Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/March 2015

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

March 31Edit

[Closed] The World is BardoEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

 --Csisc (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - even though some world leaders attended this event, I am not sure whether it has had much global impact. It's a protest against terrorism. Most people don't support terrorism already - but what does this achieve? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose First, the blurb should be better (the title of the source is misleading, as it says "hundreds of thousands" in the march, making it larger than the title suggests), however, while similar to Je Suis Charlie, this seems to be a much smaller, and local, scale, and a response to the already-posted Bardo museum attack. I would suggest that DYK is a prime spot for this if this fails ITN. --MASEM (t) 13:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose as protests against terrorism are not unusual and this specific one doesn't seem like it will have a great impact on laws or policy. The Je suis Charlie protests were much larger in scale and occurred in many countries. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support large protest (see picture) internationally attended. Just object to the word "successful" as odd wording for the blurb. μηδείς (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Strangely worded blurb and rather stale (it happened Sunday, not today). And it wasn't even that big of a march, with only a few leaders of countries in Tunisia's neighborhood joining what Reuters described as "tens of thousands of Tunisians". -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Purely symbolic, and not even particularly significant at that. Joshua Garner (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose government-orchestrated march, changes nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: does not seem to have attracted particular international attention; we have not included marches of a comparable size with only national significance on In the News before. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Nigerian general electionEdit

'Article: Nigerian general election, 2015 (talk, history)
Muhammadu Buhari (pictured) is elected president of Nigeria. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News, Aljazeera

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: Support as nominator. Ali Fazal (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

  • ITNR items do not require support on the merits as their presence on the ITNR list means they are already considered notable; discussion is to determine if article quality is adequate, updated, and to determine a blurb. It's also generally assumed that you support your own nomination. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you 331dot. Ali Fazal (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support posting ASAP. One of the world's largest democracies (and an apparently democratic result, to boot!) and a major development in regional politics. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with article updates The election, even considering ITNR, has been the subject of news for days being one of the largest in Africa. But the article seems to be missing the results of the election, which I know probably aren't fully complete at this time, but should have a summary of the presidency victory and that the opponent has conceded defeat. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Jonathan has conceded, NYT and BBC have declared victory for Buhari, the last state to be counted is Borno, which can safely be predicted to go for Buhari. --Varavour (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Election commission has declared Buhari the winner... this really should be posted. --Varavour (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not sufficiently updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: Could you itemize a few insufficiencies? It looks ready for posting to me. The article has referenced statements of the results, the winner, and the concession by Goodluck Jonathan. The rest of the article is solid and extensive as well. Can you tell me what information you know of, which you find lacking in the article? It would help people who care to know what to add. --Jayron32 19:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
    It was mainly the tenses of the sections preceding the polls and results sections, and the fact that we still have "preliminary results" suggesting a rather tenuous claim of a definitive result. Plus there appears a 36th state to confirm results. Also, the National Assembly and Senate tables are incomplete. But other than that, it's good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks. I'm not familiar with the sources necessary to do the update, but that is an actionable list of items someone can work on before it is posted. --Jayron32 21:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Jonathan has conceded. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: very important international news story. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. A very clear case of WP:ITNR. -LtNOWIS (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@LtNOWIS: @Midnightblueowl: Events on the ITNR list do not need support on the merits as they are presumed notable by being on the list; this discussion is to assess article quality and determine a blurb. 331dot (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
No, individual instances of an ITNR might be an issue, but the discussion should center on if this specific case is a problem, not the event in general. Not that I don't think this case is close to be one to challenge on the event (Africa's biggest element at 50M+ voters, tight race, etc.), but ITNR is not a guarantee that article topic automatically qualifies, just that we should avoid quibbling on the event's broad nature. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that; I didn't mean to suggest it would automatically get posted. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Current top story. Sca (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. - Probably the most important African story of the moment.Nickpheas (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. - Looked for it to be there. As others have said, the current African top story. User:Marfinan 10:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. Picture can be changed as well. --Tone 14:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Off-topic. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pity it was posted for several hours still with incorrect tenses and even now has incomplete information, but hey, the vote count rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
    You know, TRM, the problem is both that you're correct and ignorable. The tone of your posts, coupled with a long history of being incivil and unpleasant towards people, means that most people are generally going to ignore you, even when you have something important and valid to say. It's the reason why WP:INCIVIL exists as a policy, and why it is such a big deal. It has nothing to do with being a nanny, nor does it have anything to do with being arbitrary. Being an effective communicator means getting people to do what is necessary by telling them to do so. Your communication methods and reputation have made you an ineffective communicator, which is why no one ever listens to you. You were right, are right, and by the looks of things, will still be right tomorrow about this article being incorrectly posted. You were right when you brought it up before, and no one listened because of the means in which you expressed yourself, the tone you took, and your reputation of being abusive towards others. Please let this be an object lesson: getting others to act on your say-so requires a certain technique: people don't just do what you say because you are right; it is in how you express your rightness. We've been trying to tell you this for years. I fully expect you to ignore this advice, but my compulsion as an educator to improve others makes me give it anyways: Learn from these mistakes, change how you treat others, learn to communicate ideas in ways that make others act. If you don't, you'll continue to be right and be ignored. It would be much better to be right and be followed. That's what I want for you. I only hope you want that too. --Jayron32 01:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
There is not prose update at all...but yeah well said. Time overdue to de-sysop him. (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Very brave IP, very brave. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
and you still fail to get the point! (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
You didn't make one. For the avoidance of doubt, what you said was without point. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I've never made any calls for such. TRM has never abused his tools, and never used them inappropriately. I'm just advising him to communicate effectively so he can be more useful to the project. --Jayron32 12:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
It's okay, I think we all recognise who the IP is, couldn't stay away for too long, eh?! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

March 30Edit

[Closed] Washiqur Rahman Babu killedEdit

trend is clear μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Washiqur Rahman Babu (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Bangladeshi blogger Washiqur Rahman Babu is hacked to death in Dhaka. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian CTV News BBC
Nominator's comments: Lots of news coverage from around the world. We posted the death of Avijit Roy last month. Everymorning talk 20:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose extremely low quality article and "hacked to death", while probably an accurate description, is hardly what we'd see in an encyclopedia. Will this be remembered in a year? In two years? In five? Doubt it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • TRM, CPJ has an article on it, I think the wider issue of free speech and public participation in political life in these countries is important. Yes, this guy won't be remembered in five years time but CPJ and RSF will be fighting for press freedom in five years time - it's just that this guy wasn't very influential. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I have to wonder if any of our ITN postings will be remembered in five weeks from now. I doubt it. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The primary purpose of ITN appears to be to promote showcase Wikipedia itself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure we'll be talking about the Germanwings crash for some time, and of course the Singapore leader's death. And I know plenty of Australians who will be reminding me about the World Cup for the next four years. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support possibly under an ongoing "Islamist Terrorism" heading. There's no doubt this would be published if it had happened in Manchester or Dearborn. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm not seeing where this is "Islamist terrorism". People strongly critical of a progressive speaker used violence to silence them. It's tragic but its not terrorism. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article probably should/will be speedily deleted as it does not seem to meet the notability criteria in WP:N/CA and WP:BLP1E. Mamyles (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Note that I've nominated this for deletion under the normal process. Mamyles (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy delete per Mamyles.--WaltCip (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest directing support for deletion to the appropriate forum; this is only for discussing the merits of posting to ITN. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Domestic violence, not a major issue. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
"Domestic violence" usually means murder by a family member, in this case Second blogger hacked to death this year in Bangladesh (Daily News) "A blogger was hacked to death by three Muslim attackers in Bangladesh's capital because of his anti-Islamic writings, police said today." If killing people to silence a viewpoint is not terrorism, then what is? μηδείς (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Religious violence. Stephen 00:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
"Terrorism" since 9/11 has become a emotionally-driven word. There are legal/government definitions for it, and then there's what the press claims if they want to emotionally-charge a story, which we should be avoiding at all costs. Killing someone to silence their voice is a tragic event, but it seems part of a larger systemic problem in that area, but I can't see it being defined as terrorism. --MASEM (t) 01:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Terrorism is a contentious label for politically motivated violence. This is violence with a political motive. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Hence the Charlie Hebdo attack was "political violence", not terrorism? 9/11 was "political violence? Noting during The Troubles in Ireland was terrorism because it was political? μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Unfortunately, unlike Avijit Roy this guy didn't have much writing of his own before he was killed, and WP:COATRACK means his death can't just be used to talk about more influential writers. Spokespeople for CPJ, RSF and UN have criticised Bangladesh for not doing more to protect bloggers. This guy wasn't that influential in and of himself before his death - but the wider issue of press freedom and impunity for attacks on dissident voices is an important one. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Ehud Olmert found guilty of corruptionEdit

Two days without any motion toward support μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Ehud Olmert (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert is found guilty of accepting bribes. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian The Australian Toronto Star
Nominator's comments: A former head of state being convicted seems significant, and we posted Mohamed Nasheed when he was sentenced. Everymorning talk 14:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment According to the article page, he was found guilty of receiving bribes in March, 2014 and sentenced in May, 2014. It looks like this is stale. Mamyles (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment In addition to Mamyles' comment above, I note the Guardian states this is a district court ruling that will likely be appealed. I'm not sure if this is a finality for ITN posting or not. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this story is becoming more and more boring and stale by the moment. As Mamyles says, this isn't really news, and even if it was fresh, it's barely of note. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the reported evidence looks damning, but the conviction was in the Jerusalem District Court, and his lawyers have vowed to appeal. μηδείς (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose because this doesn't seem like the end of the road, aside from being stale as well. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Uzbekistani presidential electionEdit

Article: Uzbekistani presidential election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: Islam Karimov is re-elected President in the Uzbekistani presidential election. (Post)
News source(s): The Globe and Mail

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.

 Brandmeistertalk 14:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Classic ITN topic. Updates already look sufficient. Mamyles (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - pathetic "election" but still an election.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - notable ad ITN/R. Ali Fazal (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weakest of all possible supports Article is barely more than a stub, and contains little information that isn't in the blurb above. It is fully referenced, not that it's hard to fully reference an article that short. It'd be nice to see it expanded a bit, but I don't have any formal complaints about quality beyond that. --Jayron32 16:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 19:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I understand that this kind of meets the bare minimum requirements, barely, but it's not really even beyond stub-quality. Is this the sort of thing we post when one of our key pillars of ITN is "To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events."? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
    • At the time of nomination I saw basically only one English-language source, likely because vote counting had just finished. Now when there are more sources, it's possible to add them. Brandmeistertalk 21:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm not disputing that, I'm just questioning whether the article, which at the time of posting barely scratched up enough to be a stub, was what we consider to be "quality Wikipedia content". Of course more can be added, but perhaps it should be added before it's posted. We used to require articles to be B-class or better.... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Yeah there's only six sentences and I added one of them. Posting on the front page was a bit premature. -- Aronzak (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

March 29Edit

Fall of IdlibEdit

Article: Second Battle of Idlib (talk, history)
Blurb: Idlib, Syria, falls to Islamist militants led by Al-Nusra. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Ongoing: Syrian Civil War - Iraqi Civil War
News source(s): Reuters BBC DW

Nominator's comments: Significant development and blowback to the Assad government. Idlib is now the second provincial capital to have been taken over by rebel forces after Ar-Raqqa in 2013 by ISIL. This is also a good opportunity to bring back the Syrian Civil War (deadliest conflict in the past four years) to ITN. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Note that Al-Nusra is not part of ISIS, and therefore not covered by the ISIS "ongoing" item. And in any case, IMO the fall of Idlib is notable enough for a blurb even if the ongoing item overlapped it. Thue (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Is this anything else that is listed in the ongoing as ISIS? -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 15:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there a typo in your comment, @The Herald:? I can't work it out. Formerip (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I mean that is this blurb shows anything apart from the details given in Ongoing? The same thing..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 02:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on the technicality it isn't covered by Ongoing. Perhaps there should be a new Ongoing for this whole ISIS/al-Nusra/Saudi-Yemeni situation that's now going on? Joshua Garner (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per user Thue.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment this should be covered by ongoing events. And at least one source is not confirming this as definitive. Suggest if we're going to flood ITN with this kind of thing, we consider another more general Ongoing item. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
There needs to be a line somewhere. When do we stop? When we have a 'Conflicts in North Africa, the Middle East and Subcontinent' ongoing item? Or a 'World politics' item? The situation in the region covers:
  • Uprisings against the Assad government in Syria;
  • Ethnic conflict in Iraq arising from the American-led regime change;
  • ISIS' (or whatever we're calling them these days) hijacking of the previous two to establish a caliphate;
  • Popular uprisings in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt over the past several years;
  • Attempts by Islamists to take over those popular uprisings to establish theocratic states, with varying degrees of success and varying connections to ISIS;
  • The Boko Haram insurgency in Nigeria;
  • Boko Haram's connection to ISIS;
  • Efforts by surrounding states to help Nigeria tackle Boko Haram;
  • A rebellion in Yemen which (AFAICT) doesn't owe direct allegiance to ISIS but has similar goals (I may be out of date on this point);
  • Attempts by Saudi Arabia and Iran to influence the outcome in Yemen, possible conflict between Saudis and Iranians as a result;
  • Attempts by Western governments to influence the outcomes of all of the above without getting too involved;
  • Whatever's left of al Qaeda in the region;
  • Activities of the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan, with connections to al Qaeda;
  • The Israel-Palestine conflict, which is not directly connected to any of the above but will be cited as something to be angry about by one side, the other, or both in all of the above.
Where exactly do you draw a line around all that to create an ongoing item and not flood ITN with articles? GoldenRing (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Reflection - Hmmm, debates over which ongoing war it belongs to. At what point is this all going to meld into a regional Sunni-Shia war? The nightly news guys keep reminding us that the situation in Yemen is exactly that, and the scary thing is that this is how World War I got its start, with nations taking sides like little dominoes falling in one direction or the other. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment This is not at all a clear Sunni-Shia war - Sunni Kurds are fighting against Sunni ISIL in Syria and Iraq, and in Syria Sunni al-Nusra (al-Qaeda) is fighting against Sunni ISIL. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are 3 different major civil wars ongoing in that region (Iraqi Civil War, Syrian Civil War, Yemeni Crisis (2011–present)) each with several major belligerents. Making a blurb each time a battle happens where 200 people die might result in more than one blurb per week. The blurb text is also very confusing in not telling from which of the many other sides in the war they gained it - you would need something like The Syrian Government loses the city of Idlib to Al-Nusra. LoveToLondon (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Alternative suggestion: Ongoing: Syrian Civil War - Iraqi Civil War (remove Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (participating in both and covered indirectly), the Yemeni civil war is currently covered by the 2015 military intervention in Yemen blurb). LoveToLondon (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose 165k city, article says "The fall of Idlib was more a morale blow to president Bashar al-Assad than a strategically one". Nergaal (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose play-by-play narration, with nods to TRM and GoldenRing's replies. (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Cricket World CupEdit

Articles: 2015 Cricket World Cup (talk, history) and 2015 Cricket World Cup Final (talk, history)
Blurb: Australia defeats New Zealand in 2015 Cricket World Cup Final (Post)
Alternative blurb: Australia win the Cricket World Cup after defeating New Zealand in the Final
News source(s): ESPN Cricinfo

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

 -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 10:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Should be something like "Australia win the 2015 Cricket World Cup after defeating New Zealand in the Final". (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and the changes per 117.192. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the Broadcasting rights section in the main article is properly sourced. Will support once fixed. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
If it's just the final article per TRM below then my above comment won't be a problem. starship .paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support there's no need for two bold links, the final is the key link here, and that article is in reasonable nick. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for altblurb Vensatry (ping) 13:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is a topic of international importance. Gfcvoice (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • On ITNR and the final article looks good to go. Marking [ready]. I suggest using the alt blurb, but only bolding the link to the final itself. Modest Genius talk 15:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - obviously. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Not knowing cricket or how a game is written in recap, but should there be more of one in the Final page (I'm comparing this to what the Super Bowl page expectations we had this year before posting) ? If that page is going to be linked, it seems woefully missing details on the game itself. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    • The article is pretty extensive, TBH. Everything except what happened in the final is there. Well, if TRM supports (and by his "support" meaning this is both relevant and updated) this, then this should pass his standards on being updated so... –HTD 16:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
      • On the Final page? The leadup to the match is clearly there, but normally for sports recaps I'm used to see a paragraph or more that talks about the general ebb and flow of the game, in other sports. All there is for the match proper is a summary table, which seems underwhelming. But again, this is not a sport I have a good idea about. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes, the article about the final is pretty extensive, until it goes into the actual match. Unless you count the bullet points as "prose". –HTD 17:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Going back to your first point, yes of course it's "relevant", it's ITNR, and yes, the final article is updated properly, as I already said. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
            • Sure it's updated. After people knew who won, this is what happened at the article:
              1. Changed the image at the infobox.
              2. Updated the attendance and man of the match.
              3. Something about changing things to past tense.
              4. Added a couple of bulleted "notes" at the box score.
              5. Added prose at the lead of a single sentence about Australia being the favorites.
              6. Then followed by a clause of the result of the match, followed by a sentence about the attendance record.
            • All in all, about 2.5 sentences of new prose.–HTD 19:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
              • Good, so it's updated. Move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
                • When I compare this year's match to 2011 Cricket World Cup Final, it is woefully not updated. I'm not expecting extensive details but more than details up to the start of the match, no details of the match whatsoever except for the final tally. It needs more. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
                  • Dude, stop. It's updated. TRM said so already. When it comes to updates, TRM knows his stuff. –HTD 19:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
                    • There's more detail now. Gfcvoice (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
                      • That's good now for ITN posting. It just felt missing to not include any of those in the article for a front page item. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
                    • Violins for Howard. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support of obvious significance. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral - the sport is of high importance for a few countries that plays it on a professional level. For the rest of the world it is a non-sport.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    • It is listed as a Recurring Item, which means that it passes notability every time and can only be opposed for reasons such as poor sourcing, glaring omissions, etc. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    • And you already know that in those "few countries", there's a combined population of around two billion. There never seems such a problem when posting baseball articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Cricket is a sport of high importance for the many countries that play it at a professional level. And for many other countries that play the sport, such as the USA, they aren't good enough to qualify for the World Cup. Gfcvoice (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Indeed; I know little of cricket, but I know that it is wildly popular in many places, including India, the most populated nation on Earth. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
        • @331dot: - India's 2nd -> see World population, China's 1st. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 14:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
          • @Starship.paint: Thanks. Clearly I didn't think that through enough. I know India likely will be #1 in the future as their birth rate is much higher than China's. Guess I got ahead of myself. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
        • There are supposedly only five cricket pitches in the US. They're so bad, they don't care. –HTD 19:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
        • No matter what you people say it is a fact that Cricket is a sport of high importance for only a few countries. May so big ones, but still only a few. Fact.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
          • No matter what you say BabbaQ, this article is listed at So debate over how many countries' residents find cricket to be important is irrelevant. Gfcvoice (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
          • The Cricket World Cup is the smallest tournament (in number of participating teams in the final tournament) at 14 amongst the major team sports of football, basketball, rugby union and cricket. They'll even reduce that to ten in 2019. Compare, for example, the Football World Cup that would add from the current 32 teams to 40(? 48?), basketball from 24 to 32, heck even the World Baseball Classic has more teams when it started in 2006 with 16 teams (the now defunct Baseball World Cup even tried out 22 teams in 2009). Amongst these "major" sports, cricket has the fewest countries participating; the International Cricket Council has just over 100 countries (compare with the World Baseball Softball Confederation at 141; granted the West Indies is composed of many countries). I didn't even consider the likes of volleyball and handball. –HTD 19:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
            • So take your whining to ITNR and get it removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
              • The whole Pot calling the kettle black argument gets a new dimension with your comment above :) lol.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
                • But it is cricket which have much more viewership than many other sports. For example, the India- Pak match was viewed by 288 million, a record breaking stuff. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 02:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
                • As usual, BabbaQ, you're not really making any sense. Try to stay on-topic and use logical sequiturs where possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
                  • It's not my problem if you have difficulty understanding when You get criticism. I only found it hilarious that you complained about whining, when in fact you keep whining on and on about basically anyone having a different opinion than yourself at ITN. You can read in to that what you want :).--BabbaQ (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
                    • No, still not getting it. What does your comment have to do with this nomination? Nothing, other than an obvious declaration that you don't understand this nomination. Still, job done! Keep on whining!! :) (And please, for consistency, have a dig at 331dot, Gfcvoice, AtHomeIn神戸, Aircorn, HappyWaldo,Starship.paint, Lugnuts, Vensatry etc etc, because they have elected to make the same opinion as mine, while you just want to keep on bitching at me – do us all a favour and pipe down or be consistent). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the article regarding the final looks sufficiently updated. Any claims about it being a "non-sport" are preposterous. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Article is updated fine and despite the bickering above their is really no doubt about its signifance as a sporting event. AIRcorn (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support How is this not on the main page yet? Mind boggling. Like it or not, cricket is one of the world's major sports in terms of participation and viewership. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Most obvious support Just post it already! I can't believe people are actually debating the relevance of this. Very widespread appeal internationally, across continents and literately billions of people. We don't seem to have this debate when it's about baseball, which has a much smaller international appeal..... One would be tempted to mention the words 'double standard' (talk) 06:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Why the delay? Now that all the Americans are tucked up in their little beds, we can post this now, right? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
    • If they drag it out much longer, it will be time to start the next world cup. FYI, this American was awake 24 hours ago watching the ESPN-Cricinfo gamecast. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

March 28Edit

RD: Gene SaksEdit

Article: Gene Saks (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times Variety Chicago Tribune

Nominator's comments: Won three Tony Awards, member of the American Theater Hall of FameEverymorning talk 21:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose article is stub-quality at best. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I was going to nominate and did update the death on the article's page, but as TRM says, the article is woefully poor in describing why he is important. If the article can be expanded (particularly using these obits), that would help, as the DC for RD posting does seem met. --MASEM (t) 21:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality grounds. Seems to meet the death criteria for his field, but as has been said the page needs work. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support storied film and stage director, a bit missed by WP since his last film, apparently, So I Married an Axe Murderer predates most of the web generation and his last TV appearance was in 1998. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is little more than a stub - it does absolutely no justice to someone who had the career his awards/nominations/honours seems to indicate. Challenger l (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The article certainly could be improved, but is referenced adequately and already makes the case that he meets the criteria. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment completely outside my comfort zone but I tinkered with the article a little to improve it to at least remove my opposition. Someone else may wish to expand it further and those in opposition on quality grounds may wish to take another look. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Makka al-Mukarama hotel attackEdit

