Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/March 2016

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] RD: Denise RobertsonEdit

No consensus and seemingly no interest to post this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Denise Robertson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Telegraph The Guardian Daily Mail
Nominator's comments: On daytime TV in the UK for 30 years - up until her death - as an "agony aunt" MurielMary (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've lived in the UK for 60+ years and had never heard of her until yesterday. Not notable enough. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless you were a big fan of "This Morning" or "Loose Women" chances are you have never heard of her. Not RD material I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not at the level of Claire Rayner. Stephen 04:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Kolkata overpass collapseEdit

Article: 2016 Kolkata overpass collapse (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An overpass collapses in Kolkata, India, killing at least 25 people. (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Tragic accident, getting a lot of media coverage. (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support The article is presently a tad short but as a construction accident from the Eastern world, it will likely take time for proper information to filter into place. But it is otherwise sourced and the incident notable. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - upon article expansion.BabbaQ (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is adequate and can easily be expanded when more information becomes available. -Zanhe (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support now, as the expansion is there. Brandmeistertalk 21:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Getting significant coverage; notable infrastructure project failure. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 05:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

[Posted to RD]: Hans-Dietrich GenscherEdit

Article: Hans-Dietrich Genscher (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Tagesschau, NYTimes, BBC

Nominator's comments: This should be a no-brainer on notability, long-standing foreign minister of Germany, one of the major political figures in post-war West Germany. However, the article needs a lot of citation work. I will do some of it in the coming hours, but I would urge everyone: Don't just post "Support upon improvements". Do some yourself. If everyone tackles one paragraph, this will be easy peasy to get ready to post within the day. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now on quality alone. At least 3 sections are inadequately referenced: The section titled "Biography" and then the two at the end with "Other Activities" and "Recognition". If that could be cleaned up, this would be appropriate for the main page. --Jayron32 11:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on article improvements per Jayron. Importance clear but poor sourcing. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – Postwar Germany's most influential, effective and longest-serving foreign minister. Present at the dissolution of the Eastern Bloc. – Sca (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - influential. needs improvements though.BabbaQ (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - influential diplomat. -Zanhe (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Easily. --bender235 (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added sources now. Please re-evaluate. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Support One of the most influential diplomats, constantly working on the Fall of the Iron Curtain. Actually should get a text like Schmidt before. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – What's the holdup? Sca (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. Stephen 04:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

[Reposted] RD: Zaha HadidEdit

Article: Zaha Hadid (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: First woman to win the Pritzker Architecture Prize, RIBA Gold Medal etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support after update - There currently isn't anything about her death in the main article, I suppose this will change soon. Fgf10 (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Her achievements are notable enough in their own to be on the main page, although someone is going to need to find citations for some of the missing material early on on the page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per above and death cause is there. Brandmeistertalk 16:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, but sourcing needs to be improved before posting. -Zanhe (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support notable architect. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Done - Posted -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    Um, given that Corbett is ready and is thoroughly sourced while this is not fully sourced in any way, could we please explain the thinking here? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    I was about to comment that the sourcing problems pointed out above were not resolved at the time of posting. Importance is clear, but sourcing/quality is also a must. --MASEM (t) 18:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    You're an uninvolved admin. Perhaps you could, at the very least, post Corbett. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Fuzheado: The posting is premature, I'm afraid. Significant portions of the article are still unsourced. On the other hand, Imre Kertész is ready. -Zanhe (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Can someone pull this please. Consensus is not counting how many bold supports there are and most of the above are clearly conditional on quality. While going through this I've found that, not only are several paragraphs unsourced, existing citations do not support certain statements. This rush to post looks awfully like a supervote and overlooks other nominations that are clearly ready. Fuebaey (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Pulled premature posting Stephen 22:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Ready to re-post all "citation needed" tags have been fixed. MurielMary (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ronnie CorbettEdit

Article: Ronnie Corbett (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: One half of the Two Ronnies, death at 85 makes this not totally unexpected and would probably work against a blurb. Mjroots (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support RD pending improvements Sadly quite a bit of the article is uncited, and that would need to be fixed before he could get listed. Miyagawa (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support There's still a couple of minor uncited items. I'll take a look later and see if I can fix those. I have to go out and get some fork handles first. Miyagawa (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Notability-wise, I'm not sure whether Two Ronnies was that popular worldwide and whether he makes the cut in general. Brandmeistertalk 12:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    It doesn't need to be popular worldwide. In fact it's most likely that it was less popular simply because it was British humour. As the article says it ... was watched by 22 million viewers a show ..., that's nearly half the population of the United Kingdom at the time, so its viewership is comparable to the Superbowl in relative terms. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    According to the source] (Ronnie B's obituary) the peak viewing was 17 million, not 22, and this was at a time when there were only 3 or 4 channels available. I've updated the article to match the source. Having said that I support RD once the article is up to standard, but not blurbworthy though. And it's goodnight from him. Optimist on the run (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    Oh well, a mere third of the population. Still comparable to the Superbowl viewing figures. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD as per my comment above. Optimist on the run (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality only. Article is extensive enough, but about 50% unreferenced. Needs some referencing work to be main page ready. --Jayron32 12:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    Change to Support The referencing has improved a lot. There's still a few uncontroversial items in the "later career" section which could use a cite, but I won't hold up posting over that. Keep up the good work whoever worked on it. --Jayron32 15:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support after improvements. A major figure in British comedy for generations, but the article needs some work. BencherliteTalk 12:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD after improvements for the same reasons as Bencherlite gives. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article is in poor shape. --Tocino 13:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, a household name in the UK, a much loved figure and one of the last the pioneering figures in TV comedy (remember, not just the Two Ronnies, but also That Was The Week That Was, which is where the name The Two Ronnies came from). I will light four candles in his memory. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment a lot of work has been done on the article already, for those who are interested, please re-appraise. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Notability isn't really an issue here, household name for decades. Referencing seems to be fine at the moment as well. Fgf10 (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD, major British personality, household name.LM2000 (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - who is that? Allegedly a British household name, but in the same way that we would not post Mongolian/Indonesian/Sao Tomean household names, we should not post anyone who had zero impact outside his home country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
    Bollocks I'm afraid. That's neither demonstrated in the criteria for posting, nor in the items that are routinely posted. If you want to change things, try to do something helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    If he wanted to be helpful, he'd have an established identity. Instead, he wants to troll, and so hides behind a random IP address. --Jayron32 18:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    Or she. ;-) MurielMary (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    Oh well, then please show us your IP address instead of hiding behind an anonymous user name...
  • Posted While a few paragraphs in his latter appearances are technically unsourced, they are all about blue-linked shows he was in with sourcing to confirm those works there. Those sources should be brought into this one, but not an issue to post. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - a giant in his field. (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

[Stale] Vojislav ŠešeljEdit

Article: Vojislav Šešelj (talk, history)
Blurb: Vojislav Šešelj, Serbian politician, writer and lawyer is cleared of all charges of the indictment before International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (Post)
Alternative blurb: Serbian politician Vojislav Šešelj is cleared of all charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Yugoslav Wars by the ICTY
Alternative blurb II: International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia clears Serbian politician Vojislav Šešelj of all charges.
News source(s): Trial Judgement in the case of Vojislav Šešelj delivered

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major event in political history of the Balkans, also all other previous indictments by this international crime court were posted here in the news... Axiomus (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment We do indeed post ICTY rulings. However, the current article has so many tags that it is inappropriate for Main page at the moment. This needs to be addressed first. --Tone 12:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Solved. Those were actually old tags from years ago, and i have also added more references. Its good to go. --Axiomus (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Neutral. Acquittal is less newsworthy than indictment, Šešelj was not an especially high up figure at the time of the alleged offences, and from what I can tell from the court verdict, the crimes he was accused of were not as serious as those of other Serbian leaders (agitating for a "Greater Serbia", recruiting for Serbian forces, and engaging in hate speech against Croats – all of which the court found that he did, but not in a way that broke the law). I don't think we'd post analogous cases in other conflicts (for example, I doubt we'd post the acquittal of an IRA or UDF propagandist in Northern Ireland). That said, we have posted several ICTY acquittals before (Milan Milutinović, Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač). Smurrayinchester 14:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment: perhaps the link was updated after you've read it but he was accused of committing rather serious crimes - "Vojislav Šešelj faced nine counts of which three were for crimes against humanity (persecution, deportation and inhumane act of forcible transfer) and six were for war crimes (murder, torture and cruel treatment, wanton destruction, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion or education, plunder of public or private property)."--Avala (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Having found a more detailed case description, it seems he was accused as an abettor or inciter rather than a direct participant or commander in those crimes (in other words, he was accused of helping murderers and war criminals (particularly, by promoting racist ideas that encouraged Serbian troops to attack non-Serb civilians), and of participating in a joint criminal enterprise with them). From the slightly more detailed link, his crimes were: "to have participated in the recruitment, formation, financing, supply, support and direction of Serbian volunteers", "having participated in the planning and preparation of the take-over of towns and villages in Croatia and in a number of municipalities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the subsequent forcible removal of the majority of the non-Serb population from those areas", "having participated in the provision of financial, material, logistical and political support necessary from the Serbian authorities and from Serbs living abroad for the take-overs", "collecting the funds to support the aim of the JCE", "having recruited Serbian volunteers connected to the SRS and indoctrinated them with his extreme ethnic rhetoric" and "in his inflammatory speeches, he instigated Serb forces to commit crimes, encouraged the creation of a homogeneous "Greater Serbia" by violence, and thereby participated in war propaganda and incitement of hatred towards non-Serb people so that they engaged in the forcible removal of the non-Serb population". I still feel most of these are tangential (although the charge of planning ethnic cleansing is a severe one, and I'm surprised it didn't appear in the ICTY press release), and I don't like the idea of posting the cases of minor participants in JCEs as if they were the main perpetrators, but I also wouldn't be opposed to posting. Smurrayinchester 07:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, we would and should, if it were that the IRA or Ulster loyalists were tried in front of the ICTY '''tAD''' (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - very high profile case, trial lasted for 13 years + precedent exists from just a few days ago - [1].--Avala (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I don't see why Šešelj being acquitted is less notable than a conviction. It was something of a surprise and is certainly arousing quite a response. It may also affect the upcoming Serbian elections by giving Šešelj's party a boost, as various sources have noted. The crimes he was charged with were very serious, in my view. He is and was a major political figure in Serbia, so I am not convinced by the notion that he was not a sufficiently important leader. Neljack (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose the accused being found not guilty is the default assumption. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
You are obviously unfamiliar with ITCY way of working then... --Axiomus (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Why not try asking what I mean, rather than making personal insults? In general, something not happening is not news. μηδείς (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Being officially cleared of war crimes charges is notable, as such trials are more disruptive and longer (13 years) to the person on trial than garden variety trials; it is also notable that the ICTY found anyone not guilty, as it establishes precedent regarding the fairness of trials in international law. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb or altblurb2, though the article needs much improvement and should at least tell us, on which grounds he was acquitted.
    Now, 12 years after his surrender to the ICTY, and after most indictees were convicted (see the list), his acquittal is even more newsworthy than an indictment would be. Unlike many others on the list, Šešelj was a high-profile advocate of Greater Serbia policies, and his ICTY indictment was amongst the most widely followed and covered ones, obviously second to figures like Karadžić or Milošević. --PanchoS (talk) 10:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvement - significant development, but article has way too many citation needed tags. -Zanhe (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Imre KertészEdit

Article: Imre Kertész (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Tagesschau

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Nobel Prize for Literature winner. Article could be better, maybe someone has the time to go through it? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support pending article improvement. NP laureate and contributed to awareness about the Holocaust. w.carter-Talk 09:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: Working on cleaning it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Can't find much info in English sources. Someone else also has to chip in I suppose. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I made some expansion work, but really not too much to find. In my opinion the prose itself and the sources are fine. Only problem might be the unsourced Award table, but I highly doubt that one will easily find sources for many of those without knowing Hungarian... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - notable writer, Nobel laureate, Holocaust survivor. Article quality is adequate. -Zanhe (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - significant improvements made in the article since first offered as an ITN candidate, and the sourcing is now adequate. Notability established in preceding comments. Christian Roess (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment removing ready at this point, too many claims of awards without any citations, particularly with awards that don't have English Wikipedia articles to back up the claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - No brainer. Gamaliel (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. Marked ready. Sca (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    As noted above, too many unreferenced claims of awards, BLP applies. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    All but three are now cited. We can just delete them if this is a sticking point. Gamaliel (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    Well as are his unreferenced and unlinked works. Is there a general source (e.g. Worldcat) that can reference those many uncited works? The unreferenced awards should either be cited or be removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    All works before 2003 are now cited. Only two remain uncited now. Gamaliel (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted good enough, especially in light of the ridiculously quick posting of Hadid. Good work to those involved in the updates. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

March 30Edit

March 29Edit

[Posted] RD: Patty DukeEdit

Article: Patty Duke (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): USA Today BBC Daily Mail People Hollywood Reporter Washington Post

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Oscar-winning actress, influential in Hollywood in her later years. MASEM (t) 17:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose on quality. Article is mostly unreferenced. It is long and extensive and none of it is verifiable because it hasn't been cited to reliable sources. If someone can reference it, this would be an easy addition to the main page. --Jayron32 17:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
    Support Problems have been fixed. Seems main page ready to me. --Jayron32 12:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality per Jayron32. An Oscar winner, president of SAG, and mental health advocate is otherwise a promising candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
    Support Well done on the article improvements. It's ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality – Meets RD criteria but the article quality is not up to par, as explained by Jayron. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose a serious amount of work would need to be undertaken to improve this article's verifability to ITN's standards. Jolly Ω Janner 23:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on notability but I have strep throat as the least of my current worries, so just let me oppose a snow close at this point. μηδείς (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support notability and giving editors a bit of time to work on the article before closing this nom. MurielMary (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment article has had an overhaul; does it need more work? MurielMary (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on quality Please check the work done since the last oppose at 23:07, 29 March. Can you still say it's mostly unsourced? JustinTime55 (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's "unsourced" any longer; however, I wonder if there is excessive detail still. Much has been trimmed, but more could be/should be? MurielMary (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on quality based on this overhaul. The fixes have improved the overall readability & flow of the article which is now well documented because of the numerous citations that have been added. Personally, I liked some of the previous details listed in the "Later years" section that seem now to have been removed, but their removal doesn't detract from the overall quality of this article. But yes, perhaps they were a bit " excessive." I also support on notability. Christian Roess (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
    although the filmography section is excessive, IMO. Perhaps this could be scaled back to a "Selected filmography" section. Maybe a "Patty Duke filmography" Wikipedia page could be created, but that's excessive too, because her influence as an actress, and any mainstream attention it brought her, diminished over the years. But that's a quibble, and should not keep it from being added to the main page. Christian Roess (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Sourcing has been significantly improved since the point I nominated this. There's general cleanup that can be done, but that's not an issue for RD posting. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • support - notable actress with a significant career. and good article.BabbaQ (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Good job to everyone involved in the improvement work. When I first saw the state of the article, I figured it had no chance for ITN, but I'm very pleased to have been proven wrong! Miyagawa (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
It was in a bit of a state, indeed! Lots of pruning and sorting out but I'm pleased with the result too. MurielMary (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

[Removed] Removal proposal: European migrant crisisEdit

Removed. Stephen 23:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This has been in the ITN box since August 2015. I don't think keeping it here serves any purpose any more - anyone who would see it has surely seen it by now (traffic has dropped 90% since we posted it). The most recent significant update concerns news from March 23 - older than the oldest piece of news currently in the template. New updates to the saga can be considered as their own blurbs, but keeping it in ongoing is pointless. Smurrayinchester 15:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support removal per nom. SpencerT♦C 15:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Strong support for removal. Yes, the crisis still exists, but it is nowhere getting the same amount of coverage as when it was first introduced. Ongoing was never meant for stories with this long of a news tail. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support removal from ongoing. At this point a significant update would look better as a blurb, and depending on the update ongoing could then be reconsidered. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support removal, per Masem. Things have calmed down. Sca (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - indeed nothing is really happening, just tens of thousands of refugees trapped in Greece. Maybe we should just wait for Spring, when thousands will die in the Mediterranean. I think the threshold for posting is about 100 dead or so, per incident. Maybe higher, because after all these refugees are not Americans or Western Europeans. So let's just wait for Spring and a few more deaths. Btw, a Hollywood actress, Patty Duke, has just died. Someone should go ahead and nominate her for a blurb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
    Can you highlight or include a diff to the new text which has been added to the Wikipedia article which merits including in ongoing? If you can't, then all you're doing is being rude because people disagree with you. That's rarely a means of getting what you want. --Jayron32 17:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support removal now. The last time i remember voting on this, there had been recent activity, but it appears to have died down. I'm good with dropping it for now. We can always post a new item or return it to ongoing with another vote later if activity warrants it. --Jayron32 17:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove - I proposed removal several times. How did my removal proposals, while this one is successful? Waiting for six months? Well, I don't mind it being a blurb, but being an ongoing on the Main Page for six months and then becoming an ongoing again afterwards... It's too much for now. News coverage of the crisis should go to journalists, not us. --George Ho (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
    Because when you made your earlier proposals, there were active, substantive updates being made to the target article. There now aren't. You do know that the world is not static, that things don't stay the same forever, correct? That just because people are actively adding text to an article today, they may not be in a week, right? --Jayron32 19:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
    George Ho time to chill out and stop going off on one. Times change, as does consensus. Please, PLEASE, stop this odd crusade. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Removed from ongoing ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

