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

June 30Edit


[Closed] Sweden wins UEFA European Under-21Edit

UNILATERALLY OPPOSED:
I must close this before there will be more !oppose votes. --George Ho (talk) 05:04, 1 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 UEFA European Under-21 Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Sweden wins the 2015 UEFA European Under-21 Championship final against Portugal after a penalty shootout.
News source(s): [1], [2],[3]

Article updated
 BabbaQ (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Youth tournaments do not do well here, primarily because they are not the top level of the sport. Can you explain why this should be an exception? 331dot (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, the tournament are not like just a few years back. It has grown in popularity, and is hosted like a regular European Championship nowadays. Reported on world wide. I would say that it is beyond "just a youth tournament", several players in Portugals team are already top players and so are the swedish. Some of the portugese players have contracts worth more than 100 million dollars etc. Most of the players in both teams could just as well already play for their respective national teams.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Some of the portugese players contracts worth more than 100 million dollars [sic]. I highly doubt any Portuguese footballers in their early twenties are currently earning roughly the same amount as Messi and Ronaldo. Feel free to source it though. Fuebaey (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a standard regional youth sport tournament. That some players also play for their senior teams doesn't convince me otherwise. 2015 UEFA European Under-21 Championship Final is more relevant, but currently underdeveloped. The prose about the final, in both articles, consists of two sentences and one reference to the match report. Fuebaey (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We rejected the youth World Cup earlier this month, and this (as a regional tournament) has an even lower notability. HaEr48 (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Consensus is strongly opposed to posting youth competitions. Abductive (reasoning) 03:38, 1 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] 2015 Indonesian military plane crashEdit

Article: 2015 Indonesia Hercules C-130 crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 141 people are killed when a Lockheed C-130 Hercules crashes into a residential area of Medan, Indonesia.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

 The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support on article expansion/update - Incident is clearly important, but would like to see the article expanded beyond 2 sentences (which I'm sure will come in time). Once more details are established, I think it would be good for the blurb to separate out those riding on the craft, vs civilian deaths on the ground. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional support pending some expansion with more definitive data. The news I've read now mention 91 bodies. Indonesian air force commander said that although 141 body bags had been sent to morgues, some might contain only body parts, so the actual death count could be somewhat lower. Brandmeistertalk 06:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    The BBC are reporting officials saying "141 bodies have been recovered". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Marking ready The article has been expanded to surpass the three prose paragraph minimum, is well written and refernced, and the incident clearly notable. μηδείς (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Notable event, article already expanded. HaEr48 (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Kobanî → June 2015 Kobanî attackEdit

STALE:
--George Ho (talk) 07:14, 2 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 did nominate the article, June 2015 Kobanî attack, for deletion. Consensus unilaterally opposed. The current blurb is "ISIL forces attack the Syrian city of Kobanî, killing more than 140 civilians." To make up my blunder at AFD, I propose modifying it into "ISIL forces attack the Syrian city of Kobanî, killing more than 140 civilians." The stand-alone article about the massacre has improved since I quickly withdrew the nomination. I welcome your opinions please. --George Ho (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS is the best destination for requests to modify blurbs that are already on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
How is this an error? This is a proposal. --George Ho (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
You know what? I'm going to propose this at the Errors section, even when it looks like forum shopping. --George Ho (talk) 10:17, 30 June 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.

June 29Edit


[Closed] Donald Trump NBCEdit

UNILATERALLY OPPOSED:
Nevertheless, if you want to vote !support, feel free to revert closure. The nature of the story makes the posting unlikely though. --George Ho (talk) 23:02, 29 June 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: Miss Universe (talk, history) and Miss USA (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: NBC and Univision cancels airing of Miss Universe and Miss USA after the owner Donald Trump is fired from NBC for derogatory comments about Mexican immigrants.
Alternative blurb: Donald Trump is fired by NBC after making derogatory comments about Mexican immigrants.
News source(s): [4], [5], [6]

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.
 BabbaQ (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Political noise of no broad or lasting significance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry, but you have no idea about lasting significance. Broad, it is reported world wide. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Idiot says racist things, loses platform to say them on". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. NBC exercising its right to associate with whom they wish is not significant. Britney Spears having children was reported worldwide, too. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tabloid commentary frankly. It's not "broad" that I can see - it's not currently on either the BBC or CNN website front pages for example. Per Muboshgu as well. Pedro :  Chat  22:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    It is actually on BBC right now, but that's beside the point for me. -- KTC (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    Yep, just seen it at about number 8 of "most read" so good point; even so hardly "across the media" and I agree with your statement below. Pedro :  Chat  22:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see how this fulfil any points of Wikipedia:In_the_news#Purpose. If Trump were elected President, sure, but an organisation saying they don't want to associate with him anymore, no. -- KTC (talk) 22:24, 29 June 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: Josef MasopustEdit

Article: Josef Masopust (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Sports Illustrated Reuters Česká televize

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: Accomplished Czech footballer and coach who led his team to the 1962 World Cup final. Generally considered to have been the best Czech football player of all time. Voted European Footballer of the Year in 1962. Kudzu1 (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • support - top player. RD is appropriate.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality – inadequate presentation of career, and a massive unsourced section. It's a shame that due to recentism, players of this calibre go unnoticed to editors, while ten-a-penny disposable and forgettable current players get pristine articles. Ho hum '''tAD''' (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Now support: Improved to an acceptable standard. Achievements speak for themselves, I never doubted notability '''tAD''' (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: voted top player in Europe. I have also tried to improve the article re: the concerns mentioned above. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support meets notability, and article seems acceptable. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose certainly notable, but the article is full of hagiography so needs work. E.g., phrases like "was an indispensable player", "The only flaw in his capabilities came from...", " a workhorse of his team, who toiled away in obscurity crafting and building fresh attacks for the front line", "he made up for this deficit with massive reserves of stamina and pace, allowing him to be a tireless engine", "Many of his Dukla teammates also played for the national team, which gave them a greater understanding than many of their opponents." etc etc need real work. Also, basics like formatting "their national olympic football team" correctly, avoiding raw URLs, using reliable sources (is "national-football-teams.com" reliable? And "eu-football.info"? They may be, but I'd like to see evidence of that). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: It appears the hagiography has been pared down and sound references are now in place. Is this ready to post? -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    What about the sourcing concerns? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I have removed the two dubious sources you mentioned. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - The man who helped the Czechoslovakian team win two FIFA Cups. Marking as ready. --George Ho (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: He played at two World Cups, losing one final, but never won it. If the article suggested he won two World Cups, it needs copyediting, so it can be clear to any reader '''tAD''' (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks plenty clear to me. I'm sure George Ho just misspoke. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
My bad. At least he performed well in the Cups. George Ho (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Hisham Barakat assassinatedEdit

Article: Hisham Barakat (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Hisham Barakat, Egypt's top prosecutor, is assassinated in a bombing.
News source(s): Al Jazeera BBC

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

Nominator's comments: Egypt's Prosecutor General Hisham Barakat was killed today in Cairo in a car bomb. Al Jazeera The death of such a high rank official is a rare event, so, I propose adding Hisham Barakat to the RD section. Egypt is currently in a state of instability after the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état. I admit that the article still needs to be expanded but I will leave this task to others who are more knowledgeable about the incident than me. Meno25 (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Other sources: BBC News The Guardian Reuters --Meno25 (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Article is a stub. If Barakat is a very internationally notable figure -- and we have passed over cabinet officials, governors, generals, etc., from many countries for ITN purposes -- then the article doesn't convey it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on article expansion: There is probably a lot more that can be written on him; the BBC article I just added to sources explains he had been involved in the conviction of many Islamic militants following the deposition of the former President, so there's a reason he might have been targetted, that all can fill out the article. Also blurb should mention that there were ~dozen some injured by the blast, though obviously the focus on Barakat's death being key. I note that I'm speaking to this less as being a RD and more as news event that happened to target a notable individual. --15:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • To follow on PrimeHunter's point Support blurb focusing on the attack/bombing of a national official, and less about the person as a person. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD but support full blurb pending article improvement. It's the assasination of the office holder and not the death of the individual that is the notable story. RD only says somebody died and should only be used for more notable figures. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb pending article expansion; oppose RD (the incident itself is more notable than the victim). Political assassinations of high-ranking officials are quite rare in Egypt. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb conditional on article improvement. Clearly a significant event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb upon article improvement because the death was sudden and unexpected; clearly a notable event. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per 331dot.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. This would be as if Eric Holder got assassinated. This is the guy who prosecuted Morsi and all those other Muslim Brotherhood guys and got them sentenced to death. Abductive (reasoning) 04:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    I don't see that in the article, it would certainly help improve the nomination if that detail was added. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    Except that Holder is the former AG, while this guy was the current officeholder, right? Has any group claimed responsibility? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    As of 12 hr ago, not yet, but Egyptian officials are certain it is one of the groups aligned with the insurgency going on there. And yes, they did confirm this was a car bomb triggered remotely as Barakat's car drove by, so clearly signs of an assassination attempt. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Unmarking ready: Article is still a stub, even if the "stub" tag has been removed. It needs substantial expansion before it's ready to post, per the apparent consensus here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked ready - There's am adequate 2-paragraph update now. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

June 28Edit


[Closed] 2015 Clinton Correctional Facility escapeEdit

Speedy close of good faith nom per WP:SNOW. This is not going to be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:21, 28 June 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 Clinton Correctional Facility escape (talk, history)
Blurb: ​David Sweat, one of two inmates who escaped from a prison in New York on June 6, is shot and taken into police custody.
News source(s): New York Times The Guardian BBC CNN
Nominator's comments: This escape sparked a massive manhunt that has just now, with this story, come to an end, and has been a very high profile story in the United States for some time now. Everymorning talk 22:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No, just no. Shall I explain further? George Ho (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Questionable - Very high profile story, but not necessarily likely to have "legs". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:23, 28 June 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 ongoing] Greek debt crisisEdit

Article: Greek government-debt crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The European Central Bank announces it will not continue to provide funds to help bail-out Greece from its debt, causing the Greek government to order all banks closed.
Alternative blurb: ​The Greek government orders all banks closed after the European Central Bank refuses to subsidize further debt bail-outs.
Alternative blurb II: ​Greece defaults on 1.6 billion euros ($1.8 billion) in loans from the International Monetary Fund.
News source(s): NYTimes

Nominator's comments: Seeing this appear in a lot of news stories; there might be other events in the week related to the Greek debt but this seems to be significant given the drastic action being taken. MASEM (t) 17:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - "Criticism of Germany's role" section is tagged as undue and non-neutral. Also, the article is tagged as too long and overly detailed. Same for its introduction. Shall there be improvements? George Ho (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, oppose blurb, but support ongoing. Modern Greeks haven't been Ancient Greeks for... ten or twenty centuries? Also, the EU is responsible for this. --George Ho (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - a very significant news story, but the quality of the article is subpar. Varianceinvain (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support conditional on major improvements in the article, which as noted above, is not ready to be linked on the main page. That said, this is a very big story and if the article can be gotten up to scratch it should be posted. Supporting Ongoing for now per TRM's comment below. If and when Greece actually exits the EU that would be sufficiently important to merit an independent blurb on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is "ongoing" and a perfect example of something that needs to be covered there. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    It's worth noting that the Greek government-debt crisis article is plastered with a maintenance tag that would render it ineligible for ITN in any situation. Please resolve the major problems with the article before sending it to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    Support ongoing. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I'll support either an ongoing or a blurb, but that big article tag has to be dealt with, obviously. Big international news and could get even bigger. Jusdafax 19:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb on notability, notable as failure of a part of the Eurozone, but no need to go "ongoing" until there's an update after the blurb ages off the queue. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The article currently has three top orange-tag issues, appears to be tagged recently. Brandmeistertalk 21:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait: This will surely be ITN material when either a last-minute deal is reached or, as appears far likelier, Greece defaults and/or is forced out of the eurozone. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait - Nowhere near over yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - The problem with this is if Greece defaults, the item should be on the defaults which is much more significant and definitely ITN worthy. If a last minute deal is reached however, then it's only worth of ongoing which the bank closure and capital control are part of. -- KTC (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • We can always update the blurb based on new developments, but the bank holiday is already in effect. People will be coming here for this now, and if the article is in good shape we should have a link now. μηδείς (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. The lead is ten paragraphs long, for one. Abductive (reasoning) 06:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait Comment – Agree with Kudzu1, KTC. The damoclean sword hasn't fallen yet. Sca (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Considering every Greek is limited to 60 bucks a day these days, you might say the sword has already fallen quite significantly for a lot of people. Might be a reason to make this ongoing. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Worse, $55.80US. That's 20,381 per year. Oh wait, it's 60 euros, not 50. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The big story will be Grexit: yes or no. If and when such occurs, a separate, succinct article will be needed. (The current target article is a maelstrom of 30,000 words = about 140 pages of typescript. No one is going to read such a bloated, semi-polemical exposition.) Sca (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
So what speaks against putting this on ongoing and make a blurb once the Grexit comes? (except for maybe too many references in the article... has one ever seen anything like that before??). Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly support ongoing on topic, oppose this specific article. I think ongoing would clearly be best for the next week at least, and probably more. This is a big deal, coming to a head, and blurbs will have a hard time keeping up. Greek government-debt crisis seems a little too sprawling an article to link to, and is likely to have near-constant edit warring and orange POV tags about who's to blame. Perhaps link to Greek debt crisis timeline#2015 instead, which has the benefits of:
    • Easily and quickly updated
    • Timeline format seems to me to match an "ongoing" section better
    • Will be very clear what new thing happened in the last day or two
    • Won't have to keep changing what section to link to
    • Timeline links to other appropriate articles that go more in depth
    • This page will be much less likely to have POV tags and unstable edit warring
--Floquenbeam (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – OK, Zwerg, support ongoing only. (Wait above changed to comment.) Sca (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Post this already. Nergaal (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing, as there will likely continue to be many updates to this important event in the near future. Mamyles (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing This is a major developing story and a blurb would probably have to be updated a few times. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Has to be "ongoing" - As noted above, this is changing daily. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing, if possible also including a link to next Sunday's Greek bailout referendum, 2015 as well as to one or both the previously mentioned articles (the timeline article and the debt crisis article), with wording something like "Ongoing:..., Greek debt crisis and July 5 Greek bailout referendum" (unless that's in violation of some long-established ITN/Ongoing convention about referendums of which I'm unaware). Tlhslobus (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be a blurb? 108 minutes ago Greece became the first developed country to default on its international obligations. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC) [7] Remember how huge this was during the heart of the Great Recession? I guess everyone succeeded in dragging this out long enough for the world economy to recover first. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Because none of these were developed? Dragons flight (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't blame me, blame one of the three headlines that popped up when I Googled Greece default: [8]. One also said first IMF default and maybe they mean something nitpicky like inflating it away doesn't count or only agreements with another sovereign govt. or supernational NGO counts or defaulting only their citizens doesn't count or communists don't count (second world) or if the Industrial Revolution hadn't finished yet in that country it wouldn't count or debt restructuring and anything other than the other side saying "fuck you, not a compromise more" doesn't count or something like that? I'm to lazy to read that article. Really any sovereign nation could just print money to pay back any bond so if true it might just be cause developed countries giving up the ability to print their currency is new. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
First EU country to default on the IMF, not the first country to do so. -- KTC (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
CNN says the first developed country period to default on the IMF. I remember the Economist acting like Grexit (or default too?) was unspeakable and loony fringe and by now it seems like Grexit might be the lesser evil for everyone involved. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Admin comment. Greek government-debt crisis seems like the best candidate for ongoing because of its extensive coverage, but it is currently ineligible for posting due to multiple NPOV section tags. Other suggestions: Greek debt crisis timeline#2015 is probably the best second choice but not a great choice due to the brevity of its updates, while Greek bailout referendum, 2015 doesn't really seem broad enough to speak to the whole issue (though might make an good ITN blurb once the result is known). Any chance people may resolve those NPOV tags in the near future? Otherwise, is there additional input on the choice of target article for ongoing? Dragons flight (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing – With link to Greek debt crisis timeline#2015 – at least it's something. Sca (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
PS: AP says banks reopened – hence Altblurb 2 above, in case of need. Sca (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It's pretty evident by now that this isn't blurb-worthy at this time, and that an "ongoing" post is required. Please, an uninvolved admin, assess this for inclusion at Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted to ongoing It's obvious we need something as this is near the top of most news headlines. We have a bloated NPOV article or a lightweight timeline, so I'm going with the latter in the hopes that more is added. This could be replaced by a full blurb over the weekend as the referendum results become known. Stephen 00:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

2014–15 Formula E seasonEdit

Article: 2014–15 Formula E season (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In motorsport, Nelson Piquet Jr. (pictured) wins the inaugural Formula E championship.
News source(s): ITV

 Mjroots (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose I don't really think this is significant enough. A radio presenter on TalkSport had never even heard of it, and thought it might have been a typo. Beyond that, the article has not been updated to reflect the end of the season (tenses etc) nor does it really contain much prose beyond the background stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Article now updated. Mjroots (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Limited coverage of a new event, which likely has not yet attained significant notability. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support If we post the Tour de Suisse, then this is just as significant. But I might be a little biased, since I enjoy this a lot (enough to produce this GA nominated article, who everyone is welcomed to review btw). Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    I couldn't stand the sound of the engines. I liked the idea. Is there any real notability, the Suisse tour has history... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    Notable as the first all-electric world car racing series. Mjroots (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    I would also consider that more notable than the 79th edition of a B-class bike race... Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The participants are all blue links, and what I saw were pretty well developed articles. I also noted quite a number of nations' flags, and I doubt they ran an entire season of races with nobody watching. Only thing this doesn't have going for it is history, but that could just as easily be read as that this is a significant first. - OldManNeptune 23:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The article itself could probably do with expanding. At the moment, it seems to be just tables of result with not much else. Otherwise, I would support posting this. FE is a significant and by indication successful development in the world of motor racing, recognised by the FIA, a world championship of 11 races in 9 different countries. -- KTC (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support - I tried watching auto racing, but I'm not amused by it. At least this race is not US-centric as NASCAR. And it's full of racers from all eligible nations, like the US and the UK. I'm pleased to see marginally-notable Tour de Suisse to be on front page. I will be pleased to have this race posted. Hopefully, no remaining issues with the article. George Ho (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the electric cars were identical models, not competing designs. This was more of a publicity stunt than any sort of mature competitive sport. μηδείς (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Medeis: there are many motorsport formulae where all drivers have the same car. It allows driver skill over a season to shine through, rather than a more skilled driver having a weaker car. Mjroots (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Understood, but one can't have it both ways. The event is portrayed as notable because it features a new class of racing vehicle; but then there's no actual competition between vehicles, since they are identical. It's like a fashion show where all the models wear identical outfits. μηδείς (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't care whether this is notable enough to be posted but NASCAR hardly has any competition between manufacturers anymore either. If a golf league started with identical nanotube superclubs then it would depend on how notable the league is. It's not surprising that manufacturers don't want to spend money on an arms race when they didn't even known how popular it'll be yet. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose the media coverages of this compared to the other ITN/R series is pretty weak, plus not helped that its a new series and I can't be certain if it will like all other heavily hyped up motorsport series (A1GP, Superleague, GP Masters) in the next 5 years, join them in the new formula graveyard (unlike the ITN motorsport series who have a 50 plus year history) but then I wouldn't really mind it being on ITN since we included the Tour de Suisse, a "B-grade" cycling event and The Boat Race, which is a school boat race consisting of names who we really couldn't really care about. Donnie Park (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional support I'd be tempted to support this as an inaugural racing season, but I'd like to see some sort of season summary covering the eleven rounds/standings first (not necessarily as long, but something along the lines of 2014 Formula One season#Season report). At the moment, it's mainly tables and a single sentence update stating the winner. Fuebaey (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Chris SquireEdit

Article: Chris Squire (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [9] [10] Rolling Stone

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: Widely regarded as one of the most influential bass players in rock music, if not the most influential in progressive rock. Floydian τ ¢ 15:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support pending article improvements - Was on way to add this as RD. However, article does need some sourcing improvements, and while I don't doubt the statements made, I'd like to see a better source to affirm this, likely will come in the next few hours. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Rolling Stone has now reported it, so concerns on the reliability of this news are satisfied. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvements nothing to add to Masem. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per the above, article has large unreferenced sections which need improvement. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support on notability; founding member of a well-known band, although never a frontman or a driving creative force. Article has been improved; could probably still use a bit of work, but my eyes are starting to glaze over combing through ancient album reviews and magazine interviews trying to nail down whether he's properly credited on whatever side work he did. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Notable independently, and article in good shape. Not on top of field, however. Also, no notable songs done in solo or without the band, Yes. We can post a name of a last surviving member or ex-member, but this guy ain't last. George Ho (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • He is, however, the only consistent member throughout the bands history. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable member of a notable band. Article decent. International news. Jusdafax 19:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on notability per above. Yes's place alone and his place in it merit his posting. μηδείς (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - on the basis of writing this alone. A very underrated solo album "IMHO". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] SpaceX CRS-7Edit

Article: SpaceX CRS-7 (talk, history)
Blurb: SpaceX CRS-7 fails after the Falcon 9 exploded after launch while carrying the Dragon to the International Space Station
News source(s): [11][12]

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: This appears to be the standards as a "Launch failure where sufficient details are available to update the article" Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose I marked this as ITNR because it is a launch fail, right now it's weak on details though. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    Already better, but the use of Twitter is dubious, neutral for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Removing twitter and replaced it with a CNN source. The press conference is ongoing as I type this, so more reports will be out in an hour or so. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per ITNR, update is sufficient, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - The most exciting astronomical stories are moon landings, planet landings, and universe. As I hate to admit, rocket or spaceship explosions happen occasionally and have been posted. This story ain't rare or unusual. Also, re-reading this article, I don't see what's so special about this mission. The story of Russian rocket explosion was posted probably because... Westerners fear(?) Russians maybe. I don't see the point of posting the failed resupply mission other than to move out older stories. George Ho (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    It's on ITNR so unless you believe the update to be inadequate for that purpose, I suggest you nominate failed launches for removal from the recurring stories list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    Tony Awards is on ITNR, but this year's Tonys wasn't posted ITN. Even some others from ITNR haven't been posted, I believe. George Ho (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    Indeed, mainly based on their failure to meet the update requirements. Does this item fail to meet the update requirements? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - INTR, international news, a significant failure that is a good ITN choice. Jusdafax 19:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Spencer, Black Kite, etc, we have a good article ready to go here, can we post it please? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Spencer is on vacation until August. George Ho (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted - I also made some modifications to the blurb. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I added the image for preview, just in case. George Ho (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

June 27Edit


[Posted] Formosa Fun Coast explosionEdit

Article: Formosa Fun Coast explosion (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A dust explosion at the Formosa Fun Coast (Bali District, Taiwan) injures more than five hundred people.
Alternative blurb: ​More than five hundred people are injured by a dust explosion at the Formosa Fun Coast in Bali District, New Taipei.
Alternative blurb II: ​A dust explosion at the Formosa Fun Coast (Bali District, Taiwan) results in a fireball, injuring more than five hundred people.
Alternative blurb III: ​An explosion of coloured corn starch at the Formosa Fun Coast (Bali District, Taiwan) results in a fireball, injuring more than five hundred people.
News source(s): BBC AP CNN

