Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/May 2015

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


May 31Edit

May 30Edit

RD: Julie HarrisEdit

Nominator's comments: Despite a poor article (which may not be much expandable, not finding any biographical sources apart from her career) this British costume designer won an Oscar and a BAFTA award; more importantly, she worked on cultural-touchstone material including the Beatles and James Bond films. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak support on notability, however, as the nominator has already mentioned the article is way below the standards we'd like to see on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support We need the article improved significantly to establish if she was a true leader in the field. I'm trying to scan through lists of great costume designs, and this name is not coming up compared to someone like Edith Head, in any shape or form, begging her importance. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Oh, but I kind of like the thing we've been doing lately, which is not posting more than one RD at a time or even leaving the field blank for days on end, because we've set such a high (and arbitrary) bar for inclusion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
    Crabbing aside, I'll support on notability grounds, but quality should be addressed before posting. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it's working pretty well - at any given point in time, the ticker is just as likely to be full as it is to be empty. If anybody worthwhile is being excluded, it's usually because of article quality issues. Standards are a good thing to have, for both notability and article quality. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The consensus standards on this page appear to be quite a bit higher than the guideline standards (the article must have been satisfactorily updated and have no major omissions of the person's life and effect. The article must conform to WP:Biographies of living persons even though they are dead.) That might either be a problem for this page or that one, but this nomination's probably not the place to discuss it. To be dreary, and bring it back to the topic at hand, this person seemed to be in some ways an ideal candidate: a behind the scenes person who had an important creative input in iconic films, not a movie star at all but a creative person important enough to qualify as a significant figure. Unfortunately, the papers aren't reporting what her favorite breakfast cereals were. I simply think that a rather stubbish article on a relatively private public figure like this may be about what's needed. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The standard includes the use of BLP, which sets a minimum sourcing level we expect to see. It may not be clear from the ITN instructions, but BLP is very clear that these articles need to be well-sourced. --MASEM (t) 04:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Precisely. The BLP requirements that an article be well sourced set limits to the best possible article that can be written about significant figures who don't attract a whole lot of media attention. That doesn't diminish their significance if they otherwise meet WP:ITND. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is just a couple of bullet-lists and infoboxes away from being a stub. The section with actual biographical text seems very brief. She was active in her industry from 'the 1950s' until 1991. Almost everything about her seems to take place between about 1947 and 1967 - despite her career's length. An Academy Award does make her notable enough - but the article is depressingly short for someone that lived for that long. Challenger l (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Edith Head was notable enough that she was parodied on The Incredibles and her article far outweighs Harris's. Notable enough for an article, but not ITN/RD. μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Beau BidenEdit

SNOW closing this good faith nomination; while a sad loss, he does not meet the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Beau Biden (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NBC News The New York Times
Nominator's comments: Son of U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and former attorney general of Delaware. Hugely surprising death; he was only 46 and was expected to run for governor of Delaware next year. Kudzu1 (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, he's been sick for a while, and potential notability does not equal notability. Neither does inherited nobility exist. Abductive (reasoning) 05:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Former attorney general of a U.S. state" doesn't meet our notability standards, irrespective of whether the deceased individual was related to a high-ranking politician. —David Levy 05:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the death was not unexpected, the relation of a VP has no precedent of being posted in other countries, and a minor politcal dynasty in a small state where the son rode on his father's coat tails neither qualifies him as influential or in the top of his field. μηδείς (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
    I disagree that the death was not unexpected. It wasn't public knowledge that Beau Biden was suffering from brain cancer until his death was announced. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Regretfully oppose - Doesn't meet RD criteria per David above. A bit surprising for me, but that shouldn't rally factor into this. Connormah (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • support "Former attorney general of a U.S. state" is notable enough for RD in todays society. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
    Hardly. Unless you just mean US society. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Medium-level political position in one of many states of one country, hardly significant in his field. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Saiga antelope pandemicEdit

Errors go to WP:ERRORS, as the name suggests; this discussion is closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Saiga antelope (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Almost half of world's critically endangered saiga antelopes have died this month from suspected pasteurellosis.
Alternative blurb: ​Almost half of the world's critically endangered saiga antelopes die in May from suspected pasteurellosis.
News source(s): RFE/RL, Independent, IBT, New York Times, Huffington Post, The Guardian
 Jenda H. (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support unless somebody can come up with a good reason why not. But didn't this hit the news a couple of days ago? Abductive (reasoning) 04:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Luckily it's called "In The News", not "Today's News". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
There's no need to be uncivil. See below; Medeis understood that I was only talking about the position of the item on the list. Abductive (reasoning) 05:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support this is the place I would come for information on both the animal itself, which is fascinating, and the outbreak. Given the event is ongoing, but only hitting the popular press now, I think it's safe to post as of the date of nomination. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support but the "2015 pandemia" subsection needs a bit of expansion. (Also "this month" needs to be changed to "May" as we're entering June tomorrow). (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting and ITN worthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment article is in good nick, notable story, I've added an alt blurb which I believe is in slightly more accurate terms, the image there has been protected for immediate use if we move this to the main page, would be interested to hear if the alt blurb is any better, and happy to hear suggestions. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb also if the image is used would prefer an image that highlights the uniqueness of the facial features, eg this one or a cropped photo that shows the animal's head more. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted with the current image. I agree it would be nice to have another image which is of high quality which focuses more on the facial feature, but right now I'm just happy that I've (hopefully) updated the news section along with keeping the image at the top without breaking anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggest change the blurb a little, to About half the world's Saiga, a critically endangered species... The way it is written now implies that while half of the critically endangered Saiga died, the rest are okay. μηδείς (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
    How could some saiga antelopes have a different conservation status than others? Your suggested wording strikes me as strained. —David Levy 00:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Read the whole sentence. It is a misplaced modifier. "Almost half of the world's critically endangered saiga antelopes (example pictured) die in May from suspected pasteurellosis." This could easily and logically be followed by "The world's unendangered Saiga, however, are fine." That is a normal circumstance where animals are endangered in one area of the world, but not another. The problem can be solved with any of a few easy changes. "Almost half of the world's saiga antelopes, already critically endangered, (example pictured) die in May from suspected pasteurellosis." μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced modifiers of this nature are only a problem for people who have the mental defect of being unable to understand simple context clues most humans understand naturally and without effort. We don't need to cater to linguistic pedants when the sentence is perfectly understandable as it is, and where the proposed changed actually, while being grammatically pure, obfuscate the meaning of the statement more than the current phrasing. --Jayron32 01:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I clarified my point only because David did not see it. It's not like I am going to rage up and down at people as incompetent admins and such over this. Name calling is not necessary, Jayron32. You could simply of said "I understand your point, but I think it's fine as is." μηδείς (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
If the characterization didn't apply to you, you'd have had to reason to be offended. --Jayron32 02:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
In the future, if you're not calling me a pedant, please don't post directly after me, indent under me indicating a direct response, and refer to my linguistic specialty. It is easy to keep a collegial tone. μηδείς (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I understood your concern's syntactical basis. I didn't (and don't) understand why such a misunderstanding would occur in real life.
In any event, Tariqabjotu either fulfilled your request or arrived at similar wording independently. —David Levy 03:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

May 29Edit

[Posted] RD: Doris HartEdit

Article: Doris Hart (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times ABC News The Guardian

Nominator's comments: Described by her NY Times obit as "one of the world’s best tennis players in the decade after World War II" and as "one of only three women to have won singles, doubles and mixed doubles titles in each of the four Grand Slam tournaments." This seems to indicate that she was important in the field of tennis. Everymorning talk 01:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose on article quality, would support on significance, but the article is dreadful. Almost nothing is referenced. We can't tell the world "This is the best Wikipedia has to offer" by putting such a substandard article on the main page. Take the existing text, add references for every paragraph or fact, and you'll have something postable. The current article is not main page ready, however. If anyone makes the requisite fixes before I comment again, consider my oppose to have already been changed before asking me again. But please fix it before posting. --Jayron32 01:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
    Striking oppose, article has since been fixed and is of sufficient quality for a full Support to post. --Jayron32 02:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think we should lower the bar enough to keep three people, not just one, on the RD ticker at all times. But I am leery of posting old athletes. Back then tennis was a leisure-class sport and the pool of players was nothing like it is now. As the variation in players has increased, the record extremes in competitions has shrunk.
See S J Gould make this point about the disappearance of .400 hitting in baseball. Here's a nine minute video (he appears at 1:23, the essence of the argument starts after minute 3) where Gould explains his thesis that the players of today are much better, even while some records of old seem impressive. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I respect Mr. Gould as both an evolutionary biologist and a philosopher of science. That he was a sports fan, and made his opinions on sports known, is pretty much irrelevant to the current discussion. If Mike Greenberg or Frank Deford had statements to make on evolutionary biology, I'd find them no more relevant to discussions on THAT topic than Stephen J. Gould's opinions on batting averages and tennis skill. Being famous in one field does not mean that one's statements are automatically relevant to all fields. --Jayron32 02:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll simplify. Gould's not making a biological, but a statistical argument, which certainly applies to sports. When a sport is young and new and has but a few competitors who've been brought up by dedicated parents, coaches, and other professionals, and been tutored on skills learned over a great number of player hours, it is easy for one or a few exceptional players in that small field to stand out. But when a sport has matured and millions or billions of dollars are spent and there is a large crop of exceptional players well skilled at both offense and defense, then exceptional records become rarer, because the opponents are better matched. The opponents of today may be greatly superior to the record-holding players of a century ago, when there were a few thousand well-heeled tennis players, rather than tens of thousands picked by skill and supported even if they were poor or black or from the wrong country or not university schooled. Perhaps Doris Hart's quite notable, especially if she developed new techniques that revolutionized the sport. That's not mentioned in her article or her obit. But the mere fact that she held a string of records in the 40's doesn't mean she'd even qualify in today's much wider field. This is not an oppose, it's a caution. μηδείς (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
A point which is simultaneously all interesting, true, and irrelevant. --Jayron32 13:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on notability but as the tag suggests, we need to improve the quality of the article a shade. You can only beat what's put in front of you. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Hart was one of only three people in the history of tennis who won the singles, doubles and mixed doubles titles at each of the four grand slam events. This is a profoundly difficult achievement and was so in an age when tennis was just as popular as it is now. We presently have a minor basketball hall of famer on the main page, his achievements in his field don't come close to Hart's in hers. The "it happened ages ago" argument is bunk. One plays the players of your era, not the present day. We need more women featured in the recent deaths section, and Hart should be an easy pick. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once better refs are added. A LOT more refs. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Sourcing is adequate. Support posting promptly. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
    Per Kudzu, the missing sources noted above by several users have been fixed. This is hardly a perfect article, but it has no obvious defects that would keep it off the main page. I'd post, except I've already commented; marking ready. --Jayron32 02:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. Substantial achievements in an internationally important sport. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ross Ulbricht sentenced to life in prisonEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 14:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Silk Road (marketplace) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Ross Ulbricht, the creator of Silk Road, is sentenced to life in prison.
News source(s): Wired USA Today New York Times Fox News
Nominator's comments: We posted when he was convicted in February. Thus, this case has already been determined to be notable enough for ITN, and this development is clearly a significant one that has received international coverage. [1] [2] Everymorning talk 22:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It clearly wasn't going to be the difference between a prison term and a death sentence, but to how much a degree his prison term would be at the time of conviction (plus any monetary damage, etc.) So there's no reason to repost the actual sentence here. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Links to the prolix (4,300-word) Silk Road (marketplace) article. There's no Ross Ulbricht article. Sca (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - The life sentence is presumably to be a deterrent. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose already posted, investigators in the case were themselves arrested, attempted murder charges were dropped, that makes this a basic trafficking case an not worthy of posting twice. μηδείς (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, consensus was followed and the conviction posted. Doubtless there will be a book and a movie coming out on the whole story for those that want more detail. Abductive (reasoning) 05:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose once is enough for this story, particularly in light of the striking absence of an article for such an individual. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Cuba eliminated from State Sponsors of Terrorism listEdit

Closing good faith nomination per WP:SNOW. It was already posted in mid-April. There is no chance it will be reposted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: State Sponsors of Terrorism#Cuba (talk, history)
Blurb: Cuba is removed from the United States' State Sponsors of Terrorism list.
News source(s): The Guardian Wall Street Journal USA Today
Nominator's comments: The New York Times has called this action "a crucial step in normalizing ties between Washington and Havana." [3] Seems significant in the context of Cuba-US relations. Everymorning talk 17:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We posted this previously here, and as noted there and in these sources, Obama's action started a 45 day timer for Congress to oppose the remove. Today (read: this story) is after that 45 day deadline expired, and Congress did not raise anything, so the action goes through by default. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as procedural per Masem. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as we already posted the initiation of the process leading to removal. 331dot (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] 65th FIFA CongressEdit

Events have overtaken this. Stephen 04:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: 65th FIFA Congress (talk, history) and Sepp Blatter (talk, history)
Blurb: Sepp Blatter is reelected for a fifth term as president of FIFA at the 65th FIFA Congress.
Alternative blurb: ​At the 65th FIFA Congress held in Zürich, Switzerland, Sepp Blatter is elected president of FIFA for a fifth term.
News source(s): theguardian Sky News Al Jazeera
Nominator's comments: After the corruption scandal of FIFA earlier this week, with several people being arrested, this congress is certainly in world focus. Amid controversy that Sepp Blatter would still run, he did and he won the election after other candidate Prince Ali bin Al-Hussein withdrew. Lucky102 (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Lucky102 (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I think we would have run this even if the corruption scandal hadn't come up and it had been the boring election predicted before Wednesday. I do suggest we combine it with the other FIFA story if possible. Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose new blurb but would support update to existing blurb if possible to word it properly. The election itself would have been unnotable except for the arrests a few days before. It is only in relation to the arrests and the controversy that the election is in the news. --Jayron32 17:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in re-updating existing blurb - The fact the elections went forward despite the controversy (and when FIFA was cautioned against having the elections now), it's part of the same story. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, unless we've posted Blatter's other election cakewalks. Not a national election, and a process that is essentially fraudulent by many accounts. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment, we posted his 2011 victory, even though he was the only candidate. Lucky102 (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is a sham election. Plus the article is in terrible state. Nergaal (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment There is no proof at present that the election is a sham and the results were falsified. The runner up stood down so Blatter won by default. He did not reach a majority. The article is being fixed by myself and Nil at the moment into a better state. The event is made more notable after the recent arrests of FIFA members.Lucky102 (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to bribes. Considering how rampant corruption is within FIFA one can really not exclude bribes being involved in this 200+ voters gathering. Nergaal (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose Wouldn't even be considered except for the recent FIFA news. SpencerT♦C 18:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment as I have stated above Sepp Blatter was reelected in 2011 and this was also on ITN. Lucky102 (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose struck. Article needs significant improvements (see 61st_FIFA_Congress for example) before this is ready for posting. SpencerT♦C 18:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose (edit conflict × 3) its only in the news because of the other news that has already been posted. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not sufficiently important and it is a sub story of the FIFA arrests, which posting IMO violated long standing precedents against posting arrest stories. This has already garnered more attention on ITN than it should have until there are notable convictions. Let's not compound the mistake. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support modifying the blurb to add just a few words like "prior to Sepp Blatter's fifth election to FIFA president". This is still global news, whether people here like it or not. It even features the Feds so that should really excite people... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it should be kept in mind that the arrests were made at the hotel where they were gathering for this election, so this approach makes sense. --MASEM (t) 19:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support TRM's proposal. Adding a few words to the blurb is justified - the fact that Blatter has been reelected despite the scandal is pretty significant news. Neljack (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support proposal by TRM. This is notable in the context of the wider scandal, and the existing blurb should reflect that. 331dot (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose both new blurb and amended blurb. Widely expected result of a non-governmental election that was probably heavily influenced by underhanded dealings and has the effect of changing nothing. If the outcome wasn't obvious in advance, it certainly was when two of four candidates withdrew in protest even before voting started. For the foreseeable future the real story is and will be the criminal prosecutions, and I see no need to elevate the election sideshow by including in on ITN. If UEFA makes good on their threat to possibly withdraw from FIFA, that would also be appropriate for ITN, but I would skip the election. Dragons flight (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support adding this fact to the existing posting, as per others here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The "election" result was about as predictable and as interesting as Barcelona or Real Madrid winning La Liga for the 50th time. Let's leave some room for some non-soccer stories every once and a while. --Tocino 08:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support modification of existing blurb suggested by TRM, as per others. (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose nom per Ad Orientem we don't post the selection of the commissioners of other sports and this doesn't need twice posting within a month. μηδείς (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Its an addendum to the current posting other the political context. NOT an independent addition. Logical addendum at that. (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Ongoing: ISILEdit

Article: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): The Wall Street Journal CNN Science

Nominator's comments: Ongoing news from multiple countries within the past few weeks about this group, which is enjoying something of a spring renaissance right now. This much activity and coverage merits ongoing status, which ISIL had for a while up until a period of relative inactivity a few months ago. If we don't post ongoing, we're just going to continue seeing a deluge of ISIL-related ITN items, I'm afraid. Kudzu1 (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Seems to be in the news again, unfortunately. Brandmeistertalk 15:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Not that article: No statement one way or the other whether or not the concept should be put in ongoing. However, Ongoing is for highlighting articles that are changing rapidly along with the news developments. That one has no major activity in the past week or more, and no edits at all for over 48 hours. If you have another article in mind which is keeping track of the recent developments, please put that one forward for us to assess, but the ISIL article itself is not appropriate for an ongoing link, given its lack of major ongoing changes. --Jayron32 16:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
    • See Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Timeline of recent events. If I remember correctly, that was the section featured in Ongoing previously. Brandmeistertalk 17:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Exactly. That list has one new entry in the past week. Hardly an "ongoing" series of updates, n'est ce pas? Ongoing means "very active recently, now, and likely in the immediate future". It's easy to spot eligible ongoing candidates by clicking the article history. Major content was added on the 27th, previously on the 22nd. That level of activity is not what ongoing is for: ongoing is for highlighting articles where we would nearly constantly be posting new blurbs or updating them. The last event which was blurb worthy was the May 21 capture of Palmyra, which we already did a blurb for. The May 27th capture of a phosphate mine (the only recent update to the article) is fantastically engaging to learn about, I'm sure, but really, that isn't the article to highlight. Pick a new one, and let us look at that. --Jayron32 17:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
        • 'Comment Perhaps Timeline of ISIL related events would be a more appropriate target? It seems to have been updated with an entry from two days ago. Everymorning talk 17:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
          • That's the same problem. If it was only edited with a new event 2 days ago, and that was the phosphate mine capture (a turning point without equal, I'm sure) and there's nothing else before that for a week, that isn't ongoing. Find an article which has stuff being added all the time. otherwise, we don't have an appropriate link for ongoing. --Jayron32 17:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I previously removed this because the article linked was not being consistently updated. As Jayron's saying above, if we can find a good article that's going to be updated, it can be posted, but I'm just worried the same thing as before is going to happen again. SpencerT♦C 20:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose until we have a suitable target. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
    The suggested target article, while bloated and full of issues, has been updated a few times in the past few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

May 28Edit

[Posted] Australopithecus deyiremedaEdit

Article: Australopithecus deyiremeda (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists describe a new hominin species, Australopithecus deyiremeda.
News source(s): Nature, Nature News&Viewsetc

Nominator's comments: The article already contains decent amount of basic info, further expansion is welcomed. Brandmeistertalk 13:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. Article relies on quotes and really could use more work. Abductive (reasoning) 13:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Article could use some work, as noted, but definite support on notability. New hominins are always worthy of posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • There is doubt about it being distinct enough to be a new species. Accordingly, the article quality must be better than if this were a radically different hominim. The article should describe this doubt, for instance. Abductive (reasoning) 16:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support notability, although quality of course must be addressed before posting. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support article needs expansion about diet of species based on the jaw, someone who specialises in this field should include that. -- Aronzak (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely notable enough for inclusion. interesting.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Unready based on quality. Needs a proper lead and some full paragraphs rather than just a string of sentences. μηδείς (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Obviously notable in a world where creationism is a majority. Faizan (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I was unaware that part of ITN's mission was refuting creationism. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support conditional on article improvement. I am unsure how much coverage this is getting but it does seem significant. The time frame for these developments is somewhat vague and needs to be clarified as part of an overall improvement in the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on notability - discovery of a new hominid species is major news - but oppose on article quality. It's not much more than a stub. Challenger l (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment article looks good to go, and consensus is for posting it barring the earlier issues, so marking ready. - Floydian τ ¢ 11:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I added seven wikiprojects and they all rated the article, and have had time to propose any changes. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral since there's no scientific consensus this one jaw fragment is enough to declare a species. The article should not have been marked ready with no sections, an inadequate lead, and just a list of lone sentences. But I have rectified that, so if there's consensus to post it is actually now Ready μηδείς (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 04:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] SurinameEdit

Not sufficiently improved. Stephen 23:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Surinamese general election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The incumbent National Democratic Party win an absolute majority for the first time in Suriname.

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: It's a famous first in a country just about three decades from civil war. (akin to Funes in El Salvador and the FMLN continuing in the presidency, as well as Ortega in Nicaragua with the Sandanistas continuing there. It's real change/revolution at the ballot box in the region.) (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvements ITNR, but the article really needs more prose, such as describing the campaigning leading to the election, and reaction to the election results. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Comment– Because Sunday's Polish election (see below) hasn't been posted. Why is this one more important? Sca (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Because Suriname's National Democratic Party is leftist, while Polish Law and Justice party is rightist. Brandmeistertalk 13:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
    • ITN is not just about the topic being in the news but the article being of appropriate quality to be linked off the front page of WP, and currently the Polish results are far from quality. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Per Masem, "importance" is of minor concern. If you want the Polish item to be posted then you are responsible for improving the article. The main reason why one article is not posted, where another may be, is quality of the article. If you feel that an article should be posted, then you are responsible for bring it up to quality standards. Complaining that others didn't do the work you're responsible for will not get you anywhere. --Jayron32 14:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - article will need a lot of work to be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • ReplyJayron, I didn't participate in preparation of Polish presidential election, 2015 because that task should be performed by eds – hopefully some of them Polish-speakers – particularly versed in Polish politics, which I'm not. My perspective is one focused on European affairs generally.
Having said that, I find the present article adequately detailed; it's supplemented by three charts and two maps, in addition to (too many?) candidates' photos. Although parts aren't written in a style I would favor, the longish second paragraph provides decent context for the significance of the conservative-cum-populist-nationalist Law and Justice Party's victory.
Poland is the most populous country in what's commonly thought of as Eastern Europe, and a (somewhat outspoken) member of NATO, but has yet to adopt the euro. Since Law and Justice tends to be more euro-skeptical than the centrist Civic Platform party of Komorowski and Tusk (who's European Council president), the election result was broadly significant for the EU and therefore of interest internationally.
This story has been conspicuous by its absence from ITN, in my opinion, which I sought to express succinctly below. It would be inconsistent to post the May 25 Suriname election without first posting the May 24 Polish election. (Full disclosure: I once lived & worked in Poland for a time, hence my interest in Polish affairs.)
PS: Note that Masem says Polish election "should be ready to go" below. Sca (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support conditional on significant article improvement. On a side note the Polish Election needs to be posted as well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per reasoning of ad orentem.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is still a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

May 27Edit

[Posted] FIFA arrests/raid of HQEdit

Articles: FIFA (talk, history) and 2015 FIFA corruption case (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Two separate criminal probes result in the arrest of seven FIFA officials and the raid of its headquarters by Swiss police.
Alternative blurb: ​Investigations into corruption allegations result in the arrest of seven FIFA officials and the raid of its headquarters by Swiss police on the eve of the 65th FIFA Congress.
News source(s): BBC Le Monde NBC News CNN Times of India