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

[Posted] EgyptAir Flight 181Edit

Posted and will remain so. Stephen 21:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: EgyptAir Flight 181 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An Egypt Air flight from Cairo to Alexandria is hijacked and forced to land in Cyprus. (Post)
Alternative blurb: EgyptAir Flight 181 {aircraft pictured), a scheduled flight from Alexandria, Egypt to Cairo is hijacked shortly after takeoff, and is forced to land at Larnaca International Airport in Cyprus
News source(s): Yahoo BBC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: These days hijackings are quite rare and with the region in flames this could be something. Lihaas (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe "attempted" hijacking may be more appropriate? My understanding of a hijacking is that one is in control of the aeroplane. Unless the hijackers changed their mind... Also, why is my comment so tiny? Jolly Ω Janner 06:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Once the article is expanded upon more. I also added an alternative hook, since I found the flight number online. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The article looks okay as far as it goes, would be expanded as details emerge. Passes the notability requirement. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - The article is currently way too short, but this is obviously going up when it's ready. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support notable incident. SSTflyer 07:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Article is still only at half the recommended minimum prose size... Jolly Ω Janner 09:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • All passengers and crew were safely released. It would be nice if the blurb were able to mention that, but it's probably not mandatory. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I actually erroneously wrote that into the article, as he did not release four foreign nationals and the crew. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
My fault, I saw it in the article and I saw it in the ref so I called it good. Lack of due diligence on my part considering it's a breaking story. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • This is good to go, but we have no real consensus about a blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The blurb is fine, for the time being. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC).
  • Posted with an abridged alt blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
oppose not notable and by the time he gets out of jail his ex-love will have a harem of anothers kids. (probably delete?)Lihaas (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
What?? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know either. I'm guessing Lihaas is having second thoughts because this apparently won't end up being as bloody as it could have. As the first successful hijacking in something like seven years, this is easily notable enough for ITN regardless of the outcome. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
They did create an alternative page at the wrong name, so that could be the root behind that comment. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Pull – None dead, hostages released, hijacker locked up. Ergo, lacks notability. Sca (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
    Would you be able to point to the last passenger airliner that was hijacked please? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Pull - Given that the man's claim to have had an explosive belt have been shown false, this was mainly a political message, not any acts of terrorism or the like. It's why we should give stories that are open-ended (like a supposed hijacking in progress) time to develop to cement details before putting them ITN, to actually deem them appropriate for ITN. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Sca (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Would you be able to point to the last passenger airliner that was hijacked please? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Even though the belt was fake, he still managed to hijack an airplane and divert it. Good thing everyone survived. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but not really newsworthy. Sca (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
It's still my top story on Google News, covered by many outlets. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Slow news day, by current standards. Sca (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Would you be able to point to the last passenger airliner that was hijacked please? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
So, what sca is saying is that because he PERSONALLY wishes that news outlets were not covering this story extensively, that we should ignore those reliable sources, and instead make Wikipedia decisions based on his personal feelings about the matter. Interesting. --Jayron32 17:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense. Personally, I don't give a rip. I was simply explaining why it appears high on news sites today, despite its comparative insignificance. Given another mass death-and-destruction event, it would quickly move down. (WP:NPA.) – Sca (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Your personal opinion of slow news days is noted. Now time to get back to work. Did you discover the last time a passenger airliner was hijacked? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
That's right, but sadly it's not interesting, nor novel. It happens all the time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
According to us, either 2009 for something like this, or 2014 if the crewmember did not kill everyone. For a crewmember killing everyone, then that was last year. Either way, it has been quite awhile since someone outside of the crew successfully hijacked a plane, so that is quite notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Interesting, but irrelevent. Are reliable news sources covering this event? Is there a sufficient Wikipedia article about this event? There's no need to bring any other proof in here. Either the reliable sources exist or don't, and either the Wikipedia article is good enough for the main page or it isn't. There's no need to bring in anything else into the discussion. --Jayron32 18:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree, and was just helping out with the discussion above. Besides, adding that to the main page with all of those qualifiers would make things a lot more complicated with the hook. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep I was initially hesitant to post it, because of the article size and not knowing what it was all about. Since then I've slept on it and the article has been expanded to above the minimum and it is still headline news around the world. Unless we had a tonne of other related hijackings going on this week, there's no real reason not to post this. Jolly Ω Janner 20:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

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

March 28Edit

[Closed] FBI–Apple encryption disputeEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 21:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: FBI–Apple encryption dispute (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation successfully unlocks the iPhone used by one of the perpetrators of the 2015 San Bernardino attack, leading it to drop its case against Apple, Inc. which aimed at forcing Apple to help them unlock the phone. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The FBI–Apple encryption dispute is dropped by the FBI after they unlock the iPhone related to the 2015 San Bernardino attack
News source(s):

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This event has been high-profile for a while, and now it has definitively come to an end as the FBI doesn't need Apple's help anymore. Everymorning (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Nothing definitively groundbreaking ever came as a result of this.--WaltCip (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there are many problems with featuring this:
    1. It affects only one country. It is by no means clear what would happen if, say, Pakistan gets hit by a terror attack and the Pakistan government orders Apple to unlock the phone. US law reaches only the US, and the Pakistan government might well decide otherwise.
    2. Unlike e.g. the release of a new iPhone, which one could reasonably expect iPhone users worldwide to be interested, because of the above, this only affects US iPhone users.
    3. At the heart of it this dispute is a judgment call: about whether one is willing to give up privacy for security (this is simplifying it, but the essence is there). I feel intuitively that when a dispute reaches this point, the logical way forward is to simply poll everyone involved and follow the majority's judgment. In that case the resolution of the dispute is also rather uninteresting.
    4. Speaking of resolutions this particular resolution is even more uninteresting. There was no long drawn out legal process with multiple lobbyists on both sides, no formal lawsuit before the supreme court, or anything like that. The core issue is not resolved; it just doesn't have to be because there's no problem (for now) anymore. Not very interesting at all.
I'd be more inclined (but still skeptical) to post this if the case were argued before the US supreme court and a binding, groundbreaking precedent made. With this end to the dispute though, I'm decidedly against posting it. Banedon (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Could you kindly point out the requirement that a story affect more than one country to qualify for ITN? -- (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
There is no such requirement, and we in fact discourage single-country objections on this very page: "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.". 331dot (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing groundbreaking here, it's not even a court ruling. If it ended up in court and the court ruled Apple had to assist, that might have been a significant effect on US privacy rights, but this means nothing. --MASEM (t) 01:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The story was big because the potential outcome, had it gone a certain way, could have held truly significant implications. As it stands, a lot of words and money were wasted, paranoia was fueled, and this all might as well have never happened at all. - OldManNeptune 01:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The iPhone is ridiculous, Apple is ridiculous, the people shrieking about the FBI bogeyman are ridiculous, but this ridiculous story is in the news, and the article is ok. There is one fact tag in the whole thing, everything else is sourced to death. -- (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support it's been in the news continuously for quite some time. Article is in good shape. This is probably going to be the only time left to support it. I think we need to just stand back and realise that it's receiving news coverage without quabbling over whether or not we ourselves find it notable. I added alternative blurb. Jolly Ω Janner 02:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Can we not try to act like an ad-generated newspaper or medium already or Wikinews for this matter? The more serious events are more impactful than this one. --George Ho (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support (alt blurb) – this a return to status quo, not a major change that would have immense security ramifications. However, this is a big story regardless and is in the news and I think that pushes it far enough to be worth posting. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
oppose at the end nothing came out of it that was an earth-shattering encroachment on privacy. (its already gone).Lihaas (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose not really that newsworthy. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose because nothing has really changed; the issue was not resolved. As said above, if this was the final decision in a SCOTUS case, it would be more newsworthy. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

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

[Closed, Pulled from Ongoing] 2016 Brussels bombingsEdit

The process worked, further discussion is adding nothing. Stephen
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This got pushed off the main page yesterday by a flurry of newer additions, but things are still happening (esp. new arrests) and the article is still being updated. I don't think there will be any opposition to adding this to Ongoing, so I added it without waiting for a discussion here, but I suppose I should provide a forum for anyone to disagree. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose/pull - What is ongoing on the event? I recognize they're actively trying to track down how it was planned, etc. but unlike the Boston Marathon Bombings where there was an active manhunt and a curfew imposes to assist in that, what we're seeing is expected results from an attack. I'm very hesitant to say "oh, we need to add a story pushed too fast off the news list to ongoing" without prior consensus, as that goes back to timing issues that have been a point of contention on the talk page. A better solution would be to identify certain types of stories that should have x days on the ticker, while other stories might not. For example, any "mass death" story I think would be fair to say should be up for 3 days, min, overriding stories on elections, sports results, and singular recent death blurbs, which should fall off in natural order. But we should not use Ongoing as a means to artificially extend the appearance of a story at ITN just because there was another flurry of news at the same time. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support/keep 1) The article is still being actively updated with new information 2) The article rolled off the bottom of the main ITN thread. Ticks every box for me. --Jayron32 15:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose/pull The updated content isn't all that pertinent. Mostly routine arrests. If it does stay up, I would really only recommend for a few more days. Jolly Ω Janner 22:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose/pull per the Jolly one above. There are a few arrests here and there, this was mercifully not an event in the magnitude of 9/11 whereby new developments and impact would follow for weeks as top stories '''tAD''' (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support/keep owing to significance of the event. It's probable that this will continue to generate news for weeks to come. Banedon (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose/pull - This should have been discussed before adding it. The bombings themselves are significant at this point. The aftermath, however, does not live up to standards of ITN. I see random arrests, reactions, and investigations that make very little impact globally and do nothing other than to gain revenue for the newspapers. Wikipedia is not a business or a for-profit institution or anything like that. If there are arrests of runaway suspects, that belongs to the blurb, not "Ongoing" ticker. We've done this before on other events that heightened fears of Muslims. We already have "European migrant crisis", which worsens it. Maybe it's time to take it out from Ongoing and make developments of the aftermath... blurb-y next time. George Ho (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually no, it didn't need discussion. It can be moved to ongoing "if small, incremental updates are still appearing in notable news agencies, and if regular constructive editing is continuing on the relevant article(s)." Stephen 05:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:ITN also mentions consensus, Stephen. So far, the whole consensus wants it pulled now. --George Ho (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
That's irrelevant. You said it should have been discussed before adding it to ongoing, which is untrue. Stephen 06:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
But by your logic, we should add the death of Rob Ford to ongoing, as it is still receiving significant international coverage.[2] - Floydian τ ¢ 06:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
George, your claim is simply untrue. Floydian, it's not Stephen's logic, that's the wording of the Ongoing instructions, and no, Bob Ford didn't appear as a blurb, so it wouldn't be moved to Ongoing in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, The Rambling Man said it just the way I would have. Stephen 08:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose/pull - Not sure how this is more significant than the Pakistan bombings that killed twice as many and injured roughly the same, aside from it being in a first-world western country that inherently has greater English press coverage. I can't recall any other recent bombings (Paris, Madrid and Boston come to mind) that were elevated to "ongoing". Reactions and cleanup are obviously ongoing, but the main story won't develop much further than identification. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Pull per Floydian. Neljack (talk) 07:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Pulled by Smurrayinchester. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
    • (Edit conflict) I've pulled it per the general consensus. Arrests are a normal follow up to any crime. On a more minor note, with three ongoing events, all with long names, the template looked ungainly. If this does end up being reposted, at least use the noun phrase form "Brussels bombing aftermath" or similar. Smurrayinchester 08:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Huh. OK, my apologies for guessing wrong. I'm really pretty amazed at this result - it was 6 days old, still on the front page of the BBC NYTimes, Washington Post, and CNN websites yesterday, and I recall counting that in the first 15 hours of 28 March (when I added it) it was edited 71 times by 25 people adding significant changes (including release of a man from custody). The Paris attacks stayed in Ongoing for, I think, 2 weeks. Seemed to meet all of the requirements of Ongoing to me. But I'll bow to consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
    Me too, and I could see where some pressure was applied because of that frigging Rambler Tosspot and his Boot Race getting promoted despite it being composed of 1920s gentlemen of the manor, and bumping off the Brussels blurb. It did meet the criteria for moving to Ongoing and it did meet the criteria for being removed per consensus, despite that consensus being somewhat odd. You did exactly the right thing Floq. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Despite suggesting it be pulled, I agree that you did the right thing considering the circumstances. Our guide is to move to ongoing first and then ask questions later. Jolly Ω Janner 22:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Actually, I couldn't nominate the Paris event for removal because... Well, I couldn't repeat what happened to Metrojet Flight 9268. It got removed from Ongoing but then was reinserted as such a few days later. George Ho (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

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

March 27Edit

[Stale] RD: Mother AngelicaEdit

Article: Mother Angelica (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Church FoxNews USA Today Washington Times

Nominator's comments: Honored-nun by Pope Benedict XVI & founder of an influential-Catholic television network. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support for notability in the field of cable television networks and faith-based broadcasting. Article needs additional citations to bring it up to main page standard. MurielMary (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is nowhere near good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is extensive enough, but much of it is unreferenced. If someone did the research to add cites to the proper places, and got the text fully referenced, I'd support this. --Jayron32 14:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is referenced, but much of the content is dubious, and a lot of questionable statements need to be trimmed.--WaltCip (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Article has had a major overhaul, not sure if it's ITN worthy yet though, complicated by other articles existing which describe three of her projects (a shrine, the TV network and the radio network). MurielMary (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Her creation, EWTN is most notable, although I have no opinion on the article quality. μηδείς (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment the article is becoming problematic as editors (presumably members of her religious community) add extremely detailed and repetitive content and defend these edits on the basis of "the Catholic world view". Very regretfully, considering the great tidy-up work done, I don't think it's a good idea to feature it on the main page while this is ongoing. MurielMary (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there some polite way to refer to MurielMary's coment as utter bullshit, given that I am an atheist, but that I watched scores of hours on her network, EWTN, regarding Catholic matters in general, and the entire series on G K Chesterton? Such opposition seems partisan, not objective. It's like a communist saying Ronald Reagan was of no importance. Let's be objective, not emotional. μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
You seem to have misunderstood. The subject of the article is most definitely notable, as I already stated in my support of this nomination. However the article has become non-neutral due to editing from a religious viewpoint. For this reason, I am questioning whether it is still ITN-worthy as it doesn't conform to the expectation of a neutral point of view. MurielMary (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I think what MurielMary is getting at is that there's a potential for this article, with a high number of quotes, to be seen as proselytizing the faith by some editors, and could potentially be a target for those that disagree with that faith to change that. I've looked through the article in the present state and there's a few excessive quotes but nothing that I would consider this to be out of line with expressing what her beliefs were. It's a valid concern but appears to have been dealt with. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Masem for taking the time to look through the article and give your opinion re the excessive quotes. Appreciated. MurielMary (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia. Mother Angelica is religious and lived in the southern United States. Good luck! Not only is the deck already staked against her as she was Catholic, but the southern American aspect puts the nail in the coffin of this anti-American sentiment laced throughout this British-centric "worldwide" English encyclopedia. Dfvken qwuert (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with assessment on importance for RD. If there were sourcing issues, they seem to have been resolved since nomination. It's a tad quote heavy but that's cleanup and not a blocking issue for ITN. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It's probably quite moot at this pointn since Patty Duke is just about ready to be pushed off the ticker, Unfortunately I have strep, and don't feel up to the hard work. And thanks to User:MurielMary's civil response to my provocation. μηδείς (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] 2016 Lahore suicide bombingEdit

Article: 2016 Lahore suicide bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A suicide bombing in Lahore, Pakistan targeting Christians celebrating Easter kills at least 69 people and injures more than 300. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, NYT

Article updated

 Zanhe (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support – The three-paragraph article looks okay as far as it goes, but of course would be expanded as details emerge. (Article puts death toll at 73; NYT says 69, BBC "at least" 60.) Sca (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – Looks like just enough to be posted; definitely passed the notability requirement though. Not sure if we need to mention the intended targets of the killing, however. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Joseph2302 (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support we still have a stub really, but a substantial and horrible death toll. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see this expanded before I support. It's under 1000 bytes of prose presently. That's too short for the main page IMO. Even DYK has a minimum of 1500. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

 • 23:00 – BBC, NYT: 69; AP: 65. Sca (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The proposed blurb says at least 60. And why is this indented as a response to the note regarding article length? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I recognize the article size might be small but I don't think we'll get a lot to expand it out for another 1/2 day or so (given timezones), and it is otherwise well sourced to start with for now. --MASEM (t) 23:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Our own guideline uses this as the minimum requirement for size (2,148 characters of prose). This bombing is well short at 1,272 characters. By all means post it when it reaches 2,000 characters. Jolly Ω Janner 00:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Support even when the paragraph devoted to the Facebook Safety check is removed, it's still over 2,000 characters. Easily passes notability. Jolly Ω Janner 04:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support Article is a tad stubby, but based on past performance, these bombing articles tend to grow quickly. If and when this is of sufficient length (so long as referencing and other quality concerns keep pace with growth) this should be posted. --Jayron32 02:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Article has undergone expansion, including division into separate sections. Imo, it meets minimum update criteria and marking "ready". SpencerT♦C 03:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Sufficiently long and definitely meets notability requirements. -LtNOWIS (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Definitely notable, popular disaster. Article ready too. Faizan (talk) 05:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted given strong consensus. SpencerT♦C 06:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] 2016 Boat RaceEdit

Article: The Boat Races 2016 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In rowing, Cambridge win the 162nd Boat Race. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In rowing, Cambridge win the 162nd Boat Race, whilst Oxford win the 71st Women's Boat Race.