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Not as tragic as ISIS attacks recently, but this should prompt readers into either carefully using or not using hazardous dusts. George Ho (talk) 05:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support It is an important news, which focused by the international media.Shwangtianyuan (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. What kind of dust was it? The article needs improving. Abductive (reasoning) 07:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Corn starch according to BBC[13].My other car is a cadr (talk) 08:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
AP calls it "a colored theatrical powder thrown from the stage." Sca (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
It's used across the world in events such as The Color Run. But these are usually outdoors and thus pose no risk of explosion. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
This particular event was outdoor as well[14].My other car is a cadr (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I had thought it was in an enclosed area, in front of a stage. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
You just corrected that? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes.My other car is a cadr (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Further improvements might make the article postable? Or are you saying "it's so bad, it's not worth the effort"? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support huge number of casualties, article is just about there. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Large casualty event which seems unusual. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
How much do you want to bet that some impulsive eternally happy extrovert lit a cigarette or something? Sometimes insight into when extroversion near you is about to be rewarded can save your life. All it takes is one reveler who doesn't read Wikipedia enough to have seen dust explosion (that's easy) and doesn't have the common sense to not think "I'm sure it's non-flammable". But seriously, ability to realize when the extroverts, "well-adjusted", or low IQ around you can force their gene pool corrections on non-brethren is a Darwinian advantage. Extroverteder than average phenotypes aren't rarer than average for nothin'. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Not sure that the huge dancing crowd was over populated with shy retiring introverts, but you never know. And I'd guess that there was no attempt to make safety announcements, or to check for potential ignition points, before the powder was released. But all rather pointless speculation at this stage. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
You are right that we don't really know what caused this yet. And I guessed that the organizers were that stupid too. If Taiwan Chinese are anything like Mainlanders then their smoking rate is crazy — PRC smoking rates make America's look microscopic. (a Youtube commenter says the crowd was smoking). Even if something else ignited it before a smoker did then that's still an incredibly stupid thing to organize. I'm not sure if you thought I was just name calling without reason (your first sentence) but I wrote extroverts cause they're disproportionately likely to cause these things
WP:NOTFORUM
(extroversion correlates with low IQ which causes people to light flames in dust clouds, put generators or cars near dust parties (if that was the cause), and so on. They aren't good with "left-brain" things like deflagration, are less likely to notice something (like running engines nearby), like to run on instinct, are do first and think later type people, get (impairedly?) high from the fun without even taking psychoactive drugs, and are more likely to be smokers — people that need to light fires all day. The other category I mentioned doesn't react as quickly or strongly to dangerous shit, has unfitly low fear, and imposes their risk and pain tolerance level and insensitivity to being injured on anyone they cause fuel-air explosions near (they'd be really good for living in our crappy war-filled past though — new babies were cheap). These things have all been researched. Also, while I don't care to lose my waterpark virginity now (unless it's exceptional like Atlantis (Bahamas) or something Dubai would make) I still wanted to see one as a kid. So if I had a different mother I could've been hit by the explosion just for watching the strange customs for a second and being to young to know better. So it's not impossible that someone with the brain of a porn star (feelinglessly happy while 10 men are doing degrading things to them) imposed their Darwinianly unfit standards and grievous bodily harm on an introvert. And don't Holi "fights" not use nuclear-sized color loads and have at least as much water throwing as powder throwing? (cause Indian dry season is HOT!) See, details are important. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
This is an odd discourse, I'm not sure how it's helping us determine whether this incident, with over 500 casualties, should or shouldn't be ITN. Sometimes less is more. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Not wholly convinced about your supposed correlation, e.g. Saklofske and Zeidner (1995). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe Arbcom will render my future correlations irrelevant. Dude diolch. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure you're quite mistaken. It's someone else they'll be saying "Hwyl fawr a diolch am yr holl bysgod" to. So not so fast, Monsieur Sark. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not finished yet, although I am working on a Babelfish for baby translations..... Would be very helpful with certain users here.......! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what's the situation between you two, but let's either shake hands and resolve this, or just walk away from each other. We can't just bicker each other back and forth. --George Ho (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
George, there's no situation, no bickering, nothing. Just a multi-lingual sarcasm festival. Although my invention is still "in the works". Thanks for your comment George, but there's nothing here of note. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah WTF, George? I've not even called him a sock yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC) oh yeah, sorry, I did once.
Oh... my mistake. In this case, take humour elsewhere. The discussion is getting bigger. --George Ho (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Significant incident even if there's no deaths (yet, 500 ppl in hospital with ~180 in intensive care, so could still have some). Article appears ready given the current state of details expected for an incident like this. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Black Kite, Stephen, calling admins all round, please determine whether this is ready for main page inclusion. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support stage effect failures causing a casualty count this high are noteworthy. -- Aronzak (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • If it's anything like The Color Run, it's not just "a stage effect", it's the main reason that people were there. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Can we please DO something with this? It's not BIG news, but it is unusual and bizarre. Sca (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. I've declined to link to the theme park because it's a micro-stub with virtually no information. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Can we make it "a theatrical-dust explosion" to avoid the puzzling impression that it was just ordinary old dust? Sca (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Tupou VI coronationEdit

No consensus. Stephen 01:49, 1 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: Tupou VI (talk, history)
Blurb: Tonga begins a traditional 11 day taumafa kava coronation ceremony of King Tupou VI.
News source(s): (ABC news)
 Jenda H. (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support conditional on significant improvements in sourcing and inline citations. A royal succession should be ITN worthy but the article needs work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose now. The actual coronation is July 4. We shouldn't keep it in ITN until then and we shouldn't post it twice. Nominate it again later. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. On the ITNR page it states that coronations are not typically posted; this should have been posted when the King took the throne. 331dot (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above logic. He has been king for three years '''tAD''' (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose However, the enthronement was never posted, so I think it would be OK to bend the rules in this case. In all honesty, I think the rules as they are now are probably bad anyway. Having one ITN post dedicated to the death of a royal, and then one more months or years later dedicated to the coronation of his/her successor seems OK to me - otherwise you have to cram both into a single post. And when Charles is crowned, I think we'll have to post that coronation no matter what... Smurrayinchester 14:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
You post that you oppose this but your explanation suggests that you support it. Which is it? And why would Charles' coronation be posted when we state that such events are not typically posted(they are posted at the time of the change)? 331dot (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, I oppose posting the beginning of the 11-day celebration, but support posting the actual coronation when that happens. Smurrayinchester 07:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Because, barring a world war or some other mass catastrophe, in all probability Charles' coronation will be the most covered news event globally in whatever year it happens. Guidelines are not carved in stone and do not trump WP:COMMONSENSE on here. If we are reporting major sports events it would seem that royal coronations should be covered. They are certainly far more rare. To the extent that existing guidelines do not reflect this, I would respectfully argue they are wrong. Until that is remedied we can file this under WP:IAR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article says he has been king for three years. Therefore this coronation is simply de facto. I understand that many other royals are coronated way later than their original appointment, but this one is inexplicable, or at the very least, I can't see the article linked explaining the situation adequately. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 28 June 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.

June 26Edit


[Posted] SCOTUS rules in favor of same-sex marriagesEdit

Articles: Same-sex marriage in the United States (talk, history) and Obergefell v. Hodges (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Supreme Court rules 5-4 in Obergefell v. Hodges in favor of recognizing same-sex marriage across the United States
Alternative blurb: ​The Supreme Court rules 5-4 in favor of recognizing same-sex marriage across the United States
Alternative blurb II: ​The U.S. Supreme Court rules 5-4 in favor of recognizing same-sex marriage in the United States.
News source(s): NYTimes

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: While only affecting the US, this has been in the news for a heck of a long time MASEM (t) 14:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: Huge deal. Largest country to date to fully legalize same-sex marriage. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is a no brainer. Let's get it up as soon as the article is ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending article update, which will be pretty fast. Jusdafax 14:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • We've already posted the sub-national notables. No need for every step on lgbt movement.120.62.27.54 (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Big and unusually messy (as compared to most European nations and individual US states, which simply passed laws to legalise same-sex marriage, this involved four states being dragged kicking and screaming through the highest court). Irish referendum appeared on the main page, this should too. Smurrayinchester 14:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support. This will change loads of things. DS (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support landmark case, albeit a depressing one owing to all the kicking and screaming...--81.141.186.175 (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I don't normally come here, but I believe this is important enough to go on the list for me to support this being shown prominently. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 14:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Question is this it? The last step (notwithstanding any appeals, which I am confident are forthcoming). But this is the final word, and today (or tomorrow), in a state where same sex marriage was not legal yesterday, two men, or two women, can go and get married? If so than I would support this. --kelapstick(bainuu) 14:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Contentious side discussion collapsed, per WP:NOTFORUMDavid Levy 17:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a Supreme Court decision that amounts to a de-facto amendment of the United States Constitution. It's a done deal. There is no appeal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
No, it isn't. 14th amendment - equal protection under the law. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The 14th amendment has been around for nigh on 145 years. When 5 unelected judges suddenly discover it means something no one ever dreamed of until a few years ago, and overthrow 200 years of jurisprudence that says marriage is purely a matter of state law, then YES it is a constitutional amendment by judicial fiat. I have no strong feelings one way or another on the subject of gay marriage. But I have VERY strong feelings on the rule of law. This is simply rule by judicial dictatorship. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
They were saying the same thing about the Warren court's rejection of white supermacism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Wrong. The Warren Court never opined on White Supremacism. It reversed previous rulings that contradicted the CLEAR INTENT of the framers of the 14th amendment who wished to confer equal rights as citizens to persons of African decent . Their intent was/is incontrovertible. There is simply no comparrison between Brown v Board of Education and today's ruling. Anyone suggesting the framers of the 14th amendment intended to allow same sex marriage is simply delusional. Once again we are back to five judges making things up to suit their personal prejudices and social/political agenda. In a country that still cared about the rule of law, they would be impeached and removed from office for usurping the constitutional prerogatives of the Congress and the States. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of the alleged "clear intent" of the 14th amendment, it says no one can be denied equal protection under the law. As for impeaching, right-wing fanatics were screaming about impeaching Earl Warren for his role in Brown v. Board of Education. This is fundamentally no different. And as for imposing personal opinions ahead of the constitution, if you're going to impeach the five, you have to impeach the other four also. As with the 1950s ruling, this is about denial of equal protection to a particular class of Americans because of who they are. "The people" do not have a constitutional right to restrict the freedoms of others just because they don't like them. The Court affirmed that today. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Rubbish. Legal interpretation is almost always based on legislative intent. The alternative is judicial anarchy since sentiment and feelings (which is what this is about) change like the weather. By your specious reasoning the SCOTUS was wrong yesterday in upholding the ACA since the language of the law clearly said that subsidies can be applied to STATES that set up their own exchanges. But the court ruled (correctly IMO) that it was the CLEAR INTENT of Congress that anyone buying insurance through an exchange, even those set up by the Feds, should be eligible for the Federal subsidies. Your legal reasoning effectively strips the states of the power to regulate marriage or deny anyone a marriage license. Based again on your reasoning (and in all honesty today's court ruling) it would, and likely soon will be, impossible to refuse marriage licenses to polygamists and incestuous applicants. Will we even be able to refuse licenses to children? Are they not a class of people being denied "equal rights?" This is arguably the worst decision on the merits of the law since Roe v Wade and the long term consequences are going to be ugly. The SCOTUS has just opened a very unpleasant can of legal worms. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
There is an amendment (been 20 years since the last) and we're not going to post all amendments either. Remember who the Republicans brought out in 2004? Hyper-polarized and we're not done yet. Let's see the South start issuing licenses (MS, AS, AL, etc).120.62.27.54 (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Amendments to country constitutions for stable countries is a rare thing overall; I would think that any national constitutional change that is not part of a gov't coup or similar situation at this stage would be potentially ITN. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Yes and no. There will no appeals - the Supreme Court is the supreme court, and there's no-one to appeal to. The states may find an imaginative way to rewrite their laws to ban same-sex marriage without breaking the Constitution (a gay rights equivalent of "separate but equal"), but no-one has suggested one so far. Only Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Michigan (the states involved in the case) lose their bans overnight, but the bans in all other states will be struck down by the courts in those states. Smurrayinchester 14:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Legally true, but what practical effect would it have in said places? Gonna be a long time before that happens...120.62.27.54 (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
That would be crystal balling. How long the process of legalization will take is anyone's guess, but with the Supreme Court case law it becomes just a matter of time. Smurrayinchester 14:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm supporting this blurb as it is pretty huge news with likely global implications. That said, it is now very clear which way the pendulum is swinging on the whole LGBT issue, not just in the United States, and I am going to be much more reluctant to support similar blurbs in the future. After this decision future pro-gay moves elsewhere are likely to fall into the "well that's nice" column. Maybe an exception if/when gay marriage is legalized in Saudi Arabia or Russia. Otherwise, it's time to stop giving this subject near automatic ITN attention. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The US has the largest market economy - this is the most important country to report on. -- Aronzak (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, though we need to be sure the main article is reasonably updated. that should happen momentarily. obviously very important news, a sea change in US and world culture and law.(mercurywoodrose)76.254.36.96 (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Major landmark decision. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Admin Comment - Per ITN rules, only one bold link should be used. The ruling Obergefell v. Hodges in my opinion is the one more "in the news," as it prompted this blurb, but I wanted to ensure that's consensus before putting it up. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 15:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    I've added another alternate blurb wording to the nomination. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 15:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    Just want to note that ITN does allow multiple bolded links. Thus the (s) in "...emboldened link to the updated article(s)." Mamyles (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when updated, per the nominator. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Truly the largest and most sweeping SCOTUS decision made in quite a while.--WaltCip (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support like it or not this has major implications across the US and outside. -- Aronzak (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - unequivocally a landmark decision of the Supreme Court. Mz7 (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support Major decision with major ramifications. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
* Post-posting note: It made French, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Czech, Polish and even Russian ITNs, too. Sca (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Saint-Quentin-Fallavier attackEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 00:06, 30 June 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: Saint-Quentin-Fallavier attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​France launches terror inquiry after decapitated body found in factory attack.
News source(s): Reuters

Article updated
 EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 13:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, single death. ISIS killed 146 Kurds in Kobani the other day. Nobody bothered to nominate that. Abductive (reasoning) 13:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
That's a pretty poor rationale not to post. We didn't post X so we don't post this. Next. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Single death is poor rationale? So you want to post all single deaths in a day?120.62.27.54 (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
My comment about nobody bothering to nominate the 146 Kobani killings is meant to get somebody to do just that. Abductive (reasoning) 15:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
So why don't you do it? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Lugnuts and Abductive: I've already nominated the Kobani attack. Go to June 25 period (around a day or so), perhaps a single blurb noting the attacks in France, Tunisia and Kuwait? Resolute 14:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually there were four but not all are notable. I was gonna suggest a blurb change but only Tunisia and Kuwait are notable, IMO.120.62.27.54 (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the French one is too, primarily because of location. And while that may be a case of selection bias (western world vs. places where the average lout "expects" attacks), I would say the ultimate notability here is that Islamists hit three places in three countries at the same time. Particularly if the suspects in France claim ties to ISIS - my local news said that this morning, but I don't think that was confirmed. Resolute 14:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Kuwait has far less attacks than France. A lone nut claiming connection to ISIS doesn't mean anything. In Sydney, the attacker had nothing to do with ISIS other than his words and flag that is freely available. Anyways, let's see consensus. Still appears Kuwait and Tunisia have more support.120.62.27.54 (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Another amateur attack in France, they fail to explode building. If it happened in Bosnia no one would care.--Jenda H. (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • support its all over the news in (at least) Europe. Christian75 (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Another story of failure sensationalized by the media. There are two injuries and one casualty. This ain't a hostage or a siege. George Ho (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: We don't post single-victim murders to ITN, historically, unless the victim is independently notable. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support, if more of the media ties this attack & the Tunisia attack together, which some of the media already claims / supports. (We likely won't know if they're ACTUALLY tied together for some time, so will have to go by perceptions.) Post 'em both then in one update. SnowFire (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support iff tied to the two below, otherwise oppose as not enough weight by itself. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 22:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge: Three separate terrorist attacks on three continents on one day - that is unusual to say the least.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 06:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
    • BTW, I meant merge the blurb on the mainpage, not the articles.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 06:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose given the death toll in Kuwait and Tunisia on the same day. -- Aronzak (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - All of these events are part of the same, ongoing war. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This case may not be; the alleged perp attacked his boss. Abductive (reasoning) 16:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Why and how would other Wars spread to western Europe, including France? --George Ho (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • That war already has spread to Europe. Or did you miss the story about the murders of French publishers, for example? Or going back a ways, to the situation at the 1972 Olympics in Germany ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:08, 28 June 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] Kuwait bombingEdit

Article: 2015 Kuwait mosque bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 25 people are killed in a bombing in Kuwait.
News source(s): Al Jazeera

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A bombing in Kuwait is even more rare than a shooting in the usa or europe. 120.62.27.54 (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support unusual dangerous development --Jenda H. (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is kinda small, but this is the story deserving attention from Main Page readers. George Ho (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Now it's big. George Ho (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak conditional support: Article needs work. Kuwait has been an island of relative stability in the region for some time, which makes this attack unusual, but considering the neighborhood it's in, it isn't terribly surprising, as tragic as it is. There is also a fairly low death toll. Even still, this is the most significant terror attack in Kuwait in recent years, so I'd lean toward posting...if the article weren't in need of significant improvements before it's front-page ready. If someone can fix the grammatical issues and expand the page with more details, I'm fine with posting. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The neighborhood you're talking about is a safe neighborhood, like most of Kuwait's. Old buildings don't mean unsafe neighborhood. The death toll is 27, I don't think that's low at all, considering the last time something as tragic as this happened in Kuwait was actually the Second Gulf War in 1990. --Kuwaity26 (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to its geopolitical neighborhood, i.e. Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment death toll is now up to 25. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - The article is big enough to be featured now. I tried to use English references whenever possible. Since ISIS has claimed the responsibility of Sousse attack too, I'd suggest combining them both in one entry.--Kuwaity26 (talk) 05:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Expanded now.120.62.20.8 (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - The article is ready and the poll have gained enough support I believe, can it be posted now?--Kuwaity26 (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support combined blurb per Kuwaity26. 117.216.145.40 (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted on its own for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Tunisia attackEdit

Article: 2015 Sousse attack (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: At least 40 people are killed in an attack on Imperial Marhaba and Soviva five-star hotels in Sousse, Tunisia.
News source(s): RT
Express
Mirror
The telegraph
The Guardian

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: The wider region maybe viewed as chronically unstable, but specifically to the country not so much. Yes there was a museum attack a few months ago but that's all the more reason for shit going down there and neither is as regular as Syria/Libya.
Likely foreign deaths too 120.62.27.54 (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support when updated, highly notable event. —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 12:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone move the article to "attacks" as there the article cites 2 of them.120.62.27.54 (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support pending article improvement. Event is internationally notable in a country that appears is starting to destabilize. Jusdafax 13:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggestion Merge the three items (this and the two above) for a common news item on 2015 Ramadan attacks, as I read, these are all connected to this. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there really a connection? Are there any sources that support this statement, that it is connected? --Jenda H. (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • NYtimes doesn't say there is 100% a connection but the simultaneous nature, following a few days after a message broadcast to cause havoc during Ramadan, make it highly likely these were. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
There's no connection and that article is up for deletion.120.62.27.54 (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I support the article deletion in AfD - sections of it seemed like promoting quotes of terrorist leaders (which seem to be a very early conclusion to draw). We can merge the three blurbs, but I propose keeping them as separate articles. -- Aronzak (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
This works too for me. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless somebody has a better source than RT. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    (Personal attack removed)
    Do you have a better source than RT? I try to steer clear of Russian propaganda. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Bloodshed with significant economic aftermath. --Jenda H. (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Unusual target. Suggested sources: AP, BBC, Guardian. (Combined story: NYT.) Sca (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Article is currently too small, aside from big Background section. Tragic it was, I was going to vote either side until I see the article not well expanded. --George Ho (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Weak support - Well improved. Though still small, a lot of work has been done. Time for front-page attention please. George Ho (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support once the article spends more time talking about the event than the background to it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Reluctant oppose. This is clearly notable but as the Rambling Man suggests it spends far too much time discussing "background" (or "context") of completely unsourced relevance (i.e. it is not enough to show what is said is true, you need to show it is connected to the attack). A potential ITN item can't use "this is what we know about something else" as a crutch for poor coverage of the nominal subject. Saving the background section the best developed component is the response section. I have slightly more time for that but it is still a bit newsy as opposed to factual. A lack of hard facts is not an excuse to fudge normal editorial standards, even a solid consensus on this page does not grant the authority to ignore the consensus of the whole community in favour of expediency. 3142 (talk)

This is now ready. Its got updates to the attack, victims, aftermath and reactions.120.62.20.8 (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we post this now that the BBC have shown the first victim as being a young, white female? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Yevgeny PrimakovEdit

Article: Yevgeny Primakov (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Independent, ABC News

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Former Prime Minister of Russia and noted diplomat. Brandmeistertalk 10:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • SUpport RD He was very important figure in Russian politics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Noteable and sufficient article quality. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe heads of state are de-facto ITNR, heads of government not a surety unless more notable that the mere title.120.62.27.54 (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - INTR and article in decent shape. Jusdafax 13:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Supportpending article improvements. RD is clear, but the article is not ready to go. There's several unsourced statements on a BLP, and I see unsourced lines like "However, Saddam's execution was anything but rapid. He was captured in December 2003, allowed to speak at length many times during a long, open trial, and not executed until December 2006." which smells of soapboxing. There also appear to be a few CNs though whether they were added after --MASEM (t) 14:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Full support with the fixes Kudzu1 and others did (mentioned below). --MASEM (t) 15:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Article has been updated with references, dubious information for which no reliable source could be found has been removed, and we should be in good shape to post this. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly meets the guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support individual's notability for RD, weak oppose article, large section of "awards", many unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I have commented out the "awards" pending some better sources. I find lists like that to be a general waste of space anyway. If they're actually notable awards, they should be mentioned in the article body, in prose. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Bristol Palin announces 2nd pregnancyEdit

Closing per WP:SNOW. Bristol is not important and this is not a celebrity news ticker. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
If you want to vote "support", undo the closure and then do so. --George Ho (talk) 08:58, 26 June 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: Bristol Palin (talk, history)
Blurb: ​On her blog, Bristol Palin announces that she's pregnant with her second child.
News source(s): CNN CBS
  • Nominated by [[User:98.248.181.22 (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)|98.248.181.22 (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:98.248.181.22 (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)|talk]] • [{{fullurl:User talk:98.248.181.22 (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BBristol+Palin%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=Bristol+Palin&preloadparams%5b%5d=nominated}} give credit])
Nominator's comments: It's a top/trending story in Google News and has gotten a lot of media attention.
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.