Article: 2015 Makka al-Mukarama hotel attack (talk, history)
Blurb: 12-hour siege at a hotel in Mogadishu, Somalia, ends and resulted death of over 20 people, including a U.N. diplomat. (Post)
News source(s): Somalia hotel siege ends; U.N. diplomat, 19 others killed

Nominator's comments: Attack occurred at a hotel, which is popular and has significant security setup and UN diplomat also killed. (Note: Article will be expanded.) AntonTalk 16:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Seems to be a significant story, article is decently sourced. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Good article, more notable than some other shootings that have made ITN. Joshua Garner (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support an article of reasonable quality describing a notable newsworthy event, should be nothing too much to think about for posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Mass-casualty event, apparent act of terrorism, international incident. Checks a lot of boxes for ITN and should be a no-brainer. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose number is not that high, terrorism is an OVERLY-represented topic at ITN, terrorism in Somalia is common. The only remotely noteworthy fact is that a UN representative died, but that is not very shocking when you realize it is Somalia after all. Nergaal (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    Funniest oppose I've read from you in a few days. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Learning from the master. Nergaal (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Not me, clearly. I usually oppose on article quality, something you seldom take into account. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Split decision A lot of terror attacks are posted to ITN, whether in the Western World or elsewhere. However, shipwrecks in Bangladesh and Burma have been opposed on the justification that it happens all the time there. Terrorism is frequent in Somalia. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
This is the 7th article we have on terrorist attacks in Mogadishu alone since 2010. Nergaal (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
And that's relevant because.....? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
You are even more square-headed than you appear. Nergaal (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
And that makes no sense at all and is of no relevance to the nomination, not for the first time. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh guys, come on... bring the discussion out of the sandbox please.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I agree completely. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - significant story, good article. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Split decision There probably is too much terrorism coverage at ITN, but 20 casualties (especially when one is a diplomat) is a high enough amount to leave me on the fence. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 03:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

March 27Edit

[Closed] Amanda KnoxEdit

Closing since trending ever more strongly to oppose, and generating more heat than light. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Amanda Knox (talk, history)
Blurb: Amanda Knox is acquitted of the murder of Meredith Kercher by Italy's highest court. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Amanda Knox and her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito are acquitted of the murder of Meredith Kercher by Italy's highest court.
News source(s): Al Jazeera Washington Post Christian Science Monitor
Nominator's comments: Loads of news coverage, has been a high-profile case for some time now, and now this story has been definitively brought to an end. Everymorning talk 15:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Definitive end of the trial, article is sufficient state. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as per Masem. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just a murder case at the end of the day. But, if it does get posted, please note that there were two defendants acquitted, albeit one less pretty and more foreign than the other. Formerip (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Knox is not herself notable except in relation to the murder, and we don't post acquittals, only convictions. I think the fact we are only mentioning the pretty girl in the nomination makes clear the sensationalist bias of the story, no offense to Everymorning. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    • We post both acquittals and convictions when at the very end of the criminal court cycle, which this certainly is. It is a high profile, international case. I do agree both persons should be named in the blurb, it is unfortunate the press tends to only focus on the "pretty" one. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I have added an altblurb that mentions Sollecito. I haven't been paying too much attention to this case so I didn't know he had been acquitted as well. Everymorning talk 17:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I affirm my opposition based on the fact that this is "pretty American" media-pics get clicks-bias and that none of the parties involved was notable. Were this an acquittal in the trial of someone accused of the Olaf Palme assassination, it might be different. μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Light Oppose. Sure, its generated lots of controversy, but like Formerip said, it's still just a murder case, or lack thereof. The blurb basically would just mean that a court has found that an American didn't kill an Italian on Italian soil. Joshua Garner (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This was a highly controversial case with a lot of media coverage during every stage of the process. One can argue that this was just another murder case, but what matters here is whether or not this story is sufficiently "in the news", not if the level of media attention it is getting is justified or not. Count Iblis (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
What really matters is neither of those things, but whether or not a consensus to post emerges, or else why do we bother voting at all? Formerip (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Your "oppose" is based on ignorance, and you should retract it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Haven't we done this already? Formerip (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Not helpful at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Your comment "just a murder case" is an ignorant statement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
And your dick's hanging out. Formerip (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for further revealing your ignorance. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
My pleasure. But please put it away, it's distracting. Formerip (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
You first. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The media have decided that it is in fact not "just a murder case", by giving the case the amount of coverage they gave. But suppose that one can successfully argue here that the media were wrong to do that. But then, we are not allowed to make that determination, we have to stick to discussing whether or not a subject matter is actually in the news or not, we are not here to determine whether or not by our standards, a subject matter should have been in the news or not. That's why even if one can argue that this is just another murder case, that is still an irrelevant determination. Count Iblis (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't believe that's how it works. We don't post everything that's in the news or, say, the top ten most reported stories of the week. We do discriminate, and there are various valid reasons for opposing nominations, one of which is that you don't think a story is all that significant. "But it's on page two of the Guardian" or whatever is also a vaild counter-argument, but a fairly weak one, I'd say. Formerip (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose more politicking and nothing of substance to report. If a Colombian woman and her boyfriend were accused of killing a Peruvian woman, and then it transpired, according to the courts, they didn't, would we be posting it? Think about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The media decides to report or not report on cases, and we stick to determining if there is sufficient media attention. Count Iblis (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
That's not how things work around here. This is not a tabloid news feeder that just relinks whatever the media decides to sensationalize. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you calling BBC a tabloid? You have no business commenting here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The BBC is not immune to sensationalized news coverage. And with respect, I don't think it's your call where I can or cannot comment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
How utterly and completely absurd, and contrary to everything Wikipedia stands for, to attempt to claim that we should be reporting whatever gains "media attention". Competence here is at an all-time low. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
If you're talking to me, I take your comment as tacit agreement to end the interaction ban. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Consensus around here seems to set a very high bar for legal cases getting mention on ITN. I think a strong argument could be made that this has much lower relevance and legal implications than the Bowe Bergdahl case that was also recently shot down. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Note - The statement "just a murder" is highly offensive on its face, regardless of the notability of the case. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I'm sure if our readers are interested in this case, they can read all about it in The Daily Mail or The New York Post, right next to the coverage of Jeremy Clarkson being fired by the BBC and Zayn Malik leaving One Direction. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    Zayn left? OMG. Much more important (per Twitter, media outlets etc) than this no-result. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Don't get the above comparison to Clarkson and Zayn, which were single recent events, and also simple entertainment stories without crime and law. This is the end of the legal case on a murder which had been making news for seven years or so since it happened. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - a definite ending to one of the worlds most covered murder trials in the last decade. Ofcourse it should be featured on ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support purely because it is the end of a legal matter involving three countries(US, UK, and Italy) and has much wider interest than "just a murder case". 331dot (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. It is a subjectively dumb story, but for good or ill it is in the news and this is the definitive end. I am also motivated by the fact that Wikipedia has quite extensive coverage of this topic, so it offers a chance to highlight more information than one would get from most news accounts. Dragons flight (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Legal case is not notable enough. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This case, while perhaps fascinating, really is just a murder trial. The fact that American infotainment networks sought to convert it into an international incident because one of the now-acquitted is a pretty, white, American girl is great for the tabloids, but that is about it. Resolute 23:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose obviously media coverage does matter to a certain extent, but I think that this specific case was overblown and does not rise to ITN level. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This entire story has received considerable and extended international coverage over a long time frame. This is, hopefully, the final chapter is this sad story. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Recommend switching from Amanda Knox article to Meredith Kercher murder case article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Agree to this, the murder case has more substantial details and this would make it less about this specific person and instead the case overall. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
      • @Everymorning: I concur with this detail and suggest you update the nom? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 08:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
        • I have switched the bolding from Amanda Knox to the Meredith Kercher murder case article as per above. I hope this is what was meant by this suggestion. Everymorning talk 17:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per WP:NOT#TABLOID. Running this on the Front Page would be shameful and possibly become a lasting precedent to let further crap like this onto the Front Page. Abductive (reasoning) 00:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Disagree that an legal case which had the chance to lead to an international disagreement between the US and Italy and involving the death of a UK citizen is a "tabloid" matter. I think that all the parties involved would disagree that this is a "crap" matter as well. 331dot (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:NOTTABLOID - this case frequently received sensationalised tabloid coverage inside the US and Italy, that doesn't justify it as notable or influential. Murder cases are decided all the time, this is only promoted as notable because the person is a "celebrity" -- Aronzak (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Aronzak: Boko Haram is still being discussed below; please offer your opinion on posting it. I disagree that BBC, NBC and other legitimate news outlets are "tabloids". This was a case with international issues. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • My point is that media coverage as a whole was overblown, and this case is just one of thousands of murder cases.-- Aronzak (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • That is your opinion but the media points to this not being your average murder case. So however you twist it you are wrong about that.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Abductive and per TRM's story. Someone should close this. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as tabloid fodder. This has been a long running tabloid staple because it involves two attractive young women and sexual elements to the murder. In the grand scheme of things it makes no real difference to the world, and is of poor encyclopaedic value. There's no way we should be covering this on ITN. Modest Genius talk 15:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    I generally agree with what you are saying, but I'm not sure that ITN items are required to make a real difference to the world. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    Indeed, if we should follow Modest Genius reasoning the Cricket World Cup should not be posted as it is a sport without any importance for most parts of the world.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    Nope, it's on ITNR and is played around the world in countries with a combined population of over two billion. Try again. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We didn't run a blurb for the acquittal in Shooting of Trayvon Martin, which was much more significant, so I don't see why we should run one for this. Kaldari (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
That's not exactly the same situation. This case involves three nations(Knox is American, Kercher was British, it all happened in Italy) and had potential international repercussions(as the US had said it would not extradite her). 331dot (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Could an uninvolved editor please close this? I think it's fairly obvious that there is no consensus to post. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I concede that this probably will not be posted, but I have reverted the closure because it only cited a vote count as a reason, and determining consensus is not a vote count so I would request an admin close it and weigh the arguments or at least a better reason be given. 331dot (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ultimately this case is just about the murder of one person. It was sensational, but sensational trials happen from time to time and I would be very reluctant to start posting them to ITN. This is particularly so given the systemic bias issues - as TRM noted, does anyone really think this case would have got as much attention if Knox and Kercher were from poorer countries? It is not true that we just go by the level of media coverage, which is why Zayn Malik leaving One Direction isn't featured despite the news undoubtedly getting more media coverage than some things we post. Neljack (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Propogating the (apparent) conclusion of a tabolid circus. We need to save an ITN space for the next time one of those Kardashians gets pregnant... AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] RD: Rod HundleyEdit

Not going to be posted; does not meet the criteria. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Rod Hundley (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TL SLT
 -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 03:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, doesn't appear to meet the criteria for RD inclusion. Nakon 03:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - article has only five references and many unsourced paragraphs. Also not convinced he's 'big' enough in basketball player - he's a 2× NBA All-Star but many players have had that over 10×. He might have been 'big' as an announcer though - not sure, but the article's shape must still be taken into account. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. We can't list every sports figure on RD when they die. He doesn't appear to be at the top of his field or anything like that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Another that has his fans, likely a good number of them - but doesn't meet the criteria for RD. Challenger l (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose seems like just another moderately successful basketball player, not rising to the level we expect for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Scott Kelly, Mikhail Korniyenko and Gennady Padalka launchEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Scott Kelly (astronaut) (talk, history) and Mikhail Korniyenko (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American astronaut Scott Kelly and Russian cosmonauts Mikhail Korniyenko and Gennady Padalka launch to the International Space Station, where they will spend 342 days. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​American astronaut Scott Kelly will spend a year in space, to compare his body to his identical twin brother on earth.
News source(s): CNN USA Today The Guardian
Nominator's comments: Described as "history-making" by the Guardian; this is significant because it will, if successful, break the record for the longest mission on the ISS (see CNN). Everymorning talk 20:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as with all such "if it happens it will be..." nominations, I'll happily wait until "it" happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose As much as it breaks my heart to oppose a spaceflight story, this will only be the longest stay on the ISS, there were several year plus stays on Mir. (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The launch is a routine ISS launch, the mission will not be, but we should wait until they complete it and safely return. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the year long mission has never been done before, and the twin study with Kelly's brother is a first - and it has implications for future long-term space missions. Kelly was on the front cover of Time based on this mission. Padalka will have spent the longest in space of any human at the end of the mission. If this isn't ITN worthy I'd propose it for DYK. -- Aronzak (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Nope, as I said about, this will neither be the first, nor the longest long-stay mission, several Mir crew members stayed longer. (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
It will be the longest at the ISS, and will be unique in that Kelly's twin brother will be monitored on the ground for comparison.[2]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Key language is "will be". We hardly post of a potential aspect, but instead wait until that aspect is verified. Assuming all goes well, their return from the ISS will get comparable coverage, as well as now assurance they have spent the most time there, and that's the point where ITN makes sense. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Will support upon completion. Joshua Garner (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for now. I'd support a posting should they complete the mission. Nakon 03:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. It may merit posting when Padalka breaks the cumulative time in space record during the mission, aside from completion of the mission. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above objections. —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 14:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted RD] Tomas TranströmerEdit

Article: Tomas Tranströmer (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Swedish poet and winner of the 2011 Nobel Prize in Literature Tomas Tranströmer (pictured) dies at the age of 83. (Post)
News source(s): (Aftonbladet) (Channel News) (Le Point)

 Bruzaholm (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support per nominator. Truly notable award winning poet, active until death. Bruzaholm (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to refactor your comment, but just to be clear, this isn't a "support per nominator", but "support as nominator". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per Nobel Prize. RD is a no-brainer. Gamaliel (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Nit though that there's only the date of death in the article, there should be at least a sentence or so for a better update. The rest is reasonably sources and okay for posting. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • To be clear, I support RD but Oppose blurb. Routine death of age, and this was not a person of the likes of Thatcher or Mandela. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD but oppose blurb. I don't see this story being "significant" enough for a blurb, but a Nobel winner meets the death criteria clearly. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb RD – Nobel prize winning poet. Influential in his field and active until recently. (Would be a given here if he was from the English speaking world) P. S. Burton (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Disagree. I don't see a reason to give a blurb to Alice Munro, for instance. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD only. I don't think that simply being a Nobel laureate warrants a blurb. Brandmeistertalk 17:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD but oppose blurb. Being awarded with the Nobel Prize should not be taken as decisive criterion for posting a blurb at any price, as there have been many controversies in the past over the recognition that the prize gives its recipients. Tranströmer was surely a good writer for his time but not one of his contemporaries whose works have influenced different generations. I doubt that most of us here have ever even heard of him before winning the Nobel Prize.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • He is also the recipient of the Neustadt International Prize for Literature, the Golden Wreath of Struga Poetry Evenings and the Petrarca-Preis. That is all the major international awards, except the international Man Booker. I do not think his significance can be measured by whether or not you have heard of him. If we do not post Tranströmer then I wonder where the thresehold for poets lies. Does any poet warrant a blurb? The only reason I could see for not posting a blurb would be his old age of death. P. S. Burton (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
      • A rough measure of when we would use a blurb to highlight the recent death of a notable person in which the death was by natural cause/old age would be someone of the ilk like Margaret Thatcher or Nelson Mandela. These two people had significant influence on an international level in politics and the like, and its clear the reaction across the world from their passing was a big deal. A poet is very much unlikely to have this type of influence, much less any other Nobel prize winner, off hand. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 27 March 2015 (UTChave
        • ^^^ Off hand, I think the distinguished Mr Mandela won a Nobel Peace Prize '''tAD''' (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
        • P. S. Burton, all the prizes that you mention are on the top of the field but they simply don't present an automatic qualifier for a blurb, especially after introducing the RD section. The main goal of introducing the RD section is to replace the massive posting of blurbs documenting deaths with a simple line of showing their names only, while blurbs are not completely excluded and allowed in case the person has made major impact in the world and influenced millions of people and whole generations. Frankly, I do think that we've been very concessive in the last couple of years; the number of deaths posted in the RD section has been heavily inflated and some people have undeservedly received blurbs, thus lowering the death criteria. So, if this had been nominated before applying the change, it would have deserved blurb on the grounds of winning the prizes or even solely the Nobel Prize (Note that the Nobel Prize laureates generally received blurbs before RD came into existence.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Ok, fair enough. I have not been active in this part of Wikipedia since the introduction of the Recent deaths section. Thanks for taking the time to explain. P. S. Burton (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD but oppose blurb per all above..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD Oppose Blurb above reasons. Joshua Garner (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Removed "Ready" as the article is far from ready. There is no update that he died apart from the first line and the article has to be fixed in several places to reflect that. --Tone 19:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb His death is not one with the exceptional level of global impact and coverage that would warrant a blurb. This is not to dispute that he was a very important writer, but blurbs are rightly rare these days. Neljack (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD A Nobel Prize winner is obviously a leading figure in writing. I thought I was aware that RD blurbs are for ones which make an event (death of a reigning monarch, assassination of popular figure) rather than the passing at the end of a long and successful life. Terry Pratchett, whose work sold millions (but won no Nobel prize), had no blurb '''tAD''' (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted RD Nakon 02:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb - had success as Nobel winner but not the global impact of say, J.K. Rowling. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

March 26Edit

[Re-posted] RD: Dinkha IVEdit

Article: Dinkha IV (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Holy Synod Announcement

Nominator's comments: Iraqi Catholicos-Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: Notable religious figure, solid article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Top-level figure in his field, good article, topical. (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, notable patriarch of an historically important church.--Kathovo talk 09:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, Head of a major religious body. Article is in appropriate condition '''tAD''' (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support noted figure, good article. —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 11:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    Yet more sterling work. I see that his death isn't even referenced. Does anyone read these articles? Does anyone care about quality and referencing? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    @Coffee: could you explain this posting please? Did you check the death was referenced in the article? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pulled per TRM. I would not condone his use of belittling tone directed at specific users, but the article cannot be posted with the quality issues, regardless of significance. Two fixes are needed before posting. The purple prose describing the death needs to be neutralized a bit, and the entire death paragraph is unreferenced. We cannot post someone died without any references to the fact, that would be a major BLP issue. No prejudice to this being returned immediately upon those two fixes. --Jayron32 21:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    This is all about one admin who has made two poor errors of judgement in posting at ITN in the past 24 hours. The sooner we rid our process of such failings the better. And for the love of God, on an RD posting, there's like ONE THING you need to check. NOBODY here who supported this or posted this checked it. Sad face. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    It's not like he castrated a baby. [Description of something that admins' actions on ITN are not that TRM can handle] It's reversible. Calm down. -- tariqabjotu 21:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    What the hell are you talking about? Your comparison is disgusting and completely unnecessary. Think again "Tariq", before posting such crap. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    The issue appears to now be resolved. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, there are multiple references on the death of this subject. Any objection to posting this to RD at this time? Nakon 02:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I admit, I had to do some research to fully understand who this person was and what significance he actually held. There are now a couple of sources properly cited concerning his death, though none of them directly state the cause of death. Inline citations seem present throughout the article. It looks as it should. Challenger l (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
To me, TRM's remarks have tainted yet another nomination. It's surprising we even have admins still willing to post stuff around here with TRM berating anyone whose actions he disagrees with, and then perpetually holding those actions against them. -- tariqabjotu 05:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
To me, your vile comparison and the general incompetence demonstrated by some is the real problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, and can we avoid using comparisons to baby castration too? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Exhumation and reburial of Richard IIIEdit

Not happening. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator's comments: Lots of coverage from around the world, seems historically significant, members of the royal family were in attendance. [3] Everymorning talk 00:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Skip it - One-of-a-kind event... Jayron notes it's already a featured article. Putting it in ITN would seem redundant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We already posted the discovery, exhumation, and confirmation of the body from 2012. This is just an obvious result from that. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We just featured this as the main page featured article just yesterday. It's already on the main page in the "recently featured" list. I'd say the story has had enough exposure. --Jayron32 00:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • To add, it was nominated and approved to be TFA on the 26th, so yea, TFA overrides ITN here in this case. --MASEM (t) 00:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
      • @Masem: Am I missing something? Isn't that what Jayron just said? -- tariqabjotu 02:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Most TFAs are randomly picked from a pool, but there are about 5-10 a month that people ask for a TFA to run on a specific day - this was done specifically to correlate with the reburial that happened on the 26th. It was not coincidence. --MASEM (t) 03:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Well, yeah. I don't think anyone thought it was a coincidence. This event was mentioned in the TFA blurb with the March 26 date. -- tariqabjotu 03:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above objections. Re-interment is really a post climax to all this. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose –The fellow is dead, and has been. What's new? Let sleeping kings lie. RGloucester 01:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you recuse yourself, RiiiR, on the basis of WP:COI. Otherwise we may have to depose you. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If there was anything particularly notable about his exhumation, I might be inclined to vote in support, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Joshua Garner (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Baseball Bugs that this is a one-of-a-kind event, but the man was a murderer, and the reburial seems to be of no importance in itself compared to the discovery of the body. Did Elizabeth II attend? Was there a funeral mass by the Archbishop of Canterbury or a high-ranking Catholic prelate? This seems stale. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose even ignoring the recent TFA, this is a dead man being buried. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

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

March 25Edit

[Posted] Saudi Arabia strikes YemenEdit

Articles: 2015 military intervention in Yemen (talk, history) and Southern Yemen offensive (2015) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​As Houthi militants and their allies advance on the temporary Yemeni capital of Aden, Saudi Arabia launches airstrikes in support of the internationally recognised government. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​As Houthi militants and their allies advance on the provisional capital of Aden amid the Yemeni crisis, Saudi Arabia conducts airstrikes against them.
News source(s): The New York Times Al Jazeera BBC News