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. (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Boat Race as nominator. Oppose women's race: I am unconvinced it meets the notability guidelines. (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support both - Probably the most notable coxed rowing event of the year. As both races are now promoted together, I don't see any advantage in missing the women's race off. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The main race has earnt a place at WP:ITNR. The women's race has not. Do you have any evidence it meets the notability guidelines? It might promote itself alongside the Boat Race, but it has nowhere near the same prestige, history or popularity. (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – Good quality and ITN/R topic. Adding the Women's race might be a nice touch for being more inclusive but given it's lesser importance, I'm not leaning either way with it being added or excluded. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Quick question: is it our job to be more inclusive and right great wrongs, or to reflect the real word without bias? I think it is the latter. (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
There's a fine balance we have to work with. In some cases we're not actually righting any wrongs, we're just giving things more attention than we used to. But on the other hand we could easily be giving it undue weight simply for the sake of correcting a gender bias but ignoring notability (or lack thereof). The merits of such depend on the views of the editors; WP:RGW is a suggestion rather than a guideline, so it's not something meant to be rigidly adhered to. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarification. As you say, it is concerning to give undue weight for the sake of correcting a gender bias, which is likely to be the case here, unless someone could find surprising evidence for notability to prove otherwise. The Boat Race made its own way onto ITNR: I highly doubt the women's race could meet the same criteria by itself. (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Did the women's race not really happen? It takes no effort at all to include it. I can't even say "We should exclude women to avoid bias" with a straight face. - OldManNeptune 16:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point here. Should we also include the less important reserve races? In fact, the men's reserve race is arguably more notable than the main women's race. Try saying instead "We should drop notability guidelines and include a race that does not meet the standards for ITN just to make a political point". (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I fully grasp the point you wish to make, I am merely pointing out that neutrality via exclusion is utterly oxymoronic. Exclusion due to notability seems reasonable except that it gains nothing and passes on an opportunity to be more informative - which is our first priority as an encyclopedia. Arguing over whether or not the women's race has met the arbitrary qualification of prestige and popularity to be permitted a few spare characters at the end of a blurb looks like quicksand we could more easily walk around. - OldManNeptune 19:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Updated now by the ever-committed The Rambling Man. First blurb should be free to be posted (since it is in ITNR). Discussion could continue as to whether the non-ITNR women's race should also be included. (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting the women's race. I would hope that it would have the same level of popularity, prestige, and attention as the women's race, but it does not, for better or worse. It is not our job to right such a wrong but to reflect the way things are. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
"Reflecting the way things are" perpetuates bias. WP can actually make a difference by presenting the world according to reality (women's sports being played and enjoyed at similar levels in the population as men's for example) rather than presenting the world according to media bias (men's sports having more sponsorship money and therefore broadcast time and therefore popular reach for example). MurielMary (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
It is not and should not be the job of Wikipedia to correct biases in the world. That's precisely what RGW describes. It is not just media biases at work here, but the simple fact that the women's race does not have the prestige of the men's race because it has not existed as long. That is not the fault of the media. 331dot (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I've read the Tendentious editing and Advocacy pages twice just now to make sure I'm not missing something. Nothing in either seems even remotely related to the discussion that's taken place here. RGW in particular appears to pertain to use of verifiable sources rather than original research, which obviously isn't at issue here. The subsection on RGW doesn't even include the word "bias" once. Which is ironic, since in the absense of sources, your comments amount to original research. This article in the Guardian disagrees strongly with your assertion, stating that the women's race this year was historic and repeatedly states the importance of shared billing this year. Do you have a reputable source stating that the women's race lacks sufficient prestige to be mentioned in the same breath as the men's race? Googling "women's boat race unimportant" and similar search terms yielded nothing for me. - OldManNeptune 07:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I cannot prove that something lacks prestige. I could only give you my personal observations(which is not proof). There is also the fact that the women's race does not have the history of the men's. What evidence do you have that it is as prestigious as the men's race? 331dot (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I've carefully avoided measuring the worth of this by something as meaningless as "prestige" because of the very difficulty of defending any such claim that you now mention. I have, however, already linked an article backing the assertion that this carries real significance, particularly as this is the first year of shared billing. Fairly obvious search terms (such as "women's boat race importance") brings up several articles discussing the impact of shared billing and the importance of the race to women. Which is really where I base my view on this - it may not be important to sports media, or men, or sponsors, but to a great number of women, it is significant, and it profits us exactly nothing to disregard that when we have a free opportunity to counter the inherent bias of an 85% male editor base. At some point, we must ask whether we are a neutral reflection of reality, or another cog pushing through a distortion of reality (for example, using the "history" of a male event vs a female one as a criteria is a potentially rigged argument given the centuries of discrimination preceding the modern era). - OldManNeptune 11:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I thank you for your reply but my opinion remains unchanged. We all should work to reduce bias on Wikipedia, but it's not our job to correct biases in the world at large. I do think that the ITNR listing should be clarified to mention the fact that several races occurred and not just the men's race(which should still be highlighted IMO). 331dot (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have failed to convince but I thank you for hearing me out regardless. - OldManNeptune 11:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support posting the men's result (per ITNR) and allowing for the discussion to continue regarding the women's race (which was as interesting as the men's, if not more so this year, and televised alongside the "main event"). Please let me know if there are any concerns over the quality of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I see no reason not to mention both in the blurb. As stated, the article has been updated and actually covers both races comprehensively. It seems odd to omit one if the quality for both is there (see also BBC coverage). We previously did not feature both prior to 2015 because the two races were run on different dates and on different courses. I wouldn't be against delinking Women's Boat Race though because it doesn't add much. Fuebaey (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support both On it's own, the women's race might not be notable (although I'm pretty sure it's still the single most prestigious women's rowing event, perhaps bar an Olympic event), but combined with the men's event I don't see a problem. The alternative, if we wanted to have a top women's rowing event, would be something from the Henley Women's Regatta, but that has far too many events to select one from. The Women's FIFA World Cup gets a tiny fraction of the coverage of the men's, but we recognise that it represents the highest level of the sport. Smurrayinchester 16:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. The ITNR listing is for "The Boat Race", which historically has referred to the long running men's race. We seem to be now discussing whether or not we want to expand the scope of the listing to the entire series of races(which are now all on the same day in the same location). I have proposed a blurb above to reflect this. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
    Can we just get some support/comment on the ITNR and then we can discuss adding the women's race? Your blurb is inappropriate, we don't include the year of the event, nor would we repeat "The Boat Race". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
    ITNR does not require my support on the merits(though I do support it). I had thought that the year was part of the name of the event and included it for that reason. I had also thought that "The Boat Races" and "The Boat Race" are different (one referring to the whole event while one referring specifically to the men's race). 331dot (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
    It would be helpful to remark on the quality of the article, that being the only real issue when commentating on ITNR candidates. And no, the year is just to differentiate it from the other 161 "editions" and no, it doesn't really matter whether or not the event or the race itself is referred to in that sense, you just wouldn't realistically have a blurb with "The Boat Race" twice, it looks and reads terribly. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment there seems little issue with the first blurb and the article itself, so marking as Ready. The discussion over the inclusion of the women's event can continue and we can tweak the blurb should that gain consensus (which is looking good). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Specifically the version including the women's race. That's like saying that we should only post the men's tennis results, which is frankly absurd. Since we're pretty much agreed to add a blurb anyway, any detractors need to state specifically why we want to actively not work against gender bias. Go on, I dare you - because this is the sort of silly crap that gets picked up about Wiki by the mainstream press to say that we're all sexists. Miyagawa (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted the alt blurb. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • post-posting support for including both races. Since last year, the boat races are essentially one event with a men's race and a women's race with equal standing, and men's and women's reserve races with lesser standing. We rightly don't post the reserve races, as they are not the pinnacle of competition, but the men's and women's events both are. To exclude the women's race is to artificially prolong bias for no reason other than bias existed in the past. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Question. Would it be worth adding the Women's Boat Race to ITNC to simplify this for future years? (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
    Do you mean ITNR? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, yes I do. (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support posting both men's and women's races both races were run, both received media coverage, both were notable. MurielMary (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on merit and will start something on ITNR's talk page. Banedon (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    Done. Banedon (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Grammar check request: is it win, wins, or won? I think the blurb for this item is incorrect (or is this a difference between British vs. American usage when it comes to collective nouns?). To my ears, Cambridge and Oxford are singular nouns and therefore need a singular verb (win→wins) so that the blurb needs to read as follows: "In rowing, Cambridge wins the 162nd Boat Race and Oxford wins the 71st Women's Boat Race." Please update or correct me if I'm wrong. This reference I used (here~>Grammar Girl : Collective Nouns :: Quick and Dirty Tips) wasn't clear, precisely. Christian Roess (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Palmyra recapturedEdit

Articles: Palmyra offensive (March 2016) (talk, history) and Palmyra (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Syrian army recaptures Palmyra from ISIL. (Post)
News source(s): Guardian, TASS

Nominator's comments: Significant development, particularly considering prior vandalism in the city. More update may be needed. Brandmeistertalk 09:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support: major operation, here it was called the largest ISIS defeat since 2014 . Xwejnusgozo (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: - major operation indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - very notable success indeed. Perhaps a game-changer. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Major operation, and highly significant as this will hopefully stop ISIS' wanton destruction of the world heritage site. -Zanhe (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The most significant change in Syria for months. Worthy of a blurb. Miyagawa (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

March 26Edit

[Stale] RD: Jim HarrisonEdit

Article: Jim Harrison (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, CNN, Yahoo

Nominator's comments: Saturn Award-winning author, member of the American Academy of Arts and Letters. Article needs lots of work – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose on quality, mostly due to referencing. Notability is marginal in my opinion, but once we have some more citations, that can be re-assessed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability. Not top of the literary field. MurielMary (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on notability. Obituary notices and tributes from mainstream media outlets around the Anglo-speaking world indicate that Harrison was on top of the literary field. Here are just a few of the obits: Australian Broadcasting Company, Mirror Online, Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, ABC News, The New York Times, People Magazine, The Week, NPR, Variety, NY Daily News, UK's The Independent, NBC News. Also note that there have been prominent stories on Harrison and his latest book at The Boston Globe and at among others, and please note that these reviews were given a prominent place in these publications just days before Harrison's death which indicates to me that Harrison was still relevant to readers. In other words, these book reviews were neither puff pieces, nor were they published as an after-thought merely to capitalize on Harrison's death or take advantage of the 'sensational'. I also noticed that Harrison currently has the #1 Bestseller in American Poetry on in the United States. Christian Roess (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    That's all good stuff, if the article could be referenced adequately then perhaps it could be reconsidered. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: - thanks for being open to reconsideration. It seems that Harrison also has a very solid reputation in France as this obit (Jim Harrison ne mangera plus de tête de veau) in Libération shows. (I don't read French, but did a web translation). I'll see what I can do, but I cannot clean this article up in time to make the "in the news" deadline (7days?). It will take many hours that I don't have right now. If you know anyone that is good at this type of cleanup, hope you can let them know. It seems to me Harrison would've been a worthy candidate to consider here. Christian Roess (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvement. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

March 25Edit

[Closed] RD: Imre PozsgayEdit

No consensus. Stephen 22:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Imre Pozsgay (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Der Standard
Nominator's comments: Described in the obituary as a driving force for democratic change in Hungary. EternalNomad (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Question is this reported in mainstream English language media? I couldn't find any reports at all. MurielMary (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I haven't seen any but I don't think we want to forbid any ITN stories that lack major English-based source coverage (since that's not a requirement for any WP article). But that does make the quality of the article something to review carefully to make sure it looks like sources are properly translated/etc. for use in And that might make this difficult to pass for ITN. --MASEM (t) 03:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree, not my intention to oppose the nom on the grounds of "no English language reports"; rather to be able to read about the person and decide on notability; also to gauge breadth and depth of media coverage. MurielMary (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Lead sentence says, "...politician who played a key role in Hungary's transition to democracy after 1988" but could just as well read, "...wily politician who survived Hungary's transition to democracy after 1988". Ordinary politicians are not RD notable. Abductive (reasoning) 18:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: - Important politician.BabbaQ (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose not notable enough for RD plus article is mainly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The combination of very low referencing and phrases like "key role" being thrown around without sources mark this as not merely not notable, but downright dubious, imo. Challenger l (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppsoe on quality for now. Massive parts are unreferenced, lead is inadequately short. If those problems were fixed, I would support this. --Jayron32 14:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Abu Ala al-Afri killedEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 22:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Abu Ala al-Afri (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The second-in-command of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Abu Ala al-Afri, is killed. (Post)
News source(s): See the article, viz. [3]
Nominator's comments: I'm not sure about this one. Significance seems not in doubt, since it is the second-in-command. On the other hand we currently have an item on the Palmyra offensive, which is about the same subject. I'm not sure about RD or blurb either; nominating as blurb and leaving the rest to ITN. Banedon (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

March 24Edit

[Posted] RD: Garry ShandlingEdit

Article: Garry Shandling (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety, NYDN

Nominator's comments: Emmy Award-winning comedic actor. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support notability, strong oppose quality clearly a legendary comic, and more than passes the threshold for RD regarding notability, but article is littered with unreferenced claims and BLP applies. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on improvements RD as influential comedian is there, but as TRM points out, too many sourcing issues to post now, though it should be fixable. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it's in process. Sources talking about his death were published 30 minutes ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Article is in much better shape than when I first looked, and should be good to go. --MASEM (t) 04:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits; his Larry Sanders Show is considered very influential. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No Opinion Not a fan, but this guy's show was highly regarded by critics. μηδείς (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    • well, if Fred Phelps can make it... Nohomersryan (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    • What's the point of this comment? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Which one? Medeis or Nohomersryan? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support pending improvements Hugely influential comedian, but the article needs some work. Miyagawa (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, influential and highly regarded by his peers. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, Shandling was very important and influential. The article needs work, yes, but this is absolutely worthy of a mention. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I scanned the article, and perhaps it has been improved, but I cannot find any negative or likely to be contentious statements which are unreferenced that TRM seems to note above. The quality of writing, the comprehensiveness of the article, and the level of referencing seems sufficient for main page display. --Jayron32 00:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, influential comedian. Referencing has improved since the initial nomination. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I just beefed up the WP:LEAD a tad to make sure that people understand his prominence.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Clear consensus on notability, and a look at the article shows improved referencing. Suggest we post. Jusdafax 04:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted - Per the consensus, I've posted it to RD. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Republic of the Congo presidential electionEdit

Article: Republic of the Congo presidential election, 2016 (talk, history)
Blurb: Denis Sassou Nguesso (pictured) is re-elected to a third term as President of the Republic of Congo. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Denis Sassou Nguesso (pictured) is re-elected to a third term as President of the Republic of Congo amidst controversy over the conduct of the election.
News source(s): Newsweek, VoA, BBC News

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: If anyone's wondering, it's not the same Congo as the war crimes nom below. Incumbent is declared winner - an office he's held since 1979 (save a five year hiatus in the mid 90s). Fuebaey (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support a rather well written article by election standards. Certainly not worth of "stub-class"! I'm not sure on our procedure for mentioning that opposition parties claim "fraud", but that appeared to be the case with this election. Jolly Ω Janner 21:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support article seems to have it covered, it's not brilliant, but it's enough to claim updated I think, and it's ITNR so good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Highlighted article is of sufficient quality. As TRM notes, it's not great, but it's also not missing anything that should keep it off the main page. --Jayron32 00:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support article seems to cover all the main points and is well referenced. As Jolly Janner asks, is there a policy/precedence re including comment on the conduct of the election? Not only the opposition parties but the US State Department has expressed concerns over it, which would indicate a certain level of official dissatisfaction. Have added an alt blurb as a discussion point. MurielMary (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see now that the current ITN blurb on the Republic of Niger's election result has the phrase "amidst xxx". So there's a precedent right there. MurielMary (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Radovan Karadžić convicted by ICTYEdit

Article: Radovan Karadžić (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The ICTY finds former Republika Srpska President Radovan Karadžić guilty of war crimes committed during the Bosnian War. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The ICTY finds former Republika Srpska President Radovan Karadžić guilty of war crimes, including genocide for the Srebrenica massacre.
Alternative blurb II: ​The ICTY finds former Republika Srpska President Radovan Karadžić guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide during the Bosnian War.
Alternative blurb III: ​The International Criminal Tribunal sentences former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadžić to 40 years in prison for war crimes committed during the 1992–95 Bosnian War.
News source(s): CNN ABC (US)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Another war crimes verdict, this one by the ICTY. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support One of the most notorious names of the conflict (the manhunt was big news). I've added an altblurb highlighting the most serious charge he was found guilty of - genocide. Smurrayinchester 14:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Hugely important verdict for crimes against humanity against a former head of state, the conclusion of a trial that started in 2008. --Tataral (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Front page news on BBC website and one of the few despots of his generation to be brought to justice. Guy (Help!) 14:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality only. Here are some actionable items which, if fixed, would make this article suitable for the main page: 1) several cn tags on major paragraphs, an orange level "more references needed" banner, and most of the section currently titled "Ongoing Bosnian Genocide Trial" needs references. 2) Prose of the body of the article has not been updated. There are several sections in the main text of the article which discuss the trial as though it is still ongoing, and the conviction is NOT mentioned in the main text, only in the lead. The main text should be updated for tense, AND sufficiently updated about his conviction itself. 3) (a lesser issue which won't keep it off the main page, but while we're fixing things up...) A few section suffer from dreadful WP:PROSELINE problems. If someone's going to be rewriting some of the prose anyways, this would be useful for them to fix. Fix up 1&2, and this would be tolerable for the main page. 3 would make this top notch. --Jayron32 15:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Some of these concerns have now been addressed. I'm still working on additional improvements. --Tataral (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    Looks good. Support based on recent improvements. Well done. --Jayron32 19:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – in principle – though article may need work. A signal development that is rapidly topping mainstream news sites (BBC, AP, NYT, Reuters, Guardian, Spiegel). A more recent pic than the outdated '94 shot in the article would be much preferable. Sca (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 • Altblurb 3 offered above. Sca (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the picture is from when he was President and when the events for which he is known occured. It might be difficult to get a new picture of him as an old man who spends his days in a prison cell. --Tataral (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Understand the problem, but he doesn't look at all like that 22-year-old photo now – he's lost a lot of weight – and this is happening now. Sca (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Given the severe nature of the war crime. Donnie Park (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, reference issues appear to have been fixed by now. Brandmeistertalk 16:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb II - Notability above discussion, article in good shape now. Fgf10 (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Posting. The article has been improved. The blurb II seems the most accurate. --Tone 17:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Post-posting comment – There are several recent pix of Karadžić at the ICTY site – perhaps a WP photo sleuth (David Levy ?) could obtain one for fair use? Sca (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Post-posting comment – Surely the main article for this topic is Trial of Radovan Karadžić, which should be linked instead? (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@ That article has a giant orange tag on the top and many quality issues that make it ineligible to be highlighted as a target article on the main page. If you were to go through and clean it up to be as good as what we have posted, then we could make that the target article. Right now, it's not good enough. --Jayron32 19:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
post-support I thought itd be a long shot here but its a good thing it was posted as these things are not common. Although some of the Rwanda/Congo postings I believe didn't make it.Lihaas (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] [Posted to RD]: Johan CruyffEdit