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: International case resulting in police action against the governing body of one of the most popular sports in the world. Seems to be top headline news right now. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support on significance, though the text in the target article is a little light. Can we add any more context as to the background of what led up to the arrests? What actions by FIFA in more details led to this event? Clearly a big deal, but I'm not sure I know more from reading the Wikipedia article than the names of the arrested and that they were arrested for taking bribes, but there's no background as to what bribes they were taking and for what reasons they were supposedly taking them. If we could expand the article a bit before posting, so the article is more informative for the reader, that'd be ideal. --Jayron32 10:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Ordinarily (and I expect some people will appear shortly to object on these grounds) we don't post arrests - only convictions. However, a mass arrest of most of the board of what is arguably the world's largest international organization (more members than the UN!) by the police of two nations simultaneously, and a raid on its headquarters is ridiculously rare news. It's also worth noting that Chuck Blazer, who was effectively the most powerful person in American soccer (for many years the US's representative on the FIFA Executive Committee, executive vice president of United States Soccer Federation and General Secretary of CONCACAF) has already pleaded guilty. Smurrayinchester 10:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support headline news across the globe, international involvement, article could use a little beefing up but will doubtless be enhanced as more news comes out. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support; Note article is now at 2015 FIFA corruption case; blurb may need to be tweaked as events unfold (i.e. two FIFA officials have been indicted but don't appear to have been arreste yet). Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a major story that's been reported throughout the world. Calidum T|C 12:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle when target article is updated. Undoubtedly, the top news headline throughout the planet. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am likely going to be pretty lonely on this one but oh well. It has been consistent policy to post only convictions, not arrests. Recently we rejected the Texas Mass Shooting that resulted in 170(!) arrests on organized crime charges that could carry life sentences. We need to at least make a passing effort to keep the double standards on ITN under control. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Ad Orientem. They're not guilty of anything – yet. Sca (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. I tend to agree with the "we only post convictions" argument in general, but this may be a special case. The very fact of the raid itself is highly notable and newsworthy. Much as this is crystal balling, it will have a huge impact on the most powerful sporting organization in the world, with or without convictions. Resolute 13:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Anything that ridicules soccer is good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow! You're generally quite agreeable. Is that a reason for the merits of the content instead of personal tastes? (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Why are you talking to the nominator that way? And do you support or oppose the proposal? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Noting that I would be in Ad Orientem's view here that we don't post arrests, the fact that the US got extradition rights with the Swiss gov't means there was likely clear evidence to allow the raid and arrests to happen, making this more unusual than typical cases. Add that this is a story that hits two major areas ITN tends to gravite towards: major crimes and sports, and for me, that puts this more as an exception than a rule. The corruption case article could do with more prose but as there seems to be little detail yet, this is probably about right. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    • According to CBS news, the Swiss are also conducting a criminal investigation regarding the awarding of the 2018 and 2022 World Cup venues. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: This news is getting massive play worldwide, and for good reason, considering its wide-reaching implications for the world's most popular sport. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would like to see a bit more context in the corruption case article before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, consensus is to post convictions. A few supports for this nomination should not violate this long-standing consensus, otherwise, what is the point of developing a consensus anyway? Also, information about what is really happening with these arrests is tenuous and tentative at best. Abductive (reasoning) 17:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Consensus is to post what generates consensus. All other "rules" are just statements on what has been done in the past, and there's no rule that we have to do what we did in the past merely because we can make random connections to prior events. Every single nomination is decided on of its own merits, and the decisions of the past cannot bind the present or the future in any way that prevents us from reaching any particular decision on any particular article for any particular reason we feel like. --Jayron32 17:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
To note, the article does need to be updated to reflect the press conference the US officials had this morning outlining all the specific charges, etc. [4]. But I will point out that while I normally am a "post on convictions only", the international scope and the impact on the world's larger sporting event after the Olmypics is pretty damn major to report this point. Convictions will likely take a year or so before that even happens (and the evidence suggests these will all be different trials since the involvement varies with each). --MASEM (t) 17:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
This is real action by law enforcement. As opposed to the Charter-TWC thing, which is nothing except a press release. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
We get it, you don't think business stories should be posted, but it's not necessary to keep bringing it up. 331dot (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The Charter-TWC thing is a phony story. The FIFA thing is real. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose conducting a well-timed raid is exactly what prosecutors do, see perp walk. We should not be highlighting anything until there are convictions. μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is one step in what is bound to be a long, slow, and vilifying investigation. We should wait while these allegations are investigated. The more significant (and postable) events would be convictions or a backtrack on world cup host decisions. Mamyles (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment the "slow to be sure" brigade have some semblance of a reason not to post, but given the FBI have had Chuck Blazer feeding them information for two years and that we've already seen a number of individuals pleading guilty to money laundering, etc, this event is by far the most notable we'll have for quite some time. If we don't post it, we're doing our global audience (who FIFA represent, more so than the United Nations) a disservice. Of course it's difficult to explain to some of non-soccer loving audience the significance, but since we're now talking about the illegality of the 2010 World Cup, coupled with the recent Swiss intervention to investigate the illegitimate awarding of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups to Qatar and Russia, this is massive global news. To deny it is simply a demonstration of ignorance. Which is fine, many people are ignorant, and most times it's not their fault. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support obviously. Soccer is the most popular sport in the world! Also a story that originates in Europe for a change, instead of the usual "What's in America" section. -- (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
While probably not a large factor in your opinion, these arrest warrants were actually from the USA, and they will be extradited & tried there. So it both originates and will end in America. Mamyles (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
(ec) This is an atrocious argument. Smearing some actual people on the Front Page is a bad idea. It can be posted when there are convictions. Abductive (reasoning) 19:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Saying that someone was arrested is not a "smear", it is a fact. They aren't being tried and convicted in the blurb, and should not be. This is also not a simple arrest, but an international case. 331dot (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment please note that some of those involved in this case have already admitted guilt and have actively assisted the Feds in the pursuit of global justice against those currently charged. That changes the game. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Extremely high-profile incident, as Smurrayinchester correctly points out. Additionally, the fact that there have already been racketeering convictions in the case further increases the notability of the ITN candidacy. That said, the "Individual arrests" section of the article is largely uncited (especially if we consider that this falls under WP:BLP), so that would need to be fixed before this can be posted to the front page. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I am usually very much in the camp of those who argue that we should wait for convictions, but we cannot shut our eyes to the reality that this is massive global news and will have a big impact on FIFA and soccer. I don't think BLP prevents us from featuring this on the Main Page, especially considering that none of the defendants are actually named in the blurb. Nobody can dispute that having an article covering the arrests is permissible, and we are simply linking to it from the Main Page so that the many interested readers can look at it. I don't see any BLP problem with that. Neljack (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Post this already there is clear consensus that this is a highly notable, unusual case that deserves to be on ITN. Can an admin get this on? Nergaal (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Medeis. (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Medeis is opposed; are you saying you agree? 331dot (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Medeis reason for not posting, was weak enough to win my support FOR posting this nomination. (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
It would be a lot better if you based your opinion on the merits and not the views of others, which doesn't help form consensus on the merits. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: For a major story that began 25 years ago, with hundreds of articles written about it before the raid, (for example in last few years alone,) the article is too brief. The colorful flag-filled charts add little to the overall context of this event, which is covered much better in many of the sources. There's no mention of Loretta Lynch, planning, and no mention of the "institutionalized" corruption going back decades. The article as is focuses on the trees, not the forest, and needs a major expansion IMO. --Light show (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
    • There certainly might be a larger story and lengthier period to cover, but this current article is specifically about the US charges. You'll note the current article even mentions the concurrent Swiss investigation that has its own article. At some point, there is probably going to be a small group of articles all tied to this corruption issue that covers the 3 decades of problems, but the here and now, it is the US and Swiss charges that are the story. --MASEM (t) 00:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Except having a "group of articles" about the general issue is not necessary or helpful. This single raid event might be neatly packaged as a brief canned news story. But there's no reason not to open the can now, place the event in context, to make WP more than another daily news site. --Light show (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
        • If this has been an issue for years, where are all the sources that document the cases against FIFA before? And yes, maybe in the future it will only need one article, but again, for ITN, this is the extent of reliable information we have in the here and now. --MASEM (t) 01:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
          • The key source for the raid explains the context. We don't really need prior cases, just a history of facts to give this single news event more context. Actually, just a few simple sentences from that source adds much more "context" than the entire article has now. For instance, The indictment alleges that, between 1991 and the present, the defendants and their co-conspirators corrupted the enterprise by engaging in various criminal activities, including fraud, bribery and money laundering. Two generations of soccer officials abused their positions of trust for personal gain, frequently through an alliance with unscrupulous sports marketing executives who shut out competitors and kept highly lucrative contracts for themselves through the systematic payment of bribes and kickbacks. The entire source is even PD. --Light show (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. The article has been expanded and is sourced regarding any BLP. Black Kite (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Mary Ellen MarkEdit

Duplicate nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Mary Ellen Mark (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Philadelphia Inquirer The New York Times NPR

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Famous American photojournalist, multiply awarded (George Polk Award, Guggenheim Fellow, Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award first prize, etc.), works exhibited around the world. Kudzu1 (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Texas–Oklahoma floodsEdit

Duplicate nomination. 331dot (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 Texas–Oklahoma floods (talk, history)
Blurb: Record-breaking flash floods in Texas and Oklahoma claim at least 15 lives with another 40 people missing.
News source(s): CNN, NY Times, Reuters
Nominator's comments: Record breaking floods across Texas and Oklahoma the past several days with many places seeing historic river floods. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I already nominated this below. Everymorning talk 01:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

May 26Edit

[Posted] Charter Communications buying Time Warner CableEdit

Let the puerile snarking continue elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Charter Communications (talk, history) and Time Warner Cable (talk, history)
Blurb: Charter Communications agrees to buy Time Warner Cable in a deal worth $55.1bn.
News source(s): WSJ, NYTimes, BBC
Nominator's comments: Massive business deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Potentially so, but Comcast's deal fell through after Charter's did the first time. Announcement due in a few hours (discussion can continue), but regulatory hurdles are not so easy either. (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • You know how this works; we have to wait for this to clear the anti-trust regulations.--WaltCip (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Huge transaction '''tAD''' (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Question - Was the (eventually nonexistent) Comcast - TWC deal announced here at the time? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - big news now. If it doesn't go through for some reason, that will be big news again. Despite Walt's comment, we do normally post on announcement (which receives a lot of press), not on regulator approval (which receives little or no press). --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Until or if it actually happens, this is nothing but a press release. There's no reason for Wikipedia to give it artificial notability. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia doesn't "give [anything] artificial notability". Wikipedia reflects the notability assigned to things by the real world's reliable sources. And the real world says the announcement is the most notable part of business deals. It is also the point of the process ITN has posted in all recent cases that were posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Except when you all decide it doesn't matter what "the real world" thinks is newsworthy, which happens time after time here. If your premise were true, there would have been no debate about the sentencing of Tsarnaev to death, for example. By your argument, if it's big news now, should be reported now. No more "wait until it happens" stuff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind that for something like Tsarnaev there are four points where the news is big: arrest, conviction, sentencing, and enacting of the sentence (and that's excluding appeals, etc.). ITN recognizes that there's many possible points and to avoid having the story come up over and over again, have opted that the conviction is generally the point where the story gains the most usable encyclopedia coverage. In the case of a business deal, such as this one, there's only one assured point: the announcement, and a potential second one if the FCC rejects the deal. While the actual enacting of the deal (if it goes through) is the finality of the situation, that point gets very little coverage. It is the point of the deal's agreement and announcement. With only one such point, this is the right time to post it. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Acknowledging that the FCC will be reviewing this, this is a very large detail and the affirmation that both companies have agreed to going forward is the point where it is in the news, regardless of the chance the FCC will block it. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Highly notable, headline-news business deal. Whether it is approved or denied, it's a huge story. Lots of money here, and lots of implications for the telecommunications sector. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless the ultimately-nonexistent Comcast-TWC "merger" was also posted here at the time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • and by the way. the heading "Charter Communications buying Time Warner Cable" is a false statement. Change it to "Charter Communications proposal to buy Time Warner Cable" for the sake of accuracy and to avoid the Wikipedia rule against crystal ball. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Surely this can't be posted until the FCC approves it? Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Typically this sort of deal is publicized more when it is announced and less when it is actually approved. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Until it's approved, it's nothing but a press release. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The issue with such a view of business merger announcements is that it would prevent virtually any business story from being posted to ITN, as the argument given when it is actually approved(and would get less news coverage than when announced) would be that it wasn't in the news. It's news now and should be posted now. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Basically, you folks abhor crystal ball stuff, except when you approve of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing crystal here, it's understanding how the news cycle deals with business mergers. Markets react on the announcement that companies have agreed to merge or be bought out or whatever, but don't react when that actually happens. If the FCC does decide to strike the deal, that'll be news too and the markets will react on that. Crystal balling in these stories would be basing the ITN on the rumor mill on mergers and buyouts. Here, the companies have formally announced the plans, shareholders have agreed, so its not a crystal ball. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
And further, you folks call hot news stories "tabloid", unless you approve of them.Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots — Preceding undated comment added 19:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The sources indicated are the BBC, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. If we're considering their reporting to be "tabloid", pull the other one, it certainly has bells on it. Or alternatively selectively delete posts from editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
For those users who are unable to read, we have a couple of references from American sources such as The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Funny how those have been overlooked. Perhaps they can just be deleted by some users so they're censored. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I have often cited here and have been told the news item in question is "tabloid" material. It's funny how BBC's stories' validity are in proportion to the editors who want to push a story such as this one - which isn't actually a story, it's just a "we hope to..." press release. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a "we hope to" story, this is a "we will unless blocked" story- and if blocked, that would also likely be newsworthy and notable. You seem to be arguing for a de facto prohibition of business stories here. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you've forgotten what happened the last time TWC was intending to be merged with another company. Nothing happened. It fizzled. As may this. However, Charlotte will always be George's sister. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
So? Every event can possibly change in the future. What you are proposing is a de facto prohibition of business stories. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable business deal, as stated by others. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment the title reflects the reliable sources. Having said that, I've recently seen posts removed with no edit summary and entirely against policy so nothing surprises me about some users here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as absurd. Where is the article on the merger itself? Only on the basis of such an article could we evaluate this. The 'TW-Comcast merger' has an article, and it didn't happen! This merger may happen, but it would create one of the larger (not the largest or second largest) conglomerates. It's being reported as a benefit for internal costs and negotiateing power, not as anything innovative or consumer beneficial. μηδείς (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. The current phrasing in the article says "intent to" purchase TWC. That phrasing is far too vague for me to indicate this is a major story. I may intend to do many things, but either don't do it or are prevented from doing it. While I agree that the announcement of the deal is the biggest story, and that waiting for the regulators to tick off boxes is pretty unnewsworthy stuff, I don't see where this is ready yet. Lets follow the story for a little while longer, and when we can say something more definitive than "intent to", we may be able to post this. --Jayron32 21:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The trouble is that when that point comes, the argument against it will be that it is not in the news, because announcements always get more attention(and have more effects on markets/investors) than the conclusion of the transaction. 331dot (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron32, and suggest the "ready" tag be pulled. Jusdafax 21:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm not going to put it back but I don't think it was proper for a clear opponent of this to remove the Ready tag. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
        • There's nothing improper about that. Supporters frequently add Ready tags, so it's clear that editors are not required to be uninvolved to add or remove them. Anyone can add one if they think the article is ready to be posted, and anyone can remove one if they think it isn't. Neljack (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
          • I guess I would have preferred a new opponent doing so rather than an involved one. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
            • "Ready" to me implies "Ready to be posted if there's consensus". Regardless of consensus, various editors here are saying the article or articles need work. If those problems are resolved, it could again be marked "ready". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
              • My understanding of 'ready' is that it is basically a polite version of 'attention needed'. I have no complaint about any of the admins here, nor with the removal (331 can consider that as a "new" oppose I considered removing the ready myself, but dind't), but if we had even more administratorial attention, our trains might better run on time, for which see the German WP, no joke intended. μηδείς (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support If a $55 billion dollar merger doesn't warrant notice on ITN then it's time to just amend the guidelines to exclude all business related news. And let's be frank here. If it's not posted now it wont be posted at all. FCC approval will get a few paragraphs in the business section of the major papers and if it is even nominated again at ITN it would get buried in a blizzard of oppose votes. These things have always been posted at the announcement which is when it's major news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It's not a merger until the FCC says it is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
      • As stated, this won't be posted then. The agreement to merge is news now. AdOrientem is quite correct. You haven't denied that your opinion is a de facto prohibiton of business stories. 331dot (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
It might be better to say you agree with his opinion, rather than that he is correct. I still oppose since this will neither change the industry nor create the biggest conglomerate. We've long known TWC has wanted to offload their midlevel management, and that is all this will accomplish. Downsizing and efficiencies, and buyouts. That's really not news. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
AdO is correct that business stories will not be posted if it is prohibited to do so when they are announced; that is a fact, not opinion, because government approvals rarely get the attention and news coverage the announcement gets. Giving the reasons you feel it is not newsworthy is a valid objection(albeit one I don't share) so I don't criticize it. 331dot (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The question is "what kind of announcement". The article does not make clear if an offer has been tendered yet, or if the general idea has been floated. There's a big difference between saying "You know, it'd be nice if we bought Time Warner Cable" versus "This, in detail, is how we're going to buy Time Warner Cable". My problem is the language in the target article at Charter_Communications#Acquisition_of_Time_Warner_Cable makes it seem less certain than people here are making this out to be. "Is in the process of acquiring" is different than "Expressed an intent to acquire". Have the shareholders of TWC accepted the offer? Have basic details been worked out? Is this just a random idea or is it a real deal? The text of the article doesn't yet make that clear. It probably should.--Jayron32 04:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
This is a fair point in reviewing the sources - some same that the agreement by both companies is there, some say that Charter has expressed its intent implying the agreement with Time Warner is not done. We should have full clarification before even posting this. --MASEM (t) 04:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a big deal in terms of size of the companies involved and media interest. It might not be approved by the FCC, but that could take months or years to happen. By that time, it won't actually be in the news. Calidum T|C 02:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support (edit conflict) business news doesn't get bigger than that, and the FCC will of course investigate it but it still lwarrents posting. If required you could mention the FCC in the blurb but it seems unnecessary. (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The issue about when to post merger news (at announcement or at government approval) has been previously addressed here:

It seems the strong consensus was that merger announcements should be posted when they announced, not when they are approved. This type of issue will come up for every merger announcement, so if editors have a problem with them being posted at announcement, it should be discussed as an ongoing issue, and not as a one-off issue relating to this particular merger. Stockst (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Who are you, Stockst, prior to this most recent account? Your familiarity with Wikipedia indicates that you've been around a long time, and yet your account is pretty new. --Jayron32 04:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Their edits show a familiarity with business and over a month of activity completely separate from this. We shouldn't bite. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you Floydian. Stockst (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think people need to assume some good faith here; if anyone has evidence of something improper, take it to the proper forum. Otherwisee, let's move on. 331dot (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Two US companies of very little or no international significance whatsoever. Totally US-centric. --George Ho (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
As stated above, "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.". 331dot (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - One of the largest business mergers ever, recognized companies beyond the U.S., and certainly in the news outside the U.S. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
If you mean BBC, that wouldn't count. Each of BBC editions is accessible to only one region. We are viewing the US edition of the BBC website. We can't access to UK edition. Also, I don't think other languages treat the story as one of top stories. By the way, where else? George Ho (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Canada, Ireland, France. These took me 5 minutes to find. And while we're using US-centric as a reasoning:
  • A heat wave in India kills at least 1,100 people. - Totally India-centic
  • In cricket, Mumbai Indians win the Indian Premier League after defeating Chennai Super Kings in the final. - Also totally India-centric
  • Måns Zelmerlöw (pictured), representing Sweden with the song "Heroes", wins the Eurovision Song Contest in Vienna, Austria. - Totally Euro-centric
  • At least 40 people are killed in a shootout in Mexico between Federal police and members of Jalisco New Generation Cartel. - Mexican-centric
  • Ireland becomes the first country to legalise same-sex marriage by constitutional referendum. - Ireland-centric
  • At least 21 people are killed by a suicide bomb in Qatif, Saudi Arabia. - Middle-east-centric
Oddly enough, there are no US related stories on ITN, unless you reach for straws and count John Nash. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support like usual, big business news, will be big news even if it get blocked (which is unlikely). EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 16:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I hope to start an article on the merger itself later today. It is that big of a story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Personally, I'm not really a fan of posting this announcement, which means (I guess) that I'm in a good position to say that consensus seems clear, the articles have been adequately updated, waiting too long will make it stale, and an ITN item hasn't been posted in almost 2 days. Posting. I'm not an ITN regular, so I'm not sure if we usually add euro or pound equivalencies, so I went with the proposed blurb wording (no alternate currencies). If a merger article is started, someone can switch it out for the current bolded items when deemed ready. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Kenya ambushEdit

Consensus is against posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: May 2015 Garissa ambush (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 20 Kenyan soldiers are killed in an ambush.
News source(s): BBC Al Jazeera Standard Digital
  • Nominated by [[User: (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)| (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)]] ([[User talk: (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)|talk]] • [{{fullurl:User talk: (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BMay+2015+Garissa+ambush%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=May+2015+Garissa+ambush&preloadparams%5b%5d=nominated}} give credit])
Nominator's comments: Soldiers, being armed, are more notable for the not-so-easy high casualty count. Some naxal attack with about the same soldiers was here a few years ago. - (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose lack of article and an item on the BBC is suggesting it's more like one wounded rather than twenty killed. Not notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

If you ever bothered to read beyond your prejudged notions you will see 1. I cannot create the article on Wikipedia 2. Beyond your one-track indoctrinated mind, the sources say there was a bomb that wounded and then a rescue mission was ambushed, which is where the casualties came from (read the local source above). (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC) (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Personal attacks aside, I know you can't create the article unless you bother registering an account (which is free and will stop people tracking you via your IP address), or you could request its creation at WP:AFC. Either way that's your problem. But I don't actually believe the event itself is even notable enough for an article; perhaps a one-liner in 2015 in Kenya? There still appears to be no reliable source that verifies your blurb. It's not exactly the Garissa University College attack is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose; aside from no article to evaluate,(I understand the IP user cannot create one, but that isn't our issue) the Kenyan government is saying none of its officers have been killed(according to the Al-Jaz article) and this is apparently just a claim by a terrorist group. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is not a news service. ITN blurbs must link to an article. Thems the rules. Create an account so you can create articles or don't. Either is fine with me. But please don't blame other editors for your choices. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment related issue is Garissa University College attack. Could be DUE if the article is created. Would want IP user to create an account then edit the article. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Our reliable sources are indicating that no one died (one wounded) and that the claims of 20 deaths are only by the group that initiated the ambush. A non-story for WP. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment we now have an article which has one single sentence about the ambush, i.e. that an ambush took place, and heaps of background boilerplate. There is nothing else in the article specific to this event. There is no evidence that the original claim and blurb are correct. This is a dead duck. I would very much expect the article to be deleted in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is notable enough to go on this list, not ITN. (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

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

May 25Edit

RD: Mary Ellen MarkEdit

Article: Mary Ellen Mark (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN NPR Time

Nominator's comments: Described by CNN Money as "legendary". Received the "Lifetime Achievement in Photography Award from the George Eastman House as well as the Outstanding Contribution Photography Award from the World Photography Organization." (See Time link.) She also won a World Press Award from World Press Photo. This seems to indicate she was important enough in her field for RD. Everymorning talk 23:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support pending article updates Importance is established. The prose of the article is fine but the allocades section needs to have sources for each aware or link to a blue-linked article where confirmation can be found. (And I was able to find a useful free image to add to the article of her). --MASEM (t) 23:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose that she photographed demonstrations lends her no credit. Let's see one iconic pulitzer winning reason why this should be posted. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD Subject has numerous awards and was extremely prominent in her field. She more than meets the criteria in ITND. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Masem notability appears clear yet article is very poorly sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Lots of awards, published in a lot of noteworthy publications, exhibited worldwide. Notability seems clear. Article looks okay, with maybe a few sources that need to be lined up here and there, but nothing egregious. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - In my view, a fine ITN RD candidate. Notability is clear. Article may need a bit of cleanup, but as Kudzu1 observes, nothing is immediately obvious as a reason not to post this to RD. Jusdafax 07:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    Apart from the incredibly weak sourcing? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - awards section needs sourcing before this can be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I added a source for those last night. Looks like it has been removed. Hmm. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Looking at the history if you were sourcing to her biography from her own page, that's a poor source since people can make up claims about themselves (not that I'm suggesting she had done). The removal appears correctly done. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: per masem.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Texas–Oklahoma floodsEdit

Article: 2015 Texas–Oklahoma floods (talk, history)
Blurb: Floods in Texas and Oklahoma kill at least 17 people, with dozens injured.
Alternative blurb: Storms and flooding from northern Mexico to Texas and Oklahoma kill dozens.
News source(s): Washington Post New York Times Reuters

Nominator's comments: The National Weather Service has described this flooding as "historic" (see WaPo), a state of emergency has been declared, [5] and Obama has promised help to the affected areas (see Reuters link). Death toll is variable from source to source, e.g. the Reuters link above says at least 6 people died, and the Los Angeles Times says it's at least ten. [6] Everymorning talk 18:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose This same storm dropped a tornado that struck a Mexican town over the border with similar casualties. If we are going to report this we cannot omit the Mexico side. (See BBC's take [7]). That said, this is also standard summer storm season - floods and torandoes are to be expected, and this is far from the damage that some torando runs in recent years have caused. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait to see full impact. Right now, while tragic for those affected, it is hard as yet to judge the full impact. --Jayron32 20:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose parochial story which, among other things, "caused minor damage to a mobile home". Wikipedia is not a repository for localised news of inconveniences to some trailer park folks. The fact we had so much opposition to hundreds dying in India (now over a thousand) would indicate that this is a minor and local news issue in the US, commonplace due to the weather systems there. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Front page coverage on, which legitimizes its importance (as discussed earlier). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment of course a support would indicate that a user has not even read the article in question which has an orange-level maintenance tag. But that is hardly surprising as this is stirring up nationalistic feelings. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per @The Rambling Man:. Clearly not very significant coverage outside the United States. ƬheStrikeΣagle 20:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    • You're saying front page of is not significant? Or is it only significant when you all have pre-decided that it is? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until full impact is known. Right now this seems relatively minor(while historic for the affected area, it isn't nationally I think). If ever posted, it should indeed include information on storm effects in Mexico(like the aforementioned tornado). 331dot (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Potential support per Masem if tied in as one or as related storm systems. We usually have one or two tornado breakouts this time of year. Notable ones kill far more than five. The nomination as posted is minor, but if this becomes a greater complex or can be tied together it would be blurbworthy. μηδείς (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not saying I support this but the total death toll (between the US and Mexico) is over 20. [8] 331dot (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
That's kinda my point, 331dot}. I think this could be a shoe-in nom if we had an article that tied in all the related events over several days, rather than just the one limited one. μηδείς (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose No evidence that this is a really major disaster. The article has really major shortcomings. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Changing vote to weak support on improvements in the article and more extensive information concerning the scope of the flood. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once further expansion is done. Been doing my best to update and expand this article but I have relatively limited time at the moment. An earlier concern brought up about the Mexico tornado has been addressed by its addition into the article (part of the same overall storm system). Record-breaking floods have occurred/are occurring in many areas of Texas and Oklahoma with more rain on the way. As brought up by the nominator, this is a historic flood event for the region and a deadly one. At least 28 fatalities have been confirmed between Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, with about 40 other people unaccounted for or missing. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked Attention Needed, will someone look at Cyclonebiskits' updation? It's a bit too late for me. μηδείς (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Definitely not ITN-worthy. But it is getting all the attention as it is American news. Don't think this ever got posted. (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Not really a fair comparison. That article wasn't created until September 2012, roughly two months after the main events of the disaster according to the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Those floods lasted for several months, from July up to October. Here's a quote from a news source: "Flooding started in Plateau State in central Nigeria in July, spread through Borno, Cross River, Ebonyi, Nassarawa, Bauchi, Gombe, Katsina and Kebbi states in August, hit Taraba Benue, Niger, Kaduna and Kano in September, before affecting Delta and Bayelsa states in September and October." [9] (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Doesn't appear that anyone bothered to nominate it for ITN. Only one person really edited it while the floods were ongoing. Not everything gets noticed and nominated for ITN appropriately. The 2012 Nigeria floods appear to be a case where there was not enough media coverage that it caught on to people who frequent ITN. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Dozens dead in Mexico and the US, historic flooding, over a dozen tornados, with an F3 killing 13 in Mexico. The article name seems local but the effects range over an area that would be widely international if it happened in Europe, and the deaths in Mexico are indeed part of the article. Suggest Masem, Jayron32, 331dot, Ad Orientem etc., reconsider their votes. μηδείς (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I'll support the ITN for the article that does not limit the scope of the storm to just the situation north of the border; I know the news is not helping with a very US-centric take with the focus on damage in Texas. We have to remember that weather doesn't following geopoliticial lines. --MASEM (t) 17:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Article has improved considerably since my initial wariness. Suggest a possible change of blurb to be more encompassing. Something like "Floods in southern U.S. and northern Mexico cause widespread property damage and leave at least XX dead" or something like that. Good job to all those who improved the article text. --Jayron32 17:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I have proposed an alt blurb. The name of the article itslef is still odd, given half the dead are in Mexico. But we don't post based on article names. In any case there are at least 31 killed, with over a dozen tornados, and historic flooding. Comment by "waits" such as Masem and Ad Orientem would be helpful. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
    • The naming and approach of the article needs to be fixed before posting. ITN's purpose is, in part, to guide new editors to articles they may be able to contribute on, and that's why we look for the quality of the article to make sure they can contribute in a fair manner. With the article currently named and geared to the US centric issues with this storm, that's not going to work for new editors. --MASEM (t) 02:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Although this is a calamity for the people affected – and although some of the oppose rhetoric above is overdrawn – there's much human-caused blood, gore and destruction in the world that exceeds the magnitude of this natural disaster. Sca (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, providing the linked article discusses the effects on both sides of the border. Resolute 13:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I have to agree that it is a major issue that the article pretty much ignores the impact in Mexico in the text, while plugging for global warming (!). I suppose that's really Texal, not Global Warming. I may be able to get to it in a couple of hours. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I would support this if the article covered the entire issue, including Mexico. At the moment it doesn't. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
This is going to need at least a day's worth of work not including just adding the Mexican info, the sources for which can't just be cut and pasted. If someone's got the time and interested I have pasted the Mexican tornado info onto the talk page. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Tunisian military base rampageEdit

