a headline worthy of a full blurb on Wikipedia. 69.73.10.197 (talk) 05:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
At the time of Earnhardt's death, he was middle-aged (but successful). Bianchi was too young to die, but it happens to young aspiring race drivers. Still, Bianchi was promising... until his deadly coma. We could have posted Earnhardt's death, but there was no ITN at the time. ITN was created when... 9/11 (or 11/9) happened. --George Ho (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull This doesn't seem to meet our extremely high standards for posting deaths as full blurbs. wctaiwan (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The main story here isn't the notability or achievement of the driver, but the circumstances of his death. While deaths in motorsport in general certainly aren't unusual, deaths in Formula One seem to be slightly rarer, and that's apparently one of the reasons this received such strong support. Viewed in that light, this is somewhat analogous to the death of Phillip Hughes, the cricketer who died as a result of injuries received during a match. Neither Hughes nor Bianchi meet the death criteria, but the circumstances of their deaths were deemed sufficiently unusual to justify posting. Obviously, racing is more dangerous than cricket, but you see where I'm coming from. (As an aside, I suspect the death of Earnhardt would have been posted quickly, with little to no opposition). --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support part of the point of ITN is to highlight quality articles that are in the news. Regardless of personal opinion (and nearly falling over when seeing it posted is pretty extreme), this is one such example of a quality article. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull The topic is not really in the news with any prominence and the subject barely merits an RD entry so a blurb seems quite undue. Some imagery from Pluto would be better as the picture and so that discussion should be reopened. Andrew D. (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    I think you'd be better off participating in the discussion over what item is actually pictured at ITN, right now, if we removed Bianchi, we'd put the plutaquark back, and I bet that would really pluta-irk you. By the way, your reasoning against Bianchi is way off, and your clear misunderstanding between RD and a standard ITN blurb lets you down a little, not that you'd be too upset by that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull- It has to have strong article and notability, and this story is barely RD-level. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    It's a good article, which is super-rare on articles we post, and if you don't think it's notable, try Googling it, it's in the news all over the world, even the United States. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I would not disagree that the article is well written. Nor would I suggest his death is non-notable. But the standards for WP:BIO and WP:ITN are different. The subject arguably meets ITNDC because of the tragic circumstances surrounding his death. But there is no way this should have been posted as a blurb. And I am somewhat disapointed that it was posted so soon after the blurb was proposed, before most editors had a chance to weigh in. The rush to post has IMO resulted in giving a borderline RD candidate far more attention that he merits. A quick glance at the post-posting !votes makes it very clear there would have been no consensus in favor of posting had some patience been exercised. This blurb is a mistake and really should be pulled. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with the blurb, but the post-posting comments suggest it should be moved to RD. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. As suggested by Bongwarrior, the story here is not the person who died, but the manner of death, which is unusual and is being widely reported on. The posting was valid as there was virtually no opposition to the idea at the time; if consensus has changed, okay, but the posting was not improper. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. The blurb was proposed and approved, all in about 4 hours. But the time frame was in the middle of the night for everyone in North America where you have one of the largest groups of English speaking peoples. In short, outside of Europe and the odd insomniac there was little input. Even in Europe it was very early morning when the blurb was approved. I am not sure how you define "valid" but I would label this as rushed with true consensus being highly doubtful. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no requirement for a chance for people in each time zone in the world or even just those with English speakers to post their opinion or otherwise have an arbitrary minimum discussion time before posting(both of which have been proposed before and never gained consensus). A good article with clear support at the time should not be artificially delayed in posting, especially in the recent slow period here for postings. No decision is written in stone here. Again, if you are saying consensus has changed, that's a different subject. 331dot (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
There's still a clear consensus and if someone would like to propose a 24-hour delay so that all corners of the globe get to weigh in, please feel free to do so. It's something I proposed a while ago which was roundly shot to pieces. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

July 17Edit


[Closed] Tolikara riotEdit

Close good faith nomination--the event is not one we hear of often. Unfortunately, regardless of the small news impact the article is also tagged and really needs heavy fixing. Should this develop more we can re-open or have a new nomination. Otherwise this is not quite up to par.μηδείς (talk) 04:26, 21 July 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: Tolikara riot (talk, history)
Blurb: ​One child death, 12 people injured, and several house and kiosk burned after a riot occured in Tolikara Regency, Papua, Indonesia.
Alternative blurb: A riot occured in Tolikara Regency, Papua, Indonesia, resulted one child death, 12 people injured, and several house and kiosk burned.
News source(s): Solopos KOMPAS.com

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This news was headline news in several news sites in Indonesia on this week. --Erik Fastman (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Not seeing anything that would qualify this for ITN, and in fact, although I'm not about to nominate it for deletion, I'm not even sure it meets notability criteria for an article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article fails EVENT and NOTNEWS. The riot is completely non-notable. Suggest a SNOW close which I can't do as I just sent the article to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:53, 21 July 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] Khan Bani Saad bombingEdit

Article: 2015 Khan Bani Saad massacre (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Over 120 people are massacred and 130 injured by a suicide bombing in Diyala Province, Iraq.
News source(s): WP BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: One of the largest death tolls of civilians in Iraq from a single event. Admittedly, a suicide bombing here is not uncommon, but the sheer scale of this is especially notable. Mamyles (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support once the article is ready for Front Page linking. Huge death toll, no question this is ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, rare death toll even for Iraq (and 15 children are reported among the dead). Brandmeistertalk 16:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - article seems short of meeting DYK rules, but the story so gruesome yet fresher should be featured on the front page. George Ho (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, a gruesome massacare G8j!qKb (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Not ready The article has a big tag at the top of it indicating issues with the lead. It doesn't even seem definite on the number of casualties. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I've expanded it now, in proportion to the rest of the article. Brandmeistertalk 17:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Thanks for the updates. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I've copy editted the article for style and idiom.[13]. There are no structural issues to prevent posting. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted with a few tweaks to both the article and the blurb, inline with our "house style". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: why posted with wording 'killing' and not 'massacres'? gruesome crime, referred to as massacre widely in the press...
Because we report the facts, i.e. at least 130 were killed. You could say "massacred" or "slaughtered" or "mercilessly destroyed" or whatever, but here we keep it simple and neutral and link the article. If you still disagree, I'd suggest you add a note to WP:ERRORS so that others can weigh in and determine whether your personal preference for the blurb is more acceptable than the one I posted, no problem at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Alcides GhiggiaEdit

Close as uninvolved, no indication of move toward support. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 19 July 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: Alcides Ghiggia (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): (Ovación) (The Guardian) (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: Ghiggia scored a goal in 1950 FIFA World cup final at Maracanã, also representing A.S. Roma in more than 200 league matches and appearing in more than 100 for Peñarol and Danubio. MYS77 18:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not close to being significant in the field of association football. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose A professional athlete and one that meets WP:N, but does not appear to rise to the significantly higher bar set out in WP:ITNDC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Famed for scoring the winning goal in a World Cup Final. His career does not otherwise show how he was widely significant in his field. Fuebaey (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If one event was enough he seems to have done the ultimate event in soccer, he won the Game is the Century before the largest live sports audience in the history of man (excluding racetracks over Olympic size). But I don't know much about soccer. His (short) article is good to read, they talk about his goal like it's the God-goal and quote poetry about it that compares it to Kennedy dying. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:34, 18 July 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] Pluto pic?Edit

No longer relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 18 July 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.

A diagram of what a presumed 5-quark looks like is neat, but should it displace the historical photos of Pluto that will never be seen again (this century) at this res? Nergaal (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, both the artist's image of the probe and the entirely fanciful and useless pic of the pentaquark have been a nadir for ITN. Let's get a picture of Pluto itself, it being the biggest astronomical event since Voyager 1. μηδείς (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • No, let's not discourage a scientific diagram for a scientific pic. As magnificent the Pluto pic is, something newer and fresher would attract readers more. The pentaquark thing seems newer, so a diagram should reflect what's new. I did move this to talk page because it interferes with Candidates page, a page for articles, not pictures. I did request in talk page of Main Page swapping a pic of Serena Williams with another pic of her, but newer stories got in the way. --George Ho (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Hard to decide if you are trolling considering both stories happened the same day. Nergaal (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't trolling, but I knew I shouldn't have moved your message without permission. How can I convince you to forgive me? George Ho (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid this discussion is going to moot. The racer's obituary takes the lead, so his headshot picture takes over, making the Pluto image unlikely. George Ho (talk) 10:00, 18 July 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.

July 16Edit


[Closed] Nexen pipeline oil spill at Long LakeEdit

No consensus to post.-Ad Orientem (talk) 01:55, 21 July 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: Long Lake (oil sands) (talk, history) and Nexen (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A pipeline leak at the Long Lake facility, owned by the Chinese company Nexen, near Fort McMurray, Alberta, spills around 31,500 barrels of oil emulsion into an area of approximately 16,000 m2 (170,000 sq ft).
Alternative blurb: ​A pipeline leak at the Long Lake facility, owned by the Chinese company Nexen, near Fort McMurray, Alberta, spills at least 5,000,000 litres (1,100,000 imp gal; 1,300,000 US gal) barrels of oil emulsion into an area of around 16,000 m2 (170,000 sq ft).
News source(s): AFP via Yahoo CBC

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: This is an environmental impact, but the company is working on the spill, said they. George Ho (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not in the news, not clear by the blurb or the article what the impact of this spillage is. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait: Not clear yet how significant this spill is. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment For context, this is roughly 200 times smaller than Deepwater Horizon (210 million US gallons) and 10 times smaller than Exxon Valdez (11 million US gallons). Fuebaey (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • .016 km? Oppose. (For those who speak English, an NFL field is ~5351.2 square meters. μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
You mean km2? George Ho (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, three times the square meterage of a football field. μηδείς (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me? Nice to know a football field is 5km² but i dont think its remotely correct. 91.49.94.143 (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
You're making a common error. I said five thousand-plus square meters, not five thousand meters squared. George was right I did mean .016km^2 for the spill, the 16,000m^2 figure had already been given. Next time you're driven to anonymous sarcasm, try first figuring out what I might actually have meant if I wasn't entirely bonkers (i.e., AGF) and you might realize the misunderstanding. μηδείς (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I THINK this is the first such incident involving oil sands/shale oil. Nergaal (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Spilt oil is spilt oil, whether from a pipeline, tanker, or oil rig. The source is not really relevant to the damage, which is very minor in the scope of things (not that I'd want it in my town). μηδείς (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I... don't... understand... the logic other than it's-just-an-oil-spill excuse. You guys are relieved that oil didn't spill into a sea or an ocean and that contaminated area is not big. Such opposition makes many environmental news... not cut out for ITN. Of course, I can't advocate such stories to be posted in the news because Wikipedia is not an advocacy or soapbox. George Ho (talk) 04:49, 20 July 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] 2012 Aurora shootingsEdit