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Headline-grabbing developments in the ongoing Yemeni crisis that affect potentially millions of residents of Yemen and its neighbors. I would suggest holding off on mentioning the rumors about the president fleeing ITN until the situation is clearer, but suffice to say there's been a lot that has happened in Yemen over the past 24 hours or so, more significant than the capital declaration we listed a few days ago. Kudzu1 (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment part of the ongoing Yemen Crisis ongoing? --MASEM (t) 03:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    • That was my thinking, but it would have to be shoehorned into the blurb. If you think of a good alt, go ahead and add one. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I added an alt. I'm not super-thrilled with it, but it gets the crisis in and is a little bit shorter. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • support the alt. An important action by Saudi Arabia. Mhhossein (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support regardless of blurb, SA military action is not an every day occurrence. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support second blurb with a Comment I prefer this sentence: As Houthi militants and their allies advance on the temporary Yemeni capital of Aden, Saudi Arabia launches airstrikes in support of Mansur Hadi government.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Sa.vakilian and Kudzu1: This suggestion is even more accurate while being short and informative. Mhhossein (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: which suggestion?--Seyyed(t-c) 05:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Sa.vakilian: ... Saudi Arabia launches airstrikes in support of Mansur Hadi government. Mhhossein (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support second blurb or Seyyed's. Joshua Garner (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • While it's unusual for Saudi Arabia to interject itself in a conflict, is this a way for them to fight Iran without actually fighting Iran? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Baseball Bugs: Apparently, but this issue does not relate to this discussion. --Seyyed(t-c) 04:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as it's just another step in the ongoing Yemen crisis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, major development. Please have only one blurb and no ongoing if possible. Abductive (reasoning) 05:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Too early to tell how significant this is. They have intervened in Yemen before. Either way, I believe that an ongoing mention of the Yemeni Crisis would be much more sufficient than a single blurb. There are many notable events going on in Yemen, and I'm not sure why this should be singled out. Support ongoing. RGloucester 05:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per RGloucester, Saudi have launched offensives into Yemen several times recently. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
"Intervening" and supporting a regime about to be toppled are very different things. It's like saying doctors are treating a patient for a respiratory ilness, and the patient has been placed in critical care with intravenous antibiotics. μηδείς (talk) 05:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of that, the important question is why we would single out this one development for a blurb, when many such developments are presently occurring. Ongoing is the only sensible solution. RGloucester 05:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I am fairly certain you mean "irregardless", thou foul, revertory, murthersome hunchback. In any case, an Ongoing blurb wouldn't bother me. μηδείς (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the issue is deserved to be on the main page. We can find a proposal which cover both subjects at the same time.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready as this is at 17 Kb and has no orange tags but also 2 to 1 support for posting. μηδείς (talk) 06:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • support, major event with over 10 countries participating in airstrikes and 150,000 Saudis on the verge of crossing the border. If a mini-world war ensues, which is not unlikely, this could be the starting point.--Kathovo talk 06:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, but oppose calling the rebel government "temporary". Seems a likely outcome, but Wikipedia is not for ball-gazing. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Read that wrong. Temporary capital. All good. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – People need to think, here. We've already got one Yemen blurb in the ITN box. Now we're going to add another one. This is exactly the type of situation where ongoing is used, to prevent a constant stream of blurbs about the same events. This blurb should not be posted. Yemen should go to ongoing, or else we'll keep doing this every few days. RGloucester 15:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I suggest removing the other blurb to make way for this one. This is an evolving situation we're dealing with, but a foreign military intervention beginning is undoubtedly a noteworthy development, IMO. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Absurd, let's just rename ITN as "Yemen ticker". When have we ever had two blurbs relating to the same item? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Point me to the rule that says we can't?--WaltCip (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Point me to the common sense approach which says we have ONGOING for such things? "Point me to the rule..."? Really? Grow up. And answer the question. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I think we can be a lot more WP:CIVIL than this, can't we? -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Wow, rude much, Rambling? I would think that warrants an immediate apology. And for the record, two distinctly separate but highly significant in a regionally important conflict, so two blurbs make perfect sense. (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, stop it. Consensus was for a blurb. There was nothing technically wrong with this posting. "Grow up"? Seriously???--WaltCip (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Civility aside, you're missing the point. There's no question that there was consensus for a blurb. The question is whether this item should replace the existing blurb related to the Yemen conflict. I see at least half a dozen people who think it should, including the nominator. And that's normally what happens with stories like this. -- tariqabjotu 13:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think you'll find your answer in the alternate question: when has this ever happened in Yemen before? Both news items are incredibly important internationally, and are very ITN worthy. - If this were to happen in the US there wouldn't even be a debate about it. - Their "relation" of being in the same geographical area, does not invalidate them, nor make them the same thing. (Note: This doesn't mean I disagree with eventually posting this crisis as an "ongoing" item; it's just that these are currently independently hot items.) Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
If this were to happen in the US there wouldn't even be a debate about it. Actually, with The Rambling Man, there probably would be.
And, much as I hate to say it, I agree with him. I thought this would replace the other blurb. People were even saying just that in the nomination. I can dig through the history if you want, but I'm sure we do this all the time. The two events are related enough -- we could have almost linked to the same article -- that this is pretty much an update on the events in the conflict. This blurb even references the Aden move by calling it the "provisional capital". And note that removing the blurb regarding Aden would cause another Yemen-related article, 2015 Sana'a mosque bombings, to appear back on the Main Page, so don't act like this is something about Yemen. Those bombings and this campaign are distinct enough that the latter doesn't constitute an update of the former, so that is OK. -- tariqabjotu 02:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Speaking as the nominator, I figured it would replace the other blurb, too. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's the normal approach. Particularly in this case since the "provisional"/"temporary" capital is covered in the more recent blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@Coffee: Please revisit this issue. -- tariqabjotu 13:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I've swapped out the Aden capital blurb, as Coffee didn't respond to the ping and even the nominator was expecting this to be a bump rather than a new blurb. -- tariqabjotu 21:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks good, thank you. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Abel Prize 2015Edit

Articles: John F. Nash, Jr. (talk, history) and Louis Nirenberg (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American mathematicians John F. Nash, Jr. and Louis Nirenberg are awarded the 2015 Abel Prize. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Mathematicians John F. Nash, Jr. and Louis Nirenberg share the 2015 Abel Prize for their work on partial differential equations.
News source(s): ABC News
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.
  • Nom. --bender235 (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Both articles are sufficient quality (although their relative lengths show the PR boost that comes of having a movie made about you...) Unless there are any objections, since this is ITN/R I'll post it in a few hours. Smurrayinchester 08:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Edit: Actually, Nirenberg has a few citation issues. I'll fix them up first. Smurrayinchester 08:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
All his awards are now cited, and hopefully now a lay reader can get at least an inkling of why his work's so important (he's probably brought us closer than anyone to an understanding of turbulence). Smurrayinchester 09:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R. The Abel Prize is a recognition of great significance in mathematics.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as articles are both of good quality and this is ITN/R. I've marked this as ready. Mamyles (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    Posted Smurrayinchester 14:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • WAIT a sec isn't Nash the first person to win Nobel+Abel? Abel is kinda the Nobel of math, and very, very few people win two Nobels. Nergaal (talk) 05:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Do you have an alternate blurb you're proposing? I'm not sure how your comment affects the current item. SpencerT♦C 06:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Abel becomes the first Nobel recipient to also receive the Abel Prize, which he shares with Nirenberg but with better phrasing. Nergaal (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Bowe Bergdahl Charged With DesertionEdit

Will never be posted. Stephen 02:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Bowe Bergdahl (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former POW Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl has been charged with desertion and misconduct before the enemy by the United States Army. (Post)
News source(s): Numerous (22) (23)

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is going to be huge news and highly controversial. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The general practice here is to post things like this when the party is convicted, especially when involving a criminal charge. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose absolutely of no consequence whatsoever, a completely overhyped local issue that really demonstrates nothing other than the inability of the US forces to keep their business clean. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This case seems entirely lacking in wider relevance. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Oppose Pretty sure I'll oppose if renominated when he's either convicted or exonerated. The prisoner swap was noteworthy, but his particular situation isn't for our purposes. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I am curious as to your rational that a highly controversial POW swap was ITN worthy but the subject of that swap being charged with desertion is not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This will be in the news for the US but it absolutely has little consequence on the larger world political picture. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment This page advises us not to criticize things for only pertaining to one country. Everymorning talk 21:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Those who claim this has no consequence outside the US have no basis for such a claim. However, as it's only one step in the process, I would say Oppose on that basis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless an actual conviction comes of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The overall issue is international, President Obama released five Al Qaeda members to secure his release. But specifically for ITN purposes we don't post charges and even if he is convicted, unless he is executed, the story in the news at that time won't be worth posting. μηδείς (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
They were members of the Taliban, not terrorists. Abductive (reasoning) 01:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I think most reasonable people would say that it is a Distinction without a difference. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    • On the news tonight they're saying that his lawyers are likely to work out a plea deal, and if that proves true, the story will likely end in a whimper. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Ongoing: Yemeni CrisisEdit

Already resolved. When the existing Yemen item drops off, this will be restored to Ongoing. Please read the thread. -- tariqabjotu 17:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Aftermath of the 2014–15 Yemeni coup d'état (talk, history)
Blurb: Ongoing (Post)

Today, one or more warplanes raided the palace of recently deposed president, Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, in Aden after his relocation there and cancelling of his resignation following the military coup earlier this year. In addition, special forces loyal to Ali Abdullah Saleh, who led the country during the 2011–12 revolt against his rule and is now loyal to the Houthis who are currently in control of the capital Sanaa, have clashed today with troops loyal to Hadi in Aden, and were eventually expelled from the city. Things are expected to develop further there, so this is why I chose Ongoing rather than a blurb. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)`

  • And I stand by my decision to nominate this for Ongoing. Yesterday's events were in Aden, while today's events were centered in Sanaa, where bomb attacks killed between 126 and 135 people at a Shiite mosque. The bombings were claimed by ISIL's Yemeni affiliate who warned of an 'upcoming flood' of attacks against Houthi rebels. If you insist that this should be a blurb instead, please feel free to propose one. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • ? Is there a template for ongoing noms? I fudged one above. μηδείς (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't find one, so put in a request at T:ITN_candidate. I'll publicize this on WT:ITN as well. Mamyles (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Houthis, possibly backed by Saleh loyalists, are closing in on Hadi's temporary residence in Aden as we speak.[4] The latter had already fled the city this afternoon.[5] I propose once again pulling all Yemen-related blurbs in favor of an Ongoing link. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Significant ongoing event, recently the President reportedly fled to another location in Yemen. Brandmeistertalk 19:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This item has been bumped from its initial proposal. This seems out of process to me, presumably if it's allowable, it can be bumped up every day until it becomes boring. Please stop doing this, or at least find a consensus that arbitrarily bumping an item up the nomination page is acceptable for an Ongoing nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment See Coffee's comment above. This was posted. The only reason it's not currently in Ongoing right now is because it's attached to the Aden item. When that disappears off ITN, this will return to Ongoing. This does not need to be nominated again. -- tariqabjotu 21:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Since both Yemeni items have been on the main page already for some time, it's possible to remove and swap them for Ongoing link. Currently the Aden item is just third most recent, so there will be several days before it disappears, while the situation is getting hotter. Recently, the presidential palace, for instance, has been sacked and we may be risking a delay while waiting. Brandmeistertalk 22:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Why? Items generally stay on ITN until they reach them bottom and are removed. You want us to remove two items (and, therefore, replace them with two staler items), and to what effect? The link you want under Ongoing is currently higher in the template and bolded. And the story you're referencing -- the president fleeing the presidential palace -- seems directly related to the move of the capital, so it seems like an unsurprising development in the story already posted. What's the problem with leaving things as is? After the Aden item is removed from ITN, the link will return to Ongoing. -- tariqabjotu 22:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the proposed article (Aftermath of the 2014–15 Yemeni coup d'état) is not the correct one. Southern Yemen offensive (2015) is the main article which relates to the recent events.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It's an event of importance to the world. Mhhossein (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Jeremy ClarksonEdit

Non-admin close. It's obvious where this is going. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Jeremy Clarkson (talk, history) and Top Gear (2002 TV series) (talk, history)
Blurb: Jeremy Clarkson, presenter on Top Gear for over 20 years, has been fired after a 'fracas' with the producer (Post)
Alternative blurb: Jeremy Clarkson, presenter of the world's most-watched factual TV series Top Gear, is fired for assaulting a producer.
News source(s): BBC News, couple thousand others

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: Normally a person getting fired wouldn't qualify, but I think given the long history of the show and the one million signature' petition to reinstate him, this is quite a big event. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Previous discussion at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/March 2015#March 10. —Cryptic 15:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Seriously? A TV show host getting fired? No significance to world events. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: No way this meets ITN criteria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not very important. And "fracas" should not be in parentheses - he bullied and hit a junior staff member. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: UK citizen here, and a big fan of Clarkson and no way is this suitable --Dweller (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support: Top Gear is the most popular factual TV show in the world, with hundreds of millions of viewers, Jeremy Clarkson is its most recognizable figure, and big talent being fired for punching a member of staff is not an every day event. This is about as big as TV news can get. For what it's worth, it's on the front page of the websites of Der Spiegel (even with German news dominated by the Germanwings crash), De Telegraaf, and CNN. As much as it pains me to admit it, Jeremy Clarkson is well-known worldwide. No effect on world events, sure, but it's a story that millions around the world care about. Smurrayinchester 16:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
What people "care about" is irrelevant. It isn't encyclopaedic. It is tabloid tripe. Send it to the shambles. RGloucester 16:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
That's why I worded it in an encyclopedic mamner. I could have said Jeremy Clarkson punched his producer because he didn't get steak, and then sent it to the tabloids, but this is a factual blurb about some really big TV news about a 20+ year show and a supporting 1 million signature petition. Just saying. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 16:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the kind of stuff that belongs in a gossip column. Suggest speedy close per SNOW. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose At the end of the day, this is entertainment gossip. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose fails the ITN criteria. This has already been closed twice and the nominator needs to stop edit-warring to keep it open. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Question Why was the SNOW close reverted? Seriously, keeping this open serves no purpose other than to allow more editors to pile on. Anyone can see that this nom was DOA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can just imaging the howls of protest if either Brian Williams's suspension from NBC Nightly News or Jon Stewart's planned retirement from The Daily Show had been nominated last month. This event is no more deserving of an ITN slot. --Allen3 talk 17:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I hope no one will mind I've snow-closed this, again. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Curiosity (rover)Edit

No consensus to post. Nakon 02:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Curiosity (rover) (talk, history) and Life on Mars (talk, history)
Blurb: Curiosity finds nitrogen on Martian atmosphere, indicating the possibility of life on Mars (Post)
News source(s): NASAHP Many more

Article needs updating
 -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 15:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose There has always been a possibility of life on mars (the blurb should be changed if this ends up posted). While this is indeed new information, I don't think it has a significant enough impact on the mission to be posted. Mamyles (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Mamyles last statement. Not finding any trace of nitrogen would have been the unexpected result. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Kraft Heinz mergerEdit

Articles: Kraft Foods (talk, history) and Heinz Company (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The boards of Kraft Foods and Heinz agree to a merger, to form the world's fifth largest food and drink company (Post)
News source(s): BBC Guardian

First article updated, second needs updating

Nominator's comments: Major merger between two of the world's largest food and drink companies, worth around $40bn. Business deals are under-represented on ITN. The blurb is carefully phrased, because this is still subject to shareholder approval. However that is expected to be a formality, and the story is in the news now. Modest Genius talk 13:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support big business news. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support You make a good point that business deals are under-represented - we usually dismiss them as routine. But even routine business should be posted occasionally. Mamyles (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on article improvements This was valued around $40B if I remember the stories yesterday - I believe this number should be included to provide the necessary scope (As I'm not sure of the international recognition of both brands). --MASEM (t) 14:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and agree with Masem on all points. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I generally think business stories that don't involve some wort of innovation (like getting cable channels on your smart phone) shouldn't be posted. (Weak support if they go with the name Heinzkraft or Kreinz :D ). μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Mergers and acquisitions happen all the time. Fifth largest, not largest. If the Comcast & TWC merger is allowed to go through, would that merit coverage? If so, why? If not, why not? And keep in mind that the purpose of these deals is typically to make the wealthy stockholders wealthier, to provide degraded service to customers, and to deprive people of their jobs. So where do you draw the line? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose just the fifth largest food company? What are the other four? This is DYK material. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    • PepsiCo, Coca-cola, Nestlé and I think Dole Foods. Modest Genius talk 23:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
      • The 5 largest in the U.S. as of 2010, according to this article were PepsiCo, Dole, General Mills, Nestle and Kraft. World-wide, the top 5 food companies according to this article in 2013 were Nestle, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, ADM, and InBev. But these rankings often depend on how you define words like "largest" "food" and "company". --Jayron32 19:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks. Still oppose then, this proposed merger is small fry in big business terms. Not to reiterate the fact that it's a "proposed" merger..... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Not so small; you're not going to ever see, say, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola merging since that would violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. So this is about as good as it gets for business mergers in the food sector.--WaltCip (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • No Consensus to post the article yet. Nakon 03:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Smaller than mergers like Volkswagen and Porsche or T-Mobile US and MetroPCS. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support this is major business news that also presents a welcome break from the more typical ITN posts. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

March 24Edit

[Closed] RD: Yehuda AvnerEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Yehuda Avner (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT More
Nominator's comments: Israeli prime ministerial advisor and diplomat -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not convinced this is a person at the top of his field. Surely we're not going to list every diplomat or advisor. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose At first I thought that said "prime minister". Then I saw it says "prime ministerial advisor". Not top of his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are times that a cabinet-level advisor might have had significant influence on world politics (for example, Kissinger as Sect. of State comes to mind even ignoring the Nobel prize), but that's more a rarity. Doesn't appear to be the case here. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Does not seem to meet the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article quality is terrible. Mostly unreferenced. We should not put links to such articles on the main page. --Jayron32 19:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Boko Haram kidnappingsEdit

Article: Boko Haram (talk, history)
Blurb: Boko Haram kidnaps hundreds of women and children from the Nigerian town of Damasak. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters BBC Christian Science Monitor

Nominator's comments: Seems significant because of the large number of people who have been kidnapped--even more than the Chibok kidnapping. The precise number of people involved, however, is still uncertain, which is why the blurb just says "hundreds" rather than something more precise. Everymorning talk 18:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Given that Boko Haram seems to be aligning with ISIL, perhaps with ongoing we can add "(Boko Haram)" as a sub-point to the current ISIL ongoing? --MASEM (t) 18:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment the BBC headline I read says that they have kidnapped "about 500 children". That seems significant and would need us to modify the blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    The Rambling Man I saw that, but I also saw this headline which quotes a government spokesperson as saying that the number was lower than 500. How much lower, as I said above, is still unclear. Newsweek says over 400, for example. [6] Everymorning talk 21:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but think we really should just have one Islamist terrorism (not set on the exact wording) ongoing, rather than post every single atrocity daily. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting to ITN:O. Nakon 03:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Lil' ChrisEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Lil' Chris (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Aftonbladet (Sweden), TeleCinco (Spain), Guardian, Independent, more
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Child star who worked with Gene Simmons and died at 24. Regular on British TV from 2006-2010 approx. Sources suggest that he was known in Europe as well. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Far from "top of the field". He had a few songs that charted. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
one number three hit, no awards. Unless the death turns out to be homicide, it is just tragic young death which does not really contribute to notability. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose almost marginal that he has an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others. Not RD timber. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose and close No notability whatsoever. (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not notable, no evidence at him being much more than a publicity stunt. Challenger l (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Germanwings Flight 9525Edit

Article: Germanwings Flight 9525 (talk, history)
Blurb: Germanwings Flight 9525 crashes in the French Alps with 150 people on board. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The co-pilot of Germanwings Flight 9525 deliberately crashes in the French Alps killing all on board.
Alternative blurb II: Germanwings Flight 9525 was deliberately crashed in the French Alps with 150 people on board.
News source(s): BBC NBC News

Article needs updating

 The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support pending info on fatalities and some expansion (and also because Airbus is involved). Brandmeistertalk 11:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support since it is one of the most significant crashes in Europe in recent period.--Egeymi (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle pending more details when and if available; French President Hollande has said they believe there are no survivors. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as per above. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, looking that there will be no survivors. Obviously worthy of posting. Mjroots (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 12:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Mass-casualty, high-profile air disaster. Obvious ITN material. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – At some point we may want to update blurb with statement by French prosecutor that co-pilot Andreas Lubitz appeared to have crashed plane deliberately. Sca (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Update and have proposed an Altblurb. The essence of the story is a murder-suicide, not a mechanical failure. μηδείς (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Although there doesn't seem much doubt, given circumstances, we need to get some element of "apparently" in Altblurb. Sca (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support update as it adds an important element to the story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose update I don't think that a blurb change is necessary. Readers who want to find out what the suspected cause of the crash is should simply follow the bolded link to the article. It would be inappropriate (and a BLP violation) to definitively say the co-pilot is a murderer, since an official report has not been released. Mamyles (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLP applies to the recently deceased. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Counter-intuitively, BLP policy does apply for a short period after death. Please see WP:BDP for details. Mamyles (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Define "recent". In any case, BBC is reporting it as an "apparently" deliberate act, based on the findings from the black boxes so far.[7] So, no BLP violation, dead or alive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Update. We don't need to say that the co-pilot was a murderer, but the plane was clearly intentionally brought down. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly support Update – "Deliberate" action by (co-) pilot cited by official French sources and is all over int'l. media, including German. Suggest immediate update via Altblurb 1 with following modifications (adding two words, number and comma):
"French officials conclude that the co-pilot of Germanwings Flight 9525 apparently deliberately crashed plane the Airbus 320A in the French Alps, killing all 150 on board.
Two adverbs in succession isn't great syntax, but it's clear. Sca (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Two things, blurbs should be in the present tense, and I think "apparently" is an unnecessary qualification, as the investigators are reporting it, and the voice recorder confirms the events,and the descent was controlled. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Whichever blurb is chosen, it should match with what the article says. Consensus, or any change, is needed there first. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree apparently has been superseded by continued coverage in which big media outlets have dropped that caveat. Don't see where suggested (present-tense) blurb above, minus "apparently," conflicts with article, which appears quite complete. Why wait? Sca (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose update the current blurb is factually 100% correct. Other suggested blurbs, although based on the reports in major news outlets, are still based in speculation. The best an updated blurb could do would be to say that it was concluded from the voice recorder that it was a deliberate act. We're not tabloid, there's nothing wrong at all with sticking with the facts that the plane crashed into the Alps and everybody died. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • BLP does not apply if we say "Authorities indicate the co-pilot of Germanwings Flight 9525 deliberately flew into a mountainside, killing all 150 on board." Given this is the unanimous declaration of all authorities involved and in every press source reticence is baseless. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
"Unanimous" is an awkward concept here. There if one investigating body - the French BEA. There is only one black box - the CVR. There has been one analysis of that CVR. Essentially this is what the French prosecutor has decided (although, admittedly, the evidence does look compelling). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Are we more virtuous than than the most respected journalists? Sca (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd vote yes for that one.   Martinevans123 (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)  
  • Support update. We follow the sources. Our job is not to reach our own personal conclusions. The sources are reporting the conclusions of the French authorities, so we report the conclusions of the French authorities. Suggest the blurb say "French authorities conclude that the co-pilot of Germanwings Flight 9525 deliberately crashed in the French Alps, killing all 150 on board." There's no need to speak in Wikipedia's voice, but there is a responsibility to match reliable sources on this. --Jayron32 23:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
That's a very reasonable compromise. Would support. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I will also support that blurb. 331dot (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose update. The existing blurb is simple, short and factual. Any reader who wants to know why it crashed can click on the link and read the article. We should be very careful about reporting an ongoing investigation, clear as it might seem what the conclusions will be, particularly in a short blurb which cannot capture all the nuances. As for the most recent blurb suggestion: French authorities have provided an update on their current interpretation of the crash - they won't 'conclude' anything until their investigation and final report are complete. Modest Genius talk 00:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Jayron's suggestion (if someone can make it fit). Here, from Reuters, is another version of the same idea: "French prosecutors believe Andreas Lubitz, 27, locked himself alone in the cockpit of the Germanwings Airbus A320 ... and deliberately steered it into a mountain, killing all 150 people on board."
 • Prefer "Airbus A320," which adds information, to "Flight 9525," which could be any type of plane.
 • The time is now!   Sca (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
PS — How about: "French officials indicate the co-pilot of Germanwings Flight 9525 deliberately crashed the Airbus 320A in the French Alps, killing all 150 on board." – ?? Sca (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Indian Supreme Court strikes down section 66A of IT ActEdit

