Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/August 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.

[Closed] Hurricane Fred (2015)

 * Comment can you quantify the impact of this, otherwise it's just a DYK ("Did you know that Hurricane Fred was rare?"). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * From the BBC - "No hurricane has ever been recorded further east in the tropical Atlantic." As to the impact, that will become known overnight and tomorrow morning. Mjroots (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that seems to repeat what I just said, it's a DYK. I guess we wait for the outcome.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * DYK material – Meteorologically significant, definitely. ITN worthy, not really. It's a subset of the overall easternmost hurricane record pertaining to the deep tropics; Vince in 2005 still holds the easternmost record. Although the Atlantic hurricane database extends back to 1851, reliable records only start in the 1960s when satellites came into the picture (and even those are currently being reanalyzed to correct errors). There's far to much uncertainty in the database to say whether or not Fred is definitively the first hurricane to strike Cape Verde, and given the nature of well nature, it's very likely that other hurricanes have struck the archipelago in the past. Pending on the scale of impact in the Cape Verde Islands, this could be ITN worthy later on. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Explicit oppose based on a lack of major damage. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose a mobile phone tower fell down and a sports centre was wrecked. Not much more to say.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fred's dead, baby. Fred's dead.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Nearest quasar is a binary black hole

 * Comment in good faith, so what? How does this impact us, is it a scientific breakthrough?  Does it modify our understanding of our known universe?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Quote: "the findings suggest the binary system may be more common that first thought", and IMO (crystalballing) they might be the best source for detection of gravitational waves. Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does actually expand our understanding of the universe. The main issue is that this was announced last week.  Support assuming update and move of nomination to proper press date. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While that may be true, the blurb is entirely missing that point. Why should we care?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 *  Weak Oppose as scientific trivia and little more to the layperson -- although I will have to rethink my upcoming vacation to the galaxy Markarian 231... -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support -per interesting news. impact or not it is an newsworthy discovery.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Interesting to humans around the world. Understanding the cosmos is inspiring and increases our knowledge of physics, which may have unexpected benefits to mankind. The idea of binary black holes is mind-stretching. Jus  da  fax   22:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Then in that case, please suggest a blurb that actually allows the general reader to understand the significance of this discovery. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support It's been in the news and is far more potent and unusual than routine storms like Hurricane Elena (recent FA). Andrew D. (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Then in that case, please suggest a blurb that actually allows the general reader to understand the significance of this discovery. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The currently nominated blurb is fine, quasars are named for quasi-stellar objects because although they are far outside out galaxy, they shine as brightly as nearby stars. Yes, that's technical, but we don't limit ourselves to the ignorance of our broadest readership.  (Otherwise no sports records would ever get posted.)  We post the most concise headers that will be clear to those readers of ours schooled in such matters. μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well unmarking, yet again, because the main article has an orange maintenance tag (and is a stub with bad references and dab links, did you read it?). It would be preferable if this was fixed and if we had a blurb that actually gave our general audience a feeling for the significance, despite our own clear super-intelligent understanding of the point of the story. Final nail is that it seemed that this "significant" news was released on 27 August, so this nomination is actually stale, regardless of the pitiful quality of the article/update.  I advise Medeis to refrain from nominating such poor nominations as Ready in the future, this is really weak. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Upon reconsideration, I've stricken the "weak" part of my above oppose. I haven't seen a single argument articulated well for why this is ITN material. Why is it significant that a particular quasar is the product of a binary black hole? -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even after reading the article it is still not clear to me what about this discovery would be ITN material. Is there anything about this discovery that would make it the most important discovery in astrophysics this year? LoveToLondon (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll agree two citations is insufficient. We need three. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's one. The other just cites the lovely picture. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Lord Montagu

 *  Very weak oppose Support. Probably equally notable for his role in LGBT legal history. but I'm unconvinced that he's notable enough in any particular area to cross the RD bar.  Changed my mind, on the basis that he's a really interesting character with enough media coverage in his life to warrant an RD. Black Kite (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Home industry and vintage cars? At some point, we have to draw a line on what constitutes a "field". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No idea what you mean by your first point, but you should know vintage cars are big business, anywhere in the world. Well maybe not so much in developing countries where owning a vintage car would raise some eyebrows...("why have an old car when you can have a new car!?" Ah, first world shit)--109.149.122.179 (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that vintage cars are a big business, but I don't see that as important enough for ITN. It's not like he invented the airbag or something like that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I am supporting, but I concede that the argument for his meeting ITNDC is not the strongest I have run across. That said I think there is enough (if barely) to give him the nod. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: A fascinating character important in a whopping three different fields (British politics, LGBT culture and history, and museums and collecting). I think that cross-section makes him a pretty strong candidate, and I think Wikipedia visitors will be interested in his biography. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for his role in British politics, LGBT history, and museums. Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Significant in British LGBT history. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that my support is conditional on article improvements. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Lord God no we don't need to start canonizing unwilling homosexual martyrs, That went out of style after Rock Hudson, and is frankly just about as condescending as possible. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You have this attitude I don't understand that putting someone in RD is "canonizing" them. Time after time you support or oppose RD nominations based more on your opinion of the person's merit, rather than the merit of the article or the relevant criteria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * At the risk of piling on, I also find this particular oppose somewhat problematic. It sounds a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Perhaps some clarification would help...? -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems like a standard "anti-anti-establishment" rant. The point is that Montagu was more than gay, he was seminal in his work for heritage.  Of course it's easy to jump on the gay train, but that's just one facet of what Montagu gave us.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I did once try to jump on the gay train, but I lost my footing, alas. I think you'll find Montagu's train ran both ways, however. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies, of course I should have noted that he was both left- and right-footed. However, my point remains, we do tend have a kind of anti-anti thing going on.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as subject is a general socialite, doesn't seem to have been at the top of any of the fields in which he he dabbled.128.214.53.18 (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ITNDC does not require that the subject was at the top of their field. only that they were very important. I agree that this is not the strongest nominee, but your assessment seems overly harsh and IMO does not reflect what the article says of the man. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Even though the subject is not as grand of a impact, he does meet the RD requirements BUT there are sections that don't have sources. The article needs more sources and appears to be in weak shape for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, aside from his ancestry, practically WP:BLP1E. Tabloid. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Somewhat famous for socializing and for playing a part in a court case from 60 years ago." This isn't Dred Scott. --Tocino 08:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-close whingeing comment Not only was he one of the first British aristocrats to open up his ancestral home to the public, but his notability in a high-profile and controversial court case led to a widely-read memoirs and a TV documentary. Hardly an unknown non-entity. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Nobody argued he was an "unknown non-entity". I still don't think he belongs in ITN for reasons stated above. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing this so early with many supports is really poor show. Perhaps it's just because he was British that this has been binned so soon.  The shame.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, I count at least five supports and that's enough to keep the discussion alive, so I'm re-opening it. And I'm guessing (guessing) that most of the opposes are from those from outside the UK....  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You really want us to go down that road again? (FWIW, not arguing against reopening it, but do we have to relive the US vs. UK b.s.?) – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I didn't start that discussion, you may wish to review "Mount McKinley renamed". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Where big U.S. news was dismissed out of hand by a bunch of Brits? Rather not. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure I understand. This isn't US Wikipedia.  And the opposition came from Americans, Dutch, Australians... did you check your assertion of "a bunch of Brits" or did you just make it up?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * it would be helpful to see your reasoning here please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, you just fabricated it. Please don't do that again in the future, it's unhelpful and misleading, and maybe worse, unbecoming of someone with your experience.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't fabricate anything. I saw who a number of the opposers were when that discussion was going on. I've seen the use of the word "parochial" by British Wikipedians on this page over time. I'm sure some Americans and Australians and whoever else also opposed it, but the British opposition I saw seemed dismissive based on it being a "local" issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you made a mistake, that's fine, we all do it from time to time. Alternatively, please identify the "bunch of Brits" you claim to be behind this conspiracy! (and note, most of those people who opposed weren't British, despite your claim)... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Come now Rambler, you're getting carried away again. Or was it you, Muboshgu, I forget now. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - a notable figure in the UK because of his renowned motor museum and his heritage work. Personally, I wasn't even aware of his importance in LGBT history until the obits - but that alone should push him over the RD blurb threshold.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. One of the first British aristocrats to open up his ancestral home to the public. I don't really think he's "an unwilling homosexual martyr in need of canonization", and many feel his experience helped lead to a change in the law in UK. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The subject is notable, but the problem that I see is that the article is in bad shape. I'd throw in my support, but not until the article has been improved. You can't just support just for nobility, the article matters too. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Conditional support is fully acceptable here, as far as I know. If there is more support perhaps more editors will "throw their support into improving the article". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article itself says he denied at least two homosexual charges against him and "always maintained he was innocent". Murky story, at least not RD level. Brandmeistertalk  21:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're opposing because he wasn't a real genuine homosexual, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if he had the courage to admit, that might have been noteworthy. Otherwise it looks as if nothing like that happened. Brandmeistertalk  21:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, right, he was one of those cowardly gays.... nothing happened... and "3, 2, 1, you're back in the cell!" Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought this famous for being famous nomination was closed. I have nothing against Montagu, and I am 80% homo myself.  So the accusations of "IDONTLIKEIT" are simply projection.  What I actually don't like is a very mediocre person being championed basically for identity reasons.  Were he straight this would never have been nominated. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And if he were straight, he might never have gone to prison? But he still might have opened Britain's National Motor Museum, served as a peer in the House of Lords, and been chairman of English Heritage? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought it was clear my opinion was that those matters on their own don't merit an RD listing. I don't think the nomination was not in good faith, I simply don't think it merits posting. Nor would I be terribly vexed should this be posted. μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your original oppose reasoning seems, to me, quite bizarre. I don't see why User:Everymorning did not nominate in perfectly good faith. But so glad you would not be "vexed". Martinevans123 (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sarcasm, I missed my noon coffee. Perhaps you also have a spare stick for up my ass?  I am not about to apologize for your misreading or for your dudgeon when I explain myself politely. μηδείς (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support - For the record, Montagu maintained that he was bisexual (rather than gay), but that he was innocent of the specific charge which led to his becoming a famous name in LGBT history. But I first heard of him in his capacity as the chairman of English Heritage, who was responsible for its successful rebranding from being the 'Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission'. At the moment our article on his life says far too little about this and his other contributions to heritage preservation and public life. My support is conditional on this being remedied. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Aristocrat who dabbled in various fields (politics, motoring etc.) and had a minor role in 1950s gay rights. Interesting enough article, but not sufficiently significant to be RD material. Modest Genius talk 23:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Post close clarification. I don't have anything spare for Medeis's ass, not least a stick. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

RD: M. M. Kalburgi

 * Weak support: Seems like an interesting person who was important in his field. I would like to see the article expanded with more information about his scholarly works, as right now, it's basically just his early life, controversies, and now murder. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but I agree with Kudzu1 that it should be expanded with more on his career (i.e., why he meets DC#2) – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is under-referenced and not suitable for main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality for reasons noted above. I would Support for blurb only, but not for RD.  Since the manner of his death (murdered in his home) IS itself newsworthy, and needs explanation, this should be a blurb, if it is cleaned up and posted.  RD is for routine deaths, where the blurb would be "Dies of being old" or something similar.  This was an unexpected and newsworthy death, and needs explanation in the form of a blurb, so IF it is fixed up, it should be a blurb and not RD.  -- Jayron 32 19:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support conditional on significant improvements in the article. Sourcing in particular is unacceptably weak at present. That said I think an argument, although not a very strong one based on the article, could be made for meeting criteria #2 in ITNDC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article does not do the job of explaining this man's significance or work and is sorely lacking in sources, unfortunately. Challenger l (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb the assassination of an author for his writing needs a blurb. I won't write one, but an RD listing is beyond the point. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment A separate section for "career" has been added to the article now. 117.221.122.117 (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD tag A man who is murdered for what he believes in sure means he is notable. But I don't think a blurb is the right approach. I think a RD tag is good enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose A murdered author is (unfortunately) nothing uncommon. The main award listed for him seems to be the Sahitya Akademi Award - it is awarded to 24 people each year. LoveToLondon (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Wes Craven

 * Support Was just coming to see if this was nominated yet. Master of horror film. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD – His work/craft speaks for itself. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD - while he was not one of the most-lauded directors there has ever been - he is famous for his works, and the influence that they carry. Challenger l (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD on article improvements; when I looked, the article itself seemed underreferenced and short. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD - Notable, and some minor awards. Some big hits. I am not a fan of his work, but concede his RD-worthiness. Agree that article is thin.  Jus  da  fax   02:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD - A major horror Hollywood legend. Created the most notable horror movie icons. Death was kinda shocking, but not much. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted Article is updated and sourced with the death, subject is widely regarded as a horror movie icon, as seen by supports here. There's one tag, so the article could use some work, but nothing major. Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support but article needs improvements - RD here was a no brainer given his success, but while a good chunk of the article is sourced, it really needs more inline sourcing for a BLP (and I am not confortable with the whole section on awards/recognizition lacking sources with that tag.) Pulling it would not be proper but this needs to be fixed ASAP. --M ASEM (t) 03:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pull Immediately As in right this minute. How did this get posted with an entire section unsourced(!)? It should be pulled until that is corrected. I Support the nomination in principal, but this article is no where near ready to be linked on the front page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article has been vastly improved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Pull for now. I guess we all should've been more clear on our supports being conditional of page improvements. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've pulled this. The article isn't terrible, and it will be back up pretty soon, but it's not ready just yet. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I've added enough sources. Thoughts. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good to me, thank you. Re-posting. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Nelson Shanks

 * Support. He does seem to have the awards and recognition to indicate he is notable in his field.  There seems to be citations for everything just from a quick read. 331dot (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely RD material, article is fine for sourcing. I do think this should be listed on the 28th (it's not like a week has past) but that's a trivality. --M ASEM  (t) 03:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Article looks good. Notability is clear. Many famous portraits. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose based purely on article quality, poor referencing letting it down. The notability, as far as I can tell, is beyond question.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Added sources. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Marked Ready supported and sufficiently sourced at this point. μηδείς (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 11:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Bump: Temple of Bel

 * Weak oppose – Tragic loss of cultural heritage, but the temple is appears less significant than Baalshamin (just an assumption since it's not classified a UNESCO World Heritage site like Baalshamin is) and it's only partially destroyed. We can't really go on reporting all the things ISIL blows up (exaggerating here, but you get my point). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Cyclonebiskit. Not as significant, and posting sets a precedent for all the vandalism to come. Jus  da  fax   00:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment do you want to propose merging this with Baalshamin? Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL is an OK target that has a range of different things they've destroyed.-- Callinus (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's a merge which in case of posting would be bumped due to more recent date. Brandmeistertalk  07:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Add to the blurb on the Temple of Baalshamin. That's what we did the last time these people started blowing up ancient things. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support merge with the Temple of Baalshamin blurb. Palmyra as a whole is a World Heritage site and this is an important part of it. This temple is/was an almost 2000-year-old, archaeologically very important site, and such a destruction of notable cultural heritage, part of a World Heritage site, is a significant event that would warrant posting. All the vandalism to come can be discussed as it comes along, but there aren't really many more World Heritage sites under ISIS control. --GGT (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support merge & bump. As I posted in the Baalshamin nomination, this event can serve as an introduction point for readers to eminantly encyclopedic topics (ancient architecture & anthropology), and is something that readers would not get from a standard news source.  As such, this plays exactly to the strengths of ITN on Wikipedia.  I've added an altblurb for consideration.128.214.53.18 (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – Based on this BBC report, we may have to say "heavily damaged." (And remember, "destroyed" is technically an absolute term denoting total, er, destruction.) Sca (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Another report citing a Palmyra resident says that only wall is standing. Brandmeistertalk  14:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That report is headlined, "Syria's Palmyra Temple of Bel 'severely damaged' by IS." Sca (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment - So now you have set a precedent, RM, by putting it at the top again. I ask you, if IS destroys more temples do we keep bumping it up? It could be our first ever semi-permanent blurb. I think this bump needs to be discussed before this kind of placement. Jus da  fax   16:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support combined blurb: Another tragic historical loss, but doesn't need to stand alone on its own line. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per rationale of IP 128 above. μηδείς (talk) 1:25 pm, Today (UTC−4)
 * Marked ready, article is in good shape and the consensus is to support. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted I fixed up a few issues with the article and combined the blurb, bumping it to the top. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not everyday that ISIL demolishes such an ancient structures in a UNESCO-listed location, in this case Palmyra. Many structures destroyed by ISIL are from 6th century AD onwards. Brandmeistertalk  16:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously true, and equally obviously heinous and regrettable, but it is not at all the point of my comment. TRM, by repositioning the story sets a precedent, and my question remains: shouldn't this new type of long-lasting blurb be discussed by ITN editors, or are we content to have this as the new status quo here? If IS destroys even more temples in the wide swath of territory they control, do we keep on bumping to the top of ITN? I find this new order questionable. Jus  da  fax   22:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