No consensus to post. Although the nomination has not run too long, it is clear that this won't have consensus to post the item. SpencerT♦C 14:41, 17 July 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: 2012 Aurora shooting (talk, history) and James Eagan Holmes (talk, history)
Blurb: James Eagan Holmes was convicted of 12 counts of first degree murder for the 2012 Aurora shooting.
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33561802
 Martin451 23:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments gained international attention, both at the time of the shootings and now.. Martin451 23:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I don't think there was any doubt to this ruling and in light of the Charlotte shooting it's been buried in the news cycle. However, we did ITN the original shooting and this is the point of proper closure from our side (there certainly will be appeals and the like, but that's beyond our normal scope for such reporting). --MASEM (t) 03:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
    The Chattanooga Shooting or the Charleston shooting? I'm not aware of any major incidents in Charlotte. Maybe too many southern U.S. cities with "Cha" in them? --Jayron32 04:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
    Oops, meant the Chattanooga shooting (the ITN item just below). --MASEM (t) 04:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Whether the trial captures international attention does not reflect whether it deserves to be featured ITN. The trial was just other trials of mentally ill people with various sentences, either mental institution or jail, no matter how tragic and newsworthy the shooting was. Let's wait for sentence, appeals, and other method. George Ho (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Week Support per Masem, assuming the article update quality is present. (Which is the target, please? Two targets here makes no sense.) μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, most casualties have already occurred long ago. Come back here when he's dead too, not earlier. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose barely a passing note in today's news, and hardly surprising. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support once updated per Masem; we typically post convictions in notable cases, especially ones posted previously, though (as with below) I'm sympathetic to the arguments against. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait for sentence before making a decision. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We posted the shooting, which was highly notable, but I don't see that this very unsurprising verdict has the same level of notability or attention. Neljack (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all. Another routine news. You kill some, you get hanged. Nothing of sort of news here. Not Boston Marathon case or any thing of that level which could draw international audience. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 12:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, although the tone of some of the comments above is unfortunate. It was not disputed that Holmes committed the shootings, so the only issue at trial was whether he would found guilty of murder, or not guilty by reason of mental illness. The resolution of that issue, while it will help dictate Holmes' future place of confinement, is not ITN material. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:39, 17 July 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 Chattanooga shootingsEdit

Soft close without prejudice to renomination if evidence of some kind of terrorist connection or conspiracy is uncovered. As of right now it looks like a lone gunman and there is clearly no consensus in favor of posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 17 July 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 Chattanooga shootings (talk, history)
Blurb: A shooting in Chattanooga, Tennessee kills four Marines and injures several others.
Alternative blurb: ​In a terrorist attack, four Marines are killed in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
News source(s): BBC USA Today Reuters
Nominator's comments: Relatively low death toll, but the fact that it is being treated as an act of domestic terrorism seems to make it more significant. Everymorning talk 22:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Mass shooting in the US are sadly not uncommon and I generally look for a high death toll to support. However, Islamic terrorist attacks are not that common here. On that basis, coupled with the extensive news coverage, I think it merits an ITN blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Ad Orientem. It's already been called "domestic terrorism", which makes this more than some guy who got fired shooting up his office. The shooter targeted the U.S. military. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as per the above. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Mass shootings happen all the time. This may or may not be a terrorist attack, but we do not put all terrorist attacks up. We did not put up the one in France last month, probably because of its low body count.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Which one is more tabloid-ish, this or conviction of Hungarian bookkeeper helping the Nazis? Ah well, tragic for soldiers, but media has already sensationalized this story toward anti-Arab demographics. But that's not the case for terrorist bombings at the start of Ramadan season in North Africa and Middle East. Nevertheless, even when the blurb may not reveal names, readers would still be curious about the event. George Ho (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
You know what? I'll oppose this. Isn't there a fresher story not sensationalized? --George Ho (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - We should be clear between the difference between domestic terrorism and international terrorism; the latter would be a hugely significant event, while the US has many many domestic terrorism events and this feels like another, sadly, run of the mill case, barring knowing the exact intent of the shooter. I know they're trying to figure out if he was following the ISIS directive to cause chaos during this month, or if this was just his own action. Until we know this, they're just calling it domestic terrorism, and it is a rather minor one in such cases. (Contrast to the shooting last year on Capital Hill in Ontario, which also was termed domestic terrorism, but such is rare in Canada). If it does turn out to be an event directly linked to ISIS or similar groups and elevated to international terrorism, I would be willing to support it. --MASEM (t) 03:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: Tragic, but a fairly low body count and no evidence yet of ties between the shooter and groups like ISIL or al Qaeda. If we don't post occurrences like this in other countries, we shouldn't "bend the rules" for the United States. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support The fact that one can simply walk onto a military base and shoot disarmed armed servicemen is notable enough, and this is by far the top story in the US. The article meets posting requirements. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Point of note: The first shooting was at a strip mall where a Nat. Guard recruiting office was, far from any security of a base; at the base itself he rammed his car into the gate to get onto the base, and did not "walk" onto it. Further, as I understanding the training base was a weapons-free facility so it was a matter until cops actually came around to stop him. --MASEM (t) 05:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until it's confirmed a terror attack (and it would be a shock if it weren't). Shootings happen every day, but it's seldom that the military are targeted here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose an unfortunately common occurrence, regardless of the motivations. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support because it seems to be terrorism against military personnel, though I am sympathetic to the reasons in opposition. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait somewhat dubious there's an international link, FBI still investigating but nothing conclusive - The 26 June Kuwait bombing and Sousse attack were included, but not the France one as it was lone wolf/unlinked. -- Callinus (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Terror attacks on national military is a common occurrence in the rest of the world. Even the death toll is relatively low for such an attack. 117.192.161.191 (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kudzu1. Neljack (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We've saturated ITN with enough U.S. shootings stories for a while. It needs to be something truly outlandish for a shooting to make it to ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't recall where in the ITN guidelines there's a max on posting news stories by category. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
      • It's not in the guidelines, but I think it's safe to say that a number of editors are tired by the continual posting of mass shootings in the US. After all this is English language Wikipedia, not American shooting Wikipedia. Of course, that's with no disrespect to all the victims. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes, I understand that non-US editors are tired of these stories. As an American, I'm tired of them too. Australia had one mass shooting and they fixed their problem, while we can't get around the NRA to do anything. That doesn't make these shootings any less newsworthy, though. (Not all of them, but some of them.) – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
            • In Europe, they don't allow guns. So the terrorists have to resort to bombings. That's called "progress". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
          • It does make them less newsworthy to English language Wikipedia I'm afraid. If we published every suicide bomb/Boko Haram attack/ISIS killing, we'd have no room for anything else. Sadly, mass shootings in the US are now on that level of frequency which makes them need something beyond just a few people being killed by a lone wolf gunman. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • support - terrorism is always notable. the day we start thinking of terrorism in the free world we will go down a dark path.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:45, 17 July 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.

July 15Edit


[Withdrawn] Heart land of Pluto named Tombaugh RegioEdit

WITHDRAWN:
I'll nominate this at DYK instead. --George Ho (talk) 16:53, 18 July 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: Pluto's heart (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The dwarf planet Pluto's surface feature that nearly resembles a heart (pictured) is named Tombaugh Regio after discoverer Clyde Tombaugh by the New Horizons team.
Alternative blurb: ​Photos of the dwarf planet Pluto's heart-resembled region (pictured), named Tombaugh Regio after discoverer Clyde Tombaugh by the New Horizons team, reveal 11,000-foot (3,400 m) mountains made of water ice.
News source(s): Sky & Telescope Business Insider

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This should make the Pluto story fresher and more updated, so someone would be pleased to see the heart-shaped region on the photo again. (Never mind, the obituary blurb will make the photo impossible to appear ITN again.) George Ho (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is an incredibly trivial update to the story we just posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Nice gesture for the planet's discoverer, but I don't think it's ITN material. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose but prime DYK material. --MASEM (t) 12:22, 18 July 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: Wan LiEdit

No consensus to post. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:32, 21 July 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: Wan Li (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): (Bloomberg) (South China Morning Post)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Wan Li, the last of the Eight Immortals (now all mortals...) was the head of China's national legislature between 1988 and 1993; an RD we posted several weeks ago, Qiao Shi, held the same office between 1993 and 1998 (it is the third, or sometimes second highest office of the land, next to the Communist Party's general secretary and the Premier). Was known for his advocacy of constitutional reform, rule of law, and liberal stance during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989Colipon+(Talk) 13:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Comment We don't usually post heads of legislative branches in RD, such as a former Speaker of the House. What makes this individually particularly more notable? Does the Chinese Congress have any political power in the country, or is it like Russia where they are puppets to the oligarchy? Mamyles (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Really? I would say that a former Speaker of the US House of Representatives meets RD standards and would support posting such a nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Would you also support posting the other 50 countries that have a Speaker of the House? How about 50 countries' Vice Presidents, since they head up the Senate in the American congressional model? That would be a bit much. A role like head of a legislature is not enough justification for RD, alone. Additionally, all politicians advocate for their opinions, so that phrase from the nomination is also not particularly notable. Mamyles (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
It would depend on the power of the individual. The US Vice-President has virtually none. The Speaker of the House is extremely powerful, arguably 2nd only to the POTUS. ITND criteria #2 says "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." So yeah I do think the Speaker of the House meets that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The "head of national legislature" argument is problematic and I recognize that, especially given that the body is known more to be "rubber-stamp". However, the position in China carries with it a certain level of prestige and is always given to individuals with significant personal clout (cf Zhu De, Qiao Shi, Li Peng, Zhang Dejiang). Wan's importance however is not simply derived from the five years he spent in this office. In my opinion he will be remembered for 1. pioneering the implementation of the household-responsibility system, which immeasurably changed the lives of some 800 million Chinese peasants, 2. attempting to push through constitutional reforms to make the National People's Congress a bona fide law-making body and 3. Almost summoning the body to resolve Tiananmen through constitutional means but being isolated in Shanghai. Colipon+(Talk) 18:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
This probably belongs on the talk page, not here. Two recent nominations, Jim Wright and Tom Foley were not posted due to lack of serious influence or accomplishment in the office. I would expect Tip O'Neal would have been posted and expect Newt Gingrich will also be posted. But I think the Chinese nomination should be discussed on the merits, not in comparison to the US. μηδείς (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Article quality is very good and seems to be referenced well. SpencerT♦C 15:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Stricken, article has referencing issues. Weak Support if those issues are resolved. SpencerT♦C 15:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Where is his name in the "Eight Immortals" article? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I asked myself the same thing... Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The article can't even agree on who the "eight" actually are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support conditional on article improvement. I am not altogether sure how much juice the position has in China, i.e. is it mostly ceremonial? That said the corresponding article indicates it is the # 2 position in the political hierarchy of the PRC. That's good enough for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose inadequately sourced, BLP violations. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if article improved. Equivalent would be posted in US. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 19:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
As Medeis said above, two US Speakers of the House, Jim Wright and Tom Foley, were nominated but not posted due to lack of serious influence or accomplishment. Would you consider those equivalents, or is there something else special with this individual? Mamyles (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per Medeis, plus article has problems. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: while it may be a long shot now, I will add here that I have updated the article and improved referencing. Even if this does not ultimately end up on ITN/RD, I would like to ask any interested party to review the article to see if there are any further glaring deficiencies to the article. I am especially puzzled by User @The Rambling Man:'s suggestion that there are BLP violations - what are these violations? Colipon+(Talk) 19:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    Quick response, last para of the "National politics" section is unreferenced and therefore contains BLP violations. Please be aware that BLP applies to recently-deceased individuals, and V applies throughout. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    The article is now fully referenced and also significantly improved, with an expanded introduction describing his significance. Please reconsider. Colipon+(Talk) 00:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not sure how long RD's stay up but this nom is getting a bit stale. If it is going to be posted, I would do it soon. Otherwise let's close the discussion and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    His state funeral (or equivalent) is sometime this week, so it's not too late yet! Colipon+(Talk) 01:01, 21 July 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] Oskar Gröning trialEdit