Article: Information Technology Act 2000 (talk, history)
Blurb: Supreme Court of India strikes down section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000, which was used to curtail freedom of speech on internet. (Post)
News source(s): [8] [9]

Article needs updating

 Amartyabag TALK2ME 10:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Possibly notable in India, but has little to no bearing on the rest of the world and is getting little play in the media. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Has this been under challenge all along? Does it mean that any convictions will be vacated? A rationale on the impact would help. I read the article but it was pretty cut-and-dried. μηδείς (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the law was used in 2012 to arrest two people that posted something critical, which was based on a vague interpretation of the law (as I read it). This would be equivalent to the US's Child Online Protection Act (and various other attempts to regulate speech on the internet). --MASEM (t) 19:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The sources the Hindu, and The India Times, say "many arrests". But no detail is given on convictions, imprisonment, etc. I would be supportive if there were imprisonments, but if it was just abused, randomly enforced, and challenged from the start it's a bit different. We need clarity and more informative sources. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Tentative support See my comment to Medeis above, but this would be the equivalent of the SCOTUS striking down a law used to limit free speech, which while only would affect the US directly, did have worldwide impacts. India is far from tiny and would have a similar impact if the law was upheld. So seems reasonable to post. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: ITN didn't post the passage of a far more restrictive law in the Philippines in 2012. –HTD 19:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Large numbers of multi-national companies operate from India, so this has an impact far beyond that country. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Normally this would not get my support, but India is the world's second most populous country with a massive and globalized IT sector. As such the potential ramifications are a bit more noteworthy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd still like a little more information. We didn't post it when the Canadian government Human_rights_complaints_against_Maclean's_magazine#Subsequent_legislative_action repealed its hate speech provisions after the high-profile trial and acquittal of Maclean's, Mark Steyn, and Ezra Levant, after several people's lives had been ruined. Basically, if people are being released from jail sentences on this ruling I will support it, but I don't have the sources. Not having seen "India releases dozens after SC overthrows anti-free speech law" I am not inclined to at this point. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The phrasing seems a bit problematic. The sources state that the Supreme Court struck down the law because it violated freedom of speech as guaranteed by the constitution. Saying "which was used to curtail freedom of speech on internet" is both potentially violating NPOV and leaving out critical information that it was struck down because of the Supreme Court's decision that it violated freedom of speech. Also, the sentence should probably begin with "The". --Yair rand (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I checked the article to see if there were sources there not mentioned in the nomination that make this clearer. I found the criticism section is still referring to 66a in the present tense. Regardless of merits, the article itself is not ready. μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Largest asteroid impact everEdit

Closed, no significant contributions, no consensus to post. Nakon 03:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Impact event (talk, history) and East Warburton Basin (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists discover the largest asteroid impact area ever found in Australia, spanning more than 400 km. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Scientists in Australia discover the largest asteroid impact area ever found, spanning more than 400 km.
News source(s): BBC Still more

Article needs updating
 -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 05:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Tentative support These reports usually include a peer-reviewed paper to affirm the scientific analysis. I don't see one listed in the BBC article but I assume one can find it, as showing this would clear support then. --MASEM (t) 06:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Nix that, I see the journal listed in the article now (it wasn't a name I quickly recognized). Support. --MASEM (t) 06:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I have proposed an alternative blurb, because the first could be read as "biggest in Australia" (i.e. not the world). I will comment on whether I support the nomination after the article is updated. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • How is it that the East Warburton Basin article was created on February 20? Does this not mean the item is stale? Abductive (reasoning) 07:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as stale. Two years.... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Two years for them to find and validate that 1) it was a meteor impact 2) the timing of the impact and 3) the size of the impact, all through peer-reviewed processes. This is a standard "delay" for scientific process, and the norm when we do post scientific stories that we wait for the peer-reviewed work to appear, not on original claims. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Ok, so the blurb is wrong. They confirm it is a meteor impact, not "discover it".... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: neither article has been updated to reflect this news, and the one on the crater itself (presumably the one to be bolded) is too short to post. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait the impact hasn't been dated yet, that would be a good time to post. Right now we have a preliminary confirmation it's due to an impact, but not much more than that. μηδείς (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, unless certain issues are addressed. The current news seems to be a re-estimate of the size, correct? But also the article says there were two 10 km impactors, so is this crater really one 400 km crater or two overlapping craters? Why is the age estimate so shoddy, and can it be improved? Finally, I would very much like a map in the article before even considering posting. Abductive (reasoning) 16:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Clearly some issues with the research here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The age estimate isn't shoddy, it's just these are deep old impacts which have been burried over time, and which had associated mantle unpwelling, further complicating the issues. Normally things are dated by a layer (KT Event) or by the layer in which they are found. This is a huge structure that basically obliterated the normal layering processes, and which has subsequently been covered over. A good answer as to age might take years. I still think we should wait until something like "The Australian impact has been determined to date to the Permian extinction" or the like before posting, as that would be the essential fact of the event. μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

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

March 23Edit

[Closed] A Rape on CampusEdit

No consensus to post. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: A Rape on Campus (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An investigation conducted by police in Charlottesville, Virginia finds no evidence that the rape described in the Rolling Stone article A Rape on Campus ever happened. (Post)
News source(s): Usa Today CNN New York Times The Guardian

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This story has been very controversial since it was first published last year, and now we have a major development pertaining to it that has been covered in many major media outlets. Everymorning talk 02:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Opppose if there were a defamation win or settlement it might be worth posting, but in this case good news is no news. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The ongoing campus rape epidemic is a problem, but the fact that one story was fabricated isn't going to pass muster at ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - so this current news is that previous news was false? So there's nothing substantive. I don't recall the previous news making to ITN anyway. Next. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Starship.paint read my mind. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Agree with above - this is not really a ITN-type posting. If this might lead to a defamation lawsuit, then the results might be of interest, but this is not at this stage. --MASEM (t) 02:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wait until a defamation lawsuit goes though. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Protests over the murder of FarkhundaEdit

No consensus to post. A potential DYK item if eligible. SpencerT♦C 06:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Murder of Farkhunda (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Thousands of people protest the killing of Farqhunda, an Afghani woman killed over allegedly burning a copy of the Quran, in Kabul. (Post)
News source(s): Newsweek Telegraph BBC Houston Chronicle
Nominator's comments: Lots of coverage from around the world, and the president of Afghanistan has ordered an inquiry. [10] Feel free to suggest an alternative blurb, I know this one is kind of clunky. Everymorning talk 01:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Protests happen worldwide. If the protest itself have significant impact than just happening, then that might be a reason to post. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not particularly significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Sad, obviously, but seems like a fairly minor event. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

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

2015 Indian swine flu outbreakEdit

Articles: 2015 Indian swine flu outbreak (talk, history) and Swine influenza (talk, history)
Blurb: Swine influenza in India claims about 2000 lives. (Post)
News source(s): Various

Nominator's comments: This was nominated on 15 March 2015 to close as SNOW. The death toll is rising currently. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose for same reasons - swine flu outbreaks in this part of the world are not uncommon. --MASEM (t) 05:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Outbreaks of swine flu may not be uncommon in India, but ones that kill 2000 people are considerably rarer. Neljack (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the timeline of events goes up to 2 March, if this is really for "Ongoing", we ought to be seeing more than just a tabular update of deaths more than once in three weeks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait US researchers disagree with Indian researchers about whether the strain is mutating (Reuters Al-Jazeera). This is more likely to be ITN worthy if other journals publish that the virus is mutating to a more contagious strain - or if there is a case overseas. -- Aronzak (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM; I think there needs to be more happening with this than just the number of deaths being updated. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose the high death rate per infection seems compelling, but I fear this may be a statistical artifact due to every death, but not every infection being reported. In any case, were I looking for factual information, I would come to wikipedia for comprehensive, non-alarmist coverage, and we have a very good article on this. Looking at swine fu in general, 20,000 + in the US, with a third the population is record. μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - high number of deaths. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment for those in support, can they clarify whether they'd like a blurb or an Ongoing post please, it's not clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@Neljack, BabbaQ, Mamyles, and Ad Orientem:..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 03:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support due to the unusually high number of casualties (prefer ongoing, but blurb would be fine). Judging from the examples in List of epidemics, an event like this occurs only about once a decade. Mamyles (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The death toll is enough to ring the ITN bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a blurb - In regards to The Rambling Man's comment above, I don't know about previous cases of an item becoming "ongoing". But to me, it makes sense that an item like this receive a blurb first if it is ITN worthy, then move to ongoing if it remains ITN worthy after a significant period of time (i.e. there are enough newer items to replace it in the list of blurbs). AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry, I don't understand, the article hasn't had a prose update for three weeks, why would you think that would make it appropriate for a blurb? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb: Ongoing seems too far, too fast, but thousands of deaths from illness is significant. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry, I don't understand, the article hasn't had a prose update for three weeks, why would you think that would make it appropriate for a blurb? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer a blurb, but ongoing would be fine too. Neljack (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

March 22Edit

[Posted as Blurb] RD: Lee Kuan YewEdit

Article: Lee Kuan Yew (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Founding father/former Singaporean Prime Minister Fuebaey (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support with article fixes - Keeping in mind that last week, his death was falsely reported, this seems like the real thing now. The article has several citation needed tags and paragraphs w/o citation. RD is clear and evident for importance, of course. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • As above - No doubt over significance, this man turned a small port into a booming economy and had a father-like reputation to the people he ruled over. Just fixes here and there needed. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - major figure. a blurb is appropriate--BabbaQ (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and marking ready per this week's updates. I can't imagine there will be any opposition to posting this major leader's passing. 21:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment it would be better if we could post an article without eight [citation needed] tags. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There are no citation needed tags in the article. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • While there still remain a few para without citations, this wasn't as bad as when I commented above, and is reasonably good shape for posting. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Tag away, but it's dinner time for me, and I really think this is ready to be posted. Problematic paragraphs should be hidden at this point unless they are essential. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and propose blurb - Lee Kuan Yew (pictured), the first Prime Minister of Singapore, passes away at the age of 91. - he's above RD in my opinion. It would not be a stretch to consider him the most important Singaporean ever. Seriously, can anyone name a more prominent or influential Singaporean? He was part of the Singaporean Cabinet pre-independence from 1959 to post-independence in 2011. After Singapore gained independence in 1964, he was Prime Minister for 25 years from 965 to 1990. Sources for "founding father" of Singapore: Los Angeles Times / China Post / BBC News / Associated Press. Time says he "Made Modern Asia". Wall Street Journal says he "dominated Singapore politics for more than half a century and transformed the former British outpost into a global trade and finance powerhouse, setting a template for emerging markets around the world". The Guardian says he is "widely credited with building Singapore into one of the world’s wealthiest nations" . starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 22:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • A blurb seems a possibility here, given his importance to Singapore's independence. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • He didn't only contribute to independence. He additionally 'raised' a young country after that. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 22:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb Obviously had a huge impact on Singapore, but I'm not sure his global impact rises to the level I would want before supporting a blurb. Neljack (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Neljack: - since when was global impact a criteria? If so, earlier this month we featured as a blurb the deaths of 3 French athletes killed in a helicopter crash in Argentina. Assuredly, their combined global impact was much lower than Lee's. Perhaps you'll like to read the Washington Post : "But the departure of Lee could also have implications for the United States ... Washington has for decades relied on Lee to interpret events in Asia for it." starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The French athletes were not posted just because they were athletes; they were posted because of what happened to them; i.e. an event. Blurbs for deaths are generally for either those at the tip-top of their field(such as Margaret Thatcher and Nelson Mandela) or whose death was sudden and unexpected(like Robin Williams). Is this person in the same league as Mandela and Thatcher? 331dot (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
From reading, while not have as wide a range of impact as Mandala did, as Starship has pointed out, he is considered to have single-handedly influenced the creation and rise of economic prosperity of Singapore. --MASEM (t) 00:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @331dot: - if the field is Singapore, he's the top person. No question. IMO, even bigger than Mandela and Thatcher to their respective countries. The UK and South Africa existed before these two statesmen. Independent Singapore didn't exist when Lee took the helm. The Hindu: "a towering figure in post-colonial Asia oversaw tiny Singapore's transformation transformation from British tropical outpost to an affluent, global city in just over a generation, setting the example for developing economies from China to Dubai". starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
At this point it's a farce he's not at least on RD yet. Singapore is the third, fourth or fifth richest company by GDP per capita depending on which source one uses, IMF, CIA or World Bank. There are no tags, the article is hugely supported, and we've got both Thatcher's and Obama's endorsements. What else do we need? Users who look to the front page can at least click there. μηδείς (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD and blurb - According to this report, Henry Kissinger called him one of the “asymmetries of history.” Margaret Thatcher said “he was never wrong.” Barack Obama called him “one of the legendary figures of Asia.” Tony Blair said he was “the smartest leader I ever met.” Samuel Huntington said he was one of the “master builders” of the 20th century. -A1candidate 00:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Posted as RD It seems like this may be heading for a blurb, but I'll let the conversation marinate a bit longer. -- tariqabjotu 00:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Tariq. I'll say oppose blurb more as a comment than a vote, since he died of old age, but a blurb would certainly not offend me. μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. He rises to the Mandela/Thatcher level of importance, due to key role in the transition to independence, and his extremely long and influential time as prime minister. -LtNOWIS (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

source: US P Obama: "giant of history". UK PM Cameron: "Lee Kuan Yew personally shaped Singapore in a way that few people have any nation". Aus PM Abbott: "giant of our region". UN head Ban: "legendary figure in Asia". @Neljack: @331dot: starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support blurb - father of a nation, a giant of our era, as Obama said. Definitely worthy of a blurb. -Zanhe (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted as blurb -- tariqabjotu 01:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The nomination is fine the way it is. -- tariqabjotu 02:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] US State Department to deny any Italian extradition request for Amanda KnoxEdit

Never going to be posted. Stephen 22:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Amanda Knox (talk, history) and Murder of Meredith Kercher (talk, history)
Blurb: Amanda Knox will not be extradited by the US to Italy. (Post)
News source(s): Sunday Express
Nominator's comments: Breaking news from the US making the legal proceeding in Italy essentially irrelevant. Count Iblis (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose of little significance whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's part of the legal case, we only care on the final decision that comes out. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Masem says, this isn't the end of the matter yet. Possibly, maybe, when the court rules in Italy. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This was inevitable and is only a single maneuver in a long-running legal matter. Gamaliel (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • After the close, of course, but I see that this current BBC article gives no indication that the US will pre-empt any extradition attempt. It appears to still be an open question. Hence, good close. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Now that the Italian supreme court has closed the book on this case today, maybe a final mention of it would be appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • New blurb: "The Italian Supreme court overturns the overturning of a verdict made by a court that was asked by the Supreme Court to review a verdict of an appeals court that had overturned the verdict of a lower court." Count Iblis (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Inauguration of Namibian PresidentEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Hage Geingob (talk, history)
Blurb: Hage Geingob is sworn in as the third President of Namibia following the 2014 general elction. (Post)
News source(s): Mail & Guardian
Nominator's comments: The third president was sworn in yesterday following the 2014 election. The ceremony was attended by at least 14 Heads of State. (Elections are ITNR). Ali Fazal (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • support - political history.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The elections should have been posted, not inauguration per usual practice. Brandmeistertalk 14:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The election would have been the point this should have been ITN. It looked like no one nominated it then (its at Current Events for Nov 2014 but no ITN as far as I can see). --MASEM (t) 15:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose we do not do inaugurations, it is doubtful the inauguration itself is on ITNR. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose; elections are ITNR, not inaugurations(as stated on the ITNR page) thus I have removed the ITNR tag. Inaugurations are commonly attended by other heads of state. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

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

March 21Edit

[Closed] Perro Aguayo Jr.Edit

No consensus to post this article to a blurb or RD after 6 days of discussion. Nakon 04:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Perro Aguayo Jr. (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Mexican professional wrestler Perro Aguayo Jr. dies during a match in Tijuana, Mexico. (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This meets the death criteria as he's a famous lucha libre. Should this get a blurb due to the circumstances of his death? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment A wrestler dying from the end result of a spinal cord injury is not very surprising. But it's also the case that this is not a worldwide known figure who's death has a major impact (compared to Margaret Thatcher, Nelson Mandala, or Robin Williams). Note that I have not evaluated this as an RD, only commenting on the blurb aspect. Also we need a source. --MASEM (t) 04:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Here's a source. I mean that in this case, the death is the story, as opposed to death of old age. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure at all that he meets the death criteria, but I know basically nothing about Mexican wrestling. Is he just a famous wrestler, or is he generally considered significant to the sport? The bigger story does in fact seem to be that he died in the ring, so a blurb might actually be the way to go here even if he doesn't meet WP:ITN/DC, but I'm not particularly enthusiastic about either option. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Deaths even during combat sports are actually quite rare, and this one happened in a scripted version of wrestling. Nergaal (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I would say this should be a blurb if posted, due to being sudden, unexpected, and an unusual passing(during his work) but like Bongwarrior I know little of Mexican pro wrestling and am not sure he is considered significant to it. 331dot (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • After some thought, support blurb. This shouldn't be approached as a regular death listing - as I said above, I suspect he wouldn't qualify, although I could certainly be wrong about that. The notable aspect of this story is that a sportsperson died during a match, although studio wrestling doesn't exactly match the definition of "sport" as we know it. Deaths in wrestling aren't unheard of, but they aren't exactly commonplace either. This seems interesting enough to me, and it's getting coverage. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I will support this for reasons similar to those of Bongwarrior, and I have suggested a blurb(please change if needed). There is one citation needed tag in the death section but otherwise there seems to be enough added to the page about it. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Sad, but a wrestler died in a wrestling accident. Similarly, we don't generally post deaths in boxing accidents or any other potentially deadly sport (maybe except Formula 1). Weak oppose because I don't know the scale of his fame. If Muhammad Ali or Tyson would have died after boxing accident in their prime, then we'd certainly have posted them, but not sure whether this merits. Brandmeistertalk 08:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • support - article ready basically, notable subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose for blurb and weak oppose for RD on notability. Was this guy one of the top luchadores at the time of his death? μηδείς (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, he was. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless someone can adequately demonstrate that he was the Mexican equivalent of Hulk Hogan. The article is well referenced but is full of awfully non-encyclopedic language and hardly rises to the level of a "quality article". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Wrestling rings are typically constructed to provide some give, particularly with respect to taking bumps, but also with other aspects of movement. In Mexico, like with other places in the world which thrive on unorthodox wrestling styles, the highly acrobatic style known as lucha libre came to be largely due to the hardness of the rings (boxing rings may be used at times), given the physical toll involved in wrestling a more mainstream style. While shocking, this could qualify as not so unexpected due to those conditions. I wouldn't consider this death as spectacular or possibly even as well-reported as that of Oro over two decades ago, more like a freak accident. While a major star, I likewise wouldn't consider him iconic the way I would Mil Máscaras. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - even as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling like RadioKAOS above, I've actually only vaguely heard of this guy (or more probably, heard of his wrestler father). He might have been a star in Mexico (but I don't think he won many major titles), but he wasn't an international star in professional wrestling. In this day, you'd pretty much have to be a wrestler who has wrestled in WWE to be an international star. NJPW in Japan is a way away. Mexican lucha libre doesn't have much international outreach. I agree with RadioKAOS - if it were Mil Máscaras, it would be another issue - that's a true star. Or maybe Rey Mysterio Jr. who was with WWE. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • EDIT: Upon further reading, seems to me that Aguayo Jr. was indeed pretty big in Mexico in 2004-2008 at least, perhaps even the #2 wrestler. I wasn't actively watching or reading about wrestling in that time. But he was still not the #1 star at the time, that would be Mistico. Other Mexican stars include Jr's dad Perro Aguayo and Konnan in the 1990s. If you're talking Japan, see Antonio Inoki, while Keiji Mutoh has had a lot of international exposure. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. As I read the above comments, I find myself opposing this more. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending article quality A death during a professional sporting event is extremely rare; all the same arguments for posting the death of Phil Hughes apply here. I do, however, note TRM's concerns over article quality. GoldenRing (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] 2015 New York City house fireEdit

No consensus to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 New York City house fire (talk, history)
Blurb: A fire in New York City kills seven children. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times CNN BBC
Nominator's comments: Worst fire in NYC in seven years. [11] Coverage from most major newspapers, including non-American ones. [12] [13] Everymorning talk 02:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Tragic event, but nowhere near far-reaching significance for inclusion on ITN. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • This is also an article that fails WP:NEVENT. We are not a newspaper. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Certainly tragic, but fires that kill this many people routinely happen all over the world. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose no interest to international Wikipedians. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • How do you know? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
      • @Aronzak: And though I too think this doesn't rise to ITN level, international interest is not required; events can relate to few or one country(any country) and still be posted if they are updated, covered in the news and sufficiently notable. As stated above, "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." (though your comment is not a "complaint") Two UK news sources seem to think it is of interest to their readers. 331dot (talk) 07:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
        • The article is being considered for deletion per WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. A 2012 factory fire that killed over 120 in Bangladesh was notable because factories in Bangladesh produce goods shipped all over the world. I should clarify, by "no interest" I meant "not ITN worthy outside the country" (unlike if it is clearly related to corruption in Bandladesh and international discussion around consumerism and globalisation). Admins can hat this section as going offtopic -- Aronzak (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose and delete. This is a tragic event but this unfortunately happens far to often. —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 07:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Deletion of the article should be discussed in the correct forum; this is merely to discuss posting to ITN. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
If ITN has a red-link, that could make Wikipedia look silly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Snow Close this is a bleeds it leads headline, yes, but unfortunately a rather mundane event. μηδείς (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Capital of YemenEdit