June 25Edit


[Posted] ISIS attacks KobanîEdit

Article: Kobanî (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The ISIL forces attack the Syrian city of Kobanî, killing more than 140 civilians.
News source(s): Daily Star Lebanon BBC AFP via Yahoo

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Part of Syrian Civil War. If one-casualty foiled bombing ain't a big story, this story should be. George Ho (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Although not listed at Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#June_2015 (or at least I'm not seeing it now?), it seems notable enough for a standalone blurb. SpencerT♦C 00:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support notable event due tu hight number of causalities also strategic and symbolical importance of the town. --Jenda H. (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support it looks like we might use an Ongoing to reflect the sudden upsurge in ISIL activity, but for the moment this is okay, article has a rudimentary but adequate update. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing This should be back in Ongoing. Or rather, it should have never been pulled from ongoing. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Kobanî is a good target as a short article, Siege of Kobanî is long, and would need work to fix up sections of sporadic news coverage. I'd thought of proposing an altblurb mentioning that ISIL is trying to recapture the city, bet it's packing too many details into a sentence. -- Aronzak (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Ready for blurb pointing at Kobanî, ongoing can continue to be discussed here or at a new nomination as required. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Black Kite, Stephen, calling admins all round, please determine whether this is ready for main page inclusion. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 'Grandfather' of turtles discoveredEdit

Article: Pappochelys (talk, history)
Blurb: ​the discovery of a 240-million-year-old ancestor of turtles from southern Germany is announced.
News source(s): [15] and more

 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I like the fact that this is encyclopedic science - easily recognisable critter (turtles) loved by kids. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support (with article improvements) but suggest DYK backup While it is science news, backed by a peer-reviewed paper in science, this feels like it would have much better fit with DKY as a new article. Regardless, the article needs sourcing improvements for front page inclusion if only just to spread out the existing refers a bit more. --MASEM (t) 01:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Too old, I believe. I suggest nominating it for DYK. I can't see the word "June" in this article. George Ho (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    • The Nature article (which the news site is report) was published online on June 24. That might mean this could be mis-categorized by date, but it is definitely not too old. --MASEM (t) 03:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
      • The source doesn't have "June" in it either. Without confirming date of discovery, I still don't see a reason to switch my vote. George Ho (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm seeing "25 June 2015" right under the title on the provided source. --MASEM (t) 06:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Striking my vote. I don't know why scientists waited so long to announce the discovery after finding these fossils. --George Ho (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Reasonably significant scientific discovery. Regarding age - unless I'm misunderstanding what's being said, if we judged science articles based on the time of actual first discovery vs time of publication in mainstream press, we'd never post anything science. If you have dated articles showing this was actually ITN 2 years ago, by all means bring that out, otherwise that sounds purely speculative. - OldManNeptune 03:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
According to Sci-News, the fossils of this species have been collected since 2006. I guess the scientists announced the species this year. --George Ho (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
They may have been collecting the fossils, but for scientific discoveries, we put weight on the publication of a peer-reviewed paper that (reasonably) affirms their findings, and that was just published a few days ago. --MASEM (t) 06:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Interestingly, it looks like one of the original authors has put his illustrations up on Commons - someone who knows the OTRS system should get in touch and verify the uploads so we can use this picture. Smurrayinchester 09:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is rather significant, apparently it confirms the diapsid origin of turtles, placing them firmly with the Sauria rather than a separate stem-group of early amniotes. Close to being the "Archaeopteryx" of the turtles. μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely a discovery of some significance - I agree with Medeis, it does seem to be a similar discovery to Archaeopteryx. Sourcing looks good, page looks very concise. Challenger l (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] King v. BurwellEdit

Consensus is clearly opposed to posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 26 June 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: King v. Burwell (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States upholds tax subsidies that constitute a key part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
News source(s): The Guardian Los Angeles Times BBC CNN
Nominator's comments: A very widely anticipated and covered decision pertaining to healthcare for millions of Americans. Everymorning talk 21:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Impactful topic; the article has sourcing and writing issues. Lots of quotes and very little improvement; no, updates do not count. George Ho (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Ruling upheld the status quo; domestic legal dispute about public policy. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I did argue about how US-centric the domestic issues have been, but rules and other people disregard my arguments as unhelpful. Same for you, no offense. George Ho (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not opposing this because this is a US issue or does not relate to other countries; I oppose because it is a domestic issue with little significance. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh... well, Canada has universal health care. I don't know which countries have universal health care, but not it all matters. I don't think there will be Supreme Court cases relating to a universal health care, right? George Ho (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose As happy as this decision makes me, it doesn't change anything. This ruling upheld the new status quo. Obamacare is here forever, but most of us already knew that. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as status quo ante certiorari. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose It's really big news here in the states at the moment. However, the decision actually changes nothing and in fact is not even a ruling on constitutional law. By contrast, the gay marriage case will almost certainly merit an ITN blurb whichever way it goes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose In that this maintains the status quo regarding Obamacare. --MASEM (t) 01:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree that this is purely domestic politics, and strictly speaking, nothing changed. The upcoming same-sex marriage ruling will be much more ITN worthy. - OldManNeptune 03:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Not overly significant - As noted by others, nothing really changed, and the ruling was predictable. This merely puts the onus on the Congress to change the law properly rather than trying to get the courts to do their jobs for them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:59, 26 June 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: Patrick MacneeEdit

Consensus is clearly opposed to posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:25, 26 June 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: Patrick Macnee (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: I'm not sure about this one, but the way my facebook feed has lit up it seems worthy of a nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just one prominent leading role in The Avengers. Well, he portrayed Watson in few Sherlock TV movies, and he even portrayed Sherlock Holmes once. However, nothing else made him as prominent as he appeared to be. --George Ho (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support He was a well known character actor in television and movies. But his professional resume is not exactly stunning. In the end though, a quick mention in RD is cheap. It's the ITN blurbs where we really need to hold the line in standards. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see how one prominent role makes him "very important" to his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Fails RD notability criteria. Another sad loss, but these character actors are generally unlikely to make ITN unless they have some awards or a great deal of notoriety. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Another much-loved but largely un-lauded actor with an impressive resume. I can see why he was nominated, but sadly, he doesn't meet the ITN criteria. RIP Steed. Challenger l (talk) 23:27, 25 June 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.
  • Support, but I may have a COI in this matter. Count Iblis (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen the way you can handle an umbrella, Count. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Nirmala JoshiEdit

Non-admin snowclose. Consensus appears to be against posting. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:10, 25 June 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: Nirmala Joshi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [16] [17] [18]

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.
 Regards, theTigerKing  03:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The successor to Mother Teresa she was, but there is nothing remotely significant about her. I read the biography; either it needs expansion, or she's not significant enough. George Ho (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Roman Church has lots of religious orders. We don't usually pay attention to their superiors unless there is something that really sets them apart. I'm not seeing it here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The successor to a position held by someone that is known the world over does not in fact - make them notable in this circumstance. The position itself is not what was notable about her predecessor. Challenger l (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - opposition by un-notability --94.187.9.40 (talk) 13:40, 25 June 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.

June 24Edit


June 23Edit


[Closed] 2015 South Sudan cholera outbreakEdit

Speedy close without prejudice to renomination if anyone wants to write an article and a blurb, both of which are currently lacking. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:07, 24 June 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.

 178.135.80.33 (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there anything that makes this outbreak significant at all? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose no blurb, no article, no idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose without an article to evaluate or a rationale for the nomination. 331dot (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy close as there's nothing to discuss. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 23 June 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: Dick Van PattenEdit

Clear consensus against posting this. Although, wait... here comes the conflict of interest horse on the outside........ The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 24 June 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: Dick Van Patten (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Entertainment Weekly

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: Long-career television actor, albeit one without any significant awards. RD only for sure, if to be posted. MASEM (t) 15:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality only. Article is of minimal length, but has major referencing problems. Much of the "personal life" section (the one that is MOST in need of cites for BLP reasons) is uncited. If this is fixed, he is certainly well known enough for an RD slot. But we can't post an article in this state on the main page. --Jayron32 15:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: A sad loss, undoubtedly, but a character actor who was never at or near the top of his field. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: A long career, but very few lead roles and nowhere near the top of his field. His biggest claim to fame is being in the main cast of Eight is Enough and The New Dick Van Dyke Show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.252 (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose nothing like a top-of-the-field actor. Disappointing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Nothing in WP:ITND requires the subject of an RD notice to have been at the top of their field or a celebrity giant. Mr. Van Patten was a well known actor who more than meets the requirements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
While we don't require "top of the field", the relevant criteria here is "very important" to their field(DC2). That needs to be demonstrated. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Well acquainted, but he had just three major roles, especially one in Eight Is Enough. Too bad copies of two shows may have been wiped out, and another is on DVD but no longer on TV syndication. He did make guest appearances in notable shows, though his guest roles don't make him prominent enough. George Ho (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per stated reasons. A long career doesn't necessarily mean one is "very important" to their field. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment A well-known actor, much-loved, but not very well-lauded. The article has some issues - but that aside, I am ambivalent about his meeting the RD criteria. Challenger l (talk) 05:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I pretty much feel like Challenger does. I would have expected this to get more support than it has, but it's probably good (and correct) that it hasn't. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Talented and prolific character actor but lacked the prominence needed for RD.LM2000 (talk) 05:51, 24 June 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.

June 22Edit


[Closed] Pitcairn Islands allows same-sex marriageEdit

UNILATERALLY OPPOSED:
A non-administrative closure, but I'm going to close this before there will be similar votes with similar comments. If you want to vote "support", which I might miss out, feel free to undo the closure. --George Ho (talk) 23:20, 24 June 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: Pitcairn Islands (talk, history)
Blurb: Pitcairn Islands passes a law allowing same-sex marriage.
News source(s): [19], [20]
 --BabbaQ (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose no reason to see why this is more or less important than all the other places in the known universe that have passed similar laws. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not notable being from such a small area. If they had been the first to do it, maybe. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

What a strange island, every ex tween girl in the colony was raped by the mayor and half the island cause that's de facto legal till 16 years ago but mere gay marriage wasn't. Now it's reversed but they might be too small to have gays. Also, the perps got slaps on the wrist. 205.197.242.150 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose per TRM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Tiny non-sovereign basket-case. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose (Particularly in light that SCOTUS is due to issue their ruling on SSM in the US, which will have a significant image if it is allowed.) --MASEM (t) 22:33, 24 June 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] RD or Blurb: James HornerEdit

No consensus to push this up to a full blurb. Stephen 23:44, 24 June 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: James Horner (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Film composer James Horner, 61, dies in a single-occupant plane crash.
News source(s): Hollywood Reporter

Article updated
Nominator's comments: No question on RD, I believe, but I would offer the blurb as this was the unusual death of a multi-award winning composer. MASEM (t) 03:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD with improvements: I was just coming here to nominate the article. Needs a bit of sourcing work but notability is clear. As per my usual philosophy on this sort of thing, I don't think a blurb is necessary or advisable. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
    All right, I'm satisfied with the article now. It's not the best biography page, but it is in postable condition and should go up ASAP per Medeis and Masem. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest waiting for now. Most reliable sources are currently hedging their bets as to whether or not Horner was the pilot - even though he almost certainly was, we should follow their lead here. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
His personal assistant confirmed his death. (The initial reports knew it was his plane and he was unaccounted for, but they've affirmed his body). --MASEM (t) 05:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
His personal assistant can't really confirm anything. Nobody in a position to do so has confirmed anything yet. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
She would have been aware he was going piloting that afternoon in his plane, and his plane crashed with one body discovered (of which even without morgue analysis, they could have estimated age and gender), and she had not been able to contact him after the fact. Now, one could imagine a scenario in which this was all faked or staged, but that's a huge amount of speculation particularly given Horner's background. Given every other major source assumes he has died, that's sufficient confirmation for us. If it does turn out to be a hoax, that's a whole other story that might be ITN. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I can recall any number of times that deaths, which were already known, were nonetheless fought until there was official confirmation. Looks like that BLP bright line is being eroded in recent times. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I can safely say that Wikipedia follows WP:RS, and if people want to declare that the BBC, The Guardian, USA Today, The Huff, The Independent, Time etc etc etc are all wrong, then please take an RFC up at WP:RS. In the meantime, stop the absurdity. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Died young, still active, it's ACTUALLY news and not just "person expires". Nohomersryan (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb was ready to insist RD only, but death itself is news and career is outstanding. Please post ASAP. μηδείς (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is better shape than when I posted this nom (there were some CNs floating around) which seem to be fixed. It could use a bit more polish but where things are unsourced are far less contentious claims than not. --MASEM (t) 04:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Kudzu1 has done wonderful work taking care of the needed refs. μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb - Notability for RD is unquestioned, but he isn't any more notable than any other good RD candidate. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - His death confirmed.. Big story. The notability is one thing, the spectacular death is another. Jusdafax 04:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD, but not blurb. He's well known in film music and his death was unexpected. I don't think he rises to the level of importance that is required for a blurb. Isa (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb I didn't recognize the name immediately (in fact I did a double take at first thinking it was Jack Horner), but after looking at his works, it seems the oversight is mine and he is indeed more than sufficiently notable, and the manner of death is a strong qualifier for a blurb. - OldManNeptune 05:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Marking ready, which it is. Admin can decide where for now, but a look at the RfC shows that people who'd have gotten blurbs before RD existed should still sometimes get blurbs. This guy did everything from Alien and CBS news to Star Trek and the Obama Inauguration, to Titanic and Avatar. μηδείς (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
    • What he worked on was (usually) notable, but I don't think it makes him rise to the level of a blurb. A lot of people worked on those films. Also, can you try keeping your support vote in one place instead of duplicating it? It could create confusion. Isa (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you need to review this list of accolades] including two Oscar wins for "Titanic". Sorry, but I don't buy your argument one bit, and I suggest that the admin sitting in judgement discount it as having little to no weight. James Horner just died in a tragic plane crash, it's on the news all over the world, and you don't think that deserves a blurb on ITN? Sheesh. And to TRM below, of course he isn't Thatcher or Mandella. He gets a blurb because he died in a ghastly accident. That's WP:DUE. Jusdafax 07:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD only not Mandela, Thatcher etc etc, not even top story on BBC World, and that image looks suspiciously like a copyright violation... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD allow debate about blurb to continue a bit since this story is merely a few hours old in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Point of order - Given your previous !vote, aren't you a wee bit WP:INVOLVED? Jusdafax 07:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
    Okay, if you wish to lawyer around it, I'll remove it altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
    It's a valid question. Your peevish response is uncalled for, in my view, and if you are, as an admin, using the term "lawyer around it" then I'll observe that your posting, then unposting are arguably disruptive, and a pretty clear violation of WP:POINT, by an admin, who is supposed to know better. Jusdafax 07:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
    You got what you wanted, I removed my conflict of interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
    Shall I report both of you to ANI right away if Horner's name is not re-posted in RD soon by someone else? George Ho (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
    I asked a question. I am now being mischaracterized by an administrator of the encyclopedia as "got what I wanted" which is, frankly, abusive since that was not at all what I said. Now it's a threat to take me to ANI. Wow. Something is seriously broken here, as I see it. Jusdafax 08:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
    I have posted numerous items to ITN that I have supported. It has generally been accepted that admins are capable of determining if a clear consensus exists, even if they have participated, as I did in this case. If you have any further reason to discuss this, please take it elsewhere so as not to derail this ongoing ITN discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
    Please move to the Wikipedia talk:In the news page, then. I have opened a discussion there. Thank you. Jusdafax 09:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD only - A mere name mentioning is enough for folks to click on. We've already posted Christopher Lee's obituary, so let's not post Horner's obituary blurb. --George Ho (talk) 07:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD Exactly for people of such magnitude. Brandmeistertalk 07:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD I believe enough is said on this matter. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. No prejudice against further discussion about whether he should get a full blurb. Jenks24 (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, support RD per TRM and Bongwarrior. Neljack (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD only for heavens sake. John Williams maybe but I don't see this as rising to blurb material.--72.69.70.247 (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD only The importance of this person and the media coverage of his death are light years far from many others who have been given blurbs in the past but also some who have not because of the argument that blurbs are deserved only for extremely popular persons who have changed the world. I really do not think that we should regress so low to post this, as there has been at least a dozen of deaths of more popular persons in the last couple of weeks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I do want to comment that if Horner died from natural causes, I'd fully oppose a blurb; the reason I suggested it is that the death is unusual - 61 is not young and he was still composing, and he died while piloting his own plane. This would be equivalent to why we posted Robin Williams - the death came out of nowhere, not so much the reputation (as was arguably the case with Christopher Lee). --MASEM (t) 13:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
    I should note that the purpose of a blurb is to report facts of newsworthiness not to recognize importance as distinct from RD. The reason why one death should get a blurb and another get an RD link is whether or not we have more to say than "So and so died". If the news only reports the death itself, then it's RD candidate. If the news is covering other aspects of the death, as either newsworthy memorial services and tributes and retrospectives (the so called "Thatcher-Mandela standard") OR the news is covering the death itself as particularly newsworthy and noteworthy (the so-called "Robin Williams standard"), then blurbs are appropriate. I'd posit that we've screwed up two recent postings in either direction recently. For Christopher Lee's death, there wasn't anything more to say than "he died". Should have been an RD not a blurb. For this death here, the manner of death was unusual, unexpected, and the most important part of the story, so we SHOULD have posted this one as a blurbs. Blurbs are not reserved for those we think are important people. They are reserved for when we have something more to say about a death than merely "they died". For Lee's death, we didn't. For this death, we did. --Jayron32 16:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
We have yet to receive official confirmation. We have Variety'‍s confirmation, but that's about it. If you believe that he is still alive, ask to pull his name out. George Ho (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
His friends are reacting as if it's a fact, and the odds are that it is. But until it's officially confirmed, we have to be cautious. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
This, maybe? Isa (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
This? Google? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Absurd, BBC is reporting it, The Guardian is reporting it, reliable sources. Move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
It does not appear to have been confirmed by the authorities yet, but it now seems to be a "given" that he's dead. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
His agents are now confirming it was him in the plane: [21] These plane crashes, the remains often aren't exactly open-casket-ready. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb RD is fine. ITN is not an obituary service and only true giants in a given field get a death blurb. All kinds of notable people die daily and get notice in the press. This is what RD is for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose a blurb. Clearly meets RD, but I don't think he was at the high level of the field needed for a blurb(perhaps like John Williams would be). 331dot (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
List_of_highest-grossing_films says (worldwide gross, inflation adjusted)
1 Gone with the Wind $3,440,000,000 1939
2 Avatar $3,020,000,000 2009
3 Star Wars $2,825,000,000 1977
4 Titanic $2,516,000,000 in 1997 (+ 343 million in 2012)
  • Gone with the Wind was just a different time, there was no TV, people used movie theaters to watch the news. They went every week I think. Today it'd be G or PG and didn't have naked breasts so kids, cons, and married men could watch. It's probably been re-released many times. Is that included?
  • Star Wars came out before cable and home video. It's been re-released too, is that included? It was a new level of special effects I think and along with Jaws started the blockbuster era. I think it's still PG, no nudity so kids who liked space could view.
Titanic however gained it's billions almost entirely from just like young females seeing it a hundred times just to cry when Jack dies and the music was a big part of that. James Horner also apparently wrote the music for Avatar, Braveheart, Apollo 13, Deep Impact, Zorro, Spiderman (2012), Jumanji, Casper, Star Trek 2 and 3 and a lot of other things like A Beautiful Mind. He's very prolific. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • (Post posting-as-RD) Support RD only. Normally I wouldn't bother commenting with hindsight but since the is a contingent here that feel it worth arguing still. I do not accept appeals to authority or any assertion of notability by association. If he was associated with a spectacularly successful film when argued on one basis then so what? If this was Ennio Morricone then yes I'd support a blurb subject to the article being at least halfway decent - he has been repeatedly noted for his skill as a composer even outside the field of film composition. I haven't seen the same for Horner. 3142 (talk) 07:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I've only seen part of one spaghetti western on TV but yes that is some good composing. You can't argue with Ennio beating him on innovation (when I found out he's only partly original I always checked if I heard a whiff of reused Apollo 13 or Titanic) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 2015 Pakistan heat waveEdit

Article: 2015 Pakistani heat wave (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 350 people die due to intense heatwave in Southern Pakistan.
News source(s): ABC TOI BBC

Article updated
  • Wait (I do know I saw this pass by on a newsfeed I watch). Like the previous India heat wave story, let's make sure this is a significant event; 140 ppl in a country as large as Pakistan is not a significant number but it gets to 1000 or more, then we should be talking inclusion. It may take a day or two for that to be determined. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait per Masem. Severe weather with an attendant loss of life is pretty much going on all the time some where in the world. We need to have a high bar for these kinds of stories or ITN risks becoming a ticker service for the Weather Channel. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Updating - I think it's a significant event and am updating it. The figure has already reached 260+. Faizan (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
350 dead now, amended the blurb. Faizan (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  Done Article updated, will keep a watch on the upcoming news and improvements. Faizan (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support we waited far too long on the Indian heatwave which went on to kill thousands, this has killed hundreds already, it's a natural disaster. As long as the article is updated properly, it should be posted. Proportions are irrevelant, frequency is irrelevant (or else why would we continually post gun crimes in the United States?) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It's notable enough, and very sad. However, I think a bit of an expansion to the article would help. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 18:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - It is a significant event which has the potential of turning into a bigger problem with a possibility of getting international attention. Why wait till that happen? Moreover, the coverage it got makes it a significant issue. —TripWire talk 18:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is small, but heat wave in an overpopulated sovereign state is very serious. Regardless of death toll, the country should be prepared for the hot summer, which has started. Pinging Masem & Ad Orientem. --George Ho (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 03:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment - Shall we update death toll? It is currently 572. --George Ho (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
    WP:ERRORS is the place to report this sort of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 Kabul Parliament attackEdit

No consensus that a failed attack was sufficiently notable. Stephen 06:28, 26 June 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: [[2015 Kabul Parliament attack]] ([[Talk:2015 Kabul Parliament attack|talk]], [{{fullurl:2015 Kabul Parliament attack|action=history}} history]) and War in Afghanistan (2015–present) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the ongoing war in Afghanistan, the Taliban has attacked the Kabul Parliament.
Alternative blurb: ​The Taliban has attacked the Kabul Parliament, injuring 40 civilians.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Taliban has attacked the Kabul Parliament, amid the 2015 phase of the war in Afghanistan
Alternative blurb III: ​The Taliban has attacked the Kabul Parliament, killing a mother and a child and injuring forty civilians.
News source(s): Reuters Guardian CNN BBC
Nominator's comments: Major news for NATO countries involved in the 2001 War in Afghanistan and the NATO withdrawl (War in Afghanistan (2015–present)-- Aronzak (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator - for me, this is on the front page of Reuters.com, CNN.com, and theguardian.com. This attack appears to have involved a car laden with explosives that went though multiple security checkpoints, raising questions as to the capacity of the security forces to fight the Taliban. NATO forces continue to maintain an advisory and counter-terrorism capacity in Afghanistan in 2015 and this attack raises legitimate questions for NATO powers as to the efficacy of their counter-insurgency strategy, that has arguably been ongoing since 2001. Given media attention to ISIL's invasion of Iraq after US withdrawal, this may have similar prominence in the media for NATO countries. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Any significant attack on a parliament is major news, even in an unstable country such as Afghanistan. The article is short for now, but well referenced. Fgf10 (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle – per Aronzak, but perhaps wait a bit 'til dust settles? (AP now sez two dead – in addition to the seven Taliban killed – and 31 wounded.) Sca (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable story of course, and of interest worldwide, but the article is super thin at present, and I've rated it as a stub. Jusdafax 15:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose attack foiled, a handful of "terrorists" dead, already rolling of the top of world news. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
According to the UN, a mother and a child were killed. How is it merely foiled? George Ho (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Foiled because the target of the attack was barely touched. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I added ALT3 to add emphasis. George Ho (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
    "reportedly"? Nope. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
    Eliminated the word. George Ho (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
    Still oppose. It's out of the news already, nothing to see here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Even when the news hasn't developed much, even when the target wasn't yet touched, and even when the article appears not big enough, the attack at an unstable country's parliament is a kicker... Well, not surprising, but innocents were hurt. That's all that matters. George Ho (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I asked the nominator to let me merge this article to War in Afghanistan (2015–present). I'm awaiting his response. George Ho (talk) 08:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and then merged the article. George Ho (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Nevermind; the nominator reverted it. I'll set up a separate discussion then. --George Ho (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment - as nom, have merged the article in. -- Aronzak (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Changing to weak oppose. Now that the article has been merged, I realize that, as part of the continuous War, it's not much of a big event as... say, Charleston church shooting. Maybe we can keep either Afghan War phase up to date. --George Ho (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Dead people in Afghanistan isn't news. I'm not saying that it is right, but it is reality. The parliament shot of the dust flying down was a five second clip even on "serious" Western televised coverage. More to the the point, I really don't like the article - the background section is the best developed there, and it is more a potted history of Afghanistan than a discussion of the subject of the article. 3142 (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
As a comment on this - most of the violence has been in regional areas where the army is stretched - One Reuters report described this as a "spectacular attack" on the capital. -- Aronzak (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @3142, The Rambling Man, Sca, Fgf10, and Jusdafax: The article will be has been merged to War in Afghanistan (2015–present). If this happens, will this affect your votes? --George Ho (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC) (Updated. George Ho (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC))
  • No, because the information is surrounded by more information, and may be more likely to be improved further. But thanks for the ping, Jusdafax 10:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't have an RS for this, but Eagle Four is a NATO funded TV show to increase enlistment in the Afghan police force and boost police morale - I don't have an RS for this, but personally, Afghan media reports that a single Afghan staff sergeant killed all six terrorists seems like it is intended to boost morale. -- Aronzak (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • George, no, per Jusdafax. However, as a discrete event it's getting old fast (IMO), and a quick ck. of AP, BBC, Guardian shows it's no longer in the news. Sca (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • (ec and updated my comment) Yeah it's going stale. I still say the event itself is a bit of a watershed moment. Three paragraphs now, eh? Well. Jusdafax 13:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Watershed, or vignette? Sca (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Clearly not a watershed moment as it's not in any major news outlets any longer, it was a damp squib, and it wasn't and never will be suitable for ITN. It was an epic fail, all round. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose In the grand scheme of things this does not look like it was all that big of an event. I doubt it will rate more than a footnote in the sad history of this country's civil war. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:59, 24 June 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.

