Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/April 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.

[Posted] End of MESSENGER

 * Support. Aside from the end of the mission, any sort of landing on another planet (even if a crash) is notable in my view. I also think this hasn't been done on Mercury before. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support once the article is updated. The end of an 11-year space mission is obviously notable enough to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support it has been confirmed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Confirmation of its crash has been established. We have a final image 2m from Mercury's surface as prove. --M ASEM (t) 20:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This was an intentional crash by NASA due to lack of funding. The original blurb implies that lack of fuel caused the crash. Almost any orbit around Mercury would be perfectly stable because Mercury has no atmosphere to cause orbital decay. This is not the same as the International Space Station, which does need fuel to reboost orbit due to orbital decay with earth's atmosphere. However, NASA is not admitting that it intentionally crashed the satellite and I can't find any news sources to support this theory. My alt blurb leaves out the lack of fuel part. Brian Everlasting (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily oppose your altblurb, but do you have a source for that claim? The CNN page leads off with "NASA's Messenger space probe crashed into Mercury on Thursday after running out of fuel" and that "scientists determined there was no way to save it"; the BBC page states it was "Now fully out of fuel".  No amount of funding would get more fuel to the probe. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * From BBC: "For four years - and 4,104 circuits in total - Messenger traced a highly elliptical orbit around Mercury. It regularly drifted out to a distance of nearly twice the planet's diameter, before swinging to within 60 miles (96km) at closest approach. To maintain this pattern in the face of interference from the Sun, it needed a blast of engine power every few months, which meant the mission faced an inevitable, violent end when the fuel ran out." I don't think we can engage in a conspiracy theory here. --M ASEM (t) 20:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Masem is correct here. The comments by Brian Everlasting about funding are completely missing the point (unless he meant that more funding should have been provided before launch to enable a longer mission). He also shows a lack of understanding of how the mission was planned and why it needed fuel to maintain its orbit (the Sun affected the orbit). Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's possible Brian Everlasting is getting confused by early mission details. Per sources like   and our own article, the primary mission was for a year, and it was extended it sounds like at least twice. There was always a possibility it could have been abandoned earlier, I'm not sure if it would have been intentionally crashed early in that case, but I guess it may have been. But if there was absolutely no one working on it, I presume it would have crashed due to the lack of corrections. Others may know more than me, but even under the current scenario I suspect funding could have been a factor after design/launch in how soon it crashed. In particular, from my read of the sources including our article, it's possible different orbit corrections which may have conserved more fuel and made the mission last longer, could have been made. It sounds to me most likely the orbit corrections that were made were chosen because it was felt they would give the most useful images from available probe resources. But from what I've read I also can't completely rule out orbit corrections being chosen based on the assumption that there may not be enough funding to go for longer so better to get these images now rather than never. Nil Einne (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support but please add the pic from 2m above Mercury. Nergaal (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That pic (which I think I misread being 2m from the surface but showing an approx. 1km square area) is here File:Last_Image_by_NASA_MESSENGER.jpg but I don't think that is as interesting as the artist's version of the probe already included. --M ASEM (t) 23:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The 2m refers to 2m per pixel. Stephen 23:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The probe crashed on the side of Mercury currently facing away from the Earth, so the last 1000 or so pictures it took were lost with it. It did skim only a few hundred metres(!) above the surface on its penultimate orbit. I hope they one day identify the crater it formed. Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per 331dot. I agree that landing on another planet is sufficient for inclusion without reference to the fact whether it was successful or not. This crash marking the end of an 11-year space mission makes it even more important.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Historically and scientifically significant space mission has reached its inevitable, crunchy conclusion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. Stephen 00:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggestion Can we add the word "purposely" in front of "crashes"? Without the context, it sounds like a failure which most source agree this was far from one, the crash the best manner of maximizing useful information on the probe's last legs. --M ASEM (t) 14:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose the change, as it makes it sound like the probe had agency in crashing itself into the planet. Bad English. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Arguably, under directions sent by NASA to the problem to alter its orbit, it did. --M ASEM (t) 04:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Eschborn-Frankfurt City Loop

 * Weak support it's one of those "it's news because it didn't become news" stories, but it's significant because it's in Germany, it's disrupted a 50+ year-old event, it's been likened to the Boston Marathon bombings and it's certainly being discussed around the world right now.  Article is slim but decent enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support per The Rambling Man. A major cancelation seems like a big deal. I'd probably prefer the alt to the original blurb. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support per TRM on both quality and merits. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support per above. The news is not so much the terrorist threat, but the disruption of an annual traditional event for the first time in its history. --M ASEM (t) 20:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose we don't post this race normally, and unless there are arrests all we've got is an overabundance of caution, which is itself not news, certainly not ITN. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Arrests, assault rifle, pipe bombs etc etc etc. Research? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and stricken, but that should be in both the blurb and the nomination rationale. If someone just mentioned Lincoln had a bad night at the Ford Theater I'd have opposed that too. μηδείς (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Forgive me,, this is my first time at ITN and I'm not wholly familiar with how things are done... Relentlessly (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No apologies are necessary. μηδείς (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The Rambling Man of course didn't cite sources that explained that only parts of an assault rifle were found and that the ammunition found was not for that assault rifle. The plural pipe bombs he used was never supported by any source. LoveToLondon (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Fortunately a happy end, but nothing beyond that. Unspecified threat, no terrorist act, no deaths. Brandmeistertalk  21:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point, after all, we're just here to look for the blood, guts and murder. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose and please discount support votes that are based on incorrect claims.
 * Many top cyclists were scheduled to take part. - it was a race of a lower tour, not of the 2015 UCI World Tour (that actually has a bigger race this week). I'm counting exactly 2 top cyclists in the field.
 * The news is not so much the terrorist threat, but the disruption of an annual traditional event for the first time in its history. Tradition does not imply importance, and compared to Rund um Köln it is not even that old. Would a cancellation due to lack of sponsorship have been posted to ITN if it had caused the disruption of this annual traditional event for the first time in its history?
 * it's significant because it's in Germany If that's your criteria, you should nominate the scandal that BND supported US government espionage against European politicians and companies - that is much bigger news in Germany this week and will continue to make headlines for some time.
 * it's been likened to the Boston Marathon bombings What is significant about that? The sources are saying that if a terror attack was actually planned it might have been a copy of the Boston Marathon bombings. It is not true that it would have had the impact of the Boston Marathon bombings.
 * following a terrorist threat So far this is pure speculation. It is not even proven that these people planned a terrorist attack, and even less clear whether they targeted this race or just happened to live in the area where the race is.
 * LoveToLondon (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As you presumably know,, the WorldTour is not the be all and end all of professional cycling. I agree, however, that "terrorist threat" is ambiguous and that the cancellation per se is not ITN-worthy. I certainly see where you're coming from. My opinion is that for a high-level professional sporting event to be cancelled because of a suspected terrorist attack is relevant to the page. Relentlessly (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As you also know, LoveToLondon, being an experienced editor with a new account, you simply can't expect someone to nominate an item for ITN just because they happen to support another. If you care so much, do it yourself.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - this is significant.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nur in Deutschland. Sca (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Not even there. Even in Germany it was top news only for half a day, check for example the website of the main public TV station where it is currently news number 4 (after UK election, North Korea and Nepal), or other major media from serious to boulevard where this news from yesterday is already considered less important than UK election, Greece or BND and football. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment In the German language Wikipedia it is not on the frontpage, and the article in the German WP covering the race currently contains less words for it than the proposed ITN blurb - clearly contradicting claims like it's significant because it's in Germany. LoveToLondon (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, just reinforcing claims that the de.wiki could be better. And it's "fewer words".  Now stop, and try to be constructive.  Or log into your old account and carry on there.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The German language Wikipedia actually treats it correctly based on the relevance it has in Germany. I don't have an old account, so stop your personal insults against me for revealing that your claims like it's significant because it's in Germany and it's certainly being discussed around the world right now were blatant lies - it is a relatively minor story in Germany and internationally not even a major headline in cycling (just try to find the given sources for this ITN from the frontpage of the media they are from). LoveToLondon (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok! Say no more ;)!  (P.S. As for "lies", please provide diffs for your quotes... I need to see where you can refute what I directly said about what you're quoting, or perhaps you're changing my comments deliberately?  Surely not........!) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are saying you did not write what is signed with your name above? LoveToLondon (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait too much unclear information - they had bomb-making chemicals, but currently unknown if the Salafists actually placed any bombs. Reporting is limited, article quality is limited, and we might know more in 24 hours. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Even your statement the Salafists is not backed by the sources, the sources only say these people had contacts with salafists. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Unique dinosaur discovered

 * Weak oppose: Seems like a rather arbitrary feature to make ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And strong oppose altblurb, as it simply isn't true. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support (conditional) if we can get a much better explanation--from what I read last night its neither a bird nor a pterosaur but was considered capable of rudimentary flight. That would be a huge discovery, since we have only known of four groups, the insects, pterosaurs, birds and bats that could fly since the 1800's.  This would make the fifth. μηδείς (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not flight. As an evolutionary advance, gliding is much more common than flapping flight. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why I am waiting for more information, the popular source I read last night pointed out its close proximity to the birds, but that fact that it was not a bird itself, and had a different wing structure that may have allowed flapping. The animal is unique enough that I will support its posting no matter what, it would be absolutely farcical to argue we wouldn't post a new genus of unique mammalian gliders, I just want a better picture. μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. They're not wings. It was a glider, like the members of the Category:Gliding animals. This is a rather common trait, and includes species of ants, snakes, 3400 species of frogs, squirrels, a primate and marsupials.  Abductive  (reasoning) 16:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - important.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Please do not... add simple "support" or "oppose" !votes. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached." Abductive  (reasoning) 17:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised this is the first time you've noticed this! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - I wouldn't mind a somewhat better blurb to make the distinction that this was gliding instead of powered flight, but it is still flight via non-feathered wings. peer-reviewed via Nature, and article in good initial shape for posting. --M ASEM (t) 17:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They seem to have feathers, and they are not wings. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "The strange membranous wings of Yi qi are unique among dinosaurs and difficult to interpret." If they aren't wings, what would you call them?  Please suggest an alternate blurb that better describes the find if you can.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Planes or membranes. Anyway, I provided an altblurb. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I support that altblurb by calling it a gliding dinosaur, making it immediately clear without any additional context. --M ASEM (t) 17:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree the altblurb is better than the original. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. It's a volant dinosaur using membranes instead of feathers, which is unique. Easily the most notable fossil discovery of this century so far. The altblurb is incorrect as many other presumed gliding dinosaurs are known.--MWAK (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , do you have another suggestion for the blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support because Abductive supports, and "I trust this user". Article is rudimentary but functional enough to describe the good bits.  Just get the blurb right please.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. According to the sourcing, this is a dinosaur with "seemingly bony wrist structure that may have had a role in flight". I appreciate that it's now May Day, but let's not be too literal about it. Formerip (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The most important fossil discovery for many years. Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. Stephen 00:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ouch. As posted now, the blurb is simply untrue. Change it into: "first known dinosaur using membranes instead of feathers" or something similar.--MWAK (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Argh is more appropriate than ouch, don't you think. This is not the first believed gliding dinosaur.  The blurb needs fixing, not the story pulling. 07:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Changed back to the original blurb. Black Kite (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Ditto on the notability and uniqueness of this fascinating new species. Also note that the membranes were also found attached to the extended sesamoid bones, so it is not simply an assumption that it glided/flew but a well-founded hypothesis. TheLateDentarthurdent (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Rubella eradication

 * Weak Support Seems notable event since we're basically talking one hemisphere rid of it. A few small issues with article (Also, I would suggest that the lead image on that article can be cropped to just show the back/above the waist, as to maintain the "principle of least surprise" when it comes to possibly questionable images on WP) --M ASEM  (t) 15:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I cropped the image and added some additional references to the symptoms section. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I personally would not be offended but I can envision someone would be with the original uncropped version without having a warning. No issues on article from me. --M ASEM (t) 20:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: The first of hopefully several important advancements in combating disease this year. Not unexpected, but historically significant. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose good work, but it only takes one infected person to bring it back. This should get a blurb when the disease is eradicated world-wide, not just in one area of it. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it requires a transfer of a native strain. An imported strain doesn't count, so it is considerably more difficult than simply someone catching it elsewhere and bringing it back.  We posted when Polio was eradicated from the South-East Asia Region.  I believe that is the only other major regional eradication in ITN history.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd assume that when WHO says "eradicated" they are based on that on statistical data (as implied by the article) and there are certainly likely isolated cases of people that have not been to a doctor in some time that may still carry the native strain; there's also the imported strain aspect Thaddeus describes. It is similar to when a species is considered extinct in that there may still be living instances but they are so rare or undiscovered to be able to assure the continuation of the species. --M ASEM  (t) 17:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure I get this. The fact that the local strain has been wiped out is like saying Jefferson defeated islamist terrorism in 1801. I am not terrible upset this was posted, but does it mean we'll also have other local postings and then a final posting and an anniversary posting? μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support big news, just like the Poliomyelitis eradication in the South-East Asia Region, that we posted last March. Significant progress and helpful that we have people that actually know what they're talking about around here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. A notable public health advancement. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly a significant milestone in the advance of medicine and health. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. Stephen 00:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] First test flight of New Shepard

 * Oppose: Don't see how this is all that notable. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the article has an orange tag and clearly needs significant updating. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting a test flight; if this is on a new type of rocket it would be ITNR when it actually is launched on a mission. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Progress M-27M accident

 * Support — A mayor space accident. --Jenda H. (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Progress is unmanned, and part of routine delivery of materials to the ISS; this won't end the ISS mission and unless Progress crashes in a populated area, nothing serious in the long term. --M ASEM (t) 19:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To add, the updates later today suggest that this will burn up harmlessly in the atmosphere within the week, so this is not like it is plummetting back to Earth and threatening anyone's life. --M ASEM (t) 23:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait at least until there is better info. The facts seem sketchy at present. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Question. Would this not be ITNR, if updated? ("Launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article") 331dot (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is an unmanned vessel. This is nowhere near the imprint on the world's collective memory as the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Obviously, if it crashes and causes a catastrophe, include, but the chances of that are miniscule, as the experts say. Of course, they're also the same experts who said that this would get to the ISS. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. This is listed as ITN/R. What is needed is an article with sufficient detail. Including when and where it came down. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - listed as ITN/R. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see this at ITN/R. If we're talking "Launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article" this wasn't a launch failure. It launched fine, they lost control while they were manuevering it to orbit and dock with ISS. --M ASEM (t) 13:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a failed launch because it did not reach the proper orbit due to the malfunction. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support This failure is the latest in what I consider to be a long series of misguided missions to the ISS. Why are NASA and Roscosmos spending so much money on the ISS? Just let the ISS fall out of the sky and focus on Mars. Brian Everlasting (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As Medeis suggests, personal opposition to the ISS is not relevant here. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Since when have launch failures been ITN/R? Nor is this to highlight failures due to editor opposition to the ISS itself.  Unless this wipes out something when it lands (indeed, is it still outside the atmosphere?) there's no story here. μηδείς (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been ITNR since 2011 (this revision) as a result of this discussion which narrowed the listing from its original "any space mission". 331dot (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - The article meets my standards for an ITN blurb. In the news, clearly, and of international interest. Jus  da  fax   19:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Having every and any failed rocket launch on ITNR seems far too silly to take seriously. I think it's a bit moot in this case, though, because the launch seems to have been successful, it's just that they lost control of the thing once it was in space. Formerip (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't "every and any failed rocket launch"; it is failures with sufficient details to update the article, which is not always the case. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We always require sufficient details to update the relevant article, of course. That isn't really adding anything. Formerip (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted - ITN/R overrides any appearance of local non-consensus and the article is in adequate condition. 331dot is correct that that the current rule was established as a compromise between those who wished to continue posting every launch (once upon a time, there was 1-2 of these posted every month) and those who did not.   It certainly was intended to include any kind of failure, not just an explosion or similar at the moment of on take off.  This may actually be the first time ITN/R was invoked since the rule changed - it certainly is not frequent regardless.  However, if ITN/R needs changed, this is not the place to discuss that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Crown prince of Saudi Arabia

 * Oppose Speculation this is tied in with other events, and this is not deposing the current leader in the country. Unless I'm missing something, there is no official duties tied to the Crown Prince (comparable: the US Vice President does have official powers) so this is mostly preparing the heir in the future. --M ASEM  (t) 16:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...the crown prince being deposed is not every day and its more notable with a new king recently. There is some sort of a power struggle going on in the world's largest oil exporter at the same time as an increase in regional conflicts. (also note the radical swings in oil prices this year so far...). See the first line in the "Succession" section. Personally, I would tie it to Bahrain too but that's more "speculative" so I'm not expecting that to be posted. Although I'm not saying its going to be replicated but South Sudan deposed the VP a mere 6 months before the violence of the civil war started...120.62.28.109 (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – Wait 'til dust settles. Sca (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support A major shift of power in an important country. Even if things are in flux right now, what we know so far is enough to be notable. Thue (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait a bit as per Sca. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose; from what little I know about Saudi government, the King can change who is succeeding him at any time, so this is not unusual. It also seems that the Crown Prince has few if any official duties so there is little impact to the country. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure the crown prince may have little power now. But it is the dictatorial equivalent of a US president being elected in November 2012; even though he only comes into power in January 2013, the fact that he is anointed is still considered news in November 2012. Thue (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A closer comparison would be a change in the vice president, since the crown prince has similar responsibilities and only comes into power if the king dies. As 331dot mentioned, the crown prince can and does change, which while uncommon is not unusual. Mamyles (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I further presume that the King would choose someone ideologically similar to himself, so any change probably would not represent a sea change in Saudi government. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I fear that any comparisons with either hereditary monarchy or with populist democracy, as a means of understanding the significance of this change, are almost certainly bound to fail. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's important for readers to understand that the way that things are done in their own country isn't the only way of doing things. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not that uncommon, 3 of the last 4 crown princes never became king. LoveToLondon (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Only if you count this change; only two of the previous four never became king, and both died in office. This appointment represents a major political upheaval. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A comparison to a vice president really misses the point. Joe Biden is not going to become President. If there were a rule change in the US so that the vice president automatically became heir apperent to the president, then you can bet that we would post new vice presidents. Thue (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose internal Saudi politics issue. Not significant.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not quite at the level of a monarch himself being replaced, which would meet WP:R. Even if Prince Charles yielded his position as heir to Prince William, I doubt that would be included on here. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Comments like "from what little I know about Saudi government" convince me that this should be run. Part of the role of ITN and the wikipedia is to educate and inform. Saudi Arabia is a very important country, and the resders would benefit from knowing more about it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * However, no one has shown how this isn't just a reshuffling of heirs without a major change of government or how this ties into larger events. We do want to education, but we need to be more than "oh, this happened, we have no idea what it actually means in larger context beyond there's a new heir to the throne". --M ASEM (t) 03:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not so much a shift in power as in shift in hypothetical, future power. That's not to say the Crown Prince isn't powerful, but he's no King. When he (or another) takes the throne, I'll support a blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a cabinet shakeup. ITN never posts those. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Where one of the "cabinet members" can go on to become the unelected ruler of the country? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Like in the US? --M ASEM (t) 14:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's right; Nixon appointed Gerald Ford to be Vice-Pres, and Ford went on to be President without every being elected to either. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Lacks immediate significance of broader impact. Sca (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Maersk Tigris

 * Oppose for now. First I am not sure this is going to amount to more than a footnote in international news. Conceding this could become more significant in the future, I don't think it rises to ITN level at the moment. Secondly there doesn't appear to be anything relating to this incident to link to on the project. We are not a news service. ITN blurbs are supposed to link to a related article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on the first point (the vessel just reached the port about 5-6 hours ago according to maritime tracking data) but on the second we don't need to have needless news articles when there already is an article that can carry the events. The ITN does the project a disservice otherwise.120.62.28.109 (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait until if this was confirmed to be on purpose with malicious intent, which might take a few days to determine. --M ASEM (t) 14:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I think the case for ITN at this point is WP:CRYSTAL. There have been a lot of conflicting reports about what is going on, but the confirmed facts don't paint a picture of an international incident that would meet the notability criteria for ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait as per Masem. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even with malicious intent nothing that has happened so far would be relevant for a blurb. LoveToLondon (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait limited evidence so far, looks like this is to do with a dispute over Maersk being fined over something from 2010, they've agreed to pay ~$100,000 - and Iranian court wants them to pay $3.3 million. See Maersk about issues from 2010. Further details about 2010 may come out in the following days. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Maersk is reporting this is apparently a civil seizure over a ten year old dispute with an Iranian company over a ship Maersk was paid for but never delivered, see source. μηδείς (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Execution of Bali Nine duo

 * Support per nom, was about to nominate it myself. Significant event with lots of news coverage and substantial international impact. Everymorning   talk  01:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - significant international incident but the two executed should be bolder instead of the Nine. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé !  01:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Just run-of-the mill executions of career criminals. And that's a cute bit of grandstanding by the Australian government, given that it was Australian authorities who tipped off Indonesian authorities at the time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indonesia ceased its use of the death penalty for almost six years. See Capital punishment in Indonesia - Indonesia has killed more people in ~2 months than they have in ~7 years. This is not run of the mill. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Given the Australia-Indonesia dispute over the executions, it seems like this is a pretty significant on an international stage. NickCT (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Especially since the Australian authorities share in the responsibility for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Being responsible matters little. This case, as well as another one that climaxed in January with a similar execution, were a source of diplomatic tensions between Indonesia and other countries, not just Australia. A schizophrenic Brazilian national was among the executed, despite several appeals by Roussef. Last month, the Brazilian government rejected the credentials of the new Indonesian ambassador there, and now they are "evaluating" ties with Jakarta. I do believe the Australians shouldn't be mentioned so prominently for simply being Anglophone nationals, so I've added an altblurb for that purpose. I don't recall the January story being posted, so posting this one would do no harm. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: The article is now updated, and I've expanded the blurb to mention the six other drug convicts who were executed at the same time. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Was their (death sentence) conviction previously reported on ITN? If not, then Support. While on a functional level this isn't terribly significant, it has caused quite a diplomatic stir. Joshua Garner (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Executions of drug smugglers, including foreign nationals, is par for the course in Indonesia. If these unlucky Aussies were independently notable figures, I would support ITN, but they're pretty much only famous for being busted for drug trafficking in the wrooooong country to be busted for that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indonesia ceased its use of the death penalty for almost six years. See Capital punishment in Indonesia - Indonesia has killed more people in ~2 months than they have in ~7 years. This is not run of the mill. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support For the following reasons-
 * 1. Execution by firing squad: This should draw international condemnation.
 * 2. Foreign Nationals executed.
 * 3. Covered by media around the world and notable enough to be on ITN. Regards,  theTigerKing  02:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Nothing more than tabloid garbage. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No. The Netherlands and Brazil recalled their ambassadors in January, and the Australian government has recalled their ambassador. Ban Ki Moon publicly called for these death sentences not to be executed. The death penalty was suspended for six years under a previous Indonesian president and has resumed under the current one because he campaigned on it - this is not routine, countries recalling their ambassadors does not happen frequently. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Nothing in the article suggests a massive international reaction that some supports above suggest. Drug traffickers were discovered, given a trial, and sentenced to execution. Seems very run of mill, and nothing indicating that Indonesia just executed people wrongly or did not give them a fair trial. --M ASEM  (t) 03:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * read the article Capital punishment in Indonesia - no death sentences executed in all of 2014 - this is not "run of the mill" - in just this year they have killed more people than in the past ~7 years, and three countries have recalled their ambassadors, and lawyers allege sentencing judges sought $130,000 in bribes.-- Aronzak (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Which points to a long-term issue, this incident being one factor of that, and making this particular story less an ITN case. --M ASEM (t) 05:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Support for many reasons:
 * International Relations The Netherlands and Brazil recalled their ambassadors in January, and the Australian government has recalled their ambassador (Sydney Morning Herald Guardian). France and the EU have called on a moratorium on the executions of a French national, and Hollande has said he "would do everything possible up to the last moment" to prevent Serge Atlaoui's execution - (Euractiv) and France condemned the current wave of killings (news.com.au). Ban Ki Moon called on the execution not to go ahead (PhilStar Leadership (Nigeria) Philippines president Benigno Aquino III called for "humanitarian consideration" for Mary Jane Veloso, who was set to be executed. (ABC)
 * Wave of killings See Capital punishment in Indonesia - no death sentences were carried out in all of 2014, and no death sentences were carried out between 2009 and 2012. The reason for the sudden recommencement of the execution of prisoners on death row is Joko Widodo becoming president. This is therefore intrinsically a political issue, not a criminal justice issue. See the graphs in this article - Indonesia has already killed more people in two months than any year since 1999, and they are overwhelmingly foreigners.
 * Corruption The pair's lawyers say that the sentencing judges requested a $130,000 bribe. The Indonesian authorities pushed ahead with the execution, without waiting for the judicial review into the bribery accusations to take place.
 * Inconsistency: Note that people involved in the Bali Bombings have not been given death sentences, and some are currently walking free. A woman who murdered her own mother and crushed her body inside a suitcase was given 10 years.
 * Jimly Asshiddiqie, the previous chairman of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia (which upheld the death penalty in 2007) says that Indonesia should abolish the death penalty because "Global humanitarian values have changed" (Guardian ABC PM).

-- Aronzak (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Which betrays the true agenda, which is to make Wikipedia an advocate against the death penalty. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Recalling ambassadors to Indonesia does not mean advocate against the death penalty and Wikipedia is not supporting death penalty --Ant a n O   05:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support amount of diplomatic grief makes this in my opinion worthy of posting. SeraV (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as per other supporters point of view. --Ant a n O   04:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Barbaric. But unless the dead were actually innocent they knew what they were risking, not our place to write great wrongs. μηδείς (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Baltimore story, which is still ongoing despite y'all having killed it a day or two ago, is still the main front-page topic in the international edition of BBC.com. I'll concede that the disposal of a few drug smugglers is also mentioned on the page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the Baltimore story is ongoing,, it could be renominated, given the curfew and the Orioles being forced to play in an empty stadium.
 * Imagine that, posting an ITN about the Orioles playing in an empty stadium. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Non-notable persons were convicted of an actual crime which they evidently really did commit and handed a penalty that is hardly unique for the charges (several other Asian countries do the same). The volume of complaint about the execution was considerable but that alone means nothing to us and there doesn't appear to be any obvious political implications that don't carry a whiff of crystal ball.  In short, merely posting that they were executed is meaningless as they are not notable on their own and executions in SEA are hardly news, but adding more than that would be doing something we don't do. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 05:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yes, it is barbaric and does harm international relations. Western citizens executed in Asia, and everyone screams that this notable because it is a barbaric crime. How many of you did the same for each of the three foreign nationals that were executed in the US last year? It harmed international relations to a level that the US Secretary of State openly disagreed when Mexican Edgar Arias Tamayo was executed in Texas last year violating international law and an explicit court order of the International Court of Justice. Saudi Arabia executes around 20-40 foreigners by public beheading every year. There have already been two cases of Indonesion women being beheaded in Saudi Arabia this year (also harming international relations) - noone seems to care because they were not Westerners. LoveToLondon (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are free to nominate any issue you feel is not getting a prominent discussion due to systemic bias at any time. We can only debate the nominations that we are given. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually no, Wikipedia is not intended to be used for the promotion of causes and agendas. -Ad Orientem (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Who is talking about causes and agendas? I'm talking about systemic bias. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And we must for the current nomination also discuss which rationales for support votes are factually incorrect. Execution by firing squad: This should draw international condemnation. is incorrect when you consider that neither governments nor media seem to care much about the fact that Saudi Arabia has already done public beheading of around 50 people this year. LoveToLondon (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Notable international incident. It's not about righting wrongs; it's about what is in the news, as this is the 'in the news' section. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Executions are very rarely ITN material. The fact that foreign nationals were executed really doesn't alter that fact. When you travel to another country you are subject to their laws and legal system. The United States has executed foreign nationals and I don't recall them being featured on ITN. The diplomatic spat is just that and it will soon pass. On a side note, we need to be careful about using this page or the ITN section on the Front Page as a FORUM for pushing an anti-capital-punishment AGENDA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong but I don't think the US executions led to the recall of ambassadors(possibly because most executions in the US are at the state level) which is a very serious diplomatic matter. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure Mexico has recalled its ambassador at least once over the execution of their nationals. -Ad Orientem (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - we usually are hesitant to post crime articles. But in this case it is executions that has been mentioned in world media not just on the day of execution but for several years. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support very high profile event, all over the news here in Aus. &mdash; Jonny Nixon - ( Talk ) 13:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Bali Nine is unsourced. This will need fixed before I can consider posting.  The reaction section immediately after excessively uses quote boxes.  It would be nice is that was fixed, although it won't keep it off ITN. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support most of the known planet abhors capital punishment, and most of the world has been reporting this summary execution. It's a big, big multi-national story that, for a change, impacts a vast array of Wikipedia's readers, and which is being covered widely.  That no Americans were put to death shouldn't stop this from being considered considerably important global news.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The was an American called Frank Amado in death row in Indonesia, but I don't know if he is still there. Executions are fairly routine in the US, so I doubt if there will be much of a stir there. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Major international news. So far there have been executions of citizens of Nigeria, Thailand, Malawi, Vrazil, Australia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Pakistan, the Netherlands, India, Ghana and France. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel obligated to point out that "gets lots of coverage" and "high profile event" mean very little for ITN. Kim Kardashian's wedding got lots of coverage.  The premiere of the new Avengers movie is "high profile."  This doesn't make them ITN material.  Recalling ambassadors is something that happens many times a year around the world over a variety of incidents and is likewise not newsworthy, and I haven't seen anyone threatening sanctions or the like.  "Two governments disagree on whether or not to use the death penalty" is not news. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 22:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't recall Ms Kardashian getting front page coverage, nor the Age of Ultron for that matter. These were not grinning guests at some celebrity wedding or fashionable red carpet event. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To put it bluntly: so what? As I've pointed out, this isn't a news ticker making the front page of a newspaper means nothing other than that it sells papers/gets clicks.  I'm quite sure those executed did not enjoy themselves, but nowhere do I find that as a qualifier for ITN, do you?  Can you articulate a reason why this belongs ITN without resorting to emotional appeal? - OldManNeptune ⚓ 07:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Third story on the international BBC website, doubt Kim'd make that, ever... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Right next to Freddie Gray protests in several US cities. I think the objections over that being closed were valid. It will be fairly similar. A number of incidents spread out over time, with varying levels of news coverage. Baltimore does seem to have risen to the level of Ferguson. Indonesia may end up doing several rounds of executions, and there will be news coverage each time. ITN doesn't deal well with sporadically re-appearing news stories. The 'ongoing' links are a bit of a joke - who ever bothers to read what is listed there? Carcharoth (talk) 07:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 125,000+ views of the Yemeni article in 20-odd days and 682,000 views of the ISIL article in the past month. So the answer to your question is, a lot of people. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but not by following the links from the ITN template, I'll bet. What I meant to say was "who ever bothers to read or click on the 'ongoing' links?" They are buried away and are easily missed. I've never seen the point of that, but that is maybe a discussion to have at WT:ITN. Carcharoth (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why even post this when it's a repetition of the very thing I've already raised objection to? Hell if we're going by sheer volume of coverage, I'd guess the Kardashian clan as a whole qualifies for an ongoing (in case anyone is really not reading sarcasm, I am not suggesting we actually do that).  You're not going to convince me that third from top on BBC really means anything - we certainly don't post the top 3 stories each day, do we?  It is of course moot now, but all evidence points to this being posted on straw poll, without regard to either valid reasoning based on policy or article quality at the time of posting.  I was under the impression that's not how we do things. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 00:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 04:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - while I wouldn't have supported posting this, it has generated news coverage in the UK (though not at the level I would have thought warranted an ITN entry). Obviously the coverage has been far more extensive in Australia. The tragedy of this case is that it seems fairly clear that the two Australians (at least) were rehabilitated and reformed (the prison governor called them model prisoners and spoke out against the death sentences). Some of those executed were originally sentenced to life in prison, and this was changed on appeal to a death sentence. All clearly political (the president elected last October on a platform to win the war on drugs ) and very sad. There are other cases as well . Those future cases may well generate similar levels of news coverage. A more measured response here suggests that relations will at some point return to normal - i.e. the withdrawal of ambassadors is more a protest than a permanent breakdown in diplomatic relations. Carcharoth (talk) 06:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * While I agree that there was a consensus to post, I don't understand why the orange tag (which I pointed out above) was ignored. That is normally an automatic disqualification, let alone in a case where the discussion is fairly close.  (Someone else removed the section after the article was posted, specifically because the article was on the main page.)  --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was any sort of consensus, and the orange tag on the page is evidence that this one moved too fast. There should have been more time taken to assess article quality and consider the arguments in opposition to posting, of which there were several. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Orange tag? All I'm looking at is a good article. And for what it's worth, several items have recently been posted with such maintenance tags, it appears those days of insistence on quality are way behind us.   The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this version is the one that was posted. The issue has now been fixed, so consider the notice a reminder not to post such articles, not a request to do anything here...  The article is designated as a GA, but it passed GA back in 2007 when standards were much, much lower.  That combined with accumulated edits over 8 years meant there was no guarantee of quality just because it was a GA.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to matter now, the article is in decent shape, it's still world news, particularly as they appear to have executed an individual with mental difficulties who was unaware of the proceedings until the last moments, something that I understand doesn't even happen in the US. Oh, and if you don't believe it to be a Good Article any longer, please send it to WP:GAR.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (to note, it did happen before but now is considered unconstitutional). --M ASEM (t) 20:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I completely missed that when reviewing the article. I reviewed the intro, noted the GA classification and reviewed the sections related to the updated content (Appeals on down); when I clicked on the TOC to move to that section, I missed the orange-level tag. I assumed since the article had a GA designation that the rest of it was GA-quality. I will take more care when reviewing candidate articles in the future. Thank you to ThaddeusB for adding references. Best,  Spencer T♦ C 00:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] UK MEP David Coburn banned from Wikipedia indefinitely

 * Oppose - of minimal significance outside Wikipedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose navel gazing with minimal significance. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Navel gazing. --M ASEM (t) 14:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * comment, ok, that is SNOW. I have never done this before, and don't know how to withdraw a nomination.  please feel free to kill this.  thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Per WP:IAR I changed the header to say "MEP", as Coburn is a Member of the European Parliament, not a 'Member of Parliament'. Nomination should stay closed, obviously, but that needed to be corrected. Carcharoth (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My view is that any story that's about Wikipedia itself, now and in future, needs to be of major, major importance, to avoid the "navel gazing" as others have mentioned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fully agree. Jus  da  fax   19:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Although it can be quite meditative, I'll grant you. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Jack Ely

 * Oppose - One-fifth of a one-hit wonder. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not seeing a sign of importance here. Being a member of a band with one major hit is one's 15 minutes of fame, and no further signs of fame or importance beyond that. --M ASEM (t) 18:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose No awards no note of influence, no sign of notability - 15 minutes of fame for a song from half a century ago. Another that has their fans - but not remotely meeting any RD criteria. Challenger l (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not RD notable, good article though. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Afghan landslide

 * Weak Oppose Weak Support - Our article starts off by saying "This commonly happens this time of year in this region", and that a similar landslide last year also led to deaths. It is equivalent of when tornadoes of moderate strength race through Tornado Alley - there's damage and deaths but it's the nature of living in that area of the world. That said, this also highlights that there are places in the world that we don't get news until much too late to actually respond to it. (And just in case, I originally thought this might have been tied to the large quake over the weekend but this happened before that, so not a related event). --M ASEM  (t) 15:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Landslides do occur each year. Large number of deaths is uncommon, though.  Last year is the only one I am familiar with with >100 deaths (and is the only one with a Wikipedia article). Also, we would certainly post a US tornado with 50 deaths (we have posted many with ~20 deaths), so the comparison is a little weird as a reason to oppose.  Finally, even if a landslide with 50+ deaths happened once a year on average (it doesn't), I fail to see how that changes the significance of the event.  No one would argue that an annual sporting event should not be published just because it occurs annually.  "Too common for ITN" should mean monthly, not once every few years. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not "annually", it is "regularly" which is the point here. We post tornadoes that may have few deaths but millions in damage due to the intensity/size/duration of the store that generally makes these events rare. I'm just not seeing how this is a rare event for this area beyond that it claimed more lives than usual. But that's the nature of my weak oppose, I recognize it is a number of deaths to a natural event that couldn't have been readily avoided. --M ASEM (t) 18:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Its only regularly if you are counting all landslides, the vast majority of which do little or no damage to human settlements. Just as tornados regularly occur in central US, but only occasionally cause significant damage.  The amount of significant landslides in Afghanistan is very similar to the amount of significant tornadoes in the US.  As we know, in 2014 a landslide killed ~350 in Afghanistan, which was more than the 2013 total by all natural disasters country wide.  Since 2010, I could find only two others with 50+ dead: One in 2010 (170 dead) and one in 2012 (70 dead, but as part of an earthquake, so possibly not all deaths from the landslide itself).  --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Masem. Tragic, obviously, but not an unusual occurrence in the area. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Care to reconsider given that I've shown this is only "common" in the same sense that tornadoes are common in the US, or floods are common in China. That is, landslides in Afghanistan are common, but ones that cause large destruction/deaths are not.  I doubt you can find a single case where ITN has rejected a similar story before - we have always posted this sort of story before, including many cases of Chinese floods and American tornadoes...  It seems ITN standards have risen substantially lately, which is why we constantly have week old stories on the template.  We need to get back to where we are averaging close to 1 story/day, which is what we were at for several years before late 2014/early 2015. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll change it to weak support. I'm worried that stories like this which are difficult to classify in the larger world picture are the types of articles that WP:NOT tells us to avoid and that should be better documented at Wikinews, and yet they keep coming. Not every natural disaster in the world that leads to loss of life needs an article; only those that have a larger impact. ITN should be careful about this because we do set an example of what news is proper to cover in WP in the context of WP:NOT. --M ASEM  (t) 16:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Masem. I'm not going to complain if it is posted, but the slides are a week stale at this point, I'm not persuaded the casualty count here is really out of the ordinary, and this nom hasn't attracted the kind of attention I'd expect for a disaster (not that a large number of participants are needed for consensus, of course). -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Sudanese general election, 2015

 * Oppose pending significant improvements in the article and the blurb. This election has been roundly condemned as lacking credibility and illegitimate by most developed and democratic states. None of this is reflected in the blurb or the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb on significant improvements in the articles overall balance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose as this appears to me to be stale, results being presented some eight days ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * i understand the complete results were announced yesterday as per the sources: Reuters. Ali Fazal (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, it is probably worth a note in the blurb that numerous countries signed up to a statement saying the whole thing was a mockery of democracy. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * is this the statement that you are referring to? If yes, then it's three countries. or did you mean the EU? Ali Fazal (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose unless some mention is made of the fact that this is a complete farce (obviously using more neutral language). Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Why is that a problem for you? You did not have any problems with supporting to post a completely unfair trial by the leader of a Coup d'état against the democratically elected president he had overthrown that didn't mention these facts. LoveToLondon (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I've started a discussion at WT:ITNR regarding dubious elections and associated blurbs. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb until we have a consensus on how to deal with elections deemed, by some, to be un-democratic. This isn't a "pick-and-mix" item, it's ITNR, and there have been, are, and will be many more like this.  We need a way of dealing with it while remaining inherently neutral.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Do we have another article or any reliable source that discusses why this election is considered illegitimate, and why there was a voting boycott by the opposition? It's not covered in this year's election article, Elections in Sudan, nor in much detail at the linked sources.
 * I don't think that we should attack this election while there is insufficient content to explain what went wrong. Not that I respect the leader (who is wanted by the ICC), but from the linked reliable sources it certainly seems that the election was fair. The turnout was more than average for African elections, the vote was vastly in favor of this candidate, and the opposition did not even try to run. One could easily claim that the result was more from a case of stupidity by the opposition than unfairness. Mamyles (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support the original blurb Listed at WP:ITN/R. The double standards of people who want neutral language for US-supported leaders who came to power through questionable elections but condemning language for not US-supported leaders who came to power through questionable elections are disgusting. LoveToLondon (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the original blurb. Obviously democracy in Sudan is a joke, but we haven't seen cause to editorialize on the "election" of other autocrats. Just because Bashir is a genocidal dictator who is wanted by the International Criminal Court doesn't make his "election" any less legitimate than that of, say, Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan (who "won" with 97.7% of the "vote"). -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb - I don't think it's our place to comment on the fairness of this election on the Main Page. Such coverage can be left in the article itself. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé !  04:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb. The article is there for readers to judge for themselves the reaction and opinions on the election; we don't need to say it in the blurb. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted original blurb.  Spencer T♦ C 16:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Keith Harris