Article: Yemen (talk, history)
Blurb: ​President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi declares Aden to be the temporary capital of Yemen. (Post)
News source(s): Deutsche Welle Associated Press

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Designation of a new, albeit temporary, capital city by Yemen's internationally recognized president. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: Important news in war-stricken state. I would also support a "Yemen crisis" in ongoing, as things are becoming serious out there. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting. Feels ITN/R-y, though I suppose something as infrequent as a capital change doesn't need a listing. Joshua Garner (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - important news. interesting..etc.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Article has a well deserved orange tag for lacking sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I see that. Well, the main link could be Yemen, I suppose, which is in much better shape than Aden. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Is al-Hadi still even the President? He said he resigned a month ago. The Houthis hold the power in the real capital, Sana'a. This seems like a desperation move that won't have any real influence on the current situation in the country. I do support adding the Crisis in Yemen to the Ongoing list, however. --Tocino 01:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Whether he is President or not seems unclear; he 'rescinded' his resignation but the Houthis apparently are still trying to run the country- though he is still recognized by the international community as President. Hard to say. 331dot (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Is the fact the UN Security Council planning to have an emergency meeting on this tomorrow (Sunday) important to blurb too? [14]. --MASEM (t) 02:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Even if who is considered to be in charge is unclear, there seems to be enough developments here to have some sort of listing. 331dot (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 Six Nations ChampionshipEdit

Closed, no support to post to ITN. Nakon 03:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 Six Nations Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In rugby union, Ireland win the Six Nations Championship (Post)
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: Recurring sports item '''tAD''' (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The article has 945 bites of prose. Surely we can do better before posting. Otherwise I'll oppose on quality. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: an exhilarating and exciting championship that wasn't decided until the closing seconds of the final game. A total of 660 points across the 15 games, yielding an incredible average 44 points per game. A beautifully clear, well-constructed and meticulously accurate article, with links to every official match report. Not sure that any amount of "prose" could adequately describe the progress or outcome of this competition. And why should it. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Because as somebody who doesn't know the intricacies of rugby, all I see are these images that convey no context to me and I can't follow any of it. This article needs prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Suggest you start here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
People who would see 2015 Six Nations Championship on the main page shouldn't be expected to look for Rugby union. They should be able to click on the link and understand enough from that one page alone. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Just like 2014 World Series? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
2014 World Series has 25kb prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
And that explains "all the intricacies", yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I never said "all the intricacies" should be explained. 2014 WS was sufficiently updated with prose. As everyone else agrees, this article is not. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Three people agree. Two people think the proposed blurb is fully supported by the update. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose, until expansion. One hundred and fifty words and a wall of tables. No match summaries; no background; no general summary, etc... Seattle (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose at the moment. Given the absolutely incredible last day of games, in which (I think I'm right in saying) 27 tries were scored across the three matches, we could use some summary of the final week section at the very least. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] RD: Chuck BednarikEdit

Closed. Article quality has not improved. Significant sources are still absent. Nakon 03:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Chuck Bednarik (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Pro football player - Pro and College hall of famer. Eagles #60 retired. Namesake of the Chuck Bednarik Award for college defensive players. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when improved Legendary American football player meets the death criteria. Article needs improvements, especially in sourcing. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose a seemingly prominent American footballer with a strikingly weak article. The "Pro football career" section requires serious sourcing, and, given the alleged significance, a substantial expansion, particularly as it's comparable in size to the rather odd (and full of unattributed unreferenced quotes) "Opinions on current NFL players" section. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if improved a famous name in football, enough so that I who don't follow the support know who he is, but it's obvious the article needs refs. μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support WWII pilot, number one overall draft pick, the last two-way player at his position, Hall of Famer, relevant in the sport even fifty years after he retired, it's clear Bednarik is noteworthy. The article has been improved in the last 24 hours as well. --Tocino 01:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality alone. Large stretches of unreferenced claims with contentious language. Notable subject or not, it's a mess. Challenger l (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

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

March 20Edit

[Closed] Keith O'Brien resignsEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 01:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Keith O'Brien (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scottish prelate Keith O'Brien resigns the rights and privileges he had as a cardinal in the Catholic Church. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Keith O'Brien resigns the privileges he had as a Catholic cardinal after admissions of sexual misconduct
News source(s): US News & World Report Wall Street Journal The Guardian
Nominator's comments: This is the first time a cardinal has been demoted in this way since 1927, according to the Wall Street Journal. He is technically still a cardinal, but he will "lose the prerogatives ordinarily attached to it" (again according to the WSJ). Everymorning talk 22:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Blurb should mention sexual misconduct, eg "Keith O'Brien resigns the privileges he had as a Catholic cardinal after admissions of sexual misconduct." The article has a little too much Vatican cruft and euphemistic waffle right now. -- Aronzak (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • OpposeThis is the place to feature good articles of widespread or encyclopedic interest. We certainly wouldn't post this person for RD. The only rationale I see here is righting great wrongs, and that is a deprecated criterion. μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The consensus is only to post convictions. Administrative actions taken by employers are beneath interest. Abductive (reasoning) 14:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not surprising, barely newsworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 2015 Sana'a mosque bombingsEdit

Article: 2015 Sana'a mosque bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: Suicide bombings in two mosques in Sana'a, Yemen, kill more than 130 people. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​More than 130 die in coordinated suicide bombings by Islamic State terrorists at mosques in Sana'a, Yemen.
News source(s): The Guardian CNN Al Jazeera USA TodayAl Bawaba Fox News

Nominator's comments: Major terrorist attack by ISIS. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as mass-casualty attack, although I'd prefer ongoing status for the Yemen events. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I'd say this is a good first step towards that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support though would like to see the article expanded more before posting. Should we note that ISIS has claimed responsibility for this? --MASEM (t) 18:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I can do that now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I actually edit conflicted in attempting to nominate the same thing. If the current numbers hold up (130+ dead, 340+ wounded), this attack appears likely to eclipse the 2012 Sana'a military bombing as the bloodiest terrorist attack in the history of Yemen. ISIS has publicly claimed responsibility. Admittedly, Yemen is a violence prone area, but this is an exceptional event even for that region. Dragons flight (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Query. Wasn't it four bombs at two mosques? The suggested blurb says four mosques, which I believe is inaccurate. Dragons flight (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
    • You're right. I fixed that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support first blurb, oppose alt blurb (at this time). It is not yet known exactly which group carried out the bombing, as mentioned in the article. Mamyles (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I recommend changing the first blurb to have the number be less absolute. The number of deaths is rapidly changing at this point. I've changed it to say "kill more than 130 people." Mamyles (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support first blub. This is exceptional even given the context of the ongoing fighting in Yemen. -LtNOWIS (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Any incident involving 100+ deaths is notable, as a rule of thumb. Joshua Garner (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - notable. 100+ deaths.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - very notable event, was coming here specifically to nominate/support this being included. Joseph2302 (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted - Article is brief, but acceptable considering the importance of the event. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Rae Bareli DerailEdit

Articles: 2015 Uttar Pradesh train accident (talk, history) and List of Indian rail incidents (talk, history)
Blurb: ​About thirty die as a train derails in Rae Bareli. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​A train crash in Uttar Pradesh, India kills 58 people.
News source(s): IE Many more

 -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 12:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. But its a stub and I spotted it now. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Not a stub now! Mjroots (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd say it's fairly close to being ready. The article was two sentences when I looked at it earlier, so very nice work by everyone there. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant transport accident, and very much in line with the types of incidents we normally post. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - whilst train crashes in India are not that rare, this one has a higher death toll than most. Mjroots (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose in current state. The article is still a bit small, and the text is just a series of disjointed sentences along the lines of "Photographs show that the carriage next to the locomotive was severely telescoped." Also, rail accidents are unfortunately not rare in India, and unless there's something more notable, like a criminal act, or odd cause or notable death it seems just to be a traffic accident (no disrespect) that will be unlikely to draw much encyclopedic attention. (I.e., "not the news") μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    • @Medeis: if you can improve the article, please feel free to do so. Six sources immediately available for you to use. Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I do, on many occasions, improve articles that are nominated and borderline for quality. But given I feel this lacks sufficient notability I would rather spend my time elsewhere. You'll note I opposed the Metro North derailment (fewer casualties) vehemently, and am normally on the side of not posting transportation accidents unless there is some more notable issue like criminality, an inordinate death toll, or an already notable victim. I know this matter hits home for the victims and locally, and I certainly mean no disrespect, but in the long perspective it doesn't reach the "showcase" level. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Death toll now 58, ALT blurb added to reflect this. Mjroots (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Solar eclipseEdit

Article: Solar eclipse of March 20, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A solar eclipse is visible across much of Europe, with totality over the north Atlantic. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​A solar eclipse is visible across much of Europe, with totality over the Faroe Islands and Svalbard
Alternative blurb II: ​A solar eclipse is being masked by clouds across the United Kingdom.
Alternative blurb III: ​The northern of part of the United Kingdom will be even duller than normal for a while this morning.
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian The Telegraph

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: There will be plenty of photos shortly, I imagine. Smurrayinchester 08:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support in principle. The last total solar eclipse observable from Europe until 2026 is very notable.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ALT blurb added. Mjroots (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Everyone loves a Britocentric blurb. –HTD 09:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I didn't know the UK had acquired the Faroes and Svalbard. Has anyone told them? Mjroots (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
        • That was not only an absolutely ridiculous blurb, it was also grossly factually incorrect. The vast majority of the UK is not the South-East of England, for your information. (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Nowt wrong with my blurb, considering it was the one that got posted!   Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The Wiki Gods are angry. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support to blurb 1 or 2. Laughed hard at alt 3. Greetings from a greyer than usual Berlin. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support article quality is good, prefer shortness of blurb 1. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting, notable---BabbaQ (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I live in the United Kingdom and saw the eclipse fine, even if I did have to look at people through a spot of purple for about half an hour afterwards. Unless we're saying that anything outside London doesn't really count, which is fair enough I suppose. Formerip (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
    • What!? UK editors outside London will be apoplectic! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Yep, perfect unspoiled views here in Cardiff. I can only assume the second blurb was a joke as well? Who suggested that in the first place? (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting, I'll go with the places blurb. --Tone 13:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: A lot of cloud cover in Yorkshire, although there I was able to get a lucky break about ten minutes before the peak. Sceptre (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Malcolm FraserEdit

Article: Malcolm Fraser (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Former PM of Australia. MASEM (t) 23:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support pending updates. Former leader of a major industrialized country, seems an obvious RD candidate. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Obvious support on importance, but the article needs referencing throughout. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support former head of government of a major nation. Article is in great shape too. GA nomination any time soon? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
    • The article is in poor shape. Several paragraphs lacking citations, at least one CN tag. --MASEM (t) 01:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Admittedly I took a quick cursory look, but it seems to be in decent shape to me, though it does need some more improvements. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. RIP —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 06:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support 4th longest serving of 28 PMs, elected three times. --ELEKHHT 07:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Head of government of a major nation. Citation tags can be fixed.-- Aronzak (talk) 08:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

March 19Edit

[Closed] Arctic sea ice hits record lowEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 01:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Arctic ice pack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The National Snow and Ice Data Center announces that Arctic sea ice has reached the lowest extent for the winter season since satellite measurements began in 1979. (Post)
News source(s): BBC CNN The Guardian

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The lowest extent in over 30 years seems to be a significant development as far as global warming is concerned. Everymorning talk 12:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Climate change is a cycle played out over hundreds of years, so I'd imagine this isn't just some spike happening this year alone, but rather a steady decline over those 30 years. In such a case, this is just an arbitrary milestone. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose "since 1979" says it all. A statistic based on how long we've been looking for something is interesting on the same principle behind why babies are fascinated by peekaboo. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Treaty signed integrating South Ossetia into the Russian FederationEdit

Article: South Ossetia (talk, history)
Blurb: Vladimir Putin signs a treaty integrating South Ossetia into the Russian Federation, to the protest of the European Union and United States. (Post)
News source(s): Yahoo news, Al-Jazeera, Irish Times, WSJ

Nominator's comments: Seems like a major change in an already volatile region. The blurb can also be reworded to mention that the treaty unifies the military, economy and various government agencies of the two states. --benlisquareTCE 03:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Note: I think I've been doing most of the work on updating South Ossetian articles with the new developments today; personally, I would suggest South Ossetia as the linked article instead of the relations page, which has a lot of preexisting issues. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The provided news sources state that the treaty "calls for nearly full integration" while the blurb suggests that the treaty accomplishes that already. A country formally adding part of another (or just another if you take the Russian position that S.O. is a country) to its territory is notable but the blurb might need to be changed here. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Next stop, the Sudetenland! I am of a mixed opinion on this. The annexation is already a fait accompli. It's not a major news story (i.e., front apge) in the US, while Mrs. Obabama's having tripped while trying to curtsey in high heels is. I am leaning towards support based on the historical significance, Putin seems like Hitler, trying to get back his "homeland" after it had been dismantled. But the Ossetes are hardly Russians. Last I remember the area had a population of 50,000. μηδείς (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • support - as it is a result of a very publicized war in 2008. a greater context.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Technically, South Ossetia didn't sign an accession treaty incorporating it into Russia as a new federal subject, like Crimea did. As such, less notable, yet expectable move from Putler. Brandmeistertalk 20:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Unrelated discussion. Mamyles (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Putler"? You win an  *AWARD * for that! μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
In Russian it's a fairly well-known variation actually. Aside from Sudetenland, compare his first appointment by Yeltsin to the transfer of power from Paul von Hindenburg to Hitler, Yanukovych's escape from Ukraine to Gran Sasso raid, Sochi Olympics to Berlin Olympics, Chechen units from Russia in Ukraine to Hilfswilligen, Russia Today to Germany Calling, Dmitri Kiselev to Goebbels and female Putin's Army to the League of German Girls, while Putin is known to speak German fluently. Déjà vu. Brandmeistertalk 21:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I read somewhere recently that his German is just "passable." I wonder how that compares with Merkel's Russian? Sca (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe even though Merkel won Russian prizes in school, it is just "passable". Putin's German should be excellent though, since he spent years in Dresden recruiting German students. I believe they speak both in conversations with each other. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I read somewhere else that German was spoken, for some reason, in Putin's family. Mehr weiss ich nicht. Sca (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and hat this. From some points of view this could be considered mightily offensive, although I'm confident that is not your intention. Mamyles (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose Let me make that official, since the annexation is not going to be internationally recognized. μηδείς (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)-

March 18Edit

[Closed] 2015 Gothenburg pub shootingEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 16:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 Gothenburg pub shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: A shooting in Gothenburg, Sweden kills at least two people and injures at least ten. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian Express USA Today The Guardian again
Nominator's comments: Only two deaths so far, but the death toll is expected to rise (see first Guardian link above). Everymorning talk 12:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This incident does not seem to have been reported as universally as yesterday's tragedy in Tunisia. Given as media is often accused of focussing on the West more than the rest of the world, that's quite a sign that this isn't a major new story. Still RIP to those taken and condolences to all that knew them. '''tAD''' (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Reading the Guardian, this sounds like domestic-level problems "There have been dozens of shootings involving criminal gangs in Gothenburg, many of them in the Biskopsgaarden area - a housing estate with a large immigrant population and high unemployment - in recent years, however fatalities are relatively rare." So while deaths are rare, the violence is not a surprise, akin to how we look at shootings in the US nowadays. Tragic, unfortunately, but nothing akin to the scale of terrorism ala the Tunis shootings. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • support - as a really unusual incident in Sweden. Sweden is not USA we dont have alot of mass shootings. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No lasting impact, simple criminal activity. If it is shown to be terrorism I will change my notvote to neutral; even as a terrorist attack it is minor. Abductive (reasoning) 17:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Lasting impact? it happened tonight dear. :D--BabbaQ (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yes, this would be rare in Sweden, but by all accounts it looks like a 'normal' criminal incident. Not particularly newsworthy. (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree that this seems to be a routine criminal case. Mamyles (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Tunis museum shootingsEdit

Article: 2015 Tunis hostage crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 19 people are killed and 22 injured by militants during a hostage crisis at the Bardo National Museum in Tunis, Tunisia (Post)
News source(s): BBC, BBC live feed, NYTimes

Article needs updating

 MASEM (t) 13:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support once fleshed out. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment It sounds like the situation is over (the two militants have been killed along with an officer, in addition to the 8 above), so we should start getting more information here. Note that 7 of the killed hostages were tourists visiting the museum, and as pointed out by the BBC article, this is literally next door to the main legislative building of Tunisia at the same time they were discussing anti-terrorism laws. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when article is un-stubbed. Despite the usual flurry on deadly attacks, editing has been slow today. '''tAD''' (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment - Most sources - albeit only three hours since the attack - say 11 dead (8 tourist, 2 perps and one officer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Almightey Drill (talkcontribs) 10:10, March 18, 2015‎
  • Support: Major news worldwide. ComputerJA () 17:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for same reasons as above. Article looks ready, marking as such. Mamyles (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per above, and I agree the article is filled in enough to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 18:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The article has been moved (w/ redirect) to Bardo National Museum attack, could an admin adjust this in the ITN blurb? --MASEM (t) 19:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Seat of the European Central Bank openingEdit

Article: Seat of the European Central Bank (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Seat of the European Central Bank (pictured) in Frankfurt, Germany, officially opens amidst anti-capitalist and anti-Troika protests and riots. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The Seat of the European Central Bank (pictured) in Frankfurt, Germany, officially opens amidst anti-austerity protests organized by Blockupy.
News source(s): Deutsche Welle, Telegraph

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Apart from being a story in itself (significant step in the development of the European Central Bank/Eurozone, and large riots in a major European city), it ties into the current much larger Euro crisis, and particularly the state of relations between Germany and other European nations. Smurrayinchester 09:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  • As in, "built on the backs of European debtor nations"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I added an altblurb that mentions the name of the group that organized the protests, which seem to be the real story here rather than the opening of the building. Everymorning talk 18:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Personal opinions aside, and not forgetting the US national debt is currently around $18 trillion, increasing by $2.3 billion per day, this story doesn't really appear to be in the news at all, at least not headlining. The article is okay, nothing to write home about. Weak oppose from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Doesn't seem to be generating many headlines, and doesn't seem that notable to me. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Israeli legislative election, 2015Edit

The item has been posted, and is not coming down. Further screaming and insulting of admins should be taken to the talk page. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Israeli legislative election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The ruling Likud party wins the election to the Israeli Knesset (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The ruling party Likud, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, wins plurality in the Israeli Knesset.
News source(s): BBC, Jerusalem Post, Al Jazeera
Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.
Nominator's comments: Recurring item. Likud has won the most votes in the election, but a government has not been formed, thus the Prime Minister may or may not change yet. '''tAD''' (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait: Likud has clearly won the largest number of seats, but it still only has about a quarter of the Knesset's mandates, and it is far from clear who will form the next government. (From what I'm reading, Likud has the obvious advantage, but it basically depends on what the centrist, Arab, and ultra-Orthodox parties do.) -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am inclined to wait, as suggested by Kudzu1. But if the process of forming a coaltion is likely to be a drawn out affair (I'm not saying that it will be), would this news be notable separate from the forming of the government? If so, could this be posted now, then replaced if a government is formed whilst it is still on the front page? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. I think the blurb should be modified a bit to comply with the wording we usually use when posting elections.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Alt blurb does not say what country is being talked about. Not everybody in the world will know what Likud, Netanyahu and Knesset are. '''tAD''' (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support posting election now (the election itself is clearly in the current news cycle, so interest in the article will be high). We can cross the bridge of formation of a government when it happens, and depending on the time scale there are a number of options on how to handle that, but I see no benefit to not posting this today. --Jayron32 13:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As far as elections in non-English speaking countries go, this is a very good article.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alt. – Regional & international political significance. Suggest slight revision of word order: The ruling Likud party.... Sca (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alternate The "plurality" part is crucial. Joshua Garner (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Ready 10kb expansion since yesterday. (Support Alt) μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 18:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Question for those familiar with the use of the term "plurality", should it really be "wins a plurality"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    It appears to be the case. Perhaps we can double check these things in future before rushing them to the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I though we weren't using 'plurality' any more anyway? It's a very region-specific term. There are perfectly good widely recognised alternatives, such a 'relative majority' or even a simple phrasing such as 'Likud wins the most votes' etc. (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Given it's wikilinked, I think it's fine. You'd have the same issue in reverse with "relative majority". (I'm not American and I've only heard of plurality.) wctaiwan (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Should we delink Prime Minister? There are 6 links in the item, which seems a bit excessive. wctaiwan (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Did you even SEE the article before posting? Wheres the update? The results don't even have the seats listed and there is nothing else for an update. (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Here's 10kb of updating since 17 March. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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