June 21Edit


[Posted] 2015 U.S. Open (golf)Edit

Article: 2015 U.S. Open (golf) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, Jordan Spieth wins the U.S. Open.
News source(s): BBC Sport]

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: This is ITNR and has been updated sufficiently with references included to reliable sources. FiringAces (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

  • The lead is rather short compared to prior US Opens, see 2013_U.S._Open_(golf) and doesn't meet the policy of MOS:LEAD that it be a "miniarticle" that summarizes all the main points. Otherwise I'd mark this ready. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I addressed your concerns, it is ready to post.FiringAces (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: This looks good, ready to post. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Decent amount of prose, well sourced, ITN/R, I'm marking this ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Gunther SchullerEdit

Article: Gunther Schuller (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NPR 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: The Guardian describes him as "the leading proponent of the Third Stream movement fusing jazz and classical music." NPR calls him "Extraordinarily active and influential as a composer, conductor and educator." He won a Pulitzer and a MacArthur genius grant. This seems to indicate he was important in his field. Everymorning talk 13:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Article could use some more sourcing, cleanup and organizational work (currently, Schuller's bio is all clumped into one section). SpencerT♦C 13:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - A notable life. I have broken up the large text block with subheadings. This article gives a fair number of sources, and overall could use a bit more work, but it's pretty close to postable for RD. Jusdafax 16:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose this won't bump anyone off the ticker, so no real problem if it goes up. But this is a very niche genre, Schuller himself coined the term third wave but it doesn't seem to have had any major effect on the culture outside the world of critics. μηδείς (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Understanding Medeis' comments about the "niche genre", I think he's done enough to merit inclusion here, especially as noted by those prestigious awards. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support conditional on article improvements. I think the claim to ITND is borderline, but it's been kinda slow in the news department lately, so what the Aytch E double hockey sticks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Article has been improved and should be good to go. Schuller was clearly notable in the field of jazz and classical music and was very highly regarded as a composer, as evidenced by a series of high-profile awards and honors as recently as this year. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 20:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Tour de SuisseEdit

Article: 2015 Tour de Suisse (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In cycling, Slovenian rider Simon Špilak wins the Tour de Suisse.
News source(s): The Guardian Cycling Weekly Cyclingnews.com VeloNews USA Today BBC Sports

Nominator's comments: The Simon Špilak article is very short, but the target article 2015 Tour de Suisse is a monster and in my opinion well-written. This race is a UCI World Tour race, one of the most prestigious race on the cycling calendar. It finished on 21 June, so I completed the article on the same day. Very recent news. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 19:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I tweaked the blurb in accordance with our norms. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 19:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support based on the article which is indeed a great piece of work. And we're still about a month away from the Tour de France finish, which is ITNR. --Tone 22:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support While not quite at the importance of the Tour de France, the high quality of this article pushes me toward supporting its inclusion. SpencerT♦C 03:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Great article, looks to be GA or FA-worthy, but I think the Tour de Suisse simply isn't significant enough for ITN. We rarely post all three of the Grand Tours (I don't think the Giro was even nominated this year), and individual races/tournaments generally aren't posted in sports with similar "tour" formats (e.g. Formula One, golf). IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Article is updated to reflect the result and is in really good shape too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Several people are doing excellent work on the cycling articles, pretty much every race of this season has GA quality. Other projects could really take a leaf out of their book! So it is with greatest regret that I still have to say that the Tour de Suisse is not noteworthy enough to be included in ITN, especially considering that we are posting a lot of sports here. But to @Mattsnow81: and the other contributors, great work! I'd be honored to review the article for GA once you nominate it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
    ITN hasn't been updated for four days......... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I think the good quality of the article merits posting, while not the most important event, this does seem to have enough coverage. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Article is good, but the race is not so important. Giro d'Italia was not nominated. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 11:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
    While I can live with the reasons given for a lot of the oppose votes here, may I suggest that the fact another race was not submitted is not a reason to voice opposition to the Tour de Suisse nomination? Thanks for saying the article is good though   Mattsnow81 (Talk) 17:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, that is 100% true. Just because the Vuelta or the Giro didn't make it, it doesn't mean this one can't. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Whilst I agree with IgnorantArmies, we have never posted the UCI Road World Championships either and this is the cycling equivalent as the ATP World Tour Masters 1000, if the Grand Tours is the equivalent of the Grand Slams. Donnie Park (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Echoing the sentiment that the article is quite comprehensive. Unfortunately, the race is not as prestigious as the Tour de France, Giro d'Italia or Vuelta - road cycling's equivalent top level events. Fuebaey (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Well-crafted article on an important Tour de France tune up. That the current Giro d'Italia was overlooked is hardly a reason to ignore this article. To cyclists this is worth the space, but not so much for chefs. 7&6=thirteen () 17:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
    Agreed, I'm no cyclist but right now we haven't updated ITN for something like three days, and the majority of the opposition is based on "it's not Giro, it's not Vuelta", and I'm not sure where they all were when those items were up for discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
    My thoughts too. I don't want to force the article down everybody's throats, but in my opinion its quality is very OK, the race is maybe the most coveted stage race besides the Tour, the Giro and the Vuelta. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 21:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
    There are two big build up races to the Tour, the Tour de Suisse and the Dauphine. Unfortunately, 2015 Critérium du Dauphiné is not up to scratch, making it a double-feature might have made me a supporter. But as it stands, I still say it's not notable enough. Especially considering that the Tour de Suisse has lost even more notability over the past years, since most Tour favorites choose the Dauphine for their Tour preperations. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support: Borderline on notability, but the article is outstanding and it's still a major event in cycling. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Prestigious or not, cycling tournament in Switzerland is grand enough. Well... grander than NBA Finals, which is US-centric (but grand). In fact, it has cyclists from all participating nations, including the UK and Slovenia. --George Ho (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The NBA is the peak of world basketball, the Tour de Suisse is so prestigious that many top riders don't even enter, as evidenced by it being won by an unknown Slovenian who hasn't even placed in the top 100 of the Tour de France, and only once broken the top 50 of any other Grand Tour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bozzio (talkcontribs) 11:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • NBA is totally American, aside from having just one Canadian team. FIBA is a better example for world basketball. --George Ho (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • If Geraint Thomas had won it, which he almost did, would you hold the same talk Bozzio? Also, this was a sprinters' course, with Cavendish, Sagan, Matthews, Kristoff etc. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 13:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Why was this marked ready? The Tour de Suisse barely ranks in the top 10 of world cycling events by any measure, having a standard like this would mean we should start posting the Paris Masters and the Monaco Grand Prix. The arguments for posting based on the lack of an update have now been rendered invalid. There are currently four sporting events on ITN. ¡Bozzio! 11:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    For the record, we do post the Monaco Grand Prix as per ITN/R. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know if the fact more than 14,000 people viewed the article in the last 30 days prove it is notable, but here it is. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 13:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 06:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

June 20Edit


[Closed] 2015 FIFA U-20 World CupEdit

No consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 21 June 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 FIFA U-20 World Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In association football, the 2015 FIFA U-20 World Cup in New Zealand concludes with Serbia defeating Brazil 2–1 in the final
News source(s): BBC Sport , The Guardian
Nominator's comments: Important soccer/football tournament, showcases players who will probably be some of the best in the world in a few short years 23 editor (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • support - per notable tournament.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks for the nomination; I will state that in my observations youth tournaments usually do not do well here, as they aren't the top level of the sport. I'm not sure that speculation that the players might be famous in the future makes this important enough to post; the tournament itself needs to be important and shown as such with news sources; which seem limited. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Response – I wouldn't say the coverage is limited. There are hundreds of news sources. 23 editor (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying there is no coverage(otherwise there could be no article) but it isn't high up in news/sports pages or otherwise top level news, at least the ones I see. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
While I appreciate your attention to ensuring that all articles pass WP:NOTABILITY, FIFA itself states "The FIFA U-20 World Cup has forged a reputation for...showcasing future mega-stars" This sentiment is echoed by sports commentators [22] [23]. Who can blame them since this tournament has previously been won by players such as Lionel Messi and Diego Maradona? So, my "speculation" has a number of precedents. 23 editor (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: at WP:FOOTY, players who play in professional leagues or senior international teams qualify for notability for articles. Playing at this tournament doesn't cut it. Just another event in the circle of 24/7 football coverage. '''tAD''' (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect tAD, but both the Serbian and Brazilian leagues are fully professional, and some players from both teams play their football in places like Belgium and Great Britain. Some of the Serbian players have even played for the senior team. This was no amateur tournament, and the final game saw a crowd of more than 25,000 people. As for 24/7 football coverage, it's not like this would be a news post about Luis Suarez biting someone, now would it? If coverage is substantial (which it is) and if the players are notable (which they are) then I don't see what the problem is. 23 editor (talk) 02:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
LoL 2014 WC final was watched by 40k on stadium and 27 online viewers and didn't get posted. Nergaal (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it did. Here's proof . 23 editor (talk) 04:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NOHOCKEY [24] and [25], unless the desire is to demonstrate the absolute steaming pro-soccer bias at ITN, in which case I would change my !vote --36.85.196.134 (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Any sporting tournament preceded with the letter "U" and an age is not the top level of that sport and shouldn't be posted on the ITN section. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a standard youth tournament. The nominator is pointing at coverage but I am yet to be persuaded that this football/soccer event meets the sporting bar at ITN, which is usually reserved for senior sporting competitions. That some players play professionally and could potentially be the "next Messi" (an overused term) isn't much of an argument to post this. Fuebaey (talk) 17:17, 21 June 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 Mumbai alcohol poisoning incidentEdit

No consensus and underdeveloped article. Stephen 06:08, 26 June 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 Mumbai alcohol poisoning incident (talk, history)
Blurb: At least eighty-four people die in Mumbai, India after drinking tainted alcohol.
News source(s): Associated Press BBC Wall Street Journal

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: As the article notes, this has been described as the worst incident of its kind in over a decade (see for instance the AP link above), and the death toll is substantial. Everymorning talk 16:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support (with possible article improvements?) since this seems like there is a criminal intent here (5 people being arrested here). I would love to see more on this in terms of article length as this doesn't even pass the DYK 1500 char level. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral right now. This seems commonplace in India, that tainted alcohol results in deaths. The article is not adequate, I'd be interested to see how this pans out. Alternatively, as Masem alludes to, if you bump up the character count, DYK will happily take it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now as well; I too would be interested to see what happens- though if pressed I would probably lean oppose. The BBC article states "Toxic alcohol deaths are a regular occurrence in India" so this doesn't seem that unusual an event. The same article lists three other similar large-scale events in recent years. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • support - per criminal intent. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I'm from India and, yes, such stories are quite common here. 117.192.169.11 (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Same thing happened in Nigeria about a week ago with 70-odd deaths...it wasn't posted.106.51.136.238 (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Common story both in India and Pakistan. Faizan (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment we did post the pombe poisoning which killed almost as many, but it should be clear the arrests are based on criminal negligence & unlicensed production of hooch. In the pombe case the woman who made the beer was one of the first to die. μηδείς (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This is going nowhere fast. The article as is would probably not survive an AfD. μηδείς (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Article seems adequately summarised in List of methanol poisoning incidents. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The notability is there, but the article's length and detail in current state is not good, sorry. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 21:23, 22 June 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] South Sudan humanitarian crisisEdit

Closing good faith nomination per WP:SNOW. This is clearly not going to be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:31, 21 June 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: South Sudan (talk, history) and Economy of South Sudan (talk, history)
Blurb: UN gives criticism to South Sudan for its handling of the humanitarian crisis in the country with almost 2,50,000 children facing starvation.
News source(s): [26], ,[27],[28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]
Nominator's comments: Huge humanitarian crisis going on in South Sudan. And civil war as well. Please suggest more blurbs if you find one more appropriate to describe the entire situation. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose criticism from the UN doesn't really make anything newsworthy really. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose' Issuing criticism is nothing special - if instead it was some binding resolution or sanctions, that might be different. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting mere criticism. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article only tangentially related to UN condemnation, which is not noteworthy for the frontpage in and of itself. -- Aronzak (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Another toothless UN resolution. These are a dime a dozen. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not even a UN resolution; just a statement from a UN official. A Security Council resolution would me more notable. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 21 June 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.

June 19Edit


[Closed] Eastern cougarEdit

No consensus to post at this time. SpencerT♦C 11:53, 22 June 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: Eastern cougar (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Eastern cougar has been declared extinct
Alternative blurb: ​The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declares the Eastern Cougar extinct.
News source(s): Reuters AP The Guardian
 Coasttocoast (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait - This is a proposal, meaning they will take public comment to see if there are objections (eg, if anyone can provide evidence they still exist as opposed to the hypothesis that the species is completely wiped out). They will then issue a ruling, and that's when we should post. --MASEM (t) 21:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait per Masem, but when this is posted it will need to be stated in the blurb who is doing the declaring. The article lead makes it clear that at present different organisations/experts have differing opinions on the matter. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment add altblurb. Last sighting was in 1938. This isn't the final ruling - it's open to public comment for 60 days (but of course news outlets won't bother reporting it then). I'm ambivalent on this -- Aronzak (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the animal is at most a subspecies, and although cougars have been spotted regularly in the East it has been claimed without proof that they are immigrants. The species itself is officially of "least concern" regarding extinction. The issue is fraught with politics, as the 90-day request for comment from the lay public (and our article) makes abundantly clear. μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait - per masem.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 20 June 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] Electronic Entertainment ExpoEdit

consensus is clearly opposed μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 21 June 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 Electronic Entertainment Expo (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 2015 Electronic Entertainment Expo has ended.
Alternative blurb: ​The Electronic Entertainment Expo has ended.
News source(s): [1][2][3]

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: ITNR - may be late, but there is still a lot being written about it. Swordman97 talk to me 20:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Usually we post the opening of these things, right? The ITNR listing doesn't specify. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Yeah. I've noticed that the trade shows rarely get posted on time though. Swordman97 talk to me 20:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Arguably, as a video game fan, nothing much happened this year to attract major news coverage, unlike the previous year in which was the first E3 where the new consoles were on full display for the first time. Bunch of important sequels were announced for sure, but that's not going to be making it a ITN item. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose if that's the best we can do, we shouldn't be posting it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting the closing of the show, where it seems very little of importance happened. The opening is more important than the closing, I think. If the opening wasn't even nominated I would wonder if it should remain ITNR. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R. Not sure where the idea "the opening is more important" comes from, the announcements and demos are cumulative and the end of the expo is when no new material is coming out. With an attendance of over 50,000, and many more followers at home, and demos of real products hitting the market, it's easily as important is any soccer pageant which except for being "popular", has precisely zero value beyond being a vehicle for multi-million dollar advertising deals and corrupt officials who take bribes to administer them. The article isn't great, but I don't see it much worse than the current stickied "FIFA womens world cup" which is a handful of prose and some tables. Yes, this absolutely should remain on ITN/R. I would also support various auto shows, aircraft expos and farm implements fairs if it was demonstrated that these shows were widely attended and considered important in their fields. After all, there is more to life than film festivals and cricket. --36.75.112.225 (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
There is more to life than importance as well, at least here; news coverage is also relevant, and seems limited in this case. Perhaps important was a poor choice of word for me to use initially but I think the opening is more newsworthy as that's when most news coverage of such an event comes out. Readers would also be interested to know when such a supposedly important event would begin; telling then when it is over is much less helpful; closings are not always newsworthy on their own(an exception being the Olympics which have a large ceremony) Since you seem familiar with ITNR I would remind you that the page states "Listing here is not an automatic guarantee that an item will be posted". 331dot (talk) 00:37, 20 June 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] MT Orkim Harmony hijackingEdit

Article: MT Orkim Harmony hijacking (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Around 22 crewmen are released from a Malaysian tanker after having been hijacked for 9 days
News source(s): Google News

 ~ Muffin Wizard ;) 15:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose merely because as far as I can see, it's not been "in the news" in any jurisdictions I visit and edit from. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
    Happy to remove oppose, article is decent too. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Don't know how big it was in Europe or the US, but sure was a top story in Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, Thailand and Vietnam. Other than the involved countries, the story has been covered by Reuters and top news sites in India, UAE, Singapore. Also found sources from the UK and Germany. 117.192.169.11 (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - top news in Asia.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is ITN stuff and the article is good. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 15:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Article in good shape. SpencerT♦C 20:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

June 18Edit


[Administrator attention needed] 2014–15 Hong Kong electoral reformEdit

Article: 2014–15 Hong Kong electoral reform (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Beijing-backed 2014–15 Hong Kong electoral reform proposal, which spurred the Umbrella Movement protests, is rejected by the Legislative Council.
Alternative blurb: ​The Legislative Council votes down the Beijing-backed 2014–15 Hong Kong electoral reform proposal, which spurred the Umbrella Movement protests, by 28–8 with 33 absent.
News source(s): CNN, Reuters, CBC, New York Times, BBC

 Citobun (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose not sure our global audience will understand the wording or significance of the blurb. This passed by the news for a moment but I'm not sure what impact it has, hence the weakness of my opposition. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as the legislative conclusion to a proposal that spawned a significant protest movement last September. Numerically, it was going to narrowly fail in the chamber. What was newsworthy was the last minute walkout, in an attempt to prevent a quorum, which led to a landslide defeat. Fuebaey (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - significant.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The legislation will change members next year. When that happens, re-proposal for electoral reforms may be likely. --George Ho (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Wait... I almost forgot; thirty-three walked out or were absent during voting process, while the rest remained. Re-proposal will be likely. --George Ho (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a source? And why would that diminish the significance of this decision? Citobun (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
CNN said there are 70 lawmakers. Thirty-three walked out to trap the pro-democracy lawmakers into false hope of victory. If that's not it, probably there is a political machine run by the most influential person. Legislation could be fallen into puppetry. --George Ho (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Would you care to provide a definitive reason for your opposition? Speculation that something might occur or the hypothetical involvement of a political cabal - neither mentioned in the article or a reliable source - is unlikely to be persuasive. If anything, CNN states: "Hong Kong and China's governments have insisted there can be no new reform proposals". Fuebaey (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Why trusting what they say? Also, those governments responded in Chinese language(s), not English. The translators may not know what original Chinese phrases exactly meant. If you want definitive reason, the story isn't much of a big deal. Hong Kong stories, like last year's protests, may have been posted. However, this story is not special enough. It's a mere victory, but the media spun it like a big celebration. I couldn't celebrate a victory like this when Beijing (not London) still have Hong Kong in its hands. Walking out of voting process is one thing, and continuing the process is another. However, not proposing new plans shall not imply not re-proposing old plans. --George Ho (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but asserting that a Hong Kong based journalist, working for a reputable news agency, is somehow incompetent doesn't hold much weight without a counter source suggesting otherwise. Although I respect your opinion, opposition based on one's political views is less convincing than your original rationale. Fuebaey (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The original blurb looked incomplete, so I added the ALT blurb. --George Ho (talk) 04:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
All right. If the reporter is competent, then the government may be lying or vague. --George Ho (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Could be the last political reform for Hong Kong before 2047 or so. Krislcc (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is the proposal that caused the large protests in Hong Kong, and the article is in very good quality. Marking ready. SpencerT♦C 00:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I've unmarked it as ready. The event is a "big" victory to Hong Kongers, but this isn't very spectacular. Also, legislators will re-propose the same reform again and again. --George Ho (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
George, in your edit summary I don't understand what you mean by "if some others aren't ready, this isn't either" (is that referring to other ITN items?) and even though you opposed this item, there are 5 supports (versus your oppose and a weak oppose). SpencerT♦C 01:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
That's probably what I meant. As for another thing, a majority vote can't outweight arguments. Which arguments can carry more weight to administrators? George Ho (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
As has been pointed out already, your opposition is rooted in speculation contrary to what has been written in reliable news sources – that the government has insisted there will be no more reform proposals. Even if your speculation turned out to be true, it doesn't diminish the significance of this decision at this time. Please stop holding this up unless you have a real argument. Citobun (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
We've already posted the Sydney hostage situation and the Charleston shooting, but it doesn't make ITN better than mainstream press. (Why weren't there an opposition to Charleston shooting?) I forgot there was one "weak oppose". Same for posting this story. A political victory it may be; this doesn't help improve or worsen lives of Hong Kongers, who have been influenced by Chinese government already. Also, the Wikipedia article doesn't say the government won't make any more reform plans at this time. As for the CNN article, let me point out that there were no quotes about making no reform plans in the future. It was summarized. This story is not as significant as fast-track bill in the Congress, although I'll wait until Obama's decision on the bill passed by Congress (barely). George Ho (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
This is not a coherent argument. Citobun (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
What do you want me to do? Change to "support" and say, "Hooray, we beat the Chinese commies and their HK minions" or "Darn, you pro-democrats"? I've tried every argument, but you're still not convinced. If you want more convincing, my original argument is not as speculative as it looks. Actually, I don't want a misleading story or "victory". This "victory" can make a reader jump into conclusions, thinking it can affect the future of Hong Kong and China. --George Ho (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I literally don't understand your argument – simple as that. But I do recall my last interaction with you, last year: when you removed a photo of mass protests on Sai Yeung Choi Street because the photo was "misleading". I also recall you writing that you have never actually been to Hong Kong. Are you purposefully stalling this news item to further a political agenda? Citobun (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Be careful of accusing me of such absurd bias. No, I'm not pushing an agenda. I'll rephrase my arguments, including all my above arguments: I still oppose posting this story. This is a misleading victory; nothing more than that. Walking out of the process and not voting was an action of 33 lawmakers; eight supported and 26 opposed. However, there is more than meets the eye, but the media celebrated or emphasized the pro-democrats' victory as a big victory. Was walking out of the process part of miscalculation or a plan? True, speculation doesn't prevent this story from being posted. However, posting this story was already the job of the press. Was the victory encyclopedic? Yes. Was it newsworthy? Not in ITN (but elsewhere and in Wikinews at the time of victory). Readers outside of English Wikipedia have been already misled into believing that a victory can change the HK-China relationship, so I don't want it spread to here. George Ho (talk) 04:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