Closing as no consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:03, 18 July 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: Oskar Gröning (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A 94-year-old former SS officer Oskar Gröning, known as the Auschwitz book-keeper, has been found guilty of complicity in the murder of 300,000 Hungarian Jews.
Alternative blurb: ​A 94-year-old former SS officer Oskar Gröning, known as the Auschwitz book-keeper, has been sentenced to four years imprisonment for accessory to murder of 300,000 Hungarian Jews.
News source(s): BBC, DW, Sky News, The New York Times
 Jenda H. (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • support - an historic sentence.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • How do we know it's the last one? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Correct, we don't know that.--Jenda H. (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This looks more like a kangaroo court. According to article, Gröning was responsible merely for counting and sorting the money taken from prisoners, not directly for their executions (and he later expressed some dissent to his Auschwitz boss). Brandmeistertalk 12:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's our place to question the outcome, rather to report the facts. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTNEWS some editorial judgement is often useful. This time book-keeper, next time they may find and sentence Auschwitz toilet cleaner as well. Brandmeistertalk 13:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you have reliable sources which state that the trial was not legitimate(a "kangaroo court")? It isn't for us to act as a second judge or jury and render our own opinions about the outcome. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
You think they cleaned the toilets? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Would the murder of 300,000 Hungarian Jews have stopped or been disrupted if Auschwitz lacked that money-collecting book-keeper? No. In the grand scheme of things this four-year sentence for a 94-year man is almost nothing. Brandmeistertalk 15:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Whether he could have stopped the whole thing or not is not relevant; that's an argument for his trial, not here. This is in the news and involves major war crimes. I would again ask if any reliable sources have said this trial is not legitimate. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Widely reported trial related to war crimes from a historic conflict. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – This particular trial – not of course the Holocaust itself – is a footnote in history. Sca (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support it certainly is more than a footnote in terms of "in the news". Of course, if we had crystal balls, we could all determine which news stories will become inconsequential in fifty years time. I'm seeing it widely reported, and while the sentence is remarkably short considering the crime, it's still newsworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I didn't think this would draw much attention outside Germany, but it did. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this topic tends to be overrepresented in any form of media. A comparable number of Armenians died a few decades earlier yet that one barely reached the news outlets at the centennial commemoration. Nergaal (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is likely to be one of the last, perhaps the last, major trial for Holocaust related crimes. Also Gröning is a well known figure for speaking out over the years about what happened and refuting Holocaust deniers with his "I was there" interviews. In response to charges that this was a kangaroo court I would have to strongly disagree. It is a well established principle in law that those who provide material assistance in the commission of serious crimes can be held liable as accessories. Germany's refusal for many decades to apply this principal to the SS guards at the death camps, and only prosecute those who could be proven to have actually killed someone was extremely controversial. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Question – Did Demjanjuk's conviction on May 12, 2011, make ITN? (From cursory skimming of his article, he seems to have been more directly involved in genocide than Gröning.) I don't find Demjanjuk in the ITN archive for May 2011. Sca (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. Maybe he wasn't even nominated. I am not sure I see the relevance, unless there is more than an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I found this: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/May_2011#John_Demjanjuk. I can't tell if it was actually posted or not due to article quality issues but it looks like there was at least consensus to post at the time. SpencerT♦C 15:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Aha. Thanks for the info. Sca (talk)
Demjanjuk was a big story due to his high-profile trials and legal proceedings. Gröning seems to have been less notorious – but in a way more thought-provoking as the bag-man, so to speak. I do think this should be posted; either blurb would work. Sca (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Question is this going to get appealed? If yes, what are the realistic chances that he will actually serve jail time before he dies? Nergaal (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support – I've been dithering. Finally decided that Gröning's ostensible bystander status as 'the bookkeeper' – and his conviction nevertheless – makes this notable. And it's certainly 'in' the news, today anyway. (Regarding the sentence, presumably his age was a factor.) Sca (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this was on the US nightly news as a feel-good story, with camp survivors forgiving him. It's tabloid level, and certainly in no way of enough historical importance to merit posting. μηδείς (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Forgiven or not, historical or not, this is a notable story. I prefer altblurb, and I marked it as ready to go. As for "tabloid", I hate to admit that the news tend to overemphasize connections between accomplices and horrific events. But let's use Sydney hostage crisis as a precedent to tabloid journalism already invading ITN, so let's do the same here. George Ho (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, it has been sensationalized. While attractive, I guess this is nothing new. There are other living jailed convicts from the Nazi era, but there is nothing special about this story other than... obviously. Changing to oppose. --George Ho (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support - I have no love towards giving any attention towards this three-ring circus of a trial, but sham or not, it's undoubtedly historical. It's also possibly among the last few news events that will surface on ITN that has origins from World War II.--WaltCip (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It's confusing. Confusing they would try to convict someone 50 years after the fact, and yes, it reeks of a sham trial - a resurrection of Nuremberg. In the U.S., at least, we have a statute of limitations, so this is rather bizarre.--WaltCip (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not denying it's unusual. That's how things get into the news, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Hence my support, albeit weak.--WaltCip (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This feels like a weird show trial, and while it marks the conclusion of a legal saga, I don't know that it's so hugely notable that we need to put it on ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The British Schindler was prominently placed on ITN for about two weeks. Do we really need another WWII story? Especially one as inconsequential as this? --Tocino 07:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. We are not here to judge Gröning, we are not here to judge the German judicial system, and it’s irrelevant if someone on the other side of this dreadful equation died recently. And we’re not here to guess whether or not there will be a future prosecution of a camp “toilet cleaner”. The fact that this trial has simply happened at all is notable. That’s why it’s in the news, worldwide. Various experts have said it’s likely to be the last of its type. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 17 July 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.

July 14Edit


[Closed] Remove "Schindler"?Edit

No consensus favoring the proposal. This is unlikely to change. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:24, 14 July 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.

RDs get 1 week and this guy has gotten 2 weeks of full blurb, most of which had his face as the ITN pic. Considering that its posting wasn't even close to unanimous, could we take his entry down (next)? There is absolutely no source still mentioning his death. Nergaal (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Be patient, my dear. I nominated more stories to push his obituary down or out. Meanwhile, I need your vote on the Chinese stock market crash, or just vote on newer and fresher stories below. --George Ho (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The 2015 Indonesian Air Force Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash occured the day before. And I'm pretty sure "there is absolutely no source still mentioning the crash". Shouldn't that be removed first? How many gaps are we allowed to have when news goes stale? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Why is there a more and more clear POV pushing mentality at Wikipedia. If we do not get what we want, we nitpick at the subject... Tiring to say the least.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I suppose I don't understand what the rush is. Does having this humanitarian who saved hundreds of children's lives and was given top honors by two countries on the front page for a couple of slow news weeks after his death really hurt and offend you so much? Move on. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unnecessary. It's highly likely this is going to get knocked off ITN within the next 24 hrs by new blurbs now under discussion. We had a slow news cycle. It happens sometimes. But thing seem to be picking up again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose; the way to get this off is to nominate and generate consensus for new postings. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - seriously? Drop the WP:STICK! Mjroots (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as per the above comments. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:47, 14 July 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.
  • Just for the heads up, the British "Schindler" obituary is pushed out by fresher, newer stories. George Ho (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: M. S. ViswanathanEdit

No consensus in favor of posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 18 July 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: M. S. Viswanathan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): 1,2, 3

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.
 Rahmanuddin Shaik (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose While he looks to have had a successful career, it doesn't look like he has many/any national-level awards that put him above average enough for RD. The best he received was a regional lifetime achievement award, long after his career's prime, which I don't think qualifies for RD. Every section needs more citations, so perhaps some more awards will be found while searching. Mamyles (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Weak Support' Conceding Mamyles's point about a lack of really big awards, I do think there is enough to demonstrate this was a very important person in his field. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Switching vote to weak oppose mainly due to WP:V issues raised below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support conditional upon article improvements. More citations are needed. I do think the honors he has received and his extensive body of work qualify him as notable enough for RD. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per honors.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose highly tagged article, and no rationale given for posting. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Have to agree with Medeis on this one. Challenger l (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - The composer is not well known in India (atleast outside Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. I doubt many people know about him there as well!). The RD is not covered notably, by major publications in other parts of India, as well. The awards bestowed upon him do not make him noteworthy to be posted for RD as well! Besides this, the article needs many improvements, as pointed out previously. Regards, theTigerKing  03:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not seeing anything backing up all those honours, WP:V, WP:BLP and all.... ironic considering my current exploits The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 15 July 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] PentaquarkEdit

Article: Pentaquark (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists at CERN's Large Hadron Collider announce the discovery of a pentaquark.
Alternative blurb: ​Scientists at CERN's Large Hadron Collider announce the discovery of the Pc(4380)+ and Pc(4450)+ particles, the first significant observation of pentaquarks.
News source(s): BBC CERN arXiv Guardian NBC Daily Express Wall Street Journal