Posted to RD, no consensus for a full blurb. --Tone 10:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Johan Cruyff (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Dutch international association footballer Johan Cruyff dies at the age of 68. (Post)
News source(s): Independent BBC Sport Guardian
Nominator's comments: I wanted to say no argument needed but is one of the greatest football of all time Donnie Park (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD only. Football is a relatively niche field and I think there are very few living players who would warrant a blurb. Cruyff could be at the same level as Maya Plisetskaya in ballet who was posted at RD, but he's no Pele or Maradonna. Brandmeistertalk 13:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
He might not have won the World Cup or is considered to be the greatest footballer to never done so but is mentioned along with the pair. Donnie Park (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb' Then I'll say it - no argument needed. Although we are only nominating for RD anyway, aren't we? Miyagawa (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I've amended my support to include the blurb. Total Football and all that. Miyagawa (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - No Pele, but not that far off. Rlendog (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Clearly very important to his field. I don't know if I would describe one of the more popular sports on Earth as a "niche field" but I'm not yet convinced of the need of a blurb here. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    • In the grand scheme of things football is niche. Playing football is not the same as discovering peniccilin or inventing an aircraft, for example. Brandmeistertalk 13:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
      • We aren't talking about Australian rules football or lacrosse; this is probably the most popular sport on Earth. Many people would indeed consider significant figures in it to those that you mention. Everyone has a different opinion. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
        • Many people? Are you advocating the opinion that playing soccer is on a level with discovering antibiotics? If not, let's wait until this theorized strawman comes forth to defend his opinion. - OldManNeptune 14:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
          • What are you and Brandmeister talking about? This is ITN, we post reports of people's deaths who are in the news. I don't think comparing apples with pears is appropriate here. And I suspect as many people have heard of Cruyff as have Fleming. It's posted now, so you'd be better off formulating an argument in favour of your positions elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
            • I'm not advocating anything; simply saying that there are likely people who find drug research and aviation "niche" fields. 331dot (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb probably in the top five football players and influences on football in the history of this global game (not niche at all). Influential way beyond his playing years and the article is in very good condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I know nothing about football, but I've heard of him. Article looks pretty decent too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, left an incredible legacy at Barca, Ajax and indeed European football. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD while discussion over a blurb can be had. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm a bit worried how fast this was posted (under 60 min) with no explicit comment towards the article quality - not that the quality of this article is bad (it's in fact pretty good compared to other RDs), but this should be assessed too in the !votes (regardless if it is in good shape or not) to enable such hasty posting. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    I assessed the quality. (And what do " the article is in very good condition" and "Article looks pretty decent too." mean if they're not explicit comments towards article quality?) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    Okay, those comments were there, and for some reason I misread them as relating to the player. My bad and my apologies. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support RD, Oppose Blurb Article is sufficient quality for main page, but the two possible criteria for the necessity of a blurb (does the manner of his death, or the worldwide reaction to it, merit additional explanation) are not met here. RD is not a demotion, and a blurb is not an indication that a person is more important. RD exists to avoid having blurbs which, in total, state "So-and-so died". I'm not sure we have anything more to say about this, so RD is sufficient. --Jayron32 15:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    Absolutely right, the worldwide reaction to Cruyff's death is like no other for an association footballer. This BBC article gives just a flavour of the universal impact of his death. Hence the tens of thousands of news reports across the globe about this "niche" player. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    You're using words to describe him that I did not use. If you wish to have a civil discussion about this, and convince myself and others to change our stance, creating things out of whole cloth and accusing me of saying them, THEN raising an objection to the thing I never said, will not help in that endeavor. I never used the word niche, the first time it appears in the discussion is when you used it. If you would like to convince me that I should support a blurb, you could actually make counterpoints to statements I ACTUALLY MADE, rather than completely making up something I didn't say and then pretending like countering the point I never made would convince me to agree with you. That's a strange way of convincing someone you are correct. Now, back to my point: Perhaps my four lines of text was too long for you to extract my point. Ignore everything I said prior. Here is all that needs to be said: For a dead person to merit a blurb, there needs to be something more to day in the blurb than "so-and-so died of such and such disease at age some such". For this person, what additional significant information needs to be put in the blurb to make it worthwhile to write a blurb? If you can answer that one question, I would support a blurb. If instead, you need to make up things I never said in order to find objection to my point, then perhaps I didn't actually say anything you really can find fault with. --Jayron32 16:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    I don't know what's going on with you lately. You've become all SHOUTY and bold and certainly TLDR. You seem to miss the point that discussion evolves and brings in ideas from other parts of the debate. If you don't like it, don't bother commenting. In any case, thanks as ever for your contributions, but please work on making them more efficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    What's going on with me lately is that I don't like when you accuse me of saying words I didn't say, and then act like the words I didn't say are a reason to object to my statements (which I didn't say). If you want to convince me to change my mind, that's not the way to do it. Instead, tell me how what I said was wrong. Not with how what you incorrectly claimed what I said (but never did) was wrong. --Jayron32 01:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
    I don't recall accusing you of anything. Perhaps something got lost in translation. You mentioned worldwide reaction to death being an indicator of additional explanation for a blurb. That's what this death has brought, more than adequately demonstrated by the dozens of available sources from all around the world, including many from the US (despite the fallacious objections). Now climb down from your lofty equine and chill out. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The point was that soccer players come and go, earning their money, while the game sucks out money from ordinary people to feed FIFA-styled corruption and fosters ultras thugs and mass stampedes. Instead, the discovery of antibiotics, painkillers and the like left a lasting impact in the annals of history. Brandmeistertalk 15:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and it's clear that you don't understand the impact that this man had on the game, not just playing like Maradona or Zidane, but afterwards too. Hence the worldwide coverage of his death. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for blurb. One of the top footballers ever. He is accredited for changing the way the sport is played today with Total Football. ComputerJA () 16:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb For those of you ill-informed of Cruyff's legacy, may I suggest you read this excellent article [4], which surmises that "the effect Cruyff had, and the legacy he left at Ajax and Barcelona, makes him the game’s most influential individual of the last 40 years. His methods led the European football Renaissance" (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    Indeed, to back up his "more-than-niche" quality, he was was named Europe's best player of the 20th century in 1999. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb This isn't a David Bowie situation as far as I can tell. RD is fine for cases like this. And I'm glad you didn't stick with "no argument needed", since not everyone knows soccer. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    Well that's precisely where you are wrong. This is a David Bowie moment. He's a global icon of the game. Let's reserve RD for American college basketball coaches who have won nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Again beating your dead horse. The good ol' U.S. of A. is part of that "globe" you're talking about. I see a mention of him in the Houston Chronicle, but so far haven't seen it in any other American publications. This ain't Bowie. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
      Scratch that part because looking deeper I do see it in other pubs. But this is not having the impact of global mourning that Bowie's death had. Prove to me that it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Not much coverage of the death of a football player in a country that doesn't do football? Quelle surprise! Whether or not there is coverage in the US media is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Fgf10 (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
TRM called the coverage "global", not me. We have "soccer" here, we just don't do it the way you do. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
It's global. To attempt to assert otherwise makes you look, well, a little silly I'm afraid. Just to make sure that's reinforced by your parochial press corps, I see Cruyff's death reported widely in The LA Times, The Boston Globe, The New York Times, twice, The Miami Herald, The Detroit News, and The Chicago Tribune. Of course, that was all I could find in a two-minute Google, so sorry if that isn't convincing enough. I wonder how many of the European big papers reported on the deaths of the college basketball coaches who won nothing yet seem to be considered on the level with Cruyff? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Muboshgu Of course, I should mention Australia, India, Canada, China, Japan, Thailand as a few other locations whose major news outlets are reporting this death in detail. Of course, that may not be enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Muboshgu please let me know if you need any further evidence of the global influence of this "icon", "legend", "pioneer" (etc) of football please. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The Rambling Man Been busy working on my own nomination (and paid job). I see global influence that to me is perfectly fine for RD, but still don't see the death itself having the impact comparable to those who got full blurbs in the past year or so. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The important thing was your realisation that this individual is recognised globally, including extensively in the good old US. Glad you now see and acknowledged that after your initial denial. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Support no blurb needed. One of the greatest football players ever. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 16:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Support blurb - I despise football. I think it's boring as hell and don't see the attraction. Yet I knew his name. There are clearly few sports personalities that are so well know even decades after their active career has ended. I would indeed say a David Bowie of sport. Fgf10 (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD, Weak Oppose Blurb per Jayron. I don't see any difference in importance between a blurb listing and a RD, and RD seems appropriate given that Johan Cruyff died from normal causes...unless being an RD listing prevents his picture from being used on the main page. If that's the case I could sympathize more with the blurb supporters. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb the line between an ordinary RD listing and a blurb is difficult to define, as shown by the difficulties that have been had in defining what criteria to use (or articulating what tests have been used in past decisions). Currently the wording at WP:ITNDC is "In rare cases, the death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb." The reaction to his death is to describe him as one of the greatest football players and one of the greatest football coaches. "With Johan Cruyff, the grace of Rudolf Nureyev came to the football pitch. And football was never the same again", says The Guardian]. The ball is definitely over the line for a blurb, without the need to call on the assistance of a Russian linesman (to continue the football metaphor). BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 18:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Soviet or Soviet Azerbaijani linesman to be exact. He wasn't ethnic Russian.Brandmeistertalk 18:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Irrelevant, he's commonly referred to as the "Russian linesman". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Unfortunately I have to agree with the rambling old man that Cruyff was actually important enough to be featured. Nergaal (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    I recall that Eusébio also went to RD rather than blurb (unless one thinks he's inferior to Cruyff). Brandmeistertalk 18:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    We work on consensus. That you have such a strong (and odd) objection to footballers indicates that this comment is probably not helpful in assessing consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb for this and all other entertainers (unless they later become heads of government of world powers and die in office). (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per The Rambling Man. Cruyff was not also one of the greatest footballers of all time but also one of the most influential persons in the sport.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Probably one a bit more detailed than that shown above though. Everything I have read suggests he had a major impact on the game. AIRcorn (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. He wasn't young and his career was behind him. It would be useless. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment seems like a clear consensus in favour of a blurb, so marking as ready for that, perhaps an uninvolved admin can just check that and post if nothing problematic. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support blurb - I can see the arguments against a blurb (that he was not active at death, if you want to compare to Bowie), but impression I get is that he was a legend, and being afforded attention that even top players would not regularly get on their death at old age. So I would be reasonably okay with a blurb recognizing he was exemplary in the field, not just a top player. --MASEM (t) 20:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb there's no evidence given of how this individual changed his sport, in the way Michael Jackson was credited with reviving the recording industry. RD is fine, but there is no basis for a blurb given the current high news flux. μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    Perhaps it's because you know nothing about "soccer" but I'll just link you to Total Football. If you don't get that, then let me know. It's about as revolutionary in football terms as it gets. So yes, there's plenty of evidence. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    Even your own New York Times leads with "Johan Cruyff, a brash Dutch soccer star who helped develop a style that revolutionized the way the game is played..." so please, work harder on those assumptions. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I assume you've neglected to read any of the sources provided above? That's the only reason I can think of why you claim no evidence was given. Fgf10 (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Cruyff has sufficient name-recognition that the RD entry is sufficient. The proposed blurb adds no value. Andrew D. (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. The death of Cruif is a major news headline (for obvious reasons), therefore we need to have a blurb. I.m.o., if there is a big news story then we need to have a very good reason why we would decide to not have a blurb. The reverse may also happen, if a news story is proposed for a blurb that doesn't seem to make big headlines, then we need to have a very good reason why there should be a blurb about that. Count Iblis (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
oppose blurb while its an easy obvious RD for a blurb of exceptional circumstance he never on major international competitions (even euro, if I recall). Total football and all that, but that was a teacm thing. BTW Wheres Jordi these days?
Dude, TRM, your point comes acress well enough without having to bash everything American...infact it gets diluted then.Lihaas (talk) 04:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Your recollection is wrong. He played on the Netherlands team that made it to (and narrowly lost) the 1974 FIFA World Cup Final, which you would have learned if you read the article instead of relying on your clearly limited recollection. I'm not saying that this should be posted as a blurb because of that, mind you, but please don't make clearly false statements which take 4 seconds to prove wrong. --Jayron32 04:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes I know they were in TWO WC finals in a row. I said he never won. "if you read" my statement it says clearly that he won no "major international competitions" with an emphasis on the euro (as I didn't recall that part). I know they won in 88 but that was Gullit (who silly arsenal turned down as a kid from Ajax). "please don't make clearly false statements which take 4 seconds to prove wrong".Lihaas (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
That's not what you wrote. Deep breaths all around, please. —Cryptic 04:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • For those without much knowledge of the field, a rankings like this one is seen quite accurate by those with more knowledge of the field - he is usually ranked only behind Pele and Maradona. He did not win a World Cup or Euro, but to be honest, unlike NBA/NFL/NBL/NHL where players get 10+ or chances to win, he had only like 4 chances to win any of those top trophies throughout his entire career. For comparison, LeBron won the NBA title on his 9th attempt. Nergaal (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb has not had a lasting impact on the world in general. MurielMary (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

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

[Closed] New Zealand flag referendumEdit

No consesus to post. Seems the consensus would be in favour if the new design was chosen, but hey ... --Tone 17:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: New Zealand flag referendums, 2015–16 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​New Zealand (flag pictured) votes to retain its current flag (Post)

Article needs updating
 Jolly Ω Janner 08:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support I'd have expected to support this without question, but if the article is anything to go by, most New Zealanders didn't care much about the referendum so perhaps it shouldn't be featured. Banedon (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I just don't see this as a big deal at all. If was a vote to remain part of the Commonwealth, I'd buy it, but this is somewhat trivial in comparison. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose While certainly a news headline in New Zealand (where I live), I don't think a failed flag change is particularly notable at a world-wide level. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting referendum, articles in good shape. --Bruzaholm (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This did get considerable coverage outside New Zealand. However, retaining a flag does not make much of a headline. Would it have been another way round, I might have supported the inclusion here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose because the status quo was maintained. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it's a little inane to say that since the status quo was maintained, it's not worth featuring. We featured Scotland voting to remain in the UK, Obama winning his second term, and so on. Banedon (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    I think voting to remain part of the United Kingdom or being re-elected as POTUS (which is ITNR anyway) are orders of magnitude more significant than deciding to keep a particular flag design. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
(ec)A part of a country with a strong independence movement (and which has a political party advocating it running its government) voting not to do so is very different than a country voting to not change one of its symbols, especially when many do not consider it a pressing issue there. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Silver Fern design
  • Oppose – There's no change. (The Silver Fern design doesn't do it for me, either.) Sca (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support High quality, interesting, comprehensive article which we should be proud to post on the main page. --Jayron32 15:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting, as stated above it is a high quality article and definitely a story for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Trivial. --Tataral (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support - If the new flag had been adopted, I would think this to be a clear ITN candidate. I agree the status quo result is less interesting, but as mentioned above, the article seems in good state (though not 100% thrilled with a few of the commons image galleries), and the frequency of a country changing its flag outside of regime change is rare. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support culmination of a long drawn out story, conclusion is of interest even if it's a "status quo" decision. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment this is approaching a new low for ITN, a vote on a flag design which is turned down by 57% of those who bothered voting (out of a turnout of 64%). Nothing has changed, this is utterly trivial. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Maintaining status quo in a minor issue. Should have gone with the black and white design.... Fgf10 (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

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

March 23Edit

[Posted] RD: Ken HowardEdit

Article: Ken Howard (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post, BBC News

Nominator's comments: Notable American actor who worked in film, stage and screen; won Emmy and Tony awards; former Screen Actors' Guild and SAG-AFTRA President. Notability is established by his making mainstream US media and international coverage on BBC. TheBlinkster (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Article is of sufficient quality and depth for main page linking. --Jayron32 01:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
    I just fixed the two "citation needed" tags for the audiobook and marriage stuff. TheBlinkster (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support seems to have won several awards and had a high profile position as President of the Screen Actors Guild, but seems to have had small parts in a lot of shows (plus The White Shadow) rather than a "top of his field" place in acting?? MurielMary (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
    comment Although he had a good acting career, especially in the 70s (White Shadow was a groundbreaking show and 1776, in which he had a major role, was a huge movie at the time of the Bicentennial), to me it's his repeated terms as president of Screen Actors Guild/ SAG-AFTRA that, on top of his acting career, take him to "widely regarded as important person in his field" status.TheBlinkster (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for RD per Jayron32 and TheBlinkster. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for RD per TheBlinkster's comment above. SpencerT♦C 21:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • comment I marked it "ready" as having fixed the CN's, the article looks in reasonable shape to me, and it also seems to me like there is consensus here with more than 24 hours having passed. Of course the admin has the final say about "ready" and "consensus". TheBlinkster (talk) 08:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD... Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Phife DawgEdit

No consensus. Stephen 01:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Phife Dawg (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Rolling Stone

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Key member of A Tribe Called Quest, considered a pioneering act in hip-hop music. His passing on the front page of the BBC news site here, which shold indicate it's not a regional or small-scale story. Article is assessed as a stub currently but is probably in better quality than this, it's brief but seems fully cited. GRAPPLE X 12:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose pending article expansion. I agree his significance should be well established, but the article is simply too short and provides too little biographical information to be useful to readers seeking to know more about his life and career. It basically only tells us he was a member of Tribe Called Quest, did a little solo work, liked sports, had diabetes and died. Really, if his passing is worth noting, his life should be worth writing about. I agree with the former, but the article does not currently exhibit the latter. If the article can be expanded, I would fully support posting this. --Jayron32 13:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
    It's not great, but I've added to the article now and it's about twice the length it had been. As obituaries come out it'll probably be easier to settle it into a solid condition but I imagine it should suffice for now. GRAPPLE X 15:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose simply does not approach top of his field or any position of influence within it. Compare this nom to that of Frankie Knuckles, which was deservedly posted. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose besides the personal opinions, I'm not really seeing this individual as being seminal in his field, I can't find awards or honours in his own name, etc. Speaking personally, one of Run DMC, Public Enemy, NWA or Beastie Boys would be hard pressed to make it to RD, so I'm afraid someone from Tribe ain't gonna cut it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I nominated MCA when he died four years ago and he was posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
      • I didn't say it was impossible, I say the individuals would be hard pressed to make it. And the groups I gave as examples would generally be considered far more significant than Tribe. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
        • The biggest measure of general importance is usually quality of the article; if an extensive, well written and well referenced article with a relatively complete and extensive biography of the totality of a persons life and work can be written at Wikipedia, that generally means the world at large outside of Wikipedia considers that a person whose life is worth documenting. MCA (Adam Yauch)'s article is marginally more extensive than this one; I'd support this one if the article were of similar length and quality. --Jayron32 01:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
          • In your opinion. The measure of "postability" is by consensus, and that should be judged on both notability and quality, not just quality or article length, that's utterly bogus. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support seems to be notable within his field. The article is a bit on the small side, which isn't ideal for readers looking for information on him. Jolly Ω Janner 06:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose don't see any evidence of being "top of his field" - no awards nor consistently at the top of the charts. MurielMary (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Three of their five albums charted in Billboard Top Ten, one hit #1, two hit #1 on the R&B chart. If 60% isn't consistent, what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • He should have won awards to make him the top of his field. He didn't during his lifetime. Therefore, he doesn't deserve the honorable mention in the Main Page. George Ho (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

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

March 22Edit

[Posted] Nigerien presidential electionEdit

Article: Nigerien general election, 2016 (talk, history)
Blurb: Mahamadou Issoufou (pictured) is re-elected President of Niger amid an opposition boycott. (Post)
News source(s): Deutsche Welle, BBC News, The Washington Post

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: As a heads up, there were a number of (ITN/R eligible) elections held on 20 March. I'm nominating them on the date results were released to prevent them from clustering on the template. Shout out to Everyking and Number 57 for working on all these election articles. Fuebaey (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Highlighted article is of sufficient quality, depth, referencing, and updates. Good to go for me. --Jayron32 00:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. notable election.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – Per previous. Sca (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support So it's "Nigerien" for Niger and "Nigerian" for Nigeria? Interesting. And quality sufficient for posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I think the country is pronounced Nee-zhair these days. Sca (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Niger is a French-speaking country and takes the French adjectival form, while Nigeria is English-speaking and takes the English adjectival form. c.f. Canadians and Montreal Canadiens. --Jayron32 00:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

[Kept] Removal proposal: ZikaEdit

No consensus yet again to remove. Stephen 02:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Updates don't pertain to anything new (history) more than once in a few days. Remove it from ongoing? Lihaas (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment I've refactored your comment a little to make it easier to understand. Feel free to revert me if you prefer your version. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that. That helps a great deal, you have no idea.--WaltCip (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal A quick perusal of several diffs from the history makes it clear that substantive updates are being added at least daily, often several times a day. Clearly still appropriate for ongoing. --Jayron32 00:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Was going to say pull – while the page is still being edited, no breaking information (bar updates to the cases table) was added in the past week, only old (February) news. However, just yesterday the WHO suggested that Zika is implicated in a much larger range of mental disorders than just microcephaly, which is disastrous news (and if they confirm it, would be worthy of a blurb). Keep, and I'll update the page. Smurrayinchester 08:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, Zika has not yet been exterminated. So why would it be taken down?--WaltCip (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
    Ongoing is not reserved for news items which no longer exist. After all, the world is still filled with wars and diseases and people doing their jobs etc. Ongoing exists not to document every ongoing event in existance until it ceases to happen. Ongoing exists to highlight Wikipedia articles about multifacted, long range events which are regularly covered by reliable news sources and which are receiving regular, substantive updates. Items which fail any one of those four things are inappropriate as a link in Ongoing, regardless of whether or not the "thing" has ended. Even if Zika exists as a thing, if either a) news stops covering it or b) the Wikipedia article has gone moribund for a long time, then it should be removed. In this case, both new news stories, and regular substantive editing are still happening, so it shouldn't be taken down. But that isn't because Zika has been made extinct. That's an irrelevant thing. --Jayron32 18:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
    TLDR, too much bold. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
    Ok. TLDR summary: That's not what ongoing is for. If you want to know what it is for, read the bold words. --Jayron32 01:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep WHO is implicating Zika in other disorders and that's reflected in recent updates to the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Rob FordEdit