[Posted & Closed] Mount McKinley renamed

 * Support Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute could also be linked. The effort to push for the renaming has been ongoing since 1975. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The official renaming of a geographical feature that is not within a region of dispute is a very rare event. I would suggest the blurb explain why (that is, to "return" the mountain to the native people of Alaska, in a way). I initially had started this with weak support (before an ec conflict) but the article Muboshgu is a strong reason to ITN this. --M ASEM (t) 21:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm afraid. Culturally within North America quite significant maybe, but very much appears to be a non-event in the rest of the world at least in terms of news reporting. -- KTC (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * From above: Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." – Muboshgu (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't complain that this only relate to a single country. I said that this doesn't seems to have interested or been picked up by the rest of the world. If you're going to complain about my opinion, please at least complain about what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. :) -- KTC (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it has at least been picked up by Reuters. Everymorning (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That article actually illustrated my point. A link to it is buried at the bottom of the US edition, but nowhere to be seen in the other editions. -- KTC (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is that whether it's a "non-event" or not in other parts of the world, that doesn't matter, because if it's a big event where it's a story, that's all that matters. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – per Masem. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Well known landmark being renamed is very notable and should be posted as a blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable and important. Opposer fails to convince me. Jus  da  fax   22:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The rest of the world will probably get it tomorrow. The BBC is more interested in "Paid to poo" at the moment. Belle (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pile-on support for a significant change to world maps. 331dot (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose we don't post when the names of things are changed due to war, revolution, regime change, or gained independence. The name Denali has been used for years.  This executive order simply coincides with a political junket. μηδείς (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Masem. I'm a bit confused by the objection directly above my comment... that this is a peacetime action should make it even more noteworthy, IMO. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. One of the world's most famous mountains is being renamed. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per . We don't generally post name changes. I see no reason this one is different. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you give some examples of name changes, nominated or not? Abductive  (reasoning) 06:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support seems really obvious. North America's tallest mountain and one of the world's most well-known landmarks is being renamed. Geography textbooks worldwide will have to be rewritten. I don't see how this is not worthy of posting. Banedon (talk) 05:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – all of these oppositions go against WP:ALLORNOTHING in some form. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 06:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Futile post posting oppose - This is just a joke. No evidence of widespread coverage at all, which is not a surprise, because it is just a reasonable high mountain being renamed. No reason for it in the first place, no impact and no interest. Nobody has been able to tell me why this is even in the new locally, let alone why it should be on the main page of a global encyclopaedia. You do wonder why people don't take ITN seriously.... Fgf10 (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you review the naming dispute article you will understand this has been a political dispute for many years(Ohio politicans are upset while Alaska's are happy); it is receiving much coverage, even internationally to some degree (BBC Irish Times). Textbooks and maps will need to be rewritten; this is a significant change, just as renaming Mount Everest or any highly significant geographical feature would be. Saying that we don't take this seriously is also mildly offensive. You disagreeing with what consensus determines to be posted doesn't mean we aren't serious. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not just "some mountain". It's the tallest mountain in North America. It'd get the same treatment if it was Mt Kilimanjaro, Mt Everest, or Aconcagua. Further, this isn't a global encyclopedia, it's English Wikipedia. You say it's not news locally. Where is local to you? Because I'm about 4500 miles away, and it was front page on Google News. Just because it's not local in NSW Australia or Johannesburg, South Africa, doesn't mean it's not news in other English speaking parts of the world. See the original rebuttal to the first opposition above.


 * Local news 1 and 2, to go with the countless national and international stories on this. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 09:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * They're just jealous because England doesn't have any mountains. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, they do have mountains in England, just none whose peaks are nearly as high above sea level as Denali. Much of the North of England is quite rugged, at least as rugged as the Appalachian region of North America (and interestingly, geologically related to it).  See Furness Fells for just one example.  In England, these areas are called Fells rather than mountain ranges, but they mean the same thing.  -- Jayron 32 18:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to say that claiming that opposition to this story is based on some bizarre concept of "mountain envy" is absolutely and tragically pathetic. I'm not sure most of the English-speaking world (outside of America) cares about the nomenclature attributed to this mountain, but it seemed to gather enough attention to get the support required.  I will also note that at least one of the opposition is not "English".  It would be better not to say anything than say something as crassly absurd in the future.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC
 * Have you ever considered that he could've been joking? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Forgot the "small". Now fixed. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 *  support  renaming an iconic landmark --Johnsemlak (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. Surely if Mont Blanc or Everest were renamed we would post those too.  Calidum   00:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Late oppose "The United States renames a mountain" doesn't strike me as important or interesting. I'm sure Alaska cares, but it's awfully local news. Places change names all the time. The !votes here are also mostly straight votes: the only argument being made is that it doesn't seem to happen very often. This is understandable, as most of the voters on this item seem to be infrequently active on ITN/C. For future reference, you should add a rationale that's more than "it's notable" or "it's significant", and that is not only about criticizing an oppose vote. Finally, note that most news websites will tailor their content based on geolocation: the front page of, let's say, The Guardian will look different depending on what country you're from. Isa (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I must disagree with that assessment; Please give examples of places changing names "all the time". Even if they do, they do not often get extensive coverage.  Further, we are talking about the highest mountain on an entire continent, not a neighborhood street or minor stream. I don't see how the opinons expressed are "mostly" votes; I see two.  News outlets may use geolocation, but they still created or published the story which indicates it is notable and covered. 331dot (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is also not "local news", as it involves two states; Ohio, where politicians are upset and some are exploring ways to reverse it or challenge it in court; and Alaska, where people are happy about the decision that they have wanted since statehood. 331dot (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Existence of news reporting affect the notability, i.e. whether we have the article in the first place, not how "big" it is in terms of news (headline news vs. something buried in the middle of a printed newspaper). Wikipedia is supposed to be global, not US centric. Involving two states of the USA is still "local" as far as the rest of the world is concerned. As I pointed out above re Reuters, the story didn't even make headline within the US edition, and was nowhere to be seen in the other editions. Similarly for other news orgs that did pick up the story later on. That's just not significant enough news for me for ITN, but others disagree. -- KTC (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I saw this on plenty of sites as a top story(as have others, as stated above). Most of the opposes here seem to be IDONTLIKEIT.  331dot (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For Isa: There are seven widely recognized continents, and thus there are only seven peaks in the entire world that are considered the tallest on their continent. Could you cite the last time one of the seven highest continental peaks was renamed?  -- Jayron 32 02:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a very major mountain of Earth, Denali is the 3rd highest top of a continent and higher points are only in West People's Republic of China, a short distance from it, and Ecuador to mid-Chile. It's the highest point closer than about 50 degrees from a pole (63°N 151°W)·. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a rhetorical question, but here goes: none of the seven highest mountains seem to have been renamed since their discovery by western explorers, the most recent being the Vinson Massif in 1958. Isa (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Good, so would you agree that such an event would not be "common", and posting such an event, on average, once every 60 years or so, would not unduly tax our ability at ITN to keep up with such developments? -- Jayron 32 16:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But it doesn't change my opinion that this is not particularly "in the news", that it's fairly local news and that I don't think it should be on the main page. The fact that it's a big mountain is irrelevant to me. Isa (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And it really is "super"-local, but ITN doesn't disallow that kind of thing, particularly if a massive consensus appears while the rest of the world is sleeping. Ten hours seems like a legitimate amount of time for a consensus to form, even if the story is localised to one nation, and has disappeared from view virtually straight away.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - whilst I'm neutral on whether this should be on ITN or not, I feel it was posted too early. The nomination was made late at night British/European time, and posted in the eraly hours of the following morning. In other words, the discussion ran when it would have been mainly those from North/South America wiould have seen it. Given that this was likely to be contraversial, and in order to avoid claims of systemic bias, I feel full consensus should only have been gained after at least 24 hours. &mdash; An  optimist  on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 14:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Arbitrary minimum discussion times or requiring comment from around the world before posting are perennial proposals here; they have never and probably won't gain consensus. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 331 beat me to it. I'd also say that 10 hours is a fairly typical time frame from the nomination to posting in cases where the article is up to snuff. (At least three other items -- the European migrant crisis under ongoing and two recent deaths -- were posted in recent days in less time than it took for this to be posted.) It's also interesting that these complaints seemingly are only raised when a topic pertaining to the U.S. is posted "too soon."   Calidum   14:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised. I've felt there is a pretty strong British bias in ITN for some time. Resolute 14:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised it was posted, it's a case of damned if we do and damned if we don't here. News is slow at the moment, so adding a non-event like this to the main page which gained sufficient consensus isn't really a problem.  Interesting that many of those in opposition aren't actually British either. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In case this was in part directed at me, I'm not British. There are English-speaking people all over the world. Some even have it as a second language. We're all biased in some way, but I believe everyone here is acting in good faith and trying to be as neutral as possible. Don't make this an "us against them". Isa (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to worry, I'm sure Resolute understands that he made a mistake correlating a perceived British bias with this specific case. No big deal.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As one of the opposer, I don't actually have a problem with the posting. Sure I disagree with it, but consensus was there, even if it's not unanimous. -- KTC (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. All the over-defensive claimants can now relax...  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So we should probably close this and let the blurb fall off in its course, yes? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 World Championships in Athletics

 * Support. 1) Already in ITN/R, 2) the fact that Kenya have topped the medals table for the first time and 3) like swimming, a popular school sport as well. Donnie Park (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Worthy ITNR event. Article is almost ready, when a prose results summary is added. Mamyles (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom/ITNR.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose the article is simply a bunch of tables. There is no prose beyond the lead, which itself is woeful.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality grounds per TRM. Clearly not in shape for posting. I'll also note that ITNR items do not need support on the merits as that is the whole point of the ITNR list; but quality needs to be assessed and is not adequate on this page. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on quality as well. If the prose is expanded decently, I'll be happy to support. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - a world championship. No question about it, this is ITN worthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no real prose to this article, so it won't be posted, regardless of your assertion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Oliver Sacks

 * support RD - definitely top of his field. RD is appropriate here.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support, ideally with a blurb. Sacks is not only well known in his field but also to a much wider audience through books such as The Man Who Mistook his Wife For A Hat and his TED talk. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support article is in reasonable shape, a few more citations needed to avoid BLP issues, but otherwise it's sound. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 13:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb - Important person in field but death was not unexpected, and this is not causing a massive pause in the world to reflect on his influence. This is exactly what RD is for. --M ASEM (t) 13:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support, ideally with a blurb. Mentioned in BBC Radio 4 news bulletins today, and in the opening headlines of BBC News at Ten tonight. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. This individual was certainly outstanding in his field. However, I don't think this situation merits a blurb. Mamyles (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb: RD is appropriate in this case. Not an unexpected or earthshattering death, although a sad loss. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD / Oppose blurb per most of the above comments. Subject was highly important in his field. But RD is enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Kyle Jean-Baptiste

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


 * Oppose - Tragic death and unexpected but as I see it he was only in the role for about 6 weeks and had done nothing else of note. If he'd won or been nominated for some awards then it may be sufficient. Fact that the the article had to be created after his death says it all. yorkshiresky (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose tragic. DYK.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Yorkshiresky. Rhodesisland (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article didn't exist before his death, which to me is telling about overall importance to his field: not that much. DYK would be a good forum. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


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

[Closed] Al Jazeera reporters sentenced to prison

 * Question. Has Egypt ever had a free press?  (genuinely asking) If not it wouldn't be significant that a country without a free press jails journalists. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and just state that I oppose this as not significant. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose trivial really, and not significant in the big scheme of things as far as I can see, as 331dot has summarised. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources say that this is a big deal. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing this on very few front pages; of the 3 sources given only the ABC one has it on the front at all. 331dot (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hardly, "the latest turn in a winding 20-month legal battle"... Who's to say this is even the conclusion? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I'm happy to echo the comments from 331dot and The Rambling Man above, but as a news event, this is worth placing on ITN. This event might be trivial in itself (this is unexpected due to the lack of press freedom in Egypt), but it has garnered coverage as an example of the situation in Egypt. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 20:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is only news, and still not huge news at that, if one presumes the POV that the trial was unjustified based on Egyptian law. This is not the place to right great wrongs, and certainly not the place to make a cause celebre out of a presumed lesser wrong. μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Had a bunch of quips lined up, but would rather not spout them to avoid confrontation. Anyways, this is not significant in the grand scheme of things. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Significant news regarding news reporting. Article is tagged and appears to need a bit of attention. Jus  da  fax   05:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The oppose votes seem to be entirely WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The sources, however, show that this is important. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do find it personally interesting; but it is not significant that a country with a poor press freedom record jails journalists. Nor is it surprising that other journalists would report on it. Now, if a country with press freedom suddenly started jailing journalists for their reporting, yes, that would be significant news. Location matters; and we aren't here to right great wrongs. 331dot (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources show only that this is in the news and why, not how important it is. Discussion here is often subjective, weighing what stories are more or less important. Subjective decisions like this do not require, and sometimes are not able to, provide a rational much better than an intuitive WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Mamyles (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose While it is admittedly "In the News," I do not think it is significant enough to post. People are convicted on potentially inhumane charges quite often, likely on the order of weekly, and this seems minor in the scheme of world events. Mamyles (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - WP:IDONTLIKEIT just doesnt cut it. This is clearly ITN appropriate as it is a significant news story that effects the free world.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In your opinion. That this is now about the tenth story down on the World page of the BBC News is somewhat indicative of its true significance and long-lasting impact.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support High-profile story receiving continued coverage across international reliable news sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It certainly looks like an injustice to me, but we don't right great wrongs. "Middle Eastern/North African court draws international criticism" is hardly unusual. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 14:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Al Arbour

 * Support Second most wins all time, coached the Islanders to 4 consecutive Stanley Cups (AFAIK, almost unequaled in that regard), Hockey Hall of Fame member. Article in decent shape with no major omissions or referencing issues.  -- Jayron 32 16:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Significance pretty clear. Article is in decent shape. Teemu08 (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - An important figure in the sport. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Second all-time in virtually every statistical category.
 * Posted clearly significant, clearly supported, reasonable article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Tropical Storm Erika

 * Note – As with any disaster, death toll reports are conflicting. Recent statement (via CNN) by Dominica's Prime Minister states that 12 people are confirmed dead with more than 20 missing. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Update – 20 confirmed killed with more possibly missing. Unconfirmed reports 35 killed overall, which would make this the deadliest natural disaster in Dominica since Hurricane David in 1979. Updated initial blurb accordingly. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait This death toll seems to be mediocre for a tropical storm, let's see how it goes within several hours. Brandmeistertalk  16:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to badger your comment but to provide perspective: Dominica is not often hit this hard by tropical cyclones despite being frequented by them. This is one of their deadliest natural disasters on record, and the worst since Hurricane David in 1979 which struck the island as a Category 4. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and bump when/if needed. The newest story on ITN is a week old. We've got to post something. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support; perhaps not the most devastating storm, but enough consequences to post (in terms of casualties deadlier than the other two disasters up right now), especially given the age of everything else up there. C628 (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. It's starting to show up on Google News and radio reports with increasing frequency, and now that it's over Hispaniola, there are bound to be more deaths. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to ongoing] Ongoing or blurb: European migrant crisis