 * Oppose Clearly a good faith nomination, but he just doesn't rise to ITN/RD level attention. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I hate that duck. More seriously, he's just not that famous in the UK any more, let alone internationally. --Dweller (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose While perhaps a leader this field, the field is so small and lacking importance that its hard to consider this, and in considering the larger world of entertainment, a bit player in that. --M ASEM (t) 16:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Cuddles and Dweller. Seriously, I'm beginning to wonder as to if we need to redefine "field": he was an "entertainer", and while he as a "British ventriloquist", I don't think we should make that a field.  He was reasonably entertaining, and sold out in his later career to entertain students etc, but certainly not RD notable material.
 * Support But only if there's a fair-use image of the duck so we have the juxtaposition of a 1980s children's hero, the Armenian Genocide and the Nepalese earthquake on the frontpage.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Verne Gagne

 * Support He held a major wrestling world title (the AWA Title) for more cumulative days than anyone else. Admittedly, it comes with a caveat (he owned the AWA) but he was a major wrestling star in the Midwest for decades, so it does make him at or near the top of his field. -- Scorpion 0422  09:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not real. That's a storyline. When Phillip Seymour Hoffman died, we didn't credit him with Truman Capote's bibliography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose He might have been top of his field, but "professional" wrestling is not something I'd say should be covered here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? No matter what professional wrestling is, it is still a field. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So if the first person to catch all 151 Pokemon was to die, would you include him as well? That is also a field... I can hardly believe that there are people here who oppose the inclusion of dead world leaders, but when some guy from a make-believe "sport" comes along, he is supposed to be a valid person for RD? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you could demonstrate that someone who caught all 151 Pokemon was somehow notable to video gaming and received news coverage, I would consider it. I'm not sure which "dead world leaders" you are referring to, but not every world leader meets the recent deaths criteria. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The difference is that "wrestlers" are professionals and public figures, just like actors and singers. The scripted nature of their field doesn't cancel that out. How many people pay-per-view to see the guy who caught all the Pokémon, or buy stickers and action figures of him? &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I also don't see it really being in the news. Washington Post has a tiny headline on their start page, nothing to be found at New York Times or CNN... Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, some of us are here to build an encyclopedia, not a portal to the NYT or CNN. Deferring to those entities over and over again causes me to wonder if anyone else really understands the difference.  As for your point about a lack of coverage, that's actually not all that surprising for someone who has been out of the spotlight for over three decades.  Some of these so-called journalists may have to actually do some research rather than lazily copy whatever they find lying around on Twitter and pawn it off as "news". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that you have seen The Mirror, TI and CBS ?-The Herald • the joy of the LORD my strength 12:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support From what I can see the article is in good shape and the subject appears notable since he won a major wrestling world title. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I never know with these pro wrestler articles how much is In-universe. Difficult to judge significance.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This particular article reads like it was heavily influenced by the editor having watched WWE's The Spectacular Legacy of the AWA DVD. It's missing tons of important points about Gagne, but doesn't really have any in-universe problems that I can see. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Having grown up in Minneapolis during Verne Gagne's active years ('50s and '60s), I must advise he does not meet RD criteria. Sca (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * He was actually active in wrestling until the '80s. -- Scorpion 0422  14:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's difficult to argue importance in a sport where it is known there are crafted story arcs even if there are elements of athletism involved. If we take the stance that we are looking at actors rather than athletes, I don't see the importance here compared to, say, someone like Andre the Giant or Hulk Hogan which are names immediately recognized outside of the sport. --M ASEM (t) 13:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the interviewees on WWE's AWA DVD was Mike Chapman, the executive director of the aforementioned Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame and Museum. In one clip, Chapman considered Gagne's impact to be on a par with not only Hogan, but Frank Gotch as well.  That's saying rather a lot.  I understand that many of you would not have these same objections were we discussing Hogan.  However (and this applies to the past RD on The Ultimate Warrior, too), impact should not be gauged strictly by slick television production and marketing hype, no matter how much it translates to mainstream media attention. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I can appreciate that some users aren't always sure what's "real" when discussing pro wrestling. So here are some real facts, courtesy of this article and Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer.
 * "became the first-ever four-time Big Ten champion. To top it off, the three-time All-American also won two NCAA championships."
 * He was a top amateur wrestling and might have won a medal at the 48 Olympics had he not been around at the same time as Henry Wittenberg.
 * Gagne stated that he was on the Greco-Roman team, which is a different competition from freestyle. He further stated that the 1948 U.S. Greco-Roman team was pulled from the competition because the U.S. was so far behind the curve in Greco-Roman wrestling that they would have had their heads handed to them had they competed.  I haven't done any research which would confirm or deny that, however. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "he headlined cards from coast to coast in the 1950s, a handsome star, seen by millions on the DuMont Network"
 * He was the top name in the AWA for 40ish years at a time when it was a major promotion and was number one across the Midwest, including in Minnesota, Chicago, Milwaukee, Denver, Omaha, Winnipeg, Salt Lake City and San Francisco. He was a household name in many of those areas, especially Minnesota.
 * During that time he drew millions and millions of dollars and outearned many of the top "real" sports stars.
 * He was a skilled trainer and his pupils include Ric Flair, Ricky Steamboat, Curt Hennig, Bob Backlund and The Iron Sheik.
 * So there is absolutely no doubt that he was at the top of his field. The only problem is that some users here think that their opinion is all that matters and they don't see an industry that's been around over 100 years, drawn a lot of money and been seen by millions and millions of people as something important. -- Scorpion 0422  14:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You might be interested in my "Gagne" note & link on this talk page. Sca (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I read that. The last sentence, "I suspect the audience for these programs consisted mainly of old men and adolescent boys.", caught my attention.  Prior to the expansion of wrestling on television during the mid-1980s, it was typical for only one wrestling program to air in a television market, which was used as a vehicle to promote live wrestling shows in that market.  Under that environment, that one wrestling program typically commanded ratings in the 20 to 25 range, with shares in the 65 to 70 range.  This included AWA All-Star Wrestling.  This despite the fact that it was about as far removed from Monday Night Raw as you could possibly get.  In the early years of the Wrestling Observer, it was regularly derided by one Minnesota-based correspondent for featuring "left-handed squash matches in a garage in front of 30 people". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose I don't really think he meets our standards. Pro-Wrestling is not universally recognized as a sport and is often viewed as a form of scripted entertainment. Conceding that there is an argument that he was still in the top tier of his chosen profession, that is not an automatic qualifier for inclusion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether it's a sport is not important here even slightly. What is important is that pro wrestling is an industry that has been around a long time and there have been periods where companies are incredibly popular. With that in mind, why shouldn't we note the deaths of the most notable people in it? Since the current system of Recent deaths came into play, there have been two wrestler RDs that I know of (Maurice Vachon in 2013 and The Ultimate Warrior in 2014) so it's not like we're featuring ever wrestler that died. I'd certainly say Gagne was more important to wrestling than Marcel Pronovost was to ice hockey (and this is coming from a Canadian hockey fan).
 * I wish people could let go of their dislike of pro wrestling. I don't like NASCAR, but I would never try to block the top names in that field being listed here. Gagne spent 40 years as a headliner across the world and is widely regarded as one of the all-time greats (though admittedly he is rather controversial). If he had equivalent accomplishments in soccer he would have been posted by now. -- Scorpion 0422  16:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Basically a moderately well known actor, don't see any RD qualifications here. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To frankly state the impediment to inclusion in ITN: 'Professional' wrestling is not what it purports to be. It's a crude, ostensibly violent form of entertainment presented as sport. Even though anyone with reasonable intelligence can see this, it remains a charade that may deceive the gullible. Granted, Mr. Gagne was a colorful and successful personage, but IMO the dubious if not mendacious character of his venue detracts from his stature. Sca (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In that message on Herald's talk page, you outright called Gagne a "charlatan". To somewhat validate that point, the aforementioned Wrestling Observer correspondent wrote on one occasion that Gagne was contemplating challenging Rudy Boschwitz, until someone talked some sense into him about the consequences all that attention and scrutiny would have for the wrestling business (evidently, a lesson not learned by Linda McMahon many years later). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * KAOS, I said "something of a charlatan," but even that may have been too strong a term for a person peddling patent medicines. Nevertheless, Mr. Gagne's career reflected the ethos of the 'pro' industry by relying on some form of deception to make his performances marketable.
 * In fairness, a sampling of Minneapolis-St. Paul media coverage yesterday, prompted by this discussion, indicates Mr. Gagne was a likeable person. That however doesn't qualify one for ITN. Sca (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, the "pro wrestling is too violent!!!" card. Anyone with reasonable intelligence can see that ANY sport contains violence and in many cases the violent aspects are accentuated for entertainment purposes (ie. fights in hockey and tackles in football). Pro wrestling is on the same vein, but the difference is that they aren't really trying to hurt eachother, unlike in soccer where some players try to injure the opposition to get them out of the game.
 * I said ostensibly violent. Sca (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that most people can't get past the "Oh my god, it's fake!" impediment and see wrestling for what it is. You know what else isn't real? Star Wars. Also: Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Lost, Unicorns, Game of Thrones, Call of Duty, etc., etc. They all fit under the banner of "charade that may deceive the gullible". So if Mark Hammill were to die tomorrow, would you also oppose on those grounds? In spite of what you think, pro wrestling is an industry where the top promotions are capable of drawing thousands of people to live events every day all around the world.
 * In short, can we make this a discussion of Verne Gagne's merits? There's precedent for including pro wrestlers in the RD section, so this argument is extremely unimportant. If Wikipedia were to censor the deceased because their claim to notability was unfavourable, the section would never include dictators, warlords, soldiers, politicians or anyone ever convicted of a serious crime. -- Scorpion 0422  18:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose simply not in the news, for such a massive entertainment industry as wrestling, this individual has failed to make any major news outlets that I read. The article is okay, he bossed his own company's contests, but nothing much else going for this right now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you TRM for an oppose actually based in policy. Yes, unfortunately most pro wrestling deaths don't get a lot of mainstream coverage. But it is still early. -- Scorpion 0422  18:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * When Gagne and Wally Karbo bought into the Minneapolis Boxing and Wrestling Club, that promotion was doing good if they drew more than a thousand people to an event. By the time the AWA hit its peak, it had had a string of a decade or more of drawing as many as 25,000 people to its largest events (mostly at Comiskey Park, though they also drew crowds in this range in the Twin Cities by close-circuiting events which had sold out the St. Paul Civic Center). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No worries. Of course, it's not a "policy", but I understand your point.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * CBC is mainstream. So is The Washington Post and FOX Sports. I think The Independent is big in Britain. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - any doubts that Gagne was at the top of his field or lacking mainstream coverage should be quashed the Associated Press reporting that he was a "Wrestling legend" and "one of professional wrestling's most celebrated performers and promoters". The Independent "wrestling legend and Hall of Fame star". Canadian Online Explorer "one of the biggest stars ever in professional wrestling" ... "there can be no doubting that Gagne is one of the most important figures in the history of the game".   He's also had books written about him: #11 on the 50 Greatest Professional Wrestlers of All Time. One of the Minnesota 150: The People, Places, and Things that Shape Our State, and inducted into at least five different Halls of Fame. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé !  00:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - It can be hard to determine how much significance comes from in-universe situations, but in this case, he was integral in creating that universe. --Onorem (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Whether or not one likes pro wrestling, it's hard to deny its global success and popularity. Gagne, particularly as promoter of the long-time top North American promotion (which also worked significantly with All Japan Pro Wrestling), was instrumental in that success. He also spurred the careers of wrestlers even non-fans know, like Hulk Hogan and Ric Flair, themselves large factors in the wrestling boom. In-universe, he was a world heavyweight champ for longer than anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support There is some confusion, and often disdain, for the business that he helped mold, but whether one enjoys that product is largely irrelevant. Verne is on the Mount Rushmore of men who established Professional Wrestling as a staple of cable television and he had successful (almost unmatched) prolific in-ring careers in both amateur and professional wrestling.  I believe that this has been reflected in the sources supplied above.LM2000 (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Relatively few news reports that often consist of repeated press releases and twitter posts - no real independent reporting to indicate that he was important enough for RD. LoveToLondon (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - no real independent reporting - there's an article from The Independent I quoted in my 00:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC) post above. There's also the Associated Press. starship.paint ~ ¡<font color="#E62617">Olé !  10:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As I already wrote above there is not much written in the The Independent article apart from pictures of Twitter posts. It is also one of very few major sites that have anything at all. If you want to prove how important he was considered internationally, pick a country like Australia or Germany and tell how many of the major (non-wrestling) media in that country have reported his death. An AP news item is also not sufficient to imply very high importance. You also claimed He's also had books written about him, which doesn't seem to be true. Is there any book written solely about him, opposed to him being one of many covered equally in the book? LoveToLondon (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * He's featured in the title of Minnesota's Golden Age of Wrestling - From Verne Gagne to the Road Warriors (available in South Africa, if that matters), and wrote a $425 book.
 * There's an in-depth Bleacher Report retrospective. Granted, that site is what it is in an RS way, but whatever it is, it gets a lot of traffic. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Reading that Wikilink, I see it's essentially CNN's little sister, since August 2012. Could explain the lack of "real CNN" coverage. Just in its proper department. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your statements are just becoming more and more hilarious, and wrote a $425 book is a nice joke. For a book that was published 30 years ago there is no real availability, so someone seems to be trying his luck by demanding a huge price immediately after he died. According to your Amazon link they have zero reviews, which tells a lot about the popularity of the book. Being mentioned in the title of a self-published book by the Minnesota Historical Society Press about wrestling in Minnesota is also not a big achievement. LoveToLondon (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Suggest this discussion be closed. Sca (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Andrew Lesnie

 * Weak Oppose Not really seeing a full career as a leader in the field - while Oscars for LotR films is impressive, that seemed to be a high point, with very little else of his career unremarkable. --M ASEM (t) 14:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now on article quality. Academy Award winner and clearly at the top of their field, the article needs some work and better references and inline citations. Challenger l (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support on notability, Academy Award-winning cinematographer? Job done.  Oppose on article quality, really weak stubbish article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Lower back pain linked to chimpanzee spine shape

 * Oppose no blurb, no update, at least one target article appears to have been vandalised for over a week.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not an extraordinary finding, just enough peculiarity in evolution and biology. WP:ITN type of blurb I feel. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  21:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this has been known for a long time, that our spines aren't perfectly adjusted to an upright walking position, and it causes back issues. At best this would be a supporting study, not a new idea. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Medeis. Doesn't seem like a surprising, breakthrough result. DYN seems like the right place for this if either article can be majorly expanded on that. --M ASEM (t) 23:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Kazakhstani presidential election, 2015

 * Elections of heads of state or government are generally included, although there is some question in my mind as to whether this exercise actually constituted an "election." Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if the election is just for show or the outcome is known/predetermined, it is still their legally authorized election. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support based on WP:ITN/R. LoveToLondon (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support the update is minimal but probably not far from all that'll be available. Reminder: we're not here to make our own opinion on the legitimacy of elections around the world.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Re-election of a country's head of state is always important, per ITN/R. Quality looks sufficient. Mamyles (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - The election article is pretty weak: no prose in the results section and no reactions. Maybe there is not a lot to write aboutthe election, but I would think we can do better than this at least. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I've started a discussion at WT:ITNR regarding dubious elections and associated blurbs. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Standard ITNR. Ali Fazal (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unmarked as ready - there is still no prose on the results or reactions. There are plenty of sources which contain reaction  and is does appear any admin is willing to post as is since it has been marked ready for a couple days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD/blurb: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

 * Oppose convention is to wait for independent confirmation, moreover the article has not been updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting "suspected" deaths; quickly checking some of the sources, it seems there is disagreement about whether he was killed or not. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * if verified it would warrant a full blurb.120.62.26.196 (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Tentative Support Blurb but as identified above we need 100% affirmation from sources, not what is currently second-hand information. --M ASEM (t) 12:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If-and-only-if there's some hard confirmation, this death is clearly blurb-worthy. However, it appears he has only been injured, per .  If he dies, given how prominent ISIL stuff is in the news, we should have a blurb and not just an RD note.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support blurb when confirmed: This man is one of the most wanted in the world and heads an organisation known in all corners for its wickedness. His death would have the same impact as that of Bin Laden, or if we has Wikipedia 1,500 years ago, Atilla. However, such an announcement would be news all over the web, and we can't trust Iranian state media alone without widespread backup &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, you're giving Attila a bad name there.... Abductive  (reasoning) 18:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose no rationale given for the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Done..-The Herald • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 17:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, I may change to support with a blurb when I have time to read up. μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait until or if it's confirmed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait for confirmation. If confirmed, a blurb would be warranted but at the moment, there's no confirmation from other sources Palmtree5551 (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unconfirmed headlines today sre treating the question of confirmation as the main story, since it seems the claims all trace back to one announcement on Radio Iran. μηδείς (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I've started a discussion at WT:ITN about unconfirmed deaths and their treatment here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Burundi

 * Oppose no article. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If the news is relevant enough then just maybe people will spend the time and effort to create one.120.62.26.196 (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose The area already appears to be one rife with such conflicts and thus not news at the current scale. --M ASEM (t) 13:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pro forma oppose No article means we can't judge the quality of what we are putting on the main page. Whether or not this is a current event is irrelevent if we have no article to judge. The purpose of Wikipedia's main page is to direct people to quality Wikipedia content.  A redlink is self-evidently not quality content.  Give us an article to assess, then we can make a decision.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Marcel Pronovost

 * Support Meets DC as very important in his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Top hockey player, article in good shape. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support important in his field, RD material. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems to meet DC2. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted a decent article about a notable person, and with just a few tweaks of my own, this is a good effort all round. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Northern Cyprus presidential election, 2015

 * Support probably should be ITNR and article is good enough for main page inclusion, unlike most of the detritus supported by our current populous. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It may merit posting, but this situation is specifically excluded from ITNR: "Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits". Northern Cyprus is only recognized by Turkey who maintains a military force there, considered an illegal occupation force. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - per above.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my incorrect statement which I didn't realize was incorrect due to edit conflicts. Anyway, given the historical nature of this election to this territory I support as well. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose an election in an unrecognized state, which does not change anything about its interactions to neighbors like Cyprus. Nergaal (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The reality is quite the opposite, which, frankly, should be clear from a reading of some parts of the article. The outgoing president was a hardliner that had a very strained relationship with Cyprus, Akıncı's election is seen as an important change and a possible catalyst for a solution. He has closely cooperated with Greek Cypriot officials in the past. It also signifies a change in the relationship with Turkey, as stated in the article, to a more dialogue-based relationship. And Akıncı's ties with the EU will also bring the Turkish Cypriot government closer to the EU. Just a note, the Turkish Cypriot president is accepted internationally as the representative of the Turkish Cypriot community. Being unrecognized does not mean that it is not a state, nor does it mean that it has no international impact. And do we assess every single election covered by ITNR on the basis of impact on int'l relations anyway? --GGT (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well put and non-Partisan (based on the fact you seem to be a Turkish Cypriot) arguments from GGT I must say.--119.4.57.26 (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support While Northern Cyprus is largely unrecognised, it is de facto independent. Its presidential election is thus sufficiently notable, particularly given the potential diplomatic implications. Neljack (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Nothing against the Turkish Cypriots, but only one country has recognized Northern Cyprus as a sovereign state – Turkey. I understand Neljack's rationale, but am concerned that treating entities lacking legal status as if they were recognized states would be a problematic precedent. (One has in mind more than one other self-proclaimed 'state.') Leaning toward oppose. Sca (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Question Doesn't BabbaQ's simple "per above" rationale constitute a !vote? 71.183.129.212 (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus is determined by strength of arguments, not numbers. So if your question is does that comment have less weight, the answer is yes.  If your question is does removing that comment make this no consensus, the answer is no. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My question is, doesn't that comment have zero weight and is it even permissible to post it in the first place since it falls under one of the Please do not... categories above. I ask because if it is permissible and it has some weight, I may use it myself in the future. 71.183.129.212 (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Supports like that do have some weight, if used in a context that is obvious. In this case it is clear that the editor is agreeing with The Rambling Man's support, as that is the only comment above, so the support counts as any other. If what he was referring to was not obvious, the proper course would be to ask for more information directly below the "!vote" in question. Mamyles (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The answer to that question is not easy. It enters into the whole idea that consensus is not about numbers, but yes numbers do enter into the decision as a secondary factor.  Perhaps the best thing to say is, yes it has some weight, but you would always be better off explaining your reasons in your own words instead of just saying "what (s)he said".  See also Arguments to avoid on discussion pages and the intro of that page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] London marathon

 * Support Listed at WP:ITNR. I also agree that nationalities of the winners should be added. Trickaphobe (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - notable sporting event. ITN material.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Listed at WP:ITNR. Should the nationalities of the winners be added? LoveToLondon (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried but couldn't get a combination. Both are Kenyans. -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 11:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, they are not both. LoveToLondon (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Alternative blurb added. LoveToLondon (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the blurb is correctly, replacing it with altblurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality article is currently not worthy of being called start class. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it is called a start class. And should be judge as such. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh? This is ITN, we shouldn't be considering posting start class articles, no matter what you think we should "judge as such"... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly not ready and no need to support on notability since it is ITN/R. I'm pretty busy today, but I'll get to it when I can.  If someone else wnats to tackle it, take a look at 2015 Boston Marathon or 2014 London Marathon for some idea of what is expected. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Removing ready. Needs more expansion. For a comparison of what expected quality should look like, please see 2014 London Marathon.  Spencer T♦ C 04:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost there..-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 07:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree although the description is solely about Paula Radcliffe which lends undue weight to that one individual... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Other than adding a table of the results, there don't appear to have been any changes since yesterday... Anyway, I'll be on it shortly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I will likely work on the article more this afternoon, but it should be up to minimum standards now. (Marked ready by someone else.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I love it when a stub comes together.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted good work to those who contributed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Protests over the death of Freddie Gray

 * Oppose Didn't post Ferguson, didn't post the more recent shooting in SC, this is more of the same. I would think we'd need something more akin to the riots after the Rodney King decision to consider a major topic. --M ASEM (t) 02:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What's needed is an "ongoing" about the continual citizen revolt against police brutality. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose just a few angry idiots. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not nearly at the level of even the not-posted Ferguson protests. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Y'all are not seeing the pattern here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What pattern is that? Has the National Guard been called out in this case? 331dot (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The National Guard was called in Ferguson but that wasn't posted... – H T  D  15:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that (and I supported posting Ferguson for that reason) but I'm trying to figure out what the "pattern" is that BB referenced. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Police kill a man in custody and/or unarmed on the open street, violent protests ensue. This has been going on intensively for quite a few months now. It's been in all the papers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I disagree with this being listed in Ongoing. If you think police brutality is bad in America, try about 50-100 other countries. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In many countries, it's the norm. In America, things are not supposed to be that way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I usually oppose demonstrations, especially in free countries, but this turned into a riot, and prevented people from being able to leave the Baltimore Orioles game. To characterize this as protests is like calling the Colorado Batman mass murder "role playing". μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment if, as alluded to above, there's a persistent and terrifying turn of events in the United States where the police can no longer be trusted and blood runs on every corner, please direct me to an article discussing such flagrant indiscretions and also to the reliable sources that consider it to be something significant beyond standard household incompetence. We're discussing the legal system of the most advanced country in the known universe, right?  (I think what is most charming is that for the template "List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, Description", there's even a "Refresh counts" link!  Perhaps an "Ongoing" is required, along with a counter of people killed that automatically increments on our main page?)  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an issue that is massively overblown by media outlets looking to exploit the racial element in order to generate clicks, headlines... etc. As long as there are police officers, there will be bad police officers. However, the perception does not match the reality due to undue coverage of the negative and complete ignorance of the positive. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, "complete ignorance" seems an entirely appropriate assessment. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. These types of stories demonstrate the issue with racial tensions and profiling that has had a long (decade+) history in the States; some citizens are getting more worked up about it. I've noted before that we'd be need to looking at the scale of the 1992 Los Angeles riots for an ITN on this type of story. --M ASEM (t) 13:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is fairly run of the mill as demonstrations and minor civil disturbances go. We have rightly declined to post far more significant protests and riots. If this qualifies then we are setting a very low bar for this sort of thing and had better get ready to have demonstrations on the ITN section more or less permanently. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I suspect that if this were 1965, you all would have been calling Selma "run of the mill" and "massively overblown." Yes, this business of cops treating blacks differently from whites has been going on for a long time. The difference is that the victims are no longer willing to put up with it. The trigger for this series of related stories may well have been the Trayvon Martin case, and the initial inaction of the police. There is an ongoing trend here, whether y'all are seeing it or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You, like much of the mainstream media, appear to have an agenda in this matter. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is what the right-wingers were saying about the media in the 1960s. Go check your own agenda. Mine is simply to not have Wikipedia look stupid and out of touch. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia will neither look stupid nor out of touch simply because it doesn't allow itself to be used as a forum for your anti-police message. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ignoring trending news can make Wikipedia look stupid and out of touch. And twisting complaints about some police brutalizing citizens, to being characterized as "anti-police" (which the New York cops have done, for example), is comparable to when complaints about child abuse by some Catholic clergy, were characterized as "anti-Catholic". I am not anti-police. But I am anti-police-brutality. Please don't tell us you are in favor of police brutality??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're going to accuse me of twisting your words, don't twist mine. I never said I was in favor of police brutality. I just think it is overblown and definitely not something we need to highlight with an Ongoing entry. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said you were, I asked you to tell us you aren't. As for your characterization of it, why should I trust your judgment vs. the judgment of journalists? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Journalists are not inherently right and it is dangerous to unquestioningly trust them. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for righting or publicizing wrongs just for the sake of doing so. This individual protest was simply not as significant as other, more notable protests(at least one of which was not posted). 331dot (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't about "righting wrongs", it's about not making Wikipedia look stupid. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Have it your way, but your investment in this subject suggested that to me. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You have lost all sense of proportion if you think not running this makes Wikipedia look stupid. I think I need to echo what others are thinking - you need to step back and take a breath here. Resolute 20:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 April Nepal earthquake

 * I think it's still early to tell for certain but the early reports indicate significant damage to Kathmandu, especially the older part, so this will probably merit posting. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Damage is quite extensive. The Dharahara has collapsed. Also, tremors were felt in various parts of India, including Calcutta, and Ahmedabad and Delhi. Magnitude at the epicentre was 7.7 on the Richter scale. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support subject to a little more improvement. The bare urls need to go, and there are a few unreferenced sentences. Once these are fixed then it should be good to go. Mjroots (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support but wait until an official death count is obtained. We can also include that the building of the UNESCO World Heritage site - Kathmandu Durbar Square have collapsed. USGS reports 7.9 magnitude. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support highly notable catastrophic event. &mdash; Jonny Nixon - ( Talk ) 10:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support As well as the terrible loss of life, UN designated heritage buildings have been lost. The magnitude figure in the blurb has been superseded. I suggest "estimated between 7.8 and 8.1Mw". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * USGS has not reported above 8. I suggest we don't resort to the media's numbers but verifiable ones.120.62.13.239 (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It won't be more than 8. If it was, then I won't be editing this. I felt it and am living just 160 kms from the epicenter. -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 11:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support quite a terrible one. --Whaterss (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted While the death count is not final yet, it is obvious that it is high enough to be newsworthy. Thue (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are many more dead. Article says "918+ deaths" so update to front page description is needed. 86.150.91.187 (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:ERRORS is the best venue for comments like this. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Major quake. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - A quake over 7-7.5 with its shocks felt as wide an area as it did, even without loss of life or damage, would still be a worthwhile post given how infrequent that scale is. --M ASEM  (t) 02:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - thousands of dead people. plenty of damage.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Sabeen Mahmud

 * Oppose - Article was only created today, which is evidence enough for me that she did not reach the RD level of notability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not seeing any real indication of RD notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per what TRM said. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose That is an amazing amount of references for an article with so little information. I am not seeing how she meets any RD criteria. Challenger l (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Władysław Bartoszewski

 * Support - important person w/many awards; article in good shape. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - The person seems important and initial look at the article seems to be in good shape except that the bulk of in-line sourcing is to the obits, and not the dozen+ books in the biblography section. These seems to be an article that begs for much more expansion for someone with that much written about them. That said, that seems to be a poor reason to uphold the ITN compared to other articles we've had in the past in much poorer sourcing shape. --M ASEM  (t) 04:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support seems notable enough LoveToLondon (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Quick driveby comment—if this runs with a blurb rather than as a RD, "Auschwitz survivor" is misleading and shouldn't be used, as most readers will assume it to mean he was a holocaust survivor. Auschwitz was originally a prison camp and was only later converted into an extermination camp; Bartoszewski was interned there when it was still a prison, and was released long before the holocaust began. – iridescent  23:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that. I'm not looking for the blurb but i took that out in case of confusion. Sorry. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per above. Brandmeistertalk  09:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support important person. winning many awards etc.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the article and its size speak for his importance, there are no tags, 21 references, including for all his awards. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 100th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide + Canonization

 * Support the canonization (which I was going to nominate when I had a chance to write an update). A canonization on this scale is unprecedented and the Armenian Church hadn't canonized anyone in 400 years.   Neutral on mentioning the 100th anniversary.  It has indeed been in the news for weeks, but it is still just an anniversary which normally would go on OTD not ITN. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that OTD would be the better place, but for whatever reason they have ignored the anniversary which is today. IMHO it is sufficiently newsworthy that it warrants front page attention. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Note that the genocide's 100th anniversary was previously nominated and closed as better suited for other aspects of WP's front page. The canonization aspect, however, is a new factor. --M ASEM (t) 02:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose anniversary but support canonization once there is an article for it. The MP currently has three topics related to the genocide/anniversary (in OTD, TFL, and POTD), and as previously stated anniversaries tend not to be ITN material. The canonizations are different, though, and newsworthy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose canonization has no timeline, so what other consideration made the Church do this now? μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Presumably the impetus was the 100th anniversary of the near extermination of the Armenian Christian people. What does the timing have to do with whether or not this is ITN worthy? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support something along the lines "AAC canonizes the 1.5 mil victims of the 1914 Armenian Genocide." Nergaal (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose ITN isn't the place for anniveraries. I might have supported the canonisation if there was a separate article for it, but there isn't at present. &mdash; An  optimist  on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 06:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ...Canonization. It's a headline that's pretty newsworthy. It is a once in a lifetime event. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Medeis, but I also doubt that those saints will be revered in the same fashion as Catholic saints. I haven't seen any posted canonizations outside Roman Catholic Church, such as Ethiopian Church, etc. It's unclear whether the names of all those canonized are actually known. Brandmeistertalk  08:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Oriental Orthodox venerate saints in much the same way Catholics do, perhaps even more so in the post Vatican II world. Also en-masse canonizations, especially of large numbers of martyrs is not without precedent. Although more than a million is extremely rare. The Russian Orthodox Church commemorates all of the martyrs of the Communist persecutions, which certainly numbers in the millions. And the Roman Catholic Church has done large scale canonizations for martyrs. Recently the Coptic Orthodox Church canonized the Martyrs of Libya beheaded by ISIL. Knowing the names of all the victims is not relevant. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb Turkish atrocities is a problematic way to phrase it. After all, we are not talking about a Turkish national state at this point. Not that I want to defend Turkey's stand on this, but we should be careful here and phrase it properly. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the canonization upon their being an adequate article. It seems rare for such a thing to happen. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Altblurb proposed and support both. Centenaries attended by world leaders to commemorate events that shaped a region and people's history are certainly notable enough for ITN inclusion, and a similar nomination was posted last year. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support first blurb. 'Turkish atrocities' seems like a legitimate way to describe Turks killing 1.5 people. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support first blurb. "Turkish atrocities" doesn't seem to be problematic, but it is redundant. Let's keep the blurb as concise as possible. -- Ե րևանցի  talk  14:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as I think that this should be included on the main page at some point, and the canonization/anniversary have certainly been in the news recently. I also oppose using "Turkish atrocities" at the end - it is redundant and feels like an unnecessary snipe at the country. It is sufficient to call attention to the genocide. Mamyles (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Marked ready - The posting admin will need to determine whether there is consensus for the longer blurb that mentions the anniversary, but there is clear consensus to post at least the canonization.  I have now expanded that section of the article, so this is ready to post IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - definitely a notable event and it needs to be posted.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted canonization only; clearer consensus for that. Article quality looks sufficient as well-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I would post anniversary as well, no real reason to not post that part as well. SeraV (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Mammoth genome sequence completed

 * Support - per the fact that it is an interesting scientific event.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The scientific value does not seem to be big. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support a unique development of huge significance. It gives us a great tool (a third sample) in understanding the evolution of the modern elephant family. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What is your evidence that this is of "huge significance"? That is, do you have any secondary sources that are remotely credible? Abductive  (reasoning) 18:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I simply understand genetics and cladistics, and a sample of three gives you much better resolution in an evolutionary tree with a better ability to determine synapomorphies and symplesiomorphies. It's analogous to only being able to study humans and chimps and then suddenly having gorillas to compare them to. Given the elephant relatives form an entire biological order (on the level of primates or carnivores) this is huge news, and is not like sequencing "just another" rodent genome. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose, the complete sequences of many living and at least one extinct (Neanderthal) animals have been published. Technically this is not much of a feat anymore. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Abductive. Clearly we need to take some of the support votes with more caution in the future.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Warren Weinstein

 * Oppose being killed inadvertently in an act of war is not an accomplishment that puts one at the top of some field. We do not post drone strikes in general, and there's no indication the location was not the intended target. μηδείς (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No - It seems that his chief claim to fame (and the reason he has an article) was having been kidnapped by al-Qaeda. It's a tragedy for his family and friends, but it's just one of those bad things that happen in war sometimes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is obviously a good faith nom but the two preceding !votes pretty much summed it up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Has little notability outside of his kidnapping and death. We certainly don't post innocent locals who get killed in American drone strikes. Neljack (tal-k) 04:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above reasons, this is a tiny event in the larger picture. --M ASEM (t) 22:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Pierre Claude Nolin

 * Support died in office, notable in his field. Disagree with unexpected death, been battling cancer for years. &mdash; Jonny Nixon - ( Talk ) 14:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD He was the top man in the Canadian Senate at the time of his death. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - article will need some work both in length and referencing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending article improvements, seems fairly apparent that he qualifies for RD. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not seeing how someone who occupied this position for five months is particularly significant. Did he actually achieve anything?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously? He was one of the highest ranking elected officials in the Canadian government (US sense of the term). If the Majority Leader of the US Senate died 2 minutes after taking over the job he would merit immediate posting in ITN. This is a no brainer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently not! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose based on article quality and no demonstration of importance. We did not post US House Speaker Tom Foley who was much better documented. μηδείς (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not really notable plus the article is in bad shape plus it has a tag. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not notable? Good grief what are your standards for notability? -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel that he is notable to Canadians, but not worldwide. Plus the article is in bad shape. For example, when world-renowned and very notable director Manoel de Oliveira died he was post to the RD section, but was pulled because the article needed referencing and there was a tag. This article has some issues. If he is notable then clarify that in the short lead and expand the article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support on the merits as meeting DC1 but article needs work and is not currently in shape for posting. DC1 only mentions holding a high office of power, not that they had to have done something in the office. Foley did not die in office. --331dot (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a bit confusing, are you saying Foley would have ben a better Speaker had he died in office? μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Update - I have removed one orange tag about the lead which is rewritten. Still searching for citations. -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 05:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Done..-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 05:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Speaker of the Canadian Senate is not an "office of power" in any meaningful sense. The Speaker does not have the political power of the Speaker of the US House of Representatives. It does not even have the power of the Speaker of the House of Commons (in Canada or in the UK) - unlike them, his decisions on points of order are subject to appeal to the whole Senate. And the Senate is a much less important body than the House of Commons in Canada. Neljack (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have to agree that while he looks to have done a lot of good in Canada, his position does not rise to the level I expect for RD. More discussion is needed, removing [Ready]. Mamyles (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. More discussion is needed. There are now more opposes than support. Plus the nominator added that he meets the RD criteria because he died suddenly which is not true since he has been battling cancer for awhile. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is an appointed position from within an appointed body. In other words, unelected. In still harsher words, a political hack.  Abductive  (reasoning) 19:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Both on the above points that this is not a major position of power within the CA gov't and the short time they were in it there is little to say about their importance to merit RD. --M ASEM (t) 22:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Deutsche Bank fine