Snowclose. Good work on behalf of the nominator, as usual, but no consensus is developing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 Tunis barracks shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Soldier opens fire on comrades at Tunisian military base with seven casualties.
News source(s): GNews
Nominator's comments: Inconceivable for me too see that this local news gathered so much international coverage throughout. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 18:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • We absolutely need an article first. It does not help to nominate when there is no article. (Remember, ITN is about highlight articles of topics that happen to be in the news, not to be a news ticker). --MASEM (t) 18:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm still searching. If I can't find one, I'll create one (as I did before). By evening EST, we'll have a pretty decent article. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 18:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

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

RD: Bill O'HerlihyEdit

Article: Bill O'Herlihy (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): GNews

Nominator's comments: Well known sports announcer and only a little concern whether he is the top of the field of broadcasting. Known all over for his commentator of FIFA WCs. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose on quality: Article has significant BLP and sourcing problems and will need serious improvement before it is ready to post. Notability, however, is clear. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability and oppose on quality. Not seeing this individual anywhere on any news outlets I follow, I know it counts for nothing but having watched countless "FIFA WCs" I can testify to that I have never heard this individual commentating, and finally the article, as noted by Kudzu1, is bereft of suitable referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • RTE broadcaster - not that it diminishes his work, but I would not call that "all over". I suppose if top of the field is Irish sportscasting, he is up there somewhere. Mainly as a presenter for these programs, rather than ingame commentary (like the BBC's Des Lynam). Fuebaey (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose on article quality alone. He clearly looks to be one of the most well-known broadcasters of his nation - but the sourcing and general article quality (sidebar, image and so on) is sadly lacking. Challenger l (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose on quality alone. Article is far from sufficient. Surely more can be said about a person whose life was this important. If the article were expanded to a reasonable coverage of his life and work, it would be fine for RD. --Jayron32 20:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It looks like sourcing has been taken care of. Is it ready? Challenger l (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Ehud Olmert sentencedEdit

Article: Ehud Olmert (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert is sentenced to eight months in prison for fraud and breach of trust.
News source(s): BBC New York Times CNN

Nominator's comments: We posted the jailing of Mohamed Nasheed in March, and there was consensus there, AFAICT, that formed heads of state being jailed is ITN worthy. [10] What is less clear is whether heads of state being sentenced is ITN worthy--the sentence may not be carried out for 45 days, according to CNN. Everymorning talk 13:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak support - I'm iffy on the fact this is pretty much a slap on the wrist in terms of the type of sentence (compared to 20 yrs or the death penalty), but it is also a case against a nation's former head of state. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The President of Israel is head of state, not the PM. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I know what you're getting at but per that article " The position is largely a ceremonial figurehead role,[1] with executive power effectively being exercised by the prime minister. " We're talking a person that formally held that position of power, so this is significant. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't disagree that there is significance here. I studied political science so I can't help pointing out a technicality like that. :) 331dot (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support per Masem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is not updated and indicates an appeal will take place immediately. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    Plus the article contains a number of orange maintenance tags which I'm sure the supporters will address, but until then, this should not even be considered for posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Nothing when compared with death sentence of Morsi or 20 of Nasheed or some eight (don't recall exactly) of Mubarak. That too in corruption, a less serious issue in comparison of slaughter and espionage and betrayal. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support per Masem. Probably significant enough to be posted, but it's borderline. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per The Herald. If recently, former heads of government have been sentenced to death or to likely life terms for charges such as treason, this is very light indeed. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support per the reasons given. The conduct, if I read it right, did not have to do with his duties as PM, but it is still notable enough for me to support a little. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Inclined to support, which other stories about this have we posted? μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I would prefer something like "Olmert-Talansky affair" to be a separate article. ITN has had stories on former leaders of Egypt and other countries sentenced for crimes. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Based on how I'm reading this, in the case of the Egyptian trials, they were all connected cases; this appears to be a result of Olmert acting alone - or to the point where he was the one responsible for any crimes. As such, there really is not need for a separate page on this situation. --MASEM (t) 02:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per the article's talk page this matter has not yet been posted. I simply cannot imaging we would not post the jailing of a former EU, Commonwealth, or US head of state. I have hidden a section requiring citations (perhaps it should be removed entirely), the rest of the article looks fine. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment the main part of the article is still not updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This and the earlier conviction are both up for appeal. When he serves time as former head of government it'll be notable. (This is not his first conviction either). (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - definitely notable enough for ITN inclusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment have you read the article? It's not updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once any shortcomings in the article are addressed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment okay, so maintenance tags notwithstanding, apparently a sentence like "Sentencing was set for May, and his lawyers advised he would appeal" means this article is updated? None of you have read this article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality of update only. The only update was a single sentence to the lead. Someone should be able to create a paragraph or two in the actual article text. Right now, the Wikipedia article does not contain enough new content to put up on the main page. Also, if we do post this, we should pipelink the section where the new information is added. --Jayron32 20:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I can understand this as a policy position, Jayron32, but what would the actual update be? He was escorted from his house to prison, and interrogated as to whether he was, or had ever bean, a heemosexual? Would it improve things to post the opinion of various people like Netanyahu regarding the sentence? The effect is another wait vote, although every prior wait vote has said we'll post this when he's convicted, sentenced,... μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It should be treated the same way as the Charter-TWC thing. It's "news now". If the article needs fixing, the complainants should fix it. But it's factual, which is more than can be said about the latest TWC merger attempt. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The New York Times has a 20 paragraph article on the topic. Surely we can do better than 20 words. --Jayron32 01:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Apparently not, all the supporters are content to just do absolutely nothing, which is probably wise given the lack of experience most of them have in improving mainspace articles. A shame though. This could have been a winner. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article has now been minimally updated, at least, and should be in fair shape for posting. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Polish presidential election, 2015Edit

Article: Polish presidential election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Opposition candidate Andrzej Duda is elected as the Polish president.
News source(s): Many

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

 -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hah..typo..-The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 05:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - important political news.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Swing back to the conservative-cum-populist Law and Justice Party of the Kaczyński brothers seems ominous for EU champions. Sca (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This does look significant on a number of different levels. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked ready for main page..-The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support posting: Good work on this, everyone. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Before posting, I'd be happy to see some "Reaction" section in the election article. At the moment, it's just the result table. We can do better. --Tone 17:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Be the change...add it.. (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose article in current state - there is minimal prose in the article and zero prose on the results/reaction. Article does not meet ITN quality standards as is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality alone. Amount of prose is very insufficient for a main-page linked article. Substantial prose expansion would be needed to bring this article up to snuff. --Jayron32 20:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and mark ready, a three paragraph expansion and no tags, ITNR, absurd not to post without any tags to contesr and overwhelming support. μηδείς (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Pospiesz się! Sca (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the standard isn't how much it has been expanded, but rather how much coverage there is on the news item and that is still basically zero. The entirety of the prose on the election results is two sentences in the lead saying Duda won and it was close. That is fine for the lead but the body of the article should have a full paragraph on the results and at least one on reactions. That is what is normally expected of elections. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article has been updated with prose for the polling, results, and reactions sections. Feel free to add more. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Agree this looks much better in sourcing and prose, and should be ready to go. --MASEM (t) 20:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Marking ready: I see no reason why this shouldn't be posted at this stage. Consensus is for posting, the article has been improved to address concerns about lack of prose, and this is starting to run the risk of getting stale. Let's do it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted - thanks for the improvements. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Suggest blurb be modified to say, Opposition candidate Andrzej Duda of the Law and Justice Party is elected as Ppresident of Poland. Sca (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
    I've removed "as". The uppercase "P" is correct, per our house style. —David Levy 09:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

May 24Edit

[Closed] RD Anne MearaEdit

No consensus to post. --Tone 16:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Anne Meara (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY Times the Guardian ABC (Australia)
Nominator's comments: Noted actress and comedian who had a 61-year career. She was nominated for four Emmy Awards and won a Writers Guild of America Award and an ObieCalidum T|C 23:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose A long and noteworthy career, but I wouldn't call her top of the field, or suggest that her contributions were that important to her field. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree there's a general lack of top of the field importance, and also the article is not in great state for posting. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Iffy - Award-winning, and half of a famous comic duo, but inactive in the field for quite a while, in contrast to husband Jerry and son Ben, who have continued to have high visibility. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Regretful oppose: I like her work, but as Bugs notes she was only half a duo and she hasn't performed as such for a long time. And given that obits had to explain to the young'uns that she is chiefly known to them for being Ben Stiller's mother, I don't think she makes the cut. Daniel Case (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support: Decent article and someone whose death many media outlets have at least noted -- although I would agree she misses the RD criteria for being at the top of her field. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Just a note about her being at the "top of her field": the relevant criteria only says "very important in his/her field," which is arguably more inclusive. Whether or not she is most known today for being Ben Stiller's dad is also irrelevant because her fame was established long ago. Calidum T|C 01:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support obvious. One can presumably oppose this if one's to young to remember her career, bur she was huge in her day, and is certainly not just her husband's wife. More than 3-dozen movie credits and 3-dozen tv series, all separate from her standup bit with he husband Jerry Stiller, or her son, Ben Stiller. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support This should be a no brainer. Subject was a very prominent person in the entertainment industry and more than meets the qualifications in WP:ITND. I do not understand the oppose votes at all. In what way does this person not meet our standards? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The opposed votes are based on people born since 1990 and outside the Americas. Her filmography alone speaks for itself, outside her relationship to her husband and son. μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't fall into that category, and I still think this is not RD material. A large filmograph is not equivalent to importance, as that describes many B-list actors today, doing a bunch of bit parts to work slowly through the ranks. Even Jerry Stiller is hard to qualify as an important figure in television comedy given other names that launched that era. And I really think we should avoid looking at family/married relationships here; it should be the virtue of the person themselves, not who they were related to. --MASEM (t) 02:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. You don't get four Emmy Award nominations without being important in the entertainment business. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure you can. Emmy nominations are just nominations. It suggests there is some potential importance but that's not the only thing. Also, this information is woefully lacking on the article if the Emmys are so important (only one Emmy is mentioned). --MASEM (t) 03:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
"The opposed votes are based on people born since 1990 and outside the Americas" Um, I graduated from college in 1990; I was born, raised and have never lived anywhere else but North America. And I stand by the reasoning for my oppose vote above. Daniel Case (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No awards, no objective indications that she meets the death criteria. She appears to be exactly the sort of B-list celebrity that we routinely (and correctly) decline to post. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Neljack (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per BW. No awards meet notability criteria. No a top of the field. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 06:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose long career does not equate to being important in the field. The article is reasonably well written but very poorly referenced so is unfit for inclusion in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hasn't won any notable awards, article is in poor shape and does not give any indication of importance. Famous partner and/or children is not relevant. Disclaimer: I wasn't born in the 90s, but I was born outside the US. So clearly, according to Medeis, my vote can be ignored. Structural bias only works one way.... (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted to ongoing] 2015 Rohingya refugee crisisEdit

Article: 2015 Rohingya refugee crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): Telegraph Reuters US News

Nominator's comments: I think it is quite appropriate to post a story about this crisis as it has been receiving a great deal of news coverage over a sustained period of time, and thousands of migrants have been estimated to be stranded. [11] The reason I am nominating it for ongoing is that there have been a lot of developments in this story (the graves discovered today, the rescuing of migrants by the Myanmar navy, etc.) and it seems like the article has been updated incrementally as dictated at WP:ITNEverymorning talk 21:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support This is a major story with lots of news coverage but where it would be hard to formulate a blurb based on a specific event, so it fits Ongoing well. Neljack (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Attention being giving to this now, suggests this is the time to post even if, say, more mass graves are discovered. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Masem, who is right here. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 06:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - pretty big Asian issue which has come to prominence recently. Also, an international issue involving multiple countries. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Ongoing it is. --Tone 16:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Monaco F1 Grand PrixEdit

Article: 2015 Monaco Grand Prix (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In motorsport, Nico Rosberg wins the Monaco Grand Prix.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Winner TBA The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] India heat waveEdit

Article: 2015 India heat wave (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A heat wave in India kills at least 500 people.
News source(s): Times of India, New York Times, BBC, The Guardian, Time, The Independent, Sydney Morning Herald

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Aside from death toll, a temperature record from 1947 was broke in one city, at 48 °C. Brandmeistertalk 12:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support notable event, decent enough article. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Should this be listed under "ongoing"? The temperatures don't look like they'll come down for a while. (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I've read they are expected to fall in June during monsoon season. Brandmeistertalk 12:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This doesn't appear to be getting major coverage (it isn't on the BBC News India page, for example) and, however it is calculated, I don't think it's very clear how significant 335 deaths from heat is in a hot country where 10 million people die each year. Formerip (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    Now on the BBC homepage. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – By standards of the American West, temps reported, while certainly high, aren't unheard of. (Highest temp on record in Phoenix, Ariz. = 122 °F (50 °C); Las Vegas, Nevada = 117 F (47 C); Sacramento, Calif. = 115 (46 C). Sca (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    • But it's a dry heat. The first two are in deserts. (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Ever driven across AZ & NM in an un-air-conditioned convertible in mid-July? Whew!   Sca (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
No, but I've walked in high sun at 103 and 15% humidity and I don't think anything less than 106 or 107 is too hot. As long as it's that dry. Now on the Persian Gulf it just switches back and forth between wet heat and dry heat all summer (up to 108 and 124 respectively), the seawater is 98, sandstorms can reach several meters visibility, the heat index has reached 172 when scientists thought about 160 was the limit for Earth, people get cabin fever, open their cars with oven mitts and drive with them until the wheel cools down. No place can beat that. (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • OpposeSupport Following FormerIP's rationale, 300-some in a country with more than 1 billion people doesn't seem like a significant factor. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    I agree that if you use a simple ratio, this is very small. What ratio would you consider sufficient to post, e.g. 3,000, 300,000? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    There's no hard number, but one has to consider the number relative to the main population and the rate. If this is 300-some deaths from a 1billion+ country over 2 months, that's below the average daily mortality rate there. On the other hand, something like the ebola outbreak took 20,000+ over a few months from a small population over several countries and was potentially threatening more. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    Sure, I think we all understand that. So you're looking for, what 10,000 deaths here? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    You're asking for a number I refuse to commit to, because it does really depend on the coverage. I'm judging by the coverage of the press, to a degree. Consider the lack of significant details of the articles on the heat wave here - the NYT source is just a paragraph statement from the AP; the Times of India article is more documenting the forecast that the focus on the death toll. I would hope that if the number got into the 1,000 or higher within a single calendar season that the press would take more notice of the matter. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    Ok, thanks for your answer, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
We don't actually have a baseline here, so the big question is 335 compared to what? Unfortunately, Google wasn't my friend on this, but I did find that the number of heat related deaths in the US averaged at 618 per year in the decade up to 2010 [12]. We seem to be talking about 6 weeks of Indian heatwave, plus you need to adjust for population, so that 618 would be equivalent to about 285 Indian deaths. That's less that 335, but more than the 230 quoted by the NYT. Comparisons like that can be dangerous. The US definition of "heat-related" may cover a lot more things. There may be a lot of deaths that go completely unrecorded in India. So the comparison doesn't really prove anything, but it may help to illustrate why this isn't necessarily a major international news story. Formerip (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Interesting analysis, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Switching to support per more recent articles, getting the media coverage that would expect if this was a severe threat and not just typical. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not that notable, insignificant coverage. Faizan (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It's pretty unusual for 330 people to die in a few weeks and the temperatures have touched a record high in many places. Significant coverage in Indian sources and somewhat less in international ones. Definitely ITN worthy. ƬheStrikeΣagle 20:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Large death toll. This isn't business as usual, despite the suggestions to the contrary. Neljack (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Neljack.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Seemingly an unusual event for India. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and marked ready, scorching heat is devilish in itself when it consumes such a high death toll, even if the country have a population of one trillion or googolplex. Sometimes Masem puts up theories which are too hard to convince conscience. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 06:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a standard seasonal weather pattern as you can find similar news stories for every recent year, e.g. Anger rises as India swelters under record heatwave for last year; India Scorched by Blistering Heatwave for 2013; Hundreds die in Indian heatwave for 2010; &c. What's happening is that it's getting hot because summer is coming. The heat then causes the monsoon, which breaks the heatwave. Andrew D. (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment death toll now over 500 with reports in the BBC and The Guardian highlighting that this is hotter and more deadly than the 2010 heatwave. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This isn't a usual occurrence, and lack of coverage by BBC seems illogical to decline this. It isn't a seasonal occurrence, nor do 300+ people die every year of the same reason. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted so sue me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support/comment - To say deaths in India don't matter because a lot of people live there is pretty disgusting and also illogical. If the country was divided into several with smaller land chunks and thus less population, one of the new countries would have a much higher "ratio" and the significance would be exactly the same. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    Don't stress it. Of course temperatures have been recorded higher in the US, of course there are so many Indians that a few thousand dead don't count for much. That's your systemic bias, right there. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: French OpenEdit

Close this one more time, there's no appetite to post every single sporting event to Ongoing, in fact there's an "ongoing" discussion elsewhere regarding the addition of sports ticker. I would take this conversation there if anyone really believes it has any legs. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 French Open (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
  • Nominated by [[User: (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)| (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)]] ([[User talk: (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)|talk]] • [{{fullurl:User talk: (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5B2015+French+Open%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=2015+French+Open&preloadparams%5b%5d=nominated}} give credit])
Nominator's comments: I know this is novel as usually just the final is posted, but it gets regular updates day-by-day and instead of the usual death and destruction that gets ongoing we should consider other ongoings. Tennis has only 4 a year and we can also post the WC in soccer/cricket/rugby that have global following and the Olympics. - (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Ongoing was never intended for sports events in progress. The same argument could be made for posting any sport whose playoffs (or even whole season) is in progress and Wikipedia is not a ticker for news or sports. It was intended for events/happenings whose incremental updates might not be enough to post individually but collected together merit posting. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Ongoing was developed with certain major sports events played over weeks/months in mind, specifically the Olympics and the World Cup. I'm not saying this is an appropriate event for ongoing (and I think I would be against it because its an annual thing, not as limited as Olympics/World Cup, and far less of an audience draw), but appropriate sports events can be listed at Ongoing. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, I think the Olympics and World Cup are just about the only events that would qualify(and the Cup was boldly posted; consensus was not very clear). The French Open is an annual event for one sport, very different than the Olympics and Cup(either multisport every four years or long-term event with wide interest every four years) 331dot (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Olympics (and probably soccer WC) was posted here. In any case, nothing is set in stone for the sake of it. I wasn't mentioning season long annual events either though. (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Olympics and FIFA WC have a wider audience and appeal. They're held once in four years compared to four grand slams a year (which gives us 16 tennis entries for the same period of 4 years). (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not a sports ticker, I believe we once had the FIFA World Cup on there which was boldly posted, but since that's once every four years and attracts a global audience of over a billion, it didn't seem quite so bad. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as I closed this as SNOW, which undoubtedly it was. This is not going to get posted as ongoing, but as a blurb, that too, after June 6th. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Only final results - No need for day-by-day posting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Indy 500Edit

Article: 2015 Indianapolis 500 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In motorsport, Juan Pablo Montoya wins the 99th Indianapolis 500
News source(s): Indy 500

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: Indy 500 winner TBA -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 07:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Where is the 2015 Monaco Grand Prix? (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Is this a quiz? Monaco. Formerip (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Nice try, dad. Zappa24Mati 22:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
We don't post each and every Grand Prix. Only the final champion..-The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 12:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Not true. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't you know that Monaco Grand Prix is also on ITN/R, The Herald? (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Who said otherwise??-The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 12:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once results are in. High-profile event. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose most of the article is in the incorrect tense, waiting for an update. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Upon the results' addition. WP:ITN/R candidate. Zappa24Mati 22:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, and note that the blurb might also be combined with the Monaco Grand Prix blurb. The account of the race itself needs references, though. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I've been through and think I've changed the tense as required throughout, but the main bulk of the article is unreferenced, it could easily be original research, and is completely unverifiable. Harrias talk 10:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Update marked ready. Consensus cleared as the article is fixed. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    • What does this mean? The article is clearly not fixed, as the entire "Race" section is completely unreferenced, while the practice and qualifying sections also have few if any inline citations. This is obviously not ready, unless ITN has absurdly low standards for what it puts on the Main Page. Harrias talk 17:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment not ready in any way, shape or form. No references in the race section at all. Plenty to fix – please fix the article before you mark it as Ready again, because continuing to make such obviously false claims in order to score points in a contest is completely unacceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Definitely not ready - I agree with TRM, most of the article is unreferenced. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, as I came here to ask why this isn't already on the Main Page. Furthermore, linking the article from the main page will help to drive reference-adding traffic. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 20:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
    • That's not how ITN works; you have it backwards. Articles are posted after they are updated, not posted on ITN to solicit updates/edits. SpencerT♦C 05:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Marking ready. The article is in good shape and the race is ITNR. Calidum T|C 21:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't understand why this is being continually marked as ready when the originally cited issues (no referencing in the "race" section still stand). SpencerT♦C 05:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - why isnt this on the main page already. notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Cannes Film FestivalEdit

Article: 2015 Cannes Film Festival (talk, history)
Blurb: 2015 Cannes Film Festival concludes with the Palme d'Or being awarded to Dheepan.
News source(s): Cannesthe Guardian

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: Palme D'Or TBD -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 07:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Obv. pending updates, main article is in great shape, hopefully the same standard will be on the winning film's article too. And ITN/R. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Winner is announced (Dheepan) but that article is woefully poor even if it is not the key target link. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose both the main article (which doesn't appear to be bold linked, why not?) and the award article are inadequately updated for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - when updated.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Indian Premier LeagueEdit

Article: 2015 Indian Premier League (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Twenty20 league cricket, Mumbai Indians wins 2015 Indian Premier League
Alternative blurb: ​In cricket, the Mumbai Indians win the Indian Premier League after defeating the Chennai Super Kings in the Final.
Alternative blurb II: ​In cricket, Mumbai Indians wins the Indian Premier League after defeating Chennai Super Kings in the finals
News source(s): IPL

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: Biggest cricket league and notable throughout. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 07:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Tweaked and added the altblurb with two bold titles (as done for World Cup this March). -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 09:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
People watching this and not the New Zealand massive triumph at Lord's and French Open? Former should end today after tea or tomorrow by lunch... (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
England getting thrashed is nothing new, and tennis is boring anyway. So we'll stick to T20 cricket :) (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Didn't quite work out that way, eh?!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Heh, it really didn't work out that way, eh?! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, "New Zealand massive triumph at Lord's" and "England getting thrashed". Beautiful! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support biggest t20 league in the world (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support notable tournament and ITN/R.Regards, theTigerKing  16:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

*Strong Oppose Not a big following outside of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnzsmith (talkcontribs) 18:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Interesting, but ultimately incorrect and a pretty pointless comment which is actually untrue. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Right here a few miles down the road = street party. What a night, what a week! #aamchiMumbai! (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment can anyone point me to the prose update in a suitably referenced article that covers this news story? If it exists, I'll post it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Done (I think). - Dee03 03:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