 * Support ongoing. The article is being updated constantly and it is hard to single out one event for a separate blurb. --Tone 08:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing. Unfortunately, quite a few stories popping up; the lorry situation was especially crude. Fuebaey (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but the article needs a lot of work - it's a huge topic.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing I feel that picking out a blurb for those two specific events is not really fair, considering 1) how many more people have died in this already and how many more will and 2) that while people dying certainly is the worst result of the crisis, but certainly not the only one. Will update the article later with info concerning the specific political situation in Germany (biggest outburst of right-wing violence since the early 90s...). Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing. Large crisis with incremental notable events; that's what ongoing is intended for. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing – major political and humanitarian crisis that's been unfolding over a prolonged period. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing – For reasons above. Unfortunately it looks like it's going to be going on for a long time. (Another 200 victims off the Libyan coast yesterday.) Sca (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting, since the support is clear. --Tone 12:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * While this has been posted, a question is on the frequency of these stories. Is this not a continuation of events from roughly a year ago when (as I recall) two boats loaded with migrants capsized in the Med. Sea, prompting the EU to start to take steps to avoid these disasters? If this is a months-long type story where there might be a news bit every week or so, that doesn't seem to be what ongoing is for. --M ASEM  (t) 17:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is to highlight three migrant disasters in the space of two days. Alternatively we could ignore it all entirely.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning the disasters, but that are we having these disasters on a frequent enough basis for ongoing, or is a blurb more appropriate to highlight three rather close events all linked to the long-running crisis? --M ASEM  (t) 18:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The nomination made it clear that we could either go for a combined blurb or Ongoing. Either way it needs to be covered.  Or would you rather we remove it?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm questioning that this was posted as ongoing, when a blurb seems to make more sense since we're not talking about events that are normally being updated on a daily basis. The news should still be ITN, no question, but as a blurb in my opinion. --M ASEM (t) 18:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you just mean "Support as blurb", unlike the seven who supported the ongoing posting? The option was there.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, it's opposition to the post as ongoing, but support posting as blurb. --M ASEM (t) 18:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you suggest a blurb we could consider? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "In the ongoing European migrant crisis, two separate shipwrecks off Libya kill about 500 migrants, while about 71 migrants are found dead in a truck in Austria." --M ASEM (t) 18:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I oppose that and think we should stick with Ongoing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support blurb This is both a tragic event in itself (71 people died in a terrible condition) and also representative of a bigger, serious problem of literally hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people fleeing the wars in the Middle East. I think we should post this, given that even a single shooting/terror attack often get posted despite having less 'weight' than this. HaEr48 (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's already out-dated as we have another truck full of migrants in Austria, this time, thankfully, not decomposing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * BBC News at Ten now seems to have decamped en masse to Budapest, and we had a BBC New Special Report tonight. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] India free from neonatal tetanus

 * Tentative support, following article expansion. We need more news like that. --Tone 12:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support upon expansion/improvement. Notable milestone in health care for the second most populous nation. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Expanded article with a section about this. The WHO declaration was made as early as 15 May, but it did not reach the media in force until PM Modi made his speech on 27 August. I'll see if I can find some more to add, but the basics are in the article now. w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  19:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The rest of the article is now sourced and tidy with pics. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  20:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support major cause of infant mortality eradicated. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 20:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Darryl Dawkins
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Oppose - Not a leader in his field, unless smashing backboards is now considered a legitimate field.--WaltCip (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not in the NBA Hall of Fame or widely considered to be a player of that caliber.  Spencer T♦ C 00:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support upon update/improvement. Being important to the field doesn't just mean being the greatest player, it can mean influencing the rules of the sport, as was done in this case. 331dot (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on improvements, definitely a significant persona within the sport of basketball. A person's legacy and impact cannot always be measured by data or measurables, and Dawkins had that sort of impact on the culture of the sport.  The attention his death receives is evidence enough that people will be looking for the article at Wikipedia for more information about him.  For that reason if the article is improved to minimum quality, it should be posted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Induction into a hall of fame is usually the baseline for professional athlete nominations, although that's not a requirement. I guess there's some sort of nebulous "personality of the NBA" thing going on here, but I don't see anything to objectively recommend this: no scoring titles, no league championships, no MVPs, no All-Star selections, pretty much nothing except breaking backboards. Not enough. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the article is as of yet woefully underreferenced, but he was a household name even to folks like me who have never played nor followed the sport. The article also shows he paled in comparison only to players like Kareem Abdul Jabar.  First player drafted out of high school and many other items point to his greatness.  Not making the hall of fame by his fifties, and not winning the MVP for championships his team did not win are not reasons to oppose the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The NBA Most Valuable Player Award, which I was referring to, is a regular season accomplishment and isn't contingent on winning a championship. The Finals MVP is a separate award. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, not only does he pale in comparison to Abdul-Jabbar, there is absolutely no comparison to be made. In terms of accomplishments, they are in completely different universes. You may as well compare Mario Mendoza to Hank Aaron. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would hope we'd post Mendoza's death to ITN. That's actually a great example: a player who wasn't incredibly talented, but who had a profound influence on the sport (Dawkins by forcing the NBA to change its conventions, Mendoza by becoming a statistical byword for borderline hitting). -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose appalling article about an individual who appears to be have been "popular", held in affection by some folks, and not much else. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose purely on article quality. The main section in unsourced for its first seven paragraphs.  There are only 11 sources in total, one of which is a dead link, one a passing mention and half the others are from local sources or are listings. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unlike baseball and ice hockey players, our RD standards for basketball are a lot higher... – H T  D  19:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are they? I'm not recalling any questionable baseball or hockey players being posted to RD. Do you have any examples? --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the reverse, actually. In 2013, ITN did not post Sergei Belov, Bill Sharman and Walt Bellamy. I don't remember anyone related to basketball being posted last year, and we didn't post basketball players (we did post Tark and Dean Smith, though) this year. – H T  D  20:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The article isn't great. I also don't believe retired athletes should be posted to RD unless they are a member of their respective sport's hall of fame or at least won multiple MVPs.  Calidum   19:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] 60% of psychology studies published in top journals fail reproducibility test

 * DYK material.--WaltCip (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – No article really targeted aside from the general fields of study, which is probably far too broad for this. Feels like good DYK material, but I don't know if it can be used if Psychology and Social science are the intended articles (unless of course you wish to put forth some monumental editing and get them to GA which would warrant a DYK nom). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not really news (granted I work in the field) that science is hard and that study results aren't always replicated in a follow-up study. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose what WaltCip said. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above comments. It's not really ITN material. I suggest DYK. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and probably doesn't even warrant mentioning on Wikipedia. I would imagine the number of published results that fail reproducibility tests in any experimental science is somewhere around 50-60%; the whole reason we publish results is precisely so other people can see if they can reproduce them. That the NYT engages in sloppy journalism is no reason Wikipedia should. &#8209; iridescent 20:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Amelia Boynton Robinson

 * Support RD. I was just on my way to nominate her. Major figure of the American Civil Rights Movement and the Selma to Montgomery Marches. Article looks properly sourced and in decent shape. Challenger l (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD A well known leader in the American Civil Rights movement and obvious candidate for RD. The article looks solid and I think is ready for posting subject to community consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose seems to have led a very interesting life, hitching her wgon to two very different stars, MLK & Lyndon LaRouche, but much more to have been on the scene than to have actually accomplished anything herself. μηδείς (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I don't think Medeis's suggestion that she "hitch[ed] her wagon" to Martin Luther King is in any way an accurate reflection of her significant role in the Civil Rights Movement, including in the Selma march. Neljack (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Mayor civil rights figure. Participated in one of the most influential movements in American History. She can be compared to Rosa Parks and Julian Bond. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support article quality is excellent, well worth highlighting on main page. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for RD per comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for RD also per above. Interesting article! Jus  da  fax   13:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Marking [ready]; support for RD is overwhelming and the article is of a sufficient standard. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted it could still use some work, there's a tag which could be addressed, but it's nothing too controversial, at least not in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Murder of Alison Parker and Adam Ward

 * Support, tragic story and worldwide coverage. The broadcasting of the murders live as well as the social media video make this one unique. But cue the "another shooting in the US", "journalists get killed all the time", etc. comments. Darth nihilus 69 (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Ignoring that this was "on air", the situation appears to be a disgruntled co-worker choosing to shoot other co-workers in revenge. If we didn't have the fact it was done on air, ITN would write this off as another unfortunate American gun incident and not significant enough to post. The fact that this happened on air is making it a spectacle, but does not change the core story, that a disgruntled employee turned to kill other employees. For the same reason we did not post the France train attack, we should not be posting this as to avoid giving into the spectacle. --M ASEM (t) 16:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Whilst tragic, this would have only been minor news outside the local area had it not been recorded on film. Black Kite (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tragic? Yes. Notable? Yes. Long lasting impact? No. People are murdered everyday. JOURNALISTS are murdered ALL the time and no one gives a damn about 95% of them.--86.135.159.178 (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It has some shock factor, and the unusual circumstances may make it notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but the event is still a local, domestic crime. We don't typically post murders of otherwise non-notable individuals unless it's mass casualty. Mamyles (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ambivalent I just saw the video and it is horrible. Sort of like bodycams on cops, sometimes video can do more than describing the event, and the fact that its on camera both by the station and by the shooter elevates this in a way that everyone above (save the first commenter) seems to be disregarding outright. That said, this is 'Murica, and I don't expect any changes in gun laws from this, since we couldn't when someone massacred an elementary school. So I don't know what to do with this, or anything related to guns any more. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not terrorism, and if it wasn't on TV I don't even think we would be talking about it. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose A murder doesn't become that much more notable just because it is live on TV. There must be more contributing factors. --Njardarlogar (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pile-on oppose. The idea that dying on TV somehow makes a death more important is ethically repellent. &#8209; iridescent 17:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Francis Sejersted

 * Comment: Career section needs expansion. It tells a lot of bodies he was a member of without actually describing the work that he did.  Spencer T♦ C 06:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Um, perhaps I'm being dim but what death criteria does he meet again? Being a former head of an award committee and dying after a prolonged illness, well into his late 70s, doesn't strike me as significant nor sudden. Fuebaey (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Criteria 2: Being selected as chairmen of the Nobel committee would probably be recognition of importance within his field. There aren't like thousands of those running around... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * He has been nominated because of his presence on the committee, not because of his field. If we are regarding that as an indication of his importance and not his importance itself, I'm still not clear on how the criteria are met. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, because they just grab any-old-Joe off the street and say "Here, you get to be chairmen of the Nobel Peace Prize committee"... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I don't see how he meets the RD criteria.  331dot (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Nor do I. Doubtless an interesting person, but no.... Sca (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Agree that being the chairman of the committee that decides on the awards is not a significant claim of importance for RD. --M ASEM (t) 14:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose His field is "awarding awards". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Justin Wilson

 * Support - Regarded as a "highly respected" driver in the series. He's also one of the more popular drivers as well. Certainly a tragic and sad moment here. May he Rest In Peace.  Aerospeed  (Talk) 01:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose That NBC News source says "highly respected", not "highly regarded". I don't see any evidence that he meets DC#2 for being highly important in his field, and frankly a race car driver dying from injuries sustained while driving a race car isn't anything that shocking. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Corrected, my apologies.  Aerospeed  (Talk) 01:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose RD / Strong Oppose any blurb There is no evidence indicating a level of importance satisfying ITNDC. He was a professional race car driver. One of many. His death is a tragedy but it doesn't warrant attention here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * His death has already been given attention, VERY PROMINENTLY, by news sources. That you wish those news sources had ignored it is irrelevant.  We have a quality article, and his death is being covered a lot.  Readers will be looking for it.  ITN is not the way in which you get to reshape culture.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The inconsistency here is amazing. Jules Bianchi, who had only been on the Formula One circuit for a year and with no wins under his belt, was prominently given a full blurb about his passing, yet Wilson, a 12-year pro who had seven wins in IndyCar and Champ Car, is being opposed for just an RD? --Tocino 03:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You have a fair point. All I can say is I opposed that nomination too and still think it was a lapse in our standards. But making a mistake is a poor argument for repeating it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is inconsistent. I would've opposed Bianchi, though. I looked and saw I didn't comment on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per Tocino's argument regarding Bianchi. Wilson was himself a former F1 driver - since that was the obvious bias that led to a nobody like Bianchi getting a full blurb - and unlike Bianchi, Wilson won top level races (in IndyCar), and was a top contender for the CHAMP car titles in the mid 2000s. Resolute 04:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb RD – Per . If you think Wilson was "just some driver", as some who oppose seem to think, then you are proactively ignoring the mountain of sources indicating otherwise. Even before his death, there were tons of messages of concern and well-wishes from many racing communities, not just IndyCar, and ESPN broke coverage to announce both his injury and his death – two things I don't recall happening with Bianchi just last month who got a blurb with overwhelming support. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 04:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD - ex-F1 driver, twice a runner-up for Indycar/Champ Car title. Hundreds of drivers race around the world. He may not have won a major championship but he came pretty damn close twice and accomplished more than most other racers do with his success. I understood the Bianchi blurb to be because he was the first death from an F1 racing accident in 20 years. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I am sorry but Jules Bianchi, which was a mistake, was not a precedent and did not abrogate the guidelines in WP:ITNDC. None of which does this tragic death come even remotely close to satisfying. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Bianchi was not a mistake. His death was the first directly associated with a Formula 1 race for 20 years. Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD per Melicans, twice runner-up in a major motor racing championship. Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD Enough has been said. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am not convinced that he was a very significant figure in the field of motor racing. Nor am I persuaded by the comparison with the Bianchi blurb - Formula One is bigger internationally than IndyCar. Neljack (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Former IndyCar and NASCAR champion Tony Stewart put his private jet at the family's disposal before the helicopter even took off from Pocono raceway. He may not have been successful, but to say he wasn't a significant figure in the field of motor racing (less solely just in IndyCar) is simply untrue. As I pointed out earlier, ESPN broke live TV coverage twice; once when he was injured & again when he passed the next day. While I agree that the comparison doesn't matter here, in Bianchi's case, the network only ran an internet story on their much-buried ESPN F1 website and had nothing on TV. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 10:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wilson also drove in F1, so I'm confused by the argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.250 (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. He was a significant figure in motorsport, with a long career competing at the top level, and his death is very clearly in the news. 7 deaths in indycar (inc predecessors) in 20 years is hardly indicative of a frequent occurrence. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - As per reasons given above. Fgf10 (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment the comparison to Bianchi is not entirely fair - he was the first F1 driver to die at a GP since two fatalities in 1994, and thus ended a 20-year streak of no deaths in Formula 1. That's notable because the sport was previously known for being deadly, in the 60s and 70s F1 averaged over one death during a race a year (see List of Formula One fatalities). On the other hand, looking at List of Champ Car fatalities, which includes IndyCar and it's previous versions, shows that before this fatality in 2015 there were deaths during races in 2011, 2006, Oct 1999, Sep 1999, Jul 1996 and May 1996. To me that suggests IndyCar is (at least recently) an inherently more dangerous sport and thus is not directly comparable to a death in Formula 1. 131.251.253.128 (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I find this argument compelling. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There has been one IndyCar fatality in a race besides Wilson's since 1999. I'm not entirely sure what you were reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.250 (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not too knowledgeable about IndyCar, so feel free to correct me. All the information was taken from the linked articles, and whilst you're correct it's also overly pedantic. Before 2015 Dan Wheldon died following an accident at the 2011 IZOD IndyCar World Championship during the race and Paul Dana died following an accident at the 2006 Toyota Indy 300, albeit during the final pre-race practice. I purposely didn't include Tony Renna, who died in 2003 whilst in a car but during a closed test. And then there are four other drivers listed as dying on race days (either during practice or the race itself) in the time since the last F1 fatality. It is not at all wrong to say that in the past 20 years 1 F1 driver and 7 IndyCar drivers have died whilst competing in their sport. 131.251.253.128 (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I am not convinced that he was at the top of his field. I have never even heard of him and his death isn't highly covered here. He is not at the same level as Bianchi. His death is only tragic which is bad, but is not notable. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How is he not at the same level as Bianchi? Both drove F1 and Wilson had a better average finish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.250 (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support simple. if you posted Bianchi then this should be posted as well. Both non-well-known race car drivers who died and received international press. Period. The amount of opposition is the biggest load of anti-American BS, just as this site often does. The fact that Wilson probably won't even get an RD mention shows English Wikipedia's hypocrisy in what news is posted even more. Darth nihilus 69 (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wilson was British... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.250 (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - tragic death (though not unexpected in his risky profession), but not at the top even in the narrowly defined field of auto-racing. ITN is already heavily biased toward sports. -Zanhe (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Zanhe. Were this to go up, it should be as a full blurb.  But I don't see it meriting that.  Perhaps it's time to consider an "In sports section" below "On this day".  I really don't see posting cricket tournaments and sports car crashes with the destruction of antiquities in a major regional war and worldwide market crashes. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I am really not seeing this person as a notable or influential member of their field. Challenger l (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD - clearly notable enough for inclusion at RD. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Notable why? The whole point of commenting here is to say why he is notable, not just to assert that he's notable, that's already implied in your support vote. μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would observe that most of BabbaQ's comments are like this; they don't really help anyone determine consensus; this isn't a vote. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 331dot if you could let me answer this, it is apparent for anyone with the ability to read an article that his achievements are reason enough for inclusion at RD in my opinion. And I would observe that 331dot always POV push for his opinion at ITN to be followed. As apparent here as well.. geez.. get of the high horse :)--BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that is how you see your posts, but that is not apparent by those reading them, nor is that the role of this page; this page is to discuss the merits of the nomination, and simply saying "it's notable" does not contribute to that. It just looks like a vote. This is not 331dot's In The News so I don't get where the "POV push" claim comes from.  This isn't mine nor do I want to push my views on anyone. If you wish to further discuss my conduct here, you can find my talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Re-opening nomination - I feel this needs more discussion, even when vote amount is large. The closer said that featuring the "Jules Bianchi" blurb was a mistake, implying COI (no offense). --George Ho (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * None taken. I was WP:INVOLVED and viewed the closure as non-controversial since I didn't (and still don't) see any likelihood of gaining consensus. In that circumstance anyone is free to revert a closing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Suggest this be closed by a non-involved editor. It was reopened in good faith but I think it is fairly obvious this particular nomination is going nowhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Okanogan Complex wildfire