If you are wondering about the photo that I removed, you mean this one, which looks like a mob crowd? Nice aerial view though; you might have thought something vicious can happen. George Ho (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

[Attention needed] RD: Ralph J. RobertsEdit

Article: Ralph J. Roberts (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNBC 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: Being the founder of Comcast, the largest broadband provider in the United States, [34] seems to establish that Roberts was important enough in his field for RD. Everymorning talk 14:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: The article dedicates about 1-2 sentences about Roberts' involvement with Comcast; would prefer that it be expanded a little more. SpencerT♦C 17:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with article improvements. Pretty anemic for an article about someone with this degree of notability. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
    Article is now in minimally sufficient shape for posting. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Spencer and Kudzu1. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per spencer.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Now adequately sourced and in good shape. Long overdue. George Ho (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Unmarking. Most of the supports have been conditional. Apart from some minor copyedits, the article has not been expanded since Spencer's first comment. Fuebaey (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Roberto Marcelo LevingstonEdit

no improvement or trend toward support, feel free to reopen if you do the work to improve the article. μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 21 June 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: Roberto Marcelo Levingston (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
  • Nominated by [[User:120.62.17.226 (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)|120.62.17.226 (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:120.62.17.226 (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)|talk]] • [{{fullurl:User talk:120.62.17.226 (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BRoberto+Marcelo+Levingston%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=Roberto+Marcelo+Levingston&preloadparams%5b%5d=nominated}} give credit])

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: Died at same times as the Turk fellow nominated and held same position. 120.62.17.226 (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose (primarily article quality) - He seems important as part of national gov't political revolution, but our article is in a far start to recognize this importance, and not in sourcing but just a lack of information. I don't know if this can be fixed in time for posting. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality: Article is too short and thin on details. However, being the leader of a huge country clearly passes notability '''tAD''' (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as TRM above, it's a stub - a depressing sight for someone of Levingston's age. Challenger l (talk) 19:42, 20 June 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] Danish general election, 2015Edit

Article: Danish general election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The opposition block led by Lars Løkke Rasmussen (pictured) wins the most seats in the Danish Folketing
Alternative blurb: ​The Social Democrats win a plurality in the Danish parliamentary election.
News source(s): BBC

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: Election to parliament in an EU member state. '''tAD''' (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support per ITNR, when the article is updated. -Zanhe (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Question Is Rasmussen still going to be Prime Minister even though his party does not seem to be the one with the most votes in their block? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
    We don't know yet. Isn't Danish politics exciting? (no) Belle (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
    Ah, ok, thank you! A user named @Norrild1: seems to be a little overzealous in that respect... And you're right, it is exiting. I wish German politics would ever be like that, but we have the big Merkel-alternativelessness... :/ Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think we can put this up at the moment as the article is in pretty poor condition. Belle (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • More neutral blurb posted. Else wait for the government formation (only 1 seat majority)...also note Venstre LOST seats to the DPP and his status as leader is not necessarily assured. Why DPP sacrifice this golden opportunity? (the cited article itself says leadership can change) 120.62.17.226 (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment: If my blurb appeared biased, not my intentions (I have never even been to Northern Europe, let alone Denmark). My understanding was that Rasmussen was leading a block as it was believed Venstre was the largest of that block, clearly not the result. The Social Democrats retained the plurality yes, but if they don't make the government, that doesn't count for much. Again, I'm no expert on the situation '''tAD''' (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Oppose alt blurb I'd like the blurb to reflect the outcome and political implications of the election. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Not blaming you. However, there is no surety as suggested. Without the new leader being known we could post the neutral result and then the PM (did so in the past with commonwealth countries)106.51.136.238 (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - important political news.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Given that Helle Thorning-Schmidt has conceded defeat, I don't think that we should post a blurb saying that the Social Democrats have won a plurality of seats. It would be true but misleading and uninformative as to the actual outcome of the election. Neljack (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support first blurb. The Social Democrat leader Helle Thorning-Schmidt resigned as both Prime Minister and party leader hours after the election.The important thing is not the largest party but who can form a government. All four parties in the opposition block (which together have 90 of 179 MP's) have pointed to Lars Løkke Rasmussen as trying to form a government. It's very likely but not certain he will become Prime Minister, but it's not known which other parties will be part of the government. Denmark nearly always has minority governments with parliamentary support from other parties. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment there are quite a few paragraphs without a single inline citation. The support is clear to post once quality is improved. If we get those paras referenced, it's good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support – I'd like to see some results in the lede of the article, which now merely states that the election was held. As the article says farther down, – and as blurb reflects – the 'Blue' opposition bloc led by Lars Rasmussen gained a parliamentary majority. (Somewhat paralleling results of the Polish presidential election in May.) Sca (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the moment has passed for the election results, but we should post some blurb linking to the election article once the new government has been formed (we certainly wouldn't allow US or UK elections to drop out of the news without mentioning them on ITN).Belle (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
    Agreed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:ITN/R.  Yogwi21  talk  09:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Unmarking, half those paragraphs are still unreferenced. I'll fix some of those bare urls as well. Fuebaey (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Is it now fully referenced, or are you almost there? --George Ho (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 03:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    I don't think this was wise; nobody explicitly supported the second blurb (the one posted) as it implies that the Democrats won the election when the opposite is true, and it went from "attention needed" to "posted" in twenty minutes when nothing was done on the article. Belle (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    I don't think it should be pulled, but I really would prefer the other blurb be used. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    I checked the sources and found the results accurate, so the blurb should reflect that. George Ho (talk) 08:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Laudato si'Edit

Article: Laudato si' (talk, history)
Blurb: Pope Francis releases the encyclical Laudato si', in which he calls for action on environmental degradation and climate change.
News source(s): New York Times CNN BBC

Nominator's comments: As the New York Times link above notes, the release of this encyclical has been "much-awaited". This has big implications because of the size of the Catholic Church (+1 billion people). Everymorning talk 11:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. This should be a no-brainer - it's a huge story and widely discussed in the media today. I've taken the liberty of updating the hook to replace "global warming" with "environmental degradation and climate change", which is more consistent with the article and with the encyclical itself, which covers far more than just global warming. Prioryman (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. It affects not only the one billion catholics around the world, but raises interest among politicians and citizens of the most diverse countries. As I'm writing this, it is the 3rd worldwide trending topic on Twitter. Cato censor (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Widespread news coverage, international scope, and though the article is a bit short, it's still new and appears to be reasonably sourced. Jusdafax 12:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – An influential opinion leader with global reach takes a definite stand on global issues. Sca (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – The Pope's detailed statement on climate change is aimed at influencing economic and environmental policy around the world. Nearly all major national and international news sources are covering it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Marking ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. David Levy, Krinklebot seems to have gone sporadic, any chance you could protect File:Pope Francis Korea Haemi Castle 19 (cropped).jpg and replace it for the current one? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    Done. I'll make sure that Krinkle is aware of the issue. —David Levy 21:03/21:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

June 17Edit


[Closed] RD:Jeralean TalleyEdit

Won't be posted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:17, 19 June 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: Jeralean Talley (talk, history) and Oldest people (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The world's oldest living person Jeralean Talley dies at the age of 116.
News source(s): Detroit Free Press, Yahoo

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: The current title holder is one year younger. Not sure whether we posted such things before, however. Brandmeistertalk 19:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Could read "a centenarian dies". There will always be an "oldest person in the world", and they will not likely live that much longer, passing the title to someone else. To me, this is trivial. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Trivial, might make an interesting DYK. 1.39.63.83 (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - She was one of three still living that was born in the 1800s, meaning of course that when the last of the remaining two dies, there will be no remaining. I suggest that that fact might be widely noted and worthy of an RD or a blurb. Worth a thought now, in my view. Jusdafax 20:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD instead - Merely mentioning her name is enough. Quality is good. George Ho (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Question when did the last "oldest person in the world" die? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Gertrude Weaver died on April 6, 2015; her death wasn't featured ITN or nominated. George Ho (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose these oldest people in the world are dropping like flies. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Reply: Before Weaver, there was a nomination to post the death of Misao Okawa. Weaver only "held the title" for 6 days, whilst Okawa was the oldest person in the world for 1 year and 9 months before that. That nomination was closed as having no consensus. Looking at this list, having three "oldest people" die in the same year has been an uncommon event. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, also oppose RD but somewhat less strongly. I hardly ever actually vote here, but I remember reading something related to this a month ago and wanted to throw out the link: [35]. The takeaway is that, as overall lifespans increase and you get more and more supercenetarians, the period between deaths of the oldest living people will get shorter and shorter, thus becoming less and less "newsworthy". Since 2000, the time between deaths of the oldest living person has averaged 7 months; I think it's been much less than that since the previous oldest person died (after e/c: yes, per George above). I'd vote for the "last person born before 1900", when it happens.--Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD - Article is on the short side but well-referenced and an interesting read. It's ITN-worthy for RD, as I see it. And not every one of these cases needs to be posted, but this one is appealing. Jusdafax 21:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is the third oldest person to die this year. And considering that an older oldest person wasn't included in April [36], I'd say precedent has been set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.252 (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Precedent is useful to a point, but I think we can ignore it in this case. It's notable that she received correspondence from President Barak Obama. [Note: I have added a brief "Death" section to the article.] Jusdafax 22:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    Not at all. British centenarians receive a telegram from the Queen of England (yes, the Queen, not just a passing politician). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    Hmm. There's centenarians, supercentenarians and the world's oldest person. Quite a range. Obama's letters were reportedly personalized. Jusdafax 22:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. From what I have observed this sort of thing has little chance of being posted; the only thing that probably would make it would be if someone outlived Jeanne Calment and was the longest-lived human to be documented. Also possibly when the last person born in the 1800's passes(maybe) 331dot (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Muboshgu. -Zanhe (talk) 07:49, 19 June 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] Charleston shootingEdit

Posted now, no dispute, further discussion should be conducted elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 19 June 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 Charleston, South Carolina shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least nine people, including a state senator, are killed after a gunman opens fire on a congregation at a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina.
News source(s): The Washington Post USA Today Associated Press
Nominator's comments: Developing news. Significant mass-casualty event that is grabbing headlines throughout North America, and yet another development in the racially motivated violence that has been banner news lately in the United States. Kudzu1 (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Current event. --Anarchyte 06:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support sixth or seventh mass murder in the United States so far this year, but made mildly notable by the race element and the death of a former senator. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Very tragic indeed; it's way too soon to tell whether it's racially motivated. As far as I know, nine were killed, and a white man is arrested assumed but not yet captured. As for the state senator, he has been notable and also a pastor. However, regardless of race, I couldn't see him as highly prominent as a U.S. senator or representative. Well, murder is not that rampant, according to city statistics. However, I have seen a lot of reports about killings on African Americans, especially in Wikipedia's ITN. I hate to ask this, but were killings among Black British individuals featured ITN? I hope I'm not harsh. George Ho (talk) 07:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I understand the last point, there's no Category:2015 murders in the United Kingdom but there's a populated Category:2015 murders in the United States‎, which "killings among Black British individuals" are you referring to? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    Well... how about this decade and the last decade, id est 2000s and 2010s? George Ho (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    I don't recall any such incident. We have Category:Spree shootings in the United Kingdom which has four pages, one from 1987, one from 1989, and two from 2010. I believe at least one of the 2010 stories was featured. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    I was trying to find individual murders or shootings, but searching for those in 2000s or 2010s ain't easy. At least I'm reading others. --George Ho (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    The point is, there weren't any. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    There have of course been individual racially motivated murders in the UK, but nothing on the scale of the US. The one that immedidiately comes to my mind is Murder of Stephen Lawrence (stabbed in 1993). There are two later events in Category:Racially motivated violence in England (Murder of Anthony Walker (killed with an ice axe in 2005) and Murder of Ross Parker (stabbed and beaten in 2001)). Category:Racially motivated violence in Scotland contains only one article* - Murder of Kriss Donald a 15-year old white teenager stabbed to death after being kidnapped by "men of Pakistani origin" in 2004. There is no category for Wales. There was the 2011 Death of Mark Duggan which lead to the 2011 England riots but race was not the primary factor there. *I'm about to propose the England and Scotland categories be merged to a United Kingdom category. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: This is a major current event that is tentatively being called a major hate crime and has resulted in at least one notable figure's death. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 07:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support Obviously seems to be a hate crime, and yet another shooting in the United States. Unfortunately, it probably won't be the last mass shooting we see in the U.S. this year. Canuck89 (converse with me) 07:57, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Another week, another shooting. Yawn. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 08:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support Although there is no shortage of spree killings in the US, this one does seem to be a little bit more notable, for number and identity of victims, and the potential hate crime aspect. Though I would be more comfortable if the latter was actually confirmed. Fgf10 (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    The main suspect in the shooting apparently posted a photo to Instagram of himself wearing a jacket with the flag of the Union of South Africa and the flag of Rhodesia on it: [37] -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Very weak support appears to be mildly more notable that the weary progression of US shoot-'em-ups that are continually nominated here. Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weakest of supports - An unusual murder in that a political official was killed. That's about it.--WaltCip (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Not just any old crazy-shooting. Sadly reminiscent of the darkest days of the U.S. Civil Rights era. Sca (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps even more notable that the death of a state senator, this is quite a historic church, the oldest A.M.E. congregation in the South, dating back to 1816 (which is very old for the US). I've added a link to Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in the blurb.--Pharos (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Apparent hate crime. Attack at a church isn't "just another shooting". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, killing includes a state senator, and occurred at an historic black church. while no absolute proof it was a racist hate crime, its being investigated as such. major news event.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Only one oppose, other comments suggest that this is an unusual (and horrible) attack. Article is well updated. Smurrayinchester 15:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment Of course this should go up. I'll be honest, I'm struggling to see the good faith in arguing that Americans are so murderous that this is business as usual, which bizarrely enough seems to be the angle some want to take with killing spree stories. If we're going to do this silly trans-Atlantic antagonism thing, can we maybe not be so tasteless about it? - OldManNeptune 22:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Can we all just get along? Sca (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Why does the blurb say "at least" nine people were shot? Sources I've seen – AP, NYT, BBC, Guardian – say nine, period. Sca (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
    • 9 is the number, and if the alleged perp is the actual perp, then it's 99 percent certain it's a hate crime. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:49, 19 June 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: James B. Lee, Jr.Edit

No consensus. Stephen 23:50, 22 June 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: James B. Lee, Jr. (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times USA Today Wall Street Journal

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 New York Times describes lee as "a pioneering deal maker and among the most influential Wall Street investment bankers of his era." The Wall Street Journal also described him as "a pioneer of syndicated lending." This seems to indicate he meets WP:ITND criterion 2. Everymorning talk 02:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Everymorning talk 02:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Atrocious article filled with tags. Didn't even hold the highest corporate office of his company. Fails notability criteria and quality is right out. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kudzu1. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not seeing even the slightest notability or influence at all. Article quality does not even come close to passing muster. Challenger l (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Is there something missing that I'm not seeing? Vice chairman of a company? He wasn't even at the top of his own employer, much less his field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.252 (talk) 15:59, 18 June 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: Ron ClarkeEdit

Article: Ron Clarke (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: Described as a running "legend", broke 17 world records so little doubt that he was top of his field. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - Very famous in his day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Good enough to be selected to light the Olympic flame at the 1956 Summer Olympics. Emil Zátopek thought so highly of Clarke he gave his 1953 10,000 m Gold Medal to Clarke. Clarke was also a writer and Mayor of Gold Coast, Queensland for 12 years. 220 of Borg 08:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support bibliography seems to be fine along with references. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems to meet DC2 as very important to his field. Article seems OK. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - No one has noticed that he became a city mayor decades later. Although his politics was less prominent than his athletics, this guy's name deserves to be mentioned honorably. Also, the article's in good shape, and I added the image. George Ho (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    A shame, considering his "Athletic career" section features precisely zero references, which is exactly why the nomination was tagged as not ready and not updated and "weak". Bad promotion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    I added some sources... Actually, I used one source to cite his Olympic career. --George Ho (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    When I saw the nomination it was marked as ready, the article contained no tags, and there were no quality objections in the comments (indeed the opposite is true). Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, well the article was still in need of updating, per the nomination header. Those who thought an entirely unreferenced sectoin regarding his athletic career was acceptable should think again. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

RD: Süleyman DemirelEdit

Article: Süleyman Demirel (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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: Former President and five-time PM of Turkey. MASEM (t) 05:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support on notability grounds, but c'mon, articles on important people like this really have to be adequately sourced. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  Comment: There doesn't even seem to be a source on the page saying he is dead! 220 of Borg 10:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • There is now though, [38]. 'Dead' ten hours, without any source. Not good! 220 of Borg 10:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when sourcing is improved. He was a truly significant person in Turkish history, and I would even support a blurb. Unfortunately the article is mostly unsourced. -Zanhe (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb once the quality issues are resolved. He spent his entire political career on the top of the Turkish politics in a time span of 35 years, being Prime Minister in five occasions and President for seven years. Financial Times has described him in the obituary as "a leading figure among the country’s post-Atatürk second generation of politicians", which is a very clear indicator of his importance in the history of Turkey, a country with now a population of over 70 million people and very high geopolitical significance.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Reluctant oppose. Severe sourcing issues for such an important national leader. Numerous paragraphs are unsourced, as are all the quotes. The death sentence, and the accompanying cite, has since been removed as "superfluous". I'll take a jab at fixing what I can, but I don't think it will be ready before it goes stale. Fuebaey (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Procedural proposal - next story to be removedEdit

Job done. Future procedural proposals should be discussed on the talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 18 June 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 would like to propose that when the next story is ready to be posted to the main page, the French Open tennis be removed before Christopher Lee. His death and the end of the tournament were both on 7 June, and in the grand scheme of things, surely his passing is more worthy of remaining on the front page a few hours longer than a cyclical sports story. That the NBA results are bound to be posted shortly, along with Wimbledon starting in less than two weeks, should be factors taken into consideration. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Agreed it is standard procedure to treat a nomination from the date of announcement if it has been embargoed. I think the suggestion by Ho below was prematurely withdrawn. In any case, the effective date of the nom was the 11th. μηδείς (talk) 04:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm neutral on this, but I do want to point out the posting of Lee's blurb was not universal, and we really need to be careful with celebrity deaths; WP is not a memorial. I would fairly argue (per the talk page) that Lee's death should be considered as of the 11th, when the family released the news, and evaluate which nom gets kicked out that way, but in absolutely no way should this consideration be based on the fame of Lee. --MASEM (t) 04:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I should clarify that this proposal is not "because it is Christopher Lee"; I'm not a fan of his in any sense. However there are four major tennis tournaments each year, with the next certain to appear in ITN within a month. Add to that the countless minor tournaments that are played throughout the year, and the French Open looks very old in comparison to the other stories. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed - per proposer and Medeis. Good call, since the NBA finals are likely to be posted soon. Jusdafax 06:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Removed by someone else. --George Ho (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Restored the listing has been restored. The principle here is that the date of a nomination is not the same as the date of the event, but the date on which the news is released. When two items are listed on the same day, the second item is posted at the top. I am not quite sure why Masem keeps pointing out that the posting was not "universal", supports for a blurb far outweighed opposes. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment the French Open item was restored because the terrible trans fat article was correctly removed. I restored the last ITN item to retain main page balance. There's no reason that once the next decent ITN item is added that Christopher Lee's blurb shouldn't be retained, but there needs to be some centralised discussion over this kind thing in future rather than this odd "procedural proposal" juxtaposed twixt standard ITN candidates. WT:ITN would seem a good place to start. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 2015 NBA FinalsEdit

Article: 2015 NBA Finals (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In basketball, the Golden State Warriors defeat the Cleveland Cavaliers to win the NBA Finals
Alternative blurb: ​In basketball, the Golden State Warriors defeat the Cleveland Cavaliers to win the NBA Finals, and Andre Iguodala is named the Finals MVP.
Alternative blurb II: ​In basketball, the Golden State Warriors defeat the Cleveland Cavaliers to win the NBA Finals. Andre Iguodala is named the Finals MVP.
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.

 TomStar81 (Talk) 04:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  • No prose update yet, may they're still up in California. μηδείς (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
At this point there's well over 12kb of updating. μηδείς (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once the article is up to date. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • ITNR This is an WP:ITNR item, so only pending updates.—Bagumba (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • TomStar81, Bagumba any ideas for an image that could accompany the blurb? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • @The Rambling Man: Not really. The only clear portrait of Iguodala is from years ago in US national team uniform.—Bagumba (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose it's just a U.S. sports entertainment event, not newsworthy to a worldwide audience. WP is not ESPN. 166.170.42.208 (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Same here; FIBA Basketball World Cup is more significant than this one. And neither of Los Angeles teams reached the finals, but that's not the main issue. --George Ho (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • The best players in the world play in the NBA, and it's no surprise that the US team is the current champion for both the Olympics and the FIBA Cup. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment those in opposition need to be reminded that this is an WP:ITNR item. If they would like to see it removed from the recurring items list, make a proposal there rather than just complaining here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support one of the top three US sporting championships. Opposes based on being important to one nation are discounted, read the top of the page. μηδείς (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I read it. If being significant to one country is not sufficient reason to oppose the story, perhaps another reason will. Umm... I'm not much of a basketball fan, and I don't care much about it. Well... I wasn't good at basketball practises, but that's not the main issue. Two city teams competing each other wasn't that thrilling, but Super Bowls have gotten posted because... well, it's American football, not soccer. If US soccer team tournaments haven't been posted, why have been Super Bowl and NBA Finals? --George Ho (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
George, as I said above, it's ITNR. Please voice your concerns at a more appropriate venue in order to get this removed if you really think, as a global phenomenon watched by hundreds of millions, it shouldn't qualify for a blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll propose a removal of NBA Finals when the excitement dies down. I estimate three months until calmness occurs. --George Ho (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest doing it now. Three months? It won't happen. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Would that be forum shopping? Whatever... Doing it so soon would be disruptive, and I fear an administrator would exploit this to get me reported to ANI. --George Ho (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment the supporters would do well to improve the citations in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Right now, 3 of 6 news items on main page are sporting events, plus a sporting event in "ongoing". I don't care that this is WP:ITNR. I've had enough sports advertisements on the main page of wikipedia for a long time. This item clearly promotes the NBA just as the French Open promotes tennis and Stanley Cup promotes ice hockey. Brian Everlasting (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Not enough murder and mayhem for your tastes? It's not our fault that these three events are close together in the calendar. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
        • @Brian Everlasting: It's not our fault many sporting events occur at around the same time. As TRM says below, please make nominations if you would like to improve what is posted. 331dot (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The UFC Heavyweight Championship also changed hands this weekend. Go Brazil! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, June 17, 2015 (UTC)
  • If you really cared, you'd nominate more news articles that you find to your own taste. I don't see any of that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    Are you implying any of us opposers having personal bias? If not, what are you doing? --George Ho (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    You do have personal bias. You oppose solely on hates sports/America. Sorry that the Americans have the most native English speakers. Sorry that the Americans have the best athletes. If you want something else posted, go make it yourself. Correctron (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    No, I don't hate Americans. In fact, I nominated a recent Alaskan wildfire, which many opposed. Same for many other nominations that I did. --George Ho (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    @Brian Everlasting: We could just move out the tennis blurb and leave Christopher Lee death to keep with the status quo of 3 sports blurbs.—Bagumba (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once the article is ready. The story is ITNR and is a pretty big deal. Calidum T|C 21:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose ITN has hit capacity as far as sports items go. 68.105.175.131 (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • No such thing as "capacity". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R The NBA Finals definitely belong in ITN/R, and I will be there to oppose any removal attempt. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per ITNR but replace the tennis with this, it's 10 days old and Christopher Lee is only 6 days old (even though he died on the 7th, his death wasn't released until 11th), thus maintaining 3 sports stories on ITN. Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Unrelated, but the 69th Tony Awards wasn't featured ITN. It's not sports, but it's part of ITN/R. If you want a related topic, 2015 Euroleague Final Four wasn't nominated or posted ITN. I wonder if article quality is related. As for being part of ITN/R, I wonder if this holds up well. --George Ho (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment Seems the remaining sections that have no citations, Game 3 and Game 4, are loaded with random WP:OR play-by-play and trivia. Might be easier to just delete and rewrite a brief verifiable few sentences of each game then to hunt down for sources (if the existing text is even correct). I'm on vacation, so good luck.—Bagumba (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • ITN/R looks ready to me. The only thing to be determined here is whether the article is ready for posting, and it would appear that it is. Discussions on whether this should or should not be in ITN/R should take place in the appropriate venue, no? - OldManNeptune 02:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment two of the games have no inline references at all and have been tagged as such, please, supporters, address these issues and then we should be in a position to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - ITNR. And if it displaces the French Open item near the bottom, we'll still end up with the same number of sports items as now. -Zanhe (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Referencing issues resolved. SpencerT♦C 05:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

June 16Edit


[Withdrawn] Move to RD: Christopher LeeEdit

WITHDRAWN:
--George Ho (talk) 22:09, 16 June 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.