May 23Edit

[Posted] John Forbes Nash, Jr.Edit

Article: John Forbes Nash, Jr. (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Alternative blurb: Mathematician, Nobel Laureate and the subject of the movie A Beautiful Mind, John Nash (pictured),dies in a car crash.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Nobel laureate, subject of A Beautiful Mind, killed in car accident. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Ali Fazal (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for prompt posting. Extraordinary and notable individual. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is well-developed and referenced. A Nobel laureate whose work had a lot of impact in the real world and is much more well-known than most Nobel laureates - i.e., is well-known as well as notable. Taknaran (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. No question on importance, article has a few tiny issues but far from levels to prevent posting to ITN. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. John Forbes Nash had a great impact in the fields of mathematics, economics and even mental health. He and his wife Alicia were the subject of the book and film, A Beautiful Mind. (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC) (this is AstroHurricane001, and this is the only time I will ever leave a comment as an anonymous user)
  • Comment. All the news stories I have seen regarding this call him "John Nash". Formerip (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment An RD definitely should go up, but as I'm reading more, he and his wife were killed in a car crash (as passengers in a taxi). While they were both in their 80s, this still seems to me like a possible blurb. I suggest discussing that separately, noting the RD has clear consensus at the moment. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe blurb it with his recent Abel Prize win with Louis Nirenberg? [13] I would have nominated it separately, since it is on ITN/R, but unfortunately this event inevitably overshadows that. Fuebaey (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The Abel was announced in March and was noted at ITNR. (I did check on this as I had the same idea) - last week was just the formal ceremony. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. A rare individual who was both a giant in his field and a public figure due to the Hollywood biopic of his life. Girona7 (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Marking ready, looks to be updated. Unfortunate death. Brandmeistertalk 14:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Full Blurb Notable personality and the subject of a Notable movie. Unfortunate event. Please post it now. Regards, theTigerKing  16:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Clearly no opposition on notability, but does nobody have issues with how much of the text is unsourced but me? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
With such a notable death, I think the state of the article is less of an important factor than getting this up quickly. Added visibility will hopefully prompt others to improve the article. Incidentally, I could go either way with a blurb, but I do think the RD should go up right away. Girona7 (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not seeing an issue with appropriate density of sourcing. There's only one para that's on the longer side that has two cites at the end to support it, but that's fair. (There's also a long block quote but that has the correct single ref) --MASEM (t) 16:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Full blurb Nobel Prize winner in 1994 for Nash equilibrium, Abel Prize winner in 2015 (I believe the first to win both?) and portrayed in Beautiful Mind in 2001, not many scientists are more widely known to the public. Nergaal (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting RD for the time being. Can be upgraded to a full blurb, if consensus is such. --Tone 16:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Full blurb warranted given circumstances, no other living mathematician was a household name. μηδείς (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb as he occupies iconic place in modern history of mathematics and the popular culture.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. Blurbs for deaths should always meet a very high threshold. Fairly or unfairly, this is someone best known for being portrayed in a film, which is reflected in the coverage of his death. I don't think the manner of the death matters. Road traffic accidents are common and unremarkable. Formerip (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose blurb most famous (realistically) because he was noted in the movie, top of his field etc so suitable for RD, but not a blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Sudden, tragic end to a beautiful mind (to borrow a phrase). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, my eyes actually bugged when I saw the news. Also, wife died too, so a blurb is needed. Abductive (reasoning) 18:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The eyes have it! Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb - Lots of recognition. Not just a major achievement in his field, but in his personal life as well. An inspiration. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment happy to post blurb based on recent voting, would be helpful if one or more those ardent supporters fixed the issues currently noted on the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD Oppose Blurb A noteable death, but not, I'd wager, a "household name" in most households. (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb' pretty much the only mathematician (or any non-peace/literature nobel winner) that is a "household name". (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, support RD A very important mathematician, but I doubt anybody would be pushing for a blurb if it weren't for A Beautiful Mind. To my mind, being portrayed in a famous film is not a good reason for posting a blurb. Neljack (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Nobel prize, Abel, highly influential, unexpected and tragic death, one of the VERY few mathemeticians any layman knows the name of. Really as obvious as it gets, we've got every checkbox filled. "If it weren't for all those things that made him famous, nobody would know who he is" is the most spurious reasoning I can really think of not to blurb this. - OldManNeptune 23:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Won both the Nobel Prize and its equivalent in mathematics. And yes, he was the subject of an Oscar winning biopic. Easily the peer of popes and presidents. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb for many of the reasons listed above, but also because this is someone who the average reader will take an interest in based on a blurb that are not served by the RD mention. What issues are left on the articles? - Floydian τ ¢ 06:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. Easily the peer of popes and presidents, but we don't post every pope or president. His death received respectable coverage worldwide, but nowhere near the level of the likes of Mandela - BBC had live coverage of Mandela's funeral, which was attended by most of the world leaders. Nash's death is simply not on the same level. He is notable, his death is notable, his death is exactly what RD was intended for and that is where it should go.No longer a penguin (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep in mind: he and his wife were killed in a car accident (as passengers in a taxi), not simply passing from old age. Only a week prior did he travel to get the Abel prize - he was still very active. So the death is unusual akin to Robin Williams. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - surely one of the most well known modern mathematicians due to the film on him. Nobel/Abel Prize confirm his scientific credentials. Unnatural death, too. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Support RD. There is no question that this person meets the criteria for ITND. However obits are very rarely posted in the ITN blurb section and the bar there is extremely high. I think Robin Williams got in because he was a global celebrity and a giant in his field. But I honestly don't think this gentleman falls into the same category. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted full blurb. Consensus in favor of full blurb. SpencerT♦C 19:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Mexican shootoutEdit

Articles: 2015 Michoacán shootout (talk, history) and Jalisco New Generation Cartel (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 40 people are killed in a shootout in Mexico between Federal police and members of Jalisco New Generation Cartel.
News source(s): Google

Nominator's comments: Worldwide news.. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 16:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support in principle: See, this is the kind of news that the Waco shootout wasn't. Law enforcement officers were hurt and killed, a notable drug cartel was involved, and the shootout could signal a new phase in the Mexican federal government's willingness to confront cartels. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Sit on your pointy lecturing, Kudzu, it's rude and irrelevant to the nomination, the biker shootout was the biggest ever in the US, this Mexican dustup is par for the course. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Hah...see the death lot. Four times of it...-The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 18:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
My intent is not to lecture, but to explain my reasoning for supporting this while opposing that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll be happy to accept that, but when you start of a comment with "See,..." it sounds like daddy telling sonny boy. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • That being said, it goes without saying that the target article will need to be drastically expanded and improved if we are to post it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Telegraph: "More than 100,000 people have died in clashes between the drug gangs and security forces since the start of 2007" That's about 1,000 a month, over 30 a day. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Correct, but most of the incidents in the conflict involve low counts. 40 dead in the single shootout is notable. ComputerJA () 19:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support assuming the article is improved, a huge loss of life between gangs fighting it out. Gun violence (alone) in the US kills around 30,000 per year, that's about 80 per day. This is a huge story. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Notable event in the Mexican Drug War; even though the conflict has left over 100,000, most of the incidents involve low body counts. 40+ dead in a single event is pretty unheard of for Mexico. In addition, this incident is part of the major crackdown of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel in recent months. ComputerJA () 19:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The above unsourced assertions that this is unique is simply false and just a cursory reading of the sources 44 killed in 2012 prison riot or the 43 dead at the hands of gangs and the authorities 2014 Iguala mass kidnapping and other shootouts involving the arrest of drug kingpins show that violence on this scale in Mexico is hardly unique or even uncommon. Maybe 40 makes the notability threshold, but the reckless disregard of the facts and the comparisons with the US are shameful. μηδείς (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Those are still quite notable events. The incident of the 43 missing students is likely to affect Mexico's presidencies in the years to come. The implications of that case were huge. Aside from that incident, there have not been major events like that in this current administration. The closest one was the mass murder in Tlatlaya, which is one of the biggest scandals the Army has had in years. In terms of cartel–security forces clashes, this is a very notable event. In addition, this event is important because its part of a series of confrontations the Mexican government has had with the Jalisco New Generation. Their leader, Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes ("El Mencho"), is arguably Mexico's most-wanted. ComputerJA () 21:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Medeis. Any event that stirs up this kind of drama is definitely post-worthy. (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant body count for a single incident. As noted, the currently unrated article needs work, which appears to be in progress. Jusdafax 22:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Oppose We just said no to the mass gang shooting in Texas that ended with ten dead and more than 170(!) people facing organized crime charges that could land them in prison for life. Unless the only criteria for ITN is now a body count the Texas shooting was FAR more news worthy than this. I vehemently disagreed with that decision, but the precedent having been put in place I think the bar is now VERY high for these kinds of stories getting onto ITN. Under the circumstances I don't see how we can say yes to this without proclaiming a massive double standard. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support The Mexican drug war has been bloody, and large #s of deaths in incidents like this are not unusual (and even here, where only one ot the deaths were a law enforcement agent, the rest the drug rings). But it has been pointed out that this is perhaps the largest know such event and has rekindled attention that there is a drug war problem in Mexico. --MASEM (t) 01:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment the background is more interesting than the shooting itself - estimates are of 106,000 killed between 2006 and 2014. -- Aronzak (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This is [just] older than the Saudi bombing below. (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Regardless of the anti-American cancer here, I think we should post ongoing conflicts like this to an ongoing ticker, violence in: Mexico, Yemen, Iraq, Syria. Making each of these "yet another mass killing" items a posting when one happened in the same place last month is ridiculous, as well as, of course, needlessly contentious. Only things like the Hebdo, Breivik, Waco and Iguala massacres, which are unprecedented, should be posted. BTW, why is the Iguala massacre still called a "kidnapping" while no one doubts the students were all killed, and no ransom demands have been made? μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • They won't call the Iguala incident a "mass murder" because there are legal barriers that prevent the government from doing that. Only one student has been confirmed dead, and until the government shows that the students were indeed killed, they are categorized as "disappeared". Legally, you cannot be confirmed dead unless (1) post-mortem reports prove that you are or (2) if a judge dictates that you are. The second step can take years. A lot of the parents of the missing students have used this issue to pressure the government to continue with the investigation; they believe that if the government legally considers them dead, they will close the investigation and nothing will be solved. ComputerJA () 15:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Assuming the article's worth posting (I've been checking it for refs and clarifications needed) it's full of comments such as, "At the highway, the gunmen, alleged to be members of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), attempted to flee from law enforcement, ensuing a vehicle persecution." This is apparently the bottom end of machine translation. μηδείς (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment the evidence I provided was purely contextual. If Americans don't like the fact that 80 people in the US are killed every day by guns alone, perhaps they should do something about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Instead of ranting your personal views here as if it was your own blog, do you have any idea how politics and legislatures work? Laws don't get passed by fiat as if your own fiefdom. (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Far from ranting, I was explaining that I was putting the figures into context. If Americans don't like that, they should do something about it. Last time I checked it was a democracy, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually Wikipedia is not a Democracy. Nor is it a FORUM. Some of your commentary has been pushing the envelope, particularly with regards FORUM. Please stop. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to America, obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Americans have the constitutional right to defend themselves, a right which Europeans lack. Europe is populated with millions upon millions of Neville Chamberlains. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Having learnt from the redcoats, never shall we give that up. Meanwhile, I'm off to see our fellow colonists New Zealand thrash the crap out of England at Lord's... (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, not going quite to plan though, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Can we please stay focused on the merits or lack thereof of the proposed ITN blurb and skip the political editorializing. This is not the place for that. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    As I said, my statistics were purely to contextualise this event. It's the Americans who have become sniffy and shouty and ranty. Please check. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Ready: I'm marking this as ready. The article has been expanded considerably. The first oppose was addressed, and the second one has hardly anything to do with the proposed ITN blurb. ComputerJA () 16:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - My previous concerns regarding the article condition have been addressed, and my thanks to those working on it: I agree with the observation that the article is now acceptable for a front page posting, having been upgraded to a solid "start" class. I also agree with those expressing concerns about the editorializing here, which is arguably disruptive and patently uncollegial. Jusdafax 19:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support - still notable enough for inclusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 Chinese floodsEdit

No consensus to post, article has been subsumed into a broader flood topic. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 China floods (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 55 people died in the floods in Yangtze.
News source(s): NYT
Nominator's comments: Notable throughout the globe along with the casualties. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • We need an article to evaluate. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely not "just another flooding" with that many deaths. notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. The article is a stub and in need of major expansion. Also I am not sure that 55 people is all that abnormal for major floods in China. In fact it sounds rather low. I will keep an eye on this in case the article improves dramtically and or more facts become available. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per Ad Orientem. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, we need a much more better article to establish this as significant news. It should be reminded that ITN is not a news ticker but to highlight good-quality articles that happen to be in the news, so the lack of a significant article is troublesome. --MASEM (t) 17:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's been a lot of death-related stories in the ITN already and floods keep happening all the time in China and India. So not an uncommon story. (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The article has been changed to a redirect; without its own article it seems unlikely this will be posted. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Eurovision Song Contest 2015 finalEdit

Article: Eurovision Song Contest 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: Måns Zelmerlöw representing Sweden with the song "Heroes" (performance pictured) wins the Eurovision Song Contest 2015 in Vienna, Austria.
Alternative blurb: Måns Zelmerlöw representing Sweden with the song "Heroes" (performance pictured) wins the Eurovision Song Contest 2015 hosted by Vienna, Austria.
Alternative blurb II: ​"Heroes" performed by Måns Zelmerlöw (performance pictured) representing Sweden wins the Eurovision Song Contest 2015.
News source(s): [14], [15]

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: Eurovision 2015 final tonight. BabbaQ (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong support A majour pan-European event keenly followed and watched by tens of millions of Europeans and has international following as far as Australia. What could be added is that this is the 60th version of the contest. werldwayd (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on conclusion and update - article is prep well enough on that. Only tiny issue on article is that the album soundtrack cover violates NFC (it duplicates the logo of the event and thus unnecessary). --MASEM (t) 13:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Add a image of the winner as well. Before posting.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The articles are updated and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support Major pan-European event, destined to get lots of attention in the media etc. Had a viewership of 195 million last contest, which is 80 million than the Superbowl, and that was deemed worthy. Airlinesguy (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Estimated audience was 200 million: [16] Also notable for being broadcast live for the first time in China. Martinevans123 (talk) ... and we even had the British voting being announced in French!
  • Support - for the record. as nominator.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Bondaruk85 (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The 60th anniversary of the competition and a very close contest, with much less of the reciprocal "political" voting that has marred recent events. Innovative staging of the winning song undoubtedly helped it. Also notable for the inclusion of a song from Australia which came fifth. The article looks excellent. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Biggest music contest in the world.-- (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The 60th anniversary alone is reason enough for inclusion. I'm surprised it isn't up already. Peter Isotalo 11:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Why isn't this up? There doesn't seem to be anything major wrong with our page. SeraV (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The biggest music competition in the world with nearly 200 million views on television and online. Lucky102 (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
An image update might be advisable. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Not the proposed image, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Apparently not. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

May 22Edit

[Closed] 2015 Mexican cartel shootingEdit

Nomination is duplicate of existing nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 Mexican cartel shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: A shootout between Mexican police and unidentified gunmen kills 42 of the gunmen, as well as one police officer.
News source(s): US News CNN BBC
Nominator's comments: Very high death toll. However, I would be OK if this was merged with the other Mexican shooting that had already been nominated. Everymorning talk 11:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment isn't this the same as that already nominated? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, TRM, you appear to be right. I will redirect this page to the other article. Feel free to close this nomination. Everymorning talk 13:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Marques HaynesEdit

Article: Marques Haynes (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USA Today New York Times

Nominator's comments: Played for the Harlem Globetrotters for a number of years. Was often called one of the greatest dribblers in history, according to his USA Today obituary. He was also the first Globetrotter to be inducted into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of FameEverymorning talk 02:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak support: I don't know that being a great dribbler puts you at the top of a field, per se, but he was a notable figure in exhibition basketball and the article is well-referenced. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with more refs: Being in the Hall of Fame is a key sign of being top of his field, but that isn't even cited. Also OR in "Legacy". '''tAD''' (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support the notability is mild despite HoF (several hundred people in that hall) and the article is extremely weak for someone who is considered to be top of his field. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose . I might come down on the support side if the claims about influencing other people were cited, as well as being known for a catch phrase. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose ITN had not posted to RD far more important basketball players. This isn't like ice hockey where we add every dead Hall of Famer. –HTD 11:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • support - still notable. RD seems appropriate.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD A Hall of Famer and iconic figure in the sport. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The major issues with the article should now be resolved. I've removed some unreferenced claims, expanded the sections on his early life, playing career, and retirement, and added several references to reliable sources. If someone wants to mark this as ready to post, I'm all for it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A bit of an unconventional individual, but meets DC#2. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support this article has been increased 50% in size and all the CN's addressed since I checked it at noon. It should go up asap. μηδείς (talk) 04:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Hillary Clinton emails releasedEdit

No consensus to post at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Emailgate#Release (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States Department of State releases hundreds of Hillary Clinton's emails.
News source(s): BBC Reuters NPR
Nominator's comments: This story has gotten a considerable amount of news coverage over the past 2 months since it began, and this development has received a great deal of media coverage, e.g. it is actually the lead story on the BBC ( Everymorning talk 19:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Until there's actually charges made over this, this is just US politics for right now. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This is certainly not "the lead story on BBC news", and not the lead story on their worldwide site either, it's a single line well below the fold and below such excitements as the future career prospects of Ed Balls. This is something literally nobody outside the US is even aware of let alone cares about, and I very much doubt if most people in the US care either. Mogism (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This page warns people not to complain about an event relating to only one country, so the above opposes are therefore suspect. Everymorning talk 19:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • My oppose is not because this is only happening in the US, as this does relate to world events, but it is basically being pushed as a news story because it is a huge politic mess on the year prior to US election year, so right now this is just political party posturing. This is also not expected to reveal any major deep secrets like Snowden's leaks were. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The BBC home page, like a lot of modern websites, changes what article in on its main paged depending on your location. This might be on the top for someone looking at in the United States, but is is a 3rd-level headline, below the fold, on the UK version. Therefore using the local version of the site to claim international coverage is invalid. (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm really not seeing anything here as a news story in the least. It reads and feels more like supermarket tabloid fodder more than a breakthrough or something else of equal weight. The Forex scandal, the ongoing unrest in the Middle East, even association football results seem more newsworthy than this. Challenger l (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Open-ended non-event, with no conclusions drawn. Agree with Challenger 1. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Quite apart from being a parochial political story, the emails don't even appear to be that interesting. Black Kite (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not sure where Walt bashed America, but it doesn't matter; closed should mean closed. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Post-closing oppose for good measure. We don't need to be a running ticker of local political gamesmanship.--WaltCip (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Saudi Arabia bombingsEdit

Article: 2015 Qatif mosque bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Up to 30 people are killed by a suicide bomb in Qatif, Saudi Arabia.
Alternative blurb: ​At least 6 people are killed and 20 injured by a suicide bomb at a Shiite mosque in Qatif, Saudi Arabia.
News source(s): Reuters NYTimes BBC RT

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Oddly enough saudi bombings are rare and this is more sectarian division in the region lately.. (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support — per news of massive loss of life. --Saqib (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if updated – huge devastation and another chapter in the Sunni-Shia relations which have been strained ever further by the Saudi intervention against the Houthis and disputes in the Gulf. The article however is one sentence, clearly not postable. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Do we have a better source on this than the execrable RT? -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • There's definitely more sources, I've added the NYtimes which I note has lower death numbers than RT, and I would consider more reliable for that. Alt blurb to refelct. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Is it just a figment of you imagination or do you have ANY proof beyond your indoctrination from whatshisname at RFE/RFRL that RT fabricates news like NYT and BBC did to go to Gulf War 3.0? Wake up, puppet! (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - first major ISIS attack in the country. --Jenda H. (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ISIL attack could be intended to provoke sectarian conflict. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Return ISIL to ongoing: The rate of incidents involving this unpleasant band has risen sharply over the past couple of weeks. It's time to place ISIL in ongoing once more. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - as per Jenda. --AntanO 13:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Why is this still open? 30 hours gone after nomination and will be stale in another 10 hours. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 14:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing per Kudzul. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Irish marriage referendumEdit

Articles: Same-sex marriage in Ireland (talk, history) and Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Voters in Ireland legalize same-sex marriage in a first-of-its-kind referendum.
Alternative blurb: ​Voters in Ireland legalize same-sex marriage in a first-of-its-kind referendum.
Alternative blurb II: ​Voters in Ireland pass a historic constitutional referendum on same-sex marriage.
Alternative blurb III: Ireland becomes the first country in the world to legalise same-sex marriage by constitutional referendum.
News source(s): Guardian - earlier - BBC Sky guardian (before poll) The Guardian Irish Times France 24

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Unique referendum receiving lots of international attention. Polls forecast a victory for same-sex marriage advocates, which would be historic in such a deeply religious country; if the polls are wrong, that's a story in itself. Kudzu1 (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose Over the past several years a lot of countries have done this and while they have been nominated, it's not really news. If a country in the Middle East votes to legalize, that is definitely post-worthy. SpencerT♦C 07:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose The fact that this is (almost certain to be) the first time that same-sex marriage has been legalized at a national level by direct democracy is interesting, but individual US states have passed marriage referenda before (Washington Referendum 74, Maryland Question 6, Maine Question 1, 2012). Otherwise, as Spencer says, this just another Western European nation (and really, Ireland's behind the curve here - the only places west of the Rhine outside the island of Ireland without same-sex marriage are microstates like Andorra and dependencies like Gibraltar and the Faroe Islands). Smurrayinchester 09:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support only if it passes, not because it legalizes gay marriage, but because it is the first national referendum to do so. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Its not notable. Not a first for the west nor for a Catholic country in the west (spain and Portugal) or outside the west (Argentina and, I believe, Uruguay). Chile legalizing divorce in the 21st century was notable, possibly the last country to do so. Now when Nicaragua legalizes even a section of abortion that would be notable (mother's life at risk for one). (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if passed: Use of direct democracy to change constitutional law. Ireland may not be Uganda, but it is still conservative compared to the rest of northern Europe. If rejected, this merely continues a status quo '''tAD''' (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Important note: The linked page is a framework for both referendums on the same day, the other being a slightly less spicy reduction of the age to be President. The target article should be Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015. Would it over-egg to mention that this is constitutional law? '''tAD''' (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, working on the assumption that the polls are right, and the Irish will do the right thing. Strong oppose if rejected. This is a massive thing for Ireland, homosexuality was only decriminalised there 22 years ago. However, if it passes they will be the 20th country to legalise gay marriage, so it's hardly the news it used to be. Whatever happens, the misspellings in the blurb need to be corrected. Fgf10 (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if passes; as noted by others, this would be the first time that direct democratic action has led to change in same-sex marriage laws for a country. (All others appear to have been via representatives, and not direct democratic action). --MASEM (t) 14:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Just a note that I think the bolded article for the blurb should be Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015. This is what will have the full details of the proposal, referendum, and results. I've put this different wikilinking & bolding as an alt blurb. Mamyles (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if it passes, per tAD and 331. Such a result would have been unthinkable in the religiously conservative Ireland of even 20 years ago. Black Kite (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
It would have been unthinkable in almost ANY country 20 years ago. And it would have been ITN worthy at the time. But this is not 1995. In 2015 Western Countries are practically tripping over each other in a collective rush to legalize SSM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if it passes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose A referendum in a small country that is part of Europe where secularism has been growing by leaps and bounds. I think the only way I might support this would be if it actually failed as that would be a major surprise outcome. Not sure even then. This just looks like the latest domino to fall and fairly unimportant outside of Ireland. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if it passes. .Might help reduce all that illegal cross-border gay cake-running. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
What is a gay cake? Sca (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
This. Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Instead people will focus on the real issue of our times, gay pizzas from Indiana -- Aronzak (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if passes. I usually oppose same-sex marriage posts because it has become common to legislate for it in the West. However, this will be the first time that same-sex marriage will have been introduced through a referendum of all the citizens. That that will happen in a (previously?) very conservative and religious country adds to the notability as a significant milestone in issues around same-sex marriage. --Tóraí (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support First time that Same-sex marriage has been put to a constitutional referendum, and it will be influential in the rest of Europe, especially if it passes. -- Aronzak (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Support if passed. As mentioned above, blurbs need correction, it should be 'legalise'. (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. We should wait for the results, but the No side has conceded defeat. [17] 331dot (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Although results aren't final, Reuters calls it a "landslide," and AP, quoting both sides, says "Ireland has voted resoundingly to legalize gay marriage." Significant, not only as referendum first, but also due to the Irish Republic being (nominally) 84 percent R.C. (cf. Poland 87 percent, Italy 81 percent). Sca (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – always nice when a country votes for something that shouldnt even be an issue. Its 2015 not 1815.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Though I agree, liking the result is not a reason to support posting. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - homosexuality was decriminalised in Ireland in 1993. That's in part why this is emblematic of such a remarkable turnaround for the country in only just over two decades. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as its not noteworthy when a western country does it. It's just a routine for them to go for it (as last week saw a Premier wed his gay partner). But if it happens in East, it definitely IS a news. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 14:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It is noteworthy when it is the first done by referendum, as this is. I agree that the mere fact it is legalized does not merit posting, but the method by which it was legalized should. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
IMO, the country where it was legalized. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 14:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
A court legalizing it nationwide(which might be done in the US soon) or a legislature doing so is very different than the population of a nation voting to do so themselves. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - 22 years after homosexuality was finally decriminalised, it looks like the first national referendum taken on this subject has made Ireland the 20th country to recognize same-sex marriage at a national level. Sounds pretty noteworthy to me. Challenger l (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • support . First country to do so by National referendum.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once final result has been added to the article (expected in about an hour or two from now): It is notable, mainly because it is the first time any country has done this by direct popular vote, but perhaps also because the people voting still seem exceptionally conservative (their Constitution still bans abortion, as a result of a 1983 referendum), and perhaps also because it's deemed notable enough to be made front page news in many parts of the world in such traditional "reliable sources" as the New York Times, Le Monde, Al Jazzeera, etc (for details, see RTE's item on Reaction around the world) - a small West European country's parliament voting for the same thing would be lucky to get a mention on the inside pages. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when passed which is likely as per other posts. Donnie Park (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: that a country has passed same-sex marriage by referendum is so far unique, and thus particularly noteworthy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb III, which explains the historic significance of the vote better than the other options. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Question: should the size of the turnout or the result be included in the blurb? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't think we've mentioned that in past elections and referenda that have been posted to ITN. Official results haven't come out yet, anyway, although it's clear from the returns so far that the amendment was approved by a wide majority. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted using altblurb III; clear consensus to post. Black Kite (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Now appears as Ireland becomes the first country in the world .... IMO it ought to read,The Republic of Ireland becomes the first country in the world.... I realize Ireland links to Republic of Ireland, but it shouldn't be necessary for Main Page readers to click on Ireland to learn which Ireland we mean. Sca (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
(Besides, we wouldn't want to rouse the ire of Northern Ireland residents.) Sca (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, it's not possible up there. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is going to be confused by the blurb because there's only one country that is ever referred to as Ireland. Why add two unnecessary words to a blurb? Formerip (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Except that the word Ireland can refer to the whole island. Support amending blurb.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Inquiry. I thought the Ulstrians called themselves Ulstrians, or Northern Irelanders. I have never heard the Irish call themselves the South Irish. Granted, I don't live there, but this seems like an overcomplication for the sake of justifying British political occupation. Given the "southrons" aren't about to stone queer couples to death, is there a point in this Ulster has nothing to do with it objection? μηδείς (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