 * Support While it is wildfire season and an issue for many states, this is a major one that they have been having difficulties fighting. --M ASEM (t) 21:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - per masem--BabbaQ (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – This is a big ongoing story in U.S. Pacific NW, where dozens of wildfires are still burning. (See map.) But since loss of life has been comparatively small – compared to disasters/wars elsewhere – I'm frankly not sure it's ITN material. Sca (talk)
 * (So happens a close relative of mine just returned – safe & sound! – from two weeks of fighting fire in Wash. & Ore.) Sca (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As noted there's a couple of fires in the same area that they are worried are going to merge into this and make the situation that much worse. Yes, last I saw there were 90-some reported wildfires in the western US, and these do happen every year, moreso with drought conditions, but this is a very severe one that is not yet over, with only 10% estimated contained. --M ASEM (t) 21:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't usually post records, especially those that change frequently. It's also a record only in a specific area of the US. If this was nominated for the event itself instead of the record (in which case the blurb should probably be changed), I'm not sure it is important enough to warrant a front page item. The target article is also a stub. Isa (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Would it be better to re-write the blurb to cover the entire state's wildfire season?  Sounder Bruce  22:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Isa (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support this alone, full support a blurb that covers more of the state's wildfires. I live in Seattle now, and yesterday the forecast was for "smoke". They were not wrong: smoke from the wildfires affected us some distance from where they are occuring. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been smoky here for weeks, but today seems to be clearing at last. OTOH, some of those fires could burn for more weeks. Sca (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just added an alternate blurb. I'm adding some information (and air quality readings) to the season article.  Sounder Bruce  22:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How is this wildfire different from others? It seems that a state of emergency was also declared last year. Isa (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1.3% of the state has burned down. It's no wonder Seattle's weather forecast is "smoke". (Seattle is far from anywhere that isn't like a temperate rainforest and the non-rainforest parts are the opposite direction from where Seattle's prevailing wind comes from. So this isn't common like California). Support alternate. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article says 11,000 square miles have burned and they've had to ask the lay public to firefight with the firefighters! There's only 66,500 square miles of land in the state! And some is like a desert! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Er, the article says 256,657 acres. If I'm not mistaken, that equates to 400 sq. mi. (640 acres to the square mile.) Washington (state) totals 71,362 sq. mi. Sca (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The other article, 2015 Washington state wildfires, says 11,000 square miles in the lead. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Which makes no sense, since it's a figure for the whole of the United States: The fatalities came as some 29,000 firefighters, including responders from as far away as New Zealand, joined local crews in their struggles against fires that have consumed 11,000 square miles so far. Most of the ravaged land has been in Alaska, but an increase in fires in the Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Washington and California has caused competition for firefighting resources with some requests going unmet.. I've changed the article accordingly. Isa (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Factoids: An area of 11,000 square miles equates approximately to the area of Belgium. Total U.S. area is 3.8 million square miles.
 * Sca (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Only 3.5 million of which is not water. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose I came here specifically to oppose this American nomination.--Droneanddrone (talk) 08:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt anyone gives a damn about the opinion of someone's scrutiny-evading sock account. Resolute 14:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support (alt. blurb) – Major disaster for the state of Washington and historic in some regards. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am pretty much inclined to support on the simple basis of how much smoke the jet stream has shoved up into southern Alberta. Calgary feels like Beijing today with all the haze and health-deteriorating effects it is causing. Article needs major improvement before posting, however. Resolute 14:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Although I'm a resident of one of the affected states, I remain undecided about this nom. However, please keep in mind that the "disaster" isn't limited to Washington state; it seriously affects Oregon and Idaho as well. (California, from my pt. of view, is a different region and a separate story.) Sca (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The blurbs are about a specific wildfire in the Washington state or the wildfires in that state as a whole. A third blurb could be proposed with the 2015 wildfire season in the United States, but there's no article for this. Isa (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb(s). Season article is more complete, individual fire one is still sparse. Also added a second alt blurb; states of emergency are not entirely uncommon, perhaps the record-breaking fire should be emphasized instead. C628 (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Reverted closure by User:LukeSurl; posted nominations aren't hard closed to keep the nomination as a workspace for the item and in case of updates; generally only closed in cases of lengthy nonproductive debate after posting.  Spencer T♦ C 05:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Global stock market selloff

 * Support once merge discussion is addressed and article is expanded. Obviously a significant selloff and part of a chain of events that started earlier this year (and looks likely to continue, and possibly escalate, over the coming weeks). -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support but wait – Huge (and painful!), but we should give NYSE at least half a day's trading before posting. (Maybe a full day; it'll be tough to keep abreast of the action.) Sca (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: We might want to say plummet rather than crash, as crash is such a loaded term in context. (Most of the wonks are calling this a correction.) In title of article, suggest crash be changed to selloff. Sca (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait, leaning oppose. This is being predicated on the result of 4 days of trading, and while numbers are swinging wildly, there's nothing to indicate a crash - as Sca points out, that is a very loaded term and nothing showing the markets having crashed, just corrected at a global scale.  Even today, a 1000 pt DJ loss has been made up by half and we're not even though the day (as I write this). --M ASEM  (t) 15:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Changing to Weak support. While I personally think this is just a standard correction, there's enough sources out there that make this news of interest in financial markets with some analysts thinking that while this is not a major situation, it is a test of various nation's economies (like the US's) and a sign of how much of the interconnectiveness of these markets are today. --M ASEM (t) 21:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We'll look like fools if we post this today and the market recovers to pre-selloff levels within the week. Let's wait to see if there's any sign of a long-term trend.--WaltCip (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We need to wait for a while, but if mkts continue to tank for several days it'd be highly consequential & not to be ignored. (Longer-term this could end up in ongoing.) Sca (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Neutral. It is interesting to see nearly every world market down 5% today, but as others say, the general volatility of the markets makes it impossible to predict the long term impacts of this. Even the article itself may be premature - i.e.: if markets rally tomorrow. Resolute 15:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – I've taken the liberty of renaming the target article and substituting other terms for 'crash'. Hope that meets with consensus. Sca (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing for Global Financial Crisis. This has been building for a while and my guess is that it is not going to end today or tomorrow. It is more than a stock market crash. It is a financial panic centered in China and the emerging markets that is spreading to other parts of the world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - ITN ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Not yet – Dow was down 2% at 18:00 (2p NY); let's see where it closes. Sca (talk
 * If posted, the Dow should not be included in the blurb as it was not as badly affected as other international stock markets.--WaltCip (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If posted, I suggest altblurb II as the most concise. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support because it has affected so many markets around the globe. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Update – So Dow closed down 3.57%, Nasdaq 3.82%. Cudda been worse. Sca (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not about the DOW or the S&P 500. It's the global economy. The emerging markets, especially China, are getting creamed and that is inciting panic globally. This really should be moved to ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Those U.S. market numbers indicate talk of global "free fall" was (or appears to have been) overblown. Plus, NYSE remains the biggest exchange of all. Sca (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again this is not a one day event. The S&P has gotten the snot pounded out of it in recent days. Take a look at a 30 day chart. And it has been hugely worse in China, the world's second largest economy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support major worldwide event. The scale of the crash is tremendous; the market is in correction mode for the first time in years. Support altblurb, with grammatical error corrected: "... recording their biggest falls ..." Banedon (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Change to Oppose. The problem is, this kind of news should either be posted quickly or not posted at all. We've gone way too long without posting this; it's simply too late. Banedon (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If futures are correct, DOW, NYSE and S&P will open today by recovering approximately 30% of the recent drop, and other worldwide markets have also recovered some value as of right now.  By my cursory reading of the financial press, the terms "correction" and "sell-off" are being used, not "crash".  China is a special case, yes, but we can't generalize that across the globe.  Being the biggest drop in 7-8 years doesn't make this routine business news any more impactful than being the 7th or 8th largest merger/acquisition in a year.128.214.53.18 (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait leaning oppose – per above comments by 128.214.53.18. A quick glance at the going-ons also show that China is really the only major market not in recovery or expected to start recovering today. Best to give this a few more days to see how the markets react to China's actions before giving it the go ahead, in my opinion. If there's a desire to push this soon, I'd suggest tightening the focus to mostly (or only) China. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – European markets rebounded in early trading, but the fat lady hasn't sung yet. Sca (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing if an article is written similar to this, summarizing all the key events that took place during the Chinese crisis and their global impact. 117.192.173.162 (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Extremely ongoing and has impacted the world. Very notable. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support post this already. Nergaal (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Update – DJI — 15,666.44, down 204.91 (1.29%). Sca (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * According to CNN the Dow lost 11% in six days. How can this NOT be front page material? Nergaal (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if the move itself is not lasting, the volatility of the world markets IS ITN notable. Nergaal (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The article is much too short, itself not much better than a news blurb. The title is a question, as this should be written in hindsight after we know the hurricane has passed. We might still be in its eye. I could see a title like "Black Monday" if the MSM later uses it. I'd wait a few more days. --Light show (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is article quality. This should obviously be posted in theory, but with editorial flourishes like "nail in the coffin" and very inconsistent and non-comprehensive writing I can't get behind posting it as is.  Normally "sofixit", but  I am also recovering from a two-day medical procedure and working on a Spanish format keyboard.  I suspect not attempting large rewrites comes under either the "no using machinery" or the "no serious legal or business decisions" part of my instructions upon discharge today. μηδείς (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, target article is pretty thin. Financial writing is a specialized field. If you watch the wonks, they've got it all in their heads. Tough for a non-pro to cobble together cogently. Sca (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But a few additions have fleshed out the article a bit. Meanwhile, NY mkts gained in bumpy early trading Wednesday. Sca (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have taken note of the gains today, if briefly, both in the article and lede. I appreciate your improvements Sca, as material and moral support. As you note, the subject is complex. Jus  da  fax   01:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The article is still written from an entirely Dow Jones-centric point of view, with the world-wide crash being treated as a factor in the US stock markets. The lead takes for granted the notion that what matters is the US stock market, while the article title makes no such narrow identification of events. There were even comments from two US presidential candidates in the "reaction" section, which I have removed as undue. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment suggest that should this global market uncertainty continue that we add it to Ongoing. Fluctuations by China are causing ripples worldwide, but right now, it seems that the financial ruin is remaining localised.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support "global market uncertainty" ongoing as of proper scope and subject. μηδείς (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have restored the deleted "Reactions" section, and have invited participation to expand it for better balance. That topic is more properly discussed on the article talk page. The elephant in the room, so to speak, is the obvious fact that a longtime ITN participant has been working for days to build this article up from a condition charitably described as dubious. An important fact: I have neither nominated it here nor taken a stand on posting it, and I invite collegial participation. I submit that if you feel the article has deficiency, that you help build it up. Again, the place to discuss the details is the article talk page, where the wider community can assist. Rightly or wrongly, I am left with the distinct impression that factors I do not chose to speculate on may be motivating some ITN editor behavior, which arguably should be addressed in a different venue. But, let's work together. Again, I sincerely ask for actual assistance in building the article, not disruptive and dismissive POV pontification and wholesale deletion of sourced sections,  Jus  da  fax   20:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – This is a global story, but in an effort to appear non-U.S.-centric we certainly can't ignore the biggest, most influential market of all. The Dow on Wednesday surged almost 4% while the Nasdaq shot up 4.2%, indicating the dreaded selloff may not be so drastic as doomsayers forecast. Implications for world markets in the near term. Sca (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the article is merged with the Chinese devaluation and market crash and made suitably world-focused given its name of 2015 stock market crash. I am not opposing this on political grounds or due to the fact that after an 11% drop in three trading days there was a 4% rebound.  Markets dropped world-wide, an article about the crash from the US point of view is like having an article on a comet striking the Pacific from the US view. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your deletion of the section a second time, and again asked for your talk page participation. Given your !vote here, it appears to me you are about to cross a bright line. I call on an uninvolved admin to take note of the issues here, and to take all action needful.  Jus  da  fax   22:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb 3 – I think we've pondered long enough. (Could end up in ongoing.) Sca (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And now the Asian indices are up 2.5%. Are we SURE we want to post this?--WaltCip (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On Thursday Shanghai closed up 5.3%, Hang Seng up 3.6%. In Europe, markets "climbed Thursday, tracking gains in Asian and U.S. markets," said Market Watch.
 * Perhaps we should revise our blurb to something like:
 * Global stock markets suffer major selloffs, followed by days of volatility, then apparent recovery in some markets. (Altblurb 4.)
 * Sca (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is the stock market in a nutshell. Volatility. It's pointless to speculate over short-term events.--WaltCip (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Saying that the stock market crashed last week isn't speculating, it's reporting news. "The markets are volatile" - which implies that the market crashed one day, surged the next, etc - is also news material. Just take a look around CNN or Bloomberg (for example). Banedon (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The markets have been volatile for the past five years. That the volatility just peaked this week really does not mean anything in the grand scheme of things. Not to mention, this was not a stock market crash. A crash is considered a rapid and sustained loss of volume which results in a recession or depression. That has not occurred. The only economic activity that might qualify as a crash is the drop in Chinese equities by 35%, and that story has already been posted this year. In any case, there is nothing noteworthy here to post. "The markets go down, then they go up, then they go down again, then they go up again" does not make for a particularly noteworthy ITN blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "The markets have been volatile for the past five years" - not true. Take a look at the stock chart for VIX, which is the volatility index. There is a definite spike in the past month. Last time the markets were this volatile was in late 2011. Otherwise, major indices worldwide recorded their greatest falls since 2008. Whether or not to call that a crash is a matter of semantics and opinion. Banedon (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Altblurb 4 - By far the best choice. The market turmoil with wide swings not seen in years has been a real, global event, and may not be over yet. It has been in the headlines for days now, around the world. The target article, which I have given a bit of my time to, can stand further additions and balance, but I can certainly vouch for the sourcing. Jus  da  fax   14:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose A market "correction" is entirely normal, and the extent of this global fall (~10%) can be expected every 1-2 years. This is the first major correction in five years, but that only makes it less surprising. If something about this is posted, I would prefer it to focus on the Chinese market crash, which is an eye-popping 35%. The 2nd biggest investment market crashing is much bigger news than a global correction. Mamyles (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * U.S. markets gained in early trading Thurs. Sca (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Mamyles, we posted that article July 14. Jus  da  fax   16:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * European mkts closed 3-plus percent higher. Sca (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * CNBC is stating that the US stock indices have closed out of correction.--WaltCip (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Altblurb 4 – DJI closed up 2.27%, NASDAQ 2.45% on Thursday. Sca (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On Friday Shanghai gained 4.8%, while the Hang Seng slid 1%. In Japan the Nikkei 225 rose 3%. European markets were generally flat, although the FTSE managed a 0.9% gain. U.S. markets also were flat. Sca (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is no longer "in the news", especially since equity markets have rallied strongly in recent days. Also for an article that purports to be about a global phenomenon, it focuses too heavily on US stockmarkets. Also 2 of the 3 comments in the "reactions" section are from a US businessman and a US state politician, which again do not reflect a worldwide view of the topic. Stockst (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that the story is cold. If the turmoil returns we can take another look. Frankly, I was surprised at the near-complete lack of assistance I got in working on the article. So be it, suggest we close. Jus  da  fax   05:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Kabaddi champions

 * Oppose on article quality. Virtually no prose in the entire article. Needs significant expansion with narrative and explainers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Regretful oppose while I'd love to see such a minority and unusual sport at ITN, I can't support this because the article is inadequate, mainly a whole bunch of tables and scorelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

RD: Paul Royle

 * Oppose - This is a footnote. If he was truly that notable, he would have had an article long before now. I don't see what makes him more significant than any of the other survivors, aside from living longer than most. Since there is still one remaining survivor, it seems especially difficult to claim longevity as a point of notability here. The (now) sole remaining survivor, Dick Churchill, still doesn't have an article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've struck an incorrect portion of my oppose. I didn't notice that the article was created in August 2014, not just recently. My mistake. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] RD: Augusta Chiwy
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * To clarify the rationale, Chiwy was knighted by Belgium in 2011 in recognition for her volunteer work nursing allied forces during the Battle of the Bulge in WWII, and was briefly portrayed in a fictionalized manner in Band of Brothers. μηδείς (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi George. It sounds like you are no longer all that enthusiastic about the nomination. You can always withdraw it and do an early close as long as there aren't a bunch of support votes. FTR if the nomination remains open I will likely oppose. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Temple of Baalshamin destroyed by ISIL

 * Comment Baalshamin might be a good link and I see free images of the former temple there. --M ASEM (t) 02:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think that is a better target article then feel free to amend the blurb. I also like the idea of a photo for the blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I dunno if it is better as the target link (that's the war, that's the right one for the target). --M ASEM (t) 02:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The nominator would be well-advised to use the nomination statement to explain the significance of the event rather than to engage in provocative political commentary. Neljack (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Topic links back to a very good article about an esoteric subject that readers would not otherwise encounter on a typical news website.  I agree with MASEM regarding the linked article as well.  I also added an altblurb that's a little more concise and incorporates the new blurb.128.214.53.18 (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support A news reporting the destruction of a UNESCO World Heritage Site should go on the main page immediately. Also, proposed blurbs should be amended to include the uncovered truth that the USA admittedly support ISIS in what they do. A blurb saying Syrian government officials report that the Islamic State supported by the United States of America have destroyed the Temple of Baalshamin in the ancient city of Palmyra. is more comprehensive to me.--Droneanddrone (talk) 06:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Something of cultural significance has been irreversibly destroyed. Prefer alt blurb, since it doesn't mention "Syrian authorities". Banedon (talk) 07:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb: You would think that after reaching comic-book-villain levels of odiousness, these guys would be content, but they just keep managing to outdo themselves. I don't think mentioning the Syrian government (which is not a reliable source) is necessary in the blurb and it should be avoiding. Whatever nonsense the drive-by was spewing up there about the United States supporting ISIL (by repeatedly bombing them and training/arming their enemies?) can be safely disregarded as well, but that should go without saying. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are one dumb sheep!