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The notability of this discovery should be undisputable, if accepted as true. Thue (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support in principle per above. Some slight expansion would be nice though. Brandmeistertalk 09:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, I guess - This sort of thing is just a bit over my head, but science news is always a good thing to feature, unless there is some sort of major hole in this story. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - noteworthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support 9 sigma of statistical significance is much better than any pentaquark discovery claim before, and the first to cross the 5 sigma limit. Not peer-reviewed, but very unlikely to be overturned at 9 sigma (the equipment and analysis will of course be world class, and the odds of it being a fluke measurement are 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000). Technically, pentaquark isn't a particle but a type of particle. CERN discovered two pentaquark states (one with more energy than the other - this comes from the fact that the two particles have the same quarks but with their spin arranged in different ways), so it's two for the price of one. I've added a more accurate altblurb. Smurrayinchester 13:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)}
  • Hold - Where is this in the news and why is it significant? I am not convinced this rises to the level of ITN. Jehochman Talk 13:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Added some more popular news sources. Many sites have only broken it in the last hour. Even the Guardian, which has a correspondent based at CERN, only published the story at lunchtime GMT today. Smurrayinchester 13:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
(As for significance, it's probably not unlike the Higgs boson - pentaquarks have been predicted for years, but difficult to create. Creating one more-or-less as predicted suggests our theories are correct and gives us a way to investigate previously untestable theories about (in this case) the strong force that binds quarks together.) Smurrayinchester 13:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - The newest developed is mentioned twice in just one sentence: in the lede and in body. George Ho (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Good point. I've expanded, and tried to make (a bit) clearer to the layperson what it means. Probably not yet lay-user-friendly though... Smurrayinchester 14:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Read WP:LEAD. By the way, I moved expanded content to body. George Ho (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Cautious Support When it comes to this stuff, I'm definitely swimming in the deep end of the pool without a life jacket. But it sounds important. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Followup comment After taking a closer look at the article I am concerned that as written, it is likely beyond the grasp of anyone without a PHD in physics. I understand that some articles will by necessity contain a lot of technical terms and jargon, but could we not put something in there that would be comprehensible to the science layman? -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: Maybe the blurb should try to briefly explain what a pentaquark is and why it's significant. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe the article should do that too. To the ordinary reader this is inscrutable. We can't post it in the current condition. Jehochman Talk 17:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
For what is always going to be a very technical article, I actually think it's pretty good. I'm no physicist, but I understood most of it, and what I didn't I got through the wikilinks. Support. Black Kite (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm no physicist either but I read the first graf and I would say it's not unmeaningless. Sca (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I have only a layperson's understanding of physics, but the article largely made sense to me and wikilinks elaborate well on whatever you need - which, depending on background, may be quite a long wikiwalk, but we shouldn't shy from something because the subject is difficult. It is probably true that the vast majority of wikipedians, myself included, will not truly grasp the significance of this, but the same could be said of all variety of business and political stories that go up. It is still worth knowing that great and momentous things took place - and who knows, that extralong wikiwalk may prove fruitful to more people than we guess. - OldManNeptune 22:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
It looks there have been some significant improvements made. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Ready I have removed the maintenance tag I put up earlier. While still, and unavoidably, technical; the article is hugely improved in its readability. I think its good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Per notability of the discovery. Post it at the earliest! Regards, theTigerKing  03:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The article is massively improved since I read it a few hours ago. Good work, all. Abductive (reasoning) 07:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • [Posted] I've updated, since support seems unanimous now (although as a full declaration of interest, I've been quite heavily involved in cleaning up this article). If I've been remiss, please revert. Smurrayinchester 07:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Support is not unanimous. This item should be pulled until the following major problem is addressed: "This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. " You can't put an article on the home page while there's this sort of maintenance tag at the top of it. Please address the issue and remove the tag, or else pull the article until it's ready. Jehochman Talk 12:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The tag was not present at the time it was posted (Ad Orientem added the tag, but then removed it when satisfied that the article was cleaned up). The tag was then re-added by an IP user after the article was put on the main page. I don't know should remove the tag - who can judge whether an article is too technical? Smurrayinchester 12:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Pulled and unpulled, since someone else removed the tag. Smurrayinchester 12:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
(ec)Me. I'm a total physics dummy and I was pleasantly surprised that I understood most of the explanation (whether it is accurate is another question, but I shall parrot it to anybody that asks). The only drawback for me was the discovery of the Belle experiment. Help! I don't want to be a guinea pig. Belle (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse posting Support doesn't have to be unanimous. There's consensus that the discovery of a new kind of particle is worthy of ITN, and the article has been updated. The re-addition of the maintenance tag was not properly justified; science articles are inherently technical. Cenarium (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Iran nuclear agreement reachedEdit

Article: Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An agreement between the P5+1 countries and Iran regarding its nuclear program is announced.
News source(s): NBC News BBC CNN Le Monde

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Notable diplomatic agreement; being called 'historic'. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - Certainly seems like a big deal. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Consistency please We didn't post Greece, which was an agreement in a neverending story. This is also an agreement in another neverending story. Please be consistent. I would have said post both... So I guess I still *Support this, but please, start being more consistent here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Greece was already in Ongoing; this is not. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Valid point, even though it hasn't always been there, it was rather quite a fight to get it there. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - a huge progress in the Iran question. I guess.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Iran agreeing to anything ever is an ITN lol especially when it comes to Nuclear -- Ashish-g55 11:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - very important agreement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – After a a decade of knotty negotiations, this is a milestone – even with congressional ratification pending. Arguably significant to a greater number than yesterday's 'agreekment.' Sca (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I believe Congress can pass a disapproval resolution but Obama could veto it; it doesn't need to be approved by them- though as 47 GOP Senators pointed out it can be changed in the future. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This has been building up for awhile, and finally seems to be coming to fruition. Important story. Mamyles (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article looks a little too long. The "14 July 2015" section looks a lot to be desired. The page needs improvements now, like restructuring and condensation. George Ho (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it could use some work, but C on the quality scale is sufficient for posting to ITN. Most articles we post here are not GA-level, and need a significant amount of work. Mamyles (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, it looks awkward in list format. Should be reformatted to prose instead. George Ho (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
In the article, the news should be in the first paragraph, not the fifth, IMOEO. Sca (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support Major deal between major belligerents, or however you would term them. Thanks, Obama! – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Obviously a major development in foreign affairs. I would also like to give a tip of the hat to 331dot for the neutral tone in the blurb. The agreement is obviously going to be controversial. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: A huge development in the field of international relations, with political and economic impacts that are expected to be far-reaching. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see the article renamed or merged, or at least a decision not to do so, before posting this. Jehochman Talk 17:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Nine supports, no opposes. (Signing has been moved to first graf.) Sca (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Congresswoman μηδείς voted Nay. Count Iblis (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I read that as a wait. Sca (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Nobody seems to be looking at the fact that this goes to Congress, who can turn it down based on the "deal" arranged beforehand, and can probably still be taken to the Supreme Court and nullified unless it gets 67 votes. This should be a big wait. μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
    • And/or that Iran's own parliament might squash the deal. Either way, we'd be back where we were, giving the Republican hawks some campaign material. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, it's the end of the decades old mini-cold war between mainly the US and Iran. Count Iblis (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Nergaal (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support The deal, may change the geopolitical equations in the region, moves the country out of many imposed sanctions (considering the fact that the size of the economy had plummeted by more than 20%) and change the political situation in Iraq, Yemen and Syria in the future. But would request to have a relook at the blurb once. Maybe some outline of the deal signed/agreed could be described in there.Regards, theTigerKing  03:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • There are so many sections, so I tagged it as such. George Ho (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Article looks tidy now. 59.88.206.124 (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
EV – And it even has a link to the full text. Sca (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This looks ready now. Posting. --Tone 14:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Go Set a WatchmanEdit

No consensus for marketing. Stephen 02:50, 15 July 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: Go Set a Watchman (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The novel Go Set a Watchman, written by Harper Lee, is now available in bookstores of the United States.
Alternative blurb: Go Set a Watchman, the second published novel by To Kill a Mockingbird author Harper Lee, is released.
News source(s): The Telegraph BBC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Renowned book goes on sale today: most pre-ordered on Amazon since Harry Potter series final book, all-night store openings, sequel to pulitzer winner To Kill a Mockingbird, unexpected discovery and unexpected nature of plot has added to public interest/controversy. FT2 07:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No thanks. Story should be handed to promoters and media and Wikinews, not ITN. --George Ho (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
In fact, we got more serious stories than this. George Ho (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I believe it is of interest to our readers that a Nobel Prize-winning author who has said she would never release a book again, has released a book again. Thank you, --ceradon (talkcontribs) 07:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think we need to advertise this on Harper Lee's behalf. The factoids in the nomination would suit a fine DYK however. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Already in DYK; I did the DYK nomination. George Ho (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Here is the previous discussion. I support this for the same reasons I supported it then. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not notable enough in my opinion. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think this should have been posted at the announcement; doing so now just seems like advertising, as others indicate.(The same argument was made previously, but I think it was less the case then than now.) If there was something else to hang our hat on in this case(some sort of sales record, maybe) it might be worth posting now, but I think we missed the boat. I don't oppose posting it per se if that is desired, though. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with this. I still support it now, but I think it was a bigger story then. Some wanted to wait until it was published, though, so we'll see. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
At the time of the announcement, it was rejected because it was just a press release. Now that it's for real, it's being reject because it should have been covered when it was announced. Like a Marx Brothers cabinet meeting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@Baseball Bugs: Actually, all the Opposes say that it is not notable enough or that we should not advertise. The only one who mentioned "we should have posted" earlier was not an Oppose, but a comment. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The earlier opposes were mostly of the "wait" variety. Now that it's here, they had to come up with other excuses. Maybe more newsworthy than the book itself is some controversy around it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Historically speaking, far more notable than most of the items regularly featured in ITN. Gamaliel (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Exhaustively hyped early effort from a writer who IMO should have been content with the iconic fame of Mockingbird. From initial reviews, this prequel / sequel is not its equal. Sca (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support more people are aware of these books than the #5 now on ITN. Nergaal (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We do not do advertising here. When this book wins a major award, it will likely be postable. In the meantime, it's just one of millions of books released each year. Mamyles (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
PS: Now there's talk of a third Harper Lee novel. Mercy! Sca (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per most of the above comments. Books, including notable ones, are released all the time. We don't post them on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, unless we posted Radiohead's most recent album or something. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Uhh, I'd like that ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose ITN is not your local Amazon/bookstore front. No prejudice against renom if it goes on to win a major literary award, but "book released by notable writer" is not something I would consider significant enough for ITN. Fuebaey (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this can always be posted if the book wins an award, but we don't post any new book by an author who's previously penned a masterpiece. μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the literary equivalent of a 60s band releasing an album of their unreleased demos. If it becomes the fastest selling book of all time or something, that would be news, but if "something goes on sale, gets press coverage and sells a lot to fans" is the bar for inclusion we may as well reserve a space now for iPhone 6S. – iridescent 20:40, 14 July 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 to RD] RD: Joan SebastianEdit