 * Support, but needs work - it is worth keeping in wikipedia. More balanced content and citations needed.Trickaphobe (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support - I will comment that our article implies that the bank agreed to these terms, meaning this was a negotiation likely from a much larger damage number. I would consider a reword of the blurb to establish that better. Article on the scandal should be the highlighted one but that is in good shape. --M ASEM  (t) 01:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Deutsche Bank wanted a much small number. They agreed to the proposed number, yes, but that just means they didn't fight the amount in court.  I am certainly open to alternate wording though...  Highlighted article is on the scandal (I messed up the bolding which made it appear wrong). --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose the fact that increasingly powerful central government agencies are charging ever larger fines does not reflect actual damages. This money will go into the coffers of the US and UK governments; it will not be awarded to any victims to make them whole for real losses as would a win in a civil suit.  Posting this would be like announcing California is now charging water users whatever some panel feels like based on how deep the user's pockets are. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comparison to California is ridiculous, but not surprising considering you find a way to oppose every business story. (Incidentally, CA's attempt to charge varying water charges was struck down in court.)  The "actual damages" are estimated in the trillions, so your comment is off base there as well.  And the victims in asset valuation manipulation cases are not obvious, as it is the market as a whole that is screwed - there is no party that could sue...  Your philosophical objection to all things big business is noted, though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I picked that case specifically because it was the arbitrary action of the regulators which was overturned. And you make my point for me that the amount of the fine is totally arbitrary in regards to the real damages and victims, but rather goes into the government coffers.  You seem entirely oblivious to every point, including that I am pro-laissez faire, so please just stick to objective arguments.  I think a great business case to post might be Hank Greenberg's $40 Billion case against the Fed Reserve for seizing AIG from him in 2008.  We'll see. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you are the one totally missing my point, so I guess we are agree there ;)... Yes, the fine enters the gov't coffers.  That doesn't make it arbitrary or a power grab. A speeding ticket enters the gov't coffers too.  Does that mean the "victim" was somehow cheated?  No, the fines exist to discourage the behavior.  And a failed regulatory move in CA hardly supports the assertion that the Nat'l govt of the US or the UK is "increasingly powerful"...  I meant ITN stories when I said you were opposed to big business, and in that regard your record speaks for itself.  I knew before I posted that you would oppose - which is perfectly fine.  You are entitled to your opinion that ITN shouldn't post business stories (unless they back your ideology apparently), but I am also entitled to point out your predictable opposition. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You claim there are trillions of dollars in damages. In a civil system, there would a suit with named plaintiffs and claimed damages and DeutscheBank would either be sold or put under receivership however the judge best decided to reimburse the victims, and the criminally negligent would face forfeiture of all their personal wealth, including the named trader, their mansions would be sold, and they would spend the rest of their lives in jail. But in this sort of arbitrary plea bargain no one is made whole, the company just pays a bit of protection money to the regulators that stands in no relation to any fac (worse, its like the mugger giving the cop some of the money he just stole for your wallet and the cop saying "I have discouraged him from robbing again" as he pockets your money), and the government benefits from the settlement.  All this is a government seizure, not a civil or criminal verdict.  As for my politics, I only mentioned them to show how you're willing to say anything to support you're point, including now arguing the other side.  I am all for innovative business stories and all for actual legal procedure.  This isn't a business story. μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Significant fine resulting from a notable scandal.  Whether we wish even more was done to them or not, or thinking they should have been sued, are both irrelevant. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is not even big news in Germany. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be big news in any particular country; such objections are discouraged under the "Please do not" section above. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It says "please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country". I am not saying this only relates to one country, it most obviously concerns several. What I am saying is that even in Germany, where Deutsche Bank comes from, it is not a major news item. I believe that is a valid point. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but that doesn't take away from its significance in other countries where this bank does business. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I still believe that it is a pointer towards its overall significance. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There seems to be plenty of German language coverage to me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose That's plenty of German language coverage for a completely different topic. All news there are regarding their strategy change including giving up their majority on Deutsche Postbank. This is huge news making headlines everywhere in Germany - and completely unrelated to the (compared to the size of the bank) small Libor fine. LoveToLondon (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that was a major fail on my part. Here is the correct link: .  If the Postbank story is a "major headline" in German than clearly the fine is a bigger one because it was roughly 1.7 times as much German language coverage.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How do you measure 1.7 times bigger? I am seeing 446 for the strategy change with a focus on Postbank and 167 for the start of thecriminal trial in the Leo Kirch case (how often does it happen that a current CEO of such a big company has to appear in court every day? this is the criminal trial against him based on a civil trial where Deutsche Bank already paid a billion) mixed with the strategy change, compared to 476 for the Libor story. And the Libor story is old news now, while the strategy change is currently frontpage news in mainstream media still generating more articles. LoveToLondon (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The gap narrowed some since my post. It was 285 to 475 at that time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support I really don't understand at times how these sort of stories don't get posted in here. Homeowners and cities lost quite lot of money (billions) thanks to the fraud of these banks, well now one of these banks is punished and it even accept that people in there had engaged in illegal activity. Time to post this. SeraV (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose can you quantify how much British banks have paid out on PPI please? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am failing to understand your objection - can you clarify please? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are failing to be able to answer my question? Or read my question? Or understand my question? Be specific please. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am failing to understand its relevance, and especially how it equates to "oppose". --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an attempt to contextualise the significance of such a small fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And you still haven't explained what it is supposed to mean. Why is that so hard?  Are you trying to say banks make lots of money or something else? --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I just did explain. I want a context for the size of this fine.  It looks, on the face of it, to be a minor fine in the big scheme of things.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, it seems to be $1.8B across the entire industry, compared to to $2.5B for just one comapny here... Here is a better context: Deutsche Bank reported net income of 441M euros and net revenue of 7.8B euro in the most recent quarter.  The fine therefore represents about 5 quarters of profits and about a 3rd of their quarterly revenue. That is quite substantial. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, did you actually read that source? It says "Britain’s biggest banks are poised to set aside as much as 1.2 billion pounds ($1.8 billion) more in the fourth quarter" (my emphasis) i.e. in one quarter of one year, banks in Britain had to put aside about as much as this single fine, above and beyond what they'd already paid out......  This fine is peanuts in comparison, perhaps DYK?  (For what it's worth, this recent report indicates that British banks paid out £38.7 billion (I guess around $50 billion) in the last four years in "penalties".  This is just another bank paying out a small sum based on their illegal dealings.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My bad for not stating "in the last quarter"... You do realize that 38.7B figure is for all fines, of all types, by all banks, over 4 years right?  (Of which 24.4B is for PPI, but again that is across the entire industry - i.e. hundreds of banks.  Still, the PPI fraud probably should have been nominated & posted at some point.) Of course it is a much larger number than a single fine paid by a single bank for a single case of wrongdoing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry but it seems like your keenness to post this is clouding your judgement. There aren't "hundreds of banks" in the UK yet several paid out billions of pounds in a single year. This story is nothing special. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like hundreds to me... And we did post the new largest interest rate fine the last two times it was set (both in 2012), neither of which even included the guilty plea to fraud charges included here, so apparently this story was "something special" then. The fact that there have been other big bank fraud cases over the last few years (some of which were posted), doesn't change the importance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Notable acknowledgement of wrongdoing by a major bank. International interest and coverage. Good ITN material. Jus  da  fax   04:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment 2/4 opposes are demonstrably false ("not well covered in German") and 1/4 is a question w/unclear reasoning to oppose. Seems to me there is consensus to post based on strength of argument.  (Although, obviously, I am too involved to officially judge consensus and post.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment If this is big enough news for getting posted, the strategy change including the sale of the majority stake in Deutsche Postbank also has to go to ITN - as explained above this is much bigger news in Germany. Was the settlement in the Leo Kirch civil trial where Deutsche Bank paid over a billion posted on ITN? This was a milestone in a story that is making headlines since 2002, not something like the Libor fine that is already superseded on the frontpages by the strategy change news. From these three stories involving Deutsche Bank this week (Libor, strategy change including sale of Postbank, criminal trial against current CEO starts on Tuesday), why should the only one that will be completely forgotten in the public perception within a few weeks go to ITN? LoveToLondon (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean as incorrectly asserted? There are more stories on the fine in Germany and more internationally.  Of course we don't determine importance by number of stories either - that was only offered to counter the false claim that the story wasn't being covered in Germany.  And in any case, whether another story is also worthy of posting doesn't affect whether this one is or not....  The UBS $1.5B fine was posted near unanimously. Barclay's $500M fine was also posted.  That is the last two times a record fine was given.  The only difference between then (2012) and now is standard creep at ITN.  That is not a good thing and is why people are constantly complaining about stale stories not cycling off. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * With incorrectly asserted you are referring to your 1.7 times bigger claim? Now it's equal, and since it's newer the strategy change will soon overtake the old Libor news in number of articles. You are wrongly accusing me when you imply I was saying it was not being covered at all in Germany. But it was not the news regarding Deutsche Bank last week that created most publicity. Both inside Germany and internationally the strategy change is currently on the frontpages (internationally only on the frontpage of the business news).
 * A record fine would be ITN news. Your claim that this was a record fine is clearly incorrect, the current fine is less than 20% of the biggest fine a single bank got in the US, and a quarter of the biggest fine a single bank got in 2014. In the banking world this is a normal fine LoveToLondon (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, number of articles was correct at the time I posted it. And again, it isn't even relevant - we don't decide importance based on number of news stories.  The number was offered SOLELY to counter the obviously incorrect claim (by Zwerg Nase) that the story wasn't widely covered in Germany...  Your assertion that the Postbank story is bigger (more important) is both incorrect and irrelevant as we don't not post a story because some other story (might) also be important.
 * As the the fine, it is a record (for interest fraud) according to many reliable sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I really would like to add that amount of fine is not really even relevant here, why this is news is that major bank has been found quilty of a major fraud, and been punished for it. This is a huge scandal no matter how much they are being fined for. I see no reason for some to insist that this isn't important enough because the fine is not big enough. SeraV (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You can always claim a record when you define the category narrow enough. Have there ever been big fines for interest fraud before? If the Libor scandal is the first major interest fraud case ever, it would obviously always set new records no matter how big or small the fines are. LoveToLondon (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There have been other notable interest rate cases before, but regardless new banks being fined over Libor are certainly not guaranteed to exceed previous Libor fines... I could only find 3 larger single-bank fines of any kind ever, two for mortgage abuse and one for tax evasion.  The only one of those to include a guilty plea was the tax evasion fine ($2.6B), which was posted on ITN.  Bank of America's record fine was posted.  The other bigger one (to JP Morgan) apparently wasn't nominated.  As previously pointed out, UBS' $1.5B fine was posted, as was Barclay's $500M fine.  A $900M fine was posted in Sept 2013.  There don't appear to have been any others that were discussed.  The only difference here is ITN regulars are quicker to vote oppose than ever before. The story itself is just as significant as the numerous previous cases we posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As happens frequently, your claims do not match the facts. When you write $2.6B (similar to the Deutsche Bank fine), the truth is $8.9B (3.5 times the Deutsche Bank fine). The reason you gave for that fine is also incorrect. LoveToLondon (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I assure you that was incompetence on my part, not intentional deceit. I intended to link that comment to this case, which is $2.6B for tax evasion and was also posted.  So it is actually 6/6 previous cases that were posted: 2 larger fines, 1 about the same, and 3 smaller. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What you call incompetence on your part continues - you are so incompetent that you even fail to read what you yourself wrote just one statement before. Your incorrect claim So it is actually 6/6 previous cases that were posted is clearly contradicted by your own statement The other bigger one (to JP Morgan) apparently wasn't nominated. LoveToLondon (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, no error there: 6/6 that were nominated were posted. A non-nomination can't be used as evidence for or against because we simply don't know how that case would have ended... Instead of nitpicking my words and insulting me, maybe you can try actually coming up with a reason this fine doesn't deserve to be posted but the other 6 did? --ThaddeusB (talk)


 * support - notable scandal. ITN worthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Admin comment: No clear consensus yet imo, would prefer to let the nomination run a little bit longer.  Spencer T♦ C 16:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Notable scandal and a notable fine. The opposes carry almost no weight. Calidum T&#124;C 23:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe this can be merged with news about the trial in Munich at the moment: Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Nasdaq Closing Record

 * Oppose The Nasdaq is nowhere near any inflation adjusted high. The value of the dollar is 1/4 what it was in 20 January, 2001.  The Nasdaq is currently worth less than half of what it was in gold even after the Internet bubble had crashed, under a quarter of its value at the bubble's high.  We're looking at an arbitrary number calculated in no objectively measureable units. μηδείς (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your numbers are way off. A 2015 dollar is actually worth about .75-.76 2001 dollars, not .25.  Do not confuse the rise in the price of gold with inflation.  And the index value, by definition, isn't arbitrary in the normal sense of the word.  The whole point of an index is to provide a fixed (and easily calculated/measured) reference point, basically the exact opposite of an "arbitrary number". --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The numbers all depend on the source, and they vary from site to site, paper to paper. I looked at several dozen graphs with different axes.  You cannot dispute two facts, that this is an arbitrary number, and second, that the absolute value of the stock in commodities is less now than it was even after the internet bubble crashed. Gold was at $265/oz in Jan 2001-It closed at $1194/oz today: 1/4 the value, and this was after the internet bubble crashed. You cannot find a single source anywhere that says the Nasdaq ia worth now what it was worth when it last had the same dollar price. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct that the value is not higher in spending power (although the index number doesn't account for dividends), but you are way way off if you think prices have risen 4x in 15 years. Inflation doesn't measure the rise in the price of gold, it measures the rise in the price of consumer goods.  There are many reasons why gold has gone up dramatically - out of control inflation isn't one of them.  Indeed, you would be hard pressed to find a single consumer good that has even doubled in cost over that period. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Arbitrary record. A large bust on a day or across a short period of time would be ITN, but not general slow growth. --M ASEM  (t) 01:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

[closed] Human embryos genetically modified for the first time

 * Support -- but I am at odds if the Cas9 article should be the featured one or something like Gene therapy. Why this is news is not so much the technique in general (this appears to be the first time on human cells), but the ethical aspects, as while this is a peer-reviewed publication, it was rejected by Nature and others due to the ethical considerations. So there's both a tech story here and a larger policy/ethics one, and dunno where best to point this. The Cas9 article is fine as a link, but I'm not convinced it is the featured one. --M ASEM  (t) 18:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, I've updated the nomination accordingly -<font color="#380B61">A1candidate  18:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems like a fair-er (more appropriate for those coming from ITN) target that I could find immediately, but others might suggest a better one. You could keep the Cas9 one as the second target, though certainly keep it linked in the blurb. --M ASEM (t) 18:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is correct. The technique has been used on other organisms for a while, so there wasn't any real scientific doubt it would work on humans.  In other words, there is no scientific advancement here.  Instead, this is a story because these scientists dared to break the code against doing it.  Depending on one's point of view, that may be a cultural advancement or cultural descent.  And it may well be a big story.  Just don't confuse the coverage with importance of the science.  I'm neutral for now --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support bordering on strong support. I agree with the above conclusion that this is chiefly about ethical/legal implications for this technology rather than science (except obliquely as the legal aspects loop back to the progress of the science), but on the other hand you would be hard pressed to find someone with even a vague notion of what this is who does not have very strong opinions one way or the other on this topic, and not without justification given the implications of gene therapy.  Further, this is not merely a regional/national court decision as many ethical stories are, it's a world first (verified, at least). - OldManNeptune ⚓ 20:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added altblurb from Guardian to clarify what's going on. Here is the relevant open access article (although published on 18 April). Brandmeistertalk  20:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose we know this works, it is just the first time it has been reported in embryos not brought to term. When live human children are brought to term would be the time to cover it. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Medeis, wait until actual application in a fully developed human. Quoting the Nature article linked in the nomination, The team injected 86 embryos and then waited 48 hours, enough time for the CRISPR/Cas9 system and the molecules that replace the missing DNA to act — and for the embryos to grow to about eight cells each. Of the 71 embryos that survived, 54 were genetically tested. This revealed that just 28 were successfully spliced, and that only a fraction of those contained the replacement genetic material. “If you want to do it in normal embryos, you need to be close to 100%,” Huang says. “That’s why we stopped. We still think it’s too immature.” There's no reason to post incremental changes for individual scientific experiments until we actually have a true "first" Dolly-equivalent.  Spencer T♦ C 21:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment In March this year, scientists worldwide (International Society for Stem Cell Research) called for a worldwide moratorium on using CRISPR to modify human genes (NYT) and the same group expressed dismay that this study happened (Reuters calls it an "ethical furor) and called for a moratorium again. This isn't notable for the biology, but it is notable for bioethics, and public debate about the ethics of gene therapy with stem cells. I think this is notable enough for its own article. -- Aronzak (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose reading the article comments on Nature it's clear that most people are missing the point of the article and not understanding the actual issues involved. The public needs to be informed on expert issues on sensitive bioethical issues, not preached to by activists and told to react violently against things they don't understand. -- Aronzak (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 *  Strong meh support technologically this is not a breakthrough, but the issue here is the ethics of the subject. It is kinda if say Spain reported having a working atomic bomb: sure, technologically has been done 60 years ago, but ANOTHER country getting control of it, be it one without actual bad intentions, would likely spark more than just a debate. This is the practically certain go signal to a race behind the curtains on ethically VERY dubious experiments. Nergaal (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Please do not do this - this is a bunch of hysteria over basic science.
 * 1st, scientists have genetically modified embryos before - see this headline from 2008. (popular media gets "first" wrong all the time.)
 * 2nd, if you read the paper, the scientists worked with messed up embryos that could not be used in IVF.
 * 3rd, there are miles and miles to go before CRISPR could be used in IVF - the paper was scientific research not medicine and had no pretention to be medicine. All the media hype is as though the scientists were just itching to throw these edited embryos into a uterus. oy.
 * 4th this is a WP:PRIMARY source in biomedical research. There are many retractions in that field, and many papers that turn out not to be replicable but are not retracted. WP should not be reacting to things like this at all, much less featuring them on the front page.
 * please don't make WP another voice in the idiot choir. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The difference there is that those people just decided to do create a freak embryo, while these people attempted to "fix" an embryo. Nergaal (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * when you say "fix" you mean "change a gene in triploid "freak" embryos that could never be used in IVF" right? read the damn paper. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the technique used on a "freak" embryo can be used an a fully functioning embryo. Adding DNA is much easier than selectively switching it. Nergaal (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * you are making things up out of pure air. terrible. things are not that easy in medicine - it moves no where near the speed that IT or materials science does because... biology.  and messing around with actual IVF? that will take an extra long time.  Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * An article in Nature stated that the publication of the paper looks "set to reignite the debate on human-embryo editing." The International Society for Stem Cell Research has responded calling for a moratorium. The media gets a lot of details wrong and exaggerates issues to non-experts - I would rather that any coverage of this on Wikipedia is limited to only expert analysis. -- Aronzak (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * support let the readers learn and understand, and arrive at their own conclusions --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose current blurbs / updates. Both blurbs are misleading in that they don't make clear that this experiment was done with non-viable cells never intended for implantation.  In addition, the updates to the suggested articles are trivial and miss most of the details.  I find the ethics question somewhat interesting, and I might be able to get behind a post if there was a targeted article that got into the ethics of this experiment, but right now the suggested blurbs / articles don't do that.  Dragons flight (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Opposed The news may be the violation of ethic codes on human research, not on genetic engineering. The problem is that there is a gray line between gene therapy and eugenics. I would not provide a soapbox in Wikipedia to these researchers. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggestion To reflect that this story is not the technology but the ethics, perhaps the blurb should be: "Chinese scientists successfully demonstrate genetic modification of human embryos using the Cas9 enzyme despite a worldwide moratorium on such research." --M ASEM (t) 01:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * An NGO with no legal authority called for a moratorium in March, at which point the research currently being discussed had already been completed. Your version makes it sound like they broke the law, which isn't the case.  (There are some countries that ban germline experiments, but China isn't one of them, and of the ones that do have such bans some only apply to work on viable embryos.)  Rather than violating the law, this is more a case of science getting ahead of the law and possibly going places that it shouldn't.  Dragons flight (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose all blurbs suggested so far. This is the media hype machine at work, not a significant scientific advance. The strongest blurb you can reasonably use is Scientists report low success rate in the application of commonly performed experiment to clusters of human cells that are nonviable models for early embryos. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * sooo well said. for others, see here - the comments there by Prof Robin Lovell Badge on both the science and law, nail it. Jytdog (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I agree with most of Jytdog and others' comments about the notability of this scientific advance. Seems to really be less of a deal in scientific circles than the mainstream media suggests. Mamyles (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Calbuco erupts

 * Oppose - This is a known active volcano, according to the Wikipedia article (10 eruptions since 1837), and no casualties have been reported as of yet.--128.227.196.227 (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Though I wish that some of the images captured were free to make it a Featured Image, as they are rather impressive. But the lack of loss of life and serious damage is not sufficient for ITN. Also at least when I checked the article last night, it was rather thin and needed significant expansion. --M ASEM  (t) 14:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Improvements to article and discussion of impact even not a major death toll help here. And now with the free image, that's something to draw the reader's eye too. --M ASEM (t) 02:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this simply doesn't rise to ITN level. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? Not saying you're wrong, but why do you think it doesn't. It'll help to know the REASONING for next time.120.62.20.221 (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A fair question. At the time I !voted, I was unaware this had caused a mass evacuation. Still, as I understand it, this is an active volcano and there were no deaths, so I'm not sure this is really big news. Admittedly, I don't know if this is an unusually large evacuation for a volcanic eruption, so I am open to reconsidering my position. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * i'd like to support this if the article were more detailed and coverage of the eruption more broad, but perhaps this is simply to far from major habitation to have gotten much coverage? μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * comment. Regarding the lack of deaths, it should be noted that we have posted accidents and envirnmental events in the US (and other western countries) that had no or minimal casualities because they were significant in other ways.  I am not an expert on the significance of this eruption but it looks pretty major.  I don't think that that the fact that it has erupted 10 times in 200 years makes it any less notable.  I'd appreciate some perspective here from more knowledgeable editors on how significant this is as an eruption.  That said, it seems very likely that if this happened in the US or anohter English speaking country it would be posted.  And it did result in a town being evacuated.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The article needs work still but I htink it could be improved quickly.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The article now as a section for the 2015 eruption and its well referenced. I think the update, while minimal, does meet teh standard.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - article is updated an referenced. Loss of life is only one factor to consider. How often do volcanoes erupt and force the evacuation of thousands from a populated area? -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  15:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article is weak and really gives no weight to why this should be part of the ITN section, a few thousand evacuated? I'm not certain, and as Floydian asks, when was the last time we had a mass population evacuation, even if it was limited to a few thousand people?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed position, the article is worse than weak, and "On April 23, at 01:00, a new, more energic pulse started." is the most recent update, so we're not even up to date on what's going on. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support (ec) I think there's a good update, and while this is not an "it bleeds it leads" story, it is a good encyclopedic quality story that smart readers will come here, rather than to the Daily Mail to get comprehensive information on. I suggest and  reconsider their votes based on article improvement. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC
 * There's a rather nice free image,, I have added it to the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose It so far a pretty normal eruption, and 4000 people is not a mass evacuation - otherwise it would also be appropriate to have an ITN item each time several thousand people get evacuated when defusing an US bomb (which happens several times each month). LoveToLondon (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment it appears that this is genuinely a case of a flash in the pan. A few people inconvenienced, nothing more than that.  No-one is talking about this today, let alone in a month or a year, simply not newsworthy enough for ITN.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Train New World Speed Record

 * Oppose The article is not good enough. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that your only reason? Would you support in principle? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't. But I thought one reason would suffice to oppose ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have inferred you had no other objections. After all, the article could be improved. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb I've suggested an altblurb that links to a more relevant article. Smurrayinchester 13:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb - seems newsworthy and novel. kinda puts other recent rail vanity projects into perspective... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only because a few days before it also broke the maximum speed record (this is even a betterment of that) and still going under testing. It is possible it could still be broken again before put into service. Or if this is posted, and it breaks the record again in the next few days/months, we better not re-post again. I'd also want to see better discussion of the L0 article on the train itself. It's not the place to discuss the principles of maglev but there should be some discussion of the technical aspects of the improvements made on the train/etc. --M ASEM (t) 13:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose sort of like Masem. I don't believe 600 km/h to be some kind of barrier that was broken, anything particularly significant. It may get to 400 miles/hr in subsequent tests, is that any more or less signifcant a milestone than 600 km/hr?  Having said that, it's certainly of encyclopedic interest.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support It's a significant advancement in transportation. I would however, reword the blurb in a way that indicates speed trials are ongoing and more records could fall. On a side note, it would also be nice to post some transportation related news that did not come with a death toll. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How is it a significant advancement in transportation? Will any train ever carry passengers at such speeds? Highly doubtful... Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wasn't the train full of journalists? (... and they count as people, don't they?) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It was, but I believe the normal running speed once it's in service will be a snail-like 505 km/h. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Per our article, the anticipated normal running speed is 315 mph. Looking at the land speed record article, there is definitely notation of how many cars/loads are included with the run as to avoid the issue of burdened vs unburdened operation, and this was burdened with 7(IIRC) cars. --M ASEM (t) 14:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess there is only a limited amount of the special track required, and it's only in Japan? And I suppose in service the fastest speeds will be possible only on the longest routes. But this is all operating detail. The new world record speed still seems to be an achievement. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A fair question to my point here is are they going to try to keep pushing speed records here? That this train has broken a land speed record is ITN worthy, regardless of all other issues, but my concern is if tomorrow or next week or next month are they going to break it again. Noting that they plan to significantly reduce the speed once normal operation begins, we'd want to make sure they are at the end of the intentional speed testing to record the final record. I can't tell readily from the linked articles if they continue to plan to push the limits of the train or if that was the big run and all remaining run tests are to prepare for standard commuter use in Nov. --M ASEM  (t) 14:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a fair concern. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - new world record for a maglev system is definitely ITN worthy. Mjroots (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - new world record, ITN worthy. Period.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But they set a new world record last week too, and it is still in testing. They might just break it again next week. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment do we re-post every time they increment the world record? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm reluctant to support this for that reason. This is just testing and it isn't clear that they are done. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How long would one wait to be sure? An event like that one, with the world's press all carefully assembled, must take quite a bit of organising? Perhaps they'll slip one in when no-one is watching. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Conditional support. It's true that we shouldn't post a record being repeatedly bettered over a course of tests, which is what we have here. However, on 16th April the maglev speed record was broken for the first time in 12 years. That's totally postable and not yet stale. Formerip (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Question: How "important" was the 600 kph milestone to the industry? If this itself is not an arbitrary measure (akin to the idea of the 4-minute mile in running), then I would agree that even if the train beats more records in the future prior to normal service, this would make it the point of posting to ITN.  --M ASEM  (t) 21:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - According to the website the current tests end on 4/24, so I don't think there should be a huge concern of the record being broken again after this cycles off ITN (if posted). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support A landspeed record is quite notable (though rocket propelled vehicles have gone faster). The issue here seems to be how often that record is broken. Given FormerIP and ThaddeusB's comments, I think the record is rare enough. The only quality issues for the target articles seem to be citations, and these claims are well cited. Quality is acceptable. Mamyles (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - International interest and good notability. Yes the article is a list, but features the info at the top, and is well put together. Good ITN material. Jus  da  fax   01:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - This is a notable achievement that is worthy of mention. Most opposes seem concerned about having to post every time there is a change, but as ThaddeusB mentions, the current testing ends this Friday. Even if they manage to improve the speed over the next three days the blurb (or the altblurb, which I prefer) would not require changing. Is any other company threatening to beat the record next week? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - The notable fact is that the speed record has been broken. If the top speed keeps getting higher, we do not need to repost the story. Cochonfou (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - the L0 article is fairly light on content - I'll see what I can do to beef it up later today. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ready (for altblurb) - The L0 Series article is now updated and expanded with train specifications and other details. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted, minus the image because the new ones haven't been up for very long. Would like to swap a picture of the train in eventually, because it's pretty cool looking, but I'm not sure that particular image works well at thumbnail size. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Ali Abu Mukhammad

 * Oppose as stale news. Its of 20th...-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 10:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Mohamed Morsi sentenced

 * Support on article improvements - Not a word in the article (Morsi's) about the sentencing. There's a few smaller issues in the article but definitely not sourcing, it just needs a significant update on the trial result. --M ASEM  (t) 13:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support upon improvement of the article. This is obvious ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support definitely ITN worthy once the article is updated. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support deposed head of state being jailed. If it was good enough for the ex-President of the Maldives, it's definitely good enough for a man who led the Arab world's most populated country &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with improvements: A former world leader doesn't get sentenced to two decades in prison very often. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note I think 22 Morsi's supporters who are sentenced to death should be included in the blurb. Also thousands of Morsi's supporters have been sentenced to death after speedy mass trials, which the United Nations has described as "unprecedented in recent history". 198.16.164.205 (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - when updated.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose the current proposal that makes it sound like a fair trial in a democratic country. He was a democratically elected president who was removed from office through a Coup d'état led by the person who is now president, and Amnesty International says This verdict shatters any remaining illusion of independence and impartiality in Egypt’s criminal justice system. LoveToLondon (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That might be so, but the blurb doesn't state whether it was fair or unfair. It's not our job to care what others would think of it, we just report the fact per WP:IMPARTIAL. Brandmeistertalk  10:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The blurb very strongly implies that it was a fair trial. It is very impartial to not describe the fact that this is was a show trial after a Coup d'état. LoveToLondon (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What about describing Morsi as "deposed" instead of "former" Egyptian president? That maintains neutrality while nodding to the circumstances of his departure from office. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support above decision. "Deposed" is factual and neutral, and succinctly informs the reader to a certain degree on the background to the trial. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – as a watershed event in regional politics, but: Article first needs updating of introductory paragraphs and Trial section to include Tuesday's verdict. Sca (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Did some cleanup work this morning and removed the tag. If there's anything else amiss on the page, flag it, but I knocked out the four most obviously problematic sections. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead is pretty long, but the main ITN issue is that te trial section isn't updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Lord, I didn't even think to check that, such an obvious thing it seemed. It's updated now, although it would be nice to have some more detail on the charges, co-defendants, and situation vis-a-vis the other trials scheduled for next month, maybe from local or regional reliable sources (if any). -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, marking ready unless there are other serious objections. Brandmeistertalk  07:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted.  for image update.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. —David Levy 14:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Boston Marathon

 * Support as per ITN/R. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Zwerg Nase. &mdash; Jonny Nixon - ( Talk ) 11:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on article improvements A paragraph and a table of results is not sufficient for an event like this. --M ASEM (t) 13:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending article improvements. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per R, but with improvements. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not ready - there is insufficient text on the race results (2 sentences currently). I will work on that soon, if no one gets to it before that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Now updated and ready, I think. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My concerns on lack of prose have been dealt with and agree this is ready. --M ASEM (t) 17:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - ITN worthy. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I have a problem with the photo being of the men's winner. Why can't the photo be of the women's winner? In this culture, the male is always above the female. I think the female winner of the same race should receive as much publicity and exposure on here as the male. Why not show both winners? Other than explicit ignorance what possess this nominator to only include the male winner? I'm sure it's not too challenging to put two photos beside each other in the news blurb. Just saying. Chanelpuke (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why both can't be featured: the two have free images both formatted with the vertical aspect ratio so a square 100x100 image with both is trivial to make. --M ASEM (t) 15:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * to set up a multi-picture rotation like we did for the French Athletes helicopter crash. I'm sure this is an easy fix.  Please note, however, that your tone implies that people intentionally excluded the female just to offend you.  They did not.  It involved no amount of bad faith, and in general, you'll find that people are more likely to help you when you don't simultaneously imply that they're bad people.  But we've done multiple picture rotations before, and it can probably be done again.  It will rotate through the two winners in equal measure, so no one is favored.  Just be nice next time, and don't imply that anyone didn't already do what you asked merely because we're all bad people.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've fulfilled this request. —David Levy 19:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the negative tone. I just hope something can be done by someone who knows what they're doing because I don't. This just caught my attention. Apologies again. Chanelpuke (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI, the current setup shows "(pictured}" with a curly bracket closing instead of parenthesis. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  19:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it looks like David Levy has fixed that. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Roy Mason

 * Oppose: Lackluster article both in terms of detail and sourcing, and somebody who never seems to have risen to the top of his field despite a long and occasionally interesting career in politics. If he actually had a significant role in negotiating an end to the Troubles, it isn't reflected in the article; one gets the impression he was actually somewhat of a hawk. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on same reasoning Kudzu1 gives. I tried to look at our article, not seeing much, and even the BBC's obit is very "thin" considering how they normally report important deaths. --M ASEM (t) 15:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Very bare of detail and history - a strange sight for one of his age. Doesn't appear to fit the RD criteria for notability or influence at all. Challenger l (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] China–Pakistan Economic Corridor

 * Support pending a few minor cleanup issues (bare link reference needs to be properly formatted). Otherwise, solid article, current event, covered by news sources.  Check, check, check.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with article improvements - Importance is high, the controversy section in the article needs more inline citations. --M ASEM (t) 15:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support when "controversy" section is referenced" - of all the sections, that is the most important to source well which makes it especially odd that it is the only unreferenced one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on importance, pending article improvements. But in the state I found it in, the "Controversy" section began The following commentary is refuted by the Government of Pakistan...., which hardly seems neutral or encyclopedia style, and contains passages where the intended meaning is quite unclear. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose written like (and presumably from) a press release, amounts to a policy announcement, not an actual fait accompli. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Edit war - IP users reverting changes, article quality not guaranteed. -- Aronzak (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We do have WP:semi protection to deal with such situations, if needed. Doesn't really seem like a good reason to oppose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)−


 * Support - when clean-up is finished.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support - Article is proposed for protection. Clean-up done. --Saqib (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ThaddeusB: I know I'm late to comment but I think the current blurb is not correct. Out of 46$ billion, large share of money will be spend on enery sector rather than transportation infrastructure connecting Pakistan and China. --Saqib (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We could replace "$46 billion" with "large scale" or similar if everyone would be fine with that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Mediterranean shipwrecks

 * Comment - Already under review. Look at under April 15 2015 Libya migrant shipwreck --Ant a n O   12:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's different. It was this morning.120.62.26.120 (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but same article has two incidents. --Ant a n O   14:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong support This has been described as the most deadly migrant shipwreck for several years. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * support - per Gareth Keggs reasoning, Agree.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not sure what this is supposed to link to. Also these shipwrecks are becoming a fairly regular occurrence. Perhaps we should create a broader blurb to cover all of them with an appropriate linked article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. If these vessels are sinking frequently with many casualties or this migration in general continues to be a story it might merit an ongoing listing. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment L is obviously not the article you want to link to. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment If the press use this latest figure to highlight the issue of migrants trying to flee to Europe and the dangers they encounter, as for us to write a larger article on the situation (doesn't have to be tied to this year but this year's death toll should be noted - Illegal immigration to the United States could be used as a template for this) that would be reasonable to highlight. But I would want to see this broader summary as the ITN, not just any one of thee shipwrecks. --M ASEM  (t) 13:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment article was worked on earlier for the 13 Apr crash, putting them together seems valid given the media analysis. -- Aronzak (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – A reported 20,000 people have died trying to cross the Mediterranean to Europe since 2000. This is the latest, disastrous, example and IMO would be conspicuous by its absence from ITN. Sca (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb, not a good week. SeraV (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the new alt blurb. It seems to cover things satisfactorily and there is no doubt that the death toll makes this ITN worthy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment We have duplicating nominations for same article. One is here, another one is under "April 15". --Ant a n O   14:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb, I think this is the point when we certainly have to report this. Brandmeistertalk  14:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The EU is stating they are going to take action to be able to help these disasters better, which definitely points out this most recent incident is the back-breaking straw and likely the point to ITN this news. --M ASEM (t) 15:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb: I was on the fence when I saw the previous incident listed, but two mass-casualty events of this sort in rapid succession cannot be ignored, even if this sea crossing is notoriously dangerous for asylum-seekers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, not because of the number, but because the sources are saying that governments are going to change their policies as a result. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This could prove to be "the worst disaster yet involving migrants being smuggled to Europe." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC) (p.s. note: "A shipwreck is the remains of a ship that has wrecked, which are found either beached on land or sunken to the bottom of a body of water.")
 * Sidenote, shipwreck is both a noun and a verb. See Shipwrecking. -- Aronzak (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Side sidenote - I think the use of capsize is much better. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support devastating loss of life, and, it appears, many more queued up to risk the same fate. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted - Article is much better now that it provides context/background - very good work everyone. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Oldest stone tools

 *  Support Oppose Peer-review publication of findings. Beats the previous known date by 700k years so this clearly outside the likely chance of coincidence. Article in decent shape (looks like made on these findings). Adding a map to the article might help, but not a issue on ITN posting. --M ASEM  (t) 00:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A 15 minute oral presentation at a conference is not a peer-reviewed publication. LoveToLondon (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I misread that it was published by Science, as noted it's just a news report, one that I would give some weight to reliability if Science is reporting it, but yeah, we should wait for confirmation. --M ASEM (t) 01:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the paper has not been published yet, but is scheduled to be published in May. That would mean it has already been peer-reviewed (which happens before the paper is accepted).  If consensus is to wait until it is published, that is fine by me, but be aware there likely will not be any press coverage at that time, so I certainly hope people wouldn't oppose as "stale" and/or for "lack of coverage" at that time...  I would request comments be clear that they mean "support on merits of story, but wait for publication" (e.g. as a "wait" vote) if that is indeed what they mean. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you give a source indicating that the paper has already been successfully peer-reviewed? The Paleoanthropology Society journal prints the abstracts of all oral presentations, but that is neither peer-reviewed nor a proper paper. LoveToLondon (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are correct. I misread something saying an abstract was due to be published as saying a paper was.  I will ammend my comments accordingly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - A clearly important finding.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. One only has to look at all the Wikipedia articles that have to be substantially revised to see how this really changes the field. In fact, I hope people can make some of those changes before this gets posted. The lack of peer-review is a bit troubling but it seems that in this case it is due to the importance of the discovery. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with this assessment completely. I'm note sure why so few people have commented - are people afraid to support because the paper isn't out yet?  As ITN regulars probably know, Abductive has a strong reputation for not "buying the hype", so his endorsement on importance is pretty meaningful. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a potentially significant bit of scientific breakthrough (that mankind had used tools 700k sooner than the latest prior estimate). It is unlikely the researchers are making up the story, but they have only presented their postulates on the age based on other signs they've seen - now they are waiting on the carbon dating and other measures to get the timing to best scientific accuracy, which might prove their postulate wrong. Once that's done and published by a peer-reviewed journal, that's pretty much assurance that they have proven out their postulate, and we on WP can treat it as "fact". And that's the point that in the past we have treated all scientific stories for ITN - the peer-reviewed report so that we're not reporting on bad science (again, unlikely here). It's similar to where other events have desired points for posting, like the conviction of a criminal. --M ASEM  (t) 04:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No offense, but you shouldn't be posting such speculation if you have no idea what you are talking about. Radiocarbon dating is only good to 50,000 years or so and only works on organic matter.  A more applicable half-life dating (e.g. Potassium–argon dating or Uranium-lead dating) would only tell you the age of the rock, not the time it was made into a tool.  Half-life dating is not the normal way to date anything in archeology, because, again that can only tell you the age of the materials (at best).  Instead things are dated via stratigraphy.  This isn't a lab test of any sort, but rather a careful documentation of where in the artifact was found in the ground.  Sonia Harmand et al. most certainly are not waiting on some sort of lab confirmation to publish.  Instead, they are (most likely) somewhere in the normal publication process (which takes a while) and have chosen to publicly share their findings early b/c they think they are really important.
 * It's also not necessarily true that we always post on peer-review publication. I am pretty sure there were a couple instances a while where back we posted at some other point because that is when the news coverage came out.  Generally, the two happen at the same time, so there really is very little precedent one way or the other.  Thus it is an open question.  And, I only asked people to speak up if their reason for refraining to comment was the timing, not change their minds - it is hard to tell anything from silence.  Maybe people would prefer to wait, or maybe people just haven't been active this weekend, or maybe people aren't seeing the significance... It would be a real shame if this gets opposed now as "too soon" and later (by different) as "stale", with agreement on significance, just not on timing.  Thus, I would like to form a consensus of some sort now to avoid that possible issue later. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support I don't generally like publishing "pre-print" results. We've often embarrassed ourselves when we've been suckered by science by press conference (remember the arsenic-based lifeform that wasn't? The gravitational waves that were actually probably dust?) Paleoarchaeology is a field that is notoriously prone to confirmation bias - it's easy to read too much into rocks and bones - and even when results are subsequently confirmed, it can take a lot of wrangling get a scientific consensus (see Homo floresiensis (the hobbit) for one example). However, the article has a lot of citations of quotes from independent researchers who seem to generally support the hypothesis. That's still peer review, albeit of a more informal type, and I agree with ThaddeusB that waiting for full formal publication takes us into the realm of staleness. Smurrayinchester 09:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I've seen the news 2-3 days ago, but got my hands to recheck it today. Since such sources as Archaeological Institute of America or National Geographic confirm the finding and the publication of related article has been at least announced, I think it's safe to post this. Brandmeistertalk  14:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This certainly is big if true, and I will support posting this since independent researchers in our article seems to support this. SeraV (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 04:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Xenophobic attacks in South Africa

 * support - per the fact that these attacks has been heavily covered by world media.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Fairly low death toll so far. Worth keeping an eye on, though. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: If only because ITN is not really a great place for "slow" events like this. It's not as important as to fall into Ongoing, but there's also no obvious point where this is ITN. --M ASEM (t) 17:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We also don't have ITN for the frequent "White US cop shoots black guy". LoveToLondon (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support when the "king of the Zulus" (Mina ngifunda isiZulu) calls for his neighbors to pack their bags it's Lebensraum all over again. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this kind of racial tension is permanent in some countries like South Africa and the United States. Some of what is written above is utterly false.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose article quality seems low, some things in the article are poorly sourced. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is patchy and here-and-there on its coverage &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It's got a massive reaction all over Africa (from Nigeria to Zimbabwe to Mozambique and Malawi). Zuma cancelled an overseas trip to Indonesia for this too. The ramifications based on the spite against South Africa (the now-second largest economy) is no simple matter. I guess they're black and nowhere near Europe so it doesn't really matter. (Considering the censorship of non-"western" sources in the migrant deaths posting).120.62.25.132 (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: A. Alfred Taubman

 * Weak Support - An interesting idea of being leader in the field (its not conventional RD aspect), but save for the Philanthropy section which lacks sources, this isn't a bad article to be ITN. --M ASEM (t) 05:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose not really seeing how he meets RD criterion for leading in the field of pioneering shopping malls, but certainly seemed philanthropic. Article is in a reasonable shape but could use checking for tone and tense, and as Masem points out, the odd additional cite for the mega-claims in the Philanthropy section must be provided.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose What and when exactly did he pioneer? The article reads a lot like promotion, and it is not clear what he did (or didn't) pioneer compared to people like Victor Gruen. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you ever read any article fully and verify your claims by referring to the reliable source? All your previous claims are so lame that none have helped the ITN reviewers. Trust me...-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 09:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is interesting to see that you have nothing to answer except personal attacks against me when asked to explain your "pioneer" claim. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not seeing any significant impact. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Not seeing any significant impact means one hasn't read the article. Godfather of the modern shopping mall, white knight savior of Sotheby's, a very intersting and accomplished mensch. μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment What is the "godfather" claim based on? I have read the article, and when you ignore the awful US-style bragging that is mostly based on his own book there is not much contents telling what he actually invented. The article even fails to say when and where he opened his first shopping mall (and a pioneering mall surely also has an own article). LoveToLondon (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I would have expected you to attack him for being a Jew, rather than just an American. Perhaps you should consider moving to East Germany? μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Come on, WP:NPA. This bickering is pointless. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of it is disgusting. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not only disgusting, but clearly in breach of WP:CIVIL.- ELEKHHT 08:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Really solid sources such as Time and CNN back the pioneer claims. Not saying it is necessarily enough for RD (I'm neutral), but let's not pretend like the claims can't be backed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think part of it comes from "where do you draw the line of "field" in RD"? E.g. we'll have "pioneer in race relations" or "pioneer in neuroscience" or "pioneer in mountaineering" then "pioneering in college basketball" now "pioneering in shopping malls", next "pioneering in ice cream flavours" and "pioneering in flat pack furniture".  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * When everyone just copies the term "pioneer" from the title of his book (some even upgrading it to "godfather") there is not even a basis for discussion. The article is currently complete rubbish when it comes to describing what he actually did in "pioneering" shopping malls (apart from becoming rich). The first section of "Shopping mall development" is filled with praise for him from himself and his partner, but even fails to mention when and where he opened his first mall. The article has so few facts in the field where it is said he was a pioneer - just compare it with the Victor Gruen article that makes it clear what he pioneered. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose until the article gets a re-write - it needs to look and feel like an encyclopedia article. Challenger l (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LoveToLondon and others. In academic literature Victor Gruen is credited to be the 'pioneer' of shopping malls. Taubman could have been at most the pioneer of some self-defined-sub-type of mall. -- ELEKHHT 08:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Monkey rediscovered