Changed to a better target article with no prejudice. It needs more of an update though.120.62.27.66 (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - most shitful thing I heard today...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Such destructions are usually a no brainer, I just hope ISIL will be eradicated until it demolishes more. There is Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL. I've added a pic. Brandmeistertalk  12:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support A criminal organisation masquerading itself as a religious state blows up relics from a civilization that was far more advanced and civilized than their own - from 2000+ years ago. Sigh.--109.149.122.34 (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – I'd support too, as a flagrant act of psychopathic nihilism, but I'm wondering whether it's consequential enough for ITN (particularly when we seem to be ignoring the global market selloff that affects millions) . Sca (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: We need to sort out what the target article is, as an enterprising IP editor appears to have changed it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've started the basics for target article, slightly tweaked the blurbs accordingly. Feel free to expand. Brandmeistertalk  16:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Mariem Hassan

 * Support Seems to meet the criteria. Also good in terms of addressing systemic bias. Neljack (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support; seems to meet DC2 for her field. Some minor improvement needs to be made(few citations I think) but the article is not too bad. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD when ready. Subject meets ITNDC #2. (belated signature... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC))
 * Support RD after a clearer and more thorough sourcing - definitely meets the criteria for influence and notability. Challenger l (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I made a few tweaks then I posted it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Ieng Thirith
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Oppose. I don't see how she meets the RD criteria.  The page states she was influential to the Khmer Rouge but I'm not clear on how or if it is significant. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD The article could be a bit more clear in its specifics, but it does indicate that there was strong evidence implicating her in genocide and crimes against humanity. I also note a strong bias in the media and elsewhere against reporting/discussing atrocities committed by the far left. It's a systemic bias that is by default reflected here on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That might make her meet DC1 (significant impact) so I will strike my oppose; but are we saying she is notable because she was probably a war criminal, since she was never convicted? Article would need some work, too. 331dot (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support RD A top figure in one of the most gruesome, anti-human regimes that this planet has ever had the misfortune to nourish. She was not convicted, but that was due to dementia hampering the trial (as a Brit I can say there is a similar modern case where that is also the problem...) &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Article is entirely unclear about her role in the Khmer Rouge regime. I'd be apt to reconsider my !vote if the article is improved to include more information about her life during the "Democratic Kampuchea" years. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Marriage to someone infamous does not guarantee your infamy or notability - she seems to have been a politician during the Khmer Rouge, but not a prominent one, judging from the article. Challenger l (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * She was the most influential woman in Cambodia and a government minister in her own right. -Zanhe (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support RD: Notable Cambodian official and very noted controversial figure. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD: the highest-ranking woman in the Khmer Rouge regime. -Zanhe (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Shoreham Airport disaster

 * Support. Major, unlikely event that typically garners some level of international attention. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 16:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - deadliest airshow accident in the UK for decades. Mjroots (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with a preference for alt blurb. -- KTC (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - per Mjroots reasoning.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment good work on those getting an article up to scratch, there's clear consensus here and the minimum requirements have been met, it's ready to be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Should the blurb mention that this was during an airshow? Isa (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it could have "during an airshow" added at the end of the blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is an image of the accident aircraft that could be used, added to nom. Mjroots (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Unfortunate accident, article in decent shape for the current-ness of it. --M ASEM (t) 18:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)#
 * Support alternative blurb. Bob talk 18:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Fairly substantial loss of life, and so unnecessary. Sca (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted bad form, yes, but sue me. I'm not looking for any badges or anything, but this has absolute support, the article is sufficient, it's prominent, it needs to be posted.  Should another admin decide that I've overstepped, then feel free to revert, block and ignore me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, a recent discussion established that it's fine for involved administrators to post ITN items with obvious consensus (such as this one). —David Levy 21:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – For non-British and/or non-European readers, suggest we make it the A-27 expressway, roadway or whatever the appropriate UK term would be. (Trunk road?) Sca (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Seconds before you posted the above message, I revised the blurb to mention the airshow instead of the road. —David Levy 21:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually the road is fundamental to this story, the fatalities would have been far lower if the aircraft hadn't struck a number of passing vehicles on the A27 so I would respectfully ask for that to be replaced so it also does not imply that the fatalities were at the airshow itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've inserted "onto a busy road", which I believe conveys the detail's significance without placing unnecessary emphasis on the particular thoroughfare involved. I selected this description after finding it in relevant articles published in multiple countries (including the UK, Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and the US).  —David Levy 08:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's thinking globally. Sca (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Arthur Morris

 * Support Morris was one of the great opening batsmen and perhaps the outstanding player on the famous Invincibles' tour of England in 1948. He very often features when "all-time Australian XIs" are picked. Article is obviously in excellent condition. Neljack (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Obvious notability as an outstanding athlete, and a great article in excellent shape. Maybe needs a more substantial death update if possible, but that can be addressed. Let's get this one posted ASAP. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - One of the greatest Australian batsmen of all time. 59.88.206.119 (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support obviously. And an FA to boot, it doesn't get much easier than this for RD.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - per above. nothing to add.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: We don't often get an FA here, this is an easy decision &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 Arras attack

 * Oppose good faith nomination. There were no deaths. I agree that the news cycle is a bit slow and might be willing to give a weak nod to some stories that in a busier cycle probably would not make the cut, but I am sick of the endless train of terror attacks on ITN. On a side note; Bravo Zulu to the Marines. Semper Fi! Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The article can't be linked on the Front Page while it is tagged for AfD. Since that is likely to take a week or so this nomination is effectively dead. If it survives AfD I would suggest a DYK nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The AfD was closed as a speedy keep. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The AFD may be closed early if sufficient consensus emerges for a keep or delete, so this is not a definite impediment to the nomination here. Mjroots (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be very surprised if the AfD wasn't snow closed today - it's a textbook example of a premature nomination for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Not a significant death toll. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support a lack of death toll is not necessarily equating to a lack of notability. This is ITN/C, the event is in the news, and is the top story for many news outlets. Article is being bashed into shape, sourcing is good. Mjroots (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - sourcing is good. as mjroots states death toll is not necessarily equal to lack of notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Fortunately not too serious an incident. However, I do not believe that it should be possible to sink an ITN nomination by tagging it for AfD. It's quite reasonable for us to debate this nomination, and it's no reflection on the good faith of either nominator that the other's proposal exists. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article was nominated for deletion before it was nominated for ITN. No harm, no foul. Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I fundamentally disagree that this was not a serious incident - just because nobody was killed does not reduce the significance or seriousness of a heavily armed man, known to authorities, attempting to murder a large number of people on a train as an act of terrorism. If it had been foiled in advance by security services you would have a point, but the only reasons nobody was killed was through sheer luck. I don't really know how it could be more serious actually. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This is the top international news story (whereas Arthur Morris is nowhere). Andrew D. (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Interesting episode but not a major event. Sca (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose mildly interesting but nothing more. Another good candidate for DYK.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I thought this was likely yet another boring terrorist attack (another bombing in an insurrection/war zone like Iraq or Syria or something) but finally read about it and this one actually is interesting. And how often do AK-47s shoot people in the neck on high speed trains in such a civilized country? So what if it's a slow news period, people can tell by reading the headlines and will forgive reality for being so boring (semi-snarky on the word boring). It's better than having 2 week old news at the bottom (as has happened before). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note The AfD was closed as a snow keep. Thus there is no barrier to the article appearing on ITN, subject to consensus. Mjroots (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * <Oppose - The article's in good condition, and the incident is notable. However, this is totally overemphasized, especially in Western media. We must avoid repeating ITN's overemphasis on something minor and less significant, even if terrifying, as we did to the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. George Ho (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was able to add ALTs to the no-longer-ongoing event. Striking vote in favor of my own proposed blurbs. (Per Rambling Man) George Ho (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Many could have been killed if not for the actions of these heroic men. To call the coverage "overblown" is highly insulting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Belgian security ran anti-terror operations in January after Amedy Coulibaly bought automatic weapons for attacks in France - the fact that a man on the highest security watchlist managed to take an AK, 9 magazines and a pistol onto a train is ITN worthy because it's an indictment on French and Belgian security. If the man's rifle had not jammed there could have been a significant death toll. -- Callinus (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Ad Orientem, The Rambling Man, Kudzu1, AlexTiefling, and Sca: To change your minds, I added altblurbs because the main blurb looks dated now. --George Ho (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but no thanks. It's a story of what could have been, we don't normally use a crystal ball to determine "how bad it could have been", the point is that it was a nothing moment, a good job those blokes helped out, but it's already fading from the news, basically because it can't compete with the regular mass shootings we see from the US. That's just a fact, by the way, it's not a POV.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, still just a footnote. (Blokes? Three of them were Yanks.) Sca (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Did we post the underwear bomber, who didn't manage to shoot or blow up anyone? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't forget his avatar, the shoe bomber. Sca (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know, did we? And if we did, what difference does that make?  Prior performance is no guide to the future.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We did; I checked the archives. As for precedent, actually there must be a failed ITN nomination similar to it. George Ho (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess it was because if he'd succeeded he'd have killed 290 people? I'm not sure.  The point is that such clumsy and indolent attempts at terrorism shouldn't be even really acknowledged.  Move on folks, this is small fry.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is a relatively minor event that is getting a lot of attention, mostly for emotional reasons. It's long term significance is likely to be trivial at most. I stand by my oppose !vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support assuming article quality. There's no question we'd post this had three Frenchman and a German subdued a gunman on an American Airlines flight. μηδείς (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose given the lack of fatalities. Would not even be under consideration if it hadn't happened in a Western country. Neljack (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? Because in eastern countries they would have just sat there and let it happen? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it just wouldn't be reported. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support - the fact that there were no fatalities is exactly why it is newsworthy - if they had not stopped him, he would have slaughtered everyone on that train. They had nowhere to hide and nowhere to go. The train crew members immediately locked themselves in the engine car and would not come out. —Мандичка YO 😜 02:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support per User:Wikimandia. And yes, it wouldnt be a story if it hadn't happened in a Western country. But thats because its not a normal event in the Western world, yet. Christian75 (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, terrorists attacks happen daily around the world with larger scales and impact. Support would be heavily western centered and FUD based. Yug (talk)  10:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And how many of those attacks are thwarted by the heroics of individuals? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – This interesting episode has gotten a lot of hype – especially in NW Europe – because of its dramatic nature, but that doesn't make the results any more significant. Sca (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with Yug on this, this is heavily FUD material that wouldn't get close to similar elevation in the news if it didn't happen in a non-Western country. --M ASEM (t) 14:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * FUD? (FUD doesn't seem to explain this usage.) And do you by chance mean if it happened in a non-Western country? Sca (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fear, uncertainty and doubt. And yes, meant that way. --M ASEM (t) 14:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it now – a story based on emotion. Doh. Sca (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Those involve certainly put and fear, uncertainty and doubt aside and did what had to be done! Mjroots (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes they did. It's primarily a human-interest story, though. Sca (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment agree with . This is a sexy tabloid story with no real eventuality. Some people acted to save themselves and others, and that was brave and honourable and all that, but nothing beyond that actually happened.  If this has a lasting impact on the way people travel on trains in France, we could reconsider.  There are millions of railway stations in the world, most of which you could step into with a bag bristling with AKs etc.  Nothing more to say here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Word that the four are to be awarded the Legion d'Honneur is a nice feel-good touch but doesn't really change anything, either. Sca (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Tell that to the survivors. And you have know way to know in general that it doesn't change anything. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't change the facts of what happened. Sca (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is that a guy was prevented from mass murder. Happens every day, right? How sad I feel for you, that no one was killed. But take heart. There will be another deadly terrorist attack soon, somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think if you believe your own security forces then yes, attacks are prevented every day, just behind the scenes. This is a fine DYK opportunity, but the clock is ticking.  The Rambling Man (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - per Sca. I'd call this tabloid fodder. Jus  da  fax   22:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Besides, the wannabe gunman was "just hungry." Sca (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong support Hollande has awarded them all with the Legion d'honneur. Maybe that can be included in the blurb?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Interesting story, but not significant enough. Shooting incidents in the Western world aren't uncommon and receive undue media attention. 117.192.189.87 (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Alexis Tsipras resigning

 * Oppose good faith nom. He is resigning in order to call new elections. This sort of thing is pretty routine in countries that have a parliamentary system. We usually post the election results. On a side note; he is not the head of state. He is the Prime Minister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad Orientem (talk • contribs) 19:35, 20 August 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Oppose. If he was resigning and leaving office, it might be more notable, but as Ad Orientem states this is routine; he called elections to seek the Greek electorate's endorsement. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose wait until new person elected. Alternatively, if this causes great waves, renominate Greek debt crisis for ongoing?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support He's the Prime Minister of a crucial state in the Eurozone debt crisis. That may not be a common piece of news at the moment, but it's never far from the surface either. Worth featuring. Banedon (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We post election results but not that an election is scheduled. Greek elections shows it's fairly common to have parliamentary elections in the same or consecutive years. He only wants the resignation to be a temporary sort of formality in the leadup to the election. He is running as party leader and prime minister candidate in the election in a month. If he loses then that will be his real fall from power. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Altblurb with European debt crisis - this is the target readers need to understand the background and further ramifications. -- Callinus (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above opposes. Wait for the result. -- KTC (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until/if he actually leaves office. My understanding is this is just a parliamentary maneuver to trigger early elections. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Egon Bahr

 * Comment – Important figure widely known among those interested in recent German history. (In the long run, he was right about Wandel durch Annäherung.) I'd support, but I don't honestly know if he's known to a wider audience. Sca (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. Whether or not I have heard of him would be irrelevant, he's clearly an important figure, as I read his Wikipedia article.  However, there's major referencing problems we need to deal with before putting a BLP (or BRDP if you will) on the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose too many BLP violations to even exist, let alone post to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. Will reconsider if major improvements are made. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

RD: Doudou N'Diaye Rose

 * Comment: Article is quite brief.  Spencer T♦ C 06:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support subject to article improvement. Neljack (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Laibach plays in North Korea
So, this is an unusual nomination, intended to bring some diversity to the recently disaster-filled ITN. Nevertheless, we did post something similar a couple of years ago, I believe it was the Metropolitan opera orchestra playing in Pyongyang, but this is the first time that a Western rock group held a concert there. Which is especially interesting given the nature of the band itself. Covered widely in media in July when this was announced as well. The update is thin at the moment but I'm planning to work on it when I get some feedback. --Tone 07:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are more important news right now, as North Korea exchanged fire with South and the security council meeting was summoned in the South. Brandmeistertalk  10:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, yes, that news came shortly after. If this escalates, it has a higher ITN priority, definitely. Still, I'd like to see some more feedback. --Tone 12:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose: Not all that notable of a group, and a fairly arbitrary bit of trivia. A political stunt by the North Korean regime, obviously. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see how this is any more significant than Dennis Rodman leading some ex-NBA players to NK for an exhibition. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the Rodman precedent. It's a DYK.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above comments. This is DYK material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Eston Kohver