The obituary blurb is now at the bottom, and we are anticipating newer stories soon. I know that the obituary is kinda old, but keeping it in Main Page a little longer doesn't seem bad. Shall the article be moved back to RD ticker to make room for other stories? --George Ho (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose Christopher Lee died ten days ago, before James Last. He'd be about to drop off that too, so there's no point. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose no need at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Respectfully oppose. Sir Christopher was a great man and he got the attention he deserved on ITN. But we are not a perpetual memorial. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

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


RD: Kirk KerkorianEdit

Article: Kirk Kerkorian (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): LA Times NBC News BBC

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

Nominator's comments: Kerkorian had a major role in shaping Vegas. During most of his life, he was the wealthiest Armenian in the world. Երևանցի talk 15:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support on article improvements - Importance is reasonable, but article is poorly sourced particularly in the personal life section. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
    Was going to nominate for the same reason...he's clearly a leader in his business field which doesn't get posted here. (why the Armenian nominee ;))120.62.26.187 (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Well-respected businessman. He is undoubtedly notable. The news made headlines around the world. As we speak, it is among the top trending news items around the world. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is full of unreferenced claims, not suitable for main page inclusion. With luck the supporters will do something about these. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits as meeting DC2 and arguably DC1 in Las Vegas but oppose on quality until article is improved. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support conditional on article improvement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on improvements in sourcing. will ping Wikiproject Armenia -- Aronzak (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support one of the best known and most influential businessmen. -Zanhe (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

[Pulled] US FDA Trans fat RulingEdit

Article: Trans fat (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The U.S. Food and Drug Administration rules that trans fats are unsafe and require all trans fats to be removed from food production in three years.
News source(s): CNN, Bloomberg

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Originally projected to be happening around October last year (when they made a preliminary point about unsafe trans fats) this is the result of this aimed to stem heart attack rates. Some points: First, I know some will argue we should wait for the ban to be enacted, and I'm sure there's a number of lawsuits against the FDA to block this, but this is a major step already, since it is already affecting food production companies and their stock values - it is equivalent to the announcement of a merger. Second, while this is not the first country to block trans fat (Denmark was), the US's influence will likely lead other countries to follow suit, particularly given how the US does tend to be a food exporter. MASEM (t) 14:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support on updates - more countries are likely to follow US and Denmark's lead - the large size of the US food market should demonstrate that a phaseout over three years is possible in any market. -- Aronzak (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Aronzak. Interesting and significant news in both the world of government and the food industry. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
    Likely is a presumption. It ain't happened yet and could also be challenged. Just another step after the initial labelling requirement. oppose120.62.26.187 (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
It isn't a "presumption", it is an FDA regulation where time is being given to comply. Any regulation can be challenged in the future; we deal with the here and now. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. A notable public health development with worldwide implications if other nations follow the lead of the US FDA. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
    Is this the same FDA that has banned Kinder Surprises? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The FDA doing something, anything, to improve the safety of food or drugs for consumers is unusual and noteworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the target should not be the trans fat article (which is inadmissible anyway through maintenance tags), so if this is such a big deal, where's the real target? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Note that a large fraction of the trans fat article is about national and local policies to regulate/eliminate TFs. Arguable one could make a separate article "Government regulation of trans fat" which in context seems like a more appropriate article, but there's no need to separate them at this time. --MASEM (t) 01:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • If you want the article split to government regulation of trans fats then say so explicitly and we can do it for a better ITN target. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm saying that presently there is no need to split. The bulk of the article about trans fat is more about the health effects and government regulation, and splitting that out would weaken the existing article. If necessary, we can always link the blurb term to the appropriate section. --MASEM (t) 03:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the target is trans fat, and the maintenance tags are actually irrelevant to this blurb. They say that parts of the article are focused too much on US, and this blurb is strictly talking about US. Nergaal (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
    So it's okay to link to an article which is heavily biased towards one country when the blurb is talking about that one country? Perhaps we can add that to the ITN instructions. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
From your statements I can assume that you would be 100% happy with forking half of the article to "Trans fat in USA" and then linking that. Nergaal (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
You know what they say about "assuming"! It may be a good start, it would be helpful to see an article discussing why trans fat is such a talking point in the US and how this FDA ruling (the same FDA that bans Kinder eggs) is worth anything notable beyond the odd little enclave it "governs". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
If you want the article split to government regulation of trans fats then say so explicitly. The US food industry says that they've been moving away from trans fats in most product categories before the ruling (latimes) - this isn't just the FDA - the food industry has been readying to phase out their use. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Same FDA that pretty much regulates the entire drug industry in the World. Nergaal (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This would need a separate target article, and removing butter, lard, and various natural oils from food is simply not going to happen, so the blurb as written is simply false. But we also have a longstanding deprecation of posting mere policy decisions in one country. μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I believe the trans fat wikipedia article is of sufficient quality to be featured on the main page. Also this is an important ruling with health implications. Brian Everlasting (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Their elimination would be significant, if it happens in three years, but the announcement itself does very little to affect even most Americans. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, June 17, 2015 (UTC)
  • Except set the official FDA policy for the next three years and push other countries towards officially phasing trans fats out. The phaseout will be protracted - the most public attention on the issue will be now. The failure of regulation does not mean that attempting a regulatory change costing $6.8 bn US is not newsworthy. ITN doesn't have to be for just completed news. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Unless other countries (and non-FDA America) push the other way, harder. The FDA doesn't always win. Public attention is something, but it's not exactly a significant impact. Seven billion dollars is a significant cost, but it hasn't been paid yet. This is potentially big. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:45, June 17, 2015 (UTC)
I were agin the merger, but how does a plan to ban butter, margarine, lard, and beef compare? μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
It's an announcement. Doesn't mean it will actually happen. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • PostedBagumba (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Pulled – I don't venture over here much, but this article had three orange maintenance tags and eleven "citation needed" tags, it is clearly not up to standard for a bold main page link. I note that there is some significant opposition here too irrespective of that. Harrias talk 15:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    Also interesting to note that, more than three days later, nobody has made any attempt to fix the editorial issues that caused this to be pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Stanley CupEdit

Articles: 2015 Stanley Cup Finals (talk, history) and Chicago Blackhawks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In ice hockey, the Chicago Blackhawks defeat the Tampa Bay Lightning to win their third Stanley Cup in six years.
Alternative blurb: ​The Chicago Blackhawks defeat the Tampa Bay Lightning to win the 2015 Stanley Cup Finals.
News source(s): CTV News

Both articles need 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: ITN/R. Didn't see it here, so I nommed using the same presentation as last year. Article still needs a summary for the final game and could use a few refs in each section. Floydian τ ¢ 03:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support once article passes muster. Not just the championship of the sport, but also the team's third in the last six. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment if the Blackhawks are the target, shouldn't they be bolded too? '''tAD''' (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I just figured it should be updated as well, not bolded. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This looks fine, the game summaries are there etc. Posting. The core burb only, the long one is for statistics. --Tone 15:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment a rapid posting, but one with which I won't take too much issue. However, do we really think that phrases like "played tight to the vest" and "scored on a perfect setup" etc etc are befitting an encyclopedic report of the game? I don't even understand the first phrase. Some inline referencing of all these tabloid write-ups wouldn't go amiss... (And "something the franchise has not done since 1938" which clearly needs a tense change). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Temporarily pull - Just one support? There hasn't been a consensus yet. Why would Tone post it so soon? --George Ho (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
    Because he decided that the update was sufficient, it's ITNR after all. My comment was really related to the crap journalistic tone and the lack of inline references, but it's not that big a deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Note - Sports lingo not needed. It would be sufficient to report that all the games were low-scoring, and that the first five games were one-goal margins, the first time that had happened since 1951, or thereabouts, according to the play-by-play announcer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't pull I'm proofreading some of the language. Already took out that "vest" comment, which seems to be an idiom used improperly. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't pull since it's already up there and that's just process for the sake of process. Clean up the tone, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.252 (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove Picture. A photo of an actual event was replaced with a generic photo of the trophy? I don't think that's an improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.252 (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for the feedback, I'm hoping we can get a picture that relates to the top story of ITN every time it changes, to stop people claiming they're "confused" by having a picture of something that isn't the top story. Feel free to log into your account and help. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

June 15Edit


[Withdrawn] 2015 Alaska Sockeye wildfireEdit

WITHDRAWN:
I should have researched more. --George Ho (talk) 20:08, 16 June 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 Alaska Sockeye wildfire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The wildfire in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough area of Alaska burns at least 8,500 acres, destroying forty to forty-five structures.
Alternative blurb: ​The wildfire, probably man-made according to an emergency official, in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough area of Alaska burns at least 8,500 acres, destroying forty to forty-five structures.
News source(s): Alaska Dispatch News

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Alaska rarely has wildfires. This is special. If blurb is not deserving, perhaps make the event "Ongoing". George Ho (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose it doesn't seem particularly notable. That the nominator suggests Alaska "rarely has wildfires" yet Wikipedia has Category:Wildfires in Alaska and 2004 Alaska fire season seems to indicate that it's not all that rare. Destruction of a handful of properties and limited-to-no proper casualties suggest this is a non-story, certainly not making the ITN bar. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'd been considering this for a bit but I agree with TRM; this doesn't quite seen notable enough for ITN. Definitely not ongoing; if the situation changes, we can revisit it. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 16 June 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] 800th anniversary of the Magna CartaEdit

OTD is thataway. Stephen 01:15, 16 June 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: Magna Carta (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 800th anniversary of the sealing of the Magna Carta is celebrated.
News source(s): Newsweek NPR BBC
Nominator's comments: I think that since this has received a huge amount of news coverage and is being marked by a lot of ceremony, [39] and because this was such a historically important document, it rises past OTD and to the level of ITN. Everymorning talk 22:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose good faith nomination. Anniversaries are usually covered in the On This Date sectio0n of the Front Page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • On This Date the item is listed there, it should have been posted in that section. μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reasons stated; unless there is some large, notable gathering or commemoration to hang our hat on, OTD should be sufficient. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose ITN. It would normally be in OTD but it's in today's featured picture ({{POTD protected/2015-06-15}}) and we don't feature the same subject in two main page sections. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a OTD story. We mentioned the centenary of the Armenian Genocide because all of its victims were made saints, something different to the 99th, 57th or 28th etc anniversaries. If HM The Queen uses this anniversary to revoke the Magna Carta to vindicate her ancestor John, that would be well...a news story '''tAD''' (talk) 23:18, 15 June 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: Qiao ShiEdit

Duplicate nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 15 June 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: Qiao Shi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): SCMP

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: Qiao Shi was one of the top leaders of China for the 1980s and 1990s. We posted Deng Liqun in RD a few months ago, and Qiao Shi is of higher seniority and rank compared to Deng. Was once number-three figure in China and considered a top candidate for leader before being ousted in what appeared to be a power struggle. Qiao's stature is unrivalled by any peers if measured by the number of major offices he held; he, at one point, was the head of the Communist Party's international department, organization department, chief of staff, head of the anti-corruption agency, the head of the politics and law commission, vice-premier, and speaker of the legislature. Significant coverage in China and Japan. Moreover let's not forget systemic bias - if George P. Shultz died tomorrow, I'm sure he would get an RD. Colipon+(Talk) 18:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: ZitoEdit

Article: Zito (footballer) (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: Zito captained the Santos side which toured the world with the fame of its icon, Pelé. Zito himself was established in the world football scene, he won two consecutive World Cups, scoring in the latter final. For a younger generation, he can be honoured as the discoverer of Neymar'''tAD''' (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose on quality. Article has adequate references, but is barely above stub-class. I would expect a truly significant footballer to have a much more detailed article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Weak support, with the article now expanded: Seems to have been a famous and well-regarded football star, although nowhere near as famous as his teammate Pele or his onetime protege Neymar. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article is a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Weak support the article is still poor but the claims made therein are notable, and he was clearly at the top of international football for a while. Plus, four characters in his name means a fourth could easily be added to RD... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on importance. Just because he played with Pele doesn't mean he meets DC. No awards or honors I can see that would imply he does. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on importance. One individual tournament award. He wasn't even the most important player on his own team. Doesn't have enough caps to even appear on List of Brazil international footballers. Even the basis for the nomination is his relationships to other notable persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.251 (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    • He should be on that list, he got 52 caps '''tAD''' (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • My colleague MYS77 has expanded the page '''tAD''' (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

N'Djamena bombingsEdit

Article: 2015 N'Djamena bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​About 40 people are killed in twin bombings in the Chadian capital of N'Djamena.
Alternative blurb: ​Chad declares that Boko Haram is behind suicide bombings in the capital N'Djamena that killed 27 people and wounded over 100.
News source(s): AP Reuters AFP AJ NBC
  • Nominated by [[User:120.62.26.151 (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)|120.62.26.151 (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:120.62.26.151 (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)|talk]] • [{{fullurl:User talk:120.62.26.151 (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5B2015+N%27Djamena+bombings%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=2015+N%27Djamena+bombings&preloadparams%5b%5d=nominated}} give credit])

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: High count and unusual location...likely a link to the Boko Haram counter-fight. 120.62.26.151 (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the article whose quality we are assessing for inclusion on the main page? Currently, we have no Wikipedia content to highlight, so I am not sure what you are nominating. Redlinks cannot be "the best Wikipedia has to offer". --Jayron32 14:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia won't allow me to create articles.120.62.26.151 (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
But it will allow you to create an account, thus protecting your IP address and affording you privacy, and then you can create articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment despite this IP's abject refusal to do anything about his inability to create an article, which would take about two minutes, the news story has some legs, with around 23 people killed by suicide bombers in Chad. I cannot recall ever seeing an article at ITN about Chad, and this is pretty grim, but is it now just "one of those things" that happens in Africa, that a handful of people are blown up by suicide bombers? I don't know. But nevertheless, this nomination is a complete waste of time until we have an article, which the knowledgeable IP already knows and could do himself if he logged into his account. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support lots of news outlets reporting that Chad is saying Boko Haram organised the bombings - which suggests this is a revenge attack for Chad's involvement with Nigeria in fighting Boko Haram. Note - VOA reports Nigerian president Muhammadu Buhari "has traveled to Chad and Niger for discussions on the fight" and "Foreign military officials traveled to Abuja on Thursday" - suggesting this bombing could be trying to undermine cross-border military cooperation. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Notable terrorist act in a capital city. Brandmeistertalk 18:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on importance, but it's less than 1500 characters. Is that enough? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose without major expansion. The entire substance of the article is in the two-line lead. The remainder is made up of "background" telling about the local civil war, and a "reaction" section with two statements from world leaders. There's nothing in the body of the article about the attack itself. The guidelines require three full prose paragraphs and not just stuff tangential to the event itself. μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per previous comment, the content of the article that deals with this "in the news" item is essentially the lead and mercifully brief but lame reaction section. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

June 14Edit


[Posted] RD: Qiao ShiEdit

Article: Qiao Shi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [40] [41] [42]

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: I've already added sources to most of the content, still working on adding more. Zanhe (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: Good work by nominator on getting this page in fine fettle. Seems like a notable figure in recent Chinese political history. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support (and apologize for posting duplicate entry above). Qiao Shi was one of the top leaders of China for the 1980s and 1990s. We posted Deng Liqun in RD a few months ago, and Qiao Shi is of higher seniority and rank compared to Deng. Was once number-three figure in China and considered a top candidate for leader before being ousted in what appeared to be a power struggle. Qiao's stature is unrivalled by any peers if measured by the number of major offices he held; he, at one point, was the head of the Communist Party's international department, organization department, chief of staff, head of the anti-corruption agency, the head of the politics and law commission, vice-premier, and speaker of the legislature. Significant coverage in China and Japan. Moreover let's not forget systemic bias - if George P. Shultz died tomorrow, I'm sure he would get an RD. Colipon+(Talk) 19:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    • No need to invoke George P. Shultz, who was Secretary of State, Treasury, and Labor (in UK terms, that's holding 2 of the 3 possible Great Offices of State, he can't be PM). We posted Charles Kennedy, the holder of the very high office of "Member of Parliament for Ross, Skye and Lochaber". –HTD 20:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems to be notable in Chinese politics. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Before the article was fixed, I was unsure about nominating the article for ITN. However, I'll give this props for explaining the prominence of the late politician. Although someone else did the nomination before me, this article deserves an honorary mention. --George Ho (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 01:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: John Carroll (journalist)Edit

No consensus to post forming. Stephen 03:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: John Carroll (journalist) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post 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: Described by the Washington Post link above as "one of the most distinguished and inspiring newspaper editors of his time". He also, according to his NY Times obituary, "helped deliver 13 Pulitzer Prizes to The [Los Angeles] Times during his five-year run as its editor." Everymorning talk 23:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not known for his reporting, that his hirees won Pulitzers is like saying a manager was great because he drafted MVP's. μηδείς (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality as needing more citations(as stated); uncertain as to merits. I'm inclined to agree with Medeis' analogy; I'm not clear on what exactly his influence was if not simply hiring people who were already talented. I'm also not sure what the field is; is it journalism? Journalism management? 331dot (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Hiring people with Pulizers is not the same as actually winning them themselves. --MASEM (t) 01:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I think there's a misreading going on. He didn't hire people with Pulitzers, he hired people who went to win Pulitzers with stories that he (presumably) commissioned or edited. That said, I'd oppose because he doesn't seem to have been significant outside the newspaper - someone like Ben Bradlee or Bill Deedes who had a more major effect on society, I would support. Smurrayinchester 09:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I read the article and did understand that point, although my terse comment above was ambiguous. It doesn't affect my opinion. He was basically given the money by management to bring in better talent. It's like praising a competent museum director with big-budget backing for acquiring some cool works of art. μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I'd heard of Mr. Carroll because of my background in the news biz, but I don't think he quite qualifies as being at the top of his field. Sca (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 2015 24 Hours of Le MansEdit

Article: 2015 24 Hours of Le Mans (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In motorsport, the Porsche of Earl Bamber, Nick Tandy, and Formula One driver, Nico Hülkenberg wins the 24 Hours of Le Mans.
Alternative blurb: ​In motorsport, Earl Bamber, Nick Tandy, and Nico Hülkenberg driving the Porsche 919 Hybrid win the 24 Hours of Le Mans.
News source(s): Fox News Yahoo/Eurosport BBC Sport

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 sports event Donnie Park (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Race report not yet written, I'd await going for or against until time is taken to write it out. 24 hours is a lot to cover. The359 (Talk) 19:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Updated Comment Race report is completed. The359 (Talk) 21:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. The current article does not contain a complete prose synopsis of the race. There is a partially completed one in the "Race" section, but unless and until there is some prose to read about the complete race, we should not post this. As soon as that is rectified, this can be posted with or without any further comment from me. --Jayron32 14:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb Why is Hulkenberg being singled out? This wasn't a Formula One race.
    • Then suggest another blurb. Opposing the blurb is pointless and unhelpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
      • The only reason was that some news source cites that his win was the first for a driver serving a full season since 1991 but then I don't have any objection to any removal. Donnie Park (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Oh please let's not get into a bitching contest over what is helpful and pointless. Remove the Formula One - I don't know how to propose another blurb. Sorry, I know that makes me less of a person.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎162.95.148.251 (talkcontribs)
        • You could have done it yourself, just as I did. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
          • I agree that Formula One should not be mentioned. All three drivers have racing careers outside of this race, that one is in Formula One does not merit mention over the others. The359 (Talk) 21:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added a cropped image of the race winners to Donnie Park's nomination. The blurb should be altered if the picture is used as it depicts, from left to right: Nick Tandy, Earl Bamber, and Nico Hülkenberg. The359 (Talk) 21:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support now the update has been made. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as per above. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. ITN/R, most objections withdrawn, and replaces another sports article. Black Kite (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Image added and blurb reorganised as suggested. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Tbilisi floodEdit

Article: 2015 Tbilisi flood (talk, history)
Blurb: Flooding in the Georgian capital Tbilisi leaves at least 12 dead and releases wild zoo animals into the streets.
News source(s): [43], [44][45]

Nominator's comments: Article probably needs a fair bit of work to bring up to speed but not every day numerous animals, including a hippopotamus, 6 lions, 6 tigers, 7 bears, and 13 wolves escape from a zoo, citywide damage is estimated at $9.4 million EdwardLane (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak support - Natural disaster but also one with low loss of life. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Pretty unusual stuff with significant damage done to the city. --Երևանցի talk 14:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - unusual sort of news. Notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per the above. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. An unusual story with the escaped animals angle. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. While the loss of life is tragic, the zoo escape make this flood story a unique one. Varianceinvain (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Ready Well-supported, of sufficient size, good quality writing, and well-referenced. μηδείς (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment blurb is odd, "wild zoo animals"? It enabled a number of animals to escape from the zoo, most of which have been terminated.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted in the hope that we can tweak the blurb a little. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Dangerous might be a better word than wild, given some of the deaths were caused by the zoo animals. Frankly, I am surprised anyone got near that hippo. μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • it did say dangerous in my original blurb, until this diff, intention had been to leave discovery of zoo info in the article so that blurb said less than article, and made it a simpler sentence construction - so I'd support a tweaked blurb. EdwardLane (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

June 13Edit


[Posted] Rosetta/Philae lander successfully awakesEdit

Articles: Rosetta (spacecraft) (talk, history) and Philae (spacecraft) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Philae lander from the Rosetta mission successfully awakens from its hibernation mode after landing on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko 8 months earlier.
Alternative blurb: ​The Philae lander from the Rosetta mission successfully awakens from its hibernation mode, eight months after landing on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko.
News source(s): CNN, Guardian

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: While we did post when the lander had been confirmed to have landed on the comet back in Nov [46], after that the lander went communications-dead as it appeared to have landed in a shadowed area where it could not receive power, so the continuation of the mission was unsure. Now that the lander has enough power, the mission is able to continue. MASEM (t) 15:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - has been reported on world wide. Notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely big news. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Cool science news. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support always nice for a feel-good story, and anything space-related is general interest. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, the articles should go up asap if the quality is sufficient. μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment added alt blurb as I don't think the Rosetta mission update is really worth the bold link, and reorganised the English a little. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per above supports. No preference for blurb and hope we can speedily post one or the other. Jusdafax 19:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Swedish royal marriageEdit

Snowclose. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:42, 14 June 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: Sofia Hellqvist (talk, history)
Blurb: Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland marries Sofia Hellqvist in a wedding ceremony in Stockholm.