Article: Rob Ford (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian

Nominator's comments: Apart from being mayor of a major city, Rob Ford was globally (in)famous for his extracurricular activities, and his death comes at a very young age. As an example of how globally notorious he was, my Guardian news app (set to "UK News") gave me an alert of his death. Smurrayinchester 15:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Article is high quality, extensive, and extremely well referenced. Clearly appropriate for inclusion on the main page. --Jayron32 15:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD importance is clear, but because it's his infamy that's put him in the news, I'd ask to have a double check of the last part of the article (on his various scandals). I am not a big fan how its written all in WP:PROSELINE even though it is all reliably sourced, and while a read through doesn't show anything I think is glaring I would ask others just to carefully review this part too. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Just in the process of nominating it myself. While I think few mayors merit posting, I think Ford is one of them due to his controversial tenure as Mayor which greatly impacted Canadian politics. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support High quality article, high profile individual. He made his mark. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I was going to outright oppose this one since I would argue he wasn't at the top of his field. Being one of the most notable mayors is like being one of the most notable minor baseball players (in that there are many levels above, so in the overall scheme they are not on top). But to be fair this will get a lot of headline coverage all over the world. -- Scorpion0422 15:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Passing away that young gives him a lot more notability. Will be a headline news all over the world. -- Ashish-g55 15:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support One of the best-known mayors in the world, even if for all the wrong reasons. I would compare his notability to Marion Barry, also an internationally infamous mayor. - OldManNeptune 15:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support'. Was going to nominate this after some of the work I did on the article. Ford was not only the mayor of one of N. America's and the world's largest cities, but he also made news around the world, and has now passed at a shockingly young age. Definitely good for RD. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: Figure of international notoriety and former mayor of one of the largest cities in the Western Hemisphere. Easy shout for RD. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - an heroic figure and a legend. RIP (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Mayor of one of North America's largest cities who gained a lot of attention. Canuck89 (what's up?) 16:21, March 22, 2016 (UTC)
  •   Done - Posted. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Something broke if you view the template. (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
post support even if for largely wrong reasons he was known outside not just the city but the country.Lihaas (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] 2016 Brussels attacksEdit

Article: 2016 Brussels attacks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least eleven people are killed and more than twenty injured in attacks at Brussels Airport and Maelbeek metro station. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​At least eleven people are killed across blasts in Brussels
News source(s): [5]

 EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 07:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Two explosion were heard at the Brussels Airport. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 07:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support once expanded a little more and once facts on casualties/deaths are clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment this will be moved once again, there's no doubt at all this is a terrorist attack, an explosion at a Metro station has also taken place. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, subject to article quality. Another significant terrorist attack by the look of it. Mjroots (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • support came here to nominate. at least 17 dead. Propose naming to 2016 Brussels airport bombingss.Lihaas (talk) 08:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
    No, there's been an attack at the metro as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Yep,more than one but someone movd it anyways.Lihaas (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support As soon as ready, but it might be smart to wait a few hours for more details - but no undue delay, this is unquestionably top priority news. - OldManNeptune 08:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted. Article will of course be expanded (and being on the front page will help with that), but the article has no obvious deficiencies as is. Thue (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Call it "ongoing" for a few hours at least?Lihaas (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
You obviously don't understand what the "ongoing" section is used for. BencherliteTalk 09:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
In the BLURB not the ongoing section!Lihaas (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Don't use the word "ongoing" if you don't mean the "ongoing" section of ITN. In addition, adding the word "ongoing" to the blurb would have been inaccurate since at the time this was posted the attacks had finished. BencherliteTalk 09:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The number of 34 is not yet confirmed. Maybe we should not jump the gun on rushing the numbers higher as they might be? Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
    It is confirmed. Nine minutes ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that? From all I can find, only one media station (VRF) reported 34, while others were still at 26. The source given in the article certainly does not speak of 34... Forget it, now I found it as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

March 21Edit

[Posted] Jean-Pierre Bemba convicted by ICCEdit

Article: Jean-Pierre Bemba (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The International Criminal Court finds former Congolese Vice President Jean-Pierre Bemba guilty of two counts of crimes against humanity and three counts of war crimes. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The International Criminal Court finds former Congolese Vice President Jean-Pierre Bemba guilty of crimes relating to the 2003 Central African Republic coup d'état.
News source(s): NBC News The Guardian

Nominator's comments: Convictions for war crimes by an international body seems notable. This is also notable as the first recognition of rape as a war crime, though I'm not sure how (or even if we should/can) work that into the blurb. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support The conviction of such a high-level leader is clearly important enough to post. It isn't true though that this is the first time rape has been recognised as a war crime - other international criminal tribunals have recognised it as such before; this is just the first such case in the ICC. Neljack (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - clearly important high level leader that is convicted.BabbaQ (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment added altblurb for context. The article could do with a bit more background context in general - I had to go though most of the article just to find what those crimes were for. Usually fair trials involve defenses and/or contempt; there is no mention of this here. Also most of the ICC links are dead. Fuebaey (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
support especially in line with Serbia above.Lihaas (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support article quality is sufficient for the main page. --Jayron32 04:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 12:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I would prefer having the altblutb but the coup article is really short and does mention Bemba at all. If this is fixed, we can add it. --Tone 12:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Andrew GroveEdit

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

Nominator's comments: CEO of Intel, significantly helped the company to grow. EternalNomad (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support on update Article is otherwise in good shape, just missing mention of his death outside the lede. Importance seems appropriate for RD, in light he was not just yet another CEO but a well recognized one. --MASEM (t) 02:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support a few unreferenced claims which could be addressed, but article is in good shape. Notability is clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Done - Posted. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
post support a positive high profile immigrant and leader of a large firm that broke barriers and came on top. (little quick though on the post)/.Lihaas (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] French refuse to hand Joan of Arc's ring back to BritainEdit

Non, merci. BencherliteTalk 09:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Joan of Arc (talk, history)
Blurb: ​France and Britain in a dispute on who owns Joan of Arc's ring (Post)
News source(s): The Telegraph
 Count Iblis (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Local dispute overblown in the press. This is not a spat between the French gov and the UK gov, rather a French businessman failing UK regulations. Article is also not updated, and I would not even consider adding this trivial factoid to a FA. Fuebaey (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Seems blown out of proportion. --MASEM (t) 02:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose no offense meant but this sounds like a silly dispute - the kind that one might remember from one's early childhood. I am not convinced it should be added to the Joan of Arc article, let alone featured on ITN. Banedon (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose try DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

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

[Closed] RD: Joseph MerciecaEdit

Consensus against. BencherliteTalk 17:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator's comments: Archbishop of Malta for 30 years, oversaw thaw in church-state relations. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose How many Archbishops are there? Are we going to consider every one? This article doesn't suggest any specific accomplishments that might merit posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Muboshgu - article also isn't in very good shape. Also, what's wrong with his infobox image? It looks like somebody sloppily cut him out of an existing picture in MS Paint. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose If his biography were more extensive in Wikipedia, I would consider supporting this, but right now the text of the article does not give a clear enough picture of his life's work and life story. It's simply to short, and declares his importance more by acclimation than by example. If it made it clear how his life's work was to "thaw in church-state relations" with an extensive biography that's one thing. This is a very short, cursory article I don't see how it provides enough information to be useful to a reader wishing to learn more about his life. --Jayron32 15:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can understand the impact the head of the church in a predominately Catholic country may have had, but I can't see anything that would make this any more significant than the level of a local politician. His religious office wasn't particularly high (i.e. not the Pope) and he left the role a good 10 years ago. Fuebaey (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

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

March 20Edit

[Posted] Beninese presidential electionEdit

Article: Beninese presidential election, 2016 (talk, history)
Blurb: Independent candidate, Patrice Talon is elected President of Benin. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News, Al Jazeera, Reuters

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

 Fuebaey (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support, looks updated at first glance. And it's not that often an independent candidate wins an election. Brandmeistertalk 19:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: Good job on this. Should be posted as a national election with a fairly robust and well-referenced article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - national elections are notable. and the article seems ready.BabbaQ (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: Anker JørgensenEdit

Article: Anker Jørgensen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Copenhagen Post

Nominator's comments: Former head of state. Article needs more citations; it claims that he helped release Danish hostages from Saddam Hussein, which, if true, is a major contribution. EternalNomad (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support in priciple: Eight years in total as Danish head of government. However, there is a need for more citations, the fact that you have had to ask whether this hostage negotiation happened or not is a red flag that this page is not entirely verifiable. '''tAD''' (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support notability, oppose quality per The Almightey Drill, the notability is sufficient, the article, however, is not. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose on quality only. Article needs probably a little expansion, and some more referencing to be main page ready. --Jayron32 11:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Obama's visit to CubaEdit

Article: United States–Cuban Thaw#U.S Presidential visit (talk, history)
Blurb: Barack Obama becomes the first U.S. President since before the Cold War to visit Cuba. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Barack Obama becomes the first U.S. President since 1928 to visit Cuba.
News source(s): The Guardian New York Times Washington Post

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: The hostile relationship between the US and Cuba was one of the defining conflicts of the Cold War. As the Washington Post writes, Obama's visit "Heralding New Era After Decades of Hostility". The obvious symbolism of the visit means that it is on the front pages of the big newspapers. Thue (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment – The reader must slog through 1,900 words of text before reaching the brief section on the presidential visit. Sca (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I linked directly to the actual subsection in the blurb, exactly because of that. Thue (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Generally, if an event is considered significant news, it should be in or near the lede.
(As they used to say in the news biz, "If you've got a bear, bring on the bear.")Sca (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I have added a mention of the visit to the lead. Thue (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support significant historical moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – Per nom, TRM. Sentence added to lede helps a lot. Suggest link now be simply to the article. (Pic of Obama?) Sca (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
    • You are probably right about not linking to the section (blurb changed). But until we have a pic of Obama shaking hands with Raul, I don't think a generic Obama-pic would make sense. Thue (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yeah, you're right – a stock shot wouldn't really add anything. Sca (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as a historic visit, though I wonder if the specific amount of time since the last visit (Coolidge in 1928) should be mentioned. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the new sentence, but for the blurb I rather like the Cold War reference. Sca (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't say I have a problem with mentioning the Cold War per se but "before the Cold War" to me sounds like immediately before, when it was further back. Just a thought, is all. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I personally like the Cold War mention as more meaningful than just mentioning a random year (I also considered the formulation "since the Cuban Revolution"). Thue (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
We can't explain everything in a blurb, but how about long before the Cold War?
In this context, it isn't really important whether it is "before" or "long before". And "before" is perfectly factually accurate (and shorter). Thue (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Presumably the Coolidge visit was a pro forma official event. And who remembers anything about Calvin Coolidge now – other than "the business of America is business" – ? Sca (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support - I don't care too much either way on posting this or not, but mentioning the cold war in the blurb would be ridiculous, given the massive gap between the start of that and the actual date of the last visit. It would make considerably more sense to mention the revolution instead. However, since the visit was 31 years before that, it's a bit silly as well. Just mention the actual year and be done with it. Fgf10 (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak weak oppose because the Thaw's been in ITN twice in the last year, and this is an interesting point but it's not anything groundbreaking in terms of legislation or the like. But I also recognize this is considered important and we have that free image of the two meeting currently used on the thaw's page, so... --MASEM (t) 01:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose on the grounds that this has already been posted a couple of times last year. Masem also makes a good argument about the overall significance of this visit. Banedon (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weakest of weak opposes, could go support - I have no doubt about how historically significant this is, but based on the number of postings of this, and the fact it's hard to see what impact this visit will actually have, I am hesitant to go full support.--WaltCip (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose We've posted several stories on thawing relations with Cuba already; we're going to go through even more milestones, and they're all going to be "first x in a long time" because we've been parted for half a century and more. I would more strongly favor the ones that have a real impact on citizens (such as lifting the embargo) rather than a celebrity visit. - OldManNeptune 03:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Celebrity visit? I think you are confusing the President of the United States with Donald Trump. (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Well, that got a laugh from an old man, but I could think of no other term for it. I recognize POTUS is an important individual, but the "significance" of the visit boils down to a person of great celebrity taking a tour. Frankly what I see here is an important person doing something of little real import but sounding the trumpets very loudly about it - and perhaps the sounding of the trumpets is the whole point, but that doesn't make it an historical event. The best case here is that it is, undeniably, all over the news. - OldManNeptune 09:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
        • IMO symbolic events on the political scene have actual consequences and significance, are more than celebrity news. See e.g. the very relevant 1972 Nixon visit to China. Thue (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
        • Whether or not we personally believe this to be historic or not, it will always be historical. Besides that, major news outlets are also describing it as "historic" and as we go with such reliable sources, I don't see this being any different. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Internationally significant event, must be posted. STSC (talk) 08:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
We must do nothing. Fgf10 (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Historic visit. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support A very significant and historic visit that is widely covered in the news. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – What are we waiting for? Marked ready. Sca (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
oppose the first Iran prez to visit Lebanon since the war was a major direction change in a volatile region and wwe dint post that. Plus we posted the Cuba thawing (twice?).Lihaas (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
If I am reading and understanding your post correctly (which is no small feat), no such visit was ever nominated. A Saudi king and a Syrian president visited Lebanon back in 2010 but I recall that not having much significance.--WaltCip (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
comment the section is pretty poorly updated (with the Colombia/FARC thing we had a much article section updated). It has one lone quote and that he touched down basically. There's plenty of reaction on both sides of government and i'm sure Fl Cubans.Lihaas (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Lihaas, and if this must go up, the since 1928 blurb is far better. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Obviously a symbolic event, but just as obviously an important one. It marks the end of an era the lasted 55 years and produced political and economic difficulties for millions. Not as weighty historically as Nixon's '72 visit to China, but a significant parallel, and one that might precipitate far-reaching changes in Cuba long-term. (And Cuban-American cultural relations had a long history.) Sca (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
PS: I would support either the original or the (1928) Altblurb, whichever.... Sca (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose this has pretty much been posted twice already, at the visit itself is simply symbolic. There is nothing consistent coming out of it. I would prefer to post the Congress taking Cuba off the embargo list instead. Nergaal (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: Significant news and a major development in relationships between two countries in one of the world's longest diplomatic feuds. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – I make it 7 1/2 supports to 5 1/2 opposes (or does "weak, weak oppose" constitute only 1/4?) That's hardly "mass opposition," George. Marked ready yet again. Visit continues. Sca (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 16:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015–16 FIS Ski Jumping World CupEdit

Ok, seems that the community is not in favour of this one. Worth trying, though. --Tone 08:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: 2015–16 FIS Ski Jumping World Cup (talk, history) and Peter Prevc (talk, history)
Blurb: Peter Prevc and Sara Takanashi win the overall titles in the Ski Jumping World Cup. (Post)
Nominator's comments: A while ago we had a discussion whether to feature some other winter sports apart from Alpine skiing (which will roll out of ITN box rather soon). The ski jumping season just concluded with several records being broken - so I nominate it on a one-time basis. The article is in a good shape. For those unfamiliar with ski jumping, the sport has huge popularity in Central Europe and Scandinavia, with competitors also coming from North America and Japan. Women's cup is not *that* big in following yet, but it feels appropriate to mention the winner who dominated the season just as the men's winner did. Tone 15:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose in its current form. The lead is all fluttered up, the rest is just tables and there are several grammar and spelling mistakes. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Let me play with the layout a bit, like the Alpine skiing article. --Tone 15:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Ok, please check again ;) --Tone 15:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
It looks better now cosmetically, but it is still slim on prose and several statements are unsourced. Other statements are only referenced with unreliable sources (Youtube videos) that do need even back the statement they make (only events won while falling). Still plenty of spelling errors in the footnotes as well. I believe I have to stick with oppose on this one. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'd expect an article linked to the main page to at least explain the sport or what makes this season particularly notable; this is just an article of which 90% is composed of tables. Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose No evidence that this is actually in the news in a significant way, even when just compared with other sports. Andrew D. (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per three previous comments. Sca (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose was going to close but some comments relate to article quality. I can't see any reason at all that ski-jumping should be an ITN item, full stop, unless someone breaks a world record by ten metres or fails to land because they fly off into the aether. But that's just me. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
No matter where you go, there you are. Sca (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Would someone failing to land truly be ITN? I think we shouldn't crystal-ball in that instance, because they may land at some point in the future, and we do not want to look stupid by declaring that they won't.--WaltCip (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

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

March 19Edit

[Posted] Six Nations ChampionshipEdit

Article: 2016 Six Nations Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In rugby union, England defeat France to win their first Six Nations Grand Slam in over a decade. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In rugby union, the Six Nations concludes with England winning the championship.
News source(s): BBC Sport, The Guardian, RTE Sport

Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: Article lacks match summaries a tournament summary, so if any rugby fans can rectify that we can get this up. Fuebaey (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose but curious. There have been 15 matches that contribute to this tournament. Some things are decided on the way (e.g. Calcutta Cup, Triple Crown etc) and some things wait to the final day/game (e.g. Grand Slam). Are we now expecting every Six Nations article to have a prose summary of every game before it's posted? Right now the currently linked article "summarises" the result, but is it enough? Is it? Has this ITNR been posted before? What was the condition of the article if so? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I've gone back and checked (March archives annually). Was posted every year since at least 2009, except 2012 and last year due to quality. Articles were posted with a tournament overview, so have adjusted nom to reflect. Fuebaey (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - There's going to be comments on how there's not enough prose. I call bullshit on that. The sorts of info we give about games comes across far better as tables, and the article contains all relevant information. There's also going to be comments on how nobody cares about rugby, and how it's not a premier tournament. As for the former, I refer you to the interest in the last world cup. As for the latter, this is the de facto European Championship in rugby union. We post the equivalent tournament in association football. There is massive interest in this in the participating nations, the games draw massive crowds and large viewing numbers on TV. (Yes, I know it's on ITN/R, so all my comments bar the first should be unnecessary, but just anticipating the inevitable). Fgf10 (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. With all due respect to Fgf10's point above, this is almost entire a list of stats, which violates WP:NOT#STATS. Prose to describe the matches is nearly required to make this more than just a statbook. --MASEM (t) 02:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. No match reports included and very little sourcing - none of the match stats have any referencing at all and the "notes" section which give brief statistical highlights of each game appear to be almost entirely unreferenced. ITN/R so no issue at all about suitability for ITN, only the article quality needs improvement. --Bcp67 (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Half of the world probably don't know about 'rugby union'. STSC (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
    That's of little relevance I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Entirely irrelevant, and far fewer people know about American Football etc anyway, which we happily post. Just because you like football, doesn't mean we don't post rugby. Fgf10 (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - I have added a prose description of the tournament describing all the games, I hope this is enough? (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Moving towards support now - the notes are still unref'd but the prose section for each week is a considerable improvement. --Bcp67 (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I've cited most of the statistical notes, bar the ones about players making their debuts, which could be removed TBH. (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support And mad props to 86.139 and whoever else fixed the article problems. Quality looks to be not an issue, this could be posted soon, since all of the above opposes related to quality have been fixed. --Jayron32 19:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I've struck my oppose, the others are all on article quality which has been addressed, with the exception of one (which is irrelevant), so this, being ITNR, is good to go, marked as such. Echoing Jayron's compliments to IP86 for the work done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support ITN/R, agree the quality is sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support after the very good work from 86.139 --Bcp67 (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted so sue me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] 2016 Milan–San RemoEdit