Article: Joan Sebastian (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [14]

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: Mexican singer-songwriter who composed songs for himself and other artists that have been well-received throughout the Hispanophone communities in Latin America and the United States. Received a lifetime achievement award on 2001 Lo Nuestro Awards and was inducted into the Billboard Latin Music Hall of Fame in 2006 for his "prolific songwriting and musical arrangements". Received two Latin Grammy awards for Best Regional Song, worked with Vicente Fernandez (a recognized ranchera singer in Mexico) on the album Para Siempre which also won a Latin Grammy Award for Best Ranchero Album, collaborated with will.i.am on the song "Hey You" (source), "Secreto de Amor" was one of the best performing Latin songs of 2000, and has had several of his songs covered by multiple Latin artists such as "Lobo Domesticado" by Tommy Olivencia which ranked on the Latin charts in the US. Erick (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support RD as soon as the article is properly updated and otherwise made ready. Subject clearly meets RD guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Fundude99 is handling the updates and expanded on the Illness and Death section. If there's anything else that needs to be done, let us know. 03:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC) EDIT: I will continue to work more with Fundude later it is late where I live after I add some awards and do more clean up. Erick (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending improvements I fully support RD tag because the subkect is notable, but the article needs sources. There's huge sections in the lead, Early life, career and awards that need sources. Add more sources and it's a go! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: and @TDKR Chicago 101:, have another look and let us know if there's anything else that needs to be done. Erick (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Marvelous job. Shall we have four names in RD ticker? I think we should retain the dead Saudi prince for a while until either stale or a new death. --George Ho (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the article is copyedited, phrases like "Before he had a big successful music career", "he soon realized that music was his true calling", "he remains one of the most famous singers and songwriters Mexico has" etc etc don't belong here. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The phrases have been removed from the article.—Fundude99talk to me 07:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Those were just a handful of examples, the rest of the article isn't much better, e.g. "His versatility has helped him remain in the popular taste of the public.", "and the positive results came fast when in Ciudad Obregon, Sonora.", "The year 1977 was a transitionary year for Sebastian it was the moment when he stopped using his legal name Jose Manuel Figueroa and picked up his artistic name Joan Sebastian (Joan is how the name John is said in the Catalan language of eastern Spain) and Sebastian from San Sebastian." .... the whole article needs to be copyedited for tone and grammar. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The grammar throughout the article has been fixed.—Fundude99talk to me 08:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
And I have helped improved the prose with Fundude99. Could you have another look? Erick (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - article has been expanded and looks ready for ITN inclusion. Best, jona(talk) 12:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Notability is clear, but we need a source for his discography. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@Kudzu1: I added a source for his discography from Allmusic. Erick (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you. I'd say this is ready to go now, and I support RD. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] New Horizons' Pluto flybyEdit

Articles: New Horizons (talk, history) and Pluto (talk, history)
Blurb: New Horizons performs the first flyby of Pluto (pictured).
Alternative blurb: ​The New Horizons space probe performs the first flyby of Pluto (pictured).
News source(s): NASA

First article updated, second needs updating

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: Prior nomination consensus was to wait until this week. It's hard to place an exact start and end to the flyby, but at the time of this nomination the closest approach is 12 hours away (note: it takes 4.5 hours for signal to travel from New Horizons to Earth). The image is an artist's depiction, so I don't know if "(pictured)" is the best way to refer to the image. 208.54.85.185 (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Hard to know when the time to post really is, but since we're already learning things, such as Pluto is bigger than we thought, I see no problem with posting it as soon as it's updated. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, no brainer; suggest we use an actual NASA image, since they are free images. μηδείς (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Note from nom about above comments: I actually just realized that the communications antenna will be pointed away from Earth during the closest point of the flyby, so data won't be received from the probe until about 1:00 UTC, 15 July (about 13 hours after the closest point of the flyby). But of course, the actual feat will have been accomplished before then and will be widely reported in the news. I think the artist impression is ok for now. It could be changed after data is received from the flyby. Currently-available images of the planet aren't very high resolution or particularly impressive. 208.54.85.185 (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I'd argue that what we have already from a few days ago (eg as from [15]) is a great image, it's the first time we've seen significant surface detail of the planet. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I'd support when we have news reports that say it happens, but I'd also be okay with when we get the best images per .185 above. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I would use the alternative blurb, but I suggest you start it off with "NASA's New Horizons space probe" instead of the just "The New Horizons space probe". Also, for the picture, you should use the most recent capture of Pluto (for example, this). Aria1561 (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support posting this shortly before the flyby, possibly right after the TFA is bumped out. Either of these actual images are far more interesting than an "artist" drawing. Nergaal (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Google posted their little fly-by cartoon on Monday, well before the point in time where New Horizons is at its own "peripluton" or whatever it would be called. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Regardless of celestial body, periapsis would be an accurate term - if it were orbiting. I actually don't know what the "correct" term for exact point of closest non-orbital approach is. Maybe still periapsis if it's influenced by that body's gravity? - OldManNeptune 06:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once updated with article freely available images of the flyby, which could come hours after the event. -- Callinus (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support posting near as reasonably possible to the "actual" time of closest approach using most recent available images, to be updated with free NASA images as they become available. This is a goldmine of extremely valuable free images, we might as well enjoy it. - OldManNeptune 06:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until the radio blackout ends and initial contact is made following the flyby. Until then it is slightly speculative - there is always the chance of hitting something in a fairly crowded and poorly mapped system. 3142 (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The flyby has already been historic enough. If there was something wrong (very small chance since it crossed Charon's orbit pretty close to its L3 point), the blurb may well be updated. Cato censor (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Done - If a low probability collision occurs, we would update the blurb. "New Horizons is destroyed while performing a flyby of Pluto" or whatever. Jehochman Talk 12:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • New Image! Hi res latest image. Suggest changing to this one.. its free as well. -- Ashish-g55 13:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Will do. I'm not updating the image yet because we've got Pluto as the Featured Article, and here we've got a picture of the space ship. Once Pluto is no longer the FA the image could be updated. Would be silly to have two pictures of Pluto on the home page at the same time. Jehochman Talk 17:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thats fine i didnt notice the pluto on left before. its same image there now anyways -- Ashish-g55 22:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Flyby" is a kind of an unusual word. Could an admin please tweak the text to link to planetary flyby? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Absolutely Dumbfounded Why have we posted an image of the camera that photographed Pluto, rather than Pluto? Any picture of Pluto would be better, and we have lots of them, all free. I posted this crie du coeur at Errors. Please rectify this ASAP. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

July 13Edit


Alaa Bader Abdullah executedEdit

Article: Murder of Ibolya Ryan (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Female prisoner Alaa Bader Abdullah is executed in her home country, United Arab Emirates, for the murder of Ibolya Ryan, a Romanian-American female teacher.
Alternative blurb: ​Alleged perpetrator Alaa Bader Abdullah is executed in her home country, United Arab Emirates, for the murder of Ibolya Ryan, a Romanian-American teacher.
News source(s): Emirates 24/7

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The execution is so sudden in UAE. That's all I can say. George Ho (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'm not sure what makes this item particularly special. I can't say there's necessarily been enormous press coverage about it. Are women usually not executed? SpencerT♦C 14:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Capital punishment in the United Arab Emirates is rare but legal. Too bad that article is inadequately sourced. There is one or no executions per year despite fifty death sentences, according to this source. --George Ho (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am not seeing anything exceptional about this story. And as noted above, coverage seems pretty thin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Philipp MißfelderEdit

No consensus. Stephen 00:29, 14 July 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: Philipp Mißfelder (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Der Spiegel,

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: Chairman of the biggest German political youth organisation for 12 years, foreign policy speaker of biggest German political party; please focus comments on notability, I will update the article more later today Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not seeing how any of the RD criteria are met in this case; the equivalent to me would be a US Congressman who also headed a youth group, who would not be posted as it isn't "very important" to their field. "Foreign policy speaker" doesn't seem significant to me as he was not a Foreign Minister or other official. News coverage seems limited. His unexpected death would warrant a blurb more than RD. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose tragic early death but of a mediocre politician who held no real seniority in German politics. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose didn't have the prominence or the career to warrant an RD entry. BencherliteTalk 13:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above comments. Sad but not really RD material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 13 July 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] Greece bailoutEdit

Yet another Grexit averted, temporarily, but just another chapter in the story, so our Ongoing covers this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 13 July 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.

Nominator's comments: Climax (so far) of a huge news story Smurrayinchester 07:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional support: Very much in favour of posting this, but the article should be expanded a little more. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Must we wait for EU's approval on this bailout plan? If we post this now, this would show impatience. George Ho (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
    • The Greek parliament has to agree a) the package and b) the reforms, and other Eurozone parliaments have to agree the package. That said, most news analysis is saying that the chances of anyone saying no (or nein, or οχι, or perhaps most threateningly of all, ei) is small at this point. No-one wants to go through even more of this. Smurrayinchester 09:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose then. We shall wait for decisions of other Eurozone parliaments then. George Ho (talk) 09:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
But at that point it's less likely to be in the news. For complex international stories, we generally post agreements rather than waiting for parliamentary ratification - for example, we posted the announcement that Cuba would be taken off the US State Sponsor of Terrorism list when it was announced, rather than waiting the one-month period that the US Congress had to object (which it ultimately did not). Smurrayinchester 09:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I also say: Post it while it's still in the news. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Another stage in the interminable Greek debt crisis which is already in the ongoing section. Andrew D. (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Since the Greek Parliament has three days to endorse key provisions, this epic is still "ongoing." But if Parliament accepts them, that would be an ITN-worthy deal-clincher, and it wouldn't be necessary to wait for other European parliaments to act. Sca (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
PS: Donald Tusk termed it "an agreekment."   Sca (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Tusk? No jokes about that deal being a white elephant, then. Or about Donald being the long pole in the tent. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until something actually happens. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It looks they are going to get another bailout and stay in the Euro. If it had gone the other way I would have supported, but this looks like more of the same. I think it is adequately covered in ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose no concrete agreement has been reached. We already have ongoing. Nominating this every few days is counterproductive, we have a sticky, and an actual settlement or Grexit can always be proposed should it happen. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, at least until Greek government votes. Even with their pound of flesh it seems the European Ministers have decided the Greek economy is worth saving, even if that involves years of minute control and humiliation. As Ad Orientem suggests, largely covered by the ongoing. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 13 July 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.