May 21Edit

May 20Edit

[Posted] Forex scandalEdit

Article: Forex scandal (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Five banks agree to pay settlement fines totaling over USD $5.7 billion over manipulation of foreign exchange rates in the Forex scandal.
Alternative blurb: ​Five banks agree to pay settlement fines totaling over USD $5.7 billion over manipulation of foreign exchange rates.
Alternative blurb II: ​Five banks agree to fines totaling over USD $5.7 billion over manipulation of foreign exchange rates.
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Significant bank scandal - as this is to clear out legal issues to avoid further investigation (they are pleading guilty to some of the charges), this appears to be the "final" point of this story. MASEM (t) 14:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support A major international banking scandal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Added an altblurb just in case, as the name of this scandal is not necessarily well-known. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support These are some big-name banks, looking at the article. Business is also an infrequently posted topic on ITN. --WaltCip (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Big banks, big bucks. (Is the word settlement necessary?) Sca (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I included that because this should be the practical end of the situation, it is not just fines and the case going forward. But if it is seemingly clear, that can be removed. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
No doubt you mean unclear. Rationale understood, but I just don't think settlement fines is a phrase in general usage. ("Settlement" isn't normally an adjective.) Seems to me if we say "agree to pay fines" the implication that it's a settlement is pretty clear. But no biggie. Sca (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when updated - major news in an area (business) that tends to be underrepresented. The alt blurb is preferable, I think. I don't think "pay settlement fines" is good English. Either "agree to fines" or "announce a settlement" is better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on notability: Big scandal, big money, big news. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Added Altblurb2 based on comments above. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - It's rare when banks get caught and own up to it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added a paragraph to summarize the current news on that article. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb2 - Big money, big banks, big news. This blurb is the most preferable blurb to me Palmtree5551 (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as this is a very important news about the outcome of a major financial scandal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and marked ready. ITN worthy scandal and well cited fit-for-main page article. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 18:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose main blurb, because the capitalisation unjustly accuses an uninvolved Swedish bank. Narayanese (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Merge/blurb: PalmyraEdit

Article: Palmyra (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Islamic state of Syria and Levant seizes holds of the ancient city Palmyra, Syria.
News source(s): Google

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Notable undoubtedly. Suggest a merge with the current ITN blurb. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment According to BBC, they seized the northern part but not reached the ruins yet which are in the south-west. I'm inclined to wait for a while. Brandmeistertalk 14:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Support Reported to be seized now. God save Palmyra from destruction. Brandmeistertalk 08:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait This appears to be an in progress event. Beyond which this has the potential to develop into a really major story given ISIL's aversion to anything hinting at civilization. There are some major ruins there that these savages misunderstood missionaries have vowed to raze. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Multiple RS sources are reporting the city has in fact fallen. And there are huge fears for some of the world's most magnificent ruins. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait but would support if does end up the case. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Reuters is reporting that Palmyra has been seized by ISIS. [18] Everymorning talk 19:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • And now the lead story on the New York Times is that Palmyra has been conquered. Support updating blurb, this is a significant development in this situation. Everymorning talk 22:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support given multiple sources reporting that the town is conquered. Suggestion that we have a possibly better target link than just Palmyra like one to ISIL or this specific expansion? ---MASEM (t) 22:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending update. The article on the city is high quality, in fact is a GA, but so far there are just a couple scattered sentences regarding the fall of the city to ISIS. Jusdafax 01:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Palmyra is in Syria, it's absurd to claim some body whose name would include Israel and Lebanon has accomplished this, when they have taken the northern outskirts. It's like saying Elizabeth, Queen of England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France and the South Seas, has birthed a great grand-daughter. Not that there's anything wrong with that. μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It is not so much that Palmyra is in Syria, but that it is home to a large number of ancient and important ruins that have in the past been key to understanding human developing in the Cradle of Life. And like before, ISIL seems set to wipe out those ruins without care as part of their actions. If it was yet another city in Syria, sure, it would go under ongoing, but its the ruins that many are worried about. --MASEM (t) 03:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Agree with Masem, and if you haven't read the article by all means please give it a look. I was unfamiliar with the rich history of this town. Also, the major natural gas fields in the area are a consideration in the news stories I have been reading. Jusdafax 04:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support merging of blurbs this is a big news story. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. BBC is now reporting that ISIS have entered the World Heritage Site itself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - ISIS are destroyers. It's their nature. This is par for the course, nothing unusual for them. If the world had really cared about that "world heritage site" which ISIS will now wield their implements of destruction upon, they would have done something to stop ISIS. They haven't. If the world doesn't care, why should Wikipedia care? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
The fact that this is indeed in the news, internationally, means that the world does care. What the world might not support is overt military action, but that's another matter and nothing to do with us. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Being in the news is not a ticket to an entry here. If it were, Letterman's final show would have been included. And if the world doesn't care enough to do something about it, it's the same as not caring at all. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any clue as to the international significance of the Palmyra news, as against that of a US media person, about whom the rest of the world says, "Who?". Apparently not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Letterman was covered internationally. Oh, I forgot - wikipedians are smarter than the BBC. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
We are, though not always. Brandmeistertalk 15:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Yep, Letterman is more important than the invasion and probable destruction of thousands of years of history. God Bless America! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted as combined blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment my opposed above was based on the blurb wording and that reports were that they Syrian insurgents hadn't taken the archeologically significant part of the city yet. At this points it's moot and I have no complaints. μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Question- Why is this not ongoing? There are at least ten new stories every day! Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Two reasons: 1) If events are important enough for a blurb, that always overrides an "ongoing" listing. 2) Prior to this week, there was no regularly updated article to point an ongoing listing to. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] David Letterman's final showEdit

No consensus is developing to post, especially give the longevity record is US-only. Stephen 06:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: David Letterman (talk, history)
Blurb: David Letterman, the longest-serving late night talk show host in television history, airs his final show.
News source(s): BBC CBC Sky News (Australia) Le Monde

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: This is entertainment news, but I believe it's significant entertainment news. Letterman is the longest-serving late night talk show host in history, longer than Carson, longer than Leno (albeit on two networks, in two time slots). I don't consider it hyperbole to call the man an icon. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose "Retirement" in this day and age of entertainment is not a sure thing. I'm aware of what Letterman has said that this is it, it, but that can always change. And because his stint as a late night talk show run has not be on the same show, there's nothing there either. But if there's consensus that because he's said multiple times that he's retiring, that might be okay to post. However, I also point out that this is bordering on plain old celebrity/entertainment news, which is something we tend to avoid at ITN. --MASEM (t) 05:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose much for the same reasons as the last season of American Idol. Believe it or not, in other English speaking countries, not many even know who he is. (UK). When he dies, 100% support, but not another show ending, to be replaced by another host. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support everybody in the US knows the show, a bunch of people from outside know it. The show has established many records and somehow it is still popular and pertinent. He does not appear at all to be the know of person to undo the retirement (he is actually old, his place is taken by somebody else, and considering he has made fun of Leno/Conan drama he isn't going to try to undo it). And his retirement is far more notable than a potential death. Nergaal (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nergaal, who said he's known in US and I could hardly find any more notability of him outside America. Its like he's retiring, an expected thing from his faithful old service. Its like that American Idol nom only. Nothing significant. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 06:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose parochial story of little historic or encyclopedic notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I think Letterman would merit posting to RD (in the far future) given his career and as such I think the end of his career is notable, if getting notable coverage which this is(even outside the US). I also don't think this is garden variety celebrity news(like a marriage, divorce, or birth). The fact that retirements can change is not relevant; most items that get posted can potentially change in the future. 331dot (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: We posted Sir Alex Ferguson's retirement. I'm sure that got moderate coverage in the US, just as this gets moderate coverage outside the US. '''tAD''' (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - Letterman is probably better known outside the US than Americans think - for people round the world searching for celebrities on YouTube, Letterman interviews and live music performances often surface high in the results. Bands will routinely Tweet and Facebook "watch us on Letterman tonight". Certainly not a completely parochial story. Black Kite (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose US-centric entertainment news. Letterman is known outside the US, but is show isn't widely watched. Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support We have a really good target article here, and this is a high-interest story for a lot of our readership. --Jayron32 09:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It is in the news, even here in Germany: [19], [20]. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - international has a link from the front page to a story on Letterman. He was on late-night TV longer than Carson. And his article is excellent. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Every show will come to its end at some point and there is no reason to post it unless it has the potential of generating extraordinary impact. Please don't forget that in 2010 we didn't post the conclusion of Larry King Live, which was far more popular and watched TV show.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • That's an example of the WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST fallacy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't take it as a precedent to oppose this but just mention it to explain my reasoning why we shouldn't regress to posting stories with very limited significance in times when the nominations we discuss greatly outnumber those we dealt with five years ago. You cannot simply remove the history of ITN and what we discussed in the past by ruleslawyering as a defending mechanism to throw away the opinions of others. If you wish a simple oppose, then I'd say that this is a minor news with zero impact compared to what is happening in the world these days.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This surprisingly is the type of news that also makes it also to more or less serious news shows outside the US. That makes it a relevant news item. L.tak (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Letterman has been around much longer and has more standing by far than American Idol which was rightly rejected. That said, I am uncomfortable with a lot of these entertainment related stories and don't want ITN turning into the Wikipedia version of Variety (magazine). But yeah this story has been getting a lot of attention from the mainstream press, including some overseas coverage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree that it's an important series, but there is nothing particularly special about a single episode. I do not think a retirement party is especially notable or of import. Frankly, retirement is a typical, routine event. Mamyles (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The episode itself doesn't matter enough for ITN. The infinite nothingness that follows in the series is the neat thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose we shouldn't post this, just like we shouldn't have posted Sir Alex Ferguson's retirement. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Though much ballyhooed, event itself lacks EV. Sca (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, although it won't pass because people tend to get offended when something is America-related. Idol is different; Letterman does have a legacy. There are plenty of British-related blurbs I have no interest or knowledge in, but I don't object to them because people do need equal coverage for big events. Anyone who says a legacy television show ending is not newsworthy is simply blind to culture. Thatdee69 (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Thatdee69: You should be more careful in choosing the words to express your disappointment. Complaining by using phrases like 'blind to culture' largely cross the red line of civility. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support: Letterman is a late-night icon and the longest-serving host. I'm not generally a fan of putting much pop culture on ITN, but I'm inclined to back this nom because he really was a transformative figure in the medium. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose What are we going to have as the update, a run-down of the guests? Letterman's not dead, and the end of the show's been planned years in advance. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. It would be great if ITN had the kind of topic diversity so that it could just include this, but it doesn't, and I think making an exception for this particular story would be the kind of systematic bias we should avoid. Formerip (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I really don't see the significance. Yes, it was a long running programme/host, but in the end it's only a TV programme. Fgf10 (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Only is a strange word to use here, I think. In that respect, you could say that everything that is not politics, war and so forth is only this or that. You could say it about every bit of culture we post here: sports, paintings, etc. The things is, culture (and that includes TV, since it's still the widest ranging form of culture) is not just an ornament of our society, it constitutes one of its very backbones. We consume it every day, it changes the way we look at things, the way we decide. So, yes, it is only a TV programme, but how does that make it any less important than the Islamic State or Barack Obama? Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I would guess it has something to do with longevity. Sure, Letterman will be noted as a celebrated television presenter for years to come but he's not dead, he's simply moved on. Islamic State and Barack Obama will be hard-coded into history indelibly. There's no comparison at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I've never had a good time listening to either of those. People remember the good times. Happy people, anyway. Miserable people are doomed to remember misery. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just in case this does get posted, the blurb should say " US television history". Gay Byrne for one beats him to the international record. Formerip (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    A subtle yet important point, a lot of people are proclaiming Letterman to be this record-holder, but it's simply not true. Good old Gaybo! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as noted above he is not the world record holder (whereas when we noted The Guiding Light's finale, it was the longest-running electronic scripted show at that time by far). Daniel Case (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I had been wondering if he really was the longest-serving late-night chat show host in TV history. Now that we have established that he isn't, I don't see a reason to post. It's a good example of systemic bias in media sources - there are all these news articles saying that he's the longest-serving, but it turns out that's just a case of Americans forgetting the rest of the world exists. Neljack (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I Guess So Canadians are raised on American TV, too. While the rational part of me knows it was just a show, in the grand scheme of things, the irrational part is screaming "Just a show?!? It's David Letterman! He's leaving! Come on, man." It wins this round. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
In the spirit of that rousing Canadian support, I'll be happy to change my vote if we use the blurb "27 years after a guest tried to kick him in the forehead, a gap-toothed Hoosier flees the small screen". μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
A date which will live in infamy. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:55, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • Let's not - Not significant enough. Are there any other internationally significant talk show hosts enough to be mentioned ITN in the future? --George Ho (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Stone Cold Steve Austin (of Lopez Tonight fame) recently got a network deal for his show. It's not a "real" network, just the WWE Network, but still reaches about 175 countries. In that sense, it makes the "Big 3" look small. He shouldn't be cancelled for a while, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but there's also the fact that my ultimate crush flashed Letterman. OR has to count for something here. μηδείς (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

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

May 19Edit

[Closed] Refugio Oil SpillEdit

Snowclose. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Refugio Oil Spill (talk, history)
Blurb: An oil spill off the coast of California results in an estimated 21,000 gallons of crude oil spilling into the Pacific Ocean.
News source(s): CNN NPR BBC
Nominator's comments: A state of emergency has been declared in California as a result of this, as per the BBC link above. Reuters also says it could be "the biggest oil spill to hit the Santa Barbara coastline in more than four decades." [21] Everymorning talk 18:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It looks like this isn't a particularly large spill: the affected area is very local, just a handful of square miles. Around 100k gallons is an environmental disaster, but multiple orders of magnitude less than previously posted spills. As a benchmark, even the New York Times (as a USA source) does not currently mention this on their homepage. Mamyles (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - The coast has been affected by the spill. How would the impact depend on some square miles and size? We don't know what type of oil it was, but we can't use this as preventing the story from being posted. George Ho (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Small oil spills are actually pretty common. Databases that keep track of spills don't even put emphasis on oil spills less than 700 tonnes. This is 330 tonnes. Mamyles (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Highlighted in the news because it's affecting a well-known beach area. It is by no means a massive spill compared to say Exxon Valdez, and cleanup will be much easier. --MASEM (t) 20:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Do the math. a 5x5x4 meter cube of oil would be 26,400 gallons. Versus the Pacific (which is Latin for hu-effing-mongous) Ocean. μηδείς (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support If 100k gallons is an environmental disaster, as Mamyles says, than new estimates of how much spilled meet that threshold. The blurb is out of date, as they say now that 100k spilled. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
For those not familiar with the term Mamyles used, "multiple orders of magnitude" means hundreds or thousands of times smaller. Four times bigger than estimated does not equal hundreds or thousands of times bigger. μηδείς (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I just had the idea to look up List of oil spills to put this into perspective, and does it ever. Change to weak oppose. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Hatton Garden safe deposit burglaryEdit

Consensus for this will not develop. Stephen 02:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Hatton Garden safe deposit burglary (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Nine people are arrested in connection with the Hatton Garden safe deposit burglary, which occurred in April.
News source(s): CNN Wall Street Journal BBC
Nominator's comments: This heist is clearly a significant event and I think that this is a significant development in this case. Everymorning talk 22:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Arrests aren't the same as convictions. If they are found/plead guilty of this, that might be reason to post, but not before. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I edit-conflicted with Masem saying pretty much the same as him. Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above comments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] László Krasznahorkai wins Man Booker International PrizeEdit

Stale. Stephen 01:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: László Krasznahorkai (talk, history) and Man Booker International Prize (talk, history)
Blurb: László Krasznahorkai wins the Man Booker International Prize for fiction.
News source(s): Newsweek 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.
 Everymorning talk 16:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support although László Krasznahorkai should be updated with prose regarding his receipt of such a prestigious literary award. I don't even think the article states what he won for. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added some prose to the author's article about this prize. Also, my understanding is that this prize isn't awarded for a single work but rather for a body of work, [22] so you don't really win it for anything. Everymorning talk 17:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support both articles are adequate, ITNR so not much more to think about. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvements Krasznahorkai's article is woefully undersourced for a BLP, but otherwise this is appropriate to include at ITN. --MASEM (t) 06:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    • article is now in better shape and good enough for posting per Kudzu1's updated below. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Marking ready unless there are any objections at this stage. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Krasznahorkai's article is a bit weak (underreferenced) and I would expect to see some prose about the award at the target article (probably Krasznahorkai's since there is no 2015 award page). --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @ThaddeusB: I've done a little bit of work on the article, but it might need some additional polish, if you want to take a look. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Removing ready. The bolded article does not have a sufficient prose update. (Compare Man_Booker_International_Prize#2015 with previous years). SpencerT♦C 07:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Spencer: Now updated, if you want to review. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

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

[Withdrawn] RD: Happy RockefellerEdit

Writing on the wall is clear. Closing this one myself. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Happy Rockefeller (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Former Second Lady of the United States; her involvement with Nelson B. Rockefeller was quite a social scandal in the day. Kudzu1 (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Support Strongly support Never heard of her, and don't believe "Second Lady" is an important title, but her last name is globally significant and her first name is joyous. Will take Kudzu's word that she had quite a scandal back in the day. Other people probably remember it, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:40, May 20, 2015 (UTC)
Strengthened support after discovering her actual first names, Margaretta Large Fitler Murphy, are even better than happiness. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:45, May 20, 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No leadership in field shown. Being part of a scandal may be something but really, I'm not seeing that as important. Further, just being married to a sitting vice-president (or even president) is necessary important, though counter that there have been First and Second ladies that have been very active in political and/or social causes (such as Ladybird Johnson, Nancy Reagan, Hillary CLinton, and Michelle Obama). She may have had some philanthropy but far far less than any of these better examples, so again, not a leader in the field. --MASEM (t) 01:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as nothing top of field could be said. Plus, when you speak of scandals, Monica is the top of the field. No news of her outside US again. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 06:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Masem; her notability is largely due to being married to a VP. Coverage seems limited, as well. 331dot (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Nelson Rockefeller was a lot more than "a VP". When Ford appointed him VP, I recall one commentator saying that merely being VP wasn't enough: "Anyone who owns something should be president of it." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Masem. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous. Whatever notability was ascribed to Happy Rockefeller in the U.S. is long past. Sca (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose No evidence of any real importance independent of her husband. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 2015 Burundian unrest/coup d'état attemptEdit

Articles: Pierre Nkurunziza (talk, history) and 2015 Burundian coup d'état attempt (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Burundian president Pierre Nkurunziza (pictured) returns to power after an unsuccessful coup d'état attempt during the 2015 Burundian unrest.
News source(s): 1500 of them

Nominator's comments: Notable and coup attempt was nominated by me before and closed as no consensus that time. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support While a failed coup, now that the dust has settled, it's reasonable to consider posting. I would rather see the merge aspect dealt with first (I agree the coup should be merged into the main unrest article). --MASEM (t) 17:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Procedural note: I nominated this for ITN just a few days ago. Perhaps the nominations should be merged as well...? -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support over 112,000 refugees have fled the country fearing unrest, three cabinet ministers dismissed, the election postponed, Armed soldiers are on the streets and heavy gunfire reported - one soldier has been killed by police fire. -- Aronzak (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted - Between the three nominations, there appears to be consensus to post at some point and no one has objected to this timing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Columbian landslideEdit

Article: 2015 Colombian landslide (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A landslide in Colombia kills more than 75 people.
Alternative blurb: ​A landslide kills more than 78 people in Salgar, Colombia.
News source(s): NYT CNN ABCFP

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A top headline in every newspapers. -The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 02:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose No article and not on the front page of any of the new sources I read (not on BBC, not on NBC, etc etc) EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. As to notability, we didn't post a similar landslide with a large death toll in a part of Afghanistan where landslides are common just a few weeks ago. I'd be interested in knowing more about how common these phenomena are in this part of Colombia before judging whether this seems like a notable occurrence. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • The article is in way better shape now, the death toll is substantial, and I will support alt blurb. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support subject to article expansion, in light of the death toll and widespread media coverage. Neljack (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on notability as was certainly on the front page of my BBC yesterday, albeit briefly, but oppose on quality as it's barely even a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    Actually, it now does feature on my BBC News homepage. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on notability. Not posting Afghanistan was a mistake (and a freak occurrence based on my years on ITN experience) and shouldn't be used to judge other stories. Obviously the article quality will need improved to at least start class. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Death toll is up to 78 and likely to rise, making this the worst single-event disaster in Colombia in more than 15 years. Article is now in good shape. If @EoRdE6 and Kudzu1: could take another look and revise their comments accordingly, I would appreciate it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted a short, referenced article should now placate the opposition on the grounds of quality, and reset the benchmark for discussing further natural disasters. Stephen 04:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

May 18Edit

[Posted blurb] RD/blurb: Aruna ShanbaugEdit

Article has been posted. Please take your personal bickering elsewhere (or preferably nowhere). This is a collaborative project and such bickering accomplishes nothing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Aruna Shanbaug case (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Aruna Shanbaug, a rape victim dies after spending 42 years in coma stage.
News source(s): Google search
Nominator's comments: Aruna Shanbaug, an Indian nurse, who was raped and the effect laid her in coma for 42 years. The related case was famous in India for being the centre of a court trail on euthanasia. -The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 09:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The fact that the article is basically a direct to the case and not the person (as per WP:BLP1E) is a clear sign she's not important in her field. I'm not sure if we necessary want to highlight death of an unintentional victim of a crime as their sole claim to notability. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Without weighing in one way or the other on it's suitability, IF it were to be posted, it would have to be a blurb, because the death itself is what needs highlighting. In other words, this is a case where the death is notable, rather than the death of someone who is notable. RD is for the latter. --Jayron32 14:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • support - I think this is important enough for ITN. The blurb could need some changes though.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - her case is important in a long-running debate and a supreme court case in India about euthanasia. Maybe the blurb should be edited to reflect that. -Zanhe (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I think I would be willing to support this if this blurb was not so much about how she got in a coma, but what impact that had in Indian law re: euthanasia. Keep in mind the article is about her case, not about her, which is what we should focus on. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree, and that's why I supported blurb and not RD. She was not an important person in her field, but her case has had great impact on Indian law and society, and that's what we should focus on. -Zanhe (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support the article is alright, and the notability of the story is beyond doubt, it passed by the homepage of the international BBC website. Masem's claim that she's not " a clear sign she's not important in her field" is a little odd, her field being kept alive in a persistant vegetative state for 42 years after being raped. Her field has since become a subject of debate surrounding euthanasia in India and, as I've already said, has been noted widely and prominently. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • She didn't anything purposely to merit being in this "field" , nor would I want to think anyone would want to be known as a leader in that field. But as the central point of the issue of euthanasia, her passing is a reminding that her case established how euthanasia is handled in country containing 1/7th of the world's population. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Nobody suggested she became notable in this way purposely. To even suggest or consider to be the case is absurd and sickening. Your original point was that she was not important in her field. Perhaps a blurb is more appropriate in that case, given the chronic nature of her long-term palliative care. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
        • That's why I think I said I would probably support a blurb that puts the emphasis that her coma situation was the central aspect in how euthanasia is now treated in India; just having her as RD without context would not be appropriate (particularly when , per WP:BLP1E we would not have an article on her separately). The blurb takes the emphasis of her being "important" and instead refocuses on her case being what was important. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support The target article is actually the Aruna Shanbaug case. Not opposed to blurb, since the cause of death would normally be listed as the assault (and subsequent deterioration) in the US. μηδείς (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb As Jayron32 describes at the top of the page, this type of case is not what RD is for. It is her death itself which is (part of) the notable event, and this is certainly notable enough. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb agree with others here EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD and weak oppose blurb per Masem. Independent notability doesn't exist for RD; she is known solely for being the victim of a crime several decades ago. If a blurb is posted, a better blurb is needed -- one that makes it clear to the reader why we're posting her to ITN, probably referring to any cause celebre status she held in her country. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted - Several comments suggested a different blurb, but nothing specific was offered. I thus made one up:
Aruna Shanbaug, a rape victim whose case sparked debate on euthanasia in India, dies after 42 years in a persistent vegetative state.
Please suggest improvements if you can. --ThaddeusB (talk)
  • Oppose/pull and I am kinda surprised such a non-obvious ITN item got posted so fast. Her death was not unexpected, nor notable, and rape-related incidents are rather overrepresented in ITN (similarly to shootings in the US). I suggest pull unless there is a more clear consensus to support this rather limited impact and notability incident. Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
"So fast"? The nomination was open for ~24 hours before posting and the consensus was obvious. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Contrary to Nergaal's assertion, news outlets treated this as a big deal. It is not for us to wish they hadn't. --Jayron32 16:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
News outlets in India? News outlets in the US go all out every time there is a shooting spree, but it is still basically the same old story. India and rape, US and shootings. Nergaal (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with the blurb. If it were my choice, the item wouldn't have been posted, but I'm fine with the blurb that ThaddeusB put up. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Me too, User:Nergaal is starting to demonstrate signs of lack of WP:COMPETENCE with his posts. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
You should change your name to TROM since you do sound like one. Can't see a day pass by without a cranky post from you. Nergaal (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Completely agree. He whinges about everything he doesn't personally like and ritually criticizes others while expecting his nominations to be a god send. Clear COMPETENCE deficiencies there in his apparent right to abuse anyone and everyone he sees fit. (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
When insulting someone it's preferable to use real words otherwise nobody will have a clue what you are on about. Stephen 04:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
O is for really Old. Nergaal (talk)

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

[Posted] RD: Dean PotterEdit

Article: Dean Potter (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Article updated