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Could be potential ITNR in the future. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose what, a Swedish royal marriage could become ITNR? Or just any old royal wedding? Definitely eye-catching news because of the past career of her royal highness, and a "good news" story to boot, but hardly rising above the level of a Hello magazine "news" item. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, obviously. Carl Philip isn't heir apparent, so there's not even the "commoner in line to become queen" element there was with Kate Middleton. This story is basically "posh person marries someone slightly less posh". – iridescent 18:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Carl Philip is not heir apparent. Also, the UK royal family is relevant to many countries making its line more notable. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as above. These two would only become monarchs if they outlive this infant, among others. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - The wedding of Prince William and Duchess Catherine was posted ITN on the front page. Why not the Swedish royal marriage? Well, it's not as if all royal marriages deserve the front page. By the way, the wedding of Prince Charles and Duchess Camille was not posted on the front page at the time of the event. --George Ho (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
    • There is a reasonable expectation that William will be king someday. Such is not the case here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
      • So will be Prince Charles; he is the heir apparent. --George Ho (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Precisely. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Good to see that we have editors owning magic balls to see into the future. Where can I buy one? lol.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
            • There is a high degree of reasonable expectation that Princes Charles, William and George will eventually become kings. There is a low reasonable expectation that the Swedish prince would do so. Same deal as with Prince Harry and Princess Charlotte. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Crown Princess Victoria is already married. This isn't anything like the Duke of Cambridge's marriage. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:24, 14 June 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.

June 12Edit


RD: Nasir al-WuhayshiEdit

Article: Nasir al-Wuhayshi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Alternative blurb: Nasir al-Wuhayshi, emir of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, is killed by a U.S. drone strike.
News source(s): [47]

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: Founder of AQAP, death just confirmed today. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support, looks like Al-Qaeda confirmed the death. May go as a blurb too. Brandmeistertalk 10:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Notable death. Adding altblurb but would prefer RD. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Not convinced This guy was Bin Laden's secretary, he looks like the sort of desperate battlefield promotions made by the increasingly degraded losers during the final phase of a war, more than a moving force or central mastermind. μηδείς (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article is on the brief side; would prefer more expansion. SpencerT♦C 18:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Infanta Cristina, Duchess of Palma de MallorcaEdit

not consonant with existing precedent and no trend toward support μηδείς (talk) 17:47, 13 June 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: Infanta Cristina, Duchess of Palma de Mallorca (talk, history)
Blurb: ​King Felipe VI of Spain revokes the title of Duchess of Palma from his sister Cristina (pictured) amidst her trial for alleged tax evasion.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I can see this getting snow closed, but it's rare for a royal to be stripped of a title, and especially as a reaction to a criminal trial '''tAD''' (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as she is still in the line of succession. If she were convicted that might be a story for ITN though. Calidum T|C 20:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting at this time (she requested to have her dukedom revoked) but I agree with Calidum that should she be convicted and/or removed from succession it would merit posting. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose in agreement with the two learned editors who preceded this comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 12 June 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.

European GamesEdit

Article: 2015 European Games (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The first European Games open in Baku, Azerbaijan (countdown salute pictured).

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Could be potential ITNR in the future. Brandmeistertalk 16:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support ongoing like women's world cup. bufartalk 19:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral at this stage but I would appeal for some sense of perspective at this point. I would oppose any form of "enhanced" coverage - blurb fine, ongoing, sure, but not "We'll post now and automatically make it ongoing later" and the suggestion this should be ITNR even at this point strikes me as laughable. This is the first event of its kind and we can't properly assess its significance except with the benefit of hindsight and we are able to judge the level of popular interest this generates. The obvious comparison is with the Commonwealth Games, and if it attracts a similar level of interest then it should be treated similarly. However we should be very definitely following popular attitudes rather than attempting to lead them. 3142 (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree that we should not rush this to ongoing. We have no idea how big/important this will be. It could get viewership numbers akin to FIFA or Eurovision and thus would be reasonable to have ongoing, or it could be a flop. The opening and closing is fine for ITN first time around. --MASEM (t) 19:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing link. Especially since this is new I have some reservations that the article will stay well updated. SpencerT♦C 22:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, oppose ongoing per 3142. We don't know what attention it's going to get from editors, viewers or the news media so I don't think it automatically qualifies for an ongoing slot at this point. Thryduulf (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am yet to be convinced of the true global significance of this event. When more press seems to be going to the human rights situation in the host country than the actual event itself, that's indicating that the competitions are not widely followed. Also, we did not post anything for the 2014 Asian Games on ITN last year, despite the fact that, when compared to the European Games, the Asian Games are a much more established event. --Tocino 02:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Its got no credibility yet as to its worthiness. And as mentioned the Asian Games are more historic and bigger.120.62.24.238 (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the sole headline I have seen in the US was related to a bus crash. There's no established notability, and the arbitrarily limited attendance would seem to qualify any medals as Olympic Medals as such. We can always post any truly record-breaking developments separate from the mere opening of the games as such. μηδείς (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Media seem to be noticeably biased in this case, with some headlines lapsing into yellow journalism. I don't think we should copy their pattern, especially given Wiki's different goals and policies. Brandmeistertalk 19:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment how many countries from the European NOCs are taking part? How many athletes? Does Coca Cola often sponsor European games that aren't worthy of note? Just because the ignorance of the United States press means that this isn't advertised in the United States, it shouldn't preclude it being discussed and included in this, the English language Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Marking ready, as there seems to be a general consensus for the blurb. Brandmeistertalk 06:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Supporters fail to make a case for these games being of such significance as to require a blurb on Wikipedia's front page, and I fail to see consensus to post. Having the nominator mark this as "ready" is additionally unimpressive.. Jusdafax 09:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Sana'a Old City bombingEdit

Articles: Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen (talk, history) and Sana'a (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Saudi-led coalition bombs the World Heritage Listed Old City of Sana'a destroying three houses and killing five people.
News source(s): (BBC)

 Jenda H. (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Conditional support, pending article update. Another example of UN impotency amid destructions of World Heritage sites. Brandmeistertalk 15:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Were they purposely trying to destroy ancient sites, as the Taliban and ISIS do, or was it strictly a military strike? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Appears to be a military strike, but either they didn't know what they were targeting or they did know, but bombed anyway. Brandmeistertalk 17:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems like part of the ongoing story in Yemen. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose collateral damage I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Reminds me of the Bombing of Monte Cassino, which we would have posted even though it wasn't the Nazis destroying the cultural treasure. μηδείς (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
    Seriously? You equate "destroying three houses and killing five people" with the deaths of at least 230 people and the destruction of the most important site of the Benedectine Order? – iridescent 18:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
What I do seriously expect is people commenting here to be able to understand an analogy. Saying "A is to B as C is to D" doesn't mean an equation between A and C. Notability is one thing. But unless you want to argue that we shouldn't have an article on Monte Cassino, since hundreds and thousands of times more people were killed at Dresden and Nagasaki, you shouldn't be arguing that the destruction in Sana'a is irrelevant because 1/50th as many were killed there as at Monte Cassino. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment should this "story" gain traction, could someone please highlight the update that we're posting? Right now we have four linked articles, one of which is a micro-stub (the Old City article). If this is to be compared with other major destructions of world heritage sites, we should surely have an article of its own? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Dominique Strauss-Kahn acquittedEdit

no trend toward support for posting μηδείς (talk) 18:09, 14 June 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: Dominique Strauss-Kahn (talk, history)
Blurb: Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former head of the International Monetary Fund, is cleared of "aggravated pimping" charges.
News source(s): The Guardian USA Today Wall Street Journal
Nominator's comments: I think this is significant because Strauss-Kahn was a highly ranking economic official. Also, the BBC states that this verdict "brings to a close four years of legal proceedings against Mr Strauss-Kahn..." BBC Everymorning talk 12:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's no big deal. It would have been a big deal if he had been convicted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. ma-man Dom ain't no match fo' dat mutha Pimp C an da UMP ain't no UGK, ya dig? Dose ho's in need of da haircut, dude. (allegedly). Martinevans123 (talk)

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.

June 11Edit


2015 Copa AméricaEdit

Article: 2015 Copa América (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): Independent (UK) (Official)

Nominator's comments: Well known international football competition begins featuring South American national football teams. The competition finishes on 4 July 2015. TheBigJagielka (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'm willing to support posting the final results of the tournament but not that it has started. SpencerT♦C 01:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: this is a tough one. On the one hand, it involves a lot of the high calibre players that one might see for a Euro championship; on the other hand in terms of sponsorship and marketing and global reach the tournament pales in comparison to the Euro. At the same time, one probably should also acknowledge that the Copa America probably has a higher fan base compared to the ongoing FIFA Women's World Cup... I would throw my weak support behind posting it under "ongoing". Colipon+(Talk) 02:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support- One of the biggest if not the biggest sporting event of the entire continent. Easily qualifies for ongoing. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose we should just stick to the winners, after all, it could be Jamaica. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ongoing but I think posting the winners would be fine as it is an international tournament in a popular sport. I fear Ongoing is morphing into a sports ticker which I don't think was intended. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
    I agree. Global sports events may creep onto it, as already demonstrated by consensus, but localised tournaments really need not go there.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Four world top ten national teams (five by Elo Rating) playing, 40% the Barcelona squad that just won the UEFA (just to cite one important club) and the world's most popular sport (according to 4 sources cited by Association football). I agree with Colipon in the higher fan base compared to the Women's World Cup or some other sports we've seen ITN. I mean, it is far from making Ongoing a sports ticker. Cato censor (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I could be wrong but I don't think Ongoing was intended to cover garden-variety sports events/tournaments in progress.(taken to the extreme we could have a spot for 2015 Major League Baseball season on Ongoing) The Olympics is different because it is a multisport event involving 99% of the world, with different events happening at different times with different results. This is only a single tournament in a single sport determining a single winner. There are no incremental updates to be made other than match results which are somewhat predictable(one of the two teams in a match will win) As I stated, the result merits posting- but it shouldn't be until then. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
This is not a regular tournament like seasons.120.62.26.151 (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a regular tournament(every other year); my point is that taken too far we risk Ongoing being a sports ticker. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no doubt in my mind that Euro 2016 will be on the "ongoing" section given its global reach and the quality of its players. It's the second most watched football tournament globally, and I would say the Copa America is third. Both tournaments generate much more interest than the FIFA Women's World Cup, which is currently in "ongoing". It's a hard argument to justify... Colipon+(Talk) 14:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't necessarily agree with the World Cup(men or women) being present, either. Posting the women's (while the top level) seems to have been done more as a matter of fairness with having posted the men's. 331dot (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
That is certainly true. And I agree that this Copa is just another Copa, we don't want Ongoing devolving into a list of every single local contest. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Let's keep that in mind when the euro starts...at rate, support in accordance with Colipon.120.62.24.22 (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on conclusion. I wouldn't support any continent's football tournament on "ongoing". We put the Olympics there because it is global, every four years and there are so many events, so a lot to catch up on. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I've just read the gidelines. I don't intend to sound contentious, but under 'please do not', it states explicitly that an event being appliyable to a single country is not enough to oppose. I still think that sports shouldn't be by their own right either in nor out of ITN, but we're talking about a wide international tournament of one of the most popular sports (if not the very most one) in the World. Cato censor (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not sure if I fully understand the whole thing, so this is also a question. Under the title Sports and recurring events it reads that recurring events may be posted as soon as a cited update is added to the article. Copa América is listed as a recurring event. Does it mean that it should have been posted to ITN as soon as it begun? Although the list is not preemptive, it also says that it is expected that 5 stories are posted per year. Since this year there is no men's World Cup, nor Euro, I see it easyly enter the top three. Cato censor (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I just realized that under WP:ITNSPORTS it is stated that WP:ITNR applies to the conclusion of the tournament or series, unless otherwise specified. Cato censor (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Zhou Yongkang sentenced to life in prisonEdit

Article: Zhou Yongkang (talk, history)
Blurb: Zhou Yongkang, the former security chief of China, is sentenced to life in prison for corruption and other crimes.
News source(s): WSJ BBC CNN

Nominator's comments: The sentencing of such a (formerly) high profile politician to such a long sentence seems notable. In addition, the BBC states that this makes Yongkang "the most senior politician to face corruption charges under Communist rule" (presumably in China). Everymorning talk 21:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose: "Security chief" doesn't convey great importance to me, although it might be lost in translation, and China has been notorious for harshly punishing corrupt officials who fall into disfavor. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment We posted his arrest and expulsion from the Communist Party of China, this could be taken as a followup to that. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Nothing new. Just part of China's anti-corruption campaign, even when it is attractive and interesting. --George Ho (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I totally forgot his arrest; pardon me. Still, his biography was featured once. But the campaign has been more prominent than this person. Also, Zhou must have been part of a political machine, so someone else behind the web is more prominent than this person. George Ho (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - he is the highest-ranking Chinese politician ever to be convicted for corruption, and as China's internal security chief he held enormous power. Article is in good shape. -Zanhe (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Per Masem, Zanhe. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose he's had his five minutes of ITN fame already, the sentence was absolutely inevitable. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - the outcome of this trial came totally out of the blue, everyone was expecting an open trial. Also everyone was expecting a "death sentence with a two year reprieve", not life, so the outcome was also interesting. It's tough to understate how powerful the "Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission Secretary" ("security czar") was during Zhou's days, he was described by many reliable sources as the second most powerful man in China next only to the party leader (Hu Jintao) since Zhou had effective control over the entire criminal justice, policing, and intelligence systems - think if the FBI, CIA, and the NYPD all reported into the same man, and you will understand how important he was. While we can say that Hosni Mubarak or Mohamed Morsi (recent "sentencing" ITN posts) were heads of state, it is clear that objectively speaking Zhou Yongkang had much more power than those two. Simply because he is not a household name outside of China, I can see why this item can get some opposition. Also please consider the article quality. Colipon+(Talk) 20:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
    The article is of significant quality, I certainly concur with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - In China this is notable. In the past officials like him would just retire in disgrace (or just retire). This is significant development, and while it sounds normal for us that people are incarcerated and jailed when investigated for corruption, this has not been normal under communism (of any type).. For instance, in the USSR Sharof Rashidov was just forced out of meetings when it was revealed that he had turned Uzbekistan into failed state which practiced slavery-like conditions and which the majority of the revenue came into the hands of the few. --TIAYN (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – More than three days old. Getting stale. Sca (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Five supports (including nominator), three opposes. High quality article. I guess it's the admin's call. -Zanhe (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

[Removed] Remove Ongoing: Saudi Arabian-led intervention in YemenEdit

I'm looking at two updates, single sentences both of them (27 May and 6 June) in the past three weeks. Not exactly lighting up the world with regular updates. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Remove. I agree; the situation has not changed significantly enough as shown by the lack of updates. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove: Situation has been virtually static for a couple months now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove per above comments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ron MoodyEdit

Article: Ron Moody (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC Obituary

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: iconic as Fagin in Oliver EdwardLane (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Very weak support won a Golden Globe and had an iconic role in British cinema. Article needs some help. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose No strong evidence of being a leading actor. One Golden Globe isn't really a lot to show for. --MASEM (t) 20:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: On a day crowded with celebrity death announcements, to be honest, Moody doesn't greatly register. Not accomplished or well-known enough to be posted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support The Golden Globe puts him over the line, but only barely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with article improvements Strong support! His death has reached even here in the U.S. but his article's lead could be extended and a few more sources needed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – GG award and an iconic role. – SchroCat (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The canonical Fagin, an embedded figure in popular culture for those of us old enough to have kids now into popular culture. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Ready good filmography, no tags, turned down Dr Who role, lead could use expansion per MOS, but he won't be bumping anyone off the ticker. μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't consider a single role that one editor considers to be "iconic" grounds for a listing. My initial reaction to this was a complete lack of interest: since this has now been marked ready for over a day it is clear to me that all the admins here feel equally. That in itself is an argument against posting. 3142 (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
    • That doesn't make it not "ready". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Of course it does. An argument that (to put it very crudely) "Nobody gives a shit" is directly counter to the argument that is of interest to the readership in such numbers that it is worth distracting each of them before they ignore it. A lack of passion for a given post by any one individual is not a reason against it, however you do need need to show a given level of passion somewhere to justify a post. I wasn't counter to this post initially, I have let this kite fly and watched how it turns out. However, it is now clear to me it has no momentum behind it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:3142 (talkcontribs)
        • I take "Ready" to mean that the article is in good enough shape for ITN if it's approved. What do you think it means? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
This has been ready for over 24 hours, and one single purpose account becoming the third oppose doesn't chhange the fact the article is in good shape and there are seven supports (including mine and the nominator's), eight if we are counting BBB. μηδείς (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment actually the personal life section is entirely unreferenced and marked as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The family section did lack references on claims about two of his sons, neither of whom seems particularly notable, so I have commented them out and removed the tag. I'm marking this ready again, assuming I haven't missed any other issues. An opinion from Stephen, Spencer, Jayron32 or another uninvolved admin would be helpful. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

RD: Dusty RhodesEdit

Article: Dusty Rhodes (wrestler) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): WaPo, ESPN

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: Whatever we may think of professional wrestling, Rhodes is being described as a "legend" in his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose article quality is far too weak for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I've cleaned it up a bit and added some references (there are now more than 60). Is it enough? -- Scorpion0422 15:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
      • It's better, but as you know, it's nothing to do with the absolute number of references. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Nikki311 has also done some clean up work (thanks!), so it has improved quite a bit.
  • Weak support on article improvements - Lots of unsourced info that needs to be fixed before posting, but there seems to be enough to assure importance. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Article can use some work, but there's no doubt about the man's importance to his field. oknazevad (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - but only once the unsourced material has citations added. As a former wrestling fan, I can say that Rhodes is probably in the top five (if no the top three) of the most important players in sports entertainment history. Miyagawa (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
    After Big Daddy and Giant Haystacks I assume... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
... and Jackie Pallo and Les Kellett. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC) (... oh, and that blond guy from Leeds)
Legend, Kellet tutored Savile? Epic fail. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - clearly notable within his field. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - One of the biggest names in the history of the professional wrestling industry (perhaps bigger than that fella from Leeds, at least literally); his death is being covered by several major news outlets including the BBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, The Guardian, etc.LM2000 (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, pending improvements - Referencing still needs to be cleaned up. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Question - Was he named for the "real" Dusty Rhodes? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No significance outside the closed world of wrestling. No significance outside the US. No disrespect, but we seem to have an institutional bias towards American sporting figures of no international stature at all. I guess if David Beckham died it would make ITN but I doubt if more than a handful of other English footballers would make it - and rightly so. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. He was a worldwide star, main eventing in many countries and was huge in Japan. Don't believe me? Let's check the global coverage: CBC News, BBC News, RTE, The Independent, Daily Mail, The Guardian, The Irish Independent
    • His death is getting surprisingly huge coverage in the States too with articles in just about every major media outlet. The anti-American sentiment here is ridiculous (and I'm not American, by the way). Who cares what his nationality was? He touched a lot of lives and clearly had a LOT of notability. -- Scorpion0422 11:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I think we can see, at least from his article, that he never "main evented" in the UK. What about Europe? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
        • I don't know about Europe, but he did main event in the US, Canada, Japan, South Korea and Australia. He wrestled in an era before it became common to do world tours where they hit a dozen countries. It doesn't mean that he didn't visit European countries in a non-wrestling capacity, and it also doesn't mean he wasn't popular there. A quick google news turned up over a dozen major UK and Ireland news outlets covering his death. -- Scorpion0422 15:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Thanks. I sometimes think that, these days, news gathering and distribution is such a global activity that all English-language "news outlets" across the world are much the same, and say very little about how much "interest" there is in any topic at any particular "geographic" location. If Rhodes had ever visited UK, in a non-wrestling capacity, I can assure you that it would not help persuade me to vote yes here. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Meh, a Redneck! I'd also add on Guy's very strong argument that we always lean towards posting articles on Rednecks in sports that are chiefly practiced in that country or in more popular sports worldwide but with very limited significance.--Droneanddrone (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
    • While I agree that the main ITN section is currently filled with sports, I don't think we should exclude this. For starters the Deaths section is seperate from the main blurbs. Also wrestling isn't a sport. This is more akin to an influential actor-turned-director than a "redneck" athlete. bufartalk 15:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support In spite of what other users claim, he was a worldwide star who main evented (and drew huge money) around the world. His death is getting coverage in many media sources that don't normally cover wrestling, and Dusty Rhodes was the second most searched term on google yesterday after Christopher Lee, so obviously people do care. -- Scorpion0422 11:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as he was someone influential and widely known in his field. I also think the article meets the requirements for ITN but I may be wrong there. bufartalk 15:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If the G7 summit isn't important enough to post, then the death of a personality in a niche, fake sport certainly isn't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Obama's piledriver just ain't working this season. And neither is Merkel's Boston crab. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
    • The summit didn't make ITN because the article was of poor quality. That is not the case here. I also don't see why any other article being posted or pulled is relevant to this discussion. bufartalk 17:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
    • First of all, you're comparing two different things and from what a user said, the G7 being turned down was for reasons other than notability. Secondly, and this is something I have to write every single time a wrestler is nominated here, so what if it's "fake"? A better term is pre-determined, or fixed. Besides, who cares what it is, the point is that it's a billion dollar industry that spans the globe and has a lot of tradition history in many countries (notably the US, Mexico and Japan). So with that in mind, who cares if you think it's not worthy? Like it or not, his death is being reported in media sources that normally don't touch wrestling, such as Entertainment Weekly, CBS News, Forbes and CNN, and has been covered across the world, including in Canada, the UK, Ireland, Japan and Australia. I could easily pick holes in any sport (baseball: spoiled millionaires mostly standing around, some of whom are on steroids), but I would never oppose an ITN or RD item simply because I disapprove of the field. Judge him on his life and career and don't dismiss him because you hate wrestling. -- Scorpion0422 18:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't hate wrestling, I just have no regard for it. Which might be why I never heard of this guy until this showed up on ITN. Yet I've heard of some other famous wrestlers. So I'm just wondering, if this guy is so high-profile, how did he escape my attention? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Hold on a sec, I'm going to check the ITN criteria... Huh, what do you know? There's no criteria that says "Must be known to Baseball Bugs". My response is quite simple: You don't follow wrestling, so not every legend would be known to you. I could look through a list of baseball hall of famers and recognize (at best) 20% of them. It doesn't mean the other 80% aren't notable, it just means I don't know much about baseball. He was a headliner for nearly 20 years, and he was the head booker (the guy who makes matches and writes storylines) for various successful companies, including WCW. He was known for his immense charisma in spite of not having a wrestlers' body, and his reach in wrestling is huge, with many who came after him citing him as an influence and right up until his death he worked for WWE as a trainer. So to sum up, he had a 40+ year career in the business, working alternately as a main eventer and as a higher up and his style and personality had a massive influence on future generations. If that doesn't put him near the top of his field, I don't know what does. -- Scorpion0422 22:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Personal knowledge is certainly not an ITN criterion, although I see personal opinions passing as "knowledge" here, frequently. Would you say that this guy was another Vince McMahon? Or more so? Or less so? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
            • Probably not, but it's an unfair comparison. It's like comparing every actor/producer/director's notability and influence to Walt Disney. A better comparison would be the two previous wrestlers to make it to RD: The Ultimate Warrior and Maurice Vachon, and in both cases the answer is yes, he was more influenctial (though Vachon was bigger in Canada). And it's not just my opinion. Read any of the many biographical articles that have popped up and they'll all say the same thing. -- Scorpion0422 22:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Consistent with non-posting of Verne Gagne. Sca (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
    • That was rejected because of a lack of mainstream coverage. This time there is more than enough coverage. -- Scorpion0422 15:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I said this in response to another user, but I don't see how other postings or non-postings are related to this. We should be voting (er, !voting) based on the ITN criteria. Notability is not the only factor in determining who appears in RD. —bufartalk 04:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, but people, this will never pass. This man is from the southern United States; this is Wikipedia. Regardless of his internationally successful career, he will not be featured on this site based solely on his being from the southern United States. Person above even called him a Redneck. Southern Americans are generally not welcome here, whether they are users or celebrities.Thatdee69 (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support well-known/top of his field in wrestling, which has 23 million viewers worldwide.[48] - Floydian τ ¢ 02:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
= 0.3 percent of world population. Sca (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, that's just the weekly global average. Among countries who count viewers. And not counting Internet viewers. And in 2013, a low time for the scene. Rhodes has been consistently prominent since the 1970s, including through the Hulkamania and Attitude Era booms, when wrestling was hotter than anything on TV. Even in this relative downtime, WWE consistently pulls ratings and attendance numbers sports and plays would kill for. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, June 17, 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel that everyone here is being unnecessarily hostile. I understand that people feel strongly about this matter but making accusations is not going to get us anywhere. —bufartalk
  • Support to counter some of the idiotic opposes above. Calidum T|C 04:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment there seems sufficient consensus to post but the sourcing is still really poor, take, for example, the "Independent circuit (2000–2006)" section which has ten paragraphs, just one of which has a citation. It's not good enough in my opinion. Of course, other admins may view this differently. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment It's been four days since he died and there hasn't been much discussion in 2 days and even TRM, the only person with policy-based opposition, noted "there seems sufficient consensus". And yet no neutral admins have sounded in. Is the plan to ignore this, then reject it because too much time has passed? -- Scorpion0422 12:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Have any and all issues with the article been fixed? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
      • This is ITN, not GAC. Several users have gone through and cleaned it up and added more sources. Is it perfect? Nope, but perfection is not the minimum standard. If you have any more specific concerns (with the quality), let me know and I'll see what I can do. -- Scorpion0422 18:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
        • To be fair, I gave you an example of what needs to be sorted, nine out of ten paras in one particular section unreferenced. If you could work on that, and the other sections, that'd be great. WP:V is one of our mandates. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
          • I did what I could. The problem is that many wrestling sources are considered non-reliable. We also have to deal with stuff like this (and yes, everyone on Wikipedia has to deal with that, but wrestling articles tend to attract a very dedicated and emotional brand of IPs). -- Scorpion0422 21:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
            • A lack of valid sources should tell you something about the noteworthiness of this fake sport. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
              • That's because most mainstream sources think they're above pro wrestling and don't give it the respect it deserves (sound familiar?). A lack of sources also doesn't mean a topic is not notable. There was one topic I used to edit regularly that I used to have a tremendously difficult time finding reliable third party sources for. The topic? The Simpsons. -- Scorpion0422 11:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
                • Pro wrestling is fictional, like the Simpsons, except it's funnier. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
                  • I thought you were belittling wrestling this whole time but this comment shows that you totally get it. -bufartalk 14:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
              • A added a few more, as well. Nikki311 01:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for being about on the same fame level as Verne Gagne, though I suspect the only wrestler we'll ever be fine with listing here is Hulk Hogan. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, June 16, 2015 (UTC)