July 12Edit


[Posted] Singles Finals at 2015 Wimbledon ChampionshipsEdit

(formerly Serena Williams wins Women's Singles)
Articles: 2015 Wimbledon Championships (talk, history) and 2015 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In tennis, Serena Williams wins the women's singles and Novak Djokovic (pictured) wins the men's singles at The Championships, Wimbledon.

Serena Williams wins Women's Singles:
In tennis, American player Serena Williams (pictured) beats Spanish player Garbiñe Muguruza, becoming the champion of the Women's Singles of The Championships, Wimbledon.
In tennis, American player Serena Williams (pictured) beats Spanish player Garbiñe Muguruza, earning the championship of the Women's Singles of The Championships, Wimbledon.
In tennis, American player Serena Williams (pictured) beats Spanish player Garbiñe Muguruza, becoming the winner of the Women's Singles of The Championships, Wimbledon.

In tennis, American player Serena Williams (pictured) beats Spanish player Garbiñe Muguruza, winning the Women's Singles of The Championships, Wimbledon.
Alternative blurb:
​In tennis, American player Serena Williams wins the women's singles, and Serbian player Novak Djokovic (pictured) wins the men's singles at The Championships, Wimbledon.
Alternative blurb II:
​In tennis, at The Championships, Wimbledon, American player Serena Williams beats Spanish player Garbiñe Muguruza, winning the women's singles; Serbian player Novak Djokovic (pictured) beats Swiss player Roger Federer, winning the men's singles.
Alternative blurb III:
​In tennis, at The Championships, Wimbledon, Serena Williams beats Garbiñe Muguruza, winning the women's singles; Novak Djokovic (pictured) beats Roger Federer, winning the men's singles.
News source(s): The Guardian

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: ... I don't know why, but ITN needs something fresher. Now Singles Finals should be featured on Main Page. We need fresher story George Ho (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

  • This being one of most prestigious tennis tournaments, I would think we would post all the winners at once - although Serena's dominance is certainly exceptional. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment as far as I know, we usually post both men's and women's singles winner in a combined blurb (they are, after all, ITNR) but there'd be no reason not to post the women's result sooner if the article was up to scratch. Men's final will conclude within the next eight or so hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
We can update the blurb or merge two blurbs as we did two separate football tournaments. Why else should we not post it soon? George Ho (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC) (I misread; I concur with you. George Ho (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC))
  • support - when everything is updated and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per TRM once the men finish theirs we can do a combined blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Djokovic has won the men's. I don't know about the doubles competitions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
      • We don't usually post doubles, AFAIK. Adding combined blurb now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
        • I've swapped "gentlemen" to "men", as it's more recognizable to non-Brits. Brandmeistertalk 17:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
          • Do we need their nationalities in the blurb? To me, it's distracting and not that important. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
            • If it were a single stand-alone blurb, we can post nationalities as it's usually done, especially to sports teams. Omitting or posting nationalities in a combined blurb is up to administrators. --George Ho (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment the main article has a decent summary of the women's final; the men's section could do with the same. I'd avoid bolding/highlighting the single draws, because there's barely any prose there, and omit the nationalities/opposition if we're short on blurb length.
One question though: is it possible to have two images or someone combining (side-by-side) an image of the two winners? I say this as the last sporting blurb involved both genders but was not changed, with a comment deeming it too US-centric - which ironically could well apply here. Fuebaey (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I now recovered and de-struck Williams-only blurbs due to quality concerns. We can post when the Men's Singles portions improve, right? --George Ho (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Non notable sporting event, should also be removed from ITN/R. WP is not ESPN. Aaaaaabbbbb111 (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Probably the most prominent Tennis competition in the world. I don't know what planet Aaaaaabbbbb111 where this can be considered 'non notable'. 22:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • support - notable tournament. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Both are ready now, blurb, In tennis, Novak Djokovic and Serena Williams (pictured) wins the Wimbledon singles titles, the third for Djokovic and the sixth for Serena.FiringAces (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree both are ready to post and I support a combined blurb. There may be more expansion that can be done, but there's nothing obvious to hold up posting now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Both marked as ready; switched back to Dokovic pic. George Ho (talk) 08:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Why take Djokovic and not Williams? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
We have had a lot of photos of men lately, including for the combined soccer blurb. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm getting at. I support switching back to Williams. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Changed to different Williams pic; admins, take your pick. --George Ho (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 08:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

July 11Edit


[Posted to RD] RD: Satoru IwataEdit

Article: Satoru Iwata (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Satoru Iwata, Worldwide president of Nintendo Co. Ltd, dies at the age of 55.
News source(s): The Verge, 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: President of Nintendo since 2002, credited with helping led the company to be major competitor in the video game industry. RD only even with the death being a sudden loss (due to complications with a bile duct) MASEM (t) 00:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. This is a very notable person. Shocking news in the video game world. ComputerJA () 00:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Video game community is in complete shock from his passing. Loved by many for making Nintendo the company it is today and will be dearly missed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support for RD Extremely notable person in a huge industry (and still a leader in that industry until he died) whose death, while not a *complete* shock, was still unexpected. I might lean toward a full blurb if the article is improved. -- Mike (Kicking222) 00:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support –notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Unsure if it's blurb-ready, but the name must be posted soon. --George Ho (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD is a no brainer, blurb is completely reasonable to me given he was relatively young and still very much active in daily business, and in fact the face of the company in some regards. - OldManNeptune 01:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD or blurb. Clearly merits posting in some form; I would lean towards a blurb given the unexpected nature of his death and the fact he remained notable in his field and continued to work until recently. 331dot (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Here's a closer crop of his face, s'il vous plaît: File:Satoru Iwata headshot square.jpg – czar 01:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - among the top of field, RD at least. starship.paint ~ KO 01:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD, as there's a clean consensus; any discussion of a possible blurb can continue here. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Seeing that he was the CEO of a major company at the time of his death, I would support giving him a full blurb. Calidum T|C 05:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD / Strongly Oppose blurb No question the subject meets the criteria for RD. But blurbs for deceased persons are extremely rare with the standards being much higher. The subject does not warrant that level of attention. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Big news, but let's not get carried away... Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb meets the RD criteria but blurbs aren't for people who are notable in their field, the face of their company, or similar phrasing (essentially per Ad Orientem). BencherliteTalk 13:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb just look at #4 and you will realize that this person has had a higher impact on the world, therefore deserves a full blurb if #4 has had one for weeks now. Nergaal (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Saving thousands of lifes vs. taking up thousands of hours of thousands of people's lives with computer games? Hmm.... Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Each person and/or blurb posted is weighed on its own merits; every field is different and gets attention and merit in its own way. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb and try to stop comparing apples with oranges folks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Iwata was an important figure of an important company who made an impact on the gaming industry. His death should be in the news section. Aria1561 (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
You mean "blurb"? George Ho (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] El Chapo escapes prison againEdit

Article: Joaquín Guzmán Loera (talk, history)
Blurb: Mexican drug lord Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán escapes from Altiplano prison for the second time, resulting in a manhunt.
News source(s): NBC News CNN BBC The Hindu Le Monde

Nominator's comments: The escape of someone described as "one of the world's most notorious crime figures"(NBC) and "the world's most wanted drug trafficker"(BBC) seems to be a big story. We posted his capture last year. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