Nominator's comments: I can almost smell the "Occupational hazard" and other witty ways to say no, but the article on this freeclimber shows that he did some famous firsts. After all, we did post someone else's famous first of climbing El Capitan earlier this year '''tAD''' (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as ITN has a newfound love of such activities as noted by the nominator. Article is decent enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support; seems important to the climbing world. As noted the article seems OK too. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support: To contrast, the previous nom was about being the first to do what was considered a near-impossible free climb. Here, as I'm checking, Taft Point is far less difficult to get to, and it has been been base jumped from before (possibly even by Potter himself) - there was no "first" being attempted here; further, the activity is considered illegal there, and as the BBC notes, Potter's defied authority to do stuff at Yosemite before. That said, he is a leader in the field of rock climbing it appears, so RD seems fine. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose He was not a leader in rock climbing. Free solo he did nothing more difficult than Separate Reality - that was first climbed free solo 20 years earlier. In speed climbing, on The Nose (El Capitan) others have already beaten his time by a significant margin (a fact the fanpage article fails to mention). The first free climb by someone else of El Capitan was a notable achievement in climbing, having once owned the speed record on one of the routes is not a notable achievement. LoveToLondon (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • He has been described as "Renowned extreme athlete" [23]; "one of America's best known extreme athletes" (BBC article); "was widely considered one of the most influential climbers" [24]; "pioneering climber" [25]; said that his death "sent shockwaves through the climbing world" [26]; "iconic extreme athlete" [27]; "notorious thrill seeker" [28]. Seems to be a leader in climbing to me. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "sent shockwaves through the climbing world"? You failed to quote the source correctly. LoveToLondon (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, but that conveys the gist of what was said, and doesn't change my point. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It clearly changes your point. If you would claim he was famous for being a notorious thrill seeker completely ignorant of the law and safety, there might or might not be enough notability for RD in that field now that the inevitable has happened. Regarding climbing, please show non-US sources saying he was one of the worlds leading climbers. LoveToLondon (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If you say it changed it, OK. Sources: "Potter, 43, was a climbing and wingsuit pioneer and the creator of “freebase"" (The Guardian); "He was famous for his audacious, solo, bare-hand climbs up some of the world's most terrifying cliffs and walls" (ITV); "An extreme athlete and BASE-jumper known for climbing some of the world's highest cliffs without ropes or aid" (Independent); the Irish Times has similar language. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The ABC in Australia states "Dean Potter, one of America's best known rock climbers" [29]. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The only actual climbing achievement your sources list is Delicate Arch, and that is not a difficult climb. You omitted the most hilarious part of what your non-reliable sources wrote: Potter had been known for constantly pushing the boundaries of climbing and often scaled some of the world’s most daunting cliff faces alone and without ropes, climbing with his bare hands. For any scientific achievement a peer-reviewed article is highly requested for ITN posting, but for achievements in climbing you cite articles as sources that were written by people who did not even know that using your bare hands is the normal way of climbing? LoveToLondon (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
If you are just going to dismiss every source there is, then I'm not sure why I bothered. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Or maybe they were just writing for their readers. But, who knows, perhaps he managed without socks, too? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - On one hand, we're not the Darwin Awards. On the other hand, this is an unusual way to die and is notable in that regard.--WaltCip (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for RD, Support article quality. Anyone with a viral film called When Dogs Fly deserves an appearance on the front page. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose after reading the article. Guy who has been flirting with death for 20 years (and has practically no news coverage outside specialist sources whilst doing so) finally makes a mistake. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    Interesting perspective. The fact his death is covered in detail by major news outlets makes you think he is only noted in "specialist sources"? I think we can safely discount this. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    Well, not if you actually read my comment properly - my point was that he wasn't particularly notable in life (hence my point that 90% of the sources in his article pre-death were specialist ones), so we have to decide if his death is notable enough for RD. My opinion is that it isn't. Black Kite (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    We are judging if he was important to his field (the RD criteria relevant here), not if he was notable to all of humanity. 331dot (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While I agree that his death is in the news media and that the article meets minimum standards, I look at the other RD listings and don't see that Dean Potter makes the cut. Will many remember this person a decade or two from now? We all have our own definition of where to draw the line for RD listings. This nomination, in my view, does not qualify. Jusdafax 20:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    He broke records, climbed "the first major section of El Capitan to be free soloed" : see our previous glorification of someone climbing El Capitan in stages over several days with several re-starts. What's the difference? Will many remember the names of those who made the first climb of the tricky side of El Capitan (in stages, over several days, with several fails) in a decade or so? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    {to Justdafax) How can we predict the future and know who will be remembered in ten years? There are likely many cases where the opposite is true; we think a person might be notable in ten years and they end up not being so. In the climbing community it seems like he will indeed be remembered, based on how he is described. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    Comment For a short time he was together with his partner the fastest on one specific route and only until someone else was significantly faster. Quoting El Capitan: There are more than 100 different routes on El Capitan and most of them have some kind of speed record attached to them. Ammon McNeely owns the most records on El Cap, 23 records in total, 13 of them being First One Day Ascents. And a short free solo of some part where you pick the easiest route is not as much of an achievement as free climbing a whole wall in 19 days. LoveToLondon (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    HiLo, how can you quote a rock formation? Have you been watching too much television? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment am unopposed, but think maybe an 'in sports" ticker would be better for things like this, Belmont, La Liga, etc. Less sports domination, less rancor, better actual news coverage. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I have wanted to remove sports stories for some time. After all, this feature is "In The News." As for the other comments, I repeat, you folks have your standards, I have mine. Jusdafax 21:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
My giddy aunt! These sports are even more exciting than Henley Regatta! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Justdafax, please respond to my comment above. 331dot (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I decline further discussion. I have taken Medeis' idea to the talk page for a !vote. Jusdafax 01:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • General comment honestly, is it better to have stale or no RDs listed at ITN or list articles about clearly notable individuals who are in the news with half-decent articles? I love the fact some here are trying to get ITN shut down, but let's not bow to that stupid approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • General answer A rambling person claiming someone is clearly notable does not imply that the person is actually clearly notable. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The opposite is true as well; you insisting they aren't notable doesn't mean they aren't notable. 331dot (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • HiLo, if this individual is not notable, I suggest you take the article to WP:AFD. Or don't you do that sort of thing? The Rambling Man (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not really notable outside the small community of people into extreme outdoor sports. Many people, even in the U.S., heard about him for the first time today. Daniel Case (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The RD criteria relevant here is whether he was important to his field, not to all of humanity. People having heard of him today means that people will want to learn about him, and might come to Wikipedia to do it, which is one of the purposes of ITN. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Judging from the article on him and the general tone I'm seeing - this was clearly one of the most notable climbers of the present day. A risk-taker, and someone that sought a challenge in what he did, and how he lived. More than that, and I start going into op/ed. Reported by major news sources, influential and notable in his field. Sourcing looks good. Challenger l (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: A noted extreme sportsman, and one who died in a very unusual way (wingsuit accident?). This is a no-brainer to post. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and marking ready. No question of notability here. We read of him here in India even. Plus, B B King is lying there for a week almost. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment agree this is ready to post. I would, but I have conflict of interest since I have already strongly advocated it should be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] La LigaEdit

Articles: 2014–15 La Liga (talk, history) and FC Barcelona (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In association football, FC Barcelona win La Liga.
News source(s): Scores

Nominator's comments: Notable event with great in depth media coverage. -The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support pending article updates Oppose as not ITNR as originally listed. There is absolutely nothing in the lead about the fact this is an association football championship. Further, I feel there needs to be more prose as you only have 4-5 short para supporting lots of tables. --MASEM (t) 04:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
My mistake..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support La Liga is as least as strong as the Premier League. Including one and excluding the other is unjustified. Soccer is, by some distance, the most popular sport in the world, so I don't think this would result in having too many items about it, as some have suggested. It is reasonable for the most popular sport to have more than others. Neljack (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    La Liga is nowehere near as strong as the Premier League in a footballing sense, yes it has Barca and Real but beyond that, just minnows really. Hence the sheer volume of goals scored by those top two clubs. The Premier League is a very different beast indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Hence Sevilla FC reached the 2015 UEFA Europa League Final, rather than Everton, Tottenham or Liverpool '''tAD''' (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, British clubs take the Europa League very seriously indeed! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
        • The British clubs also had no team in the Quarterfinals of the Champions League. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
          • And your point? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
            • None of the 7 English teams in the European competitions made it into the best 8 of their competition. Looking at the last 5 years (equally weighted), UEFA ranks English teams narrowly ahead of Germany and far behind Spain. (That is the list that decides the number of berths in the competitions for the countries.) LoveToLondon (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
              • And Hull City rank above Lyon. So what? UEFA rankings apply to those clubs who have participated in European competitions, my comment was on the domestic competition (which La Liga is, right?). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
                • Btw: Germany will be ahead of England at the beginning of next season. But I still agree, the Premier League is by far the strongest in Europe. The Bundesliga might be more balanced than La Liga, but the Spanish top teams are still way ahead of Dortmund, Gladbach, Schalke etc... Unfortunately. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support We need a review of ITN/R when it comes to soccer. At the moment, only Premier League of national competitions is listed. La Liga and Bundesliga have global interest at least level to the Premier League, at least the winning teams do. And I read the other day that due to crap performances in European competitions, the Premier League is close to sinking below Serie A in the rankings. Also, in a couple of weeks we have the FA Cup, which is widely watched and as much a part of sports culture over the last century and a half as The Ashes, The Boat Race and the World Series. '''tAD''' (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
While I appreciate you speaking out for the Bundesliga, it is not "at least level to the Premier League"... Cardiff City earns twice as much from TV revenues than Bayern München![1] I am usually one to support this Wiki being broad and international, but in this case I would support an English Wiki only posting the only English speaking football league that matters. So Opposse from me. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support notability we should post this on its own merits. It is league watched around the world, a league which regularly deposits two or three clubs into the semifinals of the two European contests, more so than most, if not all other European leagues. Oppose on quality the season article is lame and has virtually no prose, along with a couple of maintenance tags. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • The Rambling Man: I added a small bit of prose above the league table. The thing with league season articles is that they cover 380 matches, so naturally people find it easier to make tables of the sackings, hat-tricks etc rather than write something so dynamic. '''tAD''' (talk) 06:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I just glanced at 2013–14 La Liga and thought it to be a markedly better article. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
        • There's still on more round of matches, we can't put anything about top scorers, top goalkeepers or any other relegation/European places until then. '''tAD''' (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Another routine sporting ritual won by the usual suspect in the usual way. Andrew D. (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Note Speaking in an admin capacity, with no horse in this race, regardless of whether or not people support this on significance makes no difference, the article is not postable in its current state. There's almost no prose in it describing the season. It's a bunch of tables and a little bit of introductory text for a few of them. --Jayron32 08:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sets unfavorable precedent of posting domestic league results from non-English speaking countries. --Tocino 13:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • You may wish to refactor that statement.--WaltCip (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      • @Tocino: If notable, we should post items from non-English speaking countries as it helps work on systemic bias issues. Further, single-country objections are not valid, as stated under the "Please do not" section above. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
        • It's not a single-country objection. It's an objection to broadening the scope of sports results that are eligible to be posted on ITN. --Tocino 14:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
          • We don't deal in precedent here; we deal with each nomination on its individual merits. If something gains consensus to post and is deemed adequate from a quality standpoint, it will be posted. "Non-English speaking countries" is such an objection as you are saying it does not relate to English-speaking countries. We aim to be an encyclopedia for all information, not just that which is in English. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on notability. The (non-quality based) opposes consist of "it's a sport" (philosophical opposition to all sports) and "they don't speak English there" (encouraging systematic bias contra policy) and thus hold almost zero weight. La Liga is a major league with major interest and impact both within Spain and outside of Spain. The article will need some work, however, to be posted, as noted above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Should we post the Bundesliga as well? What about Serie A? Ligue 1? Tocino 15:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I would cut it off at Bundesliga, as Premier+Liga+Bundesliga are a step above the rest of the world's football leagues, but that is not really relevant to this discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that 4 weeks after the championship was decided in Germany... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe ITN needs a supplement called "Already gone from the news." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I see plenty of English-speaking interest in the winners of the Premier League, La Liga, Bundesliga and Serie A. I know the Americans hate it, but association football is so much more important to the global English-speaking community that it deserves its place at ITN in most leagues. I was fascinated to learn that to win the Superbowl, you have to participate in a total of 20 games. Twenty games, each one lasting an hour. With a team of dozens of offensive, defensive and specialist players. All padded up. So twenty hours of game play will get you to be the universal champion of American football.
I think to be the English champion of association football, you might have to play 38 games each lasting 90 minutes with a team of 16 or so. Three subs maximum per game. The fact of the matter is that the round-ball game has far more universal interest, even in the English-speaking world. This isn't American Wikipedia, it's the English-language Wikipedia, and most English-speaking football supporters would agree that La Liga, at the very least, is a worthy entry in our rapidly moving ITN section of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
You make a good point. Could we maybe agree to keep it out this year since we did not post the Bundesliga either, also considering the article might not be in shape at a time that this is still "in the news", but that we discuss which leagues to add to ITN/R for future reference? Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Major sports championships should be noted, even if it is just soccer. ITN need not just be a murder-and-mayhem summary. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait and merge Bundesliga ends on the 23rd, Premiership ends on the 24th. We should do what was done last year and merge multiple football blurbs together. Spain, England and Germany are the top three, so I'd restrict it to those, but in theory Ligue 1 or Serie A could go in as well, at risk of overloading the blurb. Smurrayinchester 15:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    But Bayern and Chelsea are already confirmed as champions, I don't see the point in waiting here. The Rambling Man (talk)
  • Support. Strongest soccer league with the best teams and best players. Maybe Spain is only so far ahead when the best teams in each league are compared but those teams determine the difficulty of winning the league. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment happy to post this once the maintenance tag above the hat-tricks sections is dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I have added a match report as reference to each hat-trick and removed the tag. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pulled The quality problems noted above by several editors were not adressed. Regardless of significance, the article text itself is NOT main-page ready. --Jayron32 16:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
What, specifically, are you concerned about regarding article quality? It looks like the maintenance tag TRM was waiting on had been resolved. Mamyles (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
What problems? The article looks to be in acceptable shape to me and roughly the same quality as the posted (and not pulled Premier League article). --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Alright. --Jayron32 17:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Oops! I'm content. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Query: SO, what is the World Series / Super Bowl of this sport? Seems like there's a gazillion of them in ITN for this, cricket, rugby, etc. Keep things simple and straightforward for those of use that have never heard of them so we know what the top-rung is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Domestic European sports leagues usually don't have playoffs. Everybody plays everybody at home and away, and the result is determined by adding points for all league games in the season. La Liga is the top soccer league in Spain and the winner is simply called the Spanish champion. There is also a Spanish cup tournament Copa del Rey which has a final, but the cup is less prestigious than the league in all countries and sports I know about. In addition to domestic leagues and cups, many sports also have a European championship. For soccer the main club event is the UEFA Champions League which both has a group stage and a knockout phase. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

May 17Edit

[Closed] 2015 Macedonian protestsEdit

Gone stale; no apparent consensus to post. Closing without prejudice to revisiting this later. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 Macedonian protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Macedonia, thousands of people protest to demand the resignation of Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski.
News source(s): BBC New York Times CNN
Nominator's comments: These protests seem significant as they have involved a large number of people and have received a lot of news coverage. Everymorning talk 21:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely making headlines, and that is what ITN is about. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait: Let's see if this develops further. Not seeing a case for notability right now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The article needs to be updated and reworked. It has to be mentioned that two separate protests occurred in two days in different places: the first one organised by the opposition to demand resignation from the Prime Minister and the second one organised by the government to refuse the resignation. In its current shape, the information in the article may mislead the reader that it documents a single event in which the governmental supporters clashed with those who support the opposition. I also see that some sentences are written in future tense to indicate the event happening on 18 May, which was yesterday.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait till a better view is established. We have scores of such cases in ITN yearly which rarely threat a government. Better to wait till 20th. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose we have protests involving thousands of people all the time all over the world. I'd like to understand what makes this any more notable than any of the other protests which involve thousands of people. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Major international news coverage. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Waco biker gang shootingEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 06:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 Waco shootout (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Waco, Texas, 10 are dead, 18 wounded, and 170 arrested after a shootout between rival biker gangs.
Alternative blurb: ​In Waco, Texas, nine people are dead, seven hospitalized and about 170 arrested after a shootout involving rival outlaw motorcycle clubs.
News source(s): CNN, BBC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The article exceeds requirements for posting and update. μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as nom. If anyone can name a bigger biker gang shootout in the last few decades (or ever), they should go ahead. We have a great article, and this is a very rare event. μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Not run-of-the-mill American crime; article in good shape. SpencerT♦C 20:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Again. As the CNN article states, the only injured/dead are the biker gangs themselves (no bystanders or police). This was also far less worse than it could have been as police were tipped there was going to be an issue, so this is just gang violence, far too common in the US unfortunately. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Prove it, please, Masem. Please list the last biker gang dispute that left 9 dead, or even gang of any sort dispute that left nine dead. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
From the numbers here [30] 5-6 (mostly intercity) gang members are killed every day in the US. 9 is by no means a stretch. The only reason this is getting coverage is 1) it's Waco and/or Texas which has a notoriety for guns and 2) its biker gangs - mostly white - as opposed to minority-heavy intercity gangs. It's the usual press bias at work here. --MASEM (t) 21:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The dispute has left 10 dead, Masem, not nine. And you haven't answered my question. When is the last time 10 were left dead (18 injured, 170 arrested) in one such incident. It almost sounds like some sort of Mancastrian Soccer Hooliganism, innit? μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
You're focusing too much on the numbers. Gang violence happens on the US, period, and not in small numbers. Like bombings that have happened in the Middle East. Here, moreso, the situation was one specifically created by the gangs involved. It wasn't the government, it wasn't a protest, it was rival gangs that decided they were going to have a shootout. Fortunately, the police were alerted and make sure to arrive quickly and with medical help as to prevent any civilian deaths or injuries (which would have been a factor for ITN posting if there were significant civilian injuries), or any police deaths or injuries. It may be a large shootout, and the subsequent arrest a rather large cleanup, but the main event was something that was pure posturing and aggression by the gangs. It's no different than much of the violence that we overlook throughout the rest of the US, or what happens in the Middle East. It's when that violence spills over to civilians that is when it becomes a more significant story to review. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Bikers aren't civilians? Citation needed. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:58, May 18, 2015 (UTC)
OK, Donald Eugene Chambers was an actual soldier. But he wasn't in Waco. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, May 18, 2015 (UTC)
In this very specific case, I'm talking to people that were not involved with the fight (that were not members of the gangs) and were not police officers. Or to put it in a better way, no bystanders were harmed per sources, as opposed to the word "civilians". --MASEM (t) 01:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
That's much better. I still find it hard to assume everyone killed or injured was literally in the fight (i.e. shooting). Don't know yet, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, May 19, 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, even newest stories say the dead are yet fully IDed but police still think them all bikers. I will note I might reconsider based on one more recent story I just saw: CNN reporting that bikers in the nearby region are arming themselves and traveling to TX, indicating more violence may be coming. --MASEM (t) 01:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't doubt it. It's not the sort of thing that groups that consider themselves families just forget. Yet, there too, bikers may be killed for just wearing the wrong patch or catching a stray bullet. Regular Joes who just wanted to ride bikes, have fun and come along for support (in a bloodless "show of force" way) when things go down. Not inherently shittier people or worth less than cops or even pregnant women. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:58, May 19, 2015 (UTC)
And for a lot of us, riding motorcycles is what makes bikers special. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, May 18, 2015 (UTC)
Also, the Bandidos aren't exactly white. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, May 18, 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the second time, a bunch of stupid Americans shooting other stupid Americans. It's great and an advocacy of the right to bear arms, second amendment, God Bless America, etc etc, but honestly, it's just a stupid joke when you have a bunch of idiots shooting each other and we suddenly need to promote it here. Idiocy personified, and already way down on the BBC website for international readers, behind "EU backs migrant crisis naval force"... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - 170 arrests. Not your typical gang fight. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Plaintive heartfelt oppose, not yet more American sporting fixtures. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support That's an uncommon number of dead, wounded and arrested, for any skirmish not in an official warzone. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, May 18, 2015 (UTC)
  • It's pretty clear that this is not notable, as evidenced by the responses to my below nom.--WaltCip (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Medeis. See closed nomination below as well. (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC) (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Medeis supports this. Do you mean Masem? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, May 18, 2015 (UTC)
I mean Medeis. The arguments Medeis gives for posting, are to me, convincing reasons not to support. I am surprised that this nomination was not deleted by an Admin. Based on the short time lapsed from the below nomination, it seems a waste of time if not disruptive. (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC) (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
That's sort of how I feel about Masem's argument. If only bikers were civilians bystanders, that'd be a support. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, May 19, 2015 (UTC)
I can't speak for Masem, but I don't think his argument was that bikers are not civilians, but that gang members are not (in their own parlance, natch) civilians. The fatalities in this shootout were, AFAIK, all combatants. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Still seeing no word on that, yet. But maybe. I hope so. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:27, May 20, 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – I'm no fan of bikers (cyclists yes, bikers no!) – or of Texas, particularly – but stupid Americans shooting other stupid Americans is not the language of reasoned debate, nor is the blustering anti-American rant that follows that phrase. Sca (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
On the bright side, Nigeria isn't going that route, and that article was literally written by Confidence. The Irish, French, Australians and Chinese don't seem to be, either. Mexico is pointing fingers, but at biker culture, not American. Seems the gun=politics thinking doesn't apply to this case, even in American news (at least by the three stories I checked.)
More importantly, this is definitely "in the news", at least out there. Nigeria also reports 22 extra perhaps prematurely reported arrests. That's a lot in itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, May 19, 2015 (UTC)
Comment Why does Medeis get credit when Waltcip started the previous nomination? It's right below. Waltcip should receive the credit.Correctron (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Who cares? Give WaltCip credit, even though he both admitted he posted this to see it fail then asked for it to close an hour later. My concern is for the readers, and I don't care about the credit, which he should definitely get. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I will graciously accept credit for the ITN nomination if this is posted to the front page.--WaltCip (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
You shouldn't get credit for anything. Your "nomination" was worded in a way that encouraged opposition and then you withdrew after just three comments (in 75 minutes) on the grounds that 'consensus seems clear'. That's not a good look at all. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
First I am offered credit and then I am told I don't deserve it - make up your minds, folks. Anyway, consensus was clear at the time I made my nomination. I saw no reason to keep it open for longer when the arguments to oppose were as strong as they were. It is not uncommon for ITN candidates to receive early closures.--WaltCip (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
75 minutes and 3 comments does not equate to consensus, unless, of course, you wanted it to fail. Which you did. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Walt's previous nomination was as bad-faith as any I've seen here. In fact, it was bogus, and should be removed before it has a chance to get archived. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - although gun shootings are common in the US, a gang battle on this scale is highly unusual and it is reported on numerous news sites. -Zanhe (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Ready, given excellent state of article, and strong support if we ignore comments that denigrate Americans (for being Americans?). μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Brandmeister and Lugnuts: who were involved in the previous discussion. Personally, not sure if ready and not really the nominators decision to make. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I have asked at the Ref Desk, and apparently there's never been a comparably deadly conflict, anti=american nonsense notwithstanding. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I've dusted off a few old tomes and found the Goingsnake Massacre, which killed eleven. Had Wikipedia and "the media" been around in 1872, we'd have probably noted that one, too. MOVE also had one that killed eleven in 1985, but that was mostly a fire. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:20, May 19, 2015 (UTC)
"The media" were around in 1872. They were called "newspapers". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Motorcycles were around in 1884, but called petrol cycles. And flying robots showed up in 428 BC. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:47, May 19, 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I don't see a convincing case for putting a gang shootout with no broader implications on ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Broader implications. Even regular shootings have them. The largest American shootout should have the largest fallout. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:42, May 19, 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there were people hurt who will take time to recover, and people arrested who will either be released without charges or shall have their day in court. By "broader implications", I mean a more significant social or political impact. The Philadelphia derailment, for instance, temporarily shut down one of the busiest passenger rail links in the world and has prompted a debate over transportation funding and safety in the United States. The death of Freddie Gray sparked a nationwide protest movement, as well as rioting in one of the country's major industrial cities. In this shootout, 10 gang members died. That's a high toll for a single incident, at least in the developed world, and I'm not going to howl that it's a great disservice if this item is ultimately posted to ITN -- but gang violence is quite commonplace in the United States, the only people killed in this case were members of notorious gangs, and this incident (with its apparent absence of truly "innocent" victims) hasn't prompted any sort of massive public outcry. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Would it have been different if the Waco bikers were black? That's a quote, but also a question at least some Twitter outrage is asking. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:18, May 19, 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for ITN posting gang rivalries and school bullying (nevertheless same) is not looking appropriate to me. -The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 03:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as demonstrated by the 170 arrests, this is not a run-of-the-mill incident. Also, TRM really needs to dial back the rhetoric. This is not a forum for him to spew his ignorance. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    There's nothing ignorant about noting that this is a bunch of stupid people whose right to bear arms has resulted in this massacre. This sort of thing doesn't happen in most civilised nations. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • In other words, you used this as a forum to rail against America. Again. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind that any non-American who cops an anti-American attitude is revealing how envious and jealous they are of us. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Jealousy is just about the last emotion evoked when I read about the continual slaughter that goes on the US. Yet some of you are so proud of it. It's most odd. My position is clear, this kind of thing is parochial and absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
"Yet some of you are so proud of it." That's one of the most absurd statements I've ever read on this site. I have never claimed to be proud of continual slaughter. You really need to do a better job of hiding your anti-American contempt. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I should also note the contradiction between the blurb and the article; the former claims 10 deaths and the latter says only 9. One or both will need to be corrected if this item is to be posted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    And I must say I strenuously oppose this item's own nominator marking this as ready and edit-warring when unmarked. This is not how ITN/C is supposed to work. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    What does "ready" mean here? I would think it means the article is acceptable for ITN if consensus approves putting it in ITN. Right? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the article Bandidos Motorcycle Club lists five regions they operate in (United States, Scandinavia, Australia, Canada, Germany) - this has significance to other regions of the world that have violence associated with bikie gangs and drug dealing. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Aronzak, that would be significant if there was a concern that retribution might occur in those other regions you mention. But what I take from the article is that the other groups involved were fledgling clubs trying to break away from the Bandidos' oversight. If there are in fact reports of retaliation elsewhere in the world, then I would change to support. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Article is in decent shape, but I can't help thinking this is a one-day story ... it's not even in the 15 stories on the front page of BBC World now. Black Kite (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Kudzu1's reasoning above describes the situation perfectly. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Note - For those of you too young to remember, Lugnuts' comment in the section below was (presumably) intended as ironic, in reference to the infamous David Koresh situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Notable, but still parochial story for ITN with little historical imprint. That said, with all due respect to human life, it would be a totally different story, had the same number died in a school shooting, for example. As for arrests, we don't know what will happen then, may be they will be released in two days or so. Brandmeistertalk 15:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
If their friends can raise $17 million in bail cash. School shootings are relatively far more routine, and even with the same number of dead, there would be no mass arrests or complex investigation. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:15, May 19, 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – I would have supported, but as happens not infrequently here at civilised [sic] ITN, this item is fast fading from being ... in the news. (What they say about fish and house guests also applies to news.) Sca (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
This comment doesn't make a lot of sense. It is still ~5 days newer than the oldest ITN story. Why would you move from support to (implied) neutral just because a couple days have past? Is it not fresher than the current oldest stories regardless? --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
This is a valid criticism – of ITN and by extension English WP. (BTW, I never voted support.) Sca (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Two hours fresh. One hour. 15 minutes. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:19, May 19, 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – After reflection, I have to switch to Kudzu1's side of the debate. The people involved (on the biker side) seem to be sociopaths of slight political or cultural significance, Easy Rider notwithstanding. (BTW, I absolutely hate extremely loud motorcycles, many of which are driven around here with ruthless aggression.) Sca (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the already stated reasons; if this grows into something larger(which is very possible) maybe, maybe then. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is clearly not your run of the mill gang fight. Ten dead and 170 facing organized crime charges is not a routine occurrence, even in the United States. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This should have the same outcome as the Indian rape death normally I would oppose this, but considering the posting of a single death of a 40-something yr old rape victim, I am quite surprised of the discrepancy in votes with this nom. India's rape ≈ US' shootings. Nergaal (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Waco biker gang shootingEdit