Withdrawn. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2016 Milan–San Remo (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In road cycling, Arnaud Démare wins Milan–San Remo. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In road cycling, Arnaud Démare wins Milan–San Remo, one of the monuments of the sport.
News source(s): BBC, CyclingNews

Article updated
Nominator's comments: On notability: While the race is not ITN/R, it is one of the most important races on the calender, considered one of the cycling monuments. On quality: Judge for yourself, I think for a recent sport event it is really good (padding myself on the back there...). Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment on article quality: while there's one general source used for the three para of the race summary, it would be nice to have a few more sources in that to flesh it out. and the table looks incomplete since all the subsequent placing are time +0 which doesn't make sense. I can't comment on the importance of the race but being an international participation event, could be important? --MASEM (t) 18:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Masem: I will add more sources to the race report, but considering that the race ended two hours ago, there is not too much to find yet. On the table: In cycling, riders are scored on the same time if they arrive at the line in a group, therefore all are +0". Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, now I understand, and I looked at that extrenal website and I see there were several clusters. You might want to indicate that only the top 10 results are shown out of the nearly hundred raced - obviously not the whole table, but give a bit more than just 10 people were riding in it. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Masem: Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no interest on even commenting on this, I will pull the request, since the race is now already too old to be posted anyway. I find that a pity, we hardly ever have very comprehensive articles on recent sport events on here. Please close. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

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

[Posted] March 2016 Istanbul bombingEdit

Articles: March 2016 Istanbul bombing (talk, history) and March 2016 Ankara bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Six days after the Ankara bombing which killed 37 people, a suicide bombing in Istanbul kills 5 people and injures 36 others. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Another bomb attack hits Istanbul, Turkey, killing five people and injuring 36 others.
News source(s): Reuters, Independent

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Breaking news. Article is not yet comprehensive, but may (and will) be improved within the coming hours. PanchoS (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - highly notable attack in the heart of Istanbul, potentially with important implications, all over the international headlines right now. The article is currently being improved. --GGT (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment is there appetite to merge this with the Ankara blurb, since it's still on the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Was going to suggest a plausible merger (TRM and me agree?). Although I dont think this is notable. The country is in civil war (regardless of what the media is reluctant to call) and 5 deaths is not relevant considering we consistently dont have Syria stories.Lihaas (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Syria is a very, very inaccurate comparison for Turkey. Some of those killed were tourists, which by itself shows the absurdity of such a comparison. A more appropriate comparison would be with Pakistan, which is being made by some media, and we do post the attacks in Pakistan that receive widespread coverage. The conflict or civil war is in a city and a few towns in the country's southeast and Istanbul is a bustling, touristy (despite all the decline in tourism) metropolis that has not seen anything resembling a civil war. Bombings in Syria don't receive anything close to this much media coverage (it was very hard to gather the details in the article for February 2016 Homs bombings when I researched it, for example, and that is probably as detailed as it gets). Note that nobody even proposes the posting of attacks that take place in the war-stricken regions of the country (e.g. 2016 Diyarbakır bombing), against which this "civil war" argument would stand. --GGT (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I've modified the proposed combined blurb and put the bold in the right places. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support in principle on the topic and the article quality, but I'm worried about the combining of the blurbs to imply there is a connection beyond timing and geography, even if it is to reduce the blurb count in the box. It implicitly suggests these were connected or done by the same group or for the same reason. --MASEM (t) 18:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support and honestly the close time/place ties and similar suspected perpetrators seem enough to me to merge the two blurbs. LjL (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment agree with above, it's not that the blurb combination is intended to imply some kind of connection, simply that the two biggest cities in Turkey have been struck by terror attacks in the past few days. It would be odd to have two completely independent blurbs to cover this. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - notable, worldwide coverage, further escalation of Kurdistan terrorism in Turkey.BabbaQ (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Done - Posted

[Posted] flydubai Flight 981Edit

Article: flydubai Flight 981 (talk, history)
Blurb: flydubai Flight 981 crashes while attempting to land at Rostov-on-Don Airport, Russia. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Developing story. Fatalities not yet known, but reportedly all 61 or 62 on board were killed. Calidum ¤ 03:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Would give this just a couple hours to get better details though what we have is not bad to start. --MASEM (t) 03:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – 737 crash with 55 passengers, significant event. Article quality is acceptable. sst✈ 03:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Per recent trends. However, that image was uploaded by a WMF banned user, so I do not think we should be using it on the main page of Wikipedia. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
    • File:Crash site of flydubai Flight 981 at Rostov-on-Don Airport.jpg is available to use. Mjroots (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
      • I have no opinion on the politics of who is and isn't banned, why they were banned, or indeed whether or not they will ever be unbanned. A ban on en-Wiki is not a ban on Commons, is it? Just pointing out that we have one of the wreckage available to use as well as one of the aircraft pre-crash. Mjroots (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
          • The user in question is globally blocked from all projects by office action. I have removed their contribution from this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
        • Note the image has visibile credits/copyright so should not really be used but it is protected so cant add the watermark tag. MilborneOne (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - significant number of deaths. Mjroots (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

March 18Edit

[Closed] RD: Barry HinesEdit

No consensus and stale. Stephen 04:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Barry Hines (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Irish Independent
Nominator's comments: Best known as the author of A Kestrel for a Knave, AKA Kes, and screenwriter of ThreadsSmurrayinchester 09:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose not seeing this individual as important in the field, most of the works section is unreferenced, where are the awards? (Threads was and remains one of the most haunting things I've ever seen, however). The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Bollea v. GawkerEdit

No consensus to post. --Tone 21:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Bollea v. Gawker (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A jury in Florida awards Hulk Hogan $115 million in damages in a case involving the publication of his sex tape by the website Gawker. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times BBC Wired the Guardian (many others as well)
Nominator's comments: Widely covered in the news around the world, and has been closely followed since it began in 2012. Everymorning (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose eye-watering amount of money, but subject to appeal where it's virtually guaranteed that this won't be the final amount. Having said that, article is sufficient quality and certainly in the news, even outside the microcosm of American wrestling. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the reasons above, as well as the fact it doesn't set any precedents in US law regarding media and privacy, and the like. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, relatively trivial, non-landmark case, unlike The Fappening leak for example (and I bet not receiving that money wouldn't hurt his wealth). Still, Hogan appeared on some collectibles of my childhood. Brandmeistertalk 18:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Has potentially major ramifications for freedom of speech in the United States if the damages are upheld.--The lorax (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - because of major coverage (also outside of the US). Freedom of speech could become a major issue.BabbaQ (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
    • To both above: this was not a federal case in any way. If the appeal process takes it to the Supreme Court or a district court, that might be something, but there is no way this case will have any binding caselaw or direct impact on freedom of speech at this point. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It is not particularly interesting legally, and gossip column material doesn't belong on ITN. Fgf10 (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Supermarket tabloid drivia (trivia about drivel). Sca (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm sorry, are people really suggesting that it's a great threat to freedom of speech that you can't post sex tapes without the participants' consent? I find it hard to imagine a more clear-cut example of an invasion of privacy. And indeed is has been treated as such in the past, both in the US and in other countries, so this is hardly breaking any new legal ground. Neljack (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Paris attacker arrestedEdit

Article: Salah Abdeslam (talk, history)
Blurb: Salah Abdeslam, one of the November 2015 Paris attackers, has been arrested in Molenbeek, Belgium. (Post)
News source(s): (New York Times), (BBC News)

 bender235 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

  • The blurb needs to be reworded to avoid BLP concerns, particularly since the article suggests he was found to be complicit, rather than actually involved in killing people. I suggest "Salah Abdeslam has been arrested in Molenbeek, Belgium, in connection with the November 2015 Paris attacks".--WaltCip (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • support - major update for this terrorist story. worldwide attention and article seems ready.BabbaQ (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – Seems a significant conclusion to the Paris Attacks saga. Tops news on Friday. Sca (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Done - Posted - High profile story -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Guido WesterwelleEdit

Article: Guido Westerwelle (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Tagesschau, BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Foreign Minister of Germany 2009-2013, unexpected death after illness. Article in fairly good shape. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The article is littered with [citation needed] templates, from beginning to end, to the point where we can't even verify where he was born. There's going to be a lot of work that needs to be done to bring this up to snuff.--WaltCip (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@WaltCip: Took care of some, will try to do more. Should be ready in a short while. At least you can now verify where he was born... Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Changing my vote to support in light of the improvements.--WaltCip (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD Long-standing, visible party leader, vice-chancellor and foreign minister of a G7 country, in 2011 President of the UN Security Council, being the first openly gay person to hold any of these positions. His opposition to the 2011 military intervention in Libya in spite of staunchly supporting the uprisings of the Arab Spring was internationally acknowledged. --PanchoS (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Agreeing with PanchoS, very important politician until recently not only by German and European but international merits. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per PanchoS. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per PanchoS.BabbaQ (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment For some reason, User:Caseyrile removed a large number of citations that I added. I will re-add them. No idea where this kind of destructive behavior comes from... Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted Article is detailed and thanks to Zwerg Nase, in good condition. Smurrayinchester 21:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

March 17Edit

[Posted] RD: Meir DaganEdit

Article: Meir Dagan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): (WSJ) NYT AlJazeera HufPost

Nominator's comments: Former director of Mossad, a highly notable intelligence figure. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment – Significance seems largely limited to a specialized niche audience. Sca (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - It will very often be the case that only a specialized audience will be able to fully appreciate significance. But his death is receiving wide coverage (I added further links), indicating a consensus that he was at the top of a very specialized field. No longer a penguin (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Important figure in modern history. --bender235 (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems to meet the criteria as very important to their field(intelligence). 331dot (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support important figure. BabbaQ (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Alpine skiing world cupEdit

Article: 2016 Alpine Skiing World Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: Marcel Hirscher and Lara Gut win the overall titles in the Alpine Skiing World Cup. (Post)

Nominator's comments: We usually post the conclusion of the season. Needs some more prose regarding the winners (may work on this a bit later) but the article is in a good shape overall. Tone 14:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - Happy ITN are always scarce and this marks the conclusion of one of the winter's major sports events. It is more or less a list-article, but so are most sports results. w.carter-Talk 15:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - major winter sport event. BabbaQ (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Done - Posted - Fuzheado | Talk 05:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Paul DanielsEdit

Article: Paul Daniels (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Renowned magician, very important in his field. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support upon improved referencing. Seems to be very important to his field; several awards, and outspoken in his field(as well as in others). 331dot (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support when the article is ready. Quite probably the most notable magician in the United Kingdom, certainly since Tommy Cooper, and important in the wider field of entertainment. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support but only on the condition we can post Penn & Teller if either of them happen to disappear off this Earth.--WaltCip (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose on quality. The "Showbusiness career" section is mostly unreferenced. If someone can fix that problem, then we can post this. --Jayron32 14:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
    It's now mostly referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I like it, but not a lot. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support and marking ready - the sourcing is much improved from earlier. BencherliteTalk 15:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral, leaning towards oppose. As a magician had around a fifteen year stint as a TV regular ending over twenty years ago. Yes, a household name in the UK (for people over a certain age at least) but I don't think he can be regarded as genunelly one of the top in the world. 3142 (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
    Odd perspective. We don't need "top in the world" but certainly there's been no bigger magician from the golden era of magic that's made more of a lasting impact than Daniels in the UK over the past thirty years. In the US there's Copperfield and perhaps more recently Penn and Teller, but nothing else. After all, we have posted US college basketball coaches who win nothing, since when did the "household name" thing become a "thing"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm sick of hearing you demean these "US college basketball coaches", especially since the two specific examples involved (Dean Smith and Jerry Tarkanian, for those who don't recall, since they both died in February 2015 and TRM can't let it go), have won awards and been inducted into halls of fame. These comments aren't helpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Not interested. People who think that US college basketball coaches "are" household names outside of the microcosm of college basketball are kidding themselves. Awards and halls of fame all incestuous to the little club they were part of. What I can't let go of is the bias that allows and promotes those individuals as if this was somehow American Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
How many people make RD who aren't household names? Plenty. RD criteria doesn't say "worldwide fame", it says important in their field. Again, I suggest you drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. It's been more than a year. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you haven't been reading properly. But the point still stands. If this was an American variety show host who had been in television since the early 1980s, there'd be no argument whatsoever. Plus ca change. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Boat race goes then too. It's collegiate, no hall of famers, not household names.Correctron (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension skills before misinterpreting everything, it's not a good look. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Objectively, I just can't see how a man who hosted a variety show for 15 years and who won one international award merits posting, especially when we have so many candidates. The "personal life" section is just a list of random items. I've never seen the show, but were this on the front page and I followed it I would wonder what the editors who posted this article were thinking. μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
    Clearly you've never clicked on anything in the DYK section. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
    • From The Telegraph's obituary: "the most successful British magician and illusionist of his time; throughout the 1980s and early 1990s he was a permanent fixture on BBC television"; "By 1989 The Paul Daniels Magic Show had been sold to television companies across the world"; in its news item the Telegraph says: " Daniels was one of Britain's biggest stars" and calls him "One of the most popular magicians of the 20th century, with success that was unrivalled in the magic and entertainment worlds" while The Magic Circle said that "In this day and age of fragmented media platforms no other magician is likely to be able to achieve such a TV ratings record" (at times, 1/3rd of the UK population watching his show). The Guardian says that his career "defined the TV magic genre in the 1980s and early 90s" while one of their columnists says "we are in danger of forgetting that he was actually one of Britain’s greatest postwar entertainers. He ought to be grouped with the likes of Bruce Forsyth, Eric Morecambe and Ken Dodd: the mastery of his art was complete." Dismissing him as someone who hosted a variety show for 15 years rather misses the full impact he had. BencherliteTalk 21:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
      • He clearly wasn't American enough. He'll be missed, even by those of us who thought he was "corny". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Also. His wig made £1,100 on eBay. Class. [6] (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support as the article stands at present. Definitely RD material, but I'm concerned that there is undue weight on his supposed "Outspoken views"; the section for this is almost as long as the section for his career. Yes, it may all be referenced, but it is not what he is best known for, and including it all smacks of POV. Optimist on the run (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Bit late for this now as it'll probably drop off the RD soon anyway, but just for the record the section has been cleaned up, therefore I'm pleased to now give this full support. Optimist on the run (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per μηδείς. – Sca (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I was about to mark this as not ready as I don't see consensus either way at the moment and the concerns about undue weight of controversial views should probably be responded to. I stand by my earlier support on notability grounds, but I'm unsure where I stand on the article quality issue. I'm neither calling for nor objecting to it being pulled, but I wouldn't have posted it at this point. Thryduulf (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Mild, minuscule contention does not lack of consensus make.--WaltCip (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Wow, Walt, that's almost double alliteration! Sca (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

March 16Edit

[Closed] 2015-2016 Brazil protestsEdit

No consensus on numbers, and stale. Stephen 23:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015–16 protests in Brazil (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Up to three million protesters demand Brazil president Dilma Rousseff resign (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In Brazil, up to three million people protest in demand of President Dilma Rousseff's resignation following accusations of corruption.
News source(s): Many in article

Article updated
 Banedon (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Article seems in a good shape, I have added an altblurb. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - major story, good shape article. BabbaQ (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose until blurb has a dose of reality, the sources seem to indicate that it could be less than half the amount suggested, and after all, "up to 3 million" could be 27 people, or 2.99999 million. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
    Per TRM, regardless of whether the article is posted or not, the blurb cannot use language like "up to". It's makes the statement meaningless. --Jayron32 20:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