  • support - both the dignity of the person and that it is his second escape makes this ITN worthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose blurb - We can't rush the story as is. Prison escapes... When was the last time these stories were posted? The escape from the Clinton Correctional Facility wasn't posted as a blurb, so why would this one? If you insist, support ongoing until the person is either dead or captured alive. (Must rescind; see further down) George Ho (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The Clinton escapees did not quite have the stature of this man, and their crimes were not international in scope(I think) as this man was wanted in both Mexico and the US. I don't "insist" on anything; this will either be posted in some form, or not. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Arguably the most-wanted man in the post-Bin Laden world escapes from prison a SECOND time. Prior to his arrest, he headed the Sinaloa Cartel, the largest drug trafficking group in the world. This is huge news in Mexico. This story is headlining a bunch of international media outlets as well. ComputerJA () 14:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
We can't post this just because it's "huge" in Mexico and elsewhere or he's the second most-wanted man. Not all most-wanted people are featured on front page. Terrorists like bin Laden may have been media's attractions, but I haven't seen yet one prison escapee posted ITN (unless I'm proven wrong). --George Ho (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't stay that this should be posted because this is huge news in Mexico. If you read the rest of my comment, you will know that the notability of this man is what makes this worth for the main page. The fact that there hasn't been any prison breaks before isn't a good reason to not post this. He is the first man to escape from that prison, the top one in all of Mexico (he escaped in 2001 from another). He heads the world's largest drug trafficking group. That is pretty notable to me. ComputerJA () 19:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The man's notability would not affect how Wikipedia's ITN works. Of course, I did vote for "ongoing", but now I must rescind. If it's posted, we might mislead readers into believing he's unstoppable or frighten readers into fearing for their lives. We did post his arrest, but we had no idea of whether he would escape again. Id est it shouldn't have been posted in the first place, but majority supported it. Probably the best thing to re-feature the BLP is either his capture or death. --George Ho (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The WEAKEST of possible supports and with the stipulation that this should not be seen as a precedent. Normally prison breaks, even those by notorious gangsters, would get a quick oppose from me as tabloid news. However I note that we are in an exceptionally slow news cycle and some of the posted blurbs have grown decidedly stale. To that end I think we might give this story a pass. If you like, we could file it under IAR for convenience purposes since I really don't think it meets ITN guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying but this isn't a garden variety gangster; he seems to be regarded as #1 in the criminal world. Escaping from prison twice is also somewhat unusual. 331dot (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
You should read this article to understand the significance of his escape a bit more. To add on what 331dot said, he also escaped from Mexico's top maximum-security prison. This is likely going to have big impacts in U.S.-Mexico relations, considering that several U.S. federal courts had requested his extradition. ComputerJA () 15:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Why would relations between two sovereign states be impacted by one vicious drug lord? He is dangerous, but there are other more hugely dangerous escapees crossing the border. --George Ho (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not an expert in U.S.-Mexico relations, but I'll try to provide my understanding of things. At least in the U.S.'s eyes, it shows that they cannot fully trust Mexican officials and that their anti-drug efforts (which are bilateral, by the way) are often pointless if things like this happen. I think it affects U.S.-Mexico relations in the sensitive areas of bilateral law enforcement cooperation and intelligence sharing. In addition, it is frustrating for the U.S. to pour billions of dollars and have Guzmán walk away just like that. They played a pivotal role in Guzmán's decade manhunt, and apparently in his arrest as well. Considering that corrupt officials already let Rafael Caro Quintero go, Guzmán's escape is pretty bad. ComputerJA () 20:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
What about Mexico's eyes? What do they see the American government? --George Ho (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I do not understand your question completely. But it's difficult for me to assess how things will play out at home. The administration's best trophy in the drug war is now gone. The President said an escape would be "unforgivable" in an interview last year, so we'll see. ComputerJA () 22:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the item is interesting in the tabloid sense, but unless he leads an armed resurrection or another cation which would merit posting on its own terms the mere fact of his escape is rather minor. μηδείς (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    One of the most strange opposes I have ever read.. but whatever works for you.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The Mexican drug cartels essentially are leading an armed struggle. 331dot (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, he'll just go back and head the world's largest drug trafficking organization. The fact that we can't predict exactly what will happen after his escape shouldn't be a good reason not to post this. His escape is very notable given the incident and the person involved. ComputerJA () 19:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: We don't normally post prison breaks, but this is an independently notable figure, an infamous Mexican crime boss considered one of the world's most wanted criminals, escaping from prison for the second time. This is a big-deal story and the update to Loera's page is certainly sufficient to post. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Conceding this would get some attention in any event, I think one of the reasons this story is getting so much coverage, is again, the incredibly slow news cycle. My God, I think even the sharks have stopped biting! -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - this guy is more important than the leaders of many countries. I mean, the Mexican cartels are no ordinary gangs - they hold more sway in northern Mexico than the Mexican government. Wnt (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted a bit more quickly and with a slightly weaker consensus than I'd usually prefer, but it does have consensus, the update is there, and we've got to post something. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Collapsing side discussion. SpencerT♦C 16:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Shall we inspire prison escapes to be posted in the future? Perhaps I'll nominate terrorists escaping prisons then or prison escapes during prison riots. George Ho (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Isnt that a matter of case to case basis. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. One case is not similar to the next.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed; each case is considered on its own merits. It would depend on the terrorist that escaped, or the extent of the prison riot. Each case is different. 331dot (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
George Ho, we report the news here. Would you rather we don't report things that you believe would inspire other news stories, like MH17 or Germanwings Flight 9525 or 2015 Sousse attacks? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Why comparing prison escapes to plane crashes and terrorist attacks? As I said, posting one prison escapee has been unusual, even in this case. What's your point? George Ho (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
You were the one making the point George. Perhaps it's lost in translation but your post " Shall we inspire prison escapes to be posted in the future?" seemed to suggest that you thought posting this story would encourage other events of a similar nature to occur. My point was that if you were suggesting that, other posts would inspire other such stories to be repeated. Do you understand? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I did ask whether this would be a predecessor to many other escapee stories. It would inspire more escapee stories to be nominated, but chances of posting a prison escape is... slim. In this case, since we did post his arrest, we posted his escape just for the heads up. I was thinking: if we hadn't posted his arrest, we wouldn't have posted his escape unless consensus agreed with the escape, not the arrest. George Ho (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

July 10Edit


[Posted] RD: Jon VickersEdit

Article: Jon Vickers (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times CBS News The Guardian Le Monde Die Welt

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: He was a Companion of the Order of Canada. The WP page List of Companions of the Order of Canada informs us that this is "the highest level of the Order of Canada." He also "received the Governor General's Performing Arts Award for Lifetime Artistic Achievement, Canada's highest honour in the performing arts, in 1998." This seems to indicate he was important in the field of opera singing. Everymorning talk 15:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support pending article updates - Importance seems there but the article is virtually unsourced. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Major Improvement Needed the article has an entirety of seven citations, two of which are about his death and three of which support only two claims in the entire multi-paragraph acreer section. Each stage appearance will need a reference, since a blue link to the Opera will not link us to a primary source in such instances. Even then, that he got a high civilian award from his homeland doesn't strongly establish RD-level notability. μηδείς (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Very weak oppose largely due to the state of the article currently; but I'm also not convinced that the one award is sufficient. Usually when people get those sorts of awards they already have a lot of other awards. In this case it just seems to be recognizing his long career. If it was clearer how this person is "very important" to their field, I would support. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support While I agree that the awards would not by themselves establish that Vickers meets the criteria, he easily meets the criterion of having been "widely regarded very important figure" in his field. The Guardian obituary calls him "one of the outstanding operatic tenors of his generation",[16] the BBC says he was "considered by many to be one of the greatest opera singers of the 20th century"[17] and the Washington Post states that his voice "was regarded as one of the finest sounds to fill an opera house in the past half-century".[18] Neljack (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support with improvements. Honestly, I don't see a tremendous case for notability, but the Order of Canada honor maybe just nudges him across the line. However, the article needs some work to track down additional citations, and there may be some BLP issues. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Article has been improved and should meet acceptable standards for posting. Marking ready as consensus appears to exist; feel free to unmark if there are still problems. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support now that the article has been improved. As for notability, if you read the many obits, Vickers was an opera legend and widely considered the greatest Wagnerian tenor of the 20th century. Among opera lovers he is ranked up there among Callas, Domingo, Pavarotti, Sutherland, Sills, etc. as one of the great voices of the 20th century. Notability is not an issue. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, per 4meter4, a legend, - I added sources, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: This man died later in Ontario than Sharif in Cairo. George Ho (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent update/ref work, suggest posting admin make sure Gerda Arendt gets update credit on her talk page. μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: This has been ready to post for 48 hours. If the page admins are not interested in posting it, it should be closed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted apologies for the delay. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Roger ReesEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 16:26, 14 July 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: Roger Rees (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Playbill

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: Tony Award-winning actor also recognizable from roles on television shows like Cheers and The West WingKudzu1 (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Even with the Tony Award, he doesn't really strike me as someone "widely regarded as a very important figure" in acting. Good career, yes. But not quite notable enough, in my opinion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I loved him in Warehouse 13 and enjoyed many of his other roles, but he was a minor character actor and unfortunately doesn't rise to the level of ITN. Rhodesisland (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvement. Meets the RD bar as a stage actor with a Tony, Olivier and Obie award. Paragraphs need inline references and the death cite could do with being replaced by something other than Twitter. Fuebaey (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose a lot of the article is unreferenced, including numerous of his theatre appearances. Also, not RD level per Bongwarrior. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A thinly-sourced and very bare-bones article for a well-remembered actor that sadly falls far short of the RD criteria for notability and influence. Challenger l (talk) 09:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Potential Support per Fuebaey, if improvements made to article. μηδείς (talk) 17:54, 11 July 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] Shanghai Cooperation OrganisationEdit

Closing without prejudice to renomination. No !votes have been cast and as noted by Spencer no real explanation of significance has been offered. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:53, 12 July 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.

 125.14.52.226 (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article needs update to explain significance. SpencerT♦C 12:25, 11 July 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: Omar SharifEdit

Article: Omar Sharif (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: Multiple Golden Globe winner, Egyptian-American actor famous for roles in Lawrence of Arabia and Dr. Zhivago. RD only, not blurb MASEM (t) 14:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support I've now marked as updated, as the article shows. Brandmeistertalk 14:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support Some refs need date tags. Other than that, I support this. Academy Award nominee is certainly top of his field, article seems well referenced. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional support once those first two sections are referenced. Connormah (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional support - Notability is there. We need the referencing though. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Lawrence of Arabia and Dr. Zhivago are absolute classics. Oscar nominated, multiple Golden Globes. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support conditional on article improvement. Clearly meets ITNR criteria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Highly influential culturally for his roles in David Lean's epic films. Sca (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per all the other appropriate supports. The article needs work. This has nothing to do with ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – influential. Oscar nominated.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Sources I have removed the section tag and a few unsupportable claims from the acting career section. No reference is needed for any role in which the film itself, a WP:PRIMARY SOURCE credits him. Some of the early life and bridge playing claims need citing, but I would be just as happy to see them hidden so we can post this asap, the claims are not essential and the nomination should go up asap. μηδείς (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I concur. Articles do not need to be perfect to be linked on ITN. They do need to be reasonably well sourced and free of any other serious problems. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Then feel free to instigate a discussion to remove "Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level tags at either the article level or within any section, may not be accepted for an emboldened link." from the instructions. Yes, it says "may not be accepted" because it used to say "will not be accepted" and several admins over-ruled that. If you wish to allow items with orange or red tags and multiple {{citation needed}} tags then I think it's worthwhile capturing that in the instructions so we don't go round this discussion again and again. Please make a proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I am working on resolving the tags or hiding the problematic material, the section tags are based on this and will come down once I can address the specific issues. μηδείς (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I have hidden or cited all material with tags and removed the page tag. The only section that may need addressing is the filmography; normally we require refs for films that are redlinked. They can be deleted, and the section changed to selected filmography, which is what I will do if no one else takes action over the next 30-60 minutes. μηδείς (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Oscar nominated, Golden Globe winner, appeared on classics, death is reported around the globe, and had a very high impact on the Egyptian movie industry. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Listed in RDs of French, German, Dutch, Danish & Spanish WPs. Sca (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
"Once again, irrelevant and knowing the standards of those WPs, worse than irrelevant I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
This user no longer responds to, or comments upon, statements made anywhere on Wikipedia by TRM. Sca (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
And that has no relevance whatsoever to this discussion, your position has been made clear on your user page. Either way, the point remains that your post, while interesting, has no relevance here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Idem. Sca (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Idem. But thank you for responding now twice despite saying you would not respond at all ever again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
So who exactly is this IDEM? And have they just died? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
[19], i.e. the same as before. Sca (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
shucks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support well known for Lawrence of Arabia. -- Callinus (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Ready the article is actually ready now, as of these edits removing the last of the unsourced items - the redlinks can be restored if they get citations or become blue links, see that article talk. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Notability is clear. Good work by Medeis to bring the article to a level fit for posting. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I am good on even numbered days, evil on odd numbered days. μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Alas, Medeis, adieu. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Overwhelming consensus supports posting this now.--WaltCip (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Compared to what I had seen at the time of the nomination, the article is tons better shape and ready to go. Kudos to Medeis for the improvements to that. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Are you blind? Did you see that there is one sentence alone on his death for an "update."120.62.30.168 (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
You are in no position to talk having nominated an egregiously sub-par article for ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The bar was lowered for such RD nominations so that a five-sentence three-source update is no longer considered necessary. Our hostile anonymous IP is welcome to add to the update. μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
(To add, specifically only for RDs - as the update for most is one or two sentences that explain the circumstances of their death. For all other topics we do still expect five-sentence, three-source update, hence why ITNR sporting event results we push to have a describe of the winning event). --MASEM (t) 22:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing, but I don't think Brad is blind. He may be, in which case he does a decent job of not making it obvious. For your information IP120, the criteria for RD include the following: "In addition, the article must have been satisfactorily updated and have no major omissions of the person's life and effect. " So, a satisfactory update might be thousands of characters about a tragic passing, or a series of testimonies from prominent B-class figures, or it might just be a sentence to say, sorry guys, he's died, and that's all we have right now. If you'd like to "update" the "update" criteria, feel free to start a discussion mandating an objective and testable update criterion. In the meantime, please stop being so offensive (or puerile), and try to actually do something to improve Wikipedia (rather than expecting everyone else to do it on your behalf). You could even log in to one of your accounts and do something positive! WaltCip makes an excellent point, by the way.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] BRICSEdit