Closed by request of nominator. 331dot (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 Waco shootout (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Waco, Texas, 9 are dead after a shootout between rival biker gangs.
News source(s): CNN, BBC

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Let me be clear; I don't think this is ITN-suitable due to the vast number of shootings that happen in the United States. That said, I'm sure this will get nominated eventually, and I do think the article needs serious attention, so I have chosen to nominate it here to get some eyes on it. WaltCip (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral as nom.--WaltCip (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose A shoootout between rival biker gangs, especially in the US, is more expectable than an ordinary shooting. This is similar to any other deadly criminal shootout anywhere in the world. While notable in its own right, I don't think it's ITN-worthy. Brandmeistertalk 14:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't associate Waco with mass killings. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unfortunately, this is not a surprising event given the locale and groups involved. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, consensus seems clear, so I think we can probably close this nom now.--WaltCip (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] IIHF World ChampionshipEdit

Articles: 2015 IIHF World Championship Final (talk, history) and 2015 IIHF World Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In ice hockey, Canada defeats Russia 6–1 to win the 2015 IIHF World Championship.
News source(s): IIHF, Idaho Statesman, etc

Both articles updated

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

 Brandmeistertalk 22:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support pending article improvement - The final article should have a background section like the 2014 final, but otherwise this seems ready to go. (I do beg the need for keeping the final separate from the championship, but that's not a question for ITN to decide). --MASEM (t) 22:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Canada defeats Russia. Correctron (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality the lead is incomplete, that are dab links and the point Masem makes is a good one: if this is as expanded as a final article gets, it shouldn't be split off. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • The background section has been added now, so marking as ready. Brandmeistertalk 17:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Canada won their 25th title 6-1. This is clearly not much of a sport; more of a ritual. Andrew D. (talk) 07:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment I have to call you out. It`s the first gold since 2007. This tournament has been running since the 20s and most of those wins were before 1960. Think a little harder before commenting next time.Correctron (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is listed at ITNR, so objections based on importance are invalid. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, a first win in eight years is hardly a ritual.-- (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support sport event of the year not only in my country. --Jenda H. (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ITNR and good to go quality. I'd have nominated it myself. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Ready - As noted by The Herald and Brandmeister (who marked this ready), I have expanded the article this morning. Thus, it is now up to ITN standards. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: ChinxEdit

Maybe we'll look back on this in ten years and think "Chinx was seminal", but right now it's just not happening. Snow close. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Chinx (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Bing

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: American rapper shot dead. -The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 16:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose While a sudden death, I'm trying to figure out how this person is a leader in the field (considering rap artists). --MASEM (t) 16:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No charting singles or other indicators of being a leader in that field. Gamaliel (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Rapper shot dead? Stop the presses! Absolutely nothing distinguishes this rapper from the approximately seven billion other rappers in the world. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Couple Niggas" & "I'm A Coke Boy" just don't seem like big hits to me...-- (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Canonization of Marie-Alphonsine Danil Ghattas and Mariam BaouardyEdit

No consensus. Stephen 02:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Marie-Alphonsine Danil Ghattas (talk, history) and Mariam Baouardy (talk, history)
Blurb: Pope Francis canonizes Marie-Alphonsine Danil Ghattas and Mariam Baouardy, making them the first two Palestinian saints in modern times.
News source(s): BBC CNN The Guardian

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: Seems to be a major first for one of the world's largest religious denominations. Everymorning talk 14:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This was an expected result from the Vatican recognizing Palestine as a state which was recently closed as no consensus. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Contra Masen, it has nothing to do with the Vatican's recognition of Palestine as a state - the latter is a question of foreign relations (don't forget that the Pope is also a head of state) while this is a purely religious matter. The first modern saints for a particular territory are certainly noteworthy and the news has been widely reported. Prioryman (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm not necessarily opposing this, but it is tied to the previous ITNC item. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, although the article updates need a bit of work and sourcing. I've seen it reported that they are the first ever Arab saints, which I find surprising. That might be considered for the blurb if accurate. Formerip (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose neither first "Palestinian" nor first "Arab" saints is anywhere near accurate. Any such claim ignores about 2000 years of history, and this is not the place for political grandstanding. μηδείς (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
If you're able to name a previous Arab saint, then that clears that up. So, are you? Formerip (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll assume out of charity that you don't realize that Jesus was a Galilean who spoke Aramaic and that you have never heard of the Coptic Catholic Church, Ethiopian Catholic Church, Eritrean Catholic Church, Maronite Church, Syrian Catholic Church, Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, Chaldean Catholic Church, Syro-Malabar Church (not all of which are strictly Arabic) and Malta or people like Brigitte Gabriel (who's still alive, of course). μηδείς (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Medeis, did you actually read my question? Formerip (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Dear goodness, there are dozens, maybe hundreds, of Arab saints venerated by the Roman Catholic Church. Abakuh, Arethas (martyr), Abraham of Arbela, and that's before I even got out of the "A"s. There have even been Roman Catholic saints from the land of Palestine, Zebennus (Bishop of Eleutheropolis) is one. --Jayron32 00:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
None of those are actually Arabs, though. They're people from ancientland who lived in what are today Arab countries. Formerip (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't aware you were allowed to redefine Arab for your own purposes so you can justify your own wrongness. The term "Arab" for people living in the Middle East is quite old, in many cases older than these saints. See Philip the Arab for example. It only serves your purpose to claim there have been no Arab saints to simply redefine Arabness to exclude people who would disprove the claim. --Jayron32 01:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not about how old the term "Arab" is. Palestine, for example, was conquered by the Arabs in the 7th century. The characters in the New Testament, early Christian leaders, people martyred by the Romans and so on were not Arabs because they lived several hundred years too early. Formerip (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, plus the issue is Palestine, which was a Roman province, and includes just about all the saints of the New Testament. The point is clear that the claim is meaningless unless one ignores history and linguistics entirely and adopts a very specific political POV. We should not do so, nor make an item that is nowhere a headline an ITN listing. μηδείς (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I support including this on notability grounds. But when people present actual, demonstratably false things as though they were true, one should show the sources which proves them wrong. There can have been earlier Palestinian and Arabic Roman Catholic saints prior to now, it wouldn't mean diddly-squat about the significance of this event either way. --Jayron32 01:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Notable in light of the recognition...combine the two.. (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
These two nuns died many decades, if not a century, before the Vatican accepted an embassy from the West Bank. μηδείς (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this has less international significance than the ITN proposals about recognition of Palestine, or the Armenian issue. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose looks like Pope Francis has canonised dozens already. Not sure why this is so much more important unless we are deliberately ignoring the elephant in the room. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. It should be expected when you recognize a country. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It's nice news, but it isn't due. This isn't the Catholic Gazette. If the pope canonizes Steve Jobs, we can talk, but these new saints aren't quite household names and their nationality doesn't strike me as all that worthy of note. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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

May 16Edit

[Posted] 2015 Preakness StakesEdit

Article: 2015 Preakness Stakes (talk, history)
Blurb: American Pharoah wins the 2015 Preakness Stakes, and, in the wake of the death of Freddie Gray is described as a sporting event that "...could help start the healing process" for the city of Baltimore.
Alternative blurb: American Pharoah wins the 2015 Preakness Stakes, and, in the wake of the death of Freddie Gray and closing of the April 29 Baltimore Orioles game to the public, is described as a sporting event that "...could help start the healing process."
Alternative blurb II: American Pharoah wins the 2015 Preakness Stakes, the second leg of U.S. horse racing's Triple Crown.
Alternative blurb III: ​In horse racing, American Pharoah wins the 2015 Preakness Stakes, the second leg of the Triple Crown.
News source(s): [31], Pimlico Race 13 May 16, 2015, [32], [33]

Nominator's comments: While this race is not normally a candidate for ITNR, in this case, the sporting event's impact on the healing for the City of Baltimore in the wake of the Freddie Gray incident was, in the words of ESPN's Bob Ehalt, "for that reason alone, this could be the biggest and most important Preakness ever."[34]. Noting that here a previously-posted ITN on the Freddie Gray situation commented that the Baltimore Orioles game "that was played without any fans in the stands should have gotten its own ITN blurb since that was the first time in the history of Major League Baseball that that had happened", maybe now is the time for the sports connections in Baltimore to make it to ITN. It also sets up a potential Triple crown for the second year in a row. Montanabw(talk) 03:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak support on the win, but absolutely oppose on the "healing part" of either blurb. We're not sensationalism or sympathetic or victimizing; let the press do that part. --MASEM (t) 03:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support simpler altblurb. Perhaps the blurb also ought to mention the Triple Crown, which the victory keeps the horse in contention for. But it definitely doesn't need to speculate on its social or political significance for the city of Baltimore. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    • OK on any blurb proposed so far or adding stuff on triple crown. Whatever works. Montanabw(talk) 03:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb II. No need to mention "healing" but we should post the results of the race. Calidum T|C 03:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb II, oppose anything else. Keep it simple, keep it NPOV. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb II. Notable race for the Triple Crown angle; any other effects of the race can be dealt with in the article, the blurb should be kept simple. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support don't we normally have "In horse racing, American Pharoah wins the 2015 Preakness Stakes, the second leg of the Triple Crown."? Otherwise, article is decent enough to support for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This doesn't actually seem to be in the news in any general way. The news sources supplied are either specialist tip-sheets like Daily Racing Form or a deadlink. Andrew D. (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb II. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:ITNR says Belmont Stakes (only if the Triple Crown was won), and the Kentucky Derby is automatically at ITN. Posting three US horse races within a month to ITN is too many. An actual Triple Crown win is already covered by ITNR, and posting random events from Baltimore to ITN due to Freddie Gray is not warranted. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see that this is actually in the news. The one specialist news source linked above (CNN) only mentions it in passing (and that story is 3 weeks old). Black Kite (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Your looking at the wrong stories. The derby is three weeks old, this was yesterday.-Jayron32 16:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Much I respect the nominator, perhaps they should have linked the nomination to current news stories, then. The CNN story linked is from April 29. Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
      • That was the stuff used to support the part of the blurbs on Freddie Gray, the Baltimore riots and the Orioles game, not the horse race. Montanabw(talk) 21:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose As others have said, the event is not on ITN/R and there is no evidence of substantial news coverage beyond one blog post and routine race reports. The same horse winning the first two Triple Crown races has been quite common (four times in the past 7 years) and there is nothing to suggest that this particular event was out of the ordinary (the thunderstorm was more meaningful than that blog link to Gray). Probably support posting this in a few weeks, if the horse wins the Triple Crown - the first time in 30+ years. Fuebaey (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment: There is now: [35] New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, NPR ... ? Montanabw(talk) 21:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - article is in very good shape and story is definitely in the news in a general sense. See WSJ, ABC/AP, Wahsington Post, etc. Opposes on teh lack of coverage are flat out wrong.
My personal preference is to post the Kentucky Derby and the Belmont when the triple crown was on the line (won or lost). That would be semi-equivalent to posting the Preakness when it is won by the KY Derby champ, but not posting the Belmont unless the triple crown is won. My rationale is that the triple crown possibility raises the level of coverage/interest & importance for the Belmont regardless of the end result, but that Preakness win doesn't increase the interest in the Preakness itself. Since the Preakness won by the Derby champ, I am neutral (would be opposed otherwise). The Baltimore situation may make this year's race slightly more notable, but isn't enough to push to to support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Last year after the Triple Crown races(maybe during them) we tinkered with them on the ITNR list; I had suggested(and even briefly posted to the list) the Derby, Preakness if won by the Derby winner, and the Belmont if the Triple Crown was at stake, but consensus didn't quite get there. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Alt II Once again, ITNR is simply irrelevant. Something not being listed there is not grounds for opposing it, and the win is highly notable. If ITNR is going to be the sole arbiter of postings we should just shut down this page, redirect it to ITNR's talk page, and get a robot to do the posting. μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment: Indeed, above it says, "please do not... oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R." This has extra notability than last year precisely because it's the second time in two years. Also a rather unusual year for the race, whether it be the worst downpour since 1983, the Baltimore riots versus sports stuff, or whatever. Promise, I will not be requesting this every year! Montanabw(talk) 21:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Another minor comment: Speaking of NPR, and though I will accept whichever blurb consensus supports, the Preakness DOES have some special import this year in the wake of the Baltimore riots: this story notes a Pimlico official saying:""This year's Preakness, because of the unrest in Baltimore, I think is even more special ... it's something that the city needs to bring a little calming effect to everybody." Montanabw(talk) 21:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Comment When deciding which of the 3 races to post to ITN, ITNR can serve a good guideline. If we post this race, we have to post 3 US horse races within a month to ITN since a Triple Crown win will automatically Belmont eligible per ITNR. All the Baltimore talk are just attempts to inflate the importance of a race that had the smallest field in over a decade with only 8 horses participating. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked ready. Article is in good shape and there appears to be consenus to post. Calidum T|C 22:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose anything but the outcome of Kentucky Derby should not be posted o ITN. Unless there is a triple crown winner or something. Nergaal (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you explain why the Kentucky Derby matters so much and the Triple Crown, but not the other races? It seems like saying the first number and the winning numbers of a slot-machine jackpot matter, but the second and third don't. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
VERY few people in the world care about horseracing, and of those who don't care, they probably heard of Kentucky Derby. I bet almost nobody outside of fans of this kind of competition has heard of Preakness (I for one knew of the Triple crown, and had no idea which two others are besides KD). Nergaal (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Your reasoning is based on two deprecated premises, you own personal unfamiliarity (which you assume is general) and the fact that this event is "limited" to one country (even though participants are from all over North America in the least. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Devil's advocate here since I do support posting this : the winner of the KD is the only horse that then can win the Triple Crown, so as such, it is the most important race since it establishes who that horse is. Preakness would thus matter much less if a different horse won, since that means the Triple Crown is then forfeit for the year. That said, this year we have a potential TC still with the Preakness winner so we would still post per ITNR, though I agree in general there's no reason not to post all 3 races since that expands the ITNR aspect to 6 possible horse races a year instead of 5. --MASEM (t) 05:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thoroughbred racing is quite a stale sport because of inbreeding. For example, the winning times for the Kentucky Derby are much the same as they were a hundred years ago. The events are therefore much the same each year and are mainly an occasion in the social calendar, like the Chelsea Flower Show or Crufts, rather than being really newsworthy. When I look at the BBC World News to see what's actually making news, I don't see any horse races. Putin scoring goals at ice hockey is a good story but what I'm working on is a new world champion that didn't even have an article. News should be novel rather than reruns of the same old tired traditions. Andrew D. (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose On the basis that while BBC Sport mentions it, it's about 10 headlines deep on the specialist horse racing page. --Dweller (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted - As noted above, I am personally doubtful that the Preakness should be posted regularly. However, several of the opposes raise arguments that are false, based on the nominator not supplying mainstream sources, and have not responded after this has been pointed out for >24 hours. Thus, there is a rather clear consensus to post based on strength of argument. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
By the supports' arguments, a triple crown in horseracing should be posted 3 times, and close-calls should be posted twice every 2 out of 3 years. This seems rather excessive to me. Nergaal (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the posting, the more the merrier and consensus definitely exists for this to be on the main page. Other claims of "too many horse races" are simply desperate IDONTLIKEIT claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Flora MacNeilEdit

No consensus. Stephen 00:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Flora MacNeil (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): blurb
Nominator's comments: "Queen of Gaelic singers", clearly a leading figure in a traditional style of music. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose On importance - given that our article is only using the obits as sources (and nothing else), and the shortness of the BBC obit compared to others that we post, it's begging for how important this person is. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality grounds, for MASEM's reasons. I'd be open to posting a more broadly referenced article that better substantiates her claim to preeminence in her field. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per Masem. —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 04:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose wholesale awful article and if now define Gaelic singing as a field, then bring on the shopping bag designer, the Dutch toilet architects and the Brazilian wax museum owners. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Proton-M crashEdit

No consensus. Stephen 01:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Proton-M (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: A Russian Proton-M rocket crashes with Mexican satellite payload.
Alternative blurb: ​A Russian Proton-M rocket crashes with Mexican satellite payload onboard.
News source(s): ET NBC News CNN BBC

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.
Nominator's comments: It was not long before when another Russian ISS resupply broke down and descended back. -The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 12:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless this threatens to end the ISS mission (Which it doesn't appear to be). Regardless of the ITNR, this is a routine supply rocket (roughly one every 1-2 months) and unmanned. I don't see this as major news. (It begs some potential tightening of the ITNR element as well but that's a discussion for elsewhere). --MASEM (t) 14:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Checking myself, the reports I read had me confused as this being an ISS supply mission; it was a launch for a new telecom satellite but again, unmanned launch from the Russian space program which had had a number of problems of late, this still doesn't seem like news. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. This doesn't strike me as major news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment if this genuinely is ITNR, then disregard the previous two opinions. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    • ITNR does not mean it is automatically posted even if article quality is good. It's not a general debate on the nature of failed launches of any spacecraft, just that in this specific case, it is a launch of a rather routine unmanned craft to the ISS, which probably is not the same ilk as most other crashes. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid it generally does mean it's posted regardless of your or any other opinion, as long as the quality is sufficient. The key here is to determine if it actually meets the requirement of the description of ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
        • This has been discussed before, in light of the recent issue with "rigged elections" on the talk page ([36]) most recently. ITNR is to take the guesswork out of classes of articles, and working if specific instances are notable enough, so as to not waste ITNC time discussing the classes. This may mean a news story that is classified as ITNR may, per IAR, not be appropriate ITN material even if the article is perfectly in spec. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Cut-rate unmanned satellite launch system crashes (again), film at 11. No one was hurt or killed and the satellite wasn't encrusted with gold and precious jewels. Not ITN material. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
"Film at 11"? Jesus, Kudzu1 just how old are you? :D μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Except that it is ITNR material, according to the ITNR list If you feel that this type of event should not be ITNR, please propose its removal. 331dot (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Aside from this being ITNR, it seems indicative of some sort of major problem with Proton rockets, the major rocket of the Russian space program, as there has been a series of mishaps. This is high-level news in many outlets and readers might want to learn about this event and the rocket involved. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose because ITNR is a guideline and by its own text is not an automatic guarantee of posting. Simply put this just isn't notable enough to warrant inclusion. (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
The media would seem to disagree with you that it is not notable. Rocket launches are still rare events that readers want to learn about- and this particular failure in the longest running space program on Earth seems to reflect some sort of problem. This clearly is a failed rocket launch per the ITNR criteria. If you feel that this type of event should not be ITNR, please propose its removal. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
We are not a news ticker, so just because the news follows it doesn't mean we need to include it. The issue is that ITNR is "failed launches" but realistically that's fine if it is manned, or a launch of a major space probe; routine satellite launches or delivery missions to the ISS is not the same. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
The ITNR listing does not have "manned" as a limitation or any other limitation at present, though we can certainly discuss adding it or outright removal. I'm just reading what it says now. I further agree that we are not a news ticker but we should be responsive to the news to some degree. This is something that readers might want to learn about. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose ITNR assumes overwhelming consensus as a matter of policy and there's no such consensus here. Pretty soon we'll be listing scrubbed launches at this rate. simply not notable enough. μηδείς (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
A scrubbed launch(a cancelled event) is not a failed launch(an attempt that is unsuccessful), so I don't see that happening. Feel free to propose removing failed launches from the list. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
There's no reason to remove failed launches from ITNR as long as we use the fact that individual ITNR-based suggestions may be reviewed for specific merit, by design. Most failed launches are clearly ITN, this specific one some believe isn't. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Respectfully, you seem to be saying that failed launches are ITNR, except when they aren't. If that's the case then there does seem little point in having failed launches on the list at least in the general fashion that it is now, and there should be some sort of qualifier.. 331dot (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
That's not what I'm saying at all. The majority of failed rocket launches to date are ITN items, so an ITNR item makes sense. But there are rare cases - such as the case of a unmanned telecom satellite launch from an already-failing Russian space agency - that, while a significant loss of money , is otherwise par for the course. Same with the unmanned supply craft to ISS last month. It's simply the smart allowance that ITNR has built in to question the exceptional cases of otherwise a common ITNR item. --MASEM (t) 01:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Most launches are of this type, so I'm not seeing how this is any sort of exception. If you're saying that only launches of notable space probes or manned launches are notable, we should say so. It's very simple to do so. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
(ec) There's no need for me to do any such thing. ITNR is a long deprecated bit of twittery, no different from the dead and forgotten minority subject category. It's just that certain people insist on their minor sporting events, so we have a strong Welsh/Arkansas/Manchester/Caber toss/Ulster/Bocce faction, no offense to the Welsh. If the majority of votes are opposes, as in this case, the item obviously disqualifies. Period. μηδείς (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
If it is so obvious then I suggest you remove it from the list yourself if you feel this discussion should be considered a proposal to remove it from the list. --331dot (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Having all rocket launch failures in ITNR was silly last time we posted one and it's still silly. It doesn't even have a no fireworks clause for crying out loud. Formerip (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Disagree that it is "silly" Space flight is still a big deal and dangerous(even with unmanned launches). No one is suggesting that mere fireworks meets the definition of a rocket launch. 331dot (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: For anyone who is counting, so far the only support !vote is from 331dot, who has been hard at work trying to convince all of the numerous and growing oppose !votes that they are wrong for procedural reasons. Again, ITN/R assumes consensus, which clearly doesn't exist for this low-impact, no-story unmanned rocket bust. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your interpretation of my actions; I'm not trying to convince anyone that they are "wrong for procedural reasons"; I'm trying to direct people to the proper forum for the proper discussion. It's also not true that this is "low-impact, no story"; This is still on the front page of NBC and CNN, and is on the front of the BBC's world section. A problem with the oldest space program in the world is notable. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
And I think that's synthesis, honestly, at this point. The blurb we're discussing is a launch failure of a routine satellite delivery by an unmanned rocket, not a problem with the Russian space program writ large. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Given this discussion I have started a discussion to change the listing at this section. ITNR is for those items which have clear consensus on the merits; when something doesn't it's time to look at changing it. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Mohammed Morsi sentenced to deathEdit

Article: Mohammed Morsi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi is sentenced to death for passing state secrets.
Alternative blurb: ​Former Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi is sentenced to death for his role in the Wadi el-Natrun prison break during the Egyptian Revolution of 2011.
News source(s): RT
  • Nominated by [[User: (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)| (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)]] ([[User talk: (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)|talk]] • [{{fullurl:User talk: (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BMohammed+Morsi%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=Mohammed+Morsi&preloadparams%5b%5d=nominated}} give credit])
  • Updated by The Herald (talk • give credit)

Article updated (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Changed it. It's still a former head of state for notability and its across mainstream media. (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

You had best change the title also, as it's a BLP violation. Also, Saddam Hussein was sent to the gallows long after the Romanian dictators, the Ceaușescus, were put down. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I've corrected the title. Miyagawa (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

My bad, forgot the title. As for Saddam that's what I said in relation to was less than 2 decades later. Furthermore, this trial as eminently more notable than the individually affiliated shooter below. (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the "not since Romania" part. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Basically, it's rare. Thrice in about 30 years. (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, so you're saying just two since the Romanian situation, i.e. Saddam and Morsi. It gets to be a fine line between "legitimate" execution vs. assassination as part of a coup. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Ya true, with the veneer of "legality" vs. outright extrajudicial (a la Rwanda/Burundi since then). (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A former president being sentenced to death is pretty incredible if you ask me. The article seems to be in pretty good shape, although an eye may need to be kept on it as this sort of high profile thing can lead to edit wars. Miyagawa (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The court ruling has been reportedly referred to the Grand Mufti for confirmation and the final decision is expected on June 2. Brandmeistertalk 10:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until the decision is finalized and/or the execution occurs. (Probably won't take as long as it will with the Boston bomber.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, it's the final "court of appeals" after the original verdict. Much the same as the death sentence below that posted. (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong support former leader of significant regional power sentenced to dead. For what, are we waiting? --Jenda H. (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This would be the third time the result of a show trial against a former Egyptian president would be at ITN in a month (the previous ITN is even still listed). LoveToLondon (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point...consider combining it? The dual result is indicative of something sinister... (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