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

[Closed] RD: Sylvia AndersonEdit

No consensus to post and is now stale. Fuebaey (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Sylvia Anderson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian The Telegraph The Mirror
Nominator's comments: Co-creator of "Thunderbirds" TV series and the voice of Lady Penelope in "Thunderbirds" MurielMary (talk) 09:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - a major influence in Thunderbirds and subsequent series and great actress. Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 11:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose poor article, and while popular, not award-winning, not near or at the top of her field. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
There is an IP user on the article who is vandalising it - constantly reverting all edits without giving reasons. With regard to top of field, she was co-creator with Gerry Anderson so it can be considered that the awards he received were in large part jointly earned by her work. She complained often that her contribution to the work wasn't acknowledged by Gerry, and that later in life (after their acrimonious divorce) Gerry tried to minimise the contribution she made. MurielMary (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
It's not clear what awards G. Anderson won either, in particular anything that could be co-attributed to his wife. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
FYI, after doing some digging, it appears that the couple received one award together, Gerry received one on his own and Sylvia received one on her own. MurielMary (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, according to the RTS itself (page 31), the award was presented to the show itself (for achievements in front of the camera), not just the Andersons themselves. And the award Sylvia won (Pulcinella Award) doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that source, very handy. Gerry's article needs to be corrected then as it states that *he* received that award personally. MurielMary (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I've given the article a 24h break from IPs. That should give us time to correct any deficiencies. Mjroots (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - No major issues with article now. Mjroots (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - While the article is in good shape, and I love the Thunderbirds, most of her work revolved around that show. The Thunderbirds and her other works are not significant enough to warrant m'lady being at the of her field for a RD spot. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Not really very "top of her field" from what I can see. -- (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support Article seems in good shape from previous comments. Given the cultural relevancy of Thunderbirds and that we also RD'd Arthur Rankin, Jr., I think its fair to include. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
    Rankin won the Peabody Award, this individual was awarded basically nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
As mentioned above, Sylvia Anderson received a joint award with Gerry and one on her own as well. MurielMary (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Thunderbirds won an award. The one she won on her own was harldy a Peabody Award, and doesn't even have a Wikpiedia article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see anything here or in the article to suggest importance in her field. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • FAB "Yus, Milady"... Andrew D. (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - on reflection, I think that part of the issue here could be that her contributions to the Thunderbirds (and other) successes are described in other articles (Lady Penelope and Thunderbirds (TV series) for example) and not fully described in her own article; therefore the article doesn't sufficiently demonstrate her notability. I will try to spend some time expanding the article. MurielMary (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Even as a massive Thunderbirds fan, I don't really see the notability. Fgf10 (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
FYI, as you mention you're a Thunderbirds fan, she created the TBs characters, storylines, costumes, dialogue lines and also provided voices for some of the characters. MurielMary (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm surprised to see no one mention the fact that Gerry Anderson was posted when he died 4 years ago with a large amount of support. When you have a show created by a husband-and-wife team, posting the husband but not the wife reeks of bias. Especially in this case where the two divorced rather messily after the show came out, as MurielMary discussed.
I'd also point out that this nomination got 4 supports (including the nominator, and assuming FAB is a reference to the show) and 1 weak support compared to 3 opposes and 3 weak opposes, and yet was closed within less than 24 hours. Sure there might be no obvious consensus but I would have thought there's no need to close it quite that quickly - it's certainly not uncontested. For the record I would have supported had I seen it in time. (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me from looking at their articles that Gerry was more accomplished than Sylvia. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I think they had their own strengths in different areas but because Gerry's strength was the more obvious/clearly visible one (the animation of the puppets) that he got the praise and recognition. Sylvia's work was the plots, characters, dialogue lines - also essential to a quality TV show but not as well recognised as remarkable. And for the record, Gerry only won one individual award for his work, so saying that Sylvia didn't "earn enough awards for notability" is odd - Gerry won just one award and was considered notable enough for RD. MurielMary (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with the IP editor above, this does seem to be a rather speedy close to the discussion. 24 hours doesn't seem enough time for people to see and comment on this. Also, the article has been further developed since the nom. Could an admin re-open this for further discussion? MurielMary (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
    Done. Although please consider that just because we post A, it doesn't mean we have to post B. And consider that most opposition was posited on her lack of significance in her field, not the quality of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I've expanded the article re Sylvia's contributions to their joint successes, which may not have been previously clear. MurielMary (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support article quality is adequate for main page presence. --Jayron32 14:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
    Actually, it appears on the face of it to be full of errors/unreferenced claims. I've had a couple of quick looks but it's not great. Besides that, this individual is not important enough in her field/won no awards etc to meet RD requirements. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, The Times runs her obituary today, which says "Initially employed to make tea and do the filing for a shambolic and disorganised production company, Anderson graduated to key creative roles and become widely regarded as the first lady of sci-fi." BencherliteTalk 14:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, indeed. "widely regarded as the first lady of sci-fi", yet it seems impossible to find any reference to her wit that epitheton before her daughter called her this yesterday. The title of honour has been given to many women, from Mary Shelley to Sigourney Weaver, Gale Anne Hurd, Amanda Tapping, Summer Glau, Barbarella, Majel Roddenberry; Nichelle Nichols, Caroline Munro, Carrie Fisher, ... but it seems quite certain that the Times is just being nice but incorrect, and that until today she was clearly not regarded as such. Fram (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

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

March 15Edit

[Closed] Bangladesh Bank cyber heistEdit

Stale. Stephen 23:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Atiur Rahman (talk, history) and 2016 Bangladesh Bank heist (talk, history)
Blurb: Atiur Rahman, the governor of Bangladesh Bank, resigns after hackers stole about $100 million from the bank's account with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Bloomberg Business, Financial Times (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support A country's central bank governor resigns over a hacking scandal. I'd opt to highlight the event article to give more background info to readers unfamiliar with the story. Has coverage and is updated. Fuebaey (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Seems to be a significant event, and both Rahman's article and the event article seem in good shape to post. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose clearly. The Rahman article has no indication of this event whatsoever. Poor call. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
There was a reference to his resignation in the infobox, which you may have missed so it's not exactly "no indication". But for the sake of clarity, I have copied the paragraph from the event to the bio. Fuebaey (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, clearly. Probably the biggest bank heist in history. Nsk92 (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - most likely the biggest bank heist in history. Updated article. BabbaQ (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support looks pretty obvious to me. Banedon (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose not written in clear English, target article is bizarrely titled. Resolve those issues and we may have a case for posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Assuming we're discussing the event, I'm surprised you did not notice this issue 2-3 days ago. I get that I might've missed a few grammatical errors when I first tried to copyedit it - I tend to make quite a few typos myself - but, while not perfect, I thought it was reasonably readable when I stopped editing. Could you at least point out examples and, if not extensive, take your own advice and fix them yourself? Fuebaey (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I have only looked at this article today, and the lead is a joke. As is the title. Hence my opposition. If you care enough to write all that, feel free to get on and do something about it. (And for what it's worth, I improve dozens of articles a week. You?) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The thing is, this (19 March) doesn't seem to be your first opposition !vote on this nom. Given the regularity of your comments here at ITN, I'd assume that you know that it says at the top of this page to read nominated articles before commentating (16 March), or at least acknowledge otherwise.
Which leads me to my next point, in that I don't see how 2016 Bangladesh Bank heist as a title is "a joke" (I had changed this prior to your last comment, although you don't seem to have, again, read that). I have also clicked one button to revert a good faith, but ungrammatically written, edit. Honestly, I don't mind editors not expanding stuff/researching refs/extensively copyediting (not everyone is interested) but this is a wee bit extreme. Fuebaey (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
If you bothered, you'd know I read the Rahman article. That was incomplete. As for the article about the heist, when I reviewed it in light of it being marked as Ready, it was clear to me that it obviously was not ready. Perhaps you aren't aware of the title of the article when I reviewed it either. Never mind, you don't get it, I understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Marked. Given that I'm unaware of any outstanding issues, I would appreciate the opinion of an uninvolved admin as to whether this is ready to post. Fuebaey (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
    Weird, what's "involved" here? I assessed the article this morning based on someone tagging it as "Ready" and it clearly was not, the lead was garbage and the article title likewise. I'll take another look when I get a spare few minutes. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
    Right, two minutes and there are some fundamental issues with the BLP. Please fix those. If I get time, I'll have a look at the revised heist article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Htin Kyaw as new President of MyanmarEdit

Stale. Stephen 23:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Htin Kyaw (talk, history) and President of Myanmar (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The National League for Democracy candidate, Htin Kyaw is elected President of Myanmar. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The majority of the Burmese Assembly of the Union elects Htin Kyaw as President of Myanmar.
Alternative blurb II: Htin Kyaw is elected President of Myanmar.
News source(s): CNBC AsiaOne The Guardian

One or both nominated events are listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.
Nominator's comments: Huge election event in Myanmar. Note: Aung San Suu Kyi is the leader of her party, not the country. George Ho (talk) 06:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
altblurb2 but there should be an election page.Lihaas (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
What? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as an historic event in the country's political development. Alt blurb or something close to it (no need to state "the majority of" as that is self-evident given the election was successful) is probably best - it needs to be clear that Htin Kyaw was elected by the parliament, not in a general election. His article needs some tidying up, though; there is some non-native English which is slightly unclear/oddly expressed. MurielMary (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. ITN/R. The article quality may not be the best, but this is a historically significant event in the country. sst✈ 11:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality only. The article is currently not in depth enough on his life and political career, and the presidential election section is entirely unreferenced. If this were expanded and fully referenced, I would support putting this on the main page. --Jayron32 15:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Marking as ready. Phyo WP did a decent job fixing this up. Tweaked blurbs - no point in highlighting an unimproved article and removed "the new" as extraneous. Fuebaey (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 2016 Abel PrizeEdit

Article: Abel Prize (talk, history)
Blurb: Andrew Wiles wins the 2016 Abel Prize for his solution to Fermat's Last Theorem. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Andrew Wiles wins the 2016 Abel Prize for his proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.
Alternative blurb II: Andrew Wiles wins the 2016 Abel Prize for his proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.
News source(s): Nature

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: ITN/R, but a worthy recipient and a famous problem. shoy (reactions) 14:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support The Abel article is updated and ready, it would be nice if the few lingering CNs in Wiles article could be fixed but as its not the target, it's not required. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment We also have Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem which we may add to the blurb. --Tone 14:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support with Tone's addition. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Added. Smurrayinchester 15:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Adding a row to a table is quite a minimal update, which doesn't impart anything more than what is in the blurb. In previous years we have preferred to highlight the winner of the award, not the award itself (judging by the lack of talk page templates). Wiles' article has citation issues that could do with addressing. Fuebaey (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
    I would post it as is, with an aim to improve Wiles' article to embolden it if and when sufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
ITN has posted the Abel Prize annually since 2010, with the exception of 2013 which didn't get enough attention. On each occasion, including in 2013, the winner was bolded. Adding that to the start of WP:ITN/R#Awards, which states that winners of the events listed are normally meant to be highlighted unless otherwise stated, I see no rush to post a BLP with serious referencing issues onto the Main Page. Fuebaey (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you read what I wrote. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I think we're talking past each other at this point. Fuebaey (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, concur with Tone's suggestion, but be aware that Andrew Wiles' own article is a BLP shocker so any tweaks to that would be welcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support but we should bold the winner's article and not the award's article. The winner's article is the one that contains the extensive text which expands upon the blurb. --Jayron32 23:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as nominated - We can't bold the Abel Prize article, that would imply that every year we feature the same article. I say bold either Andrew Wiles, Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, or both. Banedon (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I too think that Wiles' article should be the bold link, and have put an altblurb up as such. However, there are several {{cn}} tags on the article which need to be addressed before the BLP is on the main page. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment if this candidate is now determined to have to embolden the recipient, please ensure that consensus is reflected over at ITNR for future reference. (P.S. I note the comment by Fuebaey, but we have often posted a decent award article in bold (e.g. Nobels) while the subject article is improved. It's called "being timely" and a "sensible compromise"). The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I've cleared the final two cn tags and No longer a penguin has taken out the rest. I'm not a big fan of the uncited In popular culture section and would rather see it gone, but I'll leave that up to the posting admin. Fuebaey (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I think this is sufficient now, I commented out the popular culture section. Posting. --Tone 09:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

March 14Edit

[Closed] Russian military withdrawal from SyriaEdit

Consensus against posting. BencherliteTalk 18:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Syrian Civil War (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Russian President Vladimir Putin announces main military withdrawal from the Syrian Civil War. (Post)
News source(s): RT, Guardian
Nominator's comments: Possibly major news. Without using precedents (i.e. other stuff exists), this story shall affect decisions of international players involved in the Civil War. Of course, it may not qualify as ongoing... unless consensus says otherwise. It should make US less likely to militarily intervene, especially in light of Russian withdrawal. George Ho (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • oppose Possibly major news. But we do not know and will not know for some time. Especially because it is only a partial withdrawal of forces. My guess is that it is one of many moves in the peace negotiations that restarted, and that as such it is not ITN-worthy... L.tak (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait Potentially big news... but it's not a full withdrawal. A "small" contingent of Russian planes will remain and carry on the bombing campaign, and at this stage it's not clear what "small" means. Once the situation is clearer, we can post. Smurrayinchester 12:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait/leaning oppose – My concerns about the Syrian Civil War article remain very much the same: atrociously large and cumbersome for readers. It took me several minutes to simply tag the article as such because of lag I was getting from it. Suggestion is either clean up the Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War article and/or the Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January–April 2016) article and use that as the target. Notability is borderline as mentioned in above comments so I'm opting wait on that aspect. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – They're still bombing. If they really stop intervening in Syria, we can return to the topic. Sca (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - False truce.--WaltCip (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a significant decision from Russia who is a major player in the civil war. STSC (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - I think a withdrawal of ground troops is still worth posting, although this should link to Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War, PoV tag or not. Banedon (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose if they withdrew wholesale, that'd be something to post. Proposed target article is too general. Suggested alternative is maintenance tagged and, as such, cannot be used. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
That is not a question. Did the yankees withdraw wholesale from Iraq or korea? the permanent base stays, the current conflict ends, (from their side) btw.Lihaas (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
What? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – potentially incorrect information. RT is obviously a heavily biased source. sst✈ 12:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is the announcement of a proposed change, not a done deal. μηδείς (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - an announcement for such a thing is not significant enough. Revisit when it's actually happening. w.carter-Talk 15:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Women's World Chess ChampionshipEdit

Stale. Stephen 22:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Women's World Chess Championship 2016 ‎ (talk, history) and Hou Yifan (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Women's World Chess Championship, Hou Yifan defeats Mariya Muzychuk. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In the Women's World Chess Championship, challenger Hou Yifan defeats Mariya Muzychuk 6-3.
Alternative blurb II: ​In chess, Hou Yifan defeats Mariya Muzychuk to win the Women's World Championship.
News source(s): ChessBase, Shanghai Daily, The Washington Times, The Guardian
Nominator's comments: Traditional item, although ITNR lists only men's World Chess Championship. Article is open to further updates. Brandmeistertalk 23:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support When sufficiently updated.Correctron (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The men's tournament is ITNR, this should be too, but it's certainly notable enough for ITN. I have updated the article for tenses, grammar etc. Laura Jamieson (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Because A exists does not mean that B must also exist.Correctron (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
What possible relevance could that have in this context? If an ITN/R item actually specifies one gender's competition holding recurring status and the other's not, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to question the neutrality of that arrangement. - OldManNeptune 10:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, irrelevant comment. Anyway, I've started the discussion to include the women's tournament at WT:ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I would almost venture to call limiting this to men's as an oversight/error in need of correction. Strongly support posting this as soon as ready. - OldManNeptune 01:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The World Chess Championship is open to women, and some women, such as Judit Polgár, choose only to play there. Stephen 02:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I think Judit was the only person to do that (granted, she was also the only woman to be competitive at the very top). Banedon (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. The question is, does this tournament get the same attention as the Men's? 331dot (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Given that the tournament struggled to find a host I would suggest not. Stephen 02:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
No, although it varies, e.g. since Yifan is from China the WWCC receives more attention there compared to the WCC (the top male players in the world aren't from China). Banedon (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support (ETA) On improvements The article seems to be in decent shape now (in reviewing above comments); it seems is a reliable source in the chess field. I would agree a discussion at ITNR should be had to consider this at ITNR to avoid systematic bias. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
So no coverage in what would be considered mainstream sources? Stephen 03:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
It might be early now, I do see the Telegraph reported on last year's winner [7]. --MASEM (t) 03:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't place much emphasis on article quality. With that said I'm surprised you think the article is in decent shape since I personally feel the article quality is pretty bad. There's no prose describing the games and no list of moves either. While I don't think this matters for something like Tennis, in board games this kind of prose is expected in coverage (see e.g. reports on the ongoing AlphaGo vs. Lee Sedol match). Following the moves with expert commentary is how most ordinary people appreciate the games, and studying opponents' games is how top players prepare for tournaments as well. Banedon (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, yes, there should be at least a write up on the general matches (though not necessarily at the game level) A list of moves is probably something to be added in time but for the average reader, that will make little sense. --MASEM (t) 03:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
That's ... nonstandard in chess coverage as well. Compare World Chess Championship 2014. Banedon (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
When we talk sports results, it's more important to have the prose of the matches in place for ITN posting over box scores and other stats. I would see the chess matches in the same manner: prose on the individual games to merit ITN, while the move list can come later if it will take more time to get in place. I would certainly expect the move list by the time it was nominated for GA or better, but ITN's not that high a quality standard. --MASEM (t) 03:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support - as far as championships go this doesn't receive much coverage especially outside the mainstream chess media. Even within the mainstream chess media it's debatable that this attracts more attention than the ongoing Candidates Tournament 2016. It's still something, but it's not something that garners as much attention as other items. Whether or not to post it, in my opinion, depends on whether one feels this can replace any of the current blurbs. The Slovak elections blurb is 10 days old at this point, while the eclipse blurb is six days old, so I think this is worth posting (I personally think it's more interesting than the other two nominations below this one as well). Banedon (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Switching to weak oppose - the chess world seems to be following the ongoing Candidates Tournament 2016 more closely, and who can fault them? First the level of play is significantly higher, second there are more games, and finally the result is more uncertain. No disrespect meant to Mariya Muzychuk & Hou Yifan, but there's a rating gap of over a hundred points between the two, and the 6-3 victory is reflective of that. And if the chess world cares about the candidates tournament more, it seems unlikely that the rest of the world might care about the women's world chess championship instead. Banedon (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Adding an alt blurb - don't see a reason not to give the score, as well as a word on who's the challenger and who's the champion. Banedon (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
    House style, we don't publish scorelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as chess has gained popularity as both game and sport worldwide, with no divide between geographical regions and different cultures. It's probably the only sport in the world that is popular in continental Europe, the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries, so that there is no chance to argue that nobody cares about it somewhere. The article still needs improvements, especially in the section on the games and results.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support and would support adding to ITN/R. shoy (reactions) 12:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
    I've already started the discussion at WT:ITNR to discuss its inclusion. Feel free to join in there. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment added altblurb and sources. The lack of breaking news coverage may be due to continental bias and the popularity of chess in general, rather than gender. If you search news sources for 侯逸凡 (Hou Yifan) or Музичук Маріяor (Mariya Muzychuk) there are more recent stories about the championship in Chinese, Ukrainian and Spanish than in English. Quality-wise, the article is still lacking 8 more game summaries, which is something I'd like to help with but, being unfamiliar with chess notation, would rather not hash up. Fuebaey (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment You don't need the game scores, any more than you need a play-by-play description of, say, the Superbowl. A summary of the result of each game is enough. Any notable games can always be added later. Laura Jamieson (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the same ground I have just spelled out at ITNR: this is not equivalent to a (non-existent) men's title, it is a second rate title for players who are not good enough to feature in the open tournament. This is not a case of promoting only one gender's top tournament, it is to distort the nature of a tournament open to both genders out of a false sense of equality. 3142 (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment your statement that the Women's Championship is for players not good enough for the "open" tournament is false - if that were the case, then men who are not good enough for the "open" tournament could compete in it as well. The Women's Championship is as the title states, a competition for women. MurielMary (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
How is it false? They aren't good enough to beat the men so they have a second-tier, sexist tournament. The other tournament is open to everyone and features the best of the best.Correctron (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@MurielMary Remember though, Judit has never played in the Women's World Chess Championship. When asked about it her responses indicate that she thinks it is somehow an inferior competition compared to the "open" tournament. Banedon (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Correctron, the statement that "Women's Chess Championship is for players not good enough for the "open" tournament" is false because, as stated above, it's not open to all players not good enough for the "open" tournament, it's only open to women players. Where do men who are not good enough for the main tournament compete? MurielMary (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
So you've just admitted it's sexist and the women aren't good enough to compete with the men? It's open to all women not good enough to compete in the open tournament.Correctron (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Nope now you are twisting my words. I have stated that the competition is open to all women. Period. Not (your words) "players not good enough to feature in the main tournament". MurielMary (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
And the premier tournament is open to everybody.Correctron (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on notability and on article quality. Specifically support Alt Blurb II as this puts the news story into the appropriate context of "in chess". MurielMary (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I think it is like posting the winner of the college football finals (in America football). This is NOT the highest tier of players in the world. In an age where everybody panders to praises feminism, there is absolutely no reason to post a women's title when the regular WC title is open to females too. There is no physical limitation in chess so there should be no difference between sexes. Nergaal (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment to state that WP is "pandering to feminism" by potentially posting this item is rather an unfortunate choice of words as it would imply that (1) feminism is something distasteful and (2) being in agreement with it is only gratifying it, not validating it as a worthwhile vision. Personal opinions on politics shouldn't come into these discussions, which are based on the significance of the event as noted in media reports and as agreed on by consensus. MurielMary (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I think the new verb is closer to what the original meaning was. Also, top ranked female in the world rankings is listed at number 73. Nergaal (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Just a comment here that Judit is the only woman to have ever reached the upper echelons of the Chess ladder. Nobody else (including Yifan, who is leagues ahead of all her competitors at the moment too) has even come close. This led British GM Nigel Short to argue that women are somehow not "hard-wired" to play Chess at top level (see [8]), i.e. there might be a "physical limitation" in chess. Short's comments have been severely criticized however, and some people think that the generally-sexist atmosphere in chess is the cause for the difference. Conclusions are yours to draw; in the end I think it's a judgment call. Banedon (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
"In an age where everybody panders to praises feminism.... - utter bollocks, but sadly symptomatic. And very revealing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, hasn't received the attention necessary for inclusion. In general, some sports get quasi-equal attention for men and women (tennis, swimming, athletics, judo, most winter sports...), some sports are competed together (equestrian), and in some sports the attention for the men's (or open) competetion is much greater than for the women. Of those, we have on the one hand things like soccer, where the attention for the women's world championship is considerably smaller than for the men's, but is still more than sufficient for ITN inclusion. On the other hand, there are things like chess, but also e.g. snooker, boxing, ski jumping, where the specific women's compettion gets little to no attention compared to the men's (or open) competition. If someone starts a women F1 racing championship tomorrow, it shouldn't automatically get equal treatment at ITN with the existing (open but in reality men only) competition, unless it gets sufficient attention. ITN (or wikipedia) is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Fram (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It took me a while to decide on this one but I believe the above "oppose" arguments bear weight. A standard to include a sport of the opposite gender (when, as argued above multiple times, the main event is open to both genders anyway) should not be arbitrarily imposed on ITN; the event has to bear out on its own as sufficiently notable.--WaltCip (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality only. The article looks like someone started to add prose synopses of each match in the championship, but that's not been finished yet. If that is completed with full references, consider this a full support when completed. --Jayron32 15:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Someone has completed the referenced expansion now, so I've unmarked that section. Brandmeistertalk 08:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I've marked this as ready as to get some (preferably uninvolved) admin attention here. The article quality is okay so all someone has to do is adjudge whether there is consensus to post. Since there hasn't been any additional comments for a few days now, I think it's really a case of post or close. For the record, I have no opinion either way. Fuebaey (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Abu Omar al-Shishani killedEdit