 * Miller’s Grizzled Langur, 2012. Non-monkeys; Jerdon's babbler, Mar 5 2015, Myanmar roofed turtle, Apr 13, 2015, Central rock rat, 2013, New Guinea big-eared bat, 2012. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Article is of sufficient quality, a recent event, and would add needed variety to ITN. Per WP:ITN "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them."  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Two reasons. First, it must not be very big news as quite few news outlets are covering it, especially when compared to other items on this list; and second it was never actually declared extinct, so really it is just a sighting of an endangered animal. Also, not as rare as it sounds as Abductive pointed out. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, he pointed out precisely one other occurrence of a primate plus a turtle, bat, and rat (all of which would be considerably less surprising) and a bird (somewhat comparable). So even including all vertebrates, we are talking ~1-2 per year, which is hardly common.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also of note, "rareness" is not a standard ITN works on. "Recent" and "In news sources" and "quality article" are all standards we judge against.  We can arbitrarily define rareness anyway we want.  Worldwide there's probably 1-2 national elections every month, and no one bats an eye if we post one of those.  The rationale is spurious when it is based solely on a criteria we can easily demonstrate that we have never applied when deciding whether or not to post.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought that too but opposed my nomination, because Nokia "doesn't make as many phones as they used to" (???) and because sometimes mergers don't go through. What I'm trying to say is that while ITN is designed around the recent, sources, and quality article standards, its standards in reality are a lot more high strung and things are often interpreted in odd ways.
 * More importantly I don't think this wasn't covered in many reliable news outlets at all, NBC is the only big outlet I can see that covered it. Not in BBC, Yahoo, CNN, USA Today, or any of the other big guys that ITN candidates usually have. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your coverage argument is perfectly fine (but keep in mind that science stories are rather differently coverage than say political stories). However, I wouldn't be looking at an IP with minimal ITN experience to learn what ITN expects.  People can and do make stupid arguments all the time (like Nokia being a small company with no impact, LOL), and such arguments will be ignored by the assessing admin just like any other area of Wikipedia.  The only reason the Nokia story hasn't been posted yet is that we have a shortage of admins looking for things to post - the consensus is rather obviously in favor of it.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Stale/Oppose. Really, I am opposing this on the grounds that the species is not taxonomically interesting. If an "extinct" Order (such as the Coelacanth) is found it truly is a big deal. Or even an "extinct" Family. Also, it is stale: reported on March 5th. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose always nice to have some good news, but I'm perplexed by why our article says "they announced the find on March 3" yet this is not considered stale? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support this is the sort of content we definitely should post occasionally, we are an encyclopedia after all. SeraV (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose If it was not listed as extinct, this is not news, just an interesting tidbit. The re-emergence of a species thought extinct is certainly newsworthy but this does not seem to be the case. --M ASEM (t) 13:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - a rediscovery is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Good news is underreported. Certainly more important in the long run than the fact that one of Secular Saddam's red-haired cousins was recently killed shilling for ISIS. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's just wrong. The rediscovery makes absolutely no difference to the monkeys, and scientifically it is garbage. Why do you think the hack who found them had to get crowdsourcing to fund his expedition? Because no granting agency was interested. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Since the soon-to-be acquisition of Alcatel-Lucent by Nokia is now posted, perhaps we should post this instead. We should be happy to find the last remains of this species. George Ho (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment have all the supporters overlooked that this discovery was first announced in early March? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't confirmed/publicly announced until now - a Facebook post by the explorers is hardly a reliable source. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's not what the article says. A sighting in March was made and announced publicly, I don't recall see (or saying) anything about a Facebook post.  Are you suggesting this story hinges on the publication of a photo of the March discovery? Also, can you confirm the IUCN (or some other substantive body other than "Discovery News") has confirmed this discovery to be the real deal? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the Bouvier's red colobus is "critically endangered" according to IUCN, and according to our article, as are "2464 animals and 2104 plants". It is not, and has never been classified by IUCN as "thought to be extinct" so your original proposal is somewhat misleading, as is the blurb. So, is this really a discovery worthy of all this discussion? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The article does say "They announced the find on March 3 via Indiegogo". Abductive linked to the corresponding Facebook post above.  Either way, not a reliable source.  The first RS report was this week...  As far as authoritative confirmation goes, I am pretty sure IUCN reviews status on a scheduled basis (i.e. not specifically in response to findings).  I imagine there will be a scientific paper published soon, but have no idea when.
 * Of the 2064 critically endangered species, how many were last spotted in the 1970s? Very few - most have known populations that happen to be very small (and many others are invertebrates).  It is not deceptive to say "possibly extinct" that is exactly what the IUCN listing says: "Listed as Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct)" - there is not separate "possibly extinct" category. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's all as I expected. The blurb is misleading, it's not "rediscovered" it's "photographed" and the RS all point at the Indiegogo link, so how odd, it's suddenly RS when a third-party points at it?  Come on...  For me, old news, nothing that exciting, and I remain opposed.  Thanks for the discussion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, sources point to the photograph (which came from a PR just released, not Indiegogo), not the March 3 blog post, as confirmation. And yes, that is how Wikipedia works - when an reliable source ("organization with a reputation for fact checking") reports something a primary source first mentioned, it becomes "reliable" information.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What makes it worse is this, from a press release by the Wildlife Conservation Society: "Recent surveys by WCS had previously recorded red colobus in what is now Ntokou-Pikounda National Park in 2007 and 2014, but they were very rarely encountered and no photograph had been taken." So in other words, the monkey had been spotted as little as a year ago.  No story here I'm afraid, just the publication of a photo.  Perhaps a blurb change is required.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * red colobus != Bouvier's red colobus. The spotting of red colobus in general in the area is what made them think there was the possibility of this specific species also being there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then publish away, but the news is the publication of the photo, not the discovery which was announced by the people that "re-discovered" it in March. There has been no third-party confirmation of it, other than the few press people just publishing the photo and relating to the Indiegogo crowd-sourcing.  It was "re-discovered in March".  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your alt is a reasonable suggestion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bouvier's red colobus is the species of red colobus that is living in that area, so the sightings in 2007 and 2014 were the from the "rediscovered" species. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I thought this would be better as a DYK, so that's what I did. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose From the Indiegogo page: The species has not been seen by scientists since the 1970s ... They are reported to live in an area where scientists rarely go. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Francis George

 * Support RD pending article improvements Does appear to meet RD, but the article's sourcing is in very poor shape. --M ASEM (t) 19:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose He was one of 17 Cardinals in a country where only 6% of all members of his church are living, and he was not elevated to Cardinal Bishop or otherwise more important in the Vatican than an average Cardinal. Is every single of the currently 223 Catholic Cardinals eligible for RD when he dies? What about other churches? LoveToLondon (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per LoveToLondon; I'm not clear on which RD criteria is being met here. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with LoveToLondon, I would only give rd to Cardinal Bishops, unless cardinal in question have accomplished something really special. SeraV (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose we really would need some grand encomium from outside the Church to justify this. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose important to what field? Weakly sourced article to boot. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait at least until the kill is confirmed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to place this below in the Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri section? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose, just a retired functionary. Nothing special about him. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose little notability outside Roman Catholicism. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I don't think anyone is suggesting that every Cardinal would qualify for RD. But Cardinal George was a long-serving archbishop of a very large diocese and a highly influential figure in the Catholic Church in his country. He played an influential role - at the international, not just the national, level - in the Church's response to the sexual abuse crisis. He lead its opposition to the Affordable Care Act. It's a close call, but on balance I think he is important enough to meet the criteria. I would add that I am bemused by the suggestion that Cardinal Bishops, unlike other Cardinals, should qualify for RD. They tend to Vatican bureaucrats, some of questionable importance - I wouldn't be inclined to support Roger Etchegaray or José Saraiva Martins for RD. I'd say Cardinal George was a higher-profile figure and had a bigger impact than either of them. Neljack (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * With 2.3 million Catholics being less than half the size of the largest diocese in the US, I am bemused to hear Chicago being called "very large". What was his influential role in the non-US part of the sexual abuse crisis? The article does not contain any sourced facts why and how he was influential in that. LoveToLondon (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support RD A very prominent member of the largest Christian denomination in the United States. He was also a very influential figure in the culture wars being a leader of the conservative wing of the American Catholic Church. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I am not seeing how he was notable or influential for his field - one of 31 archbishops - and took the conservative line. His death was sadly unsurprising, diagnosed with cancer ten years ago. I am simply not seeing where he meets the RD criteria. Challenger l (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri

 * Wait? The news articles state his death is claimed but not affirmed? (I'm not sure on RD appropriateness yet, article seems okay, but just would like better confirmation on news). --M ASEM (t) 17:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until we know he has been killed; I'm also uncertain on if he meets the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, but post for sure if confirmed. This guy is/was the highest ranking survivor of the Saddam Hussein regime and a major player in ISIS. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose that he wasn't hanged with Saddam is no accomplishment. These people know that they will live by the sword until they die by the sword. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Article is sufficient quality, major news sources are reporting the death prominently. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 21:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Jayron. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A poor quality article is an established reason for opposition. Since when is a good quality article itself a reason for meeting any of the ITN criteria? Since when is "bing hits" an RS? μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:ITN says, under the section titled Purpose says, "To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events." Nowhere does it say "We should avoid posting subjects because we find what they did abhorrant".  Highlighting quality content on stuff that recently happened is the primary purpose of ITN, regardless of for what reason that content is in the news.  Even if it's because the person who died was a really bad person.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I get that, and he was evil, but the idea is to nominate good articles about notable figures. This guy is about as important in the end as the third biggest drug dealer in Chicago, so regardless of my side comments, I contest the notability/accomplishment requirement. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please, he was the mastermind behind all resistance to the US since the collapse of the Iraqi government in 2003. Think of him as the head of state for a country the size of Belgium. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait at least until the kill is confirmed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait for DNA analysis. $US 10 million bounty is notable.-- Aronzak (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until this is confirmed via DNA tests. Jus  da  fax   18:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Oldest stone tools

 *  Support Oppose Peer-review publication of findings. Beats the previous known date by 700k years so this clearly outside the likely chance of coincidence. Article in decent shape (looks like made on these findings). Adding a map to the article might help, but not a issue on ITN posting. --M ASEM  (t) 00:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A 15 minute oral presentation at a conference is not a peer-reviewed publication. LoveToLondon (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I misread that it was published by Science, as noted it's just a news report, one that I would give some weight to reliability if Science is reporting it, but yeah, we should wait for confirmation. --M ASEM (t) 01:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the paper has not been published yet, but is scheduled to be published in May. That would mean it has already been peer-reviewed (which happens before the paper is accepted).  If consensus is to wait until it is published, that is fine by me, but be aware there likely will not be any press coverage at that time, so I certainly hope people wouldn't oppose as "stale" and/or for "lack of coverage" at that time...  I would request comments be clear that they mean "support on merits of story, but wait for publication" (e.g. as a "wait" vote) if that is indeed what they mean. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you give a source indicating that the paper has already been successfully peer-reviewed? The Paleoanthropology Society journal prints the abstracts of all oral presentations, but that is neither peer-reviewed nor a proper paper. LoveToLondon (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are correct. I misread something saying an abstract was due to be published as saying a paper was.  I will ammend my comments accordingly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - A clearly important finding.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. One only has to look at all the Wikipedia articles that have to be substantially revised to see how this really changes the field. In fact, I hope people can make some of those changes before this gets posted. The lack of peer-review is a bit troubling but it seems that in this case it is due to the importance of the discovery. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with this assessment completely. I'm note sure why so few people have commented - are people afraid to support because the paper isn't out yet?  As ITN regulars probably know, Abductive has a strong reputation for not "buying the hype", so his endorsement on importance is pretty meaningful. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a potentially significant bit of scientific breakthrough (that mankind had used tools 700k sooner than the latest prior estimate). It is unlikely the researchers are making up the story, but they have only presented their postulates on the age based on other signs they've seen - now they are waiting on the carbon dating and other measures to get the timing to best scientific accuracy, which might prove their postulate wrong. Once that's done and published by a peer-reviewed journal, that's pretty much assurance that they have proven out their postulate, and we on WP can treat it as "fact". And that's the point that in the past we have treated all scientific stories for ITN - the peer-reviewed report so that we're not reporting on bad science (again, unlikely here). It's similar to where other events have desired points for posting, like the conviction of a criminal. --M ASEM  (t) 04:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No offense, but you shouldn't be posting such speculation if you have no idea what you are talking about. Radiocarbon dating is only good to 50,000 years or so and only works on organic matter.  A more applicable half-life dating (e.g. Potassium–argon dating or Uranium-lead dating) would only tell you the age of the rock, not the time it was made into a tool.  Half-life dating is not the normal way to date anything in archeology, because, again that can only tell you the age of the materials (at best).  Instead things are dated via stratigraphy.  This isn't a lab test of any sort, but rather a careful documentation of where in the artifact was found in the ground.  Sonia Harmand et al. most certainly are not waiting on some sort of lab confirmation to publish.  Instead, they are (most likely) somewhere in the normal publication process (which takes a while) and have chosen to publicly share their findings early b/c they think they are really important.
 * It's also not necessarily true that we always post on peer-review publication. I am pretty sure there were a couple instances a while where back we posted at some other point because that is when the news coverage came out.  Generally, the two happen at the same time, so there really is very little precedent one way or the other.  Thus it is an open question.  And, I only asked people to speak up if their reason for refraining to comment was the timing, not change their minds - it is hard to tell anything from silence.  Maybe people would prefer to wait, or maybe people just haven't been active this weekend, or maybe people aren't seeing the significance... It would be a real shame if this gets opposed now as "too soon" and later (by different) as "stale", with agreement on significance, just not on timing.  Thus, I would like to form a consensus of some sort now to avoid that possible issue later. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support I don't generally like publishing "pre-print" results. We've often embarrassed ourselves when we've been suckered by science by press conference (remember the arsenic-based lifeform that wasn't? The gravitational waves that were actually probably dust?) Paleoarchaeology is a field that is notoriously prone to confirmation bias - it's easy to read too much into rocks and bones - and even when results are subsequently confirmed, it can take a lot of wrangling get a scientific consensus (see Homo floresiensis (the hobbit) for one example). However, the article has a lot of citations of quotes from independent researchers who seem to generally support the hypothesis. That's still peer review, albeit of a more informal type, and I agree with ThaddeusB that waiting for full formal publication takes us into the realm of staleness. Smurrayinchester 09:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I've seen the news 2-3 days ago, but got my hands to recheck it today. Since such sources as Archaeological Institute of America or National Geographic confirm the finding and the publication of related article has been at least announced, I think it's safe to post this. Brandmeistertalk  14:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This certainly is big if true, and I will support posting this since independent researchers in our article seems to support this. SeraV (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 04:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Xenophobic attacks in South Africa

 * support - per the fact that these attacks has been heavily covered by world media.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Fairly low death toll so far. Worth keeping an eye on, though. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: If only because ITN is not really a great place for "slow" events like this. It's not as important as to fall into Ongoing, but there's also no obvious point where this is ITN. --M ASEM (t) 17:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We also don't have ITN for the frequent "White US cop shoots black guy". LoveToLondon (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support when the "king of the Zulus" (Mina ngifunda isiZulu) calls for his neighbors to pack their bags it's Lebensraum all over again. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this kind of racial tension is permanent in some countries like South Africa and the United States. Some of what is written above is utterly false.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose article quality seems low, some things in the article are poorly sourced. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is patchy and here-and-there on its coverage &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It's got a massive reaction all over Africa (from Nigeria to Zimbabwe to Mozambique and Malawi). Zuma cancelled an overseas trip to Indonesia for this too. The ramifications based on the spite against South Africa (the now-second largest economy) is no simple matter. I guess they're black and nowhere near Europe so it doesn't really matter. (Considering the censorship of non-"western" sources in the migrant deaths posting).120.62.25.132 (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: A. Alfred Taubman

 * Weak Support - An interesting idea of being leader in the field (its not conventional RD aspect), but save for the Philanthropy section which lacks sources, this isn't a bad article to be ITN. --M ASEM (t) 05:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose not really seeing how he meets RD criterion for leading in the field of pioneering shopping malls, but certainly seemed philanthropic. Article is in a reasonable shape but could use checking for tone and tense, and as Masem points out, the odd additional cite for the mega-claims in the Philanthropy section must be provided.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose What and when exactly did he pioneer? The article reads a lot like promotion, and it is not clear what he did (or didn't) pioneer compared to people like Victor Gruen. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you ever read any article fully and verify your claims by referring to the reliable source? All your previous claims are so lame that none have helped the ITN reviewers. Trust me...-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 09:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is interesting to see that you have nothing to answer except personal attacks against me when asked to explain your "pioneer" claim. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not seeing any significant impact. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Not seeing any significant impact means one hasn't read the article. Godfather of the modern shopping mall, white knight savior of Sotheby's, a very intersting and accomplished mensch. μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment What is the "godfather" claim based on? I have read the article, and when you ignore the awful US-style bragging that is mostly based on his own book there is not much contents telling what he actually invented. The article even fails to say when and where he opened his first shopping mall (and a pioneering mall surely also has an own article). LoveToLondon (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I would have expected you to attack him for being a Jew, rather than just an American. Perhaps you should consider moving to East Germany? μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Come on, WP:NPA. This bickering is pointless. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of it is disgusting. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not only disgusting, but clearly in breach of WP:CIVIL.- ELEKHHT 08:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Really solid sources such as Time and CNN back the pioneer claims. Not saying it is necessarily enough for RD (I'm neutral), but let's not pretend like the claims can't be backed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think part of it comes from "where do you draw the line of "field" in RD"? E.g. we'll have "pioneer in race relations" or "pioneer in neuroscience" or "pioneer in mountaineering" then "pioneering in college basketball" now "pioneering in shopping malls", next "pioneering in ice cream flavours" and "pioneering in flat pack furniture".  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * When everyone just copies the term "pioneer" from the title of his book (some even upgrading it to "godfather") there is not even a basis for discussion. The article is currently complete rubbish when it comes to describing what he actually did in "pioneering" shopping malls (apart from becoming rich). The first section of "Shopping mall development" is filled with praise for him from himself and his partner, but even fails to mention when and where he opened his first mall. The article has so few facts in the field where it is said he was a pioneer - just compare it with the Victor Gruen article that makes it clear what he pioneered. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose until the article gets a re-write - it needs to look and feel like an encyclopedia article. Challenger l (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LoveToLondon and others. In academic literature Victor Gruen is credited to be the 'pioneer' of shopping malls. Taubman could have been at most the pioneer of some self-defined-sub-type of mall. -- ELEKHHT 08:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Monkey rediscovered

 * Miller’s Grizzled Langur, 2012. Non-monkeys; Jerdon's babbler, Mar 5 2015, Myanmar roofed turtle, Apr 13, 2015, Central rock rat, 2013, New Guinea big-eared bat, 2012. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Article is of sufficient quality, a recent event, and would add needed variety to ITN. Per WP:ITN "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them."  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Two reasons. First, it must not be very big news as quite few news outlets are covering it, especially when compared to other items on this list; and second it was never actually declared extinct, so really it is just a sighting of an endangered animal. Also, not as rare as it sounds as Abductive pointed out. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, he pointed out precisely one other occurrence of a primate plus a turtle, bat, and rat (all of which would be considerably less surprising) and a bird (somewhat comparable). So even including all vertebrates, we are talking ~1-2 per year, which is hardly common.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also of note, "rareness" is not a standard ITN works on. "Recent" and "In news sources" and "quality article" are all standards we judge against.  We can arbitrarily define rareness anyway we want.  Worldwide there's probably 1-2 national elections every month, and no one bats an eye if we post one of those.  The rationale is spurious when it is based solely on a criteria we can easily demonstrate that we have never applied when deciding whether or not to post.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought that too but opposed my nomination, because Nokia "doesn't make as many phones as they used to" (???) and because sometimes mergers don't go through. What I'm trying to say is that while ITN is designed around the recent, sources, and quality article standards, its standards in reality are a lot more high strung and things are often interpreted in odd ways.
 * More importantly I don't think this wasn't covered in many reliable news outlets at all, NBC is the only big outlet I can see that covered it. Not in BBC, Yahoo, CNN, USA Today, or any of the other big guys that ITN candidates usually have. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your coverage argument is perfectly fine (but keep in mind that science stories are rather differently coverage than say political stories). However, I wouldn't be looking at an IP with minimal ITN experience to learn what ITN expects.  People can and do make stupid arguments all the time (like Nokia being a small company with no impact, LOL), and such arguments will be ignored by the assessing admin just like any other area of Wikipedia.  The only reason the Nokia story hasn't been posted yet is that we have a shortage of admins looking for things to post - the consensus is rather obviously in favor of it.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Stale/Oppose. Really, I am opposing this on the grounds that the species is not taxonomically interesting. If an "extinct" Order (such as the Coelacanth) is found it truly is a big deal. Or even an "extinct" Family. Also, it is stale: reported on March 5th. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose always nice to have some good news, but I'm perplexed by why our article says "they announced the find on March 3" yet this is not considered stale? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support this is the sort of content we definitely should post occasionally, we are an encyclopedia after all. SeraV (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose If it was not listed as extinct, this is not news, just an interesting tidbit. The re-emergence of a species thought extinct is certainly newsworthy but this does not seem to be the case. --M ASEM (t) 13:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - a rediscovery is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Good news is underreported. Certainly more important in the long run than the fact that one of Secular Saddam's red-haired cousins was recently killed shilling for ISIS. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's just wrong. The rediscovery makes absolutely no difference to the monkeys, and scientifically it is garbage. Why do you think the hack who found them had to get crowdsourcing to fund his expedition? Because no granting agency was interested. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Since the soon-to-be acquisition of Alcatel-Lucent by Nokia is now posted, perhaps we should post this instead. We should be happy to find the last remains of this species. George Ho (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment have all the supporters overlooked that this discovery was first announced in early March? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't confirmed/publicly announced until now - a Facebook post by the explorers is hardly a reliable source. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's not what the article says. A sighting in March was made and announced publicly, I don't recall see (or saying) anything about a Facebook post.  Are you suggesting this story hinges on the publication of a photo of the March discovery? Also, can you confirm the IUCN (or some other substantive body other than "Discovery News") has confirmed this discovery to be the real deal? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the Bouvier's red colobus is "critically endangered" according to IUCN, and according to our article, as are "2464 animals and 2104 plants". It is not, and has never been classified by IUCN as "thought to be extinct" so your original proposal is somewhat misleading, as is the blurb. So, is this really a discovery worthy of all this discussion? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The article does say "They announced the find on March 3 via Indiegogo". Abductive linked to the corresponding Facebook post above.  Either way, not a reliable source.  The first RS report was this week...  As far as authoritative confirmation goes, I am pretty sure IUCN reviews status on a scheduled basis (i.e. not specifically in response to findings).  I imagine there will be a scientific paper published soon, but have no idea when.
 * Of the 2064 critically endangered species, how many were last spotted in the 1970s? Very few - most have known populations that happen to be very small (and many others are invertebrates).  It is not deceptive to say "possibly extinct" that is exactly what the IUCN listing says: "Listed as Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct)" - there is not separate "possibly extinct" category. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's all as I expected. The blurb is misleading, it's not "rediscovered" it's "photographed" and the RS all point at the Indiegogo link, so how odd, it's suddenly RS when a third-party points at it?  Come on...  For me, old news, nothing that exciting, and I remain opposed.  Thanks for the discussion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, sources point to the photograph (which came from a PR just released, not Indiegogo), not the March 3 blog post, as confirmation. And yes, that is how Wikipedia works - when an reliable source ("organization with a reputation for fact checking") reports something a primary source first mentioned, it becomes "reliable" information.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What makes it worse is this, from a press release by the Wildlife Conservation Society: "Recent surveys by WCS had previously recorded red colobus in what is now Ntokou-Pikounda National Park in 2007 and 2014, but they were very rarely encountered and no photograph had been taken." So in other words, the monkey had been spotted as little as a year ago.  No story here I'm afraid, just the publication of a photo.  Perhaps a blurb change is required.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * red colobus != Bouvier's red colobus. The spotting of red colobus in general in the area is what made them think there was the possibility of this specific species also being there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then publish away, but the news is the publication of the photo, not the discovery which was announced by the people that "re-discovered" it in March. There has been no third-party confirmation of it, other than the few press people just publishing the photo and relating to the Indiegogo crowd-sourcing.  It was "re-discovered in March".  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your alt is a reasonable suggestion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bouvier's red colobus is the species of red colobus that is living in that area, so the sightings in 2007 and 2014 were the from the "rediscovered" species. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I thought this would be better as a DYK, so that's what I did. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose From the Indiegogo page: The species has not been seen by scientists since the 1970s ... They are reported to live in an area where scientists rarely go. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Francis George

 * Support RD pending article improvements Does appear to meet RD, but the article's sourcing is in very poor shape. --M ASEM (t) 19:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose He was one of 17 Cardinals in a country where only 6% of all members of his church are living, and he was not elevated to Cardinal Bishop or otherwise more important in the Vatican than an average Cardinal. Is every single of the currently 223 Catholic Cardinals eligible for RD when he dies? What about other churches? LoveToLondon (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per LoveToLondon; I'm not clear on which RD criteria is being met here. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with LoveToLondon, I would only give rd to Cardinal Bishops, unless cardinal in question have accomplished something really special. SeraV (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose we really would need some grand encomium from outside the Church to justify this. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose important to what field? Weakly sourced article to boot. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait at least until the kill is confirmed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to place this below in the Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri section? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose, just a retired functionary. Nothing special about him. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose little notability outside Roman Catholicism. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I don't think anyone is suggesting that every Cardinal would qualify for RD. But Cardinal George was a long-serving archbishop of a very large diocese and a highly influential figure in the Catholic Church in his country. He played an influential role - at the international, not just the national, level - in the Church's response to the sexual abuse crisis. He lead its opposition to the Affordable Care Act. It's a close call, but on balance I think he is important enough to meet the criteria. I would add that I am bemused by the suggestion that Cardinal Bishops, unlike other Cardinals, should qualify for RD. They tend to Vatican bureaucrats, some of questionable importance - I wouldn't be inclined to support Roger Etchegaray or José Saraiva Martins for RD. I'd say Cardinal George was a higher-profile figure and had a bigger impact than either of them. Neljack (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * With 2.3 million Catholics being less than half the size of the largest diocese in the US, I am bemused to hear Chicago being called "very large". What was his influential role in the non-US part of the sexual abuse crisis? The article does not contain any sourced facts why and how he was influential in that. LoveToLondon (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support RD A very prominent member of the largest Christian denomination in the United States. He was also a very influential figure in the culture wars being a leader of the conservative wing of the American Catholic Church. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I am not seeing how he was notable or influential for his field - one of 31 archbishops - and took the conservative line. His death was sadly unsurprising, diagnosed with cancer ten years ago. I am simply not seeing where he meets the RD criteria. Challenger l (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri

 * Wait? The news articles state his death is claimed but not affirmed? (I'm not sure on RD appropriateness yet, article seems okay, but just would like better confirmation on news). --M ASEM (t) 17:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until we know he has been killed; I'm also uncertain on if he meets the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, but post for sure if confirmed. This guy is/was the highest ranking survivor of the Saddam Hussein regime and a major player in ISIS. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose that he wasn't hanged with Saddam is no accomplishment. These people know that they will live by the sword until they die by the sword. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Article is sufficient quality, major news sources are reporting the death prominently. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 21:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Jayron. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A poor quality article is an established reason for opposition. Since when is a good quality article itself a reason for meeting any of the ITN criteria? Since when is "bing hits" an RS? μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:ITN says, under the section titled Purpose says, "To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events." Nowhere does it say "We should avoid posting subjects because we find what they did abhorrant".  Highlighting quality content on stuff that recently happened is the primary purpose of ITN, regardless of for what reason that content is in the news.  Even if it's because the person who died was a really bad person.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I get that, and he was evil, but the idea is to nominate good articles about notable figures. This guy is about as important in the end as the third biggest drug dealer in Chicago, so regardless of my side comments, I contest the notability/accomplishment requirement. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please, he was the mastermind behind all resistance to the US since the collapse of the Iraqi government in 2003. Think of him as the head of state for a country the size of Belgium. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait at least until the kill is confirmed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait for DNA analysis. $US 10 million bounty is notable.-- Aronzak (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until this is confirmed via DNA tests. Jus  da  fax   18:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Stanislav Gross

 * Oppose on the quality of the article. The article focuses predominately on scandals and accusations and doesn't seem to me to provide a balanced and reasonable account of Gross's life. Would need a fair bit of work to bring it up to standard. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD. The implication of importance by the article, even given the time he served as PM, seems trivial and unremarkable in contrast to what I would expect to see from an important world/national leader. --M ASEM  (t) 13:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality and merits; article states that he did very little as PM and held the office for a short time, not long enough to have an impact. As such, does not meet the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Youngest EU PM ever, died at 45 of rare disease, scandal-plagued administration, certainly more interesting than a former Waffen SS member. μηδείς (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment He is not the youngest EU PM ever. LoveToLondon (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nor is he the youngest Waffen SS Member! (Who is the youngest EU PM ever?) Still quite notable. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose on article quality. An orange tag up top since November 2013, and the abysmally short quality are unworthy of a former head of state. I am of a mind to suggest that it needs attention from an expert, between the near-total lack of references and the overall tone of the article, as Bcp67 indicated above. The history of this particular PM reminds me of American Pres. Warren G. Harding - who also died abruptly, but from circumstances that were much less clear back in 1923. Challenger l (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment He never was Head of State. LoveToLondon (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh. I REALLY had the wrong end of the stick then. I apologize. If he wasn't a head of state either - then I don't see how he fits RD at all. Challenger l (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A fair question is that is the PM in Czech a more decorative title (the true power in a different body of the government) or is it truly the head of the executive branch? I don't know, but I know an RD in the last 6-some months this was a point of difference for at least one person. --M ASEM  (t) 12:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * According to our own encyclopedia, President of the Czech Republic is the "head of state" for the Czech Republic. Moreover there have been other, younger prime ministers in the EU.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * PM is never a decorative title, Head of State is often a purely decorative title. People like David Cameron and Angela Merkel are not Head of State. It would be hard to find a more powerless person in politics than the Head of State of the UK, who even has some of her speeches written by the PM. LoveToLondon (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality, weak oppose on notability. Some claims above are simply false.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Surya Bahadur Thapa

 * Support if article is drastically improved: He obviously meets notability criteria, having been a major political force and leader in Nepal for half a century. But the state of the article is appalling. Forget that it still refers to its recently dead subject in the present tense; it has a well-deserved orange tag at the top because it has literally six citations, two of which are duplicates and two of which were just added as references for his death. I'd like to help out with this, but I honestly don't know where to start. Almost every single claim in the article is completely unreferenced; it's a gaping BLP violation, and we're talking about somebody who has been a household name for generations in a country of nearly 30 million people, a five-time world leader, and a respected elder statesman in South Asia. What a shame. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support with significant article improvements - RD is clear, but oh man. That article fails BLP with nearly no sourcing at all. This needs serious work to get it to a state RD can use. --M ASEM (t) 05:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality Clearly notable and suitable for RD, but the article needs a lot of work first. If and when improved (I don't have the knowledge on the subject to do it myself), Support. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support notability and strong oppose quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality - it's a real nightmare. Barely any references and the lead is barely even there. Absolutely notable enough for RD, but it needs a LOT of work. Another article that needs attention from an expert, I'd say. Challenger l (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per those above. Hopefully someone will take some time to address the sad state of the article, though. Connormah (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm on it. All fixed, but some cleanup on layout is mandatory. Can anyone help me out? -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 03:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. The rules say that the article must be satisfactorily updated and have no major omissions of the person's life and effect, and comply with the WP:BLP rules.  Not, "the article must not even have a single citation needed or cleanup tag".  A political leader of this fellow's stature is important enough that his omission would seem random. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Marking ready before becoming stale. -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 13:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Removing ready mark. Sorry, but it's all very well and good to claim that we should be posting this before it's stale and attempting to mark it as ready, but, once again, whole sections of this biography lack a single citation.  Plus it's barely written in English.  Startlingly poor.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine now, I think..-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 07:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * After a substantial copyedit by myself following earlier significant work by The Herald and Taknaran, I am inclined to say this is ready --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the sourcing makes it good to go. --M ASEM (t) 01:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 04:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Great work on this, guys. Sometimes I don't know why I bother with Wikipedia, but it's people like the editors who teamed up to fix this formerly abysmal article who inspire me to do what I can. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Aaron Hernandez found guilty of murder

 * Weak oppose Murder trial that received some press but only because the guilty party (glad I can type that) is a professional athlete. That doesn't make this rise to the level of importance for ITN. Then again, Oscar Pistorius was posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is also an article on the murder. Link that? &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added the murder article to the blurb. Everymorning   talk  15:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: Pistorius was posted, and by that standard, Hernandez should be posted, too. But I don't like that standard, and I don't like ITN being used as Page Six for celebrity court dramas. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of note, the only standard is "Do we post this article now for ." The posting or non-posting of any article in the past for any reason does not qualify or disqualify this article for any reason.  We judge every article suggestion on it's own merits every time, regardless of what has, or has not, been done in the past.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Muboshgu (I don't believe we should have posted Pistorius either). If we are going to post, some of his sporting career could be sourced better, and a anti-proseline purge in discussion of the trial events would be helpful. --M ASEM (t) 15:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Pistorius was a whole different batch of cookies. He was an international Olympic athlete (I think), not an American "footballer", and Pistorius IMO generated alot more international media coverage. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I believe that if Pistorius wasn't an amputee he wouldn't have been so newsworthy. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose as per EoRdE6's reasoning. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Pistorius is a Paralympic medallist, Hernandez played in the NFL and was not as internationally known as say his teammate Tom Brady. The Pistorius trial also gained attention for the prospects of an amputee being imprisoned, and also much was said about whether it was murder and manslaughter due to his mental condition. That kind of special attention hasn't been given to this case. I was largely unaware of the ins-and-outs of this case although BBC Sport put up main stories from US sport, including a recent baseball doping ban which one would think is less notable than murder &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per most of the points above. The only reason this rates major news coverage is that he was a former NFL player. This is legitimate news in New England. Outside of that area it's tabloid news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support we're a good, comprehensive neutral source where readers will be looking.  Comparisons to pistorius sound eltist and biased. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - if we posted Pistorius we should by all rationale thinking post this as well. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'd agree with the assessment of The Almightey Drill. Aaron Hernandez is not widely regarded as a "face" of the NFL, in spite of the inherent fame that being a football player carries in the USA. Peyton Manning (or on the other side of the ocean, Lionel Messi) being charged with murder would be a bigger deal simply because of his media presence. This case also does not bear inherent controversy as the O.J. Simpson trial did, which surely would have been posted if ITN existed back then. By the way, I feel that it should be mentioned that any story that gets posted on BBC or Reuters is, by definition, not "tabloid news". --WaltCip (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your last statement isn't correct. The Jeremy Clarkson sacking was front page BBC and other big news outlets but was quickly rejected as tabloid news... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 17:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess there is a regional difference in the definition of the term "tabloid", which I understand to mean a gossip newspaper such as The Globe or National Enquirer.--WaltCip (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I don't think this is that similar to the Pistorius case; Hernandez was a member of a team, not in an individual sport, aside from the already-stated fact that Pistorius was an Olympic athlete and famous for his circumstances(not having feet).  Nothing was particularly notable about this case other than the defendant. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Murder convictions, even well publicized ones, are unfortunately very common in the U.S. Just because it involves someone famous doesn't make it earth shattering news.  Aerospeed  (Talk) 21:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All Star player, $40 million contract, and the fact that they don't have Olympic American Football is a reason to omit him? As an individual he was obviously at the top of his field.  The man's admittedly not of Dutch descent, but he's a world class athlete convicted of a capital crime and facing two more such charges.  The only reason not to post him seems to be that this is what we expect from American minorities. μηδείς (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the first handful of arguments here are not particularly productive. We are not a court system, so don't follow and are not bound by precedent here. I'm not sure how the racism accusation came in, but that's probably definitely not the case. Mamyles (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hernandez's race is completely irrelevant to me, and as far as I can see at the moment, most everyone else on this page. I think the racism arguments have no foundation at all. Hernandez is not a disabled NFL player, unlike Pistorius in track. He was also part of a team, unlike Pistorius.  Hernandez also did not have international attention, unlike Pistorius(and even former teammate Tom Brady).331dot (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose This conviction doesn't seem to have any more impact than if the player retired or was critically injured. It does have some shock factor, that an individual so many people revered would be so violent, but I would consider that closer to tabloid news. And, for consideration of balance, we've already had many sports blurbs recently. Additionally, his article is close but not quite updated to the quality I would like to see for posting. The yellow-level tag about prose is a great suggestion. Mamyles (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Pistorius was an Olympian, albeit a paralympian who won gold in 3 Paralympic games, Hernandez played american football, a sport that no one gives a second look at outside of the US..there is no comparison here..OJ Simpson qualifies cause he was famous as an actor as well..Aaron Hernandez does not....that said, this is a news item in the Portal for American Football and thats it..-- Stemoc 05:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose we're not a tabloid. People get convicted of murder every day.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Why are we even debating this? Run of the mill murder case, neither the victim or the perpetrator were particularly well know. Medeis' arguments are deeply insulting and just plain ridiculous. Just snowclose it. Fgf10 (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To refer to any murder case in such a casual way as you have, is likewise deeply insulting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, just a run of the mill murder case, not news-worthy. Calling other editors racist is deeply insulting. Fgf10 (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To refer to the willfull taking of a human life as "run of the mill" is deeply insulting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah yeah, whatever. Not relevant for the nomination. Fgf10 (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You were just claiming it is relevant, now you're claiming it's not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh, whether or not calling this run of the mill is insulting or not is irrelevant, not that fact that it is run of the mill, which is relevant. Keep up. Fgf10 (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Which source has called this murder "run of the mil"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You should report any racist comments to WP:ANI. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, no racist comments were made, just Medeis accusing people of being racist. As for referring her to ANI, I'd do it if I though it would do any good... Anyway, closing this as it's not going to go. Fgf10 (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And then you could be challenged for your casual attitude towards murder. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

RD: Homaro Cantu

 * Oppose - The death is unusual, but I'm worried about the lack of recognition; I'm not seeing things I would associate with importance in culinary skills like Michalin stars or other awards. If it is only a leader in the molecular gasotromony, that's too fine a subset of chefs in general. --M ASEM (t) 14:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I said the article is in poor shape... Moto is considered one of the nation's top restaurants and one of ~3 restaurants that led the MG trend.  It is definitely Michelin starred and has been for some time. Trust me, among chefs Cantu was considered an innovator and a superstar. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Assuming that can be added and sourced, then yes, I would support this as RD. (I don't think him of having enough of a household name presence to merit a blurb like with did with Robin Williams, but assuming the sourcing above, RD for sure). --M ASEM (t) 15:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Cantu is only listed in the molecular gastronomy article with no explanation of his importance. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, our coverage of chefs is very poor in general (no idea why). Take Joël Robuchon, the most Michelin starred chef in the world.  Even his article is only start quality. The MG article article has like 2 paragraphs about everything that has been since 2000 - and the genre was basically just getting started in 2000...  Anyway, improving Cantu's article will be my top priority today, regardless of any decision made here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait: I'm willing to trust and see what ThaddeusB comes up with, even though I'm not seeing a case for RD inclusion right now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support after update. I don't know he was at the very top of his field, but he does at least seem to have been notable and his death was unusual. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD There doesn't seem to be much frontpage reporting in international media of his death, so the claim he was a "superstar" is clearly overblown - he was no Paul Bocuse and no Hervé This. ThaddeusB also made the incorrect claim "one of the nation's top restaurants" - Moto (restaurant) says with source In 2012, Forbes Magazine ranked Moto #44 on its list of "The 100 Best US Restaurants.", and having only one Michelin star implies that a restaurant is worse than the over 400 restaurants worldwide that have more than one star (there are over 2000 restaurants that have at least one star). In Chicago Moto is one of 24 restaurants with at least one Michelin star, and not even one of the 5 best restaurants in Chicago that have more than one Michelin star. LoveToLondon (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify, when I say "among chefs Cantu was considered an innovator and a superstar" I mean other chefs considered him to be such. That does not necessarily translate into fame among the general public or Michelin stars.  He was known for innovation first, and food second.  And in that regard, he was the at the top...  No serious foodie would say something as silly as "all 2 Michelin star restaurants are better than all 1 Michelin star restaurants" or even that only starred restaurants matter.  Cantu was important because he along with Grant Achatz and Graham Elliot made Chicago into the place to go to innovative food.  Any chef wishing to follow that trend - and many, many have - looked up the those three.  There are hundreds of Michelin starred chefs that have minimal impact on the culinary world - Cantu had a large one.
 * I do apologize about calling Moto one of the top restaurants in the country, though. You are correct that it is usually "only" ranked in the top 50 or so.  I was actually thinking of Alinea (Achatz's restaurant), which is routinely top 5-10, so did slightly overstate that point.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So your claim "one of ~3 restaurants that led the MG trend" is in reality "one of top 3 MG restaurants in Chicago".
 * Compared to Grant Achatz he was not even the most renowned molecular gastromony chef in Chicago, and being one of the best 3 molecular gastromony chefs in Chicago is a quite strange definition for "superstar". The real superstar in molecular gastromony who is not defined by having a restaurant with Michelin stars is Hervé This. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what I said at all. I said chefs (all over the world, not just in Chicago) viewed him as one of the top few people in the field.  Michelin stars do not measure impact. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What position in what field exactly, and what RS do you have to back this up? E.g. top 10 in molecular gastromony in the world would make him a medium-important person in a pretty small field. LoveToLondon (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously, everything I wrote is my personal opinion based on my knowledge of the gourmet food world (following it is a hobby of mine). I was unaware that we are now supposed to start all ITN comments with "In my opinion..."  As far as RS coverage/opinion goes, I will let the article speak for itself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It also speaks for itself that you have no RS to backup your claims like "chefs (all over the world, not just in Chicago) viewed him as one of the top few people in the field" and "among chefs Cantu was considered an innovator and a superstar" - no non-US sources in the article, no sources from the field of cooking in the article, and no sources in the article that relevant people in the field of molecular gastronomy like Ferran Adrià or Heston Blumenthal said he was a superstar. You already admitted that your attempts to inflate the importance of Moto were incorrect, and the rest of your claims are also not based on verifiable facts. LoveToLondon (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no need for your false and unfair personal attacks against me. Please do not ascribe motive or admission of guilt.  I made a simple mistake about Moto's rank (top 50 instead of top 10).  I stand behind everything else I wrote.  You disagree with my assessment and that is perfect fine, but when you attempt to paint me as purposefully deceitful, you cross a line.  Believe it or not, two people can have a different opinion w/o one being dishonest.  Geez.
 * I would say the article already backs up my claims. No it doesn't use the exact words "superstar" - but the idea is there including from Adrià.  If you had bothered to read carefully, you would see Adrià is mentioned and if you wanted to see his exact words all you had to do was click through to the source....  I'm sorry your view sources such as The New York Times as unreliable and would have prefered food sources such as Gourmet magazine.  These sources do exist, I just haven't used them (yet).  International sources exist as well.  Do not confuse lack of use for lack of existence.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a huge difference between someone being good in his field and respected by other people in his field, and someone being considered a superstar which you repeatedly claimed without bringing any RS for that claim. We are not discussing personal opinions, we are discussing verifiable information. In the source Adrià is saying that Cantu is good, which is lightyears away from saying he is a superstar.
 * The few international sources that covered his death tend to describe his main achievement as "worked for Charlie Trotter". LoveToLondon (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * My apologies, but I was not able to get the article up to par in one night - I will continue work tomorrow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Article is now updated and in good shape. I will likely work on it more, but it is in good enough shape to assess Cantu's merits. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For what its worth, a follow-up story on Cantu's death appeared on the front page (i.e. A1) of today's New York Times. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 Libya migrant shipwreck