    • The Egyptian courts should have consulted with Wikipedia before announcing these decisions, to make sure to space them farther apart. Also, how many of those "show trials" have resulted in a death sentence against a former leader? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until the sentence is carried out. I kind of see LoveToLondon's point; Mubarak at least resigned his office before his trial and conviction; in this case is is no surprise that the people who forced Morsi out now want to have him put to death- and I think we posted his conviction. It will be notable if and when he is actually put to death. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This is his conviction. A death penalty as a result of a show trial is even more notable. (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong support -Generally i oppose stuff like this but as mentioned above, a former president sentenced to death is news, moreso when he was the "first" democratically elected president in Egypt's history..this could very well be the end of democracy in Egypt..the date and time of his execution does not matter at this stage..--Stemoc 11:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    • He's the one who ended it. He was democratically elected and then declared himself dictator. He is now reaping what he sowed. Hopefully his execution will be a bit less brutal than the way Kadafi was dispatched. And if democracy returns, maybe his demise will serve as a lesson. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support He's a former head of state that's been sentenced to death. That said, if he spends anymore time in the ITN section of the Front Page we should start charging rent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - Noting that we already posted his 20 yr sentence prior [38] the fact that a former head of a major nation is now sentenced to death is moreso. (This is different from the Boston marathon bomber - he was convicted, then sentenced, so we posted his conviction and not so much his sentencing). I don't think we should wait for it to be carried out because 1) it sensenationalizes the news and 2) I would expect there is a chance of appeal or the like. The sentencing here is what is the big factor. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't know Egyptian legal procedure but the only thing I have read about any sort of appeal is a nonbinding review by a Muslim theologian [39]. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
[40] : "Regardless of the mufti's ruling, the sentences can be appealed.". --MASEM (t) 14:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support/merge last time this happened was with Saddam. This sentence is quite unlikely to actually happen, but the ?mock? trial outcome is so shocking that it should be posted. Apparently being president of Egypt has a really, really high chance to screw you over. Nergaal (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Before this can be posted to ITN, the Trial section of that article has to be updated to give an overview of the different trials against him and their status. The blurb is not correct, the court has not yet sentenced him to death. In this trial the court will make the final ruling on June 2nd. They have at least one more show trial ongoing against him that will likely result in yet another conviction soon (might be another death penalty - several people already received their second death penalty in the current trial), and the reader should be able to get a good overview of the different trials if each month the latest show verdict against him is posted to ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The court has...only the so-called "court of appeals." Same as other countries have last reprieves. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support HiLo, even the BBC have a headline saying he's been sentenced to death. The fact that "religious authorities" need to give their opinion is somewhat irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    Comment It is somewhat relevant that the court itself has not yet given a final verdict. And that is separate from the fact that an appeal is possible after the final verdict of the court. How many ITN blurbs should be created for the current Egyptian show trials (this one would be the third ITN blurb within a month), and at what points? Will it be a new ITN blurb if the final verdict in two weeks will be only a life sentence? And will there be another ITN blurb for the likely death sentence from the next (unrelated) show trial against him that starts in a week? LoveToLondon (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    This is the most extreme sentence so even if more sentences come down, there's no point to add more, he's got one death penalty against him. In contrast, if this was more X years in prison atop the previous 20, I would oppose this ITN, as that's not a major change from the last sentence. If there is an appeal and it fully exonerates him of any crimes, that might be reason to post again, but I can't see us otherwise posting the result of an appeal that simply diminishes the death penalty to a life sentence. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • an appeal and it fully exonerates him of any crimes is impossible since there are at least three separate trials with separate convictions and separate appeals. The article quality is absolute crap to the level that it even states what he is accused of in the next (third) trial that starts in a week as reason for the death sentence in the current (second) trial. The nomination even named the wrong ex-President initially, so why did noone of the Support votes ever bother to check how much the rest is also wrong? LoveToLondon (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely for itn. a former president and all..--BabbaQ (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is subject to appeal and judicial review. This can wait until and if he's executed, given he's already got a 20 year sentence. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Unmarked Ready Rambling boy does not seem to be able to conduct even basic checking of the article and the sources when marking an article as ready. The show trial against him where they will give him the next death sentence for passing state secrets starts in one week. The show trial that ended this week was a separate trial. LoveToLondon (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    C'mon HiLo, no need for the comment on the editor, you already know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    The article should be correct now. Initial media reports got it wrong; Morsi was actually sentenced to death for the prison break (as reflected in the altblurb I added) and the decision is pretty much final, as even if the grand mufti says he don't like it, his opinion is legally nonbinding. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - This is definitely int. A former president charged with death although shouldn't we wait until he's executed? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Obviously meets notability criteria. How often are former heads of state given death sentences? (This being a kangaroo court notwithstanding.) -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    • And I'm going to go ahead and remark ready with the needed changes to the article, considering there appears to be overwhelming consensus to post. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The quality of the relevant part of the linked article is not relevant, all that matters is which side has more votes? This is about a trial, and none of the Support votes seems to care that the Trial section of the article is still a complete mess that does not make it clear what the different trials and their statuses are. And the blurb is still wrong, the same sources that claimed he was already sentenced to death are the same unreliable sources that also got it wrong which trial this was. The court has not yet made a final decision whether or not there will be a death sentence - that will be on June 2nd. And this is not about appeals, currently there is not even final judgement by the first court. LoveToLondon (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Let's let an admin weigh in. There's a substantial wait/oppose component here with the same argument, that this will be the third posting related to his deposure, and his execution would make a fourth. Even TDKR's support says this should be posted with the execution. And if he's not executed, then this listing would have been a mistake in any case. Waiting a year to get it right is no unbearable burden. μηδείς (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Comment" - Morsi's execution has received wide support. However, some Boston bombing suspect's execution received opposition. Okay: Morsi was a former President; the bomber was just a kid. Egypt experienced unrest; Boston was usually peaceful, even with low crime rate. Egypt has Arabic or Egyptian Arabia; Boston has American English. Morsi and the kid are disgraced by societies for their own actions. Am I missing something else? George Ho (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Please leave the usual nationalist nonsense out of it. No one has said this should or should not be listed on that basis, and it is only you who bring inflammatory claims like kangaroo court here. The issue is that we posted his conviction, and we'll post his execution when it comes. Do you seriously think every step of the judicial review, mufti comment, and appeal process also needs posting? Please show some respect to your fellow editors whether they are on the post immediately side or not. μηδείς (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
What are you getting at, and why chiding me for my comments on comparisons? I was stating my analysis; I never intended to spark criticism toward this. I was anticipating a tolerant or supported comment, but I received scolding instead. --George Ho (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
George, I'm reading your comment above and I'm sorry but I don't get what your point is. Formerip (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
My point: how is execution of a bomber different from or similar to execution of a disgraced leader? That's all I can ask. --George Ho (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I apologize, it was Kudzu who used the word kangaroo (and HiLo who called it a show trial). But it is still this very odd comparison between a suicide bomber who failed at suicide and a pudgy dictator who ordered he deaths of the "citizens" he was elected to serve that bothers me. The basic point is that the verdict and the sentence, both parts of one trial, should not be posted separately. The actual execution is perfect, until we start resurrecting people for appeals. I am pretty sure resurrections are generally frowned upon in trials by Abrahamic courts, and count as double jeopardy under common law. μηδείς (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I was talking also about votes. Why do many oppose posting suicide bomber's execution sentence, while many others support posting Morsi's? --George Ho (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The difference is that in the Boston Marathon bomber there are two separate points of where the conviction is made, and where the sentencing is made. We agreed to post on the conviction given that he was certainly assured multiple life sentences if not death because of it, so the actual sentence is trivial and a repeat posting. Here, in this trial, the conviction and sentencing are - for all purposes - the same thing due to how case law works there. If they had separate convictions and sentencing, we'd probably have posted at the conviction and not posting the sentencing. --MASEM (t) 02:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. An former head of state receiving a death sentence is obvious ITN material. Who cares if it is theoretically appealable and who cares if we also end up posting the actual execution if it happens. It's an important enough event for none of that to matter. Formerip (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per FormerIP. Jusdafax 02:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per FormerIP. Neljack (talk) 03:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The 2nd blurb is more correct as sources updated the original claim. (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Request - Can we not link to Wadi el-Natrun prison (a stub) on the main page till it is adequately expanded? @The Rambling Man: sorry for having to ping you, but few residents here take such matters as seriously as you do, and it's been there for too long. How about "...for his role in a prison break during the 2011 revolution" instead? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

May 15Edit

[Closed] RD: Elisabeth BingEdit

No consensus. Stephen 02:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Elisabeth Bing (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian New York Times
Nominator's comments: Her obit in the Guardian (written by AP) says that she "popularised what was known as natural childbirth and helped change how women and doctors approached the delivery room." It also describes her as a "pioneer". She was known as the mother of Lamaze, a childbirth technique for which "an estimated quarter of all mothers-to-be and their spouses" attend classes every year, according to her NY Times obit. Everymorning talk 17:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Unopposed Interesting life, article says "Bing wanted to go to France to learn the method from Lamaze, but was not able to as Mount Sinai Hospital could not afford to send her there.[3] However, she had the good fortune of meeting Marjorie Karmel, who had published the book Thank You, Dr. Lamaze, in 1959. Karmel had learned the method directly from Lamaze in Paris, and she in turn taught it to Bing.[3] In 1960, the two went on to found the American Society for Psychoprophylaxis in Obstetrics, now known as Lamaze International." μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose As Medeis points out, it's not that she developed the Lamaze method (which I would consider a significant achievement) but only help popularize in the States and subsequently creating the foundation. Also, this is another article that's entirely built on obit references, and while not in bad shape from sourcing, begs the question of importance. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Battle of Ramadi (2014–present)Edit

Nominator's comments: Seems to be a significant development in the ISIS insurgency, and is getting a lot of news coverage. According to Reuters, "If Ramadi were to fall it would be the first major city seized by the insurgents in Iraq since security forces and paramilitary groups began pushing them back last year." Everymorning talk 11:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  • If it would actually happen, it would be a medium-important event in one of several ongoing civil wars in that region (Iraq, Syria, Yemen). For any of these civil wars I see a point in having them under ongoing as long as there are no other important ongoing topics. Adding a blurb for each battle in any of these civil wars would be at least one blurb per week. I would support to add Iraqi Civil War to Ongoing after the article has been updated to contain prose summaries in the 2013-2015 sections and the bullet list in the 2013 section moved to a separate article. LoveToLondon (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • support - escalation, article seems updated and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2015


  • Comment – well according to Vicenews[41] there is heavy fighting for a year. I support to add Iraq civil war as ongoing event.--Jenda H. (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    I would also support readding Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to ongoing. There have been enough high-profile developments recently to warrant it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Ongoing" listing is not just about whether an event is literally ongoing or not. Continual updates to the target article is an absolute requirement. Timeline of the Iraqi insurgency (2015) has received a total of one update (this one) since April 1. (That article is a subarticle of Iraqi insurgency (2011–present) which has ZERO 2015 events listed itself.) ISIL has a few updates since May 1, but still far short of what I would consider continual updates.
Now, if Ramadi does falls, that could certainly warrant a blurb, but ongoing is not justified now or later. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Ramadi has now fallen. This is an important city.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending update considering the recent news. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending update. I fixed a line or two but it needs work. Jusdafax 01:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and marked ready. The last of special forces flee the city and thus ISIL makes it all. -The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 09:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted as blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Valenzuela factory fireEdit

Article: Kentex slipper factory fire (talk, history)
Blurb: An industrial fire in Valenzuela City, Philippines kills at least 72 people.
News source(s): Manila Times, BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Very large death toll for a fire. Criminal charges are said to certain to be filed. ThaddeusB (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support While the news articles point out safety is not great in Manila, this is a serious enough accident that there likely will be criminal activities. Article could use a map if possible but that's far from an ITN posting issue. --MASEM (t) 04:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Nearly half the death total of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, and reminding of a similar incident a few years ago, at Bangladesh if I recall correctly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Comment" - I changed the link to fix redirection. George Ho (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Masem. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support --Jenda H. (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Major disaster with heavy loss of life. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Dzhokhar Tsarnaev sentenced to deathEdit

No consensus to post the sentence. There will be another round of discussion if and when it is carried out. Stephen 00:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (talk, history) and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (talk, history)
Blurb: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is sentenced to death by a jury for his involvement with the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings.
News source(s): The GuardianUSA Today
 Mz7 (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Big news, major development in a very high-profile case. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We posted when he was convicted [42] knowing full well the question on the table was going to be a death sentence or multiple life sentences. We don't need to post again. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem.--WaltCip (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support: Significant but we did post the conviction. I would argue that the actual execution of the sentence would be more worth posting if/when that happens Palmtree5551 (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. We posted the conviction, and another mention is not needed. Mamyles (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until or if the sentence is carried out. These things tend to take a while. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - the end to a high profile case world wide.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Oh, it's nowhere near the end. Even forgetting the many years before it's carried out, there will be the usual yammering from death penalty opponents who call it murder (which it isn't) and those arguing that a guy who blew up children still should have a right to life. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Also, it's funny (not!) how the righteous Europeans who say the US shouldn't use the death penalty, especially on such a trivial terrorist attack, and who also often criticize Americans' right to bear arms, seem willing to put up with terror attacks on a much grander scale. Some cause and effect there, maybe? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose a terrorist who contributed to the death of less than a handful of people is going to be executed. So what? Alternatively, he could spend five, ten, twenty, forty years on Death Row courtesy of the US justice system. This is nothing more than the conviction which was already posted. Handing another headline to the exact same story, just because the US, like North Korea, the Zetas, ISIS etc, has barbaric "justice" is not what we're here to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This forum is not for you to provoke other editors and/or heap contempt on America's justice system, TRM, you can do that elsewhere. Everymorning talk 20:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It's nothing of the sort, it's a rational comparison to justice systems who murder their "criminals", or worse, leave them waiting for execution for decades. Simple as that. If you'd like to discuss it further, feel free to leave me a message. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The article was featured twice In the News. Even when sources say that such incident was a mere familial plan, something tells me that there may have been hidden sources who came up with the plan. How can two random youngsters obtain a mechanical bomb? As for the death penalty, I can be sure that the convicted will try to appeal the sentence somehow. I don't know how many years he has left until execution. Re-nomination will be likely if he is executed (probably by lethal injection). George Ho (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It was a pressure cooker bomb, and surprisingly easy to make (the instructions were published in a magazine). In any case, this is not the place for discussion of conspiracy theories. I will say that it will be notable if he is in fact executed, or just dies on death row due to the automatic appeal process.--WaltCip (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Federal executions move more swiftly, especially if the defendant doesn't appeal. McVeigh was executed within two years IIRC. μηδείς (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Four years. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, McVeigh was executed only four years after conviction, but that is mostly because he decided three years post-conviction that he wanted to waive most of his remaining appeals, which greatly accelerated the process. The current average stay on federal death row is still 15 years. Dragons flight (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose we shouldn't have posted before, but waited. We even shouldn'ter post a second time. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until execution per Baseball Bugs. That would be the justice's final word of historical significance. Brandmeistertalk 20:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support As I stated in the previous discussion, we should not have posted the news of his conviction since it was on the same level as the sun rising in the East. This is the real news. As for whether or not he is actually executed, that is neither here nor there. The sentence is major news in itself. Some of the other oppose votes appear to be a case of I DON'T LIKE IT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    I think most of the oppose votes are based on either the idea he has been convicted, which was posted, and his sentence is neither here nor there. I'm not seeing a single DONTLIKEIT argument. Or should we take your position as advocating the posting of every death sentence levelled by the US justice system? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support because this is a major story, and we have good articles to highlight. How do I know it is a major story? News treats it that way. Follow the sources, not my own opinion. As always, follow the sources. If this is a major headline, AND we have a good article to highlight, there isn't any valid reason NOT to post it. --Jayron32 20:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • No, we don't always follow the sources, because the news likes to sensationalize things. Right now, I'm watching news tweets from respectable sources like the BBC and CNN gushing about trivia about the death penalty in the US. It's news to make people feel good about the resulting decision, but for all matters, his fate was determined at conviction - he wasn't walking away a free man. We should not give in to sensationalism reporting. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Yep, this is one of the more absurd things I've read from you Jayron. A death penalty for a terrorist in America? Bound to stir up the the guttersnipes and you're advocating ITN mirrors that kind of trash. We did the conviction, he's been given a death penalty which will add an extra few sentences to his article, which we've already posted, and to what benefit to our readers? This isn't a tabloid encyclopedia, it's a real one. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    Except, it isn't tabloid sources that are making this a top story, it's the serious journalism ones. Again, the problem is that you want to make ITN a vehicle to change the world, not one that reflects it. It isn't for us to say what is important, merely reflect it. That we wish it weren't important doesn't make it so. It isn't about us and our decisions here. --Jayron32 06:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    I didn't say anything about tabloid sources. Of course it's headline news, it's an American story that strikes at the heart of American society. But it's just the natural progression from his conviction. We don't need to continually revisit the story. He will appeal, so shall we post that? How many Boston bomber stories do we need? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep in mind that some editors here think they are smarter than the sources. Don't let them carborundum you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait for execution. Quite possible appeal from them, plus bad article quality. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Assuming he uses his appeals, it could be years, even a decade, until he is actually executed. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support because US federal death sentences are relatively rare(I think) but I understand those who have pointed out that we already posted his conviction, so I could live with not posting it. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Similar to the Costa Concordia, which was featured multiple times on ITN, we don't need blow-by-blow updates to the story. We posted the initial incident and the conviction; subsequent legal steps do not need individual ITN mentions. SpencerT♦C 21:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. A reason to post, albeit minor, is that "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev" is a doozy of a name to type for those readers who want to see the article. Abductive (reasoning) 23:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We've already featured this case once. I don't think it is sufficiently important to warrant featuring again. After all, it was not a very deadly terrorist attack. Posting again would smack of systemic bias. Neljack (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until the execution. Nergaal (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too recent to be posting Tsarnaev again. Dragons flight (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Miyagawa (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We posted his conviction and it could be many, many years until he's actually executed, if he is. No need to overdo one story. Black Kite (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. His conviction was expected, since his attorney admired he placed the bomb. The death sentence was unexpected and is in the brews internationally. Calidum T|C 12:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
That is a pretty unfortunate typo of admitted you have there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait - This is definitely INT material and a death sentence here in the US in somewhat rare. This man is responsible for a terrorist attack that we (the US) haven't had since 9/11. His execution though can be overturned and instead the "Boston Bomber" may face a life in prison sentence which is also INT material because he was responsible of a terrorist attack on the US. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • AP: After Death Sentence, What's Next for Boston Marathon bomber
– Who knows? Marriage? University? A trip to Hawaii?
PS: Why isn't bomber capitalized? Sca (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
"a death sentence here in the US in somewhat rare." I think you meant to say that a federal death sentence in the U.S. is somewhat rare (37 in all, only 3 after 1963, of which McVeigh was one). Death sentences in the U.S. generally are somewhat less rare (14 executions in the U.S. so far this year alone, and that despite a current controversy over lethal injection). - Tenebris (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] First warm-blooded fishEdit

Articles: Opah (talk, history) and Lampris guttatus (talk, history)
Blurb: Scientists discover the Opah is the first fish known to maintain warm blood
Alternative blurb: ​Scientists discover that the opah is the first fish known to maintain its body temperature above its surroundings.
News source(s):

Opah has been reported in Science to be the first warm-blooded fish, a feature otherwise limited to birds and mammals. Nergaal (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Any particular reason why you so ardently refuse to use the template? What's your blurb? Is Opah the target article? Is it updated? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Close - First, no template used. Second, the claim is misleading and directly contradicts the text of the article - "However, it is not classed as a warm-blooded organism, because it does not have the features that other warm-blooded animals have."--WaltCip (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • A template is not required but it significantly helps the nomination. (particularly as another editor can help that be completed) --MASEM (t) 18:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - calls it the first "fully warm-blooded" fish discovered. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the tuna and sharks have been known to warm their blood temporarily during dives, with a need to resurface to recover. This is the first fish known to maintain a temperature well above ambient continuously. μηδείς (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting and notable discovery.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Good ITN material. Very unusual and fascinating discovery, a true first. Article appears to be in decent shape. Jusdafax 20:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I suggest we wait for someone who actually has a clue about the subject matter, e.g. User:Abductive to weigh in. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - significant discovery, high quality and updated article. I was planning to nominate, but I am very glad others managed to do all the work first. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. A problem, as I see it, is that the result is for Lampris guttatus, whose article is not yet updated. Although it is likely that Lampris immaculatus also has countercurrent heat exchange in its gills, the target article should not be Opah the genus. Anyway, somebody needs to update Lampris guttatus (by cutting and pasting) and make the blurb point to it, not Opah, and it should be ready. Abductive (reasoning) 23:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
      Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Opah is awesome (just ate it for dinner) and this is a significant scientific find. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Marked ready as the article looks like it's in good shape and there seems to be broad consensus to post. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with altblurb. It is an interesting, but not super-significant, discovery. But it is very good ITN material. Abductive (reasoning) 04:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The original blurb was only a space filler I rigged up when our negligent nominator neglected to use the template. μηδείς (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 Burundian coup d'état attemptEdit

No consensus for this one. Discuss the nomination above now that the situation is resolved. Stephen 23:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 Burundian coup d'état attempt (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A coup d'état attempt in Burundi is thwarted as President Pierre Nkurunziza returns to the country and army generals who attempted to remove him from office are arrested for mutiny.
News source(s): CNN

Article updated
Nominator's comments: A nomination to post General Niyombare's announcement of the coup was unsuccessful a couple days ago. Now that the coup has officially failed and Niyombare is in detention, I think we should revisit this as a noteworthy development in Burundian/East African politics. Kudzu1 (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose while I sympathise that this could have become a big story, this is pretty much a case of "news that didn't actually happen". It's not even on the BBC homepage, and second to the capture of Ramadi on the world homepage. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - though they failed,it did happen and is notable. and has been mentioned world wide. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on article improvements - It failed, but we do have completion of this story which was a challenge to a standing national government. However, I would strongly suggest that we need resolution on the merge request that is pending. The failed coup should be in the main unrest article since the two events are tied together. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted to RD] B.B. KingEdit

Article: B.B. King (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Alternative blurb: Blues legend B.B. King dies at the age of 89.
News source(s): Yahoo News ABC News BBC CBC

Nominator's comments: Blues legend. The question is whether this be a blurb or just under the Recent Deaths line. I think he is significant enough for a blurb. Andise1 (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. I was in the process of nominating this myself. I would lean to RD but wouldn't object to a full blurb. Calidum T|C 06:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support shoe in for RD and support for blurb when updated as well, cannot think of more important remaining blues performer, of a par with Johnny Cash and Ray Charles. μηδείς (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD - A blurb is a fair consideration, but I don't think King's death is quite there. This isn't something that's going to be in the news for days. Even legends fit quite well in the RD section. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD for now, wouldn't object to a blurb though. —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 06:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD - and no objection to full blurb. Iconic blues master with an influence on generations. Jusdafax 06:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for RD, and a blurb wouldn't be a problem either. Abductive (reasoning) 06:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD for notability but oppose on article quality, vast paragraphs without a single reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Obvious support for notability, but article needs to be in good shape before posting. Weak Oppose blurb. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Article has no tags at the moment, notability obvious. No need for blurb, this is what RD is for. (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
An assertion is not a rationale. μηδείς (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Erm say what? What are you going on about? (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Ready for Blurb strong and obvious support for blurb (per RfC, unless otherwise stated, supports count also as blurb supports) we may need some CN tags to address if there are actual problems, otherwise the entire article has at worst notable primary sources listed. 07:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Unmark ready: Article has obvious and significant sourcing problems that should be addressed before posting. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Please link to the RFC that said that a clear and unambiguous statement such as "Support RD" inherently supports a blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD pending cleanup of citations - man was a legend in his field. Challenger l (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD or blurb: Article looks in good shape following some good work by Kudzu1. A real genius and giant in the world of blues. (B.B.King that is, not Kudzu1). Martinevans123 (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It's getting there, anyway. Trying to get as much filled in as possible tonight before I turn back into a pumpkin. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD and blurb. Recent nominations (at least since I've been involved here) have set a very high bar for the death of a person receiving a blurb, especially when the death is from old age. So I disagree that all of the votes above are "automatic" votes for a blurb.
Having said that, I think variety in the items listed on the front page should be a factor for consideration, as well as the established criteria of article quality and newsworthiness. In the present instance, I support a blurb. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD. He is obvious for RD. Oppose blurb unless someone can think of something more significant about the death than "X dies at age Y". Dragons flight (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Whoo! Okay, that should be all (or at least most) of the referencing problems dealt with. I have no more objections to posting now, although I certainly agree with Dragons flight that a blurb does not seem necessary; King was on hospice care for several weeks and his illnesses were well known, so it's not like his death comes as a major shock. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    Good work. Agree this is ready and consensus clearly in favour of RD listing. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. In general person dies of natural causes should never be a blurb IMO, no matter how top of the field that person is, unless the death will have long term ramifications, such as death of a major world leader, monarch, etc. This is what RD is for.  — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 08:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD only per above. It seems RD is preffered even by those who wouldn't mind a blurb (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. Clear consensus for it. If considered necessary, a blurb can be further discussed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support for RD; clearly merits an RD listing, though I'm not convinced a blurb is warranted(though like others I would not oppose it). 331dot (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Good that it was posted to RD. However, I think it can warrant a blurb as they are mostly for politicians and the one-proper noun institution of Nobel laureates. We could have more general arts and culture (economic too if we get that) that is very rare (was the last one Robin Williams?). As an aside, a generation is getting wiped out. Ben E. King and Percy Sledge too in the same of a few weeks120.62.26.243 (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  • The purpose of RD is to clean out the clutter of postings which say nothing more than "X dies at age Y." Only when the manner of death is itself newsworthy, such as Robin Williams was, is a blurb warranted. Generally, old people dying of being old is not itself a newsworthy event. In cases where a blurb is warranted for old people being old, it is generally done where there is likely to be highly newsworthy events surrounding the death, i.e. the memorial services would attract major world leaders, or otherwise become newsworthy events in their own right, for example as we did with Nelson Mandela. B.B. King is certainly a towering figure in the world of music, but neither the manner of his death, nor the reactions to it, are likely to generate the sort of news coverage that makes the death worthy of a blurb. THAT'S what the difference between RD and a blurb should be: if we don't need to say any more than "so-and-so died", then it goes to RD. -_Jayron32 14:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    Pretty much this. Basically, if the world stops and catches its breath on news of the passing, we should make it a blurb - that was the case for important world leaders like Thatcher and Mandela, and for tragic, unexpected losses like Williams. I'm not seeing the world stopping to mourn for B.B. King though certainly are respecting his passing making it a clear RD. (This is why I had problems when we had a blurb for that German author a few weeks ago - that fails this simple test). --MASEM (t) 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

May 14Edit