March 17Edit

[Pulled] Remains of Cervantes identifiedEdit

Article: Miguel de Cervantes (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Forensic scientists identify the remains of writer Miguel de Cervantes (pictured) at the Convent of the Barefoot Trinitarians in Madrid, Spain (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Guardian, Wall Street Journal
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Cervantes is regarded as the greatest author in the Spanish language, and his works have been translated into many other languages. His remains had been lost since 1673. '''tAD''' (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - Notable enough for ITN. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - if only to get name of that convent on the front page. (Oh, and because Cervantes an internationally-recognised author, of huge stature, of course.) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is a very interesting and significant discovery which deserves inclusion on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - exciting and highly notable discovery. -Zanhe (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – He was in a class by himself – and indirectly contributed a very useful adjective to English: quixotic. Sca (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvements - Several paragraphs are without citations, and while this isn't a BLP, we still should wait until these are addressed. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - above reasons. Joshua Garner (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once referenced there are massive swaths of the article without a single reference, sub-optimal. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmm I don't understand the rationale for "identification". DNA tests have not been done. Nergaal (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • It seems they only need the DNA analysis to identify his bones from those of a bunch of mates he was buried alongside. Shame they didn't wait until next year when it would have been exactly 400 years. It seems that the discovery of a casket with his initials on was the giveaway. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Then the article is not adequately updated because it does not explain that. Nergaal (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Came here to nominate it myself. This is a very important discovery that has garnered attention worldwide. ComputerJA () 18:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It was known he was buried there, it was known his remains were moved and returned. They didn't even have to use DNA testing. Basically just an act of cleaning out the basement, forgive the rough analogy. The "discovery" seem mundane, and this would seem to belong as the featured article or in DYK. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Historian Fernando de Prado spent more than four years battling for funding to make this search. Then it took nine months, even with all that hi-tech equipment. "Didn't even have to use"? - they are still planning to use DNA testing, to confirm the identification? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
You do realize saying that they plan to do DNA testing is a strong argument for not posting yet? μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I was supporting because it's in the news now. If the DNA evidence is confirmatory, as seems likely, I suspect there won't be much of an additional story. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral It's getting a lot play in the news but as Medeis has pointed out, this looks like over playing something fairly mundane. And yes, the article is not really up to scratch. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The small article Convent of the Barefoot Trinitarians has also been updated. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doesn't seem really important to me compared to world events like wars etc. Also Medeis' makes a good point. Thue (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • We aren't just about listing wars. We have listed other discoveries of lost historical artefacts, such as a Japanese warship and Richard III '''tAD''' (talk) 06:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once referenced. This isn't the war and bad news page, this is ITN. This is getting much attention (whether it should or not) and is about a notable writer. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - once it is all ready for posting, this is definitely for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • What else is needed? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
      • User:Martinevans123 The section on his literary career is entirely unsourced. Given as that was this man's area of brilliance, the article must source that before it can be featured on the main page. '''tAD''' (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as an important story relating to the "Spanish Shakespeare." An a side note, it's fascinating that they used clues from his life to identify him.-RHM22 (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Eleven supports. Marked ready. Sca (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
As a note the article is still missing significant referencing in some paragraphs. For the sake of ITN posting, we should be looking to have at least one cite per paragraph (presuming the cite covers the entire paragraph fairly). --MASEM (t) 13:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to sprinkle some more Britannica fairy-dust. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 18:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    Bad post, with a maintenance tag for the section about which Cervantes was most notable. Still, no longer surprised by this sort of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull until sourcing issues are addressed. There are four unsourced paragraphs in the 'Literary Pursuits' section. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    Pulled. Maintenance tags? Nein danke. Perhaps those who supported and posted hadn't looked at the article in detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Which four paragraphs? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The ones that you have now sourced. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
All good Martin, now just the works section tag to deal with, including unreferenced floral crap like "it is particularly worthy of attention, as it manifests the poetic direction in which Cervantes moved at an early period of life.".... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
We can't heavily reference Brittanica though, can we, as is most of that section? Stephen 21:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Especially as Britannica now seems to be a lame mirror for Wikipedia.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I've made an effort. Go ask another hapless editor. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind one way or another, and Donkey hasn't edited for a while so you'll need another hapless editor here sadly. I just think, when we claim we're posting "quality articles" at ITN, we genuinely live up to it, despite the bizarre consensus and even more bizarre posting of an article with grossly under-referenced sections and pure WP:OR writing. It troubles me that many admins just blindly count votes and don't actually review article quality before posting. But it's commonplace, so much so that perhaps I should just let it go and we post anything at all, as long as we have a numerical advantage for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Repost this is an interesting different story. The article shouldn't have to be at FA/GA standards for it to be on ITN. I wonder if all the sticklers for refs would be happier if someone just slashed half of the info in the article so everything left "is referenced". Would that be of sufficient "quality" to go up? Nergaal (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • No, the information that is uncited, presuming true, is useful encyclopedic information. I suspect that the existing sources already are sufficient as references, they just need to at least include a cite per paragraph (A rough bare minimum). If only one or two paragraphs were uncited, sure, that's probably, but this is not case (last I looked). --MASEM (t) 21:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Always amusing to read people claiming we're looking for GA or FA standards. Far from it. Perhaps these people aren't aware of what GA or FA standards require. Here, at ITN, we're just looking to avoid masses of unreferenced text, sections with no references and original research. It's really simple. Alternatively, let's have an RFC that just seeks to allow us to post any old toss to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Can't wait. Just off to do some in-depth Spanish literary research. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Despite TRM's insistence -- and, honestly, I can't help but think that his quick pulling was just another dig at me -- I did look at the article. We don't need perfect articles for ITN. The relevant section is referenced, and it's in the midst of an article where the orange tags are section warnings for other sections. This standard is understandable in new, shorter articles where the entire article deals with the event. To apply that to longer articles, where there's significant information unrelated to the event, that seems like setting a different standard. But if that's the consensus for article quality, that's fine and that should be codified (right now, the criteria deal only with article tags). In the meantime, the pontificating from TRM based on his unwritten standards for quality is unnecessary. -- tariqabjotu 00:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The standard we are looking for is the same standard for all articles that are "featured" off the main page (not Featured Article , but anything bold-linked from this). DYK has a strong requirement on decent article quality particularly on sourcing and avoiding paraphrasing. There is no reason to weaken ITN's easily-met standards. And yes, while the relevant section is sourced, we are making sure the whole article is of respectable quality. --MASEM (t) 00:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Then change the criteria. Obviously there is disagreement on this. Right now, we have complaints about how the standards should be, not what they actually are. And while it is reasonable to take this position, the tenor from the pulling admin over non-codified rules is unnecessary. -- tariqabjotu 00:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
That would require the Main Page criteria to be changed, and that requires a massive discussion (see Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page). Also, WP:ITN is clear we are looking for sufficiently-referenced articles. In this case, this should not be this hard. There's about a dozen-odd paragraphs that simply need one citation each presuming it can be met by existing sources. Shouldn't take much work. We're not even close to asking for GA-quality sourcing. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
What? You can propose changes to criteria on WT:ITN; there's even a thread there regarding criteria already. And, no, WP:ITN does not say anything about sufficiently-referenced articles; it says sufficiently-referenced updates (Updated content must be thoroughly referenced.). It mentions article tags, but the way I read it that's talking about tags for the whole article, not about individual sections. And virtually all of the text regarding criteria is under a section simply entitled "Updated content".
The points about article quality and quality of updates are perennial issues here. It seems the criteria have been improved to describe what constitutes a sufficient update -- the criteria section at WP:ITN goes into great detail about what constitutes a sufficient update -- but little is said about overall article quality. It's obvious the criteria are not clear if there remains so much debate. We can change the criteria to say that red- and orange-level tags should not be anywhere in an ITN article (something objective) if that was what was intended. We can proscribe criteria that describe the overall state of the article.
Now, if there is no desire for that to be done, fine, but then we're going to have to live with these subjective discussions. And those gung-ho about having higher-quality articles in ITN will need to cease acting as if this issue is black and white and making flippant remarks in every thread about how this is "no surprise". Threads in individual nominations rarely lead to changes in practice, so if some see a pervasive problem, the talk page is that way. -- tariqabjotu 04:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of the attempts at wikilaywering around the criteria for posting, let's stick with one of the key purposes of ITN, i.e. "To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events." Now if you consider articles with maintenance tags, masses of unreferenced claims and appallingly unencyclopedic writing to be "quality Wikipedia content" I'm not sure you should be posting items to the main page at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
There really is no point arguing with you. If everything was really as clear as they are in the eyes of The Rambling Man, we wouldn't be having these kinds of discussions over and over. Rather than initiate a discussion that will lead to a clarification or change, you choose to go the route where you insist that everyone who disagrees with you is faulty. It's as if you enjoy lamenting about your recurring concerns in threads rather than starting a centralized discussion. I don't think that's productive, but godspeed. -- tariqabjotu 07:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The point of articles being put on the front page is to hopefully draw in new editors that are interested in the topic that can contribute to the article. To make that work, the article needs to be in "good enough" shape to show by example so these new contributors can understand what is expected. Poor citations is not one of those things, and why it is a sticking point here. There's enough uncited paragraphs to put into question how citation on WP works and new editors may add material without understanding the need to reference properly. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Sure, please refrain from posting such low quality articles in the future. No discussion is required unless it's to discuss certain individual's difficulties in determining what quality means. I am not, nor am I ever, alone in noting these errant posts of yours, just read the threads above. Try harder to maintain the quality of the main page please. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The article still contains a huge number of citations needed for rather strong claims, and contains 'sentences' such as, "which was made into a film in 1972, directed by Arthur Hiller, and a song by Brazilian tropicalia-pioneers Os Mutantes." Although I have read him in both English and Spanish, I am no expert, and much work is needed by those more familiar with the subject. Either that or mass deletion of unsupported claims. μηδείς (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
This just in to the ITN newsroom: Miguel de Cervantes is still dead. Sca (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Repost - interesting article subject. if anything mess delete the unsupported claims. this should be in the ITN section. period--BabbaQ (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I feel we may be just "pissing in the wind" (as they say in La Mancha), over this one, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Internet Explorer endedEdit

WP:SNOW close --Jayron32 04:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Internet Explorer (talk, history)
Blurb: Microsoft announces plans to eliminate Internet Explorer. (Post)
News source(s): CNN Fox News

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Internet Explorer was once the world's most popular web browser, with a 95% market share. It has been standard on Windows computers since 1995. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • support definitely notable. and ITN worthy--BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Form the CNN piece, it appears that A) Microsoft is going to ship a new not-backwards-compatible browser (codenamed: "Spartan") based on a new platform independent from IE, and B) that the current IE (or something like it) will continue to be shipped with Windows to support legacy applications that need it, but that IE will be relegated to the background while the new browser is given emphasis. If that's an accurate account, this "elimination" of IE doesn't seem very radical. Dragons flight (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Perfect case for recent deaths? –HTD 23:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. It doesn't really seem like it's being eliminated, just supplanted. From what I can read it will still exist for some time. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Talk of plans to 'eliminate' IE are just wrong - as Dragons flight notes above, IE will continue to ship, just not as the default browser. And, honestly, who cares? People who care about which browser they use will 95% not be using IE anyway; people who don't care, well, they don't care. GoldenRing (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for RD when they stop supporting IE. Hopefully they will bring back Netscape, the last browser that was not designed as if you belonged to it, rather than it to you. Oppose until there's a stake in its heart. μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not as significant as it seems. If W10 shipped with zero internet function, that might be a case, but just the end of one browser and the start of another. --MASEM (t) 02:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Perhaps when support officially ends (January 10, 2023 at the earliest) I will support it, but until then, IE could hardly be considered "eliminated". Joshua Garner (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem and Joshua Garner. As an announcement of a plan, this is not worthy of being run on the front page. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. I almost spilled over my coffee to hear it but could find it not enough notable for being an ITN promo for Netscape in future. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 03:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not sure why this seems to be in the news right now. Spartan being the default browser for Windosw 10 was announced back in January. As for Internet Explorer, it is not being "eliminated" (whatever that means) and will likely be supported for years to come. Isa (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

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

March 16Edit

RD: Andy FraserEdit

Article: Andy Fraser (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC TG Many More

 -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 14:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose: I don't see how he's all that notable. I've heard "All Right Now", of course, but I don't recognize any of his other work, and I'm a pretty avid classic rock fan. RDs are for people who are at the top of their field, or household names, or somehow otherwise very independently notable. I just don't think he qualifies under the criteria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not at the top of his field. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not seeing how he could be considered applicable for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not seeing how this person meets the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose No awards, no recognition - I understand why fans would want him listed, but he doesn't remotely meet any RD criteria. Challenger l (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral – "No awards, no recognition" (don't know what that means exactly), hung up on hit singles, hmm. I'm reminded of Frank Zappa's monologue about "The Blowjob"; bass players generally don't rank very high on the totem pole. While obviously lacking the celebrity stature of Paul McCartney, he certainly was a hugely influential musician. I suspect we'll be having this same conversation somewhere down the road about Jack Casady, RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 09:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

March 15Edit

[Posted] RD: Xu CaihouEdit

Article: Xu Caihou (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Fox News Global Times Reuters

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: A very notable figure of Chinese military and has been covered in major news agencies due to his scandal --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose I am not seeing anything especially remarkable about the death of an allegedly corrupt Chinese general. He certainly meets GNG. But ITN/RD typically requires a much higher degree of notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article reads like that of a lot of midlevel American politicians who eventually get caught in some open scandal once they no longer hold any cards with which to defend themselves. Certainly no military hero or reformer. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Doesn't seem notable enough for ITN standards, doesn't seem to have international recognizability. Busy Moose (talk) 05:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Doesn't seem to be an important military leader, just someone who fell out of favor. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm dropping my oppose given the explanation below. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, and actually I'm quite appalled at the level of ignorance with the comments here (although I know it is probably unintentional), particularly those that describe him as "not important." Unfortunately seems to be the result of systemic bias. This has been the top story on almost all Chinese-language news portals, and is the top story on the main page of Chinese WP as a full ITN item. For what it's worth, we posted (on ITN) a full item regarding his expulsion from the Communist Party in June 2014, which was the top headline in the New York Times and BBC, also on every Chinese-language news portal around the world. This man was essentially the number-2 figure in the Chinese military for nearly ten years, subordinate only to the commander-in-chief (the president), as evidenced by this article from the South China Morning Post. I would put his notability to be around that of the U.S. Secretary of Defence and the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff combined, his military rank is equivalent to a US "four-star general", if we were to compare apples to apples, and it is somewhat sad that I have to do this comparison because of the scant knowledge about Chinese affairs on WP. Moreover, he is the highest-ranked military officer ever be implicated in corruption in PRC history. With these facts in mind, I would ask the users above to reconsider. Colipon+(Talk) 14:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, of course it's headline news in China, but this is an RD nomination, and second in (a highly politized at that) military is simply not the top of a field, no war decorations, nor does the fact he was accused of bribery make him any more noteworthy. Calling editors ignorant is not the way to make the case here. μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I do apologize if anyone felt my comments were personally directed, they were not intended to be. Colipon+(Talk) 23:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support we posted a story about this guy some 1-2 years ago. I think a fine rule for RD is if we posted it within the last 5 years it should be on RD also. Plus, from the explanation above, it seems to be something along the line of China's Dick Cheney. Nergaal (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Dick Cheney? You mean he shoots people, and drinks children's blood? μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Colipon offers a compelling argument. It's practically impossible for me to verify most of the article since the references are in Chinese, but given good faith that they're not a work of fiction, this is a mild support, hoping for more sources in English. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, per Colipon. The BBC calls him the "second most senior officer in the People's Liberation Army - made up of 2.3 million people - behind President Xi Jinping." [15] and notes in an article before his death that he was the "highest ranking soldier ever prosecuted" [16]. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Seems to meet notability criteria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvements: I'm going to have to agree with the idea this would be equivalent to , say, the chiarman of the Joint Chief of Staff for the US. And this fellow was still in the position (as I read) when he died. RD is met, even if the number of English sources is low. The article does have some paras w/o any inline cites, this needs to be fixed. --MASEM (t) 04:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
You seem not to have read the lead paragraph of the article, Masem, where he was expelled from the PLA and stripped of his rank. We didn't post Tom Foley, third in line for the White House when he died, or famous gadfly James Traficant. At least they held elective office. Xu had no military distinction, led no military campaigns, held a sinecure, was a rent seeker, and sold influence. None of that ammounts to an achievement or makes him influential as an artist. μηδείς (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, yes, I missed that, but there's still the fact he was stripped of that and was shortly to go on trial about this. That part makes the death "interesting" for RD. --MASEM (t) 05:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
That would make sense if he were shot after a show trial (and might deserve a blurb like all those friends of Kim in NK), or was poisoned to save the state embarrassment. This is just the case of a pathetic party hack ("political commissar of the 16th Group Army in 1990... was offered an air conditioner as a gift from a classmate... chief editor of the People's Liberation Army Daily newspaper... became the political commissar of the Jinan Military Region,") dying in old age of natural causes. Being fired for corruption is not an accomplishment. μηδείς (talk) 05:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support With due respect to Medeis, wishing that a story wasn't a big item in news sources is not the same as recognizing that it is. This seems to be big news, (admittedly in China rather than an English-speaking country) and for that reason, this seems worth at least an RD note. The article has a few clean-up needs, but nothing I would think would keep it off the main page. --Jayron32 05:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean by my "wishing". Do you actually think I am emotionally invested in this? My point is to offer other points to consider, not jump on a bandwagon. I am not troubled or offended by the posting. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Colipon. The claim that the former highest-ranking soldier (outranked only by the Chinese president) of the world's largest army was not at the top of his field is simply laughable. -Zanhe (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted consensus to post and some good updates have taken place over the past few hours, well done to those involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Swine influenza in IndiaEdit

Withdrawn by nominator. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Swine influenza (talk, history)
Blurb: Swine influenza claim over 1500 lives in India. (Post)
News source(s): PTI
Nominator's comments: May be for Ongoing -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Considering both the tiny amount of detail that the given source provides and the amount of detail in our article on this, this doesn't sound like an unusual thing in this region. (the source article gives "this season", implying that its an unfortunate reality). --MASEM (t) 13:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless this is declared of epidemic proportions. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Relentfully Withdraw- Looks like this is going to be SNOW. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 14:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Lahore church attackEdit

Articles: March 2015 Lahore Church Attack (talk, history) and List of terrorist incidents in Pakistan since 2001 (talk, history)
Blurb: Twin bomb attacks on two churches in the Pakistani city of Lahore kills at least fourteen people with seventy more injured. (Post)
News source(s): [17]

 --Numancia (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose Given the size of the list of the second article, this doesn't seem to be anything unusual or special, an unfortunate common event in that area. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Tragically, not an unusual event there. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: This is not a usual event to ignore. Such attacks are rare in Lahore. This event should not be considered ordinary. —ШαмıQ @ 14:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose just reading Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2015 (which is a better link than the second suggested linked article) enlightens us that this is commonplace and unremarkable. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Terrorist attacks like this is common in some parts of Pakistan, like the FATA, KPK, and Balochistan, but an attack on a church in Lahore is rare. Lahore is relatively peaceful. This is significant.
(Update:) The news source above supports my statement. —ШαмıQ @ 14:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I think this should be looked at with a more national eye than a local one; while it may be unusual in Lahore, it isn't for Pakistan. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Inter religious terrorist attacks are of concern to people of both the parties in various countries, and not just a specific country. Even in this particular country, attack on minority Christianity (is not very common in Pakistan), which is a world majority religion, is of significant interest religious communities especially to Christian religious community. --Samuelled (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 331, TRM. Besides, reluctant though one is to choose on the basis of body count, three times as many were killed in a bus crash in Brazil. Sca (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Not helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This type of deaths, which are caused by hatred/ideology is very different from deaths due to accident. And are more significant issue to be looked into than say a traffic accident. And current head count of deaths which has now increased to fifteen, and sadly increasing, is definitely not a small number. --Samuelled (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The group behind this has a very crooked ideology. They want to establish an Islamic State, and if the government doesn't agree to that, they'll kill Christians. Both ways, Christians lose.  ШαмıQ @ 16:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Terrorists are not known for adhering to rational thought. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
No. See psychopath. Not for nothing was Hitler labeled The Psychopathic God. Sca (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
A bit like Christians during the Crusades then, but the other way round? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • A Request Could we please refrain from posting editorial comments, a number of which appear rather incendiary and are likely to be offensive to some editors. This is not an appropriate forum for those kinds of posts. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    What is offensive or incendiary? Everything I see written above is factual. If you don't like the facts, that's another matter. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you are confusing fact with opinion. But again, this isn't the forum for that discussion anymore than it is an appropriate venue for attacks on religious groups. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM. The Crusades have no relevance to 2015 -- Aronzak (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you are confusing discussion with relevant and factual discourse with making attacks on religious groups. Again, if you personally find it offensive, that's a different matter altogether. It may be worth your while appraising yourself of the article I linked, for some context. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Weak oppose Little to no mention of international significance in the article. I've added a section on violence to Religious discrimination in Pakistan - these events are part of a trend in Pakistan where the official use of the blasphemy law creates a culture of impunity for attacks on religious minorities - be they Hindu, Ahmadi, Sufi or Christian. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Attack on religious minorities is of concern to the civilized world. --Kinderlander (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Terrorist attacks with those levels of casualties are fairly common around the world. This also seems to be related to an ongoing matter. Busy Moose (talk) 05:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Bomb attacks on minorities in a religious center in Pakistan is not very common, also not common around the world. --Kinderlander (talk) 05:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

March 14Edit

[Posted] RD: Valentin RasputinEdit

Article: Valentin Rasputin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TMT Euro News

 -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 02:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Article does a reasonably good job situating him in is genre and describing his writing style. SpencerT♦C 02:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems to meet DC2 for his field, given his recognition. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A major figure in his field. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted seems to meet the criteria and the article is decent enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Indian Gang Rape sparks large protestsEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 00:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Gang rape in india (talk, history) and Rape in India (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Protests begin following the gang rape of a nun in her 70s. (Post)
News source(s): Indipendent The National Post
 Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless protests are notable or come to something, this kind of disgraceful behaviour seems all too commonplace in India. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think there is enough here to raise this to ITN level attention. That may change, and if it does we can revisit the subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Respectfully oppose Morally disgusting behaviour to be condemned in the strongest words possible, but not reached the level of protest and questions asked as the 2012 Delhi case...yet, at least '''tAD''' (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose; while getting much coverage, I agree with the above posters that this doesn't rise to ITN level. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Mohamed NasheedEdit

Article: Mohamed Nasheed (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Maldives president Mohamed Nasheed jailed for 13 years on a terrorism charge. (Post)
News source(s): Dailymail The Guardian BBC HFP WSJ Still?