 * Support, pending slight expansion. Looks like one of the largest migrant shipwrecks in terms of reported casualties. Brandmeistertalk  14:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral, while a large number of potential deaths, it is also case these are migrants and we have skipped on previous migrant shipwrecks in the past. Article could be expanded but fine as a current developing event for posting. --M ASEM (t) 14:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support, one of the largest migrant shipwrecks yes, but the article requires quite a bit of expansion, and the casualties figures are all just estimated right now. You also might want to add something about the backlash the EU is getting to the actual article EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I considered nominating this yesterday, but decided it was best to wait for more details to emerge. The casualty figure is evidently a guess by a couple rescued immigrants and is far from official. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: These tragedies are very sadly frequent, and elevate during the European summer. Not to say that I oppose its inclusion, but things have been previously opposed on the standard of "unfortunate, but that happens all the time" &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support once details are more certain. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Operation Mare Nostrum should be its own article, this shipwreck has similarities to the 2013 Lampedusa migrant shipwreck -- Aronzak (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Started now Operation Mare Nostrum, feel free to improve. Brandmeistertalk  16:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This is a big casualty of Human Race & must be brought forward. Most of the details are certain as news are getting updated by agencies.( <font style="color: #ffff33;background: #800080;"> !dea4u   11:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC))
 * Support – If I heard correctly on the news Wednesday, some 20,000 people have died trying to cross the Mediterranean to Europe in this century. (Can this be right?) Not a minor problem. Sca (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And we've not posted any of the previous issues with migrant fatalities like these wrecks before. People using any means necessary to flee into Europe is common enough and because they will take any risk, these deaths happen. I'm sure numbers of the same kind can be found for people crossing the Mexican border to the US or trying to cross over from Cuba to the US and drowning along the way. --M ASEM (t) 15:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending further details. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - as the immigration issue continues to be a headline (today's headline is 15 immigrants being charged with murder for throwing 12 others overboard and 40+ others dying in an unrelated sinking), I don't really think we should be highlighting the sinking of 400 in isolation. If we post something, I feel it should be the waves of people arriving (10,000 in the last week), which is being described as an "immigration crisis". In that context, 400 dying is, sadly, perfectly ordinary - an estimated 3,200 died last year in crossing attempts.  So the real story is the rise in attempts.  An article such as Immigration to Italy would be a better target for the general story.   --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are taking the issue as a whole, whereas this is a single incident, apparently one of the deadliest, if not the deadliest incident so far involving migrants crossing the Mediterranean (more deadly than 2013 Lampedusa migrant shipwreck, for example). I'm not sure how to reflect that in Ongoing, so posting shipwrecks of such scale would improve our coverage. If the same number of people dies on a capsizing passenger ship, we would almost certainly post that. Brandmeistertalk  08:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but capsized passenger ships are not a daily occurrence. Immigrant drownings are - nearly 10/day last year and more this year.  Yes, this one is higher in number than average, but that is the only thing notable about it.  And with more people trying this year, it is inevitable that more will die.  I am not against posting exactly (hence my "comment", not "oppose"), but feel it needs to be put into context.  This is not a freak disaster, but rather the outcome of more and more immigrants risking their lives to get to Italy.  The comparison Masem made above about drownings in the Rio Grande and Gulf of Mexico is apt.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: I added the altblurb. --George Ho (talk) 09:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose the death toll is dropping as we speak. Basically yet another transportation accident. We don't need headlines that are estimates couched in euphemisms. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not feel the article is ready as it still lacks any background information for context. I am opposed to posting in the current form, but could support posting the disaster article ~two background paragraphs are added to explain 1) the commonness of migrants dying in similar disasters (3200 in the last year) and 2) the recent rise in the number of immigrants.  Without that information, the article is incomplete. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I see so many rationalization to reject on ITN. So, lets close and do other business. --Ant a n O   13:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment given another sinking in the Med today with around 700 migrants on board, several hundred of whom are believed to have died, this stuff shouldn't be missing from our ITN section. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the new loss of 700 hundred lives, compared with 400 in this incident, mean that "this stuff" should be replaced by a new article and ITN entry? Or should the existing article be expanded and the blurb adjusted accordingly? Otherwise there is some room for reader confusion. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like we have a real bugger's muddle now. We either have one article covering all of this stuff, or individual articles covering each incident, right now we seem to have a bastard halfway house "solution" which is pretty grim.  I suggest we close this nomination, it is going stale anyway, and continue with the current one launched today, and then work out how best to present this info to our blessed readers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, closing this one would make sense. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support when articles are created - a no-brainer. The blurb should now be something like Over 1000 people are feared to have drowned after two vessels capsized between Libya and Italy in separate incidents.  When the articles exist, of course.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Article is under expansion. Feel free to suggest a new blurb. --Ant a n O   10:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Another blurb as Ghmyrtle suggested. --Ant a n O   13:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Nokia plans to acquire Alcatel-Lucent

 * Support - We need to feature more business news and this is an excellent opportunity to do so - huge merger of two well known companies with international reach. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per ThaddeusB. ViperSnake151   Talk  14:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support on news - I agree we should be posting large mergers when both companies have announced their agreement to complete such actions, and $16B is not something to sneeze at, but I do note ITN has been resistant to posting theses, so I'm hesistant about breaking tradition. On the article quality, Nokia's is fine but there's problems with Alcatel - the R&D section is mostly unsourced, and I'm worried on the sourcing of that timeline (it has a formatting that screams possible copyvios issues though I can't find anything immediately). --M ASEM (t) 14:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Nokia officially announced the merger, but two companies haven't merged yet. George Ho (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's true, so it's slightly WP:CRYSTAL? But, as with most company mergers, I suspect there won't be any new "announcement" when it actually happens (and it might happen over weeks or months?) So it will be missed. Or were you suggesting a delay in posting? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes we are aware of that and that is why the blurb says "Nokia announces merger". As with all big company mergers this is probably the only time it will be all over the news. Small updates will envitably pop up, but the big part here is that the merger has been confirmed. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 20:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Martin & EoEdE6 are correct, the time mergers are in the news is when they are announced. The legal completion receives a brief mention in business papers at most.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support agreeing with Masem's analysis. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Opppose for impact. Nokia, once the largest cellphone manufacurer in the world, now makes almost nothing, and A-L branding is purely regional.  I could get behind posting more business news, so long as the business news is something other than "small-to-mid sized merger occurs".  Also, the first news of this broke, I think, on Monday.128.214.53.18 (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're objecting because Nokia "makes almost nothing"? i.e. because it's not "a manufacturer"? It had a net profit last year of €1.17 billion, so it must be doing something right? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

•Support as LoveToLondon pointed out this is a big deal and 25B€ isn't something to just skip over. 2606:A000:1408:214C:A82D:482D:9AFF:4C92 (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Two of the four biggest companies in telecommunications equipment are merging, with a combined revenue of over 25 billion Euro. Cellphones are irrelevant for the impact - none of the companies involved is manufacturing cellphones at the moment. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How is this nomination "ready"? We've pointed out the problems of the nomination. Are flaws badly sourced or something or lacking influence? --George Ho (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose just because of the practical issue that a given proportion of mergers that get announced never actually happen for one reason or another. Formerip (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted - A few people would prefer to wait until the merger is complete - that is a valid position to take, but is in the minority here. The remaining oppose makes a nonsensical argument about Nokia being a small company and can be ignored.  Overall, there is a clear consensus on notability and a reasonably clear consensus to post now.  Alcatel's article could indeed be improved, but since it is not a bold link that is not a factor holding back posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How come I don't see it? And should the image be swapped with File:NSN headquarters.JPG? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Now appeared. But Günter is now four items down, leaving his image a bit stranded? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The current wording looks WP:CRYSTAL-ish, suggest swapping to "Nokia agrees to buy..." per linked section or something similar. Brandmeistertalk  16:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that would be an improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wording adjusted. I will swap out the picture later today if there are no objections--ThaddeusB (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Nokia headquarter is pretty unknown, and there is anyway not much you see at that image size. What about File:Nokia wordmark.svg? LoveToLondon (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's possible, but also pretty boring... Any other opinions about which image, if any, to use? --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I would say a picture of an old classic Nokia phone that prominately displays the logo, but that might be a bit off topic given the news it is referring too. I'm just browsing through the pretty big c:Category:Nokia. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stay away from former Nokia products like rubber boots, mobile phones and car tyres that are now part of completely separate companies. LoveToLondon (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They may not anymore, but they were once the worlds largest vendor of mobile phones, and though the branding is being phased out, one can still go to a store and buy a nokia branded device. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * One can still go to a store and buy a Nokian branded tyre. Displaying a tyre or a phone would be stupid since it has nothing to do with the businesses Nokia is operating in today - and nothing with the business this merger is about. LoveToLondon (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Am quite prepared to stay away from rubber boots, mobile phones and car tyres, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Cuba removed from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism

 * Support the story, oppose the article quality. The tag says it all, too much reliance on massive quotations and not much encyclopaedic treatment of the subject matter at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - article quality can be improved.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) Support on the merits. This seems a notable step in US-Cuba relations.  This is just breaking so it will need time to be adequately updated.  I would wonder if the target article should be Cuba–United States relations instead of the state sponsored terrorism list(which can still be linked). 331dot (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel there is a better point in regards to the ongoing discussions between US and Cuba that is clearly an ITN entry, no question, I'm just not sure if this is it or not. (For example, if these talks will lead to the end of the United States embargo against Cuba, which I think more sources see as the big event.) It is not that this is important but it may not be the most important results of these discussions. --M ASEM (t) 19:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be tempted to strike while the iron is hot. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just reading a bit more, I do think this might be the right moment, language being said implies the terrorism factor is one aspect, there's still issues US has with Cuba, etc. But I am only throwing this out there in case. It would be nice in the blurb to reflect that this is an outcome of the current discussions. --M ASEM (t) 20:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Reading some more I see that this move by Obama apparently starts a 45 day period before the removal actually occurs(see NY Times article) and gives Congress a chance to block it. Should we wait until the removal actually happens?  We tend to do that with most other postings(i.e post when it happens and not just the announcement). 331dot (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd tend to agree given the current political climate (election year-buildup politicking already going on). --M ASEM (t) 20:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And this page claims that Congress does not need to approve. Kinda confusing. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Odd, our political system. :/  But it does suggest that there still remains a 45 day waiting period before it is removed, even if the President can do it on his own volition. --M ASEM  (t) 22:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - An alternate target for the bold link is Cuba–United States relations if that is easier to improve. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We also seem to have Cuban Thaw which I put in my suggested blurb(which I invite changes to). 331dot (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Cuban Thaw is probably the best target of the three options, as it gives the decision context. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose bizarre internal policy issue, akin to Nixon official removing someone from his enemies list. We don't even post most actual legislation--and this is just an executive order. μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a little more complicated than that. The state sponsors of terror designation was created by Congress and comes with automatic legal sanctions for any nation on the list.  The US Secretary of State was tasked by Congress with maintaining the list subject to a variety of provisions.  It is certainly more than just a private enemies list.  Dragons flight (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. My main concern is that the change hasn't happened yet, but rather a process has started that will lead to the removal in 45 days (unless Congress intervenes with a veto-proof majority).  Seems like it would be better to post when this news when/if Cuba is actually removed.  Dragons flight (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Very weak oppose given that there will be a 45 day wait as well as a chance(if small) that it will be blocked by Congress(which I guess is different than approval). Unlike many announcements I think there will be some news about this when it actually happens. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait In the BBC, Rubio explicitly condemned this - wait and see what Rand Paul says, and whether this will play into the Republican primary. Republicans will try to veto it in Congress if they universally oppose it. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not how Congress works. Under the law, Republicans would need to cobble together veto-proof majorities to override a presidential veto of any resolution of disapproval. All sources agree the odds of that are virtually nonexistent. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I think we definitely need something about US-Cuba relations, but it's likely to be one of those situations where there is no really big moment but a long string of small stories, spread over months. So I'd be in favour of a blurb that covers the general thaw in US-Cuba relations, with this change as the event to hang it on.  GoldenRing (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. A significant warming in a famously frosty relationship. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support positive diplomatic news are a change of pace around here. Nergaal (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait The thaw in Cuban-American relations is definitely ITN worthy. But I would put it all in one post when formal diplomatic relations are restored and ambassadors are exchanged. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is many years off, and can be posted at that time. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, the water is the ice-jammed river is now flowing, the definition of a thaw. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per extreme POV. I don't think we should ever consider posting changes to a highly subjective list of a single country that includes countries that apparently do not comply within its future plans and geostrategy. It might have been worth supporting had this been a legitimate list adopted by the United Nations or any other impartial international organisation. If you really think that we should post something about the Cuba–United States relations, there are other ways to do it such like signing of diplomatic agreements, engaging in joint economic programmes, opening the air transport, etc.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted - There is a consensus that the Cuban Thaw should be posted at some point. There is some disagreement about when to post, but several of those who prefer to wait express that their preference is only mild making an overall consensus that now is an acceptable point.  The quality of the Cuban Thaw article is acceptable, so it will be the bold link. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The wording change is a smart move (to point out that Obama is moving to remove) addressing the 45 day issue noted above. --M ASEM (t) 15:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Late Support. Thank you, ThaddeusB. Happy news and with luck part of Congress starting to get along with the administration. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Howard Stern to be featured on David Letterman's last shows

 * Oppose - Thanks for the nomination, but the announcement of a guest isn't anywhere close to the importance we usually require for ITN items. I may support posting when the last Letterman show airs, but this really isn't much of anything. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose celebrity A to appear on celebrity B's show? Even the Boat Race is more significant.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but I agree that a mere guest announcement does not merit inclusion into ITN.  Merely being newsworthy(if that's even the case here) isn't sufficient; I would suggest that Sterngleek review the criteria and perhaps past nominations to get an idea of what may merit posting. Suggest SNOW close. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Celebrity news. Nothing here ITN. --M ASEM (t) 18:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Once Letterman's show comes to an end, it could merit a mention. He's been an American TV fixture for several decades. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Percy Sledge

 * Support. Really, his chief claim to fame is for When a Man Loves a Woman (song), though he had other charting hits (Ain't No Sunshine...).  On the other hand, his version of the song charted in multiple decades, and so have covers.  Multiple hall of fame honors.  Found one CN template in the article, which I replaced with a source. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Hall of fame, aint no sunshine, etc etc... --BabbaQ (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support notable artist, excellent candidate for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD - sufficiently notable person, article in good shape. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Per above. Miyagawa (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Miyagawa. Mjroots (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Referencing issues at time I made nom have been addressed. --M ASEM (t) 18:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Blackwater Baghdad shootings

 * Neutral, however, the blurb should include the conviction of 3 others with 30yr terms. Also, the blurb should link to the shooting page. --M ASEM (t) 01:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose mostly based on the quality of the nomination. Put some work into it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose a three sentence update in two years? μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose article has few updates. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose many people get many long sentences for murdering others. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as not updated and weak on notability at best. Not seeing extensive news coverage of this. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note for new editors: Was a WP:SNOW close. Mamyles (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Herb Trimpe

 * Weak oppose not convinced this individual is one of the greatest comic book artists in the field, I'm not seeing many notable awards for instance, but open to being convinced. Article is in reasonable state (need to fix "present"), although the text add about his death is somewhat perfunctory.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose As TRM states, while within the field there was a lot of tributes, he was far from the leader in the field. --M ASEM (t) 15:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. When I first heard of his passing, I genuinely considered him for RD - now, as then, I find his article and notability sadly lacking. Yes, he was the first artist to draw Wolverine. I'm not sure he's influential or terribly notable in his field, aside from that single point. I understand completely why he would be nominated, but I don't think he quite meets the bar. Challenger l (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Russian wildfires

 * support - unusal for this part of the world. extensive damage and deaths. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and the article has acceptable quality. Brandmeistertalk  09:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support notable and more-than half-decent article condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support unusual and significant event. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support On both event + article quality. --M ASEM (t) 15:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Liquid water found on Mars

 * The header is not exactly correct; the BBC states that "evidence" of liquid water was found, not liquid water itself. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose As 331dot points out, this is not assurance of water, just strong evidence water likely existed. Which is I think at least the 2nd time this has been shown. --M ASEM (t) 21:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Mars has liquid water just below its surface, according to new measurements by Nasa’s Curiosity rover" looks like a pretty categorical statement? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not proof there is water, just that the probability there is very high (It's a theory, not proven). They have not been able to directly sample the water (and verify those findings) at which point that would be a clear ITN. --M ASEM (t) 21:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * yeah, I guess this nom is a saddening bore, 'coz I've seen it ten times or more. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Point of order. It's a hypothesis.  Theories (at least the ones we use) are all proven.  Hypothesis is the word you're scrambling for.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 22:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is unlikely definite proof will arise in the forseeable future - that would require a Martian mining effort. If it really the second time strong evidence has arisen (do you have a citation for that), that is a valid point, but the request for definitive proof is not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the story I'm thinking of is this one but it might have been other discoveries.  And this are ones that showed that there were some water molecules in the rocks, as well as some methane suggesting the possibility of life.  But with this new discovery, all they are saying is that the temperature in the Martial soil, for a sufficiently thick enough region, is at the right conditions where liquid water could be retained.  Very important towards pushing on human exploration of the planet, but I don't think this is groundbreaking as the headlines are making out. (including headlines that are getting it wrong, though knowing headlines are not written by the article writers themselves). --M ASEM  (t) 21:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Minor point of clarification since you said "existed", but the claim is about evidence that liquid water exists on Mars in the present, and not merely in the past. Dragons flight (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The optimal target is if there is a good quantity of water on the planet already that could be used to support a colony and reduce the weight of carrying it from Earth to Mars, as well as study a planet which had, at one point, the conditions sufficient to support life. They have found water molecules as part of rock samples, but nothing like a pool of water; they've also shown the water found is of different isotopic distribution as one would expect, which they've used to argue about when (if there was) water on the planet likely evaporated. This specific story says that water pools could have readily existed in the right temperature regions within Mars' soil (and may perhaps still exist if they could dig deeper), but not that they exist, presently. --M ASEM  (t) 22:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose "evidence" of water is OLD news. μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I am not sure how you guys are glad to post every single terrorist event around the world, but you find actual human progress as "old news". Nergaal (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Eduardo Galeano

 * Support on article improvements - Fair argument to importance. The "Works" section needs a LOT of citations and is almost a direct violation of quotation policy (we're paraphrasing reception about his works by named person and sources but without giving exact sourcing information). --M ASEM (t) 17:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose appalling article, no real obvious idea how he is significant in his field, a single award from Sweden. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Per countering systemic ITN bias against literature, art and intellectual life (and Latin America).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Countering systemic bias means that this person meets the RD criteria but is not posted due to such bias; please indicate which RD criteria is met here and in what way. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No that is not what systemic bias means. Systemic bias means that white boys who like sports or war can be sure that their interests are represented whereas people with other interests, particularly those that take slightly more mental effort to appreciate, cannot. This encapsulates the general day to day workings of ITN perfectly. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So you decline to answer my question? 331dot (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A vote with no substance. We don't just vote with our hearts here, start using your head please.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Whereas voting with your ass is perfectly acceptible?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't know. Perhaps you, as the expert, could answer your own question? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose I do not see how this man meets the RD criteria - the article really doesn't make it at all clear what impact he had or how notable he is, or was. There are some decidedly brief moments from his history listed, and literally the other half of the article is taken up by a bullet-point list of his works. If this is someone on par with the best journalists in his language, or indeed, any language - then I suggest that the article needs a LOT of attention. Challenger l (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support: He never exactly racked up awards, but he was a prolific author in a little-covered field, and certainly Open Veins of Latin America is a well-known work. As a side note on quality, I have gone through and removed some problematic sections while adding references and expanding in places. It should be of sufficient quality, or close to it, to post. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Voice of the left? Is this some sort of objective fact, or comparable to the Nobel Peace Prize? μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Opposition withdrawn - the article seems a great deal clearer and more well-formatted now, citations seem to be in order. He seems to bave been among the most influential writers of his nation's recent history, though he has little in the way of international recognition. I think that should make him notable enough for RD, in this context. Challenger l (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong support. Being "global soccer's pre-eminent man of letters" should alone be enough, especially when compared to other recent, more regional, inclusions like Richie Benaud, Elmer Lach and Robert H. Schuller. It is also well-referenced (certainly compared to the last two of these). --Inother (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Based on the huge influence his writings, especially Open Veins of Latin America, had on Latin American and the perception of the continent in the rest of the world. P. S. Burton  (talk)  12:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Article seems to be in good enough shape and the person is defiantly notable and at the top of his field. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per P. S. Burton. Neljack (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - An important author with a decent article whose death is worthy for RD. Jus  da  fax   01:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is in good shape, definitely notable, politically motived oppose votes notwithstanding. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * support huge Latin American voice.--107.77.70.35 (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted as blurb] RD: Günter Grass

 * Support Per nom and article is in good shape.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, for either RD or full item in the news section. He was very significant author and activist. --Egeymi (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Thue (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pull Article is woefully undersourced in terms of inline citations. --M ASEM (t) 13:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I should note I support reposting after article improvements. RD criteria clearly met. --M ASEM (t) 14:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Where's all the indignation and accusations of "sloppiness" here then? Or are you just not worried about being consistent?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This one is a problem, and yes, I could go into the rapid timing with almost no discussion, but the "pull" needed to be done first. --M ASEM (t) 19:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pull Quickest posting of a sub-standrd RD ever with the lowest "consensus" I've seen for a long time.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pulled pending article improvements. Probably not the worst article ever posted, but consensus is we can and should do better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support after article update. He was a complicated great artist. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as the article is well enough. Even Grass' critics will agree that he was an important personality, and that's what this here is all about. And while we possibly should, we're currently not even talking about a blurb, but about a simple RD. --PanchoS (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note As of right now, about half of the information in the article is uncited. While one or two cn tags wouldn't be a big deal, the fact that half of the information fails basic Wikipedia standards for verifiability is bad.  Of course, he's a behemoth of a figure, but the main page should feature good Wikipedia work, and this is not yet it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Greatest German novelist of postwar era. His Danzig Trilogy is a masterpiece. Sca (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Blurb would not be appropriate (death was of no surprise); he is not of the level of worldwide impact as Thatcher or Mandela. --M ASEM (t) 15:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree, Masem. Long a literary figure of global significance – and not just to English- (or German-) speaking world.
 * "Suggested blurb:
 * Günter Grass, Nobel laureate, author of The Tin Drum and Dog Years, dies at age 87 in Lübeck, Germany.
 * (Tried sticking it into nom form above w/o success. Doh.) Sca (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Is his death changing the world, in the sense of the amount of attention it got as it did for Margaret Thatcher or Nelson Mandela, where there were worldwide tributes and a significant amount of pomp dedicated to people who had a major hand in bettering the world? No, not here. RD listing is not in question, but this is a bad case for a blurb. (Particularly given the state the article is in). --M ASEM  (t) 16:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I trust you will ask the same quesiton next time someone proposes posting the result of a college sports-event, a medal bestowed on a soldier or a plane crash etc. His literature changed the work. And since wikipedia was not around to post it when he received the Nobel prize, this is the only other comparable chance for major literary figures to appear on the main page. The systemic bias at play in argumentation here is mind numbing. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The event where his literature changed the world was proven out by being given the Nobel prize. However, that occurred before we had ITN (much less Wikipedia). His death has not caused a massive change, no more comparable to Leonard Nimoy or other beloved actors and creative persons. As such, RD is well suited, but the world is not dropping everything they are doing to acknowledge this person, and we shouldn't start now. --M ASEM (t) 19:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But the world stands still when a bunch of Oxford nitwits sit in a boat on a lake? Or when unpaid kids trying to make their way to the big leagues win an basketball game....please.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Recent Deaths" is a different beast from normal news cycles. Whenever anyone with some ounce of fame dies, there are obits, etc. RD was developed to recognize that this is how the world operates, and to avoid flooding blurbs with every famous person's death, to acknowledge them in the box in a brief manner. In rare cases, such as Margaret Thatcher or Nelson Mandela, the world as a whole mourned their losses due to the impact these people had and their legacy. In other rare cases, we lose people before their time in a manner we did not expect, like Robin Williams, and the world still stops and mourns that. But people get old and they die, that's life, and most famous people that die get a day of recognizing in the newspapers and that's it. That's the place where RD sits. --M ASEM (t) 19:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It was Oxford and Cambridge (although the 'Tabs were so far behind you'd need a telescope to see them) and they didn't "sit" in their boats, they rowed their bollocks off, for 18 minutes (try doing that yourself, I guarantee you'll puke after five minutes) and it wasn't "a lake", it was the River Thames (sorry if the article doesn't make that clear enough for you). But realistically, your tone (much like mine in some responses here) isn't going to win you any favours.  Do yourself a favour and stop whinging.  I may follow in your footsteps.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And so fucking what? It is an annual event the global significance of which is more comparable to one of my bowel movements than to that of Gunter Grass' authorship. As for my tone I might listen to advice from someone whose own tone and argumentation suggested they have a clue.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Take a break dude. No need for the "so fucking what"s.  Comparing a 186-year-old event to your own shit is puerile but perhaps what you're aiming for.  If so, success!  A+!  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Puerile is exactly what seems to be the main criterion for inclusion here at ITN so yes, that was the intended effect.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever, you achieved your aim, well done on that, at least! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support blurb amnd RD obviously needs to be posted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Huge deal. Many news outlets choose a quote by German cultural secretary of state Grütters as a headline, stating: "his literary legacy will stand next to that of Goethe." Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb death of author by old age needs no blurb, regardless of supposed sainthood. μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong Günter, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Whereas college sports and soldiers medals require ample coverage... ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't like British nominations? Well at least that's clear now, thanks for the definitive statement.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am considering making a point of becoming an ITN regular with the specific purpose of systematically opposing what ever stupid ass sports even you support. I dont mind including cricket matches or other pop culture events when that may be warranted buy the systematic opposition to any topic that works at a slightly higher level of of abstraction than boys fantasies of violence, gold and glory is sickening ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the bunch of "Oxford nitwits" on a lake. Wow.  Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please, Maunus, do so. It would be some light relief to read your pointless rants amongst the real heavyweight debates here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments – ... from others:
 * "Grass learned a lot from Rabelais and Celine and was influential in development of 'magic realism' and Marquez. – Orhan Pamuk (Nobel laureate)
 * "This is very sad. A true giant, inspiration, and friend." – Salman Rushdie
 * "One could argue that Günter Grass's The Tin Drum is the great novel of the 20th century ... it most completely defines the era in all its glories and catastrophes." – Darragh McManus (Guardian)
 * Certainly one of my favorite movies of all times... warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 17:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "The Tin Drum became one of the most widely read modern European novels. – Stephen Kinzler, NYT
 * Sca (talk)
 * PS: I'd also argue that Grass's complex and occasionally controversial utterances and revelations make him even more compelling as a significant personality. Sca (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Art is uncompromising and life is full of compromises." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support blurb and RD. Obvious inclusion for RD.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment regarding support is it just me, or are most of those offering such effusive support actually gauged the quality of the article they're supporting for main page inclusion? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've looked at it and I don't see how it is so substandard that we can't include him in at least RD.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Amazing. Thanks for your reply.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Referencing has improved a lot (not enough) but a lot since the first objections were raised. The first time I assessed the article above, about 1/2 of the paragraphs in the article, including several whole sections, had no references at all.  As of now, it's much closer to being postable.  There are a few paragraphs in the social and political activism section likely to be contentious and need cites, and several of the "awards and honors" need cites as well.  It's a smaller hurdle than it was earlier today.  If you,, could get on those fixes quickly, we're real close to getting this to a postable state.  Thanks for your concern, and I'm glad you want to help out.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is in much better shape than when I put up my "pull" !vote above, with maybe a couple floating CNs but far from the undercited case before. It should be okay for posting RD now. --M ASEM (t) 19:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the decision over RD vs blurb based on article quality?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all. The quality standards for both should be the same. The blurb vs. RD issue depends primarily on overall notability, with "bonus points" (for lack of a better term) for an unexpected death or other unusual circumstances. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we cash in the secret bonus points? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support for RD. Needs to be posted ASAP, citing is just fine, not important issues left. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for RD - might warrant a blurb (beyond my ken), article looks good compared to several almost stubs I've seen posted, a good chunk of references no reason not to have it as an RD in my opinion, I'd suggest get back up there as RD for now, then let people haggle over blurb/not. EdwardLane (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb when last few referencing issues are fixed.  The SS material really should be better cited as it is likely contentious and includes (for example) opinions of living people completely uncited.  The biography should also have some sort of citation - one ref covering it all could be sufficient.  That said, the man was an absolute giant in his field and country and rises to the level of full blurb notability IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So cite it. Not ready, and no support for a full blurb.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, it wasn't me who marked it ready (although due to wiki oddities, the edit summary history makes it seem that I did). It should be obvious from my comment that I don't feel it is quite ready yet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to have a "for the record" edit, it's all wrapped in diffs. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb He was definitely an iconic writer for decades in both German-language and world literature.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Now (23:00 April 13) listed on German, French, Danish, Spanish, Finnish, Dutch, Norwegian, Polish and Swedish versions of ITN or RD. Sca (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: With a small bit of free time this evening, I went through and found refs for pretty much everything outstanding in the Waffen-SS section. It took about 15 minutes. Not to point fingers at anyone or single out this particular nomination, but I have to say the WP:SOFIXIT ethos at ITN seems rather lacking. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb or RD - He was great, his death is in the news, and the article features additional referencing thanks to Kudzu1. Let's do this and move on. Jus  da  fax   01:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Judasfax. This has taken long enough already. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And let me clarify I support an RD, not a blurb. I don't think a blurb is necessary in this case, as the death does not actively impact a great number of people. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support anything but be quick! - This usually happens here when a person is clearly notable, but some problems must be created despite the article being in good enough shape and the person is defiantly notable. By the time this process is done, it might be 10 days after Grass died (and then who cares?! All that work for nothing!). I support a RD tag and a blurb seems nice since Gabriel Garcia Marquez (I think) got a blurb too. I feel that Grass is good enough for a blurb if not just hurry up to make a decision. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Seriously, what's going on? A bunch of students shooting hoops gets a blurb in no time, and we can't even get Günter Grass on RD? What a joke! Fgf10 (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted as blurb. Article quality looks fine now; consensus slightly more for blurb than for RD.  Spencer T♦ C 07:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)




 * Post-posting comment – Suggest pic of Oxford rowers (right) – who appear about 1/4 inch high – be superseded by Grass pic. (left) used on various non-English WPs since ystdy. (Rowers pic has been up for three days.)
 * PS: It took 2,700 words, and 21 hours (!), to get this item posted. Sca (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Point being? 331dot (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Clock simple.svg Sca (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean for a reply. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, what it took was article work but some fine individuals. ITN is not a news ticker - it is a place to feature quality articles that happen to be in the news, not things that are in the news and happen to have any sort of article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed; there is nothing wrong with an extensive discussion, which posting word counts and time intervals suggests. Short discussions would be a problem. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Pull blurb, post RD I don't see nearly the impact of this death as there was for a Thatcher or a Mandela. I didn't post here because I knew it was certain to be RD, but I would've opposed a blurb if I had seen it going that way. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As User:Spencer said, there was a majority for the blurb, so it should stay that way. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose Muboshgu's suggestion. Logically indefensible, IMO. Ignores global coverage, wide cultural and historical commentary touching on great issues of our times. Sca (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pull blurb, post RD per Muboshgu. This is hardly Mandela or Thatcher, and there is nothing particularly interesting about the death.  Tailor made for RD, unless we now indeed offer the similar courtesy to all Nobel laureates.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Grass is hardly any Nobel laureate. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In your opinion, sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not helpful for admin in making decision or WP:AGF-ful. And please don't start getting personal.
 * This discussion should be . Why debate this nom – which IMO shouldn't have been controversial in the first place – all over again? Sca (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about. I simply stated an absolute fact.  And we're now just suggesting that it should simply be an RD, Grass was hardly Mandela or Thatcher.  And perhaps you aren't aware of our requirement to post quality articles, which this was not. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely not a Thatcher. Sca (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, nor a Mandela. Nor was his death in any way remarkable.  He is a perfect RD candidate.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * He was a great artist. Sca (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. But if you asked the whole world who of the three was least significant by some margin, you know what the answer would be.  Blurbs are kept for people like Mandela and Thatcher, not a popular and artistic Nobel Laureate who died a very unremarkable death.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Blurbs are kept for when consensus thinks that they are appropriate. We hear and respect your opinion, but it seems to be the minority for this one. This posting was a correct interpretation of consensus. Mamyles (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well no, since posting, two of us have suggested RD is more than adequate for this individual. The posting of the blurb was marginal at best in any case.  But thanks for your input!  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Retain blurb. More notable than a women's basketball tournament?  Yup.  More notable than the Boat Race?  Yup.  More notable than someone who was obviously guilty being found guilty?  Yup.  Pull one of those three if you need to. Black Kite (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support blurb or RD, as is an especially notable author that is near the top of the field. Note that at this time there are 10 that support blurb and/or RD, and 6 that support RD only. Mamyles (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and we gauge consensus by argument, not by counting votes. This one sets an interesting precedent mind you.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Every support here has a rational argument and is hardly just a vote. Your arguments are not particularly more convincing than any of the other 10. And yes, the number of supports is a measure of consensus, though not the sole measure. Mamyles (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, for instance, one vote for a blurb is "Obvious inclusion for RD." Well played!  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha, I'll definitely give you that one. Someone should have pinged that editor for clarification. Mamyles (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Another opined with the really well qualified "Support blurb amnd RD obviously needs to be posted". The rationales are not all that convincing here, really.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A third suggested " a blurb seems nice". Brilliant.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – Now, about the pic, can we switch Grass for rowers as sgtd above? Sca (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's already listed at ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Sca and The Rambling Man. We have a featured photo on the German Wikipedia. -76.227.230.27 (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , would a pic switch be your dept.? Sca (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Image updated. Thanks for the ping.  —David Levy 16:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep blurb. Probably a borderline case at best, but I don't think it's so clearly wrong that any good will come out of playing hokey-cokey with it. Formerip (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep blurb whining about this being posted as a blurb is entirely unnecessary. There is sufficient consensus to keep the blurb and he is important enough figure in literature to deserve it as well. Someone should close this. SeraV (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's proving instructive to see how poor several of the arguments in favour of a blurb are. Just like your own.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I really am getting sick and tired of your arrogant and condescending behaviour. How about joining some workshop on how to deal with people. Might help you. SeraV (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Likewise, but at least I'm honest about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been yes but mostly just towards you, but I am now more or less sick of you. Please don't reply me ever again with your usual nonsense or anything at all and I do the same. SeraV (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure what you do here other than to pop round to argue with me. It certainly doesn't appear to me that you're here to improve Wikipedia in any way.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you not hear me? I don't want to deal with you! And your biggest achievement I suppose is chasing away bunch of admins and other editors from here who disagree with you. SeraV (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I contribute all over this encyclopedia, enriching its content and upholding quality standards.  But you probably aren't aware of any of that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to say but that is overshadowed by your behavior and insistence to hound away people from these pages and from this project who disagree with you. SeraV (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say that I really only consider the opinions of those who are here to improve things. Anyway, I suggest if you wish to continue popping up to argue with me, you do it at my talk page rather than continually bloat ITN.  Feel free to hat all this "don't reply me ever again" nonsense and continue elsewhere.  Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You did notice, that you started to argue with me here right? Or are you just that dense. SeraV (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Euroleague Women

 * Support women's basketball in Europe is grossly under-represented. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My knee-jerk reaction was to oppose this because it seems to be a furthering of ITN's recent bizarre fascination with women's sports, but I'm not so sure. I have two questions: is this the highest level of women's basketball, and do people in Europe actually care about it? --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To answer your first question, there isn't a definitive answer. To quote  in my discussion about the matter with him last week: "There's no easy answer to that. If you think "more Americans" increases the depth of competition, the WNBA should be it; if you think salaries is a good enough measure, Euroleague Women should be it. Nevertheless, women's basketball has to be the most competitive of all of women's team sports (perhaps surpassing women's football)".  As he pointed out, Diana Taurasi (perhaps the world's best player) announced she would sit out the upcoming WNBA season to focus on EuroLeague (for financial reasons) - that is a strong indication of which league is better/more followed.  Here are the ESPN and New York Times stories on the subject.
 * To answer your second question: The number of people who care is certainly less than the number who care about men's basketball, but certainly more than the number who care about almost all other women's professional sports (tennis being the obviously exception). If we are going to post women's sports outside the Grand Slam duel blurbs and Women's World Cup, I would suggest EuroLeague basketball should be the top priority. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I still don't know, but I thank you for your nomination and thoughtful response. I'm not sure this meets my personal bar for sports stories, but I guess it's at least it's possible that it would, if I were more familiar with the subject. This probably wouldn't kill us to at least try it, so consider me neutral, as long as it doesn't lead to us posting the WNBA finals. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If this succeeds, I don't plan to nominate WNBA. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * strong oppose Sports in general is GROSSLY OVERrepresented. That is not combated by simply including more minor sports events. This particular event has NO global significance. It is a minor sports event even among minor sports events. Also a badly written article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please demonstrate where it is "a badly written article". Especially after your famous "Sports in general is GROSLLY OVERrepresented" quote! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Overall it reads as if it was written by a 13 year-old boy with a fetish for muscular slavic women.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you need to be more specific than that. Of course, if that's the emotion it evokes it you personally, that's a different matter altogether.  Be clear.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can provide specific criticism on the article, that can be addressed. Otherwise, your comment is completely unhelpful.  And for the record, the majority of the players in the league are American born, not Slavic.
 * As to notability, we'll have to agree to disagree. The world treats sports as VERY important, even if you think they are not.  It is not ITN's job to "correct" the world's "bias" that views sports as important, and we already feature less sports coverage than the media at large (not at the moment - it just so happens March-June is when most of the notable sports finals happens - but in general). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Article is now in decent shape. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just like those hot Slavic women! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Article is fine, and talking top women's pro league in EU, not seeing an issue with posting. --M ASEM (t) 21:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: No issues to be seen here. Notable league, final result, etc. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per others. SeraV (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 07:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Two women's basketball events posted in ITN in 5 days, while the first German victory at the most prestigious one-day race in cycling in 119 years is not even nominated. This is really strange to me. And I am not saying the latter should have been posted. I am saying the choices here are weird... Also, three sports blurbs at the same time are also a little too many for me. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; I think someone is doing this out of spite 71.114.194.81 (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Basketball is generally a winter sport which culminates in the spring (in the northern hemisphere anyway) so several championships are going to happen in close order. As for the bike race, you could have nominated it. And who says ITN should be restricted to murder and mayhem? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Centenary of Armenian Genocide
Since we posted the centenary of the start of the WW1, should we also post "the first genocide of the 20th century"? "he starting date is conventionally held to be 24 April 1915". Nergaal (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The WWI centenary discussion here seem predicated on the fact that there were world-leader-led ceremonies to acknowledge its occurrence. I very much doubt (but could be proven wrong) that we'd have the same level of world recognition for this event. I would note that the 100th anniversary of an event would be easy TFA material, if this was a FA. --M ASEM (t) 05:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: According to Selected anniversaries/April 24, if you expand the "Staging Area" portion, the genocide article is listed as eligible to appear in the On This Day section of the Main Page. I think that on the anniversary itself, an appearance in On This Day is the most appropriate answer. Looking at the revision history, It appears that the coordinator prepares the list approximately one week in advance. As Masem says, if the ceremonies meet the ITN criteria, then they could appear in ITN the following day (or however long the ITN veto process takes). AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I usually get them about 2 days in advance, but OTD would be the appropriate location for this, unless as Masem says it gets a lot of attention worldwide. — howcheng  {chat} 11:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This strikes me as more appropriate for "On This Day", and potential advocacy given how controversial even recognizing it as a "genocide" remains. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is more appropriate for OTD. The centennial itself has not been getting significant news attention from sources I've read, however there has been attention to the genocide due to comments by the pope, unrelated to this anniversary. Mamyles (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that I've added the standard nomination template and formulated a draft blurb. Mamyles (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose OTD is for this. Ciao.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Masters Tournament