 * We are not here to right great wrongs.--WaltCip (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And how is that relevant? Thue (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose In the grand scheme of alleged abuses by the Russian government this is pretty small potatoes. We don't normally post these kinds of small scale criminal acts which occur in many other places. And I concur with that this is a nakedly political nomination. I seriously considered either a speedy close or just deleting it outright. If someone else were to do so, I would not complain.  may wish to take a look at WP:AGENDA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Small scale criminal acts"? That is an absolutely absurd description of a high-level international dispute. I question your judgement based on that formulation. Thue (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I stand by my assessment. Look around at what other countries do to their neighbors at various times, some of which is much worse and 99% of which we don't post. This is borderline trivial and the nominating statement sounds like an anti-Russian rant. This is not the place for that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is big politics between nation-states. I do think that there is a clear right and wrong in this case, but that does not stop it from being real important news. Thue (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't post saber-rattling from North Korea every time they threaten to nuke Seoul and the USA off the face of the earth, because it happens with such frequency as to be considered a tacit part of their day-to-day operations. Similarly, Russia engaging in this sort of political posturing is not newsworthy for ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with the sentiment that Russian political skirmishes are quite frequent and not generally significant enough to post to ITN. When I initially read this nomination I thought it was about an Estonian government minister. I misread - he's an intelligence officer, and the article possibly falls foul of WP:BLP1E. "Allegedly abducted" is non-neutral for the blurb and should be omitted. The rest of the nom is unashamedly partisan (that the news reports are more tempered is saying something), which is off-putting if this is a serious ITN candidate. Fuebaey (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the reasons stated; this seems a relatively minor international dispute. Estonia (and by extension NATO) is not going to go to war over this. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Abu Muslim al-Turkmani

 * Weak oppose only because his actual date of death is unclear. From what I've heard, he may have died late last year, with the death only being confirmed now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that: the Guardian said yesterday that he "was killed during a US air strike in Iraq on Tuesday". Everymorning (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose a footmark in history, no different from a lieutenant drug kingpin. Not a sitting head of state, and certainly not important in the field of barbarity. μηδείς (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not important enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ashley Madison data breach

 * Comment – I have trouble viewing this as "major." Sca (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (Other than majorly embarrassing, I mean.) Sca (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Haha, 1/6th of this continent's married people are on this adultery site alone. Don't euphemize, it's not a dating and infidelity website, it's a site for finding an adulterer you don't know without going out alone during bar hours to make it less obvious. If I recall it even says that unmarrieds are less likely to get contacted cause they want someone who's taking as much risk as they are. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Undecided this is a major breach of information that highlights the need for improved data security. I just don't know if this story reaches the ITN level though, since a lot of people will dismiss it because the victims of this hack "had it coming" or whatever. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely there were other major cybersecurity breaches in the past that were more deserving of posting than this particular story?--WaltCip (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the Office of Personnel Management data breach? Everymorning (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's a privacy breach, unfortunately, but as only the 4 last digits of CCs used were stored and no SS #s, it is far less troublesome than other data breeches. As a private non-financial company, this is just something that is a bad business practice but not the issue that if a bank or CC company or gov't server got hacked. --M ASEM (t) 20:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To add a few points: I consider myself very net-centric and while I do not use any of these dating/matchmaking sites I'm aware of the major ones, and I (and many other similar savvy people that I've read on this) never heard of this site until this breach. A site that claims to have >30 M users (a non-trivial fraction of people in NA) without any larger known presence seems very odd, albeit their business approach would beg for discrete coverage. I also think that this is on the front pages of newssites not because it being a privacy breach but because it is a breach of data about potentially well-known/famous/respect people that may possibly trying to engage in infidelity, which I would put at the same level of news fascination as the nude photos from the Apple cloud leak or the Sony Pictures hack, which starts to get into the scandalous nature of the situation ("Hey, well-known person John Q Smith has an account, he must be cheating on his wife!") Again, I stress that we're not talking about a major financial institution or the leak of any usable financial data, which is what can be more disastrous. --M ASEM  (t) 16:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. It's an illicit site. Not cannabis or murdering illicit but people aren't going to talk about it as much as something that's socially acceptable (I don't know what Socal or Las Vegas is like but in the rest of the US adultery is not as accepted as casual sex or cannabis or killing fetuses or gay marriage or something like that). It's not like they advertise (much?). I'm not sure if I've ever seen an Internet ad that's not while, uh, watching pornography (and maybe not even on porn sites). They tried the #1 US sports league ads and Toronto streetcar ads and making a Singapore site and they were all flatly denied (they then offered to subsidize the Toronto transit fare and were denied again).
 * 2. It apparently costs money to delete profiles but not to "hide" them. If someone found a good mistress and doesn't use the site again cause they charge by the minute (literally, for chat) then their name and fetishises and stuff is still leaked even though they only used the site for a month or three many years ago (it's a turn of the century website). This is unlike dating sites where people get new girlfriends every few months or years and some are completely free so they're used a lot more per million accounts.
 * 3. I forgot if you're from the Old World or not but the UK has its own adultery site. Why would they use ours? It's not surprising to have not heard of it if you're not in the US or Canada (and maybe if you are).
 * 4. In the US there is almost no credit card risk if you report the loss promptly. Also, the gov't lets you get a new SSN if there's evidence of it being used in fraud. While it might cause anxiety having to wait up to the rest of your life to see if you'll get identity theived or not at least you can get a new one as soon as that happens. (This is because the government was stupid and only put 9 digits so there's only a billion of them) If your data was leaked here however you could lose an election, lose your job, lose your spouse, lose your kids or even be forced out of office (or maybe not, as Clinton has shown). This leak approaches 10 million large pages so people are combing the data for high-profile names as we speak. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support A significant enough event in my opinion, especially considering the number of people affected. Not so good is the blurb linking to Ashley Madison only. Perhaps link to the subsection on the data breach? Support alternative blurb. Banedon (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Reliable news sources think that it is a significant story, and Wikipedia follows the sources. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support I'm a bit ambivalent, but I'll lean to post. Especially if we can add Josh Duggar to the blurb. Oh happy schadenfreude :) – Muboshgu (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Du sollst dich schämen. Sca (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Yes, it's news. But it's cheap tabloid news and we have consistently stayed away from that at ITN. This belongs on page six, not here-Ad Orientem (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I disagree that this is nothing more than cheap tabloid news. Yes, it's a morally unsavory website and many people would rather laughingly circlejerk about how these cheaters "had it coming" than treat it as a serious newsworthy societal event, and that's okay, I understand that. But the fact of the matter is that this is still a major and significant privacy breach that's getting a significant amount of serious news coverage from major sources. I'm not sure how anyone can argue that it's not really a big deal because *arbitrarily selected piece of information* wasn't revealed. S warm   ♠  04:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment needs expansion on the analysis ('123456' was most popular password) and ethics of the release - the names of fuckwits will be on the internet for many years to come. Some of these people were in Middle Eastern countries where adultery is punishable by death. -- Callinus (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Then their pathologically low fear of death might get rewarded by Darwin! Still, no human deserves to be stoned or beheaded. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support posting, but please reword blurb. "Infidelity website" sounds very strange and probably isn't the most neutral phrasing we could use. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 10:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it's certainly not neutral to call it a dating website. It says "Life is short. Have an affair!®" right in the logo! And the "O" of ASHLEY MADISON® in the logo is replaced with a wedding ring. I wouldn't call it an affair site because singles can have love affairs. So "adultery site". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more along the lines of simply calling it an adult site. The exact nature of, much less value judgements on, the content of adult sites goes beyond our scope in all directions. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 01:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this isn't the kind of "news" Wikipedia should be posting. It's better suited for DYK, in my opinion. 1.39.62.147 (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * After mucho consideration, I support - on two fronts. One, this is technology news which we rarely post on ITN, as this is a hacking of rather grand scale. Two, this is social news, in that it has the potential for the uprooting of many human relationships. To my knowledge, we haven't really posted anything social news related on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 11:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per WaltCip Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support - Major data breach, widely reported. Just because people want to take the moral high ground, doesn't mean we shouldn't post it. Fgf10 (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, a data breach is a data breach. If it's large (1/10th of North America's population in fact) and sensitive information then why should it matter who's info is? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Bleve that would be more like 1/20th. Officially, pop. of N. Am. was 565.3 M in 2013 – about half in U.S. & Canada. (Reportedly, it's 1/11th or 1/12th of U.S. + Canada pop.) Sca (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sometimes North America excludes Latin America. I guess that'd not qualify as a continent then, except geopolitically. Presumably 1/11th or 1/12th accounts for some users not being in Canada (like the site) or the US. Only 3/4ths or so are over 18 so that's a large segment of the population that's affected. It looks like their policy of charging money just to delete a profile but not to "hide" it has come back to bite them. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Are we allowed to vote "Ha ha!"? μηδείς (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose data breach, many of which have occurred, this one just happens to be salacious and nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting data breaches are not newsworthy?--WaltCip (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all, I'm suggesting that this one is trivial. A bunch of cuckolds getting caught in the act is hardly going to shake the universe.  Would Wikileaks be bothered by this kind of tabloid hype or would it focus on genuine violations of human rights, murders, etc?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Item is widely in the news, international interest, has unusual implications. Article regarding the breach itself appears decent, and I have included an altblurb proposal that is shorter and includes that article link in bold. Jus  da  fax   19:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a dating website (at least, not any more than Wikipedia is a biography database). Even many Americans probably haven't heard of it so call it an adultery website lest they think it's like Match.com or something. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, unless some high-profile names appear. This incident is sounding more and more like this: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is Josh Duggar high profile enough? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Borderline at best. I see where he's issued an apology, having been caught. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If Barrack Obama was on the list my answer would be no. ITN is not a gossip column. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The executive director of the Louisiana Republican Party (a state 14th out of 51 in Romney votes (57.9%)) spent $175.98 on the site. He admits it but claims that he was only there for "opposition research". Business Insider. That's all we have so far. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are plenty of other recent data breaches that are much worse: the attack on Target "compromised as many as 110 million customers" (including credit card numbers); the hack on the US Office of Personnel Management's security clearance system leaked up to 1.1 million records that included fingerprints and Anthem's hack had 80 million records, including social security numbers and income data. I suspect this is all over the news because of some people's voyeuristic tendencies. It doesn't belong on the front page. Isa (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel like we should not place much importance on the fact that this data breach is for Ashley Madison, but rather the fact that it's a data breach that affects 30 million people. Who's to say for example that some of the people involved may not be polyamorous? It's not ours to make moral judgments of what other people think fidelity in marriage should or should not be. Banedon (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support given the number of government and even white house accounts are involved. μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem and The Rambling Man. 59.88.206.119 (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - number of governments involved. major deal.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to RD]: Khaled al-Asaad

 * Oppose on article quality: Good to see an article has been created for him, but it's the stubbiest of stubs. No way we can post this without substantial article expansion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , would you consider looking at the article now, as it is considerably longer than at the time you wrote your !vote above? Everymorning (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No doubt that the article is much improved. However, I reluctantly remain opposed while the "death" section is longer than his entire biography. Are there sources, especially those predating his death, in any language that could be used to expand on his life and work? Pardon the crass comparison of human to animal, but this feels a bit like the case of Cecil the lion who became famous in death though he was rather little-known in life. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support pending on improvements: The subject is notable, but the article is too short. Add more information with sources. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support - definitely a highly notable death (archaeologist executed by terrorists), unfortunately the article is only a stub. -Zanhe (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Ties in well with the ISIS/ISIL conflict. Article seems good enough for posting now. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and would even consider a blurb since the manner of death is completely unexpected for such an individual. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support due to considerable international media attention. Article quality looks good enough. --Droodkin (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting to RD Stephen 04:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Neon gas in the lunar atmosphere

 * Oppose unless someone can explain how this is significant. Is it evidence of extraterrestrial life? Probably not. Does it reveal something exciting and previously unknown about the origins of the Moon? I'm not sure about that. Does it suggest that enterprising businesses could figure out a way to turn the surface of the Moon into a gigantic illuminated sign? Hmm... -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, you have provided no reason why it is important, and the refs in the article are primary sources; a press release (which I will remove) and a scientific article. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are press releases acceptable when announcing a proposed business merger? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Who has said they are? Most business related nominations involve the reporting of the transaction announcement, not simply the press release. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of the recent debate over the proposed merge of Time-Warner Cable and another company, in which a press release was somehow considered newsworthy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For youse guys' information, The problem with the proposed purchase of Time Warner by Comcast was almost certainly never going to happen, and it didn't. μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above comments. Significance is not at all clear. I remain open to reconsideration if the nomination rational and sourcing issues are improved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose unless the significance can be better explained. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support This certainly could be important, for example for future ISRU efforts perhaps. Nothing immediate, however. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 20:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The sourcing isn't the issue (I don't get the aversion here of primary sources, they are often the best sources in science), but it's hardly world shocking news. Fgf10 (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the blurbs currently on ITN is "shocking news". 1.39.60.68 (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose A noble suggestion, but not parked on the main page. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting piece of information, even if not immediately significant. This may not be a groundbreaking discovery, but groundbreaking discoveries are built on fundamental work like this one. Banedon (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is the confirmation of the detection of trace amounts of a gas which would be expected to be produced by nuclear decay of radioactive elements. It's absence would have been unexpected.  It's not at all unexpected.  It's simply the first time we've looked with a sophisticated enough instrument. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to point out that the detection of the Higgs boson is similar to what you wrote in many ways: its existence is predicted by the Standard model, and it was only detected because it's the first time we looked for it with a sufficiently sophisticated instrument. Banedon (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We already know neon is produced by radioactive decay, we know its properties, and it was not just predicted to exist in small quantities as it leaked out of the moon's crust, it was fully expected, to the point of not finding it fit with no theories. The value of the Higg's boson was an unknown (although a certain range was predicted) and it's non-existence was considered a possibility.  The analogy is between the discovery of neon itself and of the Higgs boson, not between the discovery of neon leaking from the moon and the existence and nature of the Higgs boson. μηδείς (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The non-existence of anything that has not been detected is always a possibility, e.g. there were topless models of particle physics before the top quark was discovered, and things like TeVeS and MOND deal with the non-existence of dark matter. Most physicists will say that dark matter probably exists, and a direct identification of dark matter would be 'fully expected' in that sense - but if dark matter were conclusively identified today, it would still be news-worthy to me (not to mention Nobel Prize-worthy). That said, it's your opinion, so I'm dropping this thread of thought. Banedon (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - it is notable because, until now, studies had shown the existence of only two gases in abundance (helium and argon) in the lunar atmosphere. With this confirmation, there's a third. What's the point in asking for its significance/use? If a new element is discovered on earth, do we check if that element is "exciting" or useful to mankind and then post the blurb? In this case, the discovery itself is significant. It is an interesting piece of scientific news; two of the linked articles are GA. I don't see why this shouldn't be on ITN. 1.39.60.68 (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Which are also the products of radioactive decay. There's a reason why it's 100,000,000,000,000 times thinner than Earth's atmosphere. It's barely an atmosphere if it's just atoms circumnavigating the entire Moon in a few bounces before hitting any gas particle. And probably bouncing high enough to escape the Moon after only a few gas atom hits needing to be constantly replaced with new alpha particles and decay products of potassium and sodium and stuff.. Though if it's only the third gas detected in the lunar atmosphere in any quantity that's still pretty cool. I don't know. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - This is a significant first-time discovery about our moon. Tenuous as the atmosphere there may be, this is knowledge that has just now become known to humanity, and though some people may not find it of interest, there are many others that do. I find this ITN-worthy, and the linked articles are among the best we have to offer. Arguments in support carry considerably more weight, in my view. Jus  da  fax   07:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose – Minuscule fraction of a minuscule atmosphere, with minuscule significance. Little more than trivia. —Patrug (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Why are so many opposes citing the thin lunar atmosphere as a reason? Do real people read science news and think "bah, the moon's atmosphere is 10^-14 earth's atmosphere, nobody cares what elements are there!"?  Not to say this is exceptionally important news, but the reasoning is a little...thin. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 10:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 *  Comment Oppose – "The Moon has an atmosphere so tenuous as to be nearly [a] vacuum" – actually, more of an exosphere. Thus, to landlubbers (so to speak) like this user it doesn't seem much of a phenomenon. Sca (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jacob Bekenstein