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The blurb may be modified.. Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - Notable. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Note - If reporting a former national leader being jailed is typically done here, this guy would seem to qualify. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a former national leader being jailed is probably significant enough anyway, but when the guy is being jailed for terrorism (legitimately or otherwise) that definitely qualifies for ITN. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A former president being jailed for an allegedly terrorism related offense is ITN worthy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Former head of state becoming incarcerated is newsworthy. Do not know enough about any aspect of the Maldives to know if this is legitimate incarceration or otherwise, but both of those options are still newsworthy '''tAD''' (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Former heads of state being jailed for their activities (actual or otherwise) along with being named a terrorist is noteworthy. 331dot (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article needs the two sections referring to this amalgamating, out of date material removing, and the events need to be mentioned in the lead. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support A head of state going to jail merits inclusion (even a former one), although it's a country without a lot of influence on the global stage. Busy Moose (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Per Espresso Addict, fixes look adequate. There are a few "cn" tags and maybe one or two other sentences that could use a cite, but that usually doesn't keep something from ITN. Article is in decent enough quality now. I tweaked the blurb to be a bit more complete and grammatically correct. @David Levy: for the pic, there's a good one in the article infobox.--Jayron32 13:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    I found one in which Nasheed isn't smiling. —David Levy 17:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
per TRM, closing. Metadiscussion unrelated to this posting
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Wait, there are posting admins pinging David now? It's really not that hard to add a picture... -- tariqabjotu 18:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    So do it yourself. Yes, there are admins who aren't confident in doing this, and it's a 10000% no-no to get it wrong. Plus David is a Commons admin too. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    Um, ok? I can, and I do, and I would have done the same here had I seen this first. I understand non-admins pinging David when they want a photo changed, but it's a bit strange seeing an admin doing it. We shouldn't be relying on just one or two admins to do this, especially when it -- as I said -- is not that difficult. Now, if Jayron knew how to, but just didn't feel like doing it/didn't have time, that's a different story; that's fine. But that's not the impression his request gave. -- tariqabjotu 23:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    Jayron used to do it every time he posted a blurb, for many years, and literally every single time he did so he would screw it up, and every single time he screwed it up, David Levy would graciously and politely fix his screw-ups, so Jayron started cutting out the middle step and just pinging David to do it, since he had to clean up after him anyways. --Jayron32 01:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    tariqabjotu: What, exactly, is your problem with someone who is willing to do something, being kindly asked to do it every so often, and then them doing it? Seems like regular Wikipedia collaboration to me. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    @Coffee: I think I answered that question quite clearly in the comment that you just replied to. Maybe @David Levy: doesn't mind or otherwise enjoys being seen as the guy who knows how to add a picture to ITN. But why, exactly? What if he goes on vacation for a couple weeks? Is the section lost without him? Maybe one or two admins not feeling confident enough to add a photo is no big deal, but we shouldn't make this a thing, where David is the guy who adds images to ITN. And, as I said, the procedure is not very difficult and does not require Commons adminship. If the admin instructions still result in mistakes, the solution is to devise better instructions, not give up and put the task in the hands of a single individual. -- tariqabjotu 03:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    No one has tried to stop you from doing it... --Jayron32 03:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) You'd think I was speaking Aramaic here. Anyone else have any points I've already addressed that they want to bring up again?
    There isn't anything revolutionary in the idea that there should be more admins involved in this section aware of how to do a common task, and I'm shocked at the resistance to this concept. -- tariqabjotu 04:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    It is a common task, but the process is a bit arcane, and as noted below, the fact that David is a Commons admin (whereas many of us are not) actually makes it easier for him. I did do this many times, for quite a while, and fucked it up so much that I just started asking David, because he was kind enough to clean up my mistakes so often. I know you believe differently, but I'm not a total idiot, and jumping through the hoops to upload and protect the picture can be a bit of a hassle. David is good at it, and people who are good at things who also don't mind doing it can be asked. Your defense of David's free time is admirable, but let him speak for himself. Again, if you want to do it yourself to save him the work, no one is asking you to NOT do it. If David has no problems, you certainly have no reason to object to him doing it. --Jayron32 04:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    There are others who can do it, but (a) David is more efficient as he can ensure protection at Commons rather than a local upload, and (b) it's often not a case of lacking skills but rather lacking time or resources (there's no way I'll switch a picture while editing from an iPad, for example). Stephen 04:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    (a) David is more efficient as he can ensure protection at Commons rather than a local upload Cropped images need to be uploaded locally anyway. Now whether waiting for David to do this is more efficient... (b) it's often not a case of lacking skills but rather lacking time or resources Right. I give up. There's no point in me even commenting in this thread if nobody is going to read my comments. -- tariqabjotu 04:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    I think giving up would be a good idea, you don't seem to want to hear the many editors here. We all have things we're good at around here, and as there's no actual problem, I suggest this portion of the "discussion" which is entirely unrelated to the ITN item be collapsed. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    Good idea. --Jayron32 06:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 Myanmar ferry accidentEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 Myanmar ferry accident (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A ferry sinks off the coast of Myanmar, killing at least 33 people. (Post)
News source(s): ABC News Associated Press Reuters
Nominator's comments: Significant number of deaths. Everymorning talk 11:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I'm not sure this is notable enough to post; further, as the Reuters article states, "Marine accidents are common in Myanmar where many people have to rely on small, crowded and old boats for transport". 331dot (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose – Alas, these ferry disasters seem all too frequent in the region. Sca (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose- The page is nowhere close to informative.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ferry accidents are unfortunately a bad and all too frequent type of traffic accident. Unless there is something else notable here, the number of deaths alone does not merit posting a nonce article.
    • Comment - unsigned, why is this article a paedophile? '''tAD''' (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too quotidian and probably not enough deaths/damage to warrant ITN pbp 04:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

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

March 13Edit

RD: Al RosenEdit

Article: Al Rosen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times, USA Today, ESPN

Nominator's comments: Named the Most Valuable Player in the American League in 1953. Was also a four-time All-Star, and played on a Cleveland Indians team that won the World Series. Thus, seems to meet WP:ITND criterion 2. Everymorning talk 23:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Note - Perhaps better known as an executive, so maybe there should be more emphasis on that part of his career. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I feel like Baseball Hall of Fame should be the minimum requirement for MOST former players/executives (Pete Rose would really be the only notable exception). Hit under .300, under 200 home runs, a little over 1000 hits and was one of the most error-prone third basemen in his day per [18]. Only championship he ever won was as a bench player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'd be interested to see how many baseball players have won the "World" Series, he seems like "just another baseball player" to me, e.g. we don't post every footballer who dies who won the FA Cup.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I don't think he quite rises to the level needed to meet the RD criteria. Baseball has been around a long time with many notable people which makes it harder to be "very important" to it; as TRM points out merely winning the FA Cup would not merit an RD posting. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Note - I would say Rosen ranks as a good but not great player, also a respected executive, but is at best a borderline case for ITN. To the furriners out there, the term "World Series" has been around since the 1880s, at a time when baseball was pretty much exclusive to North America. The game is now widely played in Latin America and the Pacific Rim, but MLB is still the top level of the sport, with a strong international flavor to its rosters, so the term "World Series" still fits. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] World's first successful penis transplantEdit

Closed before this becomes yet another mirror of the "hilarity" that goes on elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Penis transplantation (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The first successful human penis transplantation is announced by Stellenbosch University in South Africa. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNN, CBC News

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Seems to be a significant medical advance. Note that the procedure itself was performed last December but, for whatever reason, was just announced yesterday. Everymorning talk 02:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once it's expanded. Updates usually require three sources and a full five sentence prose paragraph. Should be simple to add doctor/team, etc., to reach full size. μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with a couple suggestions. First, should we be clear this was a human transplant or is that obvious enough? Second, I would suggest that the article could use a bit of improvement to state some of the things the BBC article mentions, that S. Africa is a place where this type of operation is needed due to botched tribal rituals. --MASEM (t) 02:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I am trying really hard to resist the temptation to a blue pun here. But yeah, it seems like ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pbp 04:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Posting this shouldn't be a hard choice.-- (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems a notable medical advance. Agree we might want to clarify this was a human we are talking about. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle but, as already noted, it needs a lot of, erm, expansion first. Formerip (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I have added the word human to the blurb. Everymorning talk 13:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support International significance for future surgical procedures in other countries. Would be good if someone from Wikiproject Medicine looked at adding a history of phalloplasty to the article to provide context. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - as User:Masem suggests, the back story is perhaps more significant, that "Dozens, although some say hundreds, of boys are maimed or die each year during traditional initiation ceremonies." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It's good we finally got it up. μηδείς (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, nicely inserted. Formerip (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Cyclone PamEdit

Article: Cyclone Pam (talk, history)
Blurb: Cyclone Pam, a Category 5 hurricane, makes landfall in Vanuatu. (Post)
Alternative blurb: United Nations confirm eight people dead, dozens more may have been killed, in wake of Cyclone Pam
News source(s): CNN, BBC News, Time

Nominator's comments: Strongest storm since Haiyan, according to CNN link above. Also, according to the BBC link above, dozens of people are already feared to be dead. Everymorning talk 19:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: Deadly and powerful natural disaster. Article is long enough and well-referenced throughout. Only minor point of improvement is a couple of bare URL references. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait nothing to report as yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Seems obvious this is a major weather event impacting many thousands of people. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait but expecting to be posted once we have an idea of death tolls/damage. --MASEM (t) 21:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This story will continue to develop over the next few days, but since the eye of the storm passed directly over the most populous island in the chain at category 5 intensity, it is clear that there will be massive devastation and a substantial death toll. Looie496 (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - major weather event.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Too soon This looks like a possible future ITN candidate. But we need to have more information and a better article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Will post - Once we have the impact information, this is definitely ITN worthy. Especially considering the historical strength of this storm... which should be mentioned in the hook somehow. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Article is still in need of further work, suffers from an abundance of irrelevant links per WP:OVERLINK and an over-reliance on primary data sources for referencing. 3142 (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - latest is 60 dead in Vanuatu. Mjroots (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support this should be posted now, the article is well updated, and it's a category 5 that has made landfall. It's absurd to think any formal issues won't be addressed or that people aren't already looking for this now. μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article currently has no information about the effects in Vanuatu. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Hard to get, currently no electricity in Vanuatu...--Stemoc 05:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until it causes trouble to White people in New Zealand. –HTD 09:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Is that a joke? 331dot (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
More like "satire". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Technically, it is irony, saying what you don't mean. μηδείς (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - The Cyclone has now moved on from Vanuatu and is tracking towards New Zealand. Multiple fatalities have been confirmed and the Cyclone is nearing the half-way point in its life. Definitely ITN worthy... 23:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrashesToAshes (talkcontribs)
  • Posted Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The current blurb is ungrammatical. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    I've attempted to rectify the matter. —David Levy 16:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me, thank you. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Egypt's investment summitEdit

No consensus to post. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Egypt Economic Development Conference (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Delegates from 112 different countries attend Egypt's Economic Development Conference held in Sharm el-Sheikh. (Post)
News source(s): Al-Ahram ABC News Economic Times (India)
Nominator's comments: A long-awaited event in Egypt, with an estimated 2,000 foreign delegates and many world leaders. The article is yet to be expanded though. Here are live updates for those who wish to work on it. Furthermore, year-long plans for a new Egyptian capital city will also be unveiled during the summit. This is major news in Egypt and the Middle East. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose based only on article quality. Right now it is a tiny stub of an article, so we don't have any content to highlight on the main page. If someone can do the hard work of properly expanding and referencing the article to something to be proud to show off, I'd support this easily on significance. --Jayron32 16:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Might support a blurb about the proposed new city if someone gets an article going. Formerip (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Proposed new capital of Egypt. Formerip (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to suggest a different blurb. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Conferences happen all the time. The fact that it took place doesn't merit an ITN blurb in its own right. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure, they happen all the time, but some are significant enough to be posted here. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing exceptional about this conference. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Any reason why a summit that was attended by several world leaders and delegates from 112 different countries, three of whom already pledged a total sum of $12bn, with huge projects that were already announced, including the new capital city megaproject, has "nothing exceptional" about it? I'd be thrilled to know. Why are BRICS summits (WP:ITN/R item) more "exceptional" than this one? If you had opposed due to article quality it would have been understandable. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Egypt is the third largest economy in Africa. 15 Heads of State and Government attended this conference. At least $12.5 billion has been pledged.
Alt blurb: A major economic conference is held in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. Ali Fazal (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose a conference with world leaders that pledges some cash? What is significant about this particular meeting? We have them all the time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Firstly, the event garnered up to $45 billion as of this afternoon, so it's not "some" cash. Secondly, major projects have been unveiled during this conference, particularly the one regarding Egypt's proposed new capital city between Cairo and Suez. Thirdly, when was the last time an investment summit of this size took place? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I understand you're very keen to get this posted, but it's simply making the grade. By all means continue to answer every single oppose, but don't be surprised if it makes no difference. Most here have a clue what's going to post at ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Why don't you come up with better arguments then, rather than patronizing me with those unnecessary remarks? I'm not keen on bludgeoning every oppose comment that shows up here, but I will address badly informed !voters, unless it bothers you of course. I know you can do better than that. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not obligated to supply you with "better arguments" nor am I "patronizing" you. Meetings like this happen all the time, so called "commitments" for various investments happen all the time. The level of quoted investments here seem to match those at regular shows like Farnborough Airshow. And those deals are usually done and dusted, not just political talk. I have nothing more to add here, this is a locally interesting story which isn't really in the news and may have some interest to a microcosm of our readership, but given most of it is show-and-tell, I doubt it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Pledges and proposals fly around quite often. Summits happen often too. If anything tangible comes out of this, sure it should be posted, but until now it is just a summit where proposals and pledges have been made. We post few summits and ALL have had a worldwide audience, not just a country. Nergaal (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Attendance by delegates from 112 countries seems pretty worldwide to me. We have five summits on the ITNR list including one that has five countries attend (BRICS) and another with eight (the G8). 331dot (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as a notable conference; announcement of a proposed new capital for a country adds to the notability as well as that doesn't happen too often. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I also feel that the announcement of a new capital, considering the 1100 year history of Cairo as one of or the dominant city of Egypt is the more news-worthy blurb. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it definite then? Or is it simply proposed? It's unclear. If the former, and Cairo will no longer be the capital, I could be more interested. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm certainly no expert, but it seems so after reading between these three trans-continental articles (referenced on the new page). [19] [20] [21] Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Nah, just looks like "plans" to do so. When it happens, i.e. in five to seven years, I'll be interested. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It may be major and it may be significant, but this would have gone largely unnoticed even in Egypt outside the world of policy-wonkdom if it weren't for the "new capital" "plans". (Speaking as the child of Egyptian immigrants, with many relatives and friends in Egypt, I gather it's something that most Egyptians were only vaguely aware of the summit until the "plans" were declared, at which point they began paying attention chiefly to make fun of the "plans". I admit that anecdotal evidence isn't notable, but I felt it worthwhile to tell everyone anyway.) Lockesdonkey (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] RD: Daevid AllenEdit

No consensus to post. 331dot (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator's comments: Influential musician in progressive rock, psychedelic rock and space rock Mark in wiki (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm not seeing anything that shows top of the field, even in the Guardian obit. Important bands in psychedelic rock, yes, but not groundbreaking ala Grateful Dead. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - founder member of Soft Machine. Off to that flying teapot in the sky. A massive following in Europe. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose No chart topping releases, no awards so far as I can see, not top of field. μηδείς (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Sorry, but this is beyond obscure. Members of bands are no sure thing even when the band is much bigger than this. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Orange tag up top - not a single sign of honors or influence or notability. Challenger l (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not at the head of his field. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Mellowed Fillmore. A loss for music, certainly, but he was never a figure on par with, say, Rick Wakeman or Syd Barrett, and his Wikipedia article proves it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

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

March 12Edit

RD: Ada JafriEdit

Article: Ada Jafri (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: The first major Urdu poetess, Ada Jafri, dies at the age of 90. (Post)
News source(s):

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The most significant female figure in Urdu poetry —ШαмıQ @ 16:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support RD, oppose blurb - Clearly meets RD, but not to a blurb level. Article's fine for sourcing but could use some prose TLC. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the terminology here at ITN. What's TLC? And how can I make this meet the blurb level? —ШαмıQ @ 20:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Go back in time and change history so that she was a head of state or acclaimed Nobel laureate? She meets RD criteria, but a blurb, no way. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Why so harsh? I thought that the article didn't meet the blurb level due to some problem with the article which I could rectify. —ШαмıQ @ 03:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
      • TLC = Tender loving care - basically someone to massage and clean up the prose to be a bit more elegant. It's current state (at least, when I checked) would not prevent ITN posting but it can be better. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD per Masem. Also, is "poetess" really the best descriptor? -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I chose to write 'poetess', rather than 'female poet', since it is shorter and both convey the same meaning. It would otherwise be 'The first major female Urdu poet' which has a lot of crowded adjectives. 'The first major Urdu poetess' is more concise and sounds better. —ШαмıQ @ 20:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb This would inevitably involve more of a significance judgement than is consistent with OR: we are not here to lavish praise on people. What constitutes a "major" poet? I'm not madly keen on even an RD listing either but I'm not opposing it at his stage. 3142 (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The significant thing here is that she was a woman, and the first woman to not just compose poetry, but to also get it published like a mainstream male Urdu poet, despite the social issues. She received a lot of acclaim for her Urdu poetry. That's what makes her "major". Sidenote: I had got this article for DYK, too. There, the hook was: "The first Urdu poetess..." (as sources say). Some people objected to that and weren't ready to accept the claim. So I added a qualifier this time to make the claim more credible. —ШαмıQ @ 04:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
So the fact that she is a woman makes her more significant as a poet? Sorry, but I don't accept that. If that is the basis of the claim to notability then my evaluation has just gone down a couple of notches which is why I have amended my position to outright oppose. That, and I don't see the interest to our users. Remember that ITN is a convenience for our users rather than a judgement of significance - what is there here to signify a broad level of interest in an Urdu poet with an English speaking readership? 3142 (talk) 05:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not evaluating significance by myself in any way. Sources recognize her being a great poet, but also assert her importance as a woman poet (since her poetry deals with feminism, too). That's why the blurb would be just ordinary if it said: "Famous Urdu poet, Ada Jafri, dies at the age of 90." That fact that she was a woman (and a feminist) is significant and I mentioned that in the blurb. However, it's up to you. If you think that her being a woman, and her struggles as a woman which male poets didn't have to go through, are insignificant, go ahead and just mention that she was a famous poet. But don't completely discard her importance as a poet. —ШαмıQ @ 06:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose If the significant thing here is that she is a woman that is an insult to humans of all genders. Let's honor merit, not identity politics. μηδείς (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
This isn't identity politics. Women have to struggle a lot to get a name in this part of the world. She did just that. She took a field which is heavily dominated by men (Urdu poetry), excelled in it and made her name in the field. Her poetry won her plenty of awards to justify her merit. She was the first woman to do so. How does this undermine her merit in any way? —ШαмıQ @ 05:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
In any given country, typically there is going to be a dominant ethnic group. For anyone either not male or not in that ethnic group, the social barriers to success are typically higher, and historically much higher. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The issue is whether she is at the top of her field as a poet. There are plenty of noted women poets. I am a big fan of Plath. But being born a woman is not an accomplishment, and at the time of her birth the nominee was a subject of the British empire, which had just been ruled for 60+ years by a female monarch. If the nominator wants my support he can provide evidence she was at the top of her field, not a woman in a field. A good comparison would be Umm Kulthum, widely considered to be the best Arabic singer of all time, regardless of her gender. Her funeral had more attendees than that of Nasser. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Query. Is her death being reported internationally? I realise it's not necessary but I found it hard to get a sense of her notability based on the article, and eg the BBC are not covering it as yet. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Did not find anything in international newspapers. But all local newspapers have an article on her death. —ШαмıQ @ 06:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
(Update:) Here's some coverage by VOA Urdu: 1, 2, 3. —ШαмıQ @ 07:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Clarifications: Let me clarify a few things here:
  1. She is notable and significant as a poet: She was an internationally acclaimed Urdu poet (regardless of her gender).
  2. She was a woman: This is remarkable because women face various hindrances when pursuing careers like this. The fact that she did that is worth mentioning.
  3. Why I want this on the English Wikipedia: Because most Urdu speakers (in Pakistan as well as abroad) browse the web in English. They are most likely to see this article in English rather than Urdu. For example, see the sorry state of the Urdu Wikipedia and the entry on Ada Jafri there.

See Death of the first lady. It mentions her merits as a poet and next mentions her struggles as a woman. It ought to be significant enough for inclusion. —ШαмıQ @ 06:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - Appears to be significant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD only. Clearly meets the RD criteria as "very important" to her field, but I don't think a blurb is warranted here. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, notable enough for coverage. Mar4d (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not seeing this "in the news", the article is poor, including a section which says she was "humble, polite and austere", come on, is this an encyclopedia or a fan club? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I am not a fan or anything. That was what I could find about her personality in one of the sources. (BTW, when someone is writing an article on a recently deceased person, you often find words like these. So it isn't odd to find that in the news article there.) If you can word it in a better way, you are most welcome to do so. —ШαмıQ @ 09:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
You might also like to see this: ETШαмıQ @ 09:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD- Meets DC, no tag-worthy issues with article. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD I believe she does meet dc. I also think this is ready to be posted, there is sufficient consensus for it and her article seems fine. SeraV (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    I guess it's fine if you think phrases like "She spent her early life within impassable social bounds" belong in an encyclopaedic biography. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Small sacrifices are acceptable. Marked ready. SeraV (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, you consider non-encyclopaedic writing as a "small sacrifice"? Think again. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
You are most welcome to come and improve the writing. That part about "impassible social bounds" is true. Her family had strong traditions and as mentioned in one lengthy article on her, women of her family could not even go out of the family Haveli. She didn't go to a school/madrassa. She was homeschooled. She didn't even leave that Haveli after marriage and in fact stayed with her parents following the family tradition. Those were some of the bounds. She only left her Haveli during the partition of India when she migrated to Pakistan. —ШαмıQ @ 20:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Look @ TRM you really are starting to annoy me, you can't decide yourself what is ready and what is not. Also we need more rd and more blurbs from parts of world that aren't english speaking, and the fact is that articles that are from those parts just aren't going to ever stand up to your standards of perfect english, because they aren't most likely written by natural english speakers. But if they othervise seem fine they should be good enough for us. As Wamiq said you are more than welcome edit the article yourself if you are not happy with it, even though most everyone else is. But your dissent is not enough for it to not get posted. SeraV (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm "starting to annoy" you? Please, spend more time improving the article in question, bringing it up to the encyclopedic standards we required for main page inclusion. You do realise that I am a lone voice here, that if you have consensus for it to be posted, then it will be. I'm not asking for "perfect english" nor am I interested in this particular individual's article (nor do I have time to spend energy trying to get it to a minimal standard). I have no supervote, you know that, so the pair of you can stop berating me for trying to uphold English language Wikipedia's standards. By all means continue to support such poor writing, this is just my opinion. You don't like it? Get over it. Find an interested editor who writes in non-hagiographical English, and we could move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

RD: Michael GravesEdit

Article: Michael Graves (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Appears to a major architect, one of the The New York Five along with several design awards MASEM (t) 21:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support once adequately referenced, given that Encyclopedia Britannica described him as "one of the principal figures in the postmodernist movement". [22] Everymorning talk 22:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once there are more inline citations - Definitely looks like one of the most influential architects of the past century. Challenger l (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, subject to referencing. Appears to be at the top of postmodernist architecture in the US. The article is currently inadequate, though. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A hugely notable figure in the world of architecture. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose until that huge list of mostly unreferenced works receives some attention. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvements, as subject was at the head of his field. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose based solely on referencing problems. Too much is uncited, especially the giant list of works at the end. Also, it would be nice if the text of the article is expanded (with cites too!) some, if you removed that huge list of works, it would almost be a stub. If the articles quality issues were improved, I'd support on significance (and consider this vote exactly that, without me having to change it). --Jayron32 16:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvements. Highly notable within his field. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment last time I looked there's absolutely zero about his death in the article, no reaction, no detail, nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I have added the detail of his death to the article, but more definitely can be added as to his impact. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Two police officers shot in FergusonEdit