UNANIMOUSLY OPPOSED:
Re-nominate (or re-open) when article is expanded and event starts. (non-admin closure) --George Ho (talk) 00:05, 11 July 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: 7th BRICS summit (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 7th BRICS summit concludes in Ufa, Russia.
  • Nominated by [[User:120.62.30.168 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)|120.62.30.168 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:120.62.30.168 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)|talk]] • [{{fullurl:User talk:120.62.30.168 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5B7th+BRICS+summit%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=7th+BRICS+summit&preloadparams%5b%5d=nominated}} give credit])

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: Concluded a day ago. 120.62.30.168 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose item is barely stub-quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article requires massive expansion from its current state. Currently it's simply name of event, people who went. Cowlibob (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Summits are typically meet and greet photo-ops these days. If something really important comes from it we can revisit the subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this should not even be on ITNR since the phenomenon is essentially accidental; for a while those nations, which had been underdeveloped in comparison to the G7 economies, were growing at a faster rate. As of now China, Russia and Brazil have major economic issues. Posting a stub on this would be like free advertising for a selection of junk bonds. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment objections to BRICS summits being on ITNR should be addressed via proposal for removal at WT:ITNR. I think we're all agreed that we won't be posting a stub, in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 10 July 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.

July 9Edit


[Posted] China bans stockholders from selling stocks for six monthsEdit

Article: 2015 Chinese stock market crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In response to the stock market crash on the Shanghai Stock Exchange, the China Securities Regulatory Commission imposes a six-month ban on stockholders owning more than five percent of stocks from selling their stocks.
Alternative blurb: ​In response to the stock market crash on the Shanghai Stock Exchange, the China Securities Regulatory Commission bans stockholders owning more than five percent of stocks from selling their stocks for six months.
Alternative blurb II: ​In response to the stock market crash on the Shanghai Stock Exchange, the China Securities Regulatory Commission imposes a six-month ban on stockholders owning more than five percent of stocks from selling their stocks, leading to around 1,300 firms suspending stock trade.
News source(s): Reuters The Guardian

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Better late than never. Should not be considered stale; in fact, it has been days after two association football matches but before a prison escape. George Ho (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - first blurb is okay. Why are more alt blurbs needed?Jonpatterns (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Glad to see an article now, since there wasn't one last I looked. Amazing how this story has flown under the radar, what with the tumult in Greece, the Iran nuclear talks, the Pluto flyby, and a rash of recent deaths. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Has been in the news, notable Chinese economic development. I feel like the "Causes" section meets the bare minimum but I'm not sure what else could be added since it does feel on the short side. SpencerT♦C 16:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the story on notability; no opinion on quality of article. μηδείς (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I eliminated uncited statement and added another source verifying another statement. George Ho (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Didn't Enron do the same thing? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen (talkcontribs) 23:28, 14 July 2015‎ (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Christian AudigierEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 16:26, 14 July 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: Christian Audigier (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Us Magazine

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: One of fashion designers selling or working with many brands. If some Mormon pastor gets mentioned, why not this person? George Ho (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Yes, we should obviously take into account the balancing effect that his not being a Mormon has, but the article is far too small, with no awards or proof of standing in the fashion community that would accomplish the desired revisionism. μηδείς (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose on notability, and article quality is obviously not quite up to snuff. Fairly well known in the fashion world, it sounds like, but I'm not seeing a ton of awards or evidence of outsize celebrity. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:00, 12 July 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: Saud bin Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al SaudEdit

Article: Saud bin Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Saud Al Faisal, after serving nearly 39 years as the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Saudi Arabian government, dies at age 75.
Alternative blurb: Saud Al Faisal, son of the late King Faisal, dies at age 75.
Alternative blurb II: Saud Al Faisal, the Saudi Arabian Minister of Foreign Affairs, also son of the late King Faisal, dies at age 75.

News source(s): Gulf NewsAl-Jazeera

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: Article is in good shape, and the person is a prominent politician in Saudi Arabia. George Ho (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support posting as Saud Al Faisal. Article has been improved and is suitable for posting. Longest-serving foreign minister for any country, ever -- definite notability on that front. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD Clearly meets ITNR criteria. Article appears to be ready for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose blurb Important... but not that important. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Longest ever, and the architect of current foreign policy there, should be a blurb.120.62.18.109 (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Let's face the facts RD or blurb, this guys name is going to take up a whole line at least. Support for RD. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    • His name can be shortened, as I suggested, to Saud Al Faisal. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD once the article is tidied up. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD, strong oppose blurb - DC is met, but I'm not seeing so much importance to require a blurb at all. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support list, oppose blurb as he was apparently not seen as a pivotal figure in the region by overseas sources. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD tag but oppose blurb, he was an essential and highly ranked Saudi politician, but not notable enough for a RD tag since he wasn't an internationally-renowned political figure. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Important world leader, but largely behind the scenes. Article seemed fine when I looked last. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose no real accomplishments listed nor participation in historical events implied, not a head of state, simply one of a large nepotistic (which I mean only objectively) monarchy. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. Note: If posted to RD, please note that he died before Omar Sharif. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    No big deal, they'll both be removed at the same time when they become stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT♦C 12:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Srebrenica vetoEdit

no trend in support of posting. μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 11 July 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: Srebrenica massacre (talk, history)
Blurb: Russia vetoes UN resolution condemning Srebrenica massacre as genocide.
News source(s): NYT

Article updated
 198.16.164.205 (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not seeing any update in the article right now. SpencerT♦C 15:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Updated. 198.16.164.205 (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • support - when updated.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose This looks like business as usual at the UN and I have serious doubts it rises to the level that we usually look for in terms of coverage and significance. That said, we are in a pretty slow news cycle so maybe we could give it a pass. In a busier news cycle I would oppose this more strongly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as significant in the burgeoning historical treatment of one of the most horrific acts in Europe since the 1940s and 1950s. Interestingly, the scuttlebutt from Belgrade is that Serbia agreed to abandon its application for NATO membership in order to obtain Russia's veto here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As said, it's "business as usual". Russia vetoes any UN resolution that is deemed a threat to international security, including sanctions over the Ukrainian crisis. Look at vetoes by the US regarding Israeli–Palestinian conflicts. George Ho (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per above. The massacre is already considered a genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Court of Justice. So UN's decision to adopt a resolution on the 20th anniversary of the massacre and not much earlier looks like a publicity stunt, considering for example four toothless resolutions on Nagorno-Karabakh. The famed UN blue helmets of the 90s are unfortunately gone almost everywhere, in time of dire need... Brandmeistertalk 21:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose When is the last UN veto we posted? Just because it's obviously craven patronage doesn't make a policy decision into an historical event. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This would be interesting if it was tied in any way to the Donetsk People's Republic - but I don't see anything like that reported. -- Callinus (talk) 12:29, 10 July 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] Ongoing: New Horizons flyby of PlutoEdit

No consensus to post item at this time. SpencerT♦C 16:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've see 3 different articles on BBC about New Horizons in the last week, and since the actual flyby is less than a week away I think this would be a fine chance to give some spotlight to what some still want to think this is the 9th planet. Nergaal (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

  • support - a blurb however. This is interesting and notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I would support a blurb during the actual flyby, which I believe is set for 14 July. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing, support blurb when it happens - It's going to be interesting when the first photos come back to us for analysis and wonderment, but I can't see the leadup to this being a ongoing element, as it only seems to be "it's getting closer -- it's getting closer..." type news until the closest passing actually happens, in contrast with daily violence in conflicts or near-daily match updates for sporting events. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - One suggestion would be to post it when consensus has been established as it is already all over the news and in fact ongoing until 14 July atleast.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Is the article recieving substantive updates, or just changes to the distance figure? Abductive (reasoning) 19:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The article now has some detailed pictures of Pluto in it! Which I think rather counts for something. Wnt (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a Pluto blurb to run on July 15. See [20] - there is a plan to cover image returns live on television starting 3 p.m. EDT that day. The probe will actually be OUT of contact on much of the 14th, so there won't be anything for us but the not-news that it MIGHT be recording things, AFAIK. We should be ready to move on the story to feature it the instant the images start coming out... or alternatively, to cover the tragic story of the probe that went into safe mode on flyby day (let's hope not, NASA says it has failsafes...) The first of these blurbs thus should be that New Horizons returns images from its July 14 flyby of Pluto... Wnt (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support posting the flyby per ITNR (the arrival of a probe at its destination) but I don't think ongoing is appropriate. There isn't a lead up to the flyby warranting coverage; the media attention nonwithstanding. 331dot (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting until next week, best pictures are expected Weds. Posting anything now is far too premature, and since this is a flyby, ongoing is also a bad idea. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Next Wednesday should be the 15th, so I think we're in agreement. I'll add though that I don't know we'll see the best pictures the 15th - the probe is expected to take 16 months to upload images to NASA, and I have a feeling we'll be contenting ourselves with thumbnails and technical parameters at first. But ITNs tend to hang around a long time, so if there's an incoming stream of flyby images with fresh news coming in daily, it'll be good to have it up from the 15th till whenever it expires. Wnt (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose (for ongoing) All that's ongoing is that every day, we get a slightly less blurry photograph of the planet. Wait a few more days, and the best quality photographs (plus most of the best scientific data) will come out, and we'll have a good blurb. Smurrayinchester 07:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing post it per ITNR when it "arrives at destination". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 10 July 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.

July 8Edit