 * Support RD Subject appears to meet ITNDC #2 and the article looks decently sourced (conceding there is always room for improvement). -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD Very notable physicist, article in good shape. Fgf10 (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD, article establishes clear importance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD' Subject appears to be very notable and article is in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - He died at 68 but no cause of death is mentioned. All we have is the date of birth and death. Jus  da  fax   22:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think a cause has been announced. All I'm seeing in reports is that he died "unexpectedly". -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Move Tianjin chemical explosions to Ongoing?
Shall we move 2015 Tianjin explosions to ongoing ticker? We are getting newer stories lately, but death toll is rising, and more explosions are happening. --George Ho (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There seems little chance that this will drop off the bottom soon so no, oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's already at the bottom. --George Ho (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And what is "ongoing"? It's not in the news any longer.  The Rambling Man (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: It doesn't look like it's receiving major continuing updates typically worthy of Ongoing.  Spencer T♦ C 06:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support reposting The item is still in the news as of yesterday (I haven't read the news summaries yet tonight) and I suggested on errors that we should be cropping overly-wordy blurbs to save space, rather than bumping matters still of interest off the bottom of the page. μηδείς (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose picking up pieces now is hardly ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost 100 people missing who's bodies might later be found is newsworthy. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We didn't keep MH370 on Ongoing for a year, this is no different. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Updates of death toll are much more likely to happen and relatively frequently, unlike MH370. Maybe it's still too dangerous to risk lives for the sole purpose of finding human remains sooner? Whenever they can do that and probably do DNA tests then we can finally found out what the actual death toll is. No new MH370 news could happen until they found wreckage and that took a year. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We didn't know when MH370 would be discovered. We know now.  We didn't keep it in the news until that point, nor should we keep this in the news either.  After all, it's not in the news much any longer.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] David Denson

 * Oppose Twenty or even ten years ago this would have been major news. Today, given the tectonic shift in public attitudes about sexuality capped by the recent SCOTUS decision on gay marriage, it rates little more than a yawn. As I have said ever since the SCOTUS ruling, the battle over gay rights in the West is now pretty much over. This and the many similar stories that have, and will continue to pop up, are just a reflection of that reality. Someone drop me a line when Russia or Saudi Arabia legalizes gay marriage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I suspect this will be AFD'd fairly soon, since he certainly fails WP:NBASE and I would wager that the majority of even the most diehard baseball fans have never heard of him (pinging Baseball Bugs who may have an opinion). As Ad Orientem says above, "xxx comes out as gay" is no longer a story in Western countries, unless it's a figure like a religious leader where their sexuality is actually germane to their job. (Note that Keegan Hirst, who just came out as the first gay British Rugby League player, doesn't even have an article on Wikipedia.) &#8209; iridescent 18:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It won't really matter until or if he gets to the major leagues. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose and I created the article. I disagree with about AfD, since I believe it passes WP:GNG. (Though, yes, I'd never heard of him until yesterday.) I nominated it for DYK, which I think is more appropriate than ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think AfD is a real possibility. I am not seeing anything that rings the notability bell here. To the extent he is getting a lot of coverage right now I think that can be filed under WP:BLP1E. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible oppose and speedy close - Really not worthy of ITN Fgf10 (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose we've also had the first gay player coming out in Rugby League this weekend (a big deal in the most macho of sports) but neither are ITN worthy. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Ratchaprasong bombing

 * Support Obviously breaking right now, so details are still coming in.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Unconfirmed reports say the death toll may be as high as 27 :( Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Article is sparse, but well referenced. Good enough for me, though.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait for confirmed reports. There are over 16 dead accordnig to BBC.--Jenda H. (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Official figures released at 22:00 give "approximately" 18 dead and 117 injured. Best I could find was a screenshot of the document posted on Twitter though. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, obviously notable, article sparse but well referenced. Fgf10 (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment ready to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - definitely for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Article's been moved to 2015 Bangkok bombing. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Link's been fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Photo uploaded - I've uploaded a VOA photo of the bombing scene (File:2015 Bangkok bombing VOA.jpg), can we use it on the main page? The bombing attack is much more newsworthy than Jason Day winning the PGA. -Zanhe (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Update needed - The Thai police have revised down the death toll to 20, with 125 injuries. See refs in article. Please update. -Zanhe (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Post these kind of requests at WP:ERRORS for a (marginally) faster response. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Women to vote in Saudi Arabia

 * The elections take place in December, that will be the time for this to be posted. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait. I agree that this should wait until the actual election. Rhodesisland (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait for the elections. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

[Ready] Shuja Khanzada killed in a bombing

 * Comment this was primarily assassination of Shuja Khanzada other victims are collateral damage. --Jenda H. (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Added the 2nd article, Jenda H.. George Ho (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support now--Jenda H. (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Notable for the death of a high-profile personality. Also gained significant coverage in international media.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 04:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alternate blurb - primary target, Shuja Khanzada, was targeted because of his strong stance against terrorism. I will update it as there have been two arrests made.  —Мандичка YO 😜 05:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: A notable enough assassination and bombing for ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - definitely for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - If sourcing is the issue, I fixed it by adding more sources. Are there any other issues with this nomination? George Ho (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

[Needs attention] 2015 Douma market massacre

 * Support Definitely ITN material, major death toll, deadliest single civilian attack in years. Article requires some major improvements. Strongly suggest rename to 2015 Douma market massacre as referred to in [1 ], [2 ], [3 ], ... 495656778774 (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose there's a range of claims about civilian deaths in other events we haven't posted. The group Islam Army does not have a page - readers are likely to be confused about the rebel groups and factions, given territorial changes and the number of military groups that disband/defect/rename/form coalitions. Most news media outlets do not have their own people on the ground; in my opinion, users are not well served by articles that don't cover in detail the rebel groups and their allegiances. -- Callinus (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * targeted rebel group does have a page, Jaysh al-Islam, wikilinked. Your only concern addressed.... 495656778774 (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support this is mayor terorrist atack in Syria. UN 'horrified' by attacks on civilians.--Jenda H. (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's the national government doing it, how does it still qualify as "terrorism"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * State terrorism, State terrorism by Syria. 495656778774  (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. At this point most people know there's a war going on in Syria, and in a war, there are bound to be civilian casualties. This does not seem noteworthy enough to feature in my opinion, especially since we already have four disaster-related items featured right now. Banedon (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Highest civilian death toll of a single attack since start of civil war, many disaster related items not a sufficient argument. e.g. post Nagasaki bombing and not Hiroshima because too many disasters happened that week! 495656778774 (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree. I still don't find it noteworthy - people die in a war, plain and simple. And many disaster-related items for me means that each new disaster-related item must be of ever-higher significance. Also as I mentioned on the talk page, if the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings happened this week, I'd prefer to keep them condensed into one entry. Banedon (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * your oppose vote on this entry general point of view and has nothing related to do with entry itself... 495656778774 (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the first part of my original vote focused on this entry only, not the general "point of view". Banedon (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: the article is more notable than the 2015 Baghdad market truck bombing.--Fotoriety (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support if article is expanded. At this point it's dominated by "reactions", which consists of mostly platitudes and no real information. -Zanhe (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The event itself is incredibly notable, but the article needs work. As of yet there's little information about the actual event. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Needs Attention and Support. We need a decision on the quality of the article and it's importance on this one before it grows stale. Rhodesisland (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 PGA Championship

 * Support per ITNR once the article is ready for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Support per ITNR" is unnecessary, as the whole point of the ITNR list is that items on it don't need support on the merits, as ITNR gives a pass on the merits. The purpose of an ITNR discussion is only to discuss article quality and a blurb. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Quality seems fine. The article at least contains a prose summary of each round (not long summaries, but still each round is covered) and the tenses are correct and results are accurate.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support the article covers this seminal golf tournament's final round in about sixty words. That's pathetic, but it seems that our standards these days are such that a few sentences work.  So no objection to this being posted under the current climate.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Updated article, ITN/R, don't see anything to hold up posting. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with alternative blurb: In golf, Jason Day wins his first major title, the 2015 PGA Championship. Sentence reads better to me, and is more concise too. Banedon (talk) 09:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment "Jason Day won his first major title with a total score of 268 (−20), the lowest score in relation to par ever recorded in a major" - nothing newsworthy here ....
 * Posted a borderline article. Stephen 23:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Netball World Cup

 * Support I've taken the liberty of adding the word "final" to the end of the blurb - otherwise one couldn't be sure that Australia had actually won the tournament. Neljack (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality: No mention in the lead summarizing the tournament NOR naming the winner, Format section has no references. It's close to postable, but we should fix those few things before doing so.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All good now. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I've tidied up the article and fixed tenses etc, and added a couple of sentences to the lede to give a summary and the result. I've cited the Format section, it's a primary source but that's acceptable here and it cites everything in the paragraph. Black Kite (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also better to use the altblurb to avoid the usual ENGVAR beat/beats issue. Black Kite (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Not ready this is the report that covers the whole of the final match, the most important match every four years in netball: "In the final Australia outplayed New Zealand in the first quarter to lead 16–7. Despite wining each of the next three quarters New Zealand were still beaten 58–55." NOT ENOUGH.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Added more detail. AIR corn (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 19:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Bob Johnston

 * Very weak support on notability -- involved in some great albums, but I'm not sure about "iconic" -- but the article quality is not good. It will need to be improved in order for it to be considered for posting. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not seeing much here that sets this guy apart. His association with famous people does not appear to have been a major contributing factor in their fame or musical success. If he had not produced these songs/albums would someone else not have? No awards or any kind of industry wide recognition of his standing/influence. And as Kudzu1 notes, the article has some serious sourcing issues that preclude its being linked on the Front page until they are fixed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose no evidence whatsoever that he innovated in the ways George Martin and Phil Spector or others have. The latter part of his discography speaks of a mediocre journeyman, not a groundbreaking genius. μηδείς (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose doesn't clearly indicate significance, poor article, nothing much more here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Trigana Air Service Flight 267

 * Oppose posting just that it is missing; when it is found, declared to be lost, or some other definitive determination, we can post that if desired. Given the short flight it seems like it has a good chance of being found. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support upon some expansion. The news I've read just now confirm it collided with a mountain. Brandmeistertalk  11:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 *  Wait  Support – BBC, Reuters confirm crash.  For additional confirmation, expansion of target article. (BBC, AP, Reuters still say missing.)  Sca (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - possibly the deadliest ATR-42 accident. Mjroots (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wreckage found.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up article, updated blurb. Ready? Sca (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support once the article is ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Air crashes in southeast Asia are sadly quite common, but per precedent, they all get put in the ITN section. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until casualties are confirmed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Update – Apparently site is too remote for quick confirmation. AP and NYT stick with "missing," while AFP says "rescue teams were heading to the site of an air crash ... after villagers found the wreckage...." Sca (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support it's a fatal hull loss, the fatalities are somewhat irrelevant oddly. Alt-blurb should be posted post-haste. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted alt. T. Canens (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – I think we're okay with this, given circumstances, but from what I've read no one in an official capacity has seen the wreckage yet. Sca (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: West Papua needs disambiguating. The article gives the site as just Papua (province). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wreckage spotted. Sca (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, we saw that many hours before you posted this, it's better to actually work on the article after it's been posted than to provide late updates to the item itself here. Thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I did. Sca (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Julian Bond

 * Support upon update; meets DC2 and possibly DC1 for his work in establishing SNCC. A few paragraphs seem to need citation. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – A familiar voice to generations of Americans. A 900-word story, presumably pre-written, leads NYT. Could support blurb. Sca (talk) 12:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. Highly influential and noteworthy individual whose loss comes at an unfortunate time. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD A leader of the American Civil Rights movement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support monumental civil rights leader. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sourcing issues have been addressed and the article reorganized to be more readable. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - An important leader and clearly influential. Article in good condition as noted. Jus  da  fax   20:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment some sourcing issues remain, but this is generally a little better than the average RD nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. T. Canens (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing Yemeni Civil War

 * It will help if you can give recent sources and article diffs that support your nomination, μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] New type of Pentagon tiling discovered

 * Support It is indeed rare that mathematical discoveries of this difficulty are accomplished. I would like to see it covered. For those unfamiliar with the problem 3, 4, 6 and all other numbers of sides are solved, the pentagon is not. <b style="color:DarkOliveGreen">Chillum</b> 05:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Abstain Since I don't think this has anything to do with the office flooring in the War Department, and I don't have a clue as to what it is about, I will defer to the judgement of more competent editors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC).
 * In layman's terms, there are only certain known shapes where you can take the exact shape and repeat it infinitely to "tile a plane" and leave no overlaps or gaps. Squares, triangles, and regular hexagons are all known to work, and such simple shapes have all been known to humanity for millennia to do such a thing.  Discovering a new shape which can be repeated infinitely in such a way as to "tile a plane" is very rare, the last such known shape was discovered in 1985, and prior such shapes were discovered almost a century ago.  It's exceedingly rare, and also a cool story for ITN for its novelty.  As noted in my nomination, the target article is not up to standard, but the subject seems interesting enough, and I was hoping this nomination would inspire Wikipedians who actually do know this stuff (a set of people that does not include myself) may be able to fix up he article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 06:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Leaning toward oppose. a) The paper is unpublished (although admittedly, the pentagon itself has been published, so anyone can verify the results easily enough). b) This doesn't solve the pentagon tiling problem, it's just an (incomplete as of yet) brute-force attempt to find new pentagons. I'd compare this to finding a new largest prime number - it's an impressive bit of computer programming, but it doesn't tell us anything new. On the other hand, if someone found the rule that describes the distribution all prime numbers, that would be a massive breakthrough. Similarly, finding a new pentagon tiling is cool, but finding all the pentagon tilings (even if just by proof by exhaustion) would be more newsworthy. Smurrayinchester 10:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. It's not a terrorist bombing, and the discovery is obvious by visual inspection, there's no peer-reviewed source requirement, nor would it be needed. μηδείς (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Nah, you kliddin' me! I never even knew The Pentagon had tiles. But great to see it's keeping up to date. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support following in-line citation improvement. Article definitely needs work with properly citing material to the appropriate source (WP:CS & WP:ILC). The only piece of information directly cited is the presence of fifteen currently known variations. Leaning toward support based on notability of the subject within its context, but not so strongly based on Smurrayinchester's comments. Definitely would be nice to represent a topic that has nothing to do with death, sports, and war. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I would mark this ready with a net 4 1/2 supports and a 1/2 oppose, but the update really should be at least the sentences, if not five with three sources. I don't see that.  Can  or a supporter with the requisite acumen get us three sources in 3 sentences? μηδείς (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. As an extreme layman in this area, I am moved to support by Jayron's explanation above and the two linked sources. I am not moved by Smurray's counter argument pointing out that this is not the greatest accomplishment that could ever occur in this area. To me, that is like saying we shouldn't publish a new discovery of a planet because we haven't yet discovered every single planet. Yes it's not the complete task but it is a major step in completing that task. (And speaking of planet discoveries....)Rhodesisland (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose adding esoterica, even if it takes our mind off depressing issues. --Light show (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Esoterica is the only thing that keeps some of us going, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Encyclopedy". Support for diversity to counter systemic bias of news junkies being right-brained (and yes, I know left and right brain isn't very scientific). This is not proof of knowing every shape that can tile (which may be impossible) but it looks like the smallest repeating section is 7 pairs of tiles wide in the 40 degrees clockwise of horizontal direction so the low-hanging fruit is gone. We're still working on bathroom tiling technology. Take that fusion power researchers! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support: Doesn't appear to solve the unsolvable mathematical problem, but it is an addition to the canon, and it's nice to feature things that aren't disasters, deaths, or sporting victories from time to time. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support new knowledge of fundamental geometry - the first of its kind in 30 years - is newsworthy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] North Korea time

 * Oppose. How is this news? Countries/states changing their timezone either to bring themselves into synch with a trading partner, or as a statement of cultural independence, isn't an unusual event (Sri Lanka, Venezuela, Samoa and Crimea are a few from the last few years). &#8209; iridescent 16:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose if a country switches to Hammer time, that will be news. Belle (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I don't know if I would say that this isn't an unusual event but it doesn't seem that significant.  It's no secret that North Korea isn't a fan of anything to do with Japan and this just seems to be a way for NK to criticize the "imperialism" of the West. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, premature, the transition is tomorrow per article. Will support then. A country adopting a new time zone is significant Brandmeistertalk  16:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it was nominated now because it had been announced today(last 24 hours at least). 331dot (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, yes, it's past midnight 15 August there. Brandmeistertalk  16:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose – This was news a week ago. Sca (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I know we are in a slow news cycle... but really? Sorry, this is pure trivia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Post for half an hour. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No - Just more silliness (non-lethal this time) from the NK dictator. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Strangely inappropriate for that country, where a slightly larger adjustment might be more fitting. Are the people even allowed to wear watches? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 51 Eridani