Consensus against. BencherliteTalk 20:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2014 Ferguson unrest (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Two police officers are shot in Ferguson, Missouri. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, BBC, The Guardian
Nominator's comments: Lead story on the BBC, New York Times, CNN, ABC News, and the Guardian. Seems to be a significant development in the unrest in Ferguson. Everymorning talk 18:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The initial posting of this(the protests) was sufficient; the two officers will recover. This incident does not directly have to do with race issues there as it seems the officers were targeted or "ambushed".[23] 331dot (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Racial motivation is hardly precluded by evidence of premediation or ambush. That said, this news does not rise to ITN level at the current time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is still a lot of mess going on as a result of the DOJ's review of the earlier shooting, this is just one facet. There will likely be a lawsuit based on the DOJ's findings, and the result of that would be he point for posting. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now Officers are shot in this country with disturbing frequency. Such shootings are almost never covered by ITN. In this case the officers weren't killed (thank God). Is it a notable event? Yes. Is it ITN worthy? Not at this point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose since both officers will recover there is not much here. SeraV (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per Masem. I think that there will be significantly more notable events in the near future relating to this topic. Mamyles (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose really nothing to see here. People get shot in America every day, dozens of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    Actually hundreds would be more accurate. On a typical day in America there are ~30 gun-involved murders, ~50 suicides-by-firearm, and ~150 other incidents where someone is wounded by a gun. Dragons flight (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The original officer was not indicted and the Obama Admin has decided not to bring Civil Rights charges, but the press and agitators have ginned this up, we don't need to provided notoriety to an incompetent terrorist. μηδείς (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Terry PratchettEdit

Article: Terry Pratchett (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: OBE, famed author of the Discworld series MASEM (t) 15:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support RD: Very well-known author, virtually a household name in some English-speaking countries. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb; well-loved and influential author, easily passes the death criteria. Sceptre (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    • RD is obvious, but just like Nimoy last week, a blurb here is really not appropriate. He had Alzheimers, so it was a matter of when, not if, he'd die. And while he's "nerd popular" (eg I'd suspect a majority of WPians would know of him readily), he didn't have that much influence to the level of a blurb - eg it could be a dangerous precedent. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD very popular and "a household name" also in my country. Sad news, he and his humor will be missed. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support RD only for the same reasons as Masem. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (ec) Support for RD only per Masem. The article is both a good article and one with a long-standing orange-level tag, so needs some work (but hopefully not huge amounts) before it will be ready. BencherliteTalk 15:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    • As a note, most of that stuff about adaptions (where the orange tag is at) is all about Discworld adaptions, so potentially a simple solution would be to sweep that under the rug, pushing the issue to the adaptions page but summarizing that his works have been adapted for television, games, etc. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support For RD as per long standing health problems. Miyagawa (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for RD I guess his egg timer ran dry. Legendary modern fantasy author. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for RD Among the very most notable in his field by miles - awards, honors and even a knighthood. He spent the last years of his life documenting and chronicling Alzheimer's in himself. Another that I will miss. Challenger l (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbolic support. One of the greatest authors of our time. Joshua Garner (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Support ITN: Probably one of the most prolific English writers in modern fantasy & sci-fi aside JK Rowling & Neil Gaiman. 2602:306:336B:CB00:7582:2B4:C6B4:72D0 (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

March 11Edit

[Closed] 2015 Eglin Air Force Base helicopter crashEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 03:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 Eglin Air Force Base helicopter crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A helicopter with eleven military personnel on board crashes off the coast of Florida. (Post)
News source(s): CNN Washington Post New York Times ABC News
Nominator's comments: Lead story on CNN, Obama has also given his condolences (see NY Times link above). This crash has also been covered by BBC [24] and the Guardian [25] Everymorning talk 17:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support article seems barebones, but the number of casulaties ought to be high enough for ITN. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
    Meanwhile, at least 41 people are killed in another accident with risks they didn't sign up for. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose per TRM. I don't think that this meets the threshold for ITN. There are countless examples of military crashes we didn't post, like the USA's February 22nd, 2012 crash that killed 7 in an Arizona training base. Mamyles (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I'm considering that this was a training exercise (at night) and while unfortunate, was, as TRM says, something they knew the risks going into; compared to , say, the reality show helicopter crash the other day. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not notable enough to feature on ITN. Despite the higher than average death toll, a fairly routine military training accident. Mjroots (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are numerous similar and even more severe accidents that we omit every day. I cannot identify anything that makes this one different.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • No - Too common an event to justify ITN. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose This is a bit more than your run of the mill training accident, but even so, it's still too common for inclusion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Hunga TongaEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 03:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Hunga Tonga (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Locals walk on a new volcanic solidified island in the Pacific island nation of Tonga, and life takes hold as seabirds nest. (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph Daily Mail, video

Article needs updating
 TGCP (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I have now - comments were that the event was too recent and still ongoing. The event is now finished, and the news is that it is safe and goes from naked rock to supporting life, like primordial Earth. TGCP (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional oppose: The article is seriously out-of-date and is very short for ITN purposes. Once it is filled out and brought up to present, I would likely support posting. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I would beg to differ: It is not "seriously" out of date. The eruption ceased on 25 January 2015. The first visit to the island (accompanied by photos) occurred 10 March 2015. That's all the news there is. The article is also not "too short". As the primary contributor to the article, I can honestly say that almost every single published, neutral news source available has been used on both eruptive events. (An isoalted, developing nation simply doesn't get the coverage an Alaskan or Japanese eruption would.) - Tim1965 (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Consider updating the intro, then, and possibly the infobox as well. Right now, the actual news (that a brand-new island has formed) is buried at the very bottom of the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support but it needs an update, the only material added this month is one sentence and one ref saying that birds are nesting there now. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

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

March 10Edit

[Closed] Jeremy Clarkson suspendedEdit

Snow close, will never be posted. Stephen 01:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Jeremy Clarkson (talk, history)
Blurb: Jeremy Clarkson, the host of BBC television show Top Gear, is suspended after his involvement in what the BBC calls a "fracas" with a producer. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, BBC, Reuters, USA Today
Nominator's comments: Top Gear is, according to the Wikipedia page on the show, the most watched factual television show in the world. Thus it seems significant that the host of this show has been suspended, and of interest to many of our readers. Everymorning talk 00:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I enjoy "Top Gear" as much as the next bloke, but there is no way this meets the notability criteria for ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • These things happen and unlike Brian Williams, he's not accused of malfeasance, it's just a quarrel. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: Not only is this trivial news, this was also something that most fans of Top Gear figured was bound to happen due to Clarkson's attitude. --MASEM (t) 01:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] RD: Frei OttoEdit

Included as a detail in the award blurb, Stephen 22:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Frei Otto (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deutsche Welle

Article updated
Nominator's comments: We have already agreed in the nomination on winning the Pritzker Prize bellow that the fact he was awarded with this prize means he was on the top of his field. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unnecessary duplication (see below discussion). Also, as I wrote there, the article is not referenced. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    I don't see any duplication at all. This is nomination about the death of Frei Otto; the one bellow is about the winner of the Pritzker Prize in 2015. These two are completely independent nominations.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    We're not going to have Frei Otto mentioned in a blurb and in RD at the same time, are we? Of course not. One nomination is enough. BencherliteTalk 23:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. He meets the criteria and he has died. I don't see why the coincidence of him being part of a new story that has also been nominated matters. The article only has one reference at present, though. Formerip (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Had he simply died, he might have been listed at RD. Had he simply won the prize, he might have been listed with a blurb. Note that blurb and RD are both part of the single ITN template--these are not two separate areas. Had he been awarded the prize, and a blurb been posted, we would neither pull the blurb if he died and move him to RD nor also add him to RD: we'd simply update the blurb. That's all this is, except the two things both happened before posting. We simply need an "updated" blurb that includes both facts. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD is a part of ITN and was meant to speed up the process of nominees who really didn't need blurbs. It would be unprecedented and hugely overblowing this to give him two listings, as well as the fact that it would be pushing someone else off ITN or RD. μηδείς (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose if the writeup about the prize also mentions his death. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a time where even if the rules of ITN would require a separate entry for the prize and the death, IAR says to treat them both together. --MASEM (t) 01:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me all. Why am I the nominator of this? Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORDmy strength 03:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with Formerip. Consensus below is that the award deserves an ITN blurb, so "pushing someone else off ITN" is not a factor to consider. Currently, there is only one person listed at RD, so "pushing someone else" off there is also not an issue. I can't see any harm in one person appearing on the same page twice for different reasons. Conversely, mentioning his death in the blurb for the award could lead to conflation of the two events in the mind of the reader, which would be unfortunate since it is entirely avoidable. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support He qualifies as being at the top of his field - the award does merit a blurb, so I would suggest 'Frei Otto is awarded the Pritzker Architecture Prize posthumously.' Does this work for anyone else? Challenger l (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Apparently he was told about the prize before he died so it wasn't given posthumously, though it was announced posthumously. I've suggested an alt blurb below which you can change if you want; I might suggest to everyone that we confine this discussion to the already-existing one below where this can all be worked out. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] GOP's letter to IranEdit

SNOW close. SpencerT♦C 00:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Tom Cotton (talk, history) and Comprehensive agreement on Iranian nuclear program (talk, history)
Blurb: Tom Cotton and 46 other United States Senators write a letter to Iran questioning the legitimacy of an agreement on Iran's nuclear program negotiated by the Barack Obama administration. (Post)
Alternative blurb: 47 Republican United States Senators write an open letter to Iran in regards to negotiations on Iran's nuclear program.
News source(s): The New York Times

Article updated
 pbp 23:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Run-of-the-mill political gamesmanship. --WaltCip (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Usually run-of-the-mill gamesmanship doesn't include letters to a foreign country. pbp 23:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Very much run of the mill. If an agreement is cancelled or a new one created and signed by all parties, that's a news item. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This isn't news. Backbenchers playing games, that's all. We're not a WP:SOAPbox for political advocacy, either. American politicians take themselves too seriously. That's the fundamental problem with republicanism, as there is no God or Monarch to keep up the old boys' humility. RGloucester 23:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per RGloucester whose comment may be the finest and most politically incorrect, but I repeat myself, I have read on here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Meaningless domestic political debate(despite involving Iran, the GOP just wants to undercut Obama) as their opinion is not relevant until and unless they are asked to vote on removing sanctions.--331dot (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Frei Otto wins the Pritzker Architecture PrizeEdit

Articles: Frei Otto (talk, history) and Pritzker Architecture Prize (talk, history)
Blurb: ​German designer Frei Otto wins the Pritzker Architecture Prize. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​German designer Frei Otto wins the Pritzker Architecture Prize.
Alternative blurb II: ​The awarding of the Pritzker Architecture Prize to Frei Otto, shortly before his death, is announced earlier than planned.
Alternative blurb III: ​German designer Frei Otto wins the Pritzker Architecture Prize shortly before his death.
News source(s): The New York Times

Article updated

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

 The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Question. Should the blurb mention his death or just focus on the award? 331dot (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    It could mention his death, we could arguably run him at RD at this point, clearly top of his field.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    I would mention that he was posthumously given the award in the blurb, as that gives us "two" items for the space of one. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think a blurb at ITN trumps RD for this particular person. Winning an award the day after dying is ITN material. So I Support for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on article improvement Otto's article has one inline reference. While no longer "blp", this needs to be much better sourced to be a front page item. But once that's done, this is clearly good to ITN. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for blurb mentioning his death. It appears to be the first time the prize has been awarded posthumously. The list needs updating in the text part. If Otto is also to be bolded, work will be needed on referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    • This is incorrect. The decision that he would be awarded with the prize was made shortly before his death. You can check on the official pages that the jury members do not mention his death in his biography and that is awarded posthumously.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    • It is even reported in the official news that the architect was informed about the decision made by the jury and the news includes his reaction to it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R but I strongly oppose mentioning his death in the blurb or making any combination. It was known that he would be awarded with the prize before his death and it practically didn't have any impact on the decision. If you think that his death merits inclusion, then you're encouraged to run another nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    So a blurb about the prize and an RD nomination too, because he was clearly top of his field. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    I second you. Just go for it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    I've already done it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • RD is a part of ITN, he should not be double-listed, it would be entirely unprecedented and he's not that important to become the first to set such a precedent. That being said, given he does deserve listing at at least RD, and the coincidence of the death and the prize, I certainly:
(This is not a vote) Support blurb mentioning prize and death and oppose RD. μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support there is no point in double-listing him, just mention prize and death in the blurb. Something like German designer Frei Otto wins the Pritzker Architecture Prize shortly after his death. SeraV (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
    The problem with your wording is that our readers may easily get confused that he was awarded posthumously as it's already the case with one of the fellow users commenting above. In fact, the jury made their decision shortly before his death and the architect was even notified about it and had time to react to it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment for those supporting a combined blurb, please suggest one. It appears to be quite awkward to succinctly capture this in one short blurb, and get it factually correct, i.e. the foundation moved the announcement of the award forward, they let him know, he reacted, he died. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggested blurb; I invite others to alter or change it. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It somewhat misses the focus, i.e. that Otto won the Pritzker Prize, by placing more emphasis on his death and the rescheduling of the announcement (which, in the big scheme of things, is relatively trivial). I still can't see a succinct way of combining all of the elements into a neat blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't say I disagree with that assessment- but maybe others will know better than I. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see what the big fuss is about him having the Pritzker blurb and an RD listing. It's just a sad coincidence, that's all. The ITNR is really all about the prize and probably ought not be derailed by bloat about Otto's death. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I totally agree. The quality of Wikipedia depends on the conciseness of presenting facts but not on stylistic changes that may harm originality. The fact that many users participating in this discussion and that above wrongly perceived that the prize was given posthumously is sufficient indicator that we should pay special attention on the conciseness in the blurb and avoid any bloating.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I've attempted to make a start on improving the references on the Otto page, it's a little outside my comfort zone so any other help in sourcing/excising OR would be great. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ALT II, but with both bolded once ITN requirements re article quality have been met. This neatly addresses the issues raised above. Mjroots (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
    Which articles require further addressing? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ALT II blurb but not RD duplication is not necessary. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment do we really want "The awarding of..."? Sounds dreadful to my ear. I prefer, for expediency, we stick to the facts, and go with the first blurb and worry about the death issue subsequently. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support my ALT III (but not RD) which bolds both articles and makes it clear that the award was pre-death. Marking ready as both articles appear to be in decent shape (the prize article is a featured list). BencherliteTalk 17:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Alt III as short and sweet, covering both important facts. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted, Alt III, seemed the most concise, and negates the requirement for an RD. Stephen 22:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

[Removed] Remove "War in Ukraine" from ongoingEdit

Removed by Spencer. RGloucester 23:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Events have settled down since the end of the Battle of Debaltseve. There is no need for this item to remain in ongoing. If events start to pick-up again, it can be put in again. RGloucester 22:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree; this has died down and can be removed. 331dot (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support removal A quick check of the article history shows no major substantive additions to the content in over a week. All of the edits have been basically style fixes and cleanup. If no new information is being added, it isn't appropriate for ongoing. --Jayron32 22:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Jayron's summary. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait Today's headline: "More Russian tanks, equipment cross Ukraine border: U.S. official" There are also 3,000 US troops deploying to Eastern Europe and Britain saying it will start broadcasting Putin-critical information into Russia. What's needed is attention from someone with te time and familiarity, the issue itself is nowhere near out of the news. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
    It's of no consequence if the article is not being updated. As of now, there still isn't any major additions to the article in the past week. --Jayron32 03:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Almost 12 hours after the headline Medis mentions, there have been no updates to the article so readers wont be informed about the latest developments, it thus fails the "updated" criterion for being featured in the ITN section of the main page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
That's not the right article for Russian involvement. You must be looking for 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. There is a clear division of content with Ukrainian crisis articles. Regardless, this is hardly a new development. Ms Nuland has been making such proclamations on a regular and repeated basis. If one takes a look at the military intervention article, one will see that. RGloucester 15:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Villa Castelli helicopter crashEdit

Complaints about various images selected can be taken to WP:ERRORS, this candidate is closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Villa Castelli helicopter crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Ten people are killed following a mid-air collision between two helicopters in Argentina, including Camille Muffat, Alexis Vastine and Florence Arthaud (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Ten people are killed following a mid-air collision between two helicopters in Argentina, including Camille Muffat, Alexis Vastine and Florence Arthaud who were participating in a French reality TV show.
Alternative blurb II: ​Ten people are killed following a mid-air collision between two helicopters in Argentina, including Florence Arthaud and Olympic medalists Camille Muffat and Alexis Vastine who were participating in a French reality TV show.
News source(s): BBC
 The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support per nom, major event with international coverage. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 08:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support, but is there any reason that all four articles can't be bolded? Mjroots (talk) 08:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Note The "Aircraft" section is currently in need of expansion. There are sources which identify both aircraft, but these do not meet WP:RS, which is why I haven't used them. Expect these will be covered by RSs in due course.
      • now   Fixed. Mjroots (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support per nom, also the fact two of those are recent Olympic medalists should be mentioned as news sites included this fact as a headline, hence I included it as an alternative blurb. Donnie Park (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support I came here to nominate this by myself. Considering the notability of the sportspeople who were killed on board, this accident definitely merits inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Marking ready - the article is in decent condition and there is strong support. I suggest that the blurb is trimmed to omit mention of the reality show and Olympic medal, though, otherwise it's too long: perhaps – A mid-air collision between two helicopters in Argentina kills ten people, including French athletes Florence Arthaud, Camille Muffat and Alexis Vastine. (If there's a better description than "athletes", please use it, but not "celebrities"). BencherliteTalk 13:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    • "Athletes" is fine, and gender-neutral. Agree with not using "celebrities". Mjroots (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Used original blurb and added descriptor "French athletes" --Jayron32 13:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    Also, if we want a picture, we have two of the three named athletes who have free pictures, Camille Muffat and Florence Arthaud. I'll leave it to people to decide if we want to include a pic or not, then perhaps ping the Picture Czar if we arrive at one of these. --Jayron32 13:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
There's one of Vastine available too, but I think it would look odd to prioritise one. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with above. Why have we chosen just one image of a deceased in a crash which killed 10, including two others with images? '''tAD''' (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

[closed]Wikimedia Foundation sues National Security AgencyEdit

WP:SNOW close --Jayron32 20:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I won't write it but someone should mention something. -- dsprc [talk] 16:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

  • IAR support I think ITN is a good way to inform our readers about this. wctaiwan (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
To elaborate a bit more: I think we should let our readers know about this and judge for themselves a) what they feel about it and b) whether it would affect Wikipedia. A site notice seems excessive, but this is somewhat more directly relevant to our readers than usual goings-on at the foundation. wctaiwan (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
We're not here to right great wrongs. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
That's not why I'm supporting. The reader can decide for themselves the morality of the foundation's actions, but I think we should inform them. wctaiwan (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not our duty to "inform". WP:ITN "serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." There isn't even an article suggested to link to. And is it of wide interest? To those of us commenting here, maybe, but that's where the navel-gazing concern comes in. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The announcement of a lawsuit? We wouldn't post this if it was anyone else, so why should we post it just because it's Wikimedia? The result of the lawsuit may be worth posting, but it's mere existence isn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ignoring the navel-gazing aspect, this is just filing of the court documents. If this actually actually has a trial and the decision is significant, then we should post that. But just that a court filing has been opened is not sufficient for ITN --MASEM (t) 16:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Navel gazing aside [26], Wikimedia Foundation oversees one of the top visited Web sites on the planet. They are joined by a broad coalition of civil liberties groups seeking an end to unconstitutional mass surveillance of hundreds of millions of their users and the broader Internet community and have directly taken legal action against the Government of the United States and its security apparatus to stop it. If it was Joe Blow it would be one thing, but these are huge organizations. "Pakalitha Mosisili forms a coalition government following a snap election in Lesotho." is really more notable than this? -- dsprc [talk] 16:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If the Foundation felt it was important enough to let its users know that they have filed this suit, they can easily add it to global page header notice box, like they do when they have funding drives, etc. In terms of ITN we need to ignore the fact this has to do with WP and recognize that without that, this is just filing court papers. (The SOPA thing is different as it was an action joined by many many many sites, not just WP, and made actual news). --MASEM (t) 17:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Masem: Wikimedia aren't the only ones, they've just the biggest megaphone. ACLU, The Nation, Rutherford, Amnesty International, Pen American, Human Rights Watch. This isn't just about the Foundation either but the coalition. "Made actual news"? Since when is The Paper of Record not news? There is plenty of news [27][28]; everyone from the Russians to Slate, Politico, CBS, The Verge, WSJ, McClatchy, Der Spiegel. Yeah it is not making any news at all. Just navel-gazing. -- dsprc [talk] 17:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's "in the news", but not in the manner SOPA was (as because of the blackout it affected the way the web work, so had huge coverage, while here I'm seeing a story of interest but not "news shattering". But other points still remain: this is only the filing of the case, and would never by ITN by itself if WP wasn't involved, and there's no article proposed at all (or even one I can see until a court case is actually made). --MASEM (t) 17:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, however if the lawsuit is won or any significant changes to common practice result then I think that would be news. Chillum 16:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with others that the time to post something like this is if it results is significant changes, rather than at the mere filing of court papers. Dragons flight (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now Too soon. This may eventually rate a mention somewhere on the Front Page. But we are a long ways from that point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per Masem. This In the News section is to highlight quality improvements to articles about recent events. It is not to help the foundation make or publicize a political statement. (But I agree that this filing is relevant to WP users, and would accept a news line in the Wikimedia global header, not ITN, if/when that decision is made elsewhere.) Mamyles (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I'm too paranoid about it all to vote either way on this. You never know what the consequences might be. Formerip (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
That's bit sad if you are actually serious. You should think bit more positively, if there would be consuquences at least you would know that you don't live in democracy with an actual free speech. SeraV (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't a serious vote. My handler made me do it. Formerip (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all the reasons above. -- Calidum 19:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose; the resolution of this lawsuit might merit posting, but not now. It's also not entirely clear the suit will even get to a trial as standing seems to be an issue. 331dot (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

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

March 9Edit


Article: US 708 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Astronomers discover fastest unbound star (pictured) in Milky Way at a speed of 1200 kilometers per second. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Astronomers discover US 708 (pictured) as the fastest unbound star in the galaxy.
News source(s): SpaceRef Daily mail Many more

 Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORDmy strength 10:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose, the star was discovered in 1982, all that's new is the theoretical model of what gave it such a kick. Stephen 23:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
So says the alt blurb...Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORDmy strength 02:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

RD: James Molyneaux, Baron Molyneaux of KilleadEdit