 * Support a single entry covering both the winner and the records he tied or set in the process. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending article improvements No need to mention the record, since it was only tying, and it wasn't that long ago the record was previously broken). I recognize the article is comparable to 2014's version, but there's no discussion of media coverage, reception, etc. which would be norm for a major pro event like this in the US, and I really feel this should be part of the article before posting, otherwise it's just a stats page. --M ASEM (t) 00:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Masem - the article could use some expansion before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and I believe that the article is already of sufficient quality. Mamyles (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's a huge unsourced section with some horrible formatting, a few tables and not much in the way of prose.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per super crap article on supposedly one of the most significant golfing events of the year. Awful.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose based solely on article quality. There's very little prose in the article, it's basically a series of tables and lists with a sentence or two of introduction here or there.  I would expect a full prose synopsis of the tournament before posting.  The "Field" section is also rather unwieldy and has too much WP:TRIVIA.  A simple list or table would suffice.  If those two problems could be fixed (with appropriate referencing, of course) this would be postable.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Tempted to support per RamblingMans oppose vote, but Oppose per common sense. Sports in general is GROSSLY OVERrepresented. Also a badly written article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that sports are over-represented recently. However, that is because of the timing of many championships being close together, and that there are relatively few non-sport events occurring/nominated recently. Notable, once-a-year sports championships should not be excluded solely because they occur close to other notable sports events. (which is in part why ITNR exists) Mamyles (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sports is overrepresented year round every year. And yes most annual sports events have no business whatsoever in ITN. No annual event is that important. Sports is even less so compared to e.g. Nobel prizes.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Marking ready. The article is minimally updated and this is INTR. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 03:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 07:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Question Consensus above was that article quality was an issue that needed to be fixed before posting. Were the problems itemized as needing to be fixed actually fixed?  Because only 2/8 people who commented said that the article was of sufficient quality.  While we all know that consensus building is not strictly vote counting, it is hard to argue that number of specific objections based on actionable and needed fixes somehow is ignorable.  If the problems have been fixed, fine.  But have they?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Turkey recalls Vatican ambassador

 * Oppose, this is part of a larger effort by the Pope to prevent genocides which are occurring right now. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. If there was a breaking of diplomatic relations, that might be enough, but recalling ambassadors is fairly standard in situations like this. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose (once again) per Abductive, many countries recognise this as genocide, the Pope is just (sort of) saying what they (and most of us) all think. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppos interesting tacit admission it occurred, but they just don't want to talk about it. But overall of no real historical relevance. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per 331dot. If they break off ties altogether then we can reassess. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 54-hole record at the 2015 Masters Tournament

 * Oppose posting this, it's not the ITNR at all. Definitely wait to see if it can be merged into a blurb regarding the winner.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose until he actually wins per TRM. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a trainspotting record, because it doesn't matter until the final round is played, which could wipe that away with one bad round. --M ASEM (t) 13:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait for the final results. If he wins, include that fact. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose prefer waiting per Rambling Man, I'd support posting the winner. Shiny Son (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I wasn't active on ITN then, but didn't we post a blurb when Miroslav Klose broke the World Cup scoring record, then merge it when Germany won the hole shabang? I'm sure there was a bit of fuss over that and some proud Americans saying the ITN system has a pro-soccer bias. Overall, any sports record is just that - a record - and interests a niche audience unless it can be tacked onto the end of a wider "X won the Y Cup" &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the breaking of a record in the world's premier tournament for the world's most popular sport might just be a little bit more important than a footnote statistic like this one. If he breaks the full tournament record tonight that might be different (but I'd still merge it in with the result). Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait. If he scores a record over 72 holes (which is the actual length of the tournament) then we can combine this with the blurb about the winner. But if it's only a record at the 54-hole mark, then I don't see why we should post the same tournament twice in as many days. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Operation Raahat

 * I think the article should be merged with the Pakistan one, given that China and the Phillipines have also extracted foreign nationals. It's also noteworthy that Americans are suing the State department (latimes RT, that should be in a combined article. -- Aronzak (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: We have a link to this in Ongoing. Does this represent a significant enough development in the Yemeni Civil War to need special treatment?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose People being evacuated from a war zone is routine. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Abductive and the fact this is best served by a single bullet point from the Ongoing article we already have posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a development in the wider ongoing crisis, and not as serious as the capture of a city, a foreign intervention or the ousting of a government. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Muhammad Kamaruzzaman

 * Could you explain how this person meets the RD criteria(either below or in the "nom cmt" line of the template) as it will help others better understand the reason. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think they do. In any case, an article which gives the subject's date of birth as 1947 and 1952 inside the first two paragraphs clearly needs updating. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Fairly certain this was listed when several people were convicted. In any case, don't see his being executed as much of an achievement, this would have to be a blurb, which it does not merit. μηδείς (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not seeing how the individual meets the RD criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 161st Boat Race

 * Support when updated. The event is listed on WP:ITNR for its importance. We should take this opportunity to thank The Rambling Man for his extensive work on the Boat Races for the past 160 years. 31.54.156.31 (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think TRM has worked on Wikipedia's Boat Race articles for 160 years. ;) 331dot (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Note The blurb is taken from last year's blurb. The women's Boat Race does not have the same coverage as the main event and does not seem to be part of the previous ITNR discussion. 31.54.156.31 (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would oppose that and say that we should mention that this is the first time the women's race has happened at the same venue as the men's race. Alt 1: In rowing, the male and female crews raced at the same location for the first time in history as in both races the Oxford beat Cambridge [change if necessary] in the 161st Boat Races. 86.190.99.149 (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If the women's NCAA basketball final did not (bizarrely, arbitrarily, and rather cruelly) make the cut, why should this be any different? -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure it should be treated differently. The Boat Race (which means by default the men's one), was considered to be prestigious enough for ITNR, yet the women's one would surely fail to make the cut on its own merits. It has not even been discussed there. By the way, writing "the 161st Boat Races" does not make sense because "The Boat Race" refers by default to the men's and the women have only been racing since 1927. Have a look at today's featured article: the focus is all on the men's. Similarly, compare the depth of coverage of Women's Boat Race (2,993 bytes) to The Boat Race (59,006 bytes). 31.54.156.31 (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as the article is of a reasonable quality (in my opinion) and suitably updated, the only necessary criterion for this ITNR. Just a shame about the results...  I've added an alt blurb for the women's race result too. And obviously I will expand and enhance the article over the next three or four hours as reactions and more sourced material becomes available.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the women's race ITNR or was just the Boat Race considered? I shall have a proper look. Either way, it is nice to see someone supporting the better of the two universities! ;) 31.54.156.31 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Support per ITN/R, even though I couldn't find these sorts of things much more dull. Even NASCAR is more interesting than these rowing contests. Alas, people watch them, for some reason. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support TRM's alt. 86.190.99.149 (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. I posted the first blurb.  I find the altblurb's grammar to be impenetrable and hard to parse.  If someone can offer a better version, and there is clear consensus to post the Women's results as well, no prejudice against updating.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I ended up putting a bit in about the Women's race anyways. It is given equal coverage in the highlighted article, and didn't take up too much space to do so.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jayron, but the blurb is quite wrong now. The "161st Boat Race" is only the men's race. There are not separate men's and women's competitions as part of it. The women's Boat Race is about 90 years old. 31.54.156.31 (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the article is called The Boat Races 2015 for a reason, and why I added the alt blurb to clarify. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact I've restored the original (and accurate) blurb until we can agree on wording to include the women's race, if that's deemed appropriate on this historic occasion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No objection to that. There seemed to be a rough consensus to include the Woman's race, and it is given equal coverage in the target article.  The issue to me just was the awkward wording.  If anyone comes up with a natural way to note the results of both races, and there is consensus to include it, no prejudice one way or the other to posting it or not, for whatever anyone wants to do.  I have no opinion on the matter in either direction.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 1 hr + change with only 4 !votes is far too fast to post something like this, even though I don't see any problems at the time of posting. I don't see any major objections that could come but we should still not be rushing even ITNR posts. Note, I'm not asking for it to be pulled, just a a timing aspect to keep in mind. --M ASEM (t) 18:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Are there any aspects of the article which you believe to be insufficient? Please do highlight them so I can address them to your satisfaction.  Otherwise, it should be pleasing (to some) to see a good article, well referenced, and complete (as far as I can see) being posted in good time at ITN as it is an ITNR.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could get WP:BURO removed from Wikipedia permanently? Otherwise, I fail to understand the "It's fine to post this, there's nothing wrong with the article, but I still object because it was too fast" objection.  If there's no reason to object three hours from now, there would be no reason to object now.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Still, we need to think about the blurb. We have something that does not make sense and also includes an event that is not part of ITNR. 31.54.156.31 (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See parallel discussion above... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any issues, and 4 other people didn't see any issues, but we should still wait some time to make sure no one has any serious problems. We are in no rush to push ITN items, and should allow a reasonable amount of time (a few hours at least, in this case, given the timing in the relative English-speaking parts of the world) to gain better consensus. --M ASEM (t) 18:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's very rare that we only have consensus on article quality, as well you know. ITNRs can be and are often posted as soon as the posting admin has assessed that an update of sufficient quality has been made. That's been the case here. I think you're creating an issue where one doesn't exist on this occasion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, including the posting notice, there is only one statement made about article quality at the time of posting, which is far from a consensus on quality. I am not saying that the article quality was bad, but that should have not been posted if no one addressed (either way) the quality of the article, which can stall an ITNR.  Add in the fact that while an ITNR (and by no means challenging that) that this is a very regional-level topic that has far more interest in the UK/Europe than the US, and you create situations where one takes advantage of time zones to push things things through. Not that this is the case here, but I still stress that we have no need to rush any posts to ITN, and should wait at least a few hours to have more voices check on article quality even for ITNR. --M ASEM  (t) 18:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We have admins here to judge quality for ITNR items. If you don't trust them, perhaps we should let anyone post items to ITN.  I addressed the quality of the article, the posting admin has done (otherwise he wouldn't have posted it), you say there are no problems with the article that you can see, I think it's sufficient. Once again, you could save this fight for when it's justifiably required.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Given several incidents of where admins have posted articles that have subsequently been pulled because of quality issues (even when these were pointed out in the ITNC), yes, we should have better consensus from !votes on these points. If there was a longer string of comments (I don't know what the minimum number would be, but 4 is far too small) that all pointed out no issues in article quality and the okay to post, that would be fine. Waiting more time for more comments to come  for any topic helps to reduce the chance of having to retract ITN after posting. --M ASEM  (t) 18:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, you could pick your battles more wisely! The article is borderline GA.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with the actual article, but this ITN process. It's been an issue that articles should be of quality to be posted, even if they meet ITNR, and having a few more !votes here to affirm that the article was in good shape for posting - which would have come within a few hrs more. This may have been fine, but it is this type of "sloppiness" of process that leads to articles being posted to TIN and subsequently pulled due to the article being in bad shape. A few more hours of discussion would have not hurt anything in this case. --M ASEM (t) 19:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is the sloppiness here? We could wait a few more hours for ... nothing to happen.  The article is GA quality.  If you think we should wait for ... nothing to happen for three hours just to satisfy some odd urge, that's your perspective.  But as I said a couple of times, you could have picked a better victim for your perspective.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with posting (the men's race) as soon as the article was ready. The whole point of ITNR is avoid unnecessary discussions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ITNR is not a guarantee of posting, only that their is consensus that the event is the type that gets posted, but the specific instance of the event and the quality of the article all still must be evaluated. --M ASEM (t) 19:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong, it's just an assessment of quality. And we place that in the hands of capable admins.  If you wish to pursue this further, I suggest you take concerns to WT:ITN, as it's somewhat bloating this perfectly suitably posted ITNR which now has at least four individuals in agreement that it's okay for the main page.  Of course, feel free to bring this fight back into play when you see an ITNR posted which isn't of sufficient quality.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As TRM says, the assessment of quality has historically fallen primarily to the posting admin. the whole argumjent that somethign was done wrong here smack of pure bureaucracy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Looking at the ITNR discussion here, it is clear it is only for the men's event. The basis for including the event is through its popularity, both in the UK and abroad, justified partly with huge viewing figures on television. Before this year, the women's race has never even been shown on television: it was a much shorter race that took part elsewhere. The difference between the articles The Boat Race and Women's Boat Race is testament to this. If the women's race one day becomes as popular and important as the men's, then it should also be included, but it does not seem as if we are anywhere near that stage yet. It is not down to us to be saying what should be popular and what should not be. 31.54.156.31 (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Being held on the same day and same course as the men's race is a milestone in wimmen's sport. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Image note and question: Tyus Jones was the image for 4 days, so I switched out his photo for one of the Oxford team. However, now that I've done that, I see the the top two images on the Main page are both Oxford teams (of 2 different years) in their boats.  This problem will go away when the TFA switches in 3 hours, but if anyone thinks this looks horrible, I can revert until that happens. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's an absolute disgrace to feature Oxford twice, but then I would, wouldn't I? Stet. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree the historic first for the women's race is worth posting. I too am struggling to think of a non-awkward wording, though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps: "In both the 161st Boat Race and first Women's Boat Race held on the Tideway, Oxford defeat Cambridge." Thoughts? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Like. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Since no other opinions have been offered on the wording & there appears to be consensus to mention both races, I am being bold and making the change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong pull for the same reasons as the NCAA basketball below. This is an amateur university-level sporting contest, open to students at two universities only. How it got list on ITNR mystifies me. The mere fact that it gets TV coverage does not justify posting it - we certainly do not post every sporting event with a large TV audience (or would be constantly posting IPL games and NASCAR races). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks. It is worth noting that it's not the mere fact of its television audience that it is of global interest, but there is little point in explaining it to you for the umpteenth time, deaf ears and all that jazz.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition, I fail to see how completely ignoring ITN/R is of any value here. There are rules, and they should be stuck to despite the odd maverick's opinion unless there is a revote. 86.190.46.222 (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I must call you out for your ridiculous "strong pull" request. As I explained to you once already this week, a "pull" means you think there is a defect with the article or consensus.  It is not merely an expression of your opinion late, but rather an accusation of a fundamental error.  Your opinion is not so important that we need to hear it after a matter has been decided. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Where did you get that idea from? I don't think it should have been posted, but it already has been. Ergo my !vote is 'pull' rather than oppose. I'm not aware of any rule or guideline which says it has anything to do with a 'fundamental error'. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, thanks to all. What was a trivially simple decision to post an ITNR article of significant quality to the main page has become something of a bitchfest of some magnitude, and unnecessarily so.  For anyone objecting as to the quality of the article, please note what's wrong.  For anyone objecting to the notability, please address the item's inclusion at ITN/R at WT:ITNR.  For those objecting to allowing an admin judge whether an ITN/R should or should not be posted, please address this issue at WT:ITN.  You all know this.  Stop drama-whoring.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Grand National 2015

 * Support when updated The event is ITN/R. I've suggested another blurb above and found an image of the horse & jockey. - <font color="Purple" face="Arial">JuneGloom07  <font color="Green" face="Times New Roman">Talk  16:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , I feel that the jockey should be mentioned, as perhaps should the fact that this is the first time a jockey has won twice in a row for 40 years. Thanks, 86.190.99.149 (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Article now updated. 86.190.99.149 (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Grand National article is NOT adequately updated. At minimum, there should be a text description of the race, not just a table of the finishing order. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, I've added a basic review of the race. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The "media" section is unreferencedm which needs fixed. My apologies for not pointing this out sooner. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * On ITNR so should go up once the article is good to go - it currently looks pretty borderline. It has been updated and there's a prose summary, although it only has 2 references. The broadcast section still has an orange tag, however it could simply be removed (and copied to the talk page) until references are found - the article is sufficiently complete even without it. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - has been "a British sporting institution since 1839" (although this is probably "both laughable and irrelevant to whether it should be on ITNR or not"). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've referenced the bits I can at the Grand National page from the programme itself. Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 07:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready Mjroots (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone care to fill in the SP column? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Does last year's source work for you? Not for me. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * not for me. I was surprised, I thought some joke was afoot that I was being left out on. Thanks, 81.129.188.25 (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The table of runners is incomplete. It's hardly ready.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Go on, do tell. I thought 40 was the limit? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It has no information in the colours nor the SP columns. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We seem to have a problem with sources for those. I have added a note at the Talk Page. I'm not sure that the two blank columns affect the postability of this item (while it's still fresh?) - is there a rule written down about this? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess removing those non-essential columns is better than having them completely blank for the moment... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi released

 * Oppose - Per the article; he was freed "following a court order that he be set free pending trial, his lawyer said." In other words, there is still a criminal trial ongoing.--WaltCip (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb as misleading per WaltCip. Common legal procedure. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose In many democracies (excepting where there is demonstrated risk of flight or other extenuating circumstances) accused persons, who have not yet been convicted of a crime, are regularly released from jail pending the completion of their trial. This is not unusual or outstanding in any way.  This is "how the system works".  No big deal.  When he is convicted, we may have something to post.  This is unexciting minutiae of every trial.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Assuming he turns up at the trial. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jayron. There's a pending trial, release on that is a common legal practice. The ITN here would be if the trial ends up charging or exonerating him of the original charges. --M ASEM (t) 19:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If he jumps bail, would that warrant an ITN entry? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering that he surrendered his passport, it may be mildly noteworthy. --WaltCip (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment There have been lots of international reactions to this story.  This seems to make it more significant.  Everymorning   talk  22:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jayron; not unusual, even in a high-profile case. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The argument that this is standard procedure and hence of no note is deeply flawed. Yes, it is common practice to allow persons awaiting trial to post bail/bond (or be simply be released), but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a case where, say, a US or UK court released a man accused of over 100 murders in a terrorist bombing on any amount of bail (this would be roughly akin to releasing Timothy McVeigh while he awaited trial).  This is not even addressing the rather commonsense assertion that releasing a suspected terrorist into Pakistan is all but inviting escape.  That said, I am undecided whether this is ITN material. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 16:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Richie Benaud

 * Support RD tag, but not blurb He's at the top of his field and that's notable enough for a RD tag mention, but he's not that significant for a blurb. Sorry. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for RD from reading his page, as he seems to be important to cricket in Australia. I would like to know what Australians think about whether he merits a blurb or not. 331dot (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb I think that among sportspeople only a few global superstars would warrant blurbs - the likes of Pelé, Muhammad Ali and Michael Jordan. While Benaud's not quite at this level, there's no doubt he easily qualifies for an RD. He was a great all-rounder, the world record-holder for most test wickets when he retired, an outstanding captain, a legendary broadcaster, a prolific author, and a key figure in the establishment of World Series Cricket, which had a huge impact on the game. Certainly there have been few more influential figures in cricket in the post-WWII era. There are still parts of the article that could do with more citations, however. Neljack (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD with article improvements, oppose blurb No apparent question of a top of the field cricketer but not sufficient importance for a blurb. Comparing the front half to the back half of the article, the sourcing gets really weak on the back side, and needs a bit of help. --M ASEM (t) 00:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment that the article is much better shape now and definitely not a problem to post. --M ASEM (t) 13:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD: There are some sourcing issues in the "Later career" section that should be addressed, but I don't see anything dire. That being said, somebody more knowledgeable than I am about cricket should double-check to make sure there are no WP:COPYVIO and WP:BLP issues before it is posted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow! most impressive RD article I have ever seen. The guy's even got a graph!  This is updated, referenced, and ready to go. μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it has some significant referencing issues to be dealt with. There are several unreferenced paragraphs, which while mostly sports stats, should at least be addressed. --M ASEM (t) 01:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Major figure in the sport. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unmarked ready. While the referencing in the first half of the article is pretty good, the second half has a lot of unreferenced material including one completely unreferenced section on a major part of his career.  Thus, needs improvement before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I won't argue the unready, but it is a challenge for our antipodean friends to step up to. μηδείς (talk) 05:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I expect this will get a lot of attention in the next few hours as the workday finishes for Friday evening here in Australia. -dmmaus (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Influential figure whose impact goes cricket. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. Has been offered a state funeral by the Prime Minister  which rarely happens for non-politicians. -- Chuq (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Full military Wiki frontpage honours.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 06:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. A prominent cricketer from Australia. &mdash; Vensatry <font color = "Indigo" >(ping) 06:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for RD: Icon of Australian culture. However, as said above, blurb should only even be considered for the truly global figures of sport: Ali, Pelé, Bolt et al. (just hoping none of those chaps leave us soon, by the way!) &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 07:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD neutral on blurb. He doesn't meet the blurb requirements as a sportsman, but as sportsman+broadcaster+cultural icon he might. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support if someone can take over from me and just fix the media section. We've gone from 43 to 103 citations in the past hour or so, hope that assuages some of the concerns over referencing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All good to go now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted, sourcing concerns seem to have been resolved by recent edits. <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 11:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent work on the article, thanks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Change Yemen ongoing
User:EkoGraf and I have done some work on the Yemen coverage tonight, both of us feeling, I think, like we were falling behind the times a little bit. I'd like to see the Yemeni Crisis (2011–present) ongoing link swapped out for Yemeni Civil War (2015), which is more specific and current. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Updated link per this reasonable request. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Remove ISIL from ongoing
News media seem to have moved on to other stories, and an empty April section in the article reflects that. Narayanese (talk) 07:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep ISIL is still extremely relevant. The very newsworthy (and covered) Second Battle of Tikrit (March–April 2015) is ongoing right now. Thue (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The question is not "Is ISIL relevent". The question is "Is our highlighted article being continuously updated"  Ongoing (as well as ITN in general) is designed to highlight Wikipedia content on recent events.  If we have no ongoing content updates, there's no reason to have a link.  If there should be updates that you aren't making, you should probably get on that.  Otherwise, if the article is static and not being added to with events on a regular basis, there's no reason to have an ongoing link.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If there's a paucity of updates, be bold - there's plenty to cover. -- Aronzak (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep In a week's time ISIL could be a bigger story again. Look at the AP Bigstory's tag for the issue - and how many stories happen in just 24 hours. If something blurb worthy happens in a week it will be a pain for editors to argue for ISIL to go back to being ongoing again. The Al Shabab attack in Kenya happened only a week ago, there could be another major attack with 150 dead somewhere in North Africa and it's unreasonable to constantly be putting this story in and out of ITN ongoing. -- Aronzak (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Update article or link - Continued articles updates is part of the "ongoing" requirements. Either the main ISIL article needs upadte or the link needs changed to Tikrit battle article (which is still being updated regularly).  The current state of affairs (indefinitely linking to a stale artcile because it might be updated when the next big event happens) is not acceptable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Right now, the U.S. media agencies are running stories about parochial issues like the shooting in North Carolina. What the mass media considers a leading story is not necessarily a notable story. ISIL is pertinent on an international scale.--WaltCip (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as per above comments. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * What article contains the most recent information that you feel should be linked from Ongoing? Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has not been updated with events more recent than 10 days ago.  If you can suggest an article which should be linked from Ongoing where Wikipedia readers can get current information, it would lend weight to your argument.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I updated it. The French network TV5Monde has been hacked. Something else might happen in the next week. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Remove: There are lots of terrorist organisations who are active right now. Boko Haram have been killing and kidnapping people all year but they only get featured in the news when they make big news. Isil should not be treated any differently. Nathan121212 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Remove until there's any evidence that the currently linked article is demonstrative of an "ongoing" issue. Nothing for April?  It's a joke to have it as "Ongoing" in that case.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Remove In its current capacity it could be deemed "newsworthy" for the foreseeable, indefinite future. I do not know that I want a precedent for keeping a string of related events on the front page for years on end.  It's also worth mentioning that ISIL is in some measure only part of a much broader topic, but "Terrorism in the Middle East and Africa" is TOO broad for a front page newslink.  I would recommend removing the ongoing link and separately post items that stand on their own merits. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 21:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I wish this group was fading into irrelevancy, but as we all know, it's not. US news coverage is not a good meter for judging what's going on in the world and of great importance. If nothing pops up by the end of the month we may have to revisit the issue, but I would be extremely surprised if that were the case. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please point me to the "ongoing" criteria that allows for not updated stories to stay on for a month because some sort of update is likely to happen in the future? Dozens, perhaps even hundreds of events are broadly considered ongoing but our criteria require more than just the event literally being ongoing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Normally I would agree with your point. But I am sufficiently convinced that ISIL will quickly be back in the news that I think this can be filed under WP:COMMONSENSE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pot calling for a kettle-based crystal ball klaxon!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: One possibility is to revisit this in a week. Although there is support for keeping this in Ongoing, if the article is not consistently updated in the next week then it can be removed.  Spencer T♦ C 04:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. We either see an update in the Ongoing article, find a new updated Ongoing article to point at, or remove it altogether, forgoing the speculation and incredulity shown above.  Some of the "keepers" should work on the article they're asking us to keep as an "ongoing" article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Spencer's suggestion, if there are no updates by the end of the week, I'm going to remove the item for not meeting the ongoing criteria - it can always be re-added if/when events flare up again. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove - per objections that the section has no entries this month, and that the topic has largely faded from the news headlines. We can always put it back if matters change. Jus  da  fax   18:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Since it is very much on-going: Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jayakanthan

 * Support when improved: the awards which this gentleman received prove that he is at the top of his field. However, a section criticising him is completely unsourced, which is unacceptable for any person or concept. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose on quality, support on notability. Lead inadequate, referencing amongst the worst I've seen for such a long article, happy to reconsider once major improvements are made.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits but as already stated, improvement is needed in referencing. Should not be posted until that is adequately addressed. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on article improvements RD importance is clear but 2 sources for an article of this size is woefully bad. Lots of qualitative sentences that need sources immediately --M ASEM  (t) 22:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Oppose on quality - there are no sources for any information except his death.    If the information in the article is verified, I agree that he is sufficiently notable for RD. Mamyles (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent work finding sources! Looks ready to post. Mamyles (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunate Oppose on quality. (see below) After seeing the above opposes, I had a look to see if I could help clean up the article, but it needs more than what I could do. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support when improved The entire article is filled with claims like "Jayakanthan is infamously known for his arrogance and his multi-dimensional personality" which lack citations. You'd expect at least 20 references for an article this size, and there are currently two.  If it were pared down to what's supported, it would be an ineligible stub. μηδείς (talk) 05:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've attempted a complete re-write as the article was full of fluff and unsourced commentary. Can somebody have a look at it and give inputs for further development so that we can wind this up in quick time? &mdash; Vensatry <font color = "Indigo" >(ping) 09:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's good work Vensatry, the only major flaw I see is the vast section of his Works, most of which don't even have an article, but also most of which are entirely unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I got a "somehow satisfying" ref. for the short stories section. As for his novels, all I could get is only a site like this. Considering that it was an extract of a series of articles posted on the subject and their literary contributions to the "soc.culture.tamil USENET newsgroup" by one of the faculty members of University of Regina, Canada, can we AGF over it? &mdash; Vensatry <font color = "Indigo" >(ping) 19:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Think the article is of decent quality now. Let's get this posted before the news becomes stale. &mdash; Vensatry <font color = "Indigo" >(ping) 07:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support as the article is in a better quality. -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 07:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm very happy to strike my oppose above. Fantastic work by . AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted - Good work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Dzhokhar Tsarnaev guilty in Boston Marathon Bombing case

 * Support pending article updates: Huge news in the U.S. with significant international implications. The end of a long, bloody, high-profile legal saga centered on an act of terrorism. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in principle Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev needs to have its tag resolved, but otherwise good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question: This is the least surprising verdict in recorded history. Wouldn't it make more sense to wait until after sentencing, which is at least slightly less preordained?  Or is it a pretty solid long-standing principle that we post when the verdict is announced if we post at all? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's true, but in this case, and certainly in the case of United States justice, a death sentence could just as easily equate to thirty years on death row followed by a pardon. In other words, the sentence (I think) is somewhat irrelevant.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it wasn't a question of him being charged, but to what degree, and if any of the charges would be death sentence-able. The fact all thirty changes were affirmed is more the "news maker" in the case. --M ASEM (t) 19:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, these thirty convictions will be appealed at anytime. I don't know if it's sooner or later though. --George Ho (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * From a federal case? Not so much. The defense appears less interested in appeal and more about assuring the sentence will be something that doesn't involve death row. --M ASEM (t) 01:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support  followed worlwide, international implications, etc.. definitely an article for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, although Floq's comment makes a good point. Finding him "officially" guilty is a major milestone in the case. Federal death sentences are rare, so a separate entry for that could be warranted, whenever it might happen, and IF they decide for execution. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as notable and right timing, per above, with the same caveats about the article. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev is marked as outdated since March. The addition of sentencing timeframe would also be useful there, I think. Brandmeistertalk  19:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Update to blurb will obviously have to be made if he is sentenced to death &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The penalty phase in complex death penalty cases often takes weeks. If he is sentenced to death, it will almost certainly require a whole new blurb if that is to be posted.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And as I said, the inhumane "death penalty" system of the US means that the individual could wait 30 years to be executed. By then, this will be a tiny glitch in the terrorism news network. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The verdict was as predictable as the sun rising in the east. The real news, and it will be ITN worthy whichever way it goes, will be the sentencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * When will he be sentenced? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unable to say with certainty, but a purely educated guess would be perhaps one to two months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And what difference does it make if he's sentenced to life in prison or death? Death sentences can take decades to be implemented.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They can also result in someone being put to death. Per CRYSTAL we don't know what will or won't happen and we don't operate on "maybes." Federal death sentences are fairly rare. Even if this turns out to be a case of "life in prison and we really mean it," that's for the courts to resolve over time. All we can do is report that he was sentenced to death. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I already said that it could be a death penalty, but that is usually delayed by months, years and sometimes even commuted to life. The difference in sentencing is somewhat irrelevant.  A "maybe" is "even if sentenced to death, will it ever happen?".  The only actual fact is that he's been found guilty.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If he is sentenced to death that will be a fact. The issue of how long it takes to carry out the sentence, or not, is really not relevant. But again we are wondering onto CRYSTAL territory. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, perhaps you don't understand. Being sentenced to death doesn't mean that the death penalty is carried out.  It is relevant.  The sentencing here is irrelevant because of that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As I note above, no one doubted he would be charged to some degree, even considering the actions he did during the manhunt after the bombing. What is the news maker element here is that he has been found guilty on all thirty counts, showing there was no doubt (from the legal side) this was premeditated act of violence committed by the brothers. Also keep in mind, this is at the federal level, and thus there's very little room for appeal, and it seems the lawyer representing Tsarnaev is more now trying to keep him off death row, instead of appealing the decision. --M ASEM (t) 21:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the expedient of federal charges in such cases is that it allows the execution of a killer even in a state which itself does not have the death penalty. (Hence the rarity of federal capital cases, since almost all murder trials are held at the state level.)  The course of this, and the fact that state prosecutors did not object to the feds claiming jurisdiction, is quite clear.  Reader interest exists now, waiting for the inevitable sentence of death is a disservice to those lloking to Wikipedia for comprehensive, neutral coverage. μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How many readers are really, really interested in the convictions of the brothers involved in the bombings? And when do readers care about neutral coverage nowadays? Readers can be also editors, including those inserting one-sided sources. --George Ho (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Remember, ITN is not about being a news ticker but to highlight important topics that are of good quality that happen to be in the news. Both the Boston Marathon bombing and the Tsarnaev pages are in very decent shape, and the topic of exactly what Tsarnaev would be charged with in what was a very public event is definitely of interest. All factors fit the purpose of ITN. --M ASEM (t) 01:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Precisely. A major reason for ITN is to showcase Wikipedia articles, not just to post news flashes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No matter how people explain how ITN works, we've already seen such news topics that are already found elsewhere (especially on Internet), but at least Uzbekistani elections is worth featuring. If Wikipedia and ITN existed twenty years ago, OJ Simpson's acquittal of his wife's and her fiancé's murders would have been in the Main Page. --George Ho (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Appeal will be filed in no time. Meanwhile, Boston Marathon bombings aren't much as impactful as the press wants it to be. Why weren't many oil spills in the news lately? --George Ho (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Convictions are typically when postings are made; if this is overturned on appeal(which seems unlikely) that would be notable itself. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ho's comments should be discounted - they are contrarian and absurd - suggesting that we not post this conviction because "oil spills". We will most certainly post the next oil spill that ends in five deaths, 29 critical injuries, 264 hospitalizations, and 16 people with lost limbs, not to mention other types of maiming. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind oil spills, a bad comparison. I'll rephrase: I can't understand the agreement toward the bombing event as part of Main Page and the opposition toward other convictions as just mere local impacts. Are there any other convictions that are or are not ITN-qualified? --George Ho (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is unlikely to be an appeal of the convictions themselves, as the defense attorney himself declared Tsarnaev's "guilt" in his opening statement. It's the sentence that will likely be appealed, IF it's death. If life in prison, they wouldn't have much ground for appeal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I bet the suspect will hire another lawyer if his relatives can afford an appeal. --George Ho (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What would such an appeal be based upon? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What if the defense made improper proceedings, especially during a statement to the jury? Also, the suspect pled not guilty twice to all charges against him. Also, probably the defense could be incompetent. Not all court events are covered by media. --George Ho (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is why an appeal wouldn't be covered here unless it's successful. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There will presumably be an appeal from the conviction based on the refusal to grant a change of venue, since the defense has already sought mandamus on this issue from the First Circuit at least twice. The appeal is unlikely to succeed, given that the First Circuit denied both petitions (albeit over a dissent), but it will surely be filed. However, this is just a response to the question asked above; I don't see that it is especially relevant to posting or not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Consensus is to post convictions. Forget waiting. This is a big, worldwide news story, and the readers will be looking for it. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ITN is already a near-exact clone to mainstream media. Users can read this story elsewhere. --George Ho (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC) --George Ho (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Under your argument, everything posted on ITN is a clone and therefore unworthy. Why then are you against this one? WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Abductive  (reasoning) 03:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't put it that way exactly. We've seen same ol' voters on every nomination, but same ol' is better than none, right? Well, every news is front news-worthy, but I don't know why some stories that have split votes were posted in the first place. The bombings was featured once in the ITN. However, at the time of nomination, voters were split, but the administrators decided to post it anyway. The bombings were devastating but not as devastating as wars and attacks on skyscrapers. Even an "official" conviction is not front news-worthy because of the enthusiasm on the topic and subtopics. --George Ho (talk) 04:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Read that ITNC - the opposes were wanting to make sure there was stable information instead of just rumor -mongering or hype. It quickly revealed it wasn't, and that it wasn't an accident. But remember we're not covering news, we're covering topics that happen to be decent articles and that happen to be in the news. With the original bombing (which I remember helping to keep the article at its initial stages), the article quickly came together, avoided rumors and the like until official reports were issued, and represents a case where WP does a good job where multiple editors come together to keep an article on a breaking event both useful and objective. In the present case of the conviction, the bombing article is fairly complete and the suspect's as well, and it is in the news, and it is a case that has international interest, so there's little reason to oppose. --M ASEM (t) 05:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not implying rumors or anything like that. I did say an appeal might happen, but I wasn't implying that a conviction wasn't official. As for quality of the article, a story may have a chance when its article is decent and stable. However, I'm not keen on the conviction itself. The bombings may have affected the lives, but the conviction itself is not as impactful as the bombing itself. People would praise the conviction, but I don't give a damn because I got other things to worry about. Also, I wonder if the bombing was an inside job. As for international interest, showing the bombings coverage throughout the world was enough, especially on Wikipedia. Besides a Russian and an American, why should a Brit, an Aussie, a New Zealander, and a Canadian on Wikipedia be very keen on the conviction of the suspect? They worry more about their own domestic issues and are too busy to care about international affairs. --George Ho (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost forgot: let's wait for an appeal and/or the sentencing then. --George Ho (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Also, I wonder if the bombing was an inside job"?? What the hell are you talking about? Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Agree with user:Ad Orientem. This was never in doubt in the slightest, so is not really interesting news. Thue (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, at least until the sentencing, and probably not then as well. <font color="#C50">Nakon 03:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Per BabbaQ, others. Notoriety. Sca (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted per consensus on notability and an adequate amount of information on the trial in the bombings article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Suggest pic of basketball player Tyus Jones be replaced by this of Dzhokar Tsarnaev. (Could & probably should be cropped.) Sca (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that file was an accidental copyright violation. —David Levy 16:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Shooting of Walter Scott

 * Oppose yet another shooting in America, sadly means absolutely nothing once again, not to mention the shooter is "charged" and not "convicted". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose primarily due to timing as we typically wait for convictions. While it is incorrect to say it means absolutely nothing, it isn't the top racial issue in America right now; quick action likely prevented this from blowing up into something big.  It is significant that action was taken so quickly on this matter in South Carolina. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is huge news in America, especially because it is shown on tape. (Also, the lawyer has announced the accused admits he shot the victim, but is arguing self-defense, so waiting for conviction is not necessary as long as we say "charged with".) In addition to the state murder charge, it might also warrant a federal civil-rights trial. But at this point, the simple facts are that this is an unpremeditated killing and it will have to go far beyond the current tabloid stage of development for consideration.  Even then, it wouldn't necessarily be broadly encyclopedic enough to merit featuring in ITN. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The central figures are not independently notable and the case is national news at best. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: regardless of the scale (state, national, international) that this is reaching, the man has only been charged with murder. He has not been convicted, nor sentenced. That is reason alone to oppose any criminal case. We didn't report on the 30 federal charges being laid against Dzokhar Tsarnaev but waited for his conviction to even bring up debate. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support because a cop actually being charged with murder is rare. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the benefit of the doubt lies with the suspect, not the state. Acting as an agent of the state, a police officer should have to defend himself in court on some charge.  That being said, while I don't agree your rationale merits posting the nomination, and I don't doubt the real rate of murder by police officers is not reflected in convictions, I'd like to see some statistical evidence, if you have it.  Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what stats you would want to see, but we do have Category:Police officers convicted of murder, which for the US is a very short list. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a personal challenge, I am genuinely curious (and personally have highly mixed feelings about the police), and have asked at the ref desk. Our categories are a horrible source, since they depend entirely on the creation of articles based on the subjective interest of editors.  I meant something more scientific, a peer-reviewed study. μηδείς (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's an unusual case in that the video demonstrates the cop to be a bald-faced liar. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've nominated this article for DYK in case that this ITN nomination fails. --George Ho (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Very good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose It is a bad situation topping other issues of police + public relations in the states, but it is ultimately a story involving only 2 people and immediately family and co-workers. If this instigated riots or the like at a large scale (and remember: we didn't post Ferguson) then that might be something. --M ASEM (t) 05:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] NCAA women's basketball