 * Oppose They are always finding Jupiter-like planets, and the smallest ever directly imaged is one of those records that could be broken tomorrow, like youngest woman to reach the North Pole on a tricycle (if that's not already a record I'm starting training tomorrow). Belle (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose This strikes me as a bit too common for ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support also of interest is that this is the inaugural discovery for the Gemini Planet Imager. μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Medeis, the direct imaging is important, as is the size of the planet imaged. I am trying to find more scientific things to go here so our ITN is more encyclopedic I guess....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support – Notable discovery worth mention, namely considering it's the first of the Gemini Planet Imager, but not terribly keen on how notable it is (by ITN standards). Exoplanets are discovered all the time so the only real aspect of mention here is the size of the Jupiter-like planet. Science-side of me is leaning support, but I could honestly go either way. I'd also suggest adding exoplanet into the blurb to more clearly indicate that it's the Jupiter-like planet being referred to as the smallest, since the star is being targeted as the main subject of the blurb. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Per Medeis. Rhodesisland (talk) 03:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Scientific trivia, being the smallest Jupiter-like planet is rather an arbitrary criterion. Brandmeistertalk  18:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not the 'smallest Jupiter-like planet'; I don't know where you got that from. It's the smallest planet that we have a direct image of - as opposed to indirect evidence from transits or Doppler shifts. It does also happen to be roughly Jupiter sized, but that's irrelevant to the notability claim. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Marking ready as this is technically ready, and the support outweighs the opposition. Obviously this is a close call, but it should either boe posted or closed, not left hanging, and I think the argument in favor of posting is strong. μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - The fact that this is the smallest-ever planet to be directly imaged causes me to agree that the nomination is ITN-worthy. I could wish for a bit more meat on the article, but feel thoughtful readers around the world will find this of interest. Prefer alt-blurb, but support either.  Jus  da  fax   01:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Records for exoplanets are being broken every month or so. This one doesn't tell us anything new or surprising about planets, and is purely due to improved instrumentation. Bound to be beaten sooner rather than later. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, far too commonplace nowadays. The first exoplanet with evidence of photosynthesis can be posted. Otherwise stop nominating these. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine. there is clearly no consensus so can someone uninvolved archive this? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

RD: John A. Nerud

 * Comment: Article has some referencing issues.  Spencer T♦ C 21:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Quaternary extinction event

 * Comment The proposed target article for this nomination has serious referencing issues. In its current condition it cannot be linked to the Front Page. If those were corrected, I would be inclined towards a weak support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not hard to find opposing opinions, like this recent article. Hardly seems a settled issue. Narayanese (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The debate about whether an asteroid killed the dinosaurs went on for 20-30 years, and I imagine this debate will do the same. With no smoking gun (like the layer of iridium and glass that proves an asteroid hit the earth 65 million years ago), the only way the debate will be resolved is the long, slow process of academic discussion, and that is unlikely to ever have a clear watershed moment for posting. (Also, the scientific paper is a bit more reserved than the popular press: "Our results show that human colonisation was the dominant driver of megafaunal extinction across the world but that climatic factors were also important.") Smurrayinchester 07:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Baghdad market truck bombing

 * support - notable enough for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support once the article is ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Introduced improvements/added material, should be ITN ready now....495656778774 (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Can we post something that's not about civilian deaths and sports news on the ITN? 117.216.147.251 (talk) 05:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I sympathize. But the news is what it is. And this clearly meets ITN criteria. If you can find something that meets the critera and that does not include blood and mayhem please feel free to make a nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support while the article is brief, it's to the point, reasonably well written and adequately referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Significant death toll even for Iraq. Brandmeistertalk  17:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Marked as Ready -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

RD: John Scott (organist)
Bump - any thoughts from anyone? BencherliteTalk 12:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support – Unexpected death of one of the world's leading figures in church music, and "the premier English organist of his generation", still in his 50s, prompting a long-overdue major expansion of his WP article. Though he never aspired to become a household name, he was responsible for major worldwide publications, dozens of top-quality commercial albums, hundreds of highly reviewed concerts, and the formative training of countless young musicians. Good opportunity to give ITN some extra variety beyond the usual disasters and politicians! —Patrug (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Nomination is going to fail for lack of attention at this rate.... I know it was late, but I only saw the Times obit on Saturday and couldn't nominate until Monday. Pinging, , , , , , ,  as some of the recent contributors to this page for their thoughts. BencherliteTalk 15:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, I had indeed missed the nomination. This is not my field or interest, so I don't feel qualified to voice an opinion other than unopposed based on a brief scan of the article. μηδείς (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also thank you for the ping; though I must concur with Medeis and oppose on the same grounds . 331dot (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Above, Medeis/μηδείς said unopposed. —Patrug (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So they did.....I meant to say unopposed. Thanks for pointing it out. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: There are some referencing issues with the article, but the thing that stands out to me most is that there isn't a bluelink in his entire discography section. That makes it very hard to assess the figure as being of great importance. If the article were improved to demonstrate clear notability and add quality references, I'd consider supporting, but I'm not quite there right now -- and time, obviously, is a factor. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In case it helps, I just added some quick citations for his (admittedly imprecise) "many award-winning recordings" and the prestigious Pipedreams broadcasts honoring them. —Patrug (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support His complete works of César Franck a major achievement. Here he is playing Frank Bridge's Adagio in E. Just beautiful. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Sudden death of an organist who was at the top of his field. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * References needed I was going to mark this ready, but some of the material is entirely unreferenced, and one very long, fatc filled paragraph has only an end reference. Also, as primary sources, the long list of works with name, title, and publisher is okay, but it should preferably have dates. μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Updated, thanks. His just-published obit in The Guardian now covers almost every basic fact, and his Manchester Evening News review looks like the only missing date. I'll soon have citations for the "complete organ works" sentence. —Patrug (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. At this stage, I think the article is at or near "B" quality, up from "Stub" a week ago. —Patrug (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Myanmar flood

 * Strong support Reuters says these are the worst floods in the country in decades. Clearly important enough for ITN IMO. Everymorning (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - terrible natural disaster. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 23:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. A sad event that is clearly ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Clearly a major event in Myanmar, and also a huge step forward for the government as they're showing the will to cooperate with other nations rather than refuse aid (like after Cyclone Nargis in 2008). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb rather than ongoing, if someone can propose one. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I hate to open this can of worms, but what is Wikipedia's latest official position on the name of the country? I only ask because the country itself is at Burma, and the text of the Flooding article uses Burma as well, but the title of the article is Myanmar... Surely, there should be some consistency?  At least an internal consistency within the same article?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Myanmar redirects to Burma, but the article immediately informs us that it is "officially the Republic of the Union of Myanmar and commonly shortened to Myanmar." AP, Reuters, AFP and BBC use Myanmar. My impression is that Myanmar remains the consensus for now. Sca (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if the article is titled "2015 Myanmar flood", shouldn't it at LEAST use Myanmar as the name of the country throughout, and not Burma, as it does now? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think so. As noted, Myanmar seems to be the most widely accepted name for the country at present. (I'm no expert on the country or region, but it would seem that the country entry, Burma, should be renamed Myanmar too.)
 * BTW, target article seems sketchy (it's less than 300 words), and those parts of it couched in present tense should be converted to past tense. Sca (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - if made.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * A blurb has been made.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Subj.-verb agree't.: Suggest blurb be changed to Flooding in Myanmar kills.... Sca (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In the time it's taken you to write this comment, why not just adjust the blurb? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Marked ready per consensus. Brandmeistertalk  17:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's still a marginal article at best... C628 (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 21:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Jimmy Carter announces he has cancer

 * Oppose - we don't post normally when every celebrity gets hit with a life-threatening illness and I fail to see how this is any different. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 23:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait He's a former head of state of one of the most important countries in the world, but even so we don't normally post updates on their health. Will probably support however, if the prognosis turns out to be terminal (a very real possibility given his age). -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait Per Ad Orientem. I would also like to point put that most 90 year olds aren't strong enough to even have liver surgery, so maybe he has a small chance. 109.149.136.203 (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Snow closing; doctors say he's in good health and just diagnosing the cancer will take till next week, not that we would post this even then. μηδείς (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I am not going to revert the speedy close because I concur that this nomination is extremely unlikely to be approved for posting. That said, I would point out that half of the votes cast were Wait. This suggests that the topic may be raised in a future nomination once Mr. Carter's medical condition becomes more clear, and especially if the prognosis is mortal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If it were re-opened, I would add a flat oppose. Old people come down with illnesses. It happens, even to former heads of state. Resolute 01:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I would probably not say "Support", it's worth pointing out that Carter has not just been sitting around. He's still active at 90. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Resolute. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I will support a full blurb on his death, because he is essentially a king among men, even though he wasn't the most effective president, partly for reasons outside of his control. But his diagnosis isn't ITN news. Hopefully he's got several years in front of him. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Explosion hits port city of Tianjin

 * I've added a source (BBC) above, but I'm neutral currently. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support pending major improvements; stub class article at the moment. Major explosions with an initially high injury count are not common within major port cities, such as Tianjin. News coverage is worldwide on the explosion. SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until possible casualties or major damage. That said, I hope nothing serious will eventually emerge. Brandmeistertalk  20:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait a bit - "Reportedly" hundreds injured, and no indication of death toll. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I just watched this video from the Telegraph. Fatalities will be substantial, I believe. Jus  da  fax   20:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – The BBC are reporting at least seven dead so far, with 300 injured. - JuneGloom07    Talk  20:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support once we clarify the cause and the effect, footage as posted by Jusdafax indicate that this is a significant and almost certainly deadly event. Even The Daily Telegraph is already suggesting nine deaths.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Already obvious that this is large-scale enough. Article can be updated after posting as precise cause and effects become clear. Thue (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait – Developing. Death toll hits 13, sez Guardian @ 2200. Probably will rise. Sca (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support when the article is in decent enough shape for the main page. This appears to be a major event (the BBC are saying it's an industrial accident), the likes of which are not at all common. For major events it is usual for an ITN blurb to be updated as more information becomes available (e.g. death tolls following a major earthquake). Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I think we should allow a little more time to assess the magnitude of this event. Sca (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support It clear that it is a large scale event. Death toll rising quickly (17 now). Article can be updated as info flow in but should be on front page. ShakyIsles (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support when the article is ready for linking. Clearly a major accident. The blurb can be updated as necessary. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * An obvious post when ready, but the article is still a bit too small and desperately needs copy editing as of this note. μηδείς (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Large and rising injury and death toll. Very large explosion.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – AP, BBC say 17 as of 0030. Sgt when they say 20 we post. Sca (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Marked ready. We've got two blasts registerin as 2.3 and 2.9 earthquakes, at least 17 dead and 32 critically wounded, and the article has been cleaned up for style and is well cited as of this edit. μηδείς (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support Now that we know there's numerous casualties and significant damage, this is a clear ITN story. --M ASEM (t) 01:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, largely per above. Mz7 (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in case my comments above don't make that clear. μηδείς (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the death toll has jumped to 44 now, so we had best update the blurb, which says 17 on the Main Page. I suspect the number will continue to climb. Jus  da  fax   05:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Updated, thanks. Jus  da  fax   06:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] London plague burial pit
Nom. --bender235 (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Question - I'm sure I've read stories about burial discoveries at Liverpool Street Station before, i.e. this Telegraph one from March 2015 . Is this actually a new story or is it a rehash of the same one? Bob talk 18:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose the linked article doesn't even mention "burial pit". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not really big enough for ITN. However this has great DYK potential. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment target needs to be on the pit itself. This would work on DYK. -- Callinus (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Also agree with the DYK potential this has if it receives an article of its own. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Alphabet

 * Oppose This is not a rebranding, it's basically internal restructuring: Page says that he does not intend the Alphabet brand to replace Google's or any of the other Alphabet subsidiaries' on any products—you won't be using Alphabet Mail or Alphabet Chrome any time soon. This allows for newer projects to be managed without the "Google" brand, such as Calico and Nest. Isa (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose For all Google's claims that "Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one", the gigantic holding company is an extremely common structure for companies that become too big or diverse - just see List of conglomerates. This is not interesting news. Smurrayinchester 07:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose If we posted every corporate re-org, we'd be over-saturated with business news. Google is getting attention just because it's Google.--WaltCip (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Looks like fairly run of the mill internal reorganization. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This reorganization is barely notable for Google, let alone for the entire world. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am tempted to close this based on the avalanche above, but it's actually a business story I do Support given the restructuring is meant to allow ventures like the google car to fail or flourish on their own. It's not a merger meant only to cut costs, but a possible prelude to highly valuable and innovative spin-offs.  Also, the stock has jumped significantly. μηδείς (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was tempted to close this, too, but with Medeis' support making it non unanimous, I'll simply add an opppose to a banal corporate restructuring. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ferguson unrest

 * Oppose – Significant upsurge with wide coverage no doubt, but this has been going on and off since the shooting itself last year. Nothing of importance (I feel like I'm treading on thin ice here) has come about from this, just more arrests and strained relations between the public and police department. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Opppose but we don't right great wrongs or deal with causes celebres due to an anniversary at ITN. μηδείς (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait 48 hours for news progress and article updates. The Aug 2015 is undeveloped and new news could break. -- Callinus (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this time; this is not yet anywhere close to the scale of the actual event a year ago. As suggested, a 48 hour wait is prudent here. 331dot (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until or if something really major happens. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose nothing of substantial interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Looks fairly low level to me. If something really blows up we can take another look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Night parrot

 * Comment Has it? Your current blurb is a question. And speaking of parrots, a parrot friend of mine is a big fan of Aerosmith. His fave song is "Squawk This Way".  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Was this intended as a DYK nomination? That certainly seems a better venue for it. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * is trying for the new "Did You Know It Was In The News" section of the main page. Belle (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (facepalm) ...yeah...DYK on the brain....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment propose for DYK. Article will need more updates - it only short lines on the current issue. -- Callinus (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll expand it, but it is still news no matter how big the article is. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Or, does it? Two years ago, the elusive night parrot was rediscovered... --Jenda H. (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but a parrot was only seen not captured and there were some doubters...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Blurb is already written as a DYK... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just like DYK that "...The Taliban confirms that its former leader, Mohammed Omar, died in April 2013"? -- ELEKHHT 13:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, no, just take a closer look at the proposed blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Happy to Support assuming Casliber wants to continue with this as an ITN entry; the banter above makes it unclear. There were reports of sightings of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker a few years back too, but no capture, which would have been major news. μηδείς (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I still do - it is a major news story in science circles and has been in mainstream media here in Oz. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK then I oppose this as an ITN story and recommend you switch to DYK instead (assuming there's enough new sources to support sufficient expansion). Whilst this species is clearly rare, it is hardly the only one in the world whose population is unknown. In a continent the size (and low population density) of Australia, it's not surprising that things can hide in the interior. I don't see how this affects (or interests) anyone except ornithologists. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 09:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I'm not seeing the significance of this. Not previously thought to be extinct, and it's not a Norwegian Blue, is it? Mjroots (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment reads like a Drop bear sighting. Or Monty Python parrot.  Australia is scary.  Maybe better DYK candidate.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * DYK won't apply, unless the article is hugely expanded. It is not new enough to qualify otherwise.  Plus, comparisons with the Norwegian Blue (Least Concern) are a bit fatuous, no? μηδείς (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose Conceding that this is not an everyday occurrence, it still seems better suited for a DYK nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose If the headline was due to capture we just found out night parrot's are not extinct then that would be a story worth posting. capturing a rare bird (that should be left alone) isnt really a story. -- Ashish-g55 21:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Frank Gifford

 * Support upon update; clearly notable in both football and broadcasting. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. Obviously a legend in both of the fields for which he is known. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. No doubt that Gifford is notable enough for RD, outstanding player and broadcaster - but there are large parts of the article with no ref - playing career has only two refs, and there are none at all in the broadcasting section. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is simply awful, it is not highlighting "quality" in any way to post this on the main page. While I'm endlessly cynical about the American proclivity for "halls of fame", given he'd made it into the Pro Football Hall of Fame alongside fewer than 300 others, I guess his notability is almost beyond question.  But the article sucks, seriously.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Front page of the NYT is all about this. Obviously notable, obviously ITN RD material. Quality could stand improving, but isn't that almost always the excuse? Let's post it. Jus  da  fax   21:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending improvements The subject clearly meets RD#2, but I agree the article isn't currently close to posting shape. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on notability WHEN updated - and I hope there's a better photo available soon ;___;--81.157.182.65 (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - widely known figure in two fields: football, and broadcasting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Notability is a quite important factor, to say the least. And this would be far from the first article which "sucks" used here. Collect (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Conditional on article improvement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For someone with his career the article should be twice as long, the lead should be more than a single sentence, and there certainly should not be any unsourced paragraphs. I never watched him play or announce, so I won't be of much help with the needed expansion. μηδείς (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Another