No consensus to post. Fuebaey (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Abu Omar al-Shishani (talk, history)
Blurb: Islamic State militant Abu Omar al-Shishani is killed in an airstrike. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Islamic State militant Abu Omar al-Shishani dies from injuries sustained in an airstrike.
News source(s): The Guardian
 EternalNomad (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. The alt blurb should be the one used, as the first makes it sound like he was immediately killed by the airstrike. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose How is this ITN?Correctron (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait I'd say notability is not in doubt, but the details of are very murky, as the Guardian article makes clear. It's unclear whether he is actually dead or 'just' clinically dead; it's unclear what his role was in ISIS, and so on. He's also been falsely reported to have been killed several times. Hence: wait till clearer details are available and he is confirmed killed. Banedon (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Hilary PutnamEdit

Article: Hilary Putnam (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Online News

Nominator's comments: Renowned mathematician and philosopher, won the Rolf Schock Prizes. Article is FA quality. EternalNomad (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support blurb. no-brainer. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 15:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD, not blurb Importance clear and the FA quality hasn't degraded, though I don't think a blurb is appropriate here. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD although I'd like a source added for the claim that the Rolf Schock Prize is "(in Philosophy it is as prestigious as Nobel)" please. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted - Featured Article, completely referenced, highly notable... as I don't foresee any argument on those matters I've posted it to RD. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support RD, not blurb – Notability seems largely limited to a specialized, niche audience. Sca (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • This could be the fastest posting to ITN we have ever had. Post-posting support RD since there is literally nothing wrong with this article.--WaltCip (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
    Indeed, I've never seen an item posted by consensus to the main page in 11 minutes. I have no problem with it, but it creates something of a nervy precedent. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
    As long as there's been an assessment in the quality of the article (such as mine and TRM's previous comment) so the posting admin knows that that's been evaluated, and otherwise a clear line of supports, that's fine. It would have been more an issue if there was no comment on the article quality outside of mentioning it was an FA (as FAs can degrade), which I have seen happen before and required a pull to get the article fixed up. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
    No, you miss the point. Consensus ought not take 11 minutes to achieve. I've seen hundreds of ITN stories get three supports in ten minutes only to then get a dozen opposes. It's not a problem here, so you don't need to continue with the commentary, but eleven minutes to post this Nobel Prize winner (not) when there's a Nobel Prize winner (actual) sitting a few sections below ready to go for a day or so is a little .... odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
    Except that one still has sourcing issues, identified early on in the ITN process (it's improved but there's still a CN tag on that page). We've emphasized the need for a quality article regardless of importance, because we are dealing with front page material. Here, quality was assessed to be in find shape in the first three !votes, as well as reassessed by the posting admin. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
    Are you going to help with that? There's one cn? Ok, it's gone. You really missed the point three times now, this discussion is serving no purpose. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
    I'm in agreement with TRM here; this posting might have been OK in this case, but I'm a touch uneasy about it. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support RD, oppose blurb That may have been too fast a posting to ensure consensus was there, but this doesn't seem to be a case where anyone is going to complain about quality or notability, so a quick posting on this one isn't a major issue. I don't think the subject deserves a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Longstanding precedent has been about 6hrs, and four supports, with no opposition or technical problems, before a posting. This gives time for much of the world to see an article. I don't at all see where Putnam deserves this singular treatment. μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
WADR, precedence is utterly meaningless on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I would also disagree with the assessment that there is a "longstanding precedent" of 6 hrs(even leaving aside what WaltChip has said). I have seen articles posted within an hour given the correct event(and proper update). 331dot (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support RD While I do think this was posted rather fast, Putnam was one of the most important philosophers of the past half-century. Neljack (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD as posted. Contrary to some of the others who have commented, where notability/newsworthiness and article quality are clearly satisfied, I don't see any objection to posting RDs expeditiously (although I agree that 11 minutes will not become routine). Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Peter Maxwell DaviesEdit

No effort made to address citation issues and is now stale. Fuebaey (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Peter Maxwell Davies (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Master of the Queen's Music, former enfant terrible who evolved to a more mainstream style, leaving him in conflict with former friend and collaborator Harrison Birtwhistle. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Daily Telegraph

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Leading British composer, former Master of the Queen's Music, described by The Telegraph as "one of the world's greatest living composers". Died earlier today, no doubt more coverage of his life and importance will be available later. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 12:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on article improvements Importance seems justified for RD. Several CN tags and some claims (such as first para of Political Views) that need to be sourced thoughout, more on the back half of the article. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Undoubtedly one of the most important composers of recent decades. Neljack (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Hell yes. Preferably with blurb. This is one of the most significant classical composers of the 20th Century. Guy (Help!) 17:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure about a blurb, but the blurb that someone has put into the template above is obviously unusable. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 18:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb Still needs some citations before it's ready, so not fully "updated". Needs an infobox, too. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb -- especially this one, which reads as esoteric editorializing. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on notability; certainly one of the leading British classical composers of the second half of the 20th century. I could support a blurb, but not the one proposed. The article still needs some work on referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Ignoring that fact that the article still needs more references, I have no idea what the current blurb means. It is also noticeably missing the article it is meant to highlight. Perhaps the proposer can explain this to me? Fuebaey (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
    I would simply work on the basis that this is an RD nomination, the blurb is unsuitable and there's no consensus for it in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

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

[Closed] ExoMarsEdit

Stale. Stephen 23:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The joint ESARoscosmos ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter, the heaviest Mars spacecraft ever, is launched from Baikonur Cosmodrome. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The joint EuropeanRussian ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter, the heaviest Mars spacecraft ever, is launched from Baikonur Cosmodrome.
Alternative blurb II: ​The joint ESARoscosmos ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter and Schiaparelli lander are launched from Baikonur Cosmodrome.
Alternative blurb III: ​The joint EuropeanRussian ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter is launched from Baikonur Cosmodrome.
News source(s): Guardian
 Smurrayinchester 09:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Just FYI this would be ITNR when it arrives at its destination(not that it can't be discussed now too). 331dot (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on notability. Even if the mission is not successful the collaboration between ESA & Roscosmos over a Mars mission appears noteworthy. The article looks adequate for posting but if the blurb mentions the heaviest fact it might need stressing more clearly as I'd missed it. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Undue weight (geddit :)). Please get back to us if it arrives and produces some results. Andrew D. (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait For starters, it hasn't even left Earth orbit yet (final burn is scheduled for tonight). Arrival of planetary probes is on ITN/R, so we might as well wait for that. Fgf10 (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait – Per previous. Sca (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – It has reached escape velocity (and Earth orbit), and is on the way to Mars. --Jenda H. (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support it is extremely rare that anything of this magnitude is done without NASA being involved. Nergaal (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per Espresso Addict. shoy (reactions) 12:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Due to arrive Oct. 19. Sca (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, what put me off was the DYKish factoid in the blurb. It feels rather empty if that's the pinnacle of significance in this story. Feel free to come back in 6 months for ITN/R. Fuebaey (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Our article is incomplete. Phobos 1 and 2 by the Soviet Union seem to be the heaviest Mars spacecraft, therefore this cannot be the heaviest interplanetary spacecraft ever. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The article uses a reference from Nature. Nergaal (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I was referring to List of heaviest spacecraft up above, not ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter. And the Nature quote is "the heaviest Mars mission ever to take to the skies." so they must've not considered the orbital insertion hardware of Phobos 2 part of the mission (maybe the Soviets didn't trust their aiming skills enough to orbital insert by aerobraking). Though it's only purpose is to stop the thing and then get discarded I'd still count it especially for the interplanetary spacecraft record. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per Espresso Addict. Oppose the mention of weight however. That's a barely significant piece of information: would we say, e.g., "the first pink-painted spacecraft is launched" if that happens? Significance comes from the ESA-Roscosmos collaboration, not otherwise. Banedon (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Launch is stale. Sca (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - rare and interesting mission.BabbaQ (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

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

March 13Edit

[Posted] March 2016 Ankara bombingEdit

Article: March 2016 Ankara bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 27 people are killed and 75 injured in an explosion in Ankara, Turkey. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Possible car bomb, probable terrorist attack The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support as a no-brainer, unfortunately. I also heard at least 27 dead (like the article now says), not 5. LjL (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - large scale attack in the heart of the city of Ankara with a high number of civilian casualties (likely to rise as things become clearer in the coming hours). --GGT (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC

without prejudice NOT updated' only a reactions section without incident details or contextLihaas (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

... what? LjL (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Details on context have been added. I do not think that there is much more detail to be added about the bombing itself currently, and there certainly is as much detail as in February 2016 Ankara bombing, which was posted. --GGT (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - large scale. high number of deaths. worldwide coverage of the incident.BabbaQ (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - a large scale attack on an important area of Ankara with a large fatality count. Has received international press coverage and is the third bombing in Ankara in the past year. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ) 20:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted – Article is large enough and well-sourced, no need to wait for this one. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] 2016 Grand-Bassam shootingsEdit

Article: 2016 Grand-Bassam shootings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 16 people are killed in shootings at a beach resort in Grand-Bassam, Ivory Coast. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Terror attack on beach resort The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Now that there's sufficient detail on the who and what. Wait to get more details. It does sound like terrorism but not affirmed yet. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    Well of course it's terrorism. Gunmen shooting people on beaches at resorts? There is not one single other explanation. What kind of terrorists is another question altogether. But all that aside, the blurb doesn't even relate to terrorism. The article needs work, perhaps you could help with that? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    "Terrorism" is a label, this so far is only a shooting, with no identity yet of the attackers, we should avoid jumping on it as news because it is "terrorism". That said, with the death count apparently up to 12, this is probably still meriting ITN, but I would rather see more details known about the attack (which is not on WP's end, this is on news sources to figure out for us) before posting. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    Indiscriminate assassination of people is terrorism. But please, do help improve the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    There's nothing more in sources to go on, that's my point. Details are still being figured out by news sources, so we can't improve until they get those details into press for us. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    Well others seem to be improving the article, please join in. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

without prejudice dicky doo da of an article. ivory coast certainly need context stemming from outtaras election and the farce. instability is not new since albeit this is a large scale incident Lihaas (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

What?? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - article is well-updated and sourced and about a terrorism incident with a high number of deaths (so far).BabbaQ (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Clearly notable due to the high death count, part of a worrying trend of attacks in Africa. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ) 20:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

March 12Edit

[Posted] RD: Lloyd ShapleyEdit

Article: Lloyd Shapley (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): (Economist)

Nominator's comments: Notable economist and nobel prize winner. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Nobel Prize winner, hugely influential in game theory. A bit more sourcing needed in the article though. EternalNomad (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on improvements RD is clear. "Contributions" section is entirely unsourced and that absolutely needs it for the claims being made there. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I did a bit of work in referencing the article, others may like to do the same. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Shapley was definitely a great mathematician, with landmark contribution to game theory, and also a Nobel Prize winner.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not questioning his notability, but I'm not finding obituaries in the usual places yet, which would definitely help towards strengthening the referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
    It doesn't need strengthening in particular. This has consensus and is ready to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted - Per The Rambling Man's assessment and my own, this is now gtg. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

March 11Edit

[Closed] Ideonella sakaiensisEdit

Effectively withdrawn by nominator. Banedon (talk) 08:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Ideonella sakaiensis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Bacteria Ideonella sakaiensis isolated from outside a bottle-recycling facility can break down and metabolize plastic. (Post)
News source(s): (Science), (CNN), (Daily Mail), (ABC Australia), (The Guardian)
Nominator's comments: This is higgs boson of waste managment. Jenda H. (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Same issue I feel with the "Lens Regeneration" blurb below (initially): a single article on this topic is far too little and doesn't necessarily demonstrate notability. Is there a larger topic (perhaps Polyethylene terephthalate) this can better fit as the highlighted topic? --MASEM (t) 18:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The story is clearly in the news (unlike most of the items currently up at ITN) and makes a good change from the same-old, ITNR stuff. Andrew D. (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Plastic-degrading bacteria were reported as far back as in 2003. This just seems to be a new one. Brandmeistertalk 19:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, that change it significantly. I seriously believed that Ideonella sakaiensis is first one not just another one. So, there is no reason for keeping nomination. --Jenda H. (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Brandmeister, this is hardly newsworthy I'm afraid, nor is the article anything more than a very stubby stub. Supporting this is clearly designed to make some kind of WP:POINT as it clearly fails the criteria needed to be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the grounds that the stub article is not built on a strong foundation of secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 20:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Comparison to the Higgs boson is inaccurate; its discovery belongs in the field of theoretical physics, and was a confirmation of theoretical prediction - hence the discovery itself was the entire story. In this case, the field is applied biology, and hence the real measure is results. This will obviously be newsworthy if it produces a useful way to cleanly biodegrade plastics, but all applied fields (perhaps especially biology, medicine, and related fields) have numerous promising but fruitless leads, many of which make headlines because the potential is so sensational. - OldManNeptune 00:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Iolanda BalașEdit

Article: Iolanda Balaș (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Romanian high jumper Iolanda Balas dies at 79 (Post)
News source(s): NZHerald DailyMail IAAF

Nominator's comments: High jump legend, Olympic champion and world record holder between 1958 and 1971, who is considered one of the greatest high jumpers ever. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 07:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support RD on notability. Article is very short and needs bare urls filling in. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD per Espresso Addict. Article is, frankly, a bit of a mess, and needs some work, but the notability is beyond question. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on notability. Will spend some time on the article later and see if it reaches a post-able standard. MurielMary (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD, not blurb. Article problems aren't too far off and I see people working on it. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment marked as ready, a few more bits and pieces added, formatting issues addressed, fully referenced, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. Thue (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Keith EmersonEdit

Article: Keith Emerson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: English keyboardist and composer Keith Emerson (pictured in 2008), a founding member of Emerson, Lake & Palmer, dies at age of 71. (Post)
News source(s): Team Rock Limited, Rolling Stone, Ultimate Classic Rock, BBC, The Guardian

Nominator's comments: Founding member of Emerson, Lake and Palmer. Influential progressive rock keyboardist. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 20:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support pending improvements. Emerson was a prog rock giant. Notability is unquestioned, but the referencing is quite poor. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm in there trying to fix up the very large unreferenced section on instrumentation and playing style now.TheBlinkster (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD subject to article quality. Mjroots (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, but oppose on quality. From a quick skim, it seems like it needs a deal of work. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Question - is this being reported in any mainstream media? We've had discussions in the past as to whether reports in non-mainstream media are sufficient to establish ITN-worthiness. MurielMary (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It's currently (see this post's timestamp) on the home/front-pages of BBC, CNN, Spiegel, La Repubblica, El Mundo. Other mainstream media I checked don't have his death as a front headline, but still report it prominently within their culture section. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, with blurb if one is suggested. A genre-defining artist. Guy (Help!) 00:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Guy, what do you think? George Ho (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support without blurb. This is certainly being reported, I heard a one-sentence mention on ABC's World News Tonight which is unusual for a non-American non-frontman rock artist. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support As others have said, he is hugely notable. It also appears that a number of editors have jumped in today attempting to remedy the referencing quality issues. TheBlinkster (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Blinkster, do you favor RD or blurb? George Ho (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
To me it is a close call but I would lean slightly towards blurb. As someone else said, he was a prog rock giant. TheBlinkster (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I oppose blurb, support RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
What Muboshgu said. I like ELP, but let's be realistic here. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. As to RD, the article is far from ready at present, with a lot of missing citations. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD on improvements, but not blurb Importance for RD is no question, but I don't see him as the equivalent powerhouse as David Bowie was. There are sourcing issues (other have identified) but I would call out specifically that "Partial list of pieces based on other composers' works" needs a source for any entry where his contribution is uncredited (as credited ones, I should be able to read the credits to affirm, but can't do that on uncredited ones). --MASEM (t) 04:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD, neutral on blurb: Clearly a notable figure in music, perhaps even a household name. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for RD A notable musician. Canuck89 (chat with me) 07:49, March 12, 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for RD - Indeed a notable musician. BabbaQ (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is full of unreferenced claims. Needs a lot of work before it can be supported even for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD – Oppose blurb – Band is a household name but not Keith Emerson, IMO. Sca (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
    You do know his name is in the name of the band, right?--Jayron32 03:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)