[Pulled] RD: Ornette ColemanEdit

Article: Ornette Coleman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT

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: Major figure in jazz music. Lifetime Grammy, Pulitzer Prize, Gish Prize, etc. Teemu08 (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support, but with needed improvements Article's sourcing is erratic. Daniel Case (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on article improvements Importance met, but back half of the article is weak on sources. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when improved Based on my Facebook feed this morning, I thought this person might've fallen through the cracks given the nom below. Meets RD criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality serious need of work before we should re-consider this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Suupport - pending improvements. A giant in the field of jazz, but article needs realignment in the referencing. The citations are in "notes" and the references section is non-specific, not "in-line." This will require some effort. Jusdafax 18:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Obvious figure for inclusion. Gamaliel (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment for the supporters above, I've tagged the issues that should be resolved. Feel free to fix them please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. As Jusdafax says, a giant in the field of jazz. But not without controversy. Comment for the tagger above: feel free to add sources please. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support conditional on article improvement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Ad Orientem. Article needs improvements.
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull: Still entire sections with few or no inline citations. This article is not front-page quality. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Agree, there is no notable improvement from my previous !vote. Last half of the article still needs significant sourcing. --MASEM (t) 05:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Pulled Stephen 05:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Sorry to have wasted my time. I'm not sure sources for record release chronology add very much if the entire discography is already fully sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
        • I have no objections to reposting once quality issues are addressed, but we cannot have a bunch of paragraphs with no references in the article and have it linked under ITN. The sourcing issues need to be fixed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Look, as so often happens in the Wikiverse, the comments are so inwardly focused on the merits of Coleman's wikipedia article that the big picture is being lost here. The article on Ludvík Vaculík isn't that hot either. Wikipedia doesn't exist in a vacuum, and whether or not Coleman has a good Wiki article has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he is one of the greatest and most influential figures in jazz history. His passing inarguably deserves notice. PJtP (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
    • ITN, as other front page items, are not to recognize the passing of important people but to highlight quality articles that happen to be in the news, as to better encourage new editors that visit the article via the front page to help edit them. They need to be a good enough shape to reflect basic policies (in the case of RDs, BLP policy which does have a high requirement for sourcing). --MASEM (t) 02:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Alternate take: "RD exists so that editors can be made to feel obliged to improve articles about people, once they're dead, in the hope that they'll be mentioned on the front page." </cynicism> Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
        • In other words, apparently Wikipedia is inwardly focused, exists in a vacuum, and attends only to its arcane internal criteria. So, if a major world political figure dies for some reason, and even though newspapers and media outlets throughout the world acknowledge this death, because the Wikipedia page on that figure is in sorry shape no notice will appear on Wikipedia's in the news? That's considered sound policy? Also, again the article on Ludvík Vaculík could hardly be considered high quality, and yet notice of his death appeared; apparently the policy of "highlighting quality articles that happen to be in the news" according to an editor above is not applied consistently. PJtP (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
          • I think, in comparison to the Vaculík article, Coleman's content is much better, yet, and most importantly, a lot of it is unreferenced. We happily post three-paragraph articles, as long as they are verifiable, all the time. I think I'm right in saying that all the above commentators who object to the article's main page inclusion are just looking for more solid referencing. Newspapers and media outlets seldom demonstrate the veracity of their articles. We are mandated to do so per WP:V. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Rambler is quite right. But not so much "in a vacuum": it even has it's own special gravity for notable deaths. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

June 10Edit


RD: Marguerite PattenEdit

Article: Marguerite Patten (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News], Minneapolis Star Tribune, ABC.es

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: I only found out about this today, hence the delay. Patten was one of the first two chefs to appear on television in the UK, and was a prolific writer of cook books. Immensely influential lady, even though the majority of readers will never had heard of her. Miyagawa (talk) 10:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: James LastEdit

Article: James Last (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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

Nominator's comments: Nominated per a comment at WT:MAIN and per the BBC's note "Last sold millions of records with his trademark "happy music" - upbeat versions of pop and classical favourites performed by his orchestra." The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support with improvements. 80 million records sold is not to be sneered at, but there are some unsourced paragraphs here and there, as the tag suggests. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with article improvements Sounds like the German equivalent of Glenn Miller or Benny Goodman, and certainly importance shown. Needs a bunch of inline sourcing fixed. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with article improvements A huge output, and a huge following. King of Easy. But a million miles from Miller or Goodman, in my opinion, and barely "jazz". And always more international than he was "German". Much more in the toe-tapping Beverly Moss school of Bert Kaempfert, Herb Alpert, et al. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC) ... an article for each one of those 215 albums would be a fitting tribute, I feel. (Discogs lists 484 separate releases...)
  • Support with article improvements. To be fair, could arguably be called the British counterpart of Lawrence Welk from the sound of things. Which would easily make the cut. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is the kind of subject that Wikipedia is generally biased against - somewhat below the radar, rarely makes the headlines, but was around for decades and sold albums and concert tickets by the shedload. Consider how quickly we posted e.g. the death of Amy Winehouse whose sales were a mere fraction of Last's - sure the death is not as shocking and Last appealed primarily to an older audience than the average Wikipedia editor but that does not diminish the significance of the subject or constitute an argument against an RD listing.
In terms of the article I really don't see what the problem is: it would be nice if every paragraph had at least one reference but references are there, there are no major issues and the article is of essentially good quality. I'd say it's good to go: this isn't a featured article nomination. 3142 (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Nobody's suggesting it is FAC, this would easily fail GAN in fact. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
There are unsourced paragraphs, which to me is an absolutely no-no for a bio (much less a BLP which this should still be considered). We aren't talking GA quality but something does not show us to be sloppy on biography pages. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
That isn't generally accepted and we know it isn't true even in your particular case: You supported Christopher Lee with... unreferenced paragraphs. 3142 (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Please note that I said that there were sourcing problems but I could only respond after it was posted. However, it would be stupid to pull that at that point. But Lee's article has the same problems this one has. --MASEM (t) 18:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. I've posted this on the basis that recent edits have taken the sourcing from "terrible" to "acceptable". If another admin thinks this is still inadequate, feel free to pull this without contacting me. Black Kite (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
No, looks fine to me, and an obvious slam-dunk candidate with a career that long and prolific. A sad day. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

June 9Edit


June 8Edit


[Posted] RD: Roger VergéEdit

Article: Roger Vergé (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times, NY Mag/Grubstreet, Le Figaro, Eater

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

Nominator's comments: This really is not a field that shows up too often here as far as I can tell, but there's very little doubt that Vergé was one of the most influential figures in the culinary world and certainly in Nouvelle cuisine. The sourced articles above certainly back this claim. I've never made a nomination for this before, so it's entirely possible that the article quality is not up to par -- if so let me know and I can see what I can do. Yaksar (let's chat) 01:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support on article improvements - Three Michalin stars + add'l awards affirm top of field, but yes, the sourcing needs to be fixed throughout the article before posting. --MASEM (t)
  • Support: Masem's concerns have been addressed and this article should be in good shape to post. Clearly a major figure in the culinary world, especially in his native France but also in the United States. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Confirming the sourcing is now good to go per changes. --MASEM (t) 05:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support article is pretty poor considering the notability of the individual, but probably adequate for the purposes of RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

June 7Edit


[Posted as blurb] Christopher LeeEdit

Article: Christopher Lee (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: British actor Christopher Lee dies aged 93.
News source(s): The Daily Telegraph

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: RD or blurb, please make your position clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - Yes, he's an actor, but his resume is nigh unparalleled.--WaltCip (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support either RD or blurb: if there is one actor that deserves the blurb, Sir Chris is it. Sceptre (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Played lots of great characters, would support a blurb due to his longevity.--Stemoc 12:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Not only for the length of his career, but for managing to become a notable figure in fields ranging from Pakistani movies to heavy metal music, as well as his day job in British and American films. He's also that rarity on Wikipedia, an actor with a high-quality article. – iridescent 12:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD - Icon in his field. He died naturally, so blurb adds nothing. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD as per above. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted as RD for now It is a no-brainer that this will get posted as either an RD or a blurb, and the article is already updated and well written. Going to take the rare opportunity to put this on the main page while it's still timely and actually still in the news. I'm putting this on RD for now, because there's no consensus yet on whether to make it a blurb or not; if/when that happens, someone can move it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Either blurb or RD, and fully agree with Floq's speedy post. The article is in very good shape, well referenced and likely to be a port of call for many people. Pedro :  Chat  12:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Top of his field, active all the way to the end, knighted... Give it up. Jusdafax 13:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD , oppose blurb - First, there are sourcing issues on the article that really should have been fixed before posting, though far from being a major problem (the first half is good, but the sourcing gets weaker on the backend). I'm not going to ask for this to be pulled due to that but this goes back to the timing from nom to posting (which was under an hour - that should been checked carefully) - even obvious RD cases need to have time to review the quality of the sourcing. RD is clearly obvious, but while he had a lengthy filmography among other works, and pretty much a household name, I have to beg the lack of a number of industry awards, and the death was not unexpected. While he was knighted, that has not been a metric by which we've determined a blurb before (though certainly a sign of importance). Basically, I don't see the world stopping to catch its breath at his death as compared to Thatcher or Mandela. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I hear the "Thatcher or Mandela" standard used a lot for death blurb postings, but I think we ought to be a bit more open-minded than this. If I recall a German author also received a blurb posting.--WaltCip (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The German author had consensus but there was still opposition. What we do need to be careful is when there's a high public perception of a RD from old age as a result of being a celebrity, as this would mean we would be posting a lot of famous actors, singers, and athletes simply because they were loved by their fans. They will clearly get a lot of news coverage but we're not a news ticker, we're an encyclopedia, and such should reserve blurbs for people which had a broad impact on world events or the like, as to avoid favoritism of one's favorite actor or athlete dying. This might be holding those in the entertainment or sports to a higher standard, but we have to recognize those areas get disproportionately more coverage than politicians, writers, artists, etc. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD per Masem. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Either, leaning towards blurb. There are not many actors who can genuinely be described as "iconic" but Lee was one. Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb: For longevity and success, as well as breadth of role, he was top of the tree '''tAD''' (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD Definitely should be on the front page, but he didn't eclipse, say, Lord Lawrence Olivier for taking acting to new heights. Daniel Case (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb even if Natural Death BBC describes "as the star of many of the world's biggest film franchises" Regards, theTigerKing  15:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
But they don't back the claim up - they list his best known roles as Saruman (secondary villain), Scaramanga (villain in one part of a franchise), The Wicker Man's Lord Summerisle (villain) and Star Wars's Count Dooku (secondary villain in a film franchise). No starring roles there. Smurrayinchester 15:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Er, you should probably read our own articles (a requirement for voting in these discussions, I might add). He played Dracula in an entire series of Dracula films - the villain, but unquestionably the lead role, and almost certainly the second most influential actor on one of the most widely known characters in the world. - OldManNeptune 16:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD only Not a leading man or a revolutionary, just an excellent and well-loved character actor. I can see a strong case for RD, but not for a blurb. Smurrayinchester 15:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Yes a great actor, lots of news stories about him, remembrances, etc. But a blurb for a natural death should be limited to the Thatcher's and Mandela's, where the impact is major. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb no, he didn't have a role in Glee, but other than that one flaw he was a peerless actor and he'd certainly have gotten a full blurb in the era when we didn't post most deaths. RD was not meant as an excuse for denying blurbs to such household names. μηδείς (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Two wrongs don't make a right. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The reference to Glee was a joke, Muboshgu, but the support for a blurb is genuine, given my part in making sure RD got approved as part of ITN. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb As a horror/villain actor, he's in the company of figures like Bela Lugosi, and quite prolific (nor limited to b-movies, he's been in Oscar-winning movies and blockbusters as well). ITN has a nasty habit of posting blurbs for celebrities famed for their political opinions but pushing entirely worthy entries into RD as "not significant enough" even when drastically more people will know of and be interested in their passing - which is the mission we serve, the general interest. - OldManNeptune 16:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Was he truly at the top of his field? No. He was never even nominated for a competitive BAFTA or Oscar, and he was as well known as the length of his career as its quality; additionally, it was a natural death that nobody could argue was a shock. I have nothing at all against Mr. Lee; I simply don't think he's worthy of a blurb. -- Mike (Kicking222) 17:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb and alternatively RD. This is a truly iconic figure and he deserves a blurb in the ITN. I would also add a picture. This should be posted PDQ. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
    It's already been posted as RD. I've prepared a picture in case in gets support for a blurb, but right now it doesn't look likely. Oddly, since he died last weekend, the blurb wouldn't be top of the pile in any case... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Staleness is an obvious problem, suggest it might make sense to close the blurbing nomination. μηδείς (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose blurb my sense here is RD is right, an accomplished actor dies of old age.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment the item has three more days to run before it's seven days old. "There's no rush" (tm). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Comment' His death was announced too late for a blurb. Damn though! I would have supported blurb because this man is legendary and a huge part of the movie industry. His old age shouldn't shadow his decline for a blurb. But alas it be too late. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Support blurb Had some time to think. The man had a successful and legendary career. This man deserves a blurb! Big news even trending on multiple social websites. News has reached across the world. Blurb yes! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Prolific and unmatched career; he's likely on the Mount Rushmore of horror stars (joined by his pals Cushing and Price), also went to greater mainstream success with Bond, Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings.LM2000 (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, his is what RD was invented for. Abductive (reasoning) 02:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb As Masem notes, he didn't win that many major industry awards. A famous and prolific actor, but not one of the very greatest of our time - and imposing any less of a standard would lead to too many actors qualifying for blurbs. Neljack (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, blurb! A 70-year career with major success right up to his last year of life. This man was a giant. Retrofit the blurb. Ignore the silly rules. Who would have predicted that the man who played Dracula in Hammer films would still be a legend among moviegoers half a century later? Astonishing man, astonishing career. Guy (Help!) 10:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment seems to be a slight leaning towards a full blurb. Could an uninvolved admin take a look please? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Lee may not have had the largest trophy cabinet of major awards, but had a very successful and long career which made him one of the most recognisable and known actors. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted blurb. Although not 100% in favor of blurb, there seems to be consensus in favor of posting a blurb. Article quality is strong. SpencerT♦C 22:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, JzG there was no such silly rule to break. When the RfC establishing RD was held in the summer of 2012 the proposed guidline was that supported items with a plurality of votes for a blurb would still go up as a blurb. That was the case here (an overwhelming majority was not needed) and Lee certainly would have been posted as a full blurb back before ITN/RD existed. I wish we just had a free image for ITN. μηδείς (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
    • The article has several usable images from commons, even the most recent one in the infobox is free. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
      • But right now there's a focus on keeping an image germane to the most recent story at ITN to prevent this perceived confusion that exists when the (pictured) story drops down the template. Hence the Warwinka image. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think there is any sort of consensus for a full blurb here; blurb/no blurb is almost exactly split right down the middle. I'm not calling for a reversal or anything, but please, let's not use this posting as the bar when the next actor dies. --Bongwarrior (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • A picture is entirely appropriate, since the nom was upgraded after the French Open was posted, and Lee is still second on the list. It's not like finding out who is pictured would be problematic. As for the iVotes, 15 favor a blurb, and 11 expressly oppose it. That's not split down the middle. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not really consensus, either. Death blurbs should be obvious decisions. If it's not obvious, it probably belongs in the RD section, which isn't exactly for nobodies. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

[Ready] 69th Tony AwardsEdit

Article: 69th Tony Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At the 69th Tony Awards, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time wins the award for Best Play and Fun Home wins the award for Best Musical.
News source(s): New York Times

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 award show. Andise1 (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: Looks acceptably sourced. What is the usual protocol here, are the winners bolded too? '''tAD''' (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb should wikilink The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time (play) -- Aronzak (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once the dab links are sorted out, the unreferenced claims are referenced and we have a blurb that has a target article nominated. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Already dabbed. Already fixed. The award ceremony is already notable enough. This should push out sports news, right? George Ho (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
    Comment well I still see two dabs, there are still unreferenced sentences and we still have some parts written in the incorrect tense. Whether it should push sports news out or not is not part of the criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Ongoing: FIFA Women's World CupEdit

Before this becomes another boring bitch festival, please take errors to WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 11 June 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.

Past competitions, such as the 2014 World Cup and the Olympics, have been added to the ongoing section of ITN during their duration. Would it be possible to get the same done for the current World Cup? --PlasmaTwa2 04:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak support since we set a precedent by posting the men's version, it seems only reasonable to reciprocate with the female variant. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Even though the results of yesterday's games show the major problems of women's football, it is still the biggest event in the biggest sport of the world. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. It was my understanding that Ongoing was for events which over a period of time might get frequent updates that individually might not merit posting, but do as a group- and it wasn't meant for sports events in progress. I understand posting the Olympics as an international event with many different sports all having results at once, but with a single sport event we don't have that latter quality. The only daily update would be match results- and as we are not a sports ticker I don't think that's sufficient for Ongoing. That said, I would get posting the women's tournament since we posted the men's, though I don't think we should have done that either. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per TRM. I don't see why sufficiently significant ongoing sporting events shouldn't be posted under Ongoing. Neljack (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Its significance is why the result of the tournament is ITNR. I don't think match results meet the incremental updates aspect of posting to Ongoing; we are not a sports ticker. The Olympics are different because there are many events having results at the same time. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
They sound like incremental updates to me. Neljack (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
"Suffrage, it sounds horrible, but it's a good thing!" Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support there will be significant international coverage ongoing, not sure about article updates though. -- Aronzak (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready and hopefully a good but tiny thing to address some that gender bias. Please update the article accordingly supporters, Wikipedia needs every man (and woman) to do their best. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the gender bias argument is getting a bit stale. Give me an women's event that actually gets an actual wide audience/big pockets and I will support it. Nergaal (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
    I've seen plenty of chatter about this World Cup. And I don't think the gender bias argument is getting "stale" at all. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
You must seriously be joking. Here are some direct quotes from the actual article we have here: although that network is not broadcasting this tournament due to conflicts with the 2015 Copa América; shown by the BBC across BBC Two, BBC Three and the BBC Red Button, with selected matches including all England games live on BBC Radio. As you can see, even the broadcasters don't bother to prioritize the live transmission, and you want to put an equal sign between this event and the actual WC, or the Olympics? Nergaal (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Obviously notable sporting event that will be going on for some time. Post, please. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: It's a major sporting event. It's fair as far as gender bias goes. And I came to WP today to learn more about it. It would help others if it were on the front page. Dismas|(talk) 06:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 19:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Where are the updates? The main article has more prose than the controversies on the draw than the actual matches. –HTD 01:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe the article in question has an edit button, which you a free to press at any time and continue from there. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah so the hypocrisy goes on...now you set the precedence for updates AFTER posting..?120.62.25.5 (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Better that than being a sock/troll. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:12, 11 June 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] French OpenEdit

Article: 2015 French Open (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 2015 French Open concludes with American Serena Williams (pictured) winning the Women's Singles and Swiss Stan Wawrinka winning the Men's Singles.

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.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. These tennis pages are always meticulously maintained and updated. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Major event in the sport. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments as this is ITNR comments should focus on the quality of the target articles, the notability is not in question or up for debate here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Orange tag for lack of citations, and not much prose on the results. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • The lack of prose bothers me as well, but that also seems to be par for these articles. --MASEM (t) 19:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree, particularly given that both matches were actually, for a change, more than the usual 45-minute two-setter for the ladies and Nadal sweeping all aside in the men's. More should be done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality - basically all just tables, most of which are unsourced. There must be a narrative that can be illustrated with prose. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: It has been updated now. See, (this section), please.FiringAces (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - the article looks good enough to post with the addition of prose. 117.192.164.116 (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment big orange maintenance tag at the top of 2015 French Open means this is not ready to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I addressed the concerns with regards to the maintenance tag, and I added additional sources that allowed me to remove the tag. It is now ready to post.FiringAces (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. It may not be obvious which sport we are talking about. Suggest adding: In tennis.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Turkish general election, 2015Edit