 * One blurb's enough, I'm afraid.--WaltCip (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Naturally, if posted, it would be as a combined blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If posted as a combined blurb, I would support this for equity's sake.--WaltCip (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose I will grant that the mens NCAA has the popularity for blurb from earlier, but the womens' NCAA, while it is followed to an even greater degree of excitement by a number of fans, has nowhere near the breadth or coverage of the mens. So this should not be posted. --M ASEM (t) 13:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is evidence of exactly what I said was going on in the earlier blurb posting. If one must be posted, why not incorporate this one into that blurb? RGloucester  — ☎ 13:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion, RGloucester. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I do support the idea of a combined blurb. --M ASEM (t) 16:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Combined blurb per WaltCip and RGloucester. If as a result we need to remove mention of the MOP for brevity, that would be fine. Mamyles (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support combined blurb: It's just wrong to exclude the women's basketball tournament because it happened a day after the men's tournament. I can't fathom that the intent to exclude it here would be misogynistic, but it would have the unacceptable appearance of such to many readers. Furthermore, there is ample precedent for combined blurbs; major tennis tournaments, for instance, usually have the women's singles final a day before the men's singles final, and the blurb typically names both champions. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason to post the men's but not the women's would be that the women's receives less attention, including in television ratings (though I'm not sure of the numbers). – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted I used altblurb2. It's a bit wordy, but it seems to read the best.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could not mention the losing teams? Or the bit about it being the third consecutive title? Formerip (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, the article isn't really updated adequately. There is no description of the game, for example. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Pull immediately. The bold article linked doesn't even mention the women's final in prose, it's not written in the correct tense and it's barely above stub quality.  Shambolic.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Temporarily pulled. 2015 NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Championship Game needs to be updated with a prose game summary, as well as some references in Broadcast. The "Participants" section could also use some fleshing out (see the men's game article for what this looks like).  Spencer T♦ C 17:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to say support or oppose, but just . Geno Auriemma ties the record for most championships in NCAA history, and not even a mention...despite being in an era where we are trying to recruit female editors. I wonder how many championships he has to record before he gets an ITN mention? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you see how long that combined blurb was? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's a complete joke. The absolute desperation to get this stuff posted is an embarrassment.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a complete joke when we can't figure out how to post something because it's too long. Thank God civilization isn't dependent on Wikipedia inventing the wheel. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note - The women's tournament certainly draws less interest than the men's. The UConn coach's tenth championship is a major achievement which is at least as much the real story as the game itself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Neutral. The women's tournament does not get the attention of the men's tournament (rightly or wrongly) so I understand not posting it for that reason, but I am not against posting it as a combined blurb, but only if it can be short331dot (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should start actually looking at the quality of the article before voting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am commenting on the merits and not the quality. I don't disagree with your assessment. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But your comment doesn't mention article quality at all. Have you even noticed that it was posted with no update, with incorrect tenses, with dabs, and barely beyond stub quality?  I'd like to know because assessing consensus includes assessing the ability of commentators to address article quality.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Since it had been pulled I didn't think it necessary to further comment on quality. As I said, I don't disagree with anything that you said regarding the article quality and I agree with the pulling. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Missing the point entirely, but I'm beginning to see the overall picture here. Let's rush all American ITN candidates through.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I get your point just fine; and I reiterate that I agree with the pulling and I do not want to see it rushed. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it was rushed due to a desire to combat gender bias, not because it was an American item. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * [citation needed]. Stop digging yourself deeper.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how I could possibly be "digging myself deeper" on something which my only previous comment was "Um, the article isn't really updated adequately." There is absolutely no evidence being an American story had anything to do with the too rapid posting, that is quite simply an assumption by you.  No one knows Jayron's motive, including you.  Maybe he didn't even have one and simply made a mistake.  Human beings do that from time to time you know... What there actually is evidence of is that a desire to combat gender bias motivated "support" !votes - several of them explicit say they supported for equality reasons. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, as I said [citation needed]. Just cool it down and let's try to stop posting super crap articles to the main page.  I don't care for the reasons, because all of them are flawed when we post crap quality articles, like ones without any updates and ones written in the wrong tense and ones without suitable referencing.  Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course I agree we shouldn't be posting inferior articles and was the first person to point out this one was posted too quickly. Not sure why you think I am disagreement on that point. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: As with far too many threads on this page, this discussion has become bitterly contentious and tangential at best to the ITN candidate in question. If this were a forum, which it is not, I might even don my acid-washed jeans and call it a "flame war". Can we step back, take another look at WP:CIVIL, and be a little nicer, please? -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - For the most part, the world generally doesn't care about women's team sports. It's not ITN's job to make them care, and it's a mistake to piggyback this on the men's championship in the interest of gender equality. For better or worse, the two aren't even in the same universe in terms of popularity. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - the article is now significantly improved from the state it was posted (and pulled) at. I would say its now right around the minimum quality expected and withdraw my implicit objection.  Thank you  for your efforts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I support posting a combined blurb, but I suggest leaving Wisconsin and Notre Dame out of it to keep it brief. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kudzu1, alt blurb 3 – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Another option would be to leave out the team names (i.e. just "Duke defeats Wisconsin") which I suppose wasn't done for ENGVAR reasons initially, but would substantially shorten the blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * How about if ITN were to have a separate little section about sports? Then you could have major events such as the NCAA's, soccer championships, canoe races, and all manner of stuff, and hopefully avoid some of these debates. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose everything, even a combined blurb this may not be politically correct, but nobody really cares about women's college basketball. Combatting gender bias is the only reason to post this, and, last I checked, ITN doesn't exist to combat gender bias. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose With very few exceptions (the World Cup, Super Bowl and maybe the World Series) sports events don't usually rise to ITN attention level. And as others have noted this is regrettably but also especially true of women's sports. The only plausible argument for posting this is to promote female athletics which is not ITN's job. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I really don't see how it's any skin off our nose to post a combined blurb, provided it's not too long. It's already an ITN item; this would just be expanding it to simply note the results of the women's event. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Somewhat of an aside, but as far a I can tell, we have never posted the WNBA championship on ITN.  Spencer T♦ C 15:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's because everyone hates and is sick of the WNBA (LOL). Fun fact: The champion coaches of the men's and women's NCAA Division I basketball are the coaches of the men's and women's U.S. national teams. – H T  D  15:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The WNBA season does not correspond the the NBA season. Indeed, the season mostly runs during the months the NBA is dormant (presumably to avoid competition for viewers). While a combined blurb is not possible, it would be worth while nominating the WNBA to test consensus - it does not appear to have ever been nominated before. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The European and Chinese (and Australian?) seasons are also running during the WNBA offseason. The best WNBA players get to be paid more in Europe than in the WNBA. Diana Taurasi was even paid by her Russian team not to play in the upcoming WNBA season. – H T  D  18:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Honest question: what would you say the highest quality of play in women's basketball is (excluding the Olympics and other international team events)? I would suggest it might actually be the NCAAs.  Given the limited professional opportunities, many of the top players chose not to pursue the sport beyond college. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no easy answer to that. If you think "more Americans" increases the depth of competition, the WNBA should be it; if you think salaries is a good enough measure, Euroleague Women should be it. Nevertheless, women's basketball has to be the most competitive of all of women's team sports (perhaps surpassing women's football) but it's a hard sell to even post the FIBA Women's Basketball World Cup because it's the "American sport" of basketball. With that said, Spencer said that the "NCAA women's tournament does have higher TV viewership ratings than WNBA finals"; if our "standard" is the WNBA finals, that standard is really low. – H T  D  01:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support combined blurb. Doesn't get as much attention as men but NCAA women's tournament does have higher TV viewership ratings than WNBA finals, and the article has been expanded.  Spencer T♦ C 19:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support - If the conviction of the Boston bombing suspect becomes frontpage news, this women's basketball news should be as well. George Ho away from home (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support combined blurb, as it harms nothing and allows us to include two similar events of interest to our readers. The Women's games and championship are certainly followed in the US NE. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose stick to posting the women's sports that are of sufficiently interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator. I count 8 supports including me and 4 opposes. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * support very big event in women's basketball --Johnsemlak (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted per consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really seeing this as a "very big event", nor are our audience with little over 2,000 hits on the NCAA women's final in the past 30 days. Incredibly insignificant, but now a watershed moment at ITN which creates a precedent to forcibly include female sports regardless of their significance.  Maybe a good thing? Maybe a false dawn?  Maybe a PC exercise gone wrong?  You decide.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Stanley Kutler

 * Comment. The lead indicates what you state but I don't see much discussion of it in the article. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, until citations in the "Academic career" section are resolved. <font color="#C50">Nakon 03:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

[RD] Stan Freberg

 * Support – Far ahead of the curve and very influential, at least in the U.S. Sca (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as per the above comments. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Very top of his field and I was about to nominate him. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Obviously, clearly recognized as at the top of his field.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Reading the page he seems to meet the criteria.  I don't see any glaring quality issues but other eyes might want to judge it. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality grounds. Between a third and half the text is unreferenced at current and the lead doesn't summarize the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait it's a great article, he makes the criteria, except for the fact that it has dozens of claims, even paragraphs that lack refernces. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is very poor quality, blatantly obvious referencing issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for prompt posting. I think the article is in relatively good condition for its subject-matter. It would obviously be desirable to have additional referencing, but I don't see any content that is controversial or actually disputed. There is importance to posting a significant "recent death" while it is actually still recent. That doesn't, of course, mean that there isn't a minimum quality threshold to be applied to such an article, but I feel that considering this article as substandard for the purpose, and the tag that is currently defacing the article, are arbitrary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's nonsense. There are whole sections without a single reference, let alone the many other paragraphs completely unreferenced.  How you can even suggest an article is in "relatively good condition" when we don't even know if over half it is actually factually accurate (which we normally do using reliable sources, which are woefully bereft here) is beyond me entirely, but not surprising to see such urgency attached by you to this "type" of RD nomination.  If it helps, we can remove part of the maintenance tag relating to under-referencing and I can tag all those clauses which aren't referenced individually.  Or perhaps, being such an ardent supporter, you can actively improve the article yourself, rather than just claim the perfectly reasonable and very standard request for adequate referencing is "defacing the article".  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly - with a article that technically still falls into BLP, we should have a minimum sourcing of one cite per paragraph, as previously discussed at WT:ITN. There's no serious claims, I agree, but we want to make sure the article is sufficiently a good example of how to source and cite for new editors to help build on, hence the need for proper referencing. --M ASEM (t) 16:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing that I write on Wikipedia is "nonsense," though you are free to disagree with me. If we made a list of the English Wikipedia's top eight thousand problems, articles like Stan Freberg aren't one of them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not following you really. You're trying, once again, to push a really poorly referenced article onto the main page because it's a one of those recurring topics you pop by here to try to advocate without worrying about quality.  Your claim that the tags are "arbitrary" really is nonsense.  It's stating the article needs an improved lead, check, and that it's woefully under-referenced, check.  I can add [citation needed] to the unreferenced claims if you prefer.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The article has thirty-eight in-line citations and a dozen external links. For an article about a comedian and advertising writer, that is not "really poorly referenced" by any standard bearing upon the English Wikipedia that exists today, as opposed to the English Wikipedia that ideally might exist in a perfect world or that we might aspire to develop several years from now. It is not the case that every sentence of every article is inline cited, or should be inline cited, or ever will be inline cited; nor has any other encyclopedia in the history of the planet earth aspired to such a standard; nor is the period of a couple of days following an individual's death a reasonable time-frame within which an article could be improved to such a standard. I am all for better sourcing and more referencing of any page, and I even understand holding up an ITN or RD posting pending article improvements, but not when the level of improvement that is being demanded is unreasonable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the fact that you start some kind of futile rebuttal with a count of citations is truly enlightening. There's a WHOLE SECTION without a single citation, and multiple paragraphs with nothing either.  Your response equates to other crap exists and we don't post crap to the main page.  Unlucky.  And please, what's "unreasonable" about asking you, an ardent supporter of this article, to actually do something about its appalling referencing?  Time to stop driving by to support your pet favourites and actually step up and do something practical, helpful and beneficial to the encyclopedia. Your lame parallel claiming I'm looking for a utopian article is embarrassing, I'm actually asking for a bare minimum of references, this stuff is going onto the homepage of the fourth most visited website in the universe.  I know you really love these RDs that you drive-by and attempt to create a mandate to post, but I think, at some point, you've lost sight of what we're trying to do here, especially if you think it unreasonable to ask for a single reference in an entire section of a BLP.  Wow.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The article is woefully unreferenced. Many of the claims are simply unsupported, period. While we do usually allow primary sources to support credited roles if there is a link to the primary source's article, or full information like title or episode number and date of release, there are many claims of the sort "he made appearances on this show" which don't have a link or identify a specific episode. Those need secondary references. I have tagged the first and third parts of the article to make clear which claims are unsupported.

Keep in mind the recent RD nomination for Gene Saks, which said that the nominee had directed So I Married an Axe Murderer without credit, which turned out to be totally unsupportable, and had in fact become WP:CIRCULAR. μηδείς (talk)
 * Oppose until a majority of the CN tags can be resolved or removed. <font color="#C50">Nakon 05:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] NCAA basketball

 * With respect - oppose per the reasons listed in the nomination. It was, currently is, and always will be a University-level sport - and to be clear, I would oppose posting the Boat Race events as well, but I understand that those universities are on somewhat of a different level.--WaltCip (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a university sport that gets the same or more attention than the NBA Finals. Given recruiting, scholarships, and fan bases, it is all but a professional sport. 331dot (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. The fact that non-Americans really wish this wasn't a big deal doesn't have weight.  It is the third biggest sporting event in the U.S. (after the Super Bowl and the NCAA Football Championship, another event people don't want to post).  The measure should be "how much people care" and not "how much we want people to care".  The championship game is almost always the most watched basketball game in the U.S., and will be again this year.  "But it's a university sport, it SHOULDN'T be that popular" doesn't sound much like an actionable oppose here.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Big news in the United States, and after all, this is English-language Wikipedia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This Wikipedia in English, not Wikipedia about English-speakers. AlexTiefling (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong support by ThaddeusB's reasoning. This is a MAJOR sporting event in the U.S., even though some people can't seem to understand why this "university-level sport" is on par with or more important than certain professional sports. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - University level basketball (and football) are big business. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per the explanation given. I actually don't follow it- but whether this should be a big deal or not is irrelevant; it is a big deal despite being "university level" and it gets more attention than many professional sports, even as much or more than the NBA Finals. 331dot (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on the principle this has strong interest beyond US borders. --M ASEM (t) 02:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Wide cadre of international players participate, large economic impact, social influence.  Spencer T♦ C 04:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I will continue to work on it (and welcome suggestions), but the article is now nicely updated and should meet ITN standards in that regard. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose A youth competition in a country that has only 5% of the world's population, with nearly no coverage outside that country. Even continental championchips like FIBA EuroBasket are not listed at WP:ITNR. LoveToLondon (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's odd. I could swear I had pushed for inclusion of EuroBasket, a championship that certainly has a bigger profile in Europe than, say Six Nations, on the list some years ago... Euroleague's still there though. – H T  D  11:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And a majority of English-speakers in the world... Which would make it a big deal on English-language wiki. Your boat race is even less important.Correctron (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As stated above, objections related to something being from a particular country are not valid. This isn't being proposed as an ITNR event so that's not relevant; and if you feel something is missing from being posted or the ITNR list, please nominate it. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Something being only a national youth competition of a professional sports is a very valid objection. Please bring any non-US example where both the national adults and the national youth championship from the same country have been featured at ITN in the same year. LoveToLondon (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That isn't what I said was an invalid argument- but this isn't a "youth championship". 331dot (talk)
 * There is also plenty of coverage outside the US; France, UK, and Germany. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Interest in US youth sports is very marginal in Europe. If you disagree, please bring a RS how many people watched this game live in France, UK and Germany. LoveToLondon (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Interest in rugby and cricket very marginal in the U.S., Latin America and most of the Far East but doesn't prevent them from being posted. – H T  D  12:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim it was the most watched event or even highly watched in Europe, but you said that there was "nearly no coverage outside that country" which isn't true. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nearly no coverage is true, your plenty of coverage is definitely not true. LoveToLondon (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's also news in Australia. Clearly it is getting coverage elsewhere even at a minimal level. Respectfully, I really don't know how you can say it isn't. 331dot (talk)
 * I also don't know how you use the term "youth" but in the US it typically means people less than 18 years old, very few if any of which play college basketball. This isn't considered a "youth" tournament in the US. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The players in the 2015 UEFA European Under-21 Championship (that even serves as a qualifier for the Olympics) are professional players, some of them earning millions every year. Whatever term you prefer, this is also a tournament for young players that is inferior to the regular championships and won't make it to ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The NCAA isn't a "youth tournament". A "youth tournament" is a tournament, like your example, restricted to a certain age group. The NCAA is open to all ages. If a 30 year old player doesn't want to earn money but still play while having a "college education", it's perfectly legal for him to do so. Either way, if the UEFA Under-21 Championship is the third most popular tournament in Europe (I'd say the Europa League is more popular), then we could equate it to NCAA basketball. Is it? – H T  D  12:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I used the page views for 2013, the last time both tournaments were held on the same year:
 * 2013_NCAA_Men's_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament was viewed 594196 times in March 2013, and was ranked 415 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org. (Stats don't include the semifinals and final)
 * 2013 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship was viewed 300138 times in June 2013
 * – H T  D  13:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, a comment calling NCAA sports "a youth tournament" is so woofully ignorant, that it can easily be ignored. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that despite all these years of discussing it, certain Brits simply don't understand its importance, because they don't have a comparable level. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC).
 * The N.C.A.A does offer a youth clinic. It is for 8-14 year olds.  Calling 18-22 year olds youths is simply absurd, as they can marry, drive cats, buy alcohol, and be drafted for the military. μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose as this is not something which has significance in the world of sport and doesn't seem to attract people globally. Most of the supporters above rely on facts that it's a major news in the United States, it has broken multiple television records or it's of particular relevance to the English-speaking world but avoid to mention how this game has made global impact for attracting people to practice college basketball on professional level. We comment on the same nomination every year but it continues to be practiced chiefly in the United States with not even a sign that one day it may be introduced and become popular in other countries. And for the matter of clarity, we don't oppose this because we have something against the United States, the American people or the American culture; it's simply because the world doesn't accept the "significance" of college basketball and remains out of its "impact". That's it. Some may argue that stories concerning a single country could have global impact to a lesser extent, but it's completely not true as we've posted such stories with much greater impact in the past.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because some in the world don't see the impact, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are probably many things that are posted(as well as things on the ITNR list, as an example) that I don't get the impact for, but I still support their posting because I know that others see it. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think it exists, then please prove it. College basketball is played for decades and we don't see even a tiny progress in its acceptance or its growing popularity outside the United States. And your argument that we should post this because of some precedent with other things is poorly a desparate evidence.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, college basketball and volleyball is widely popular in the Philippines, but focus is on local teams, not on the US teams. I dunno about Canada, but it seems the US NCAA tournament is more popular than their own CIS. Some national basketball teams also have players from US (in cases of African national teams) and local (South Korea, of all places) college teams on their rosters. – H T  D  11:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) ThaddeusB explained it far better than I could. I wasn't suggesting precedent as an argument, simply making the point that every event has people who don't understand the impact or significance of it, and very little would be posted if that was a widespread justification. There is no requirement that this or any event be wildly popular outside where it comes from, and we in fact discourage such arguments on this page. I could probably pick out five ITNR events right now(just as examples) that get little coverage outside their home countries but are still posted. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ThaddeusB did a great deal explaining the importance of a college sport in the United States and how it could become one of the most popular sporting events in the country but he didn't explain why the college basketball teams in other parts of the world are considered amateur teams that play for recreational purposes and why their games are not even covered in the media. We can make a nice parallel in looking for the reasons why the United States national basketball teams (both men's and women's) dominate over the rest of the world and the quality of college basketball might be even greater than the professional leagues in other countries. Nevertheless, we probably live in a world where people are not interested in further investing in basketball to bridge the gap between the United States and the rest of the world and that's why the popularity of college basketball will never grow on the same level. Some may say that we, the Europeans, and the people from other parts of the world are ethnocentric or have very low regard to the American culture but, trust me, it's just an inherent image that comes out because of the failure of college basketball to succeed in other countries and the lack of feasibility found for further investment in the sport.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason why college-level sports don't prosper in many places is because athletes who should be playing for a university would rather turn pro early and earn money, something that can't happen with the NBA still having their minimum age for draft eligibility. So in the case of the U.S., the only way in to the NBA is via the college game. This is not to say youth-level basketball isn't popular in many countries, they probably are, but the players are either riding the bench on "first squads" of the pro teams, or are playing in the under-X age squads of said pro teams. – H T  D  11:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the reason is historic rather than anything else. After all, college baseball and college hockey are relatively minor sports; player development in those sports happens primarily through junior leagues and professional minor leagues.  Basketball and football were invented on U.S. University campuses by U.S. University students and/or professors, and were played by universities for DECADES before the pro game took off (college Basketball dates to the 1890s, the NBA was formed in the 1940s, for example).  The best analogy I can give for their popularity is the difference between Rugby Union and Rugby League (an imperfect analogy, but close).  Historically, Rugby Union developed first among amateur players (incedentally, on University campuses), and maintain a level of forced amateurism until only about 20 years ago.  Being the older form of the sport, it historically had a greater following, even though it wasn't "professional".  Rugby League has always been professional, and (except in certain geographic pockets) has always had less popularity than its older, more established, form.  In the U.S., a similar relationship exists between the NCAA (amateur) basketball and the NBA (pro) basketball.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Kiril was wondering why college sports isn't that prominent elsewhere, not why college sports is prominent in the U.S. Elsewhere, people can rally behind a local team on the lower divisions. While there's some equivalent minor leagues in the US, like you said, due to historical factors, universities became the "rallying points" of locales which don't have a "top division" team in the U.S. – H T  D  14:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, college basketball has made significant in roads globally. As recently as say 15 years ago, it was very rare for a team to have even a single foreign born player on its roster.  Now, most teams have at least one and many teams have multiple foreign players.  NCAA basketball is viewed as a great opportunity to get a free education or develop a player to play professionally later (depending on the level of athlete and country of origin), so athletes from all over the world come to play in the NCAAs.  This doesn't happen to the same degree in other NCAA sports.
 * I realize this may not be exactly what you meant - you perhaps meant development of local teams with local players to be watched on TV. However, it still demonstrates an significant international impact of the game. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Vehement oppose Sigh, must we go through this again. No, of course we shouldn't post it. However you twist and turn it, it's only a university competition, with no major impact (cue all the 'explanations' on how I'm wrong). I think I might nominate the Cardff-Swansea Varsity later this month, see how that one goes down. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the "Cardiff-Swansea varsity" is, but if it is equivalent to this tournament which has more viewership than professional level basketball, and is all but professional basketball given recruiting, scholarships, and fan bases, I would be happy to support it. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support in light of the huge interest and passion the tournament generates. Thaddeus is right - sport does not have inherent significance; it only has the significance we invest it with by following it and caring about it. The fact that it is a university tournament is neither here nor there when it comes to that significance. Neljack (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment A professional national league for adults where some of the regular season games are being watched live by up to half a billion people worldwide was recently rejected at ITNR. How many people did watch this youth basketball game? LoveToLondon (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Major there.  La Liga matches are not watched live by 500 million people and the champion was posted last year on ITN.  Very likely, it will posted again this year come May when the season ends. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We all know Eibar have a MASSIVE fanbase in China. – H T  D  13:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please note that we don't post amateur university-level championships. Oh wait we do. – H T  D  11:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Boat Race even made it to ITNR. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm now pissed that the push for the removal of the Irish hurling championship from the list was successful. Now I could only cite Gaelic football lol. Thank goodness the boat race -- which isn't even a championship (think of it as the British version of the annual Harvard vs. Yale football game, only if both schools got the best recruits in the country) -- made it. – H T  D  11:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The Boat Race is the most well-known rowing event in the world, even the World Championships didn't make it to ITNR. Some of the people here also seem to fail to notice the difference between amateur sports and national youth championship of a professional sports. What amateur sports are relevant enough for ITN is a question completely separate from whether national youth championships should be posted at ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, the global audience of the NCAA tournament is significantly greater than the global audience of The Boat Race. For example, Canada is one of the top "secondary" markets for both and NCAA basketball wins that battle easily.  From a UK perspective, basketball is a very minor sport, but in most of the world it is in the top 3 or so of popularity. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought the global audience of the boat race is somewhere in the range of 800 million, with 6 million in the UK (that means it needs 794 million eyeballs elsewhere to approach 800 million. I dunno how the math works but it's true!).
 * This isn't a garden variety "youth competition"; players are recruited, they are essentially paid by giving them scholarships, teams have large fan bases, and the event generates tens of millions in revenue and is more watched than the professional level of sports. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If it is more popular than the NBA, then get the NBA final removed from ITNR first. Two national championships from the same sports in the same country is too much for ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Toronto would like to have a word with you. – H T  D  12:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) I'm not suggesting this be ITNR. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the NCAA men's basketball championship and football championship should both be added to ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it couldn't or shouldn't be, only that it is not what I was discussing here. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, we have to get the 2015 one posted, first. (Even though I hate Duke.) – Muboshgu (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As a onetime resident of Lexington, Kentucky, let me say that there already has been far too much wordage * expended on NCAA BKB. Sca (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Support This is a significant sporting championship, around 40 million people watched this game. The entire tournament cost $1.9 billion in lost productivity . It's unclear why this wouldn't be in the ITN. Shiny Son (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The measure here is how many people watch US college basketball worldwide. American football, for instance, despite being popular primarily in the US, is in ITN as a globally recognizable mainstay of local culture and national sport. I'm not sure whether college basketball rises to the same level among non-Americans. NBA finals and FIBA Basketball World Cup would suffice. Brandmeistertalk  13:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * On what do you base the assertion that "the measure here is how many people watch" worldwide? If that's the measure, we could jettison probably 75% of ITNR and not post a great deal of ITN nominations. I don't think there is any requirement of a worldwide audience, just worldwide coverage, which this has. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In the nomination, you can see the news reports from Le Monde, Der Spiegel and the Guardian. I'm sure you could find many other non-US news outlets covering this. It's basically a professional-level championship, despite the university-level players. Shiny Son (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Media may include this to diversify the content and boost readership. I think here editorial judgement should be exercised per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Brandmeistertalk  14:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Or they might include it because they think their readers are interested in it. That's just speculation. There are many ways to rationalize and diminish the news coverage of any event.  It's not being a newspaper to have a posting about a top watched sports event with international players that people in many places are interested in or want to learn more about.  331dot (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Saying "it's not global enough" violates the "please don't's" above. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Division I (NCAA) lists a total of eight sports for men. Picking basketball when it's already postable in at least two kinds of competitions, one of which is American (NBA) is dubious. Brandmeistertalk  14:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No one is saying every NCAA sport should be posted; basketball and football are different from other NCAA sports in that regard; they both get far more coverage and attention than the other sports. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This looks to be blown out of proportions. Will Duke University be remembered for fostering a college basketball champion in the long run? How all those teams would perform against national basketball teams? Like many other sports, basketball ultimately comes down to international competition. Media are naturally alowed not to ask such questions. Brandmeistertalk  15:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Duke University has already been known for a long time for its excellent basketball program ever since Mike Krzyzewski took over. International competition in basketball is actually hotly contested, but it's the US that always wins, so it's not that popular when a full-strength US team is playing. That's why European championships are more hotly contested than things such as the FIBA World Cup because you can't be sure on who'd win. The Olympics are a different matter because the best players, who are too tired to play after the 82-game NBA regular season to play in continental and world championships, actually show up. Incidentally, two of the best five players in the 2012 FIBA Under-17 World Championship are from Duke, and another one is the "most outstanding player" in this tournament. Coincidentally, the coach of the senior US team is Krzyzewski who fixed things up in the senior national team and only has one competitive loss to his name in nine years. – H  T  D  16:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Yes, the highest prize in international basketball, the one players actually care about, isn't on ITNR, and is the toughest sell here on ITN. The Boat Race is a lot easier to post than the Olympics. – H T  D  16:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - last year's tournament (this year's figures aren't available yet), was watched by ~102 million people on TV across 165 countries and broadcast in 5 languages. An additional 10 million people streamed at least one game online. . Incidentally, 100 million was the figured offered as to The Boat Race's global audience when it was added to ITN/R. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So this whole tournament had only a fourth of the number of viewers that each of El Clásico games has (there are at least 2 El Clásico per season, often 4 or more). The Boat Race is the most important event in its sports, the NCAA championship is only the second-ranking national championship in one country. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't understand where this La Liga comparison is coming from. ITN posted La Liga last year without much issue. ITN also posted Copa del Rey last year(?) too (with some controversy). Last year's NCAA basketball championship was posted quickly (HAHA). This isn't an ITNR nomination. Both NCAA basketball and La Liga aren't in ITNR, and were posted last year despite not being listed there. – H T  D  14:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * {ec) I think Kentucky fans might disagree with you about "importance". There are many ways to judge importance; ThaddeusB explains above why this is important. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Boat Race is most certainly not the highest level of rowing. The sport does have world championships, you know.  Most other sports we list are also not the highest level as regional and international tournaments/world championships exist.  If you only posted the true highest level of any given sport, that would mean World Cup only for football.  No one would make such a argument for football, which is why we list 9 football events on ITNR (and often post Bundesliga & la Liga as well, making 11 total).  Basketball, arguably the world's second most popular sport, lists three: FIBA World Championships, NBA Finals, and Euroleague.  NCAA basketball has often been posted, making 4 possible.  NCAA basketball is more popular in the US than any of the others, and likely more popular globally than all but the NBA (these things are really hard to compare precisely as audience figures are not readily available).  In terms of cultural impact, there is no comparison - NCAA basketball wins easily.  In terms of quality of play, NCAA basketball perhaps outranks Euroleague despite one being professional and the other nominally amateur.  Several sports less popular than basketball globally have more than 4 ITNR listings (Golf - 6, Horse Racing - 5, Marathon Running - 4, Motorsport - 8, Rugby - 5).  Several sports have multiple US entries, so that is not a disqualifier either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to say that the Euroleague has overtook the NCAA in quality of play ever since the 1988 Olympics where grown men from the Soviet Union beat US college kids. From 1936 to 1976, US college kids beat the grown men from other countries all of the time except for that crazy game in Munich (Americans boycotted in 1980 (Soviets lost lol), and the Americans won in home court in 1984). In a random preseason game where both teams are sleepwalking throughout the game, a Euroleague champion can beat the NBA champion. – H T  D  15:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You could be right - it is very hard to say for sure. Certainly, the average Euroleague team is better than the average NCAA team - there are 350 NCAA teams after all.  I'm not so sure the top NCAA teams aren't better than the top Euroleague teams though.  My counter-argument would be from top teams, 2-4 starters go to the NBA and the remaining starters and top reserves end up split between European leagues and the D-league (minus the few who choose not to pursue the sport further when they realize they won't make the NBA).  That implies the best college teams are somewhere between a bad NBA team and a good Euroleague team.  Granted, all those players continue to develop after they leave college, and the Euro teams also attract good players who never went to American college, so the Euroleague team is obviously better than the comparison implies.  Overall, I would say there isn't a huge difference between an average Euroleague team and a top 20 NCAA team.  NCAA teams are allowed an overseas preseason trip every four years, so I could look up how NCAA teams have done in exhibitions against Euroleague teams, but I don't put much stock in such "sleep walking" matches as you call them.  A team of college All-Stars even beat the original Dream Team in exhibition game. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support This event has a significant amount of news attention and a significant number of viewers/fans. The article is well-written and updated. (This may not be the most notable sporting event in the world, but there is still a great deal of coverage and fanbase for it. There is a quality article - why not post?) Mamyles (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, although not vehemently, for the reasons given by other supporters above. In any event, could an uninvolved administrator assess the consensus relatively soon, before we lose the element of timeliness. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Global news coverage: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada Chile, China, [France,Germany, India, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Spain, United Kingdom. As always, the idea that the tournament is covered only in the United States is false.  No it isn't "front page news" around the globe, but outside of the Olympics and the World Cup no sport is. --[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As with all news that gets distributed by some news agencies, you will always find some places where this gets (re)printed. How many percent of the news sources you link to have that on their frontpage? LoveToLondon (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Except, these mostly aren't agency reprints, but rather original reporting (or at least original writing). Almost no sport gets front page coverage outside its local market.  Are you suggesting we remove every sport outside of the Olympics and World Cup? --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that this isn't true. The NBA actually gets a good part of frontpage coverage in Europe. LoveToLondon (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are going to have to qualify that comment. I meant the actual front page of general interest newspapers.  In that sense, the NBA rarely is front page even in the United States.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. I'd like to see Tyus Jones in the blurb for MOP. This has 12 supports to 5 opposes (not counting comments). -SusanLesch (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Alt blurb added. It's not just the number, but the superior quality of the support votes. I'm marking this as ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We all love pics, but I'd rather prefer a picture of Jones in a basketball uniform than the suggested one. – H T  D  16:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed the ready marker due to lack of consensus. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to edit war over the ready tag, but there is clearly consensus for posting; whether you like it or not is irrelevant. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are some very active supporters like you and Muboshgu. This is not the same as consensus. LoveToLondon (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu and I are hardly the only two supporters, active or otherwise. It's not just about number of supporters, but strength of arguments; virtually every oppose argument has been refuted. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Shouting down the opponents until they give up is not the same as refuting. LoveToLondon (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who here is shouting; I'm not; nor is my goal to get you to "give up". My goal is to present and support logical, rational arguments.  In this case, most of the oppose arguments have been demonstrated to not be accurate. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are some very active opposers like you LoveToLondon. That is not the same as non-consensus.  And with all due respect, someone with a very strong opinion and ~45 edits before today is hardly in a position to judge consensus accurately.  Let's leave that to an uninvolved admin. Incidentally, the !vote count is actually 13-5 as my nomination is an implied support. 72% support almost always represents consensus; there would have to be a wide gap in the strength of arguments to override that level of support.--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we get someone uninvolved to see if this can ever be posted just to get this over with. – H T  D  16:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support absolutely nobody in the US cares about stuff like Formula 1, WRC, The Boat Race. The only sport event that Americans care about are the World Cup, Olympics and the Euro Championship. However, the former get posted even though a giant chunk of wiki readers don't care. I would rather have another sport event posted with 10+ live viewers than post another 20-something death terrorist bombing. Nergaal (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support this is a huge institution with multi-billion dollar broadcasting rights, and coverage in Time Magazine, the International Business Times, and The Wall Street Journal, the highest overnight viewership rating in 18 years and a record 3.4 million live-streaming viewers. μηδείς (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. Three quarters of the comments have been supportive, and many of them make an argument or offer evidence of large scale significance.  The balance of the arguments at this time favors posting.  The article itself is substantial and appears to be of reasonable quality.  I didn't do anything with the player award or the picture, as that was only recently added to the nomination and hasn't been discussed much.  In particular, the player photo is not of great quality (looking away from the camera with a shadow running across his face.)  Dragons flight (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * —— * This discussion, including hidden portion below, totals more than 7,000 words. Sca (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC) ——


 * Oppose – Clear attempt at framing Wikipedia as an encylopaedia written from the hyper-masculine gaze. There is no justification for the inclusion of insignificant people running about in a room on the front page of the encylopaedia, especially given the very significant world events that are presently occurring and not listed. No lasting impact. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you opposed to posting any and all sports, then? I don't think Lucas Oil Stadium with tens of thousands of people in it is a "room". 331dot (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am well and truly opposed. Eliminate them. This is clear WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I praise you for your consistency, but that is a completely unrealistic expectation. There are other users here besides yourself all with their own visions. Systemic bias does not mean American items or even just sports items should be excluded from ITN.  What you seem to want is a much larger battle than this one issue.  331dot (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The tournament generates like a billion dollars for the NCAA itself. Not bad for an "amateur" sport. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * More systemic bias. You seem to have spoken as if money has something to do with encyclopaedic significance. No sport should be appearing here. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Money does have something to do with significance. It represent the economic and even cultural impacts of the sport. It's not called 'March Madness' for nothing. I understand that your view(no sports here) is sincerely held but the chance that you will gain consensus for that seems remote.  331dot (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The "hyper-masculine gaze"? RGIII, are you implying basketball fans are on the down-low?  And how much did you spend to acquire "hyper-masculine gaze"?  In the US, it costs at least four years and a couple hundred-thousand dollars. μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Claiming that "no sport" should be ITN is a pretty strongly biased comment in itself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I shan't have consensus, I'm aware. I'm also aware that this is pure old boy's club systemic bias. Boat races, cricket matches, basketted balls, &c. No significance, and merely meant to promote the dominant societal gaze, which privileges such fripperies as worth more WP:WEIGHT than war and famine in wherever. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So what is insignificant to you must of course be insignificant to everyone else? People also want to read about things other than death, disaster, destruction, and war now and then. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You speak as if there were such a thing as the individual. I disagree. There is one human consciousness, one meaning. The insignificance of these trifles is clear. People may well want to read about such events, but they should do so in the appropriate venue, preferably in a shadowy back-alley where no one else is required to view their seditious activities. This is an encylopaedia. We must be upright and proper. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And we're in an old boy's club? Your philosophical beliefs are just that, your own, and not shared by everyone else- and the fact that you hold them doesn't give you any more weight than any other person here. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They are not "my own", as I have no property. We are all proper to God and to each-other. Everything we are and ever will be is by default shared amongst the collective humanity. When I write "you", I mean it in the plural sense. I hail humanity. There is no "you" in the singular. Regardless, this is a digression. The matter of significance is clear. Oppose inclusion. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Collapsed as moot, and taking up far too much spaaaaaace on page. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong pull. This is an amateur university-level national only sporting contest. I perfectly understand the reasoning behind those who support posting this, but find their arguments to be entirely unconvincing. ITN rightly restricts itself to posting the most significant top-level sporting events, international ones when available (in few sports such as ice hockey a national event is in fact the most prestigious, so are exceptions). We already post the USA's national championship - the NBA - and I see no good reason to also post a much less significant sideshow. None of the NCAA events are anywhere near significant enough to warrant spaaaaaace on ITN. Merely being popular does not merit posting - or we would have continual stories about pop stars and celebrity gossip. PS. I have consistently opposed posting the Boat Race too, as that is a similarly-insignificant amateur university event. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the assertion that "ITN rightly restricts itself to posting the most significant top-level sporting events..." In short, while this tournament is disqualified by guideline from being in ITN/R, that by no means indicates that it cannot be posted. We can post any blurb that is notable with a quality article, as judged by consensus. While there are guidelines on what can be considered ITN/R (always notable), anything is fair game to post at ITN/C provided that consensus to post is reached. Mamyles (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So your opinion overrides consensus? That appears to be what you are saying by demanding this be pulled, since you haven't cited any defeciencies in the article or consensus - a "pull" is not a late oppose, but rather a claim a mistake was made in the reading of consensus...  The discussion was well over & was even collapsed for more than 24 hours.  Trying to reopen it with "strong pull" demands is a waste of time and borderline disruption.  Move on to something productive please. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My opinion counts as my opinion - I never claimed that it 'overrides consensus'. I apologise for not having logged on (so was unable to comment) during that earlier discussion, but nevertheless I wished to register my strong opposition to posting this item. I recognise that others have different opinions, and don't expect a single comment from me to result in changing the status quo. I will respect consensus, but do feel that there is any harm or disruption in contributing my opinion towards it. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Greece demands World War II reparations from Germany

 * Oppose ITN if this comes to a legal decision, but right now just an accusation, not appropriate ITN. --M ASEM (t) 14:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose And I demand a pay raise at work, and infrastructure improvements all across the United States. Doesn't make it any more likely to happen than if I didn't demand it, but the effect is about the same as Greece trying to pick at a 70 year old scab. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until there is some actual legal action or a voluntary payment. Until then it is basically a publicity stunt. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Any entity can demand whatever they wish; it only means something if they take action(a legal case, economic sanctions, etc.).  If Greece does something to further their demand, OK. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as toothless grandstanding. Didn't this already happen a few months ago, anyway?128.214.53.18 (talk) 06:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: For now, a meaningless geopolitical temper tantrum. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now: As there is nothing to indicate the significance of the timing of this demand, if there indeed any. (A cynic could say that the Germans have given them that much in bailout money over the last few years anyway) AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Julie Wilson

 * Oppose: Only one notable work. Definitely not top of her field. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose No awards noted in our article, Times obit or IMDb, long but unspectacular career. μηδείς (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on both failure to meet RD criteria (e.g. only one nomination for an award in her field) and article quality, which is lame. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. One notable work, one award nomination and frankly, a forgettable career. Article is both short and orange-tagged for over two years. Doesn't meet RD criteria by a long shot. Challenger l (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This person is a native of Omaha, Nebraska, and their death didn't even garner a mention in the Omaha newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I have no idea who this is, but the New York Times calls her a "legend" and "widely regarded as the queen of cabaret", which seem to be indicators of being at the top of her field.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Does not seem to meet the criteria as very important to her field; the judgement of one newspaper notwithstanding. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Dave Ulliott

 * Oppose Ignoring the issue about poker being a major sport, I'm not seeing this guy as a leader in the field - he won a few but doesn't seem to have a long-running success outside a personality. But I also do worry that we'd include poker as a sport and thus a field of interest for ITN. --M ASEM  (t) 02:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on both article quality and notability. Poker isn't a sport. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Poker doesn't have to be a sport to be put on ITN, but I don't think this person was "very important" to the field. 331dot (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not seemingly that important to the game of poker. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Good quality article, well referenced, worth highlighting on the main page. Very well known poker player.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article is in excellent shape - reading over his article has me ambivalent about his notability. One of the top ten poker players according to PokerPlayer Magazine? I do not see any criteria to easily judge notability for poker players. Challenger l (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support I went back and forth between weak support and weak oppose. I do remember seeing the Devilfish long long ago when I used to watch poker on TV during the poker boom, and he was often one of the featured players. I'd say he was at the top of his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support- Devilfish may not have been among the best poker players in the world, but with all the TV coverage he got he was probably among the most well-known at his peak, which was also poker's peak. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 21:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Fredric Brandt

 * Oppose Both on importance and articl quality. Article really needs significant expansion to be a ITN and the CN tags removed. But more importantly, I don't see him being a leader in the field (if he had invented the botox practice that might be one thing but just being a practitioner on it to rich clients, not really). The death by apparent hanging is tragic, but this is not like Williams where the person was a household name across most of the world; this person is far too niche for RD. --M ASEM (t) 00:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Being famous doesn't equate to "very important" to the field.  In the case of a doctor I would personally look for notable medical advancements or procedures attributed to them. 331dot (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose barely notable and article is just barely above stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose One of the physicians that made botox into a thing. The article looks like it would fit on a business card - very badly needs expansion before consideration for RD. Challenger l (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose death update is insufficient, not mentioning recent TV parody of him. Frankly, this would be a much smaller story in the press if it weren't for Martin Short, and that is not a basis for an ITN listing. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Women's World Chess Championship

 * Support - if anything a fun uplifting sport story.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Replace the one week old Cricket news with a current sport news. LoveToLondon (talk) 09:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It will get replaced by the next nomination to be posted, whether or not it is a sports event, as it is on the bottom. Events are replaced chronologically, not one-for-one. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I know. LoveToLondon (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, people. We could replace that cricket blurb with a tournament that is not in the highest level of its sport and is 100% amateur tomorrow. ***winks*** – H T  D  13:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The World Chess Championship is on the ITNR list, though I don't know if it means only the men's tournament, or both. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Interesting, plus a bit of urgently needed 'bright' relief from all the war & gore. Sca (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose article mixes tenses and is poorly presented, it needs better referencing and the blurb may be misleading as there appears to be two women's world championships, so we should make it clear which one this is, should it be posted. There also appears to be no prose summary of the final matches whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending TRM's complaints being addressed. A world chess championship is obviously a notable international event, but we do need to make sure the article is in good shape before it goes up on the front page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per TRM and Kudzu1. Article needs significant sourcing/writing improvement before posting but should be postable once fixed. --M ASEM (t) 15:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Notable story, the article needs some expansion, though. -Bruzaholm (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's now been nearly 12 hours, so please could you check, mate...?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've now hidden the unreferenced part and added FIDE-sourced final game summary, tenses appear to be fixed. Marking as ready, blurb may be modified. Brandmeistertalk  20:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for writing a final game summary. I am a little uneasy with simply hiding the (short) summary of the rest of the tournament though. Surely this can be referenced without much effort, which would be far preferable to pretended like the other 95% of the tournament before the final didn't exist. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose- This year's tournament, as the women's world championship often is, was not worthy of being called a world championship. Just because it was declared by FIDE to be the world championship does not mean it was worthy of that status. Hou Yifan and Judit Polgar (the two best women in the world by a very large margin) did not enter, and the format was a very silly straight knockout style tournament. Also this is NOT ITN/R, only the World Chess Championship is and that refers to the very specific event that crowns the "world chess champion". Chess is not like other sports where there is a men's and women's championship, in chess there is an open championship and an unrelated women's championship, and women are free to enter the open championship. A better analogy would be poker, where the winner of the WSOP Women's only event would never be posted because can and sometimes do succeed in the actual main event. See Judith Polgar for example <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 21:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Personal opinion or fact? I wonder.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Facts. Here's an article for more information. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 21:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hou Yifan effectively declined participation voluntarily, not because of opposing, losing, prohibition or something. And FIDE is known for similar funny incidents, like back in 1993 when Kasparov broke away from FIDE, leading to the existence of two World Chess Championships, so I'd say it's not something extraordinary. Regardless of the format, this is still the top level of women's chess. The format of some other top-tier sports tournaments also changed. Brandmeistertalk  21:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Bzweeble. And, are woman actually excluded from the "men's" world championship? μηδείς (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well, FIDE has separate rankings for men and women... Bruzaholm (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No they don't. There is a top 100 (men and women) and a top 100 women ranking. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 17:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point Medeis. In chess there is no "men's world championship", there is a "World Chess Championship" which includes everyone and an unrelated "Women's World Chess Championship". <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 17:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Two top players not participating hardly invalidates the tournament. We wouldn't refuse to post results from, say, Wimbledon just because Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic didn't compete. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. It does not invalidate the tournament at all.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Steve Rickard

 * Oppose not even rated in the top three of wrestlers from New Zealand, so not convinced he meets the RD criteria. Article is okay, but also contains some unreferenced claims which would need to be sorted before posting if necessary. As an aside, it would be helpful for RD nominations to have some kind of intro blurb to explain why we should consider each individual for posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the article seems thin on citations. He seems notable more as a wrestling promoter than as a wrestler. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending article improvements: There's a lot of uncited information in the article, but he's a former champion wrestler and television producer and he certainly appears to have been a notable figure in his field. But there needs to be some work done on citations before the page is RD-ready. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Really not seeing a level of importance here to meet RD. --M ASEM (t) 15:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Some of the people he "fought" are household names for those old enough to remember, even if, like me they didn't follow wrestling.  The translation from choreographed bouts to TV production seems like a natural one, not a spectacular one. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Large Hadron Collider restarted

 *  Weak Oppose it's definitely in the news but to it seems like business as usual, a modernisation exercise that all large industrial or research facilities would undertake periodically. This happens to be a really big one, hence just a weak oppose.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Plus the shutdown, upgrade and restart is hardly noted. Nor is the article up to date overall in terms of tenses.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose till they actually find something really 'big'. -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 17:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Have they tried switching it off and then switching it back on again....? Hehe.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was an error message: "Please, restart to confirm the existence of the Higgs boson". Brandmeistertalk  16:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. As I understand it (and I could be wrong) this was a completely routine shutdown and upgrade. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. They didn't seem to add anything particularly newsworthy during the modernization. Joshua Garner (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 Brazilian drought

 * Question. Is there a specific event regarding this drought that is motivating your nomination?  We usually don't have long-term issues like this posted without some sort of specific event to hang our hat on, in terms of a blurb. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Here. ArionEstar (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You'll have to clarify that for me as I cannot read Portuguese. I accidentally glossed over the Ongoing tag before so that does make a bit more sense to me, but Ongoing is meant for events that might have incremental developments that might not warrant postings on their own but do when all added together.  Is there something like what California just did(with the water use reduction order)? 331dot (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's part of a long trend so it is very difficult to identify where ITN comes in. Contrast that to the story this week where California has instituted mandatory water usage reductions across the state to a degree of an historic first, which is a fixed point for ITN, though I would not recommend this for ITN. --M ASEM (t) 14:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Since it covers a long-lasting event which may take several weeks, it may be more appropriate to consider this for a sticky. I, however, cannot figure out any significant consequence from it despite the fact it's deemed to be the worst drought in the last 80 years. We have to wait for anything serious to happen.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment is this similar to California's worst drought for 1,200 years? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support because it just goes to show how biofuels have devastated both California and Brazil. As the water goes into agriculture plants, less water is available for hydroelectricity. This is a serious problem. Brian Everlasting (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's really stretching original research and POV without souricng. It's a combination of many many many factors, both natural and manmade, across the board. But it's not something that instantly happened, and certainly can't be pinned on developing biofuels. --M ASEM  (t) 19:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether biofuels/fossil-fuels/excessive irrigation/unsustainable agriculture/global warming/etc were the cause of the drought is only secondary concern. The proposed blurb is factual and contains no POV or original research. Brian Everlasting (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a quick query, I can't see a proposed blurb. Am I missing something?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I had assumed the title of the article (2015 Brazilian drought) would be the blurb in ongoing section. Brian Everlasting (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, then in that case, given the three words, the year of the event, the location of the even and the designation of the event are indeed factual, and not POV nor OR. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - serious problem. Notable article, good for ITN:--BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose global phenomenon, not restricted to Brazil, as described above. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this needs an event to hang its hat on. Having it just float there without newsworthy events would be like an ongoing for Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead. μηδείς (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * California is in serious trouble from a multi-year drought. Has that drought been covered in ITN? For example, the severe water rationing measures announced by the governor a few days ago? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Agree with Bugs re severe, long-term Calif. drought, highlighted in Sunday's NYT. Sca (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I already highlighted in the report from the BBC on Thursday. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment In Brazil, if there is not water, the electricity production through hydroelectric plants (most of the produced electricity in Brazil is hydroelectric) is reduced. It's a "domino effect". ArionEstar (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No one is questioning that the drought situation is severe and will have a domino effect if it worsens. But in considering what ITN is, this is simply a long-running story that is being highlighted now by a couple sources, but nothing has changed to make it ITN. There's certain metrics I could see, such as hypothetically Brazil declaring a national emergency due to water shortage levels, which would be a triggering event for ITN. --M ASEM (t) 23:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Russia annoyed with Saudi Arabia
LeisureContributer (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Garden-variety international spat, not suitable for ITN and barely notable for Wikipedia purposes at all. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I just noticed that there's a Yemen thing in the "ongoing" section LeisureContributer (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Respectfully oppose Yemeni Crisis is ongoing and this is one of many events during the Yemen bombing. The 2015 Baga massacre was posted as a blurb, but this is not a massacre of 2000 people. -- Aronzak (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose we'd need a separate ticker if we posted every such "annoyance". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless something substantial happens. Lots of countries get annoyed by lots of things that other countries do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but general annoyance with another nation is not ITN worthy. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Elmer Lach

 * Weak oppose seems like a reasonable claim to RD notability, but the article is really weak for someone claimed to be a "great". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Article is sufficient, greatest scorer of his generation. Member of what is widely considered the greatest line in Hockey history, the Punch line with Toe Blake and Maurice Richard, last living member of that line.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support: He seems notable, but the article is surprisingly skimpy. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Lach is notable in his field. Article could use a few tweaks. I'll see what I can do. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits as important to ice hockey, upon adequate improvements to the article (it seems almost there, if not already). 331dot (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose because we simply cannot regress on posting club legends who have been active more than 60 years ago with very limited significance in their field. I can name at least 100 ice hockey players with bigger achievements in their playing career from the last 50 years. The fact he was voted the 68th greatest ice hockey player of all time only supports the notion that he wasn't really on the top. Maybe he was notable in the history of Montreal Canadiens but definitely not in the history of ice hockey. I also find that many media omit to even post a brief obituary about himself.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that his notability came about many years ago doesn't detract from it. You're essentially saying that because he lived a long time beyond when he was notable that he isn't anymore. Being the 68th greatest player out of the thousands of professional players there has been seems to qualify for "very important". 331dot (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted - article is much improved (good work) and consensus on notability is in favor of posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Meh The 68th best rock song by one list is Nazareth's "Hair of the Dog" which I have heard three times in five decades, and the movie Amélie which was as overrated as one can get (it's all red, yellow and green!).  Not requesting a pull, but suggest no precedent should be established here as was done with that 30-something Glee high-school student. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with that sort of assessment is that he was (by one quantitative statistical measure), the #1 player when he retired, as in he was the all-time scoring leader, a pretty good measure of success and importance to the sport. To retire the best ever is a pretty good measure of importance.  It's been over 50 years since he retired, the season is also much longer today.  For most of his career the season was 50-70 games long; players since the 1970s have played 80 game seasons; the league had six teams when he played, the league today has 30 teams.  It is unsurprising that players have surpassed him statistically.  For comparison, consider contemporaries of his from other American sports.  In 1950 in the NFL, Bobby Layne led the NFL in passing with 2323 yards and Marion Motley led the league in rushing with 810 yards.  They are both hall-of-fame NFL players, considered the best at their position during that time period.  Those numbers would make them among the worst at their positions in today's league.  The NHL is no different.  Lach was the best player when he retired, and for that reason he's easily worth while for RD.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll bow to your obvious expertise, because the only thing I know about the game is that it's played on the ice by people with missing teeth. My concern is that it is difficult to compare records over such a long period, for the reasons Stephen Jay Gould gives in his baseball essay, "Why No One Hits .400 Any More". μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] April 2015 lunar eclipse

 * Oppose a stub with barely any prose, lots of tables and graphics. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose have we ever posted a lunar eclipse? They are quite frequent, and nowhere near as spectacular as solar eclipses.  Plus, what's the point of posting after it occurred?  It's like saying you missed the best dinner party last night. μηδείς (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Sarah Brady

 * Oppose I'm not seeing her as a leader (a major player but without any political office, simply a voice), when compared to her husband, and we should be careful of importance by simple marriage. --M ASEM (t) 19:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As Masem states, she may have been a player in the issue but I don't think she would have been had she not been married to her husband(and had he not been shot). 331dot (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That goes for Jim also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Jim was at least the one who had a personal interest in the issue, and was a notable victim of a historical event; she was just married to him. He had support to be posted. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If he hadn't been shot, he wouldn't likely have become a gun-control advocate either. And was being a former aide to Reagan by itself sufficient to be in ITN? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - She fails my ITN notability threshold, and the article is frankly too undeveloped. But I do thank the nominator. This was not a bad nom. Jus  da  fax   19:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Doesn't meet criteria as independently notable, and her article is pretty bare-bones. When I updated it to reflect the news of her death, I had to add that her husband had died last year, as the information wasn't in the article already. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose somebody's wife who used to campaign for something worthy. Simply not RD material.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Hayley Okines

 * Weak oppose: Don't see how she's independently notable. She achieved minor celebrity because she was terminally ill, and now she has died. It's a sad story, and we can all hope some good will come of it, but I don't really think she meets RD criteria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Much like the 117 year old woman, she doesn't meet the death criteria for any accomplishments in any field. Posting this for the purpose of "raising awareness of rare diseases" is advocacy that Wikipedia shouldn't be engaging in. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this tugs at your heart because she's a child with a terminal illness, but she would not have been the subject of media attention without the disease had she just been an advocate. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I would like to support but I must agree that raising awareness is not a field.  Is there some tangible, notable accomplishment that can be traced to her work? 331dot (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I too am sympathetic but this doesn't meet our established criteria for an ITN notice. Suggest we close this, with all respects to the nominator, as supporting !votes are unlikely to carry the nomination. Thanks though. Jus  da  fax   20:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

[Added to Ongoing] Yemeni prisoners released

 * Note: I'm pretty sure there's a rough consensus to add the Yemen conflict to ongoing as soon as the last such blurb would roll off the ITN ticker. I don't really see this as a major development, and think rather than posting yet another blurb, we use this as more evidence for an Ongoing: link instead.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 04:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, (again) support ongoing: Per Jayron32, my understanding is that one of the ongoing Yemen pages (as a major contributor to the content, and original creator of many of the topic articles, it roughly breaks down as Yemeni Crisis (2011–present) being the umbrella for events since the start of the Arab Spring, Aftermath of the 2014–15 Yemeni coup d'état being the umbrella for the fallout from the fall of the government, Southern Yemen offensive (2015) covering the military campaign being waged by the rebels/Sana'a government against the loyalists/Aden government, and 2015 military intervention in Yemen covering the military campaign being conducted by the Arab coalition in support of Aden) should be listed as ongoing. I'm not sure why it hasn't been done. But I don't think this prison break is independently notable enough for ITN, regardless of whether the Yemen conflict has ongoing status or not (and it should). -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment "War in Yemen" was supposed to be added back to Ongoing after the last blurb was off of the template. Please put it back ASAP. Mamyles (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yemini crisis re-posted to ongoing. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Robert H. Schuller

 * Support Definitely top of the preaching field, having had a mindbogglingly huge congregation for over 40 years. From Hour of Power, "...at one point attracted 1.3 million viewers from 156 countries." Article is of sufficient quality. Mamyles (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Difficult to argue top of a field - whether that field is religion or television.  And 1.3M over 156 countries is a trivial number in terms of viewership. --M ASEM  (t) 04:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Heard the story on NPR this evening, article is of sufficient quality, and agree with OP that he was a significant figure. The coverage supports that notion, and article is good enough for ITN coverage  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 04:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for RD: Televangelism is obviously the field. Really don't see how there's any confusion about that. This claims that he had a peak of over 20 million viewers, the most viewed televangelist of the time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Clearly an independently notable figure who was at the top of his field, as little to my taste as that field may be. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Meets the RD criteria as notable in his field, televangelism. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, just the fact that I, as a militantly atheistic European, knew who he was before seeing this, shows he meets RD criteria. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not Sure...wouldn't Billy Graham be the top of this field? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think "top of the field" means only one person. Multiple people can be in the top of a field. Mamyles (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) RD is not just for those at the top of their field, the criteria says "very important" to their field. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose citations required, see article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - With all due respect to TRM, who tagged the "Writings" section well down in the article which has a dead link, I think this is postable to ITN now. He's a big name, he's all over the news, and the article is decent. Run it, or fix it and run it. Jus  da  fax   20:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, considering an item I posted was pulled because of perceived lack of sources and a general miscomprehension of ITN guidelines just this morning, I can't see the difference. He's certainly not all over the news where I live, the article is average.  I vote for your second suggestion, fix it and run it.  So please, fix it, then we can run it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - Suggest tag be pulled, and item posted. Jus  da  fax   21:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good work, although you could have formatted the references appropriately. There are also [citation needed] tags that could be addressed.  Either way, you're one of very few who care enough to actively do something about a nomination they support, for which I applaud you.  It's still not decent enough for me, but that certainly won't stop it being posted.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe I fixed all of the cn tags; easily done. If I've missed any, let me know. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good work again. As I said before, it'd be good if the references could be properly formatted, and it seems we have a large reliance on a primary source, i.e. Schuller's blog.  But I'm sure that won't stop this being posted.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. Obscure figure, barely domestic US news, of no broader international relevance and not even that significant domestic relevance. Bjerrebæk (talk) 10:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Says who? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Says me. If you are new to Wikipedia, the signature, which tells you who wrote the comment, is the part that looks like this: "Bjerrebæk (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)"
 * So you've got no evidence in support of your blanket statement, you're just claiming to be an authority on it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. 40 year television and radio presence.  The driving force behind a major public landmark.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Songs of Praise had a weekly television audience of 3.4 million in 2009 in the UK alone (i.e. nearly three times Schuller's "mindbogglingly huge congregation" yet in a single country). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can this be posted already? There's obviously consensus to put it up and this discussion is starting to feel like a coat-rack for other disputes. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no consensus, but several solid opposes. There is obviously no agreement that this rather unknown televangelist is sufficiently notable to merit a mention here. Bjerrebæk (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because you have never heard of him donot make him unnotable..-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 20:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)I don't think that assessment is correct; the quality issues seem to be resolved and there is clear support for this based on notability within the field; just because you have not heard of this person doesn't mean that they don't meet the criteria. If you feel this person doesn't meet the RD criteria, please offer your reasons why. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to post this, and it has nothing to do with whether I have heard of him, but rather with the fact that the article does not demonstrate him to be particularly notable (to the extent required to have his death featured on the main page). There is nothing in for example the introduction of the article that demonstrates him to be particularly famous at a broader level, outside his own church in his own country. Also, in addition to that, the fact that the article only has a small number of interwikis and is fairly short demonstrates his relative obscurity. His death was not mentioned at all in any media in Scandinavia that I know of, although they frequently report on the deaths of American personalities. Bjerrebæk (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that you feel this person is not notable, but that does not mean that there is not consensus or that others do not feel he is notable. There is no requirement that a RD candidate (or any ITN item) be published in any particular nation or region's media(in fact, such objections are discouraged on this page above). As stated by Medeis below, this person was apparently considered notable enough to German speakers to put on the German Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The day we start following the pitiful standards of the German RD section is the day we should shut this section down entirely. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll take your word on that, but it was still incorrect to suggest there was no consensus to post here; and my above point was just that this person was notable to at least some people elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention either of your points. I just said we should never use another Wikipedia as an example of what to do when their quality standards are laughable.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood, just being clear. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on notability, but Schuller was posted on the German RD almost immediately, to this point that's he's actually already been delisted to fit even more recent deaths. μηδείς (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They appear to be a lot less stringent than we are. And not in a good way. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So, rather than being stringent, you think the Germans are astringent? :) μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted - referencing has been improved (not perfect, but adequate) and consensus on notability is to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear program

 * If the Senate vetoes it, would that be a separate ITN entry? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a treaty so the US Senate can't "veto" it, but there may be parts that require their approval(like lifting sanctions). 331dot (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Amend my comment to "undermines it", as that is the ongoing practice of this Congress. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Notable international agreement involving several nations. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Moderate support. Would prefer to hold off until the treaty is actually signed, but all parties seem to be pushing this as important. Joshua Garner (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only because while there is a deal in place, the full announcement/signing is expected to be made in June. The only reason this was pushed in the news now is that they just did it under a slightly modified deadline and is a positive sign that the agreement will be finalized. --M ASEM (t) 22:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To note, I'm only opposing because this is not the final word on this deal, recognizing that the story is big and important for ITN, but just not this point. --M ASEM (t) 01:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Very big news with international ramifications. Meets notability criteria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Really solid, comprehensive article for a story that has been a top news story in major outlets all week long. Can't come up with a reason not to post this.  It's a world-wide high-interest story, and we have a good article about it.  What else is needed for an ITN item?  Nothing.  Good idea to put this up.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I agree that this is significant international news, and that now is the best time to post it. I don't see any problems with the article's quality. Mamyles (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  ♠ 05:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it's a good enough picture to post at the scale of the ITN thumbnail, but we have a good, free pic of the Lausanne Conference itself at File:Negotiations about Iranian Nuclear Program - Foreign Ministers and other Officials of P5+1 Iran and EU in Lausanne.jpg. Any opinions on if this is good enough to post?  It's a really cool pic, but I'm not sure if it scales well.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 04:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Can we add wikilink to Iran, and also link the "six other countries" to P5+1? They are the countries that negotiate with Iran, and it would answer if a reader is wondering what those six countries are. HaEr48 (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

[Re-posted] RD: Manoel de Oliveira

 * Support Note he was given the French Legion of Honor so definitely top of field. Article's sourcing is satisfactory for posting but I'd really consider fleshing out refs in the back half of his career. --M ASEM (t) 15:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I buy that he meets criteria as top of the field. Article is fairly decent, except it needs more referencing as Masem says. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Was just coming here to see if he was nominated. Oldest working film director, made more than 50 films, received two Golden Lions and an honorary Palme d'Or, and he was still working up to last year. Think he's right for RD. - <font color="Purple" face="Arial">JuneGloom07  <font color="Green" face="Times New Roman">Talk  16:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Before posting, someone should go through the article and make sure that the tenses are updated etc. Otherwise, adding support. --Tone 16:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Good, if imperfect article. Notable enough based on sheer volume of work if nothing else. Joshua Garner (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Only major issue is that most of the shorts/documentaries listed lack articles, so we need refs crediting them as his works. μηδείς (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape and per the above points.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support the individual clearly qualifies for RD, the article is in pretty good shape but there are large portions without reference. I can live with it I suppose, particularly given the current climate here to post regardless of quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I for one will not be as eager to support posting an article with so few references. Oppose until fixed.--WaltCip (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking up a non-circular source for that many short films and documentaries, likely with non-English sources, could be quite a task. The section could be hidden, or the linked works moved into the feature films section, renamed to simply "filmography" advising that works not identified as shorts or documentaries are feature films. Or the section could be "selected shorts and documentarries" with the non-linked works removed. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good temp fix. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 70 references throughout. Perhaps tag those specific phrases within the article you have issues with?  Or else stick to objecting to articles which have fewer than 71 references?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Marked as ready, the only objection being absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ludicrous comment. Objecting about poor sourcing is absurd? And you were the one who told me to "grow up".--WaltCip (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The article has an orange tagged section with a list of works mostly without verification of attribution. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, and agree this is ready to post. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That articles with orange tagged sections are okay is a new policy? I've removed all the unsourced material. μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that question directed at me? If so, then check the guidance, there is no "policy" regarding ITN.  If not, disregard this response.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with removing that much material from an article, whose accuracy has not been genuinely questioned. Unless anyone raises an actual issue about the remove material, I intend to restore it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you do restore it. Times have changed here, we seek very little verification for certain sections of ITN items.  The precedent has been set and followed several times. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest Pull and trout TRM for WP:POINT violation. He's using the word precedent to mean "someone did something I didn't like before, so that means i have to do the wrong thing too to make a point".  No.  The article in question has valid quality issues that should keep it off the main page.  The significance of a news item is of secondary importance to the purpose of ITN; the primary purpose is to highlight quality Wikipedia content.  Yes, occasionally in the past mistakes have been made in this direction.  That does NOT mean that we abandon the notion that the main page should feature content we are proud of.  If the article has quality problems, we need to fix those first before posting.  TRM posting this, based on prior expressed opinions on this very issue, tastes bad.  Past mistakes do not make precedent.  We should pull this for a short while till we can clean up the article.  Wikipedia should have a good article about this person to put on the main page.  It doesn't yet.  We should fix that and then post this. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pulled - Shouldn't have been posted with an orange tag, and shouldn't have been posted by The Rambling Man, since he had already supported it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support but needs fixing - This guy is certainly at the top of his field and is in fact INT RD notable, but the article needs more sourcing! Add more sources in his intro, career section and awards section and this should be a go. Full Support now --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The original orange tag was for a section that listed some 20 films to his credit with no ref or link to the primary source. That was fixed. I have removed the page level tag; if more references are wanted then the specific claims should get  tags. μηδείς (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I made a few tweaks myself, including removing an inconsequential (and uncited) quote. It's pretty close.  However, I had to add reference tag to the "Personal Life" section.  The first paragraph on his family (wife, children, details on marriages to and births thereof) is entirely unreferenced.  Many missing refs could be easily forgiven, but something like this has serious WP:BLP implications.  If we're going to say he's married to so-and-so, or that such-and-such is his children, those are living people, and we'd better get that right.  If someone could find the sources and fix that one problem, I'd have no objections to this being reposted.  Thanks to Medeis for the work already done.  This is almost ready, but that one needed fix is pretty glaring, and should be addressed before posting.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 05:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * His NY Times obit confirms the names of his wife and three of his children (not sure what happened to the second daughter) while Variety confirms the grandchildren named in the article. It's late, I'm tired and it takes longer to edit articles properly on my tablet here, so if of someone could add those citations and look for a source for the "missing" daughter, that would be great. --ThylekShran (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, and I found a Portuguese-language source naming his children and giving their birth years: Good thing, too, because two of the children were named incorrectly in the article, according to this obituary. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! Now that the issues have been fixed, can someone add him back to RD now? --ThylekShran (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Re-posted. Some of you need to read the ITN criteria.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're the one who posted it in the first place. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, correctly per the criteria. Which is what I said.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Now you're complaining because some people added references to an article and improved it in other ways? Right.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you're mistaken, not for the first time I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Kenya attacks

 * Support - article is literally a sentence long. I would support an expanded article. Presence of casualities in a current situation. starship.paint <font color="#000000">~ ¡<font color="#E62617">Olé !  09:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Aside from that, this situation is still ongoing as hostages have been taken; we will need to see what happens. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * More casualties than Copenhagen. Not to forget those with at LEAST short-term mental health issues. 120.62.30.7 (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Article does not exist. Everymorning   talk  11:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the article whose quality we are assessing here? I see a redlink... Please create and/or expand an article, because we can't post nothing.  The purpose of ITN is to highlight Wikipedia content.  We have no content as of right now.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - article does exist now. starship.paint <font color="#000000">~ ¡<font color="#E62617">Olé !  13:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I've created a tiny stub for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Expanded a bit, but info is still pending due the currency of the event. I'm done for the day, someone else has to pick up the baton. The info I added is a bit disorganized. starship.paint <font color="#000000">~ ¡<font color="#E62617">Olé !  13:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support with a shade more expansion. Front page of the BBC News website all day.  Ongoing crisis.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Article will hopefully keep expanding, but it looks to be in decent enough shape for ITN now. Thanks to those who worked on this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted Thue (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support: I saw this was happening before I went to bed last night and turned out to be more deadly than it was reported then. --M ASEM (t) 14:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Update, should blurb be changed to 70 killed? 69.73.10.197 (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's been updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Deaths are up to 147: 331dot (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, I updated it as such, it was re-updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

[Update] Sinking of the Dal'nij Vostok

 * Oppose as of now; article is not something we'd want to highlight on the main page. If expanded with good references, this seems newsworthy enough.  But article quality (basically a stub) is an issue.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending article improvements. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support if can be expanded Story is definitely ITN worthy but the article is rather short and really needs more details (~1500 words would be good target like a DYK). --M ASEM (t) 15:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, really quite unusual for such a vessel to sink, and not due to weather makes it even more so. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support based purely on article quality. It's too short right now, but would support if it was expanded further, particularly if it included more context and suggestions as to how this has a wider impact than just a boat sinking. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support; I agree with Abductive, but the article could use improvement as TRM says. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I see no reason not to post now, more eyes will mean more added material. The Russian article is slightly bigger than ours, and might be a good source of references. μηδείς (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added a section on the reaction (there's a criminal investigation), specified the numbers and nationalities of the crew, identified the owner and home port and added the Russian name and its translation, going from 3.4 to 4.6kb., the article has about doubled in size, do you now support posting? μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm trending towards neutral, but still oppose. The article is very sparse.  If this is literally ALL that can be said about the event, then maybe it isn't notable enough for ITN recognition?  If there is more that can be said, it should be in the article.  But if this is as comprehensive an article as we can create about the event, it isn't being covered in enough detail in mainstream sources for us to consider it significant enough for ITN.  Either way, this shouldn't be posted: either the article is inadequate or the subject isn't significant enough.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Jayron, I think you and Masem with his 1500 word requirement are ignoring the set guidelines at In_the_news, specifically: In the case of a new, event-specific article, the traditional cut-off for what is enough has been around three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs. An example of the minimum required update for a new article is Fuzhou derailment at the time of its posting.  You will notice this article is the same size as the Fuzhou article, has one more source, and the event is both presumed to be criminal and involves an international crew and audience. μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. I'm just not ignoring the requirements of WP:CONSENSUS which means we talk it out, and discuss every event and arrive at a reasonable consensus over what is, and is not, worth posting at the time it is nominated.  If consensus says this can be posted, I won't demand anything change about that posting.  But my objection will stand until the problems are fixed.  This isn't a competition I need to win.  Sometimes I'm on the wrong side of consensus, it's no big deal to me.  If it gets posted, it gets posted.  I still don't think it should be right now in the state it is in.  I should note that WP:WEFOLLOWEVERYRULEEXACTLYASWRITTENESPECIALLYWHENITFAVORSMYOPINION has yet to be created as yet, but you let me know how that goes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, but you have not specifically identified any problems. If I may, I suggest you take a look at the article now.  I know what it looked like when you made your original comment, and it far surpasses that.  (Not that surpassing that stage would have been difficult.) μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have specifically identified problems. The problem is that the article content is insufficient for one of either of two reasons 1) it does not sufficiently represent what existing news outlets have reported on the incident or 2) that the incident is not being sufficiently covered to warrant ITN attention.  1) is certainly fixable: if news outlets have reported more than the article is covering, then simply adding those facts to the article would be actioable and an easy fix.  2) cannot be fixed, but it just means the subject isn't worthy of ITN in the first place.  Either expand the article with more facts from existing coverage, or if the facts don't exist, then my objection on the lack of significance stands: if no one else has more to say on this matter it isn't worth posting.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is currently at 9kb of text, it has a description of the boat, its owner, the crew, the circumstances of the sinking, the various different theories as to the cause, that there's a criminal investigation, comparison with other Russian maritime disasters, the extent of rescue efforts by officials and nearby ships, and even international reaction. I seriously can't think of what else could be added to the text at this point.  If there's anything obvious that should be added, that's fine but "if you can't expand this even further than what's currently known" is an impossible barrier to posting any nomination. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Change vote to Neutral. Since my last comment at 3:32, Medeis and other have made some marginal expansions to the article.  Incrementally the article is getting better.  I hope that changing my vote doesn't cause such continued improvements to be abandoned, as though ITN was some final prize that caused Wikipedia articles to stop being improved.  But edits in the last 60 minutes or so, which were not there as of my last assessment immediately above, show a continued effort to add text to this still sparse article, and it's gotten past the point where a formal oppose is necessary.  It is by no means a fantastic article, and is still quite sparse, but given the trend I will lift my outright opposition in the good faith that this will continue to grow (provided that information exists which could be used to grow the article.  I'm not sold that it does so exist.  But whatever).  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 04:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can think of until the prosecutors speak or the missing are declared presumed dead would be to add a coordinate map. The Russian article gives the map coordinates, but I don't know how to format such a map. μηδείς (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I created the article yesterday, and I have just learned of this ITN nomination. Since its nom, it has been substantially expanded. It seems very worthy now. Juneau Mike (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is now C-class, it would be interesting to hear from the others who expressed support when expanded back when it was a third the current size. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - ongoing, serious event. starship.paint <font color="#000000">~ ¡<font color="#E62617">Olé !  05:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If we include Juneau Mike, the article has 9 supports, (four of them qualified but no objections made since the article has quadrupled in size); one neutral; and no opposes. Given there are no tags, the article has been upgraded to C-class, and there is no opposition, it should be posted.  If not, a concrete objection to posting should be stated. μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. I weak supported it.  So sue me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Update? suggest we consider the alt blurb which translates the Russian name and uses "the" so it doesn't sound like it's mocking Russian's lack of articles. μηδείς (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As written in ITN right now, it sounds fine to me. Not that I'm the only view, but I think it's okay right now.  Spencer T♦ C 21:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Cynthia Lennon

 * Weak support for RD, I saw this yesterday and half-considered it; I'm not sure how she meets the criteria as being important in her field. Which field?  Having said that, the article itself is easily one of the best we've had nominated at ITN for a while, so the temptation to post quality content is strong here. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not Yoko Ono - in the sense that I don't think Cynthia was notable for anything than being Lennon's wife - while Ono has a musical career of her own. starship.paint <font color="#000000">~ ¡<font color="#E62617">Olé !  04:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support: A person of modest celebrity, but not really top-of-her-field or independently notable. I'm on the fence, but I lean toward yes based mostly on article quality and the relative dearth of RDs lately. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - Being the sponse of someone at the top of their field does not automatically make that person the top of their field, and as Starship points out, unlike Yoko, there's really not much she did to elevate her. Nothing special on the death here either. --M ASEM  (t) 05:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - If she had never been in John's life, "Hey, Jude" would never have been written. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - that's some really flimsy rationale to me. Hey Jude wasn't even their breakout single. Article says The Beatles became international stars in 1964, Hey Jude came out in '68. Hilariously, Hey Jude doesn't even appear in the Beatles' article. Guess it wasn't important enough? starship.paint <font color="#000000">~ ¡<font color="#E62617">Olé !  09:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support. As said already, a very good article- and I think its quality makes up for the slight deficiency in notability.  I'd lean yes. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, not at the top of her field of John Lennon wives. Not at the top of any other field either. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What a baffling rationale. And yet scarily accurate.--WaltCip (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite brilliant, honestly. Bravo! starship.paint <font color="#000000">~ ¡<font color="#E62617">Olé !  12:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose if the oldest person in the world isn't good enough for RD, Lennon's first wife certainly isn't RD material. Being married to a famous person for 6 years is hardly ITN worthy. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Atlanta Public Schools cheating scandal

 * Yeah, but what about that cheating scandal in India with the parents hanging off windowsills? Abductive  (reasoning) 19:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose completely parochial with no real long-term impact. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait many of the victims have been hospitalized and are in critical condition, but until we have a total number of deaths we should be cautious. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke, or was it posted in the wrong section by accident? Everymorning   talk  19:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The vote is serious, although the rationale is in the spirit of the holiday. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Atlanta might be a major world city and have one of the busiest airports in the world, but the significance of this event on an international scale is simply picayune compared to other events that usually end up on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Local event with no long term impact. 331dot (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose This would be the right time for posting this, but even as an American, I've really not heard of this before though understand the ramifications of "teaching to the standardized test" that this could pose. But still, it only affects one school district, so not significant on the larger scheme of things. --M ASEM (t) 19:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Not a national story, certainly not an international story. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How often are teachers threatened with prison time in a case of this type? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - in a far more interesting story less than a month ago, referred to above by, 300 people were arrested due to exam cheating, many of whom were parents. Some climbed walls to pass answers. 750 students were expelled. This happened in India. starship.paint <font color="#000000">~ ¡<font color="#E62617">Olé !  12:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose doesn't rise to ITN levels. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Misao Okawa

 * Comment: A 117-year-old woman dying seems like it might be blurb-worthy, actually. But I'm a relative newcomer to ITN/C, and I don't recall what we've done in the past with oldest people in the world passing away. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Personally I kinda agree this might be notable, but this sort of thing does not usually gain consensus to post because being old is not considered a "field". I think the only thing that would be posted is if the person was the documented longest-lived human ever (beating Jeanne Calment, for example). 331dot (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - the oldest verified Asian ever (and Japanese). Was the oldest person living as well. starship.paint <font color="#000000">~ ¡<font color="#E62617">Olé !  09:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the oldest human from any one racial group is notable enough to post; nor would the oldest current human(as there is always an 'oldest human' and they usually do not have that title for long; as I indicated above I think only the longest-lived human overall would gain consensus to post. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - oldest in the world. notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Off the top of your head, name the last holder of this title. μηδείς (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment We posted Jiroemon Kimura when he died because he was the oldest verified man. This is not the case here. Generally we don't post currently oldest people dying since this happens often and there are no other claims for notability. --Tone 14:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with Tone and other editors. The oldest person dying is a relatively common event, and is not really "top of the field." I'm not sure if I'd support posting the oldest person ever dying, either, but we may discuss that in a decade or so. Mamyles (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD or blurb. Not having posted something in the past is a rather poor rationale, as consensus can change.  Quite a lot of people around the world pay attention to supercentenarians, so when the oldest dies it is significant news internationally. The oldest living person dies less than once a year on average, hardly an overwhelming amount of potential stories.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, considering Kimura was the last holder of the title and was posted, the most recent time an oldest living person dying that could have been rejected on ITN was December 2012 - certainly enough time for consensus to change. This isn't a court of law - past precedent has minimal bearing on future decisions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - It's not every day that someone lives to be 117. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for either blurb or RD Okawa held this crown for almost two years, so it's not like we've been inundated with instances of the oldest person in the world dying. Besides, we only have two RDs at the moment. I see no reason to not post this to RD at the minimum. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose blurb, weak oppose RD - Just living to be that old is not a reason to allocate a spot on ITN (sure, the person must have figured out how to live well, but they did not impact anyone else in their world by doing that), so I strongly disagree a blurb is appropriate. I'm not 100% sure of an RD, as well, for the same reason this is not "top of the field" person. --M ASEM (t) 16:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So basically your reasoning for opposing is that you do not like old people? lol.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How is an old person the top of their field? The death is not going to cause massive response across the world as the case for Thatcher, Mandela, or Williams. It's a DYK factoid, not an ITN. --M ASEM (t) 17:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This person didn't/doesn't meet any of the three death criteria. Also, it's not a significant enough development for a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not dying is not an accomplishment, oppose all such trivia nominations until we have an actual new top of the field, when Jeanne Calment's record is broken. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do we consider death a "field", now? That seems like a bit of a stretch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RGloucester (talk • contribs)
 * Yea, even a Bosworth Field. μηδείς (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose – I wish Ms. Ōkawa a good afterlife, but do not believe that her no-nonsense existence is notable from an encyclopaedic perspective. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose a perfect DYK, certainly never a blurb, and weak oppose on RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Some mention would be appropriate, even if it's just in a DYK. Medeis does have a point about Jeanne Clement, but living to "just" 117 is a rare achievement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * DYK is not a realistic possibility. It is not "ITN lite" but rather has completely different criteria.  The article is not new and cannot be 5x expanded so only way to get on DYK would via promotion to GA. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So it can get to DYK via the GA route, and it doesn't look too far off from getting to GA. --M ASEM (t) 20:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct, but it is not an alternative to ITN. At the very least, GANs usually are not review for months so it obviously won't happen while the story is in the news. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a perfect alternative to ITN should the nominator wish to see their article in lights. It's not supposed to be, nor has it even been suggested as, an ITN-lite.  The article could be expanded 5x, but unlikely.  It could be taken to GA which, yes, takes time, but since DYK isn't ITN-lite, that's not an issue at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Somewhat weak support. Exceptional feat of a person out of seven billion, but not the oldest person to ever live. Joshua Garner (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support blurb: I do not think the RD criteria apply here, because it is not her passing which is news. To put it another way, RD is for acknowledging the death of people who have previously done something very noteworthy (i.e. "top of their field"). But in this case, I think it is being alive for an astounding 117 years which is the notable thing, and which has now come to an end. That would make this the appropriate time to post to ITN as a blurb. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a minor query, do we then post the next oldest person to die? And the next, and the next?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not? Accoding to this list, it has happened less than 60 times in the last 60 years. If we can post sporting results every year, then why not post this? It may not sell as much beer, but I am willing to bet that this news interests more people around the world than the AFL Grand Final, which is listed as a recurring item. (I love AFL as much as I love beer, so I am not suggesting it does not belong on the recurring list.) AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose any posting. RD should be for people with instant name recognition somewhere.  This person has none anywhere except in their own family.  Several times per year the oldest living person dies.  Until a record is broken, such events are entirely trivial in nature.  There's always an oldest person alive, and they're always gonna die soon.  Because they're old.  A record "oldest person ever" would be interesting enough for a blurb.  But otherwise, there's barely enough to hang an article on here.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support RD tag - Sure a blurb would be nice, but she is definitely notable for a mention and a RD tag is so far the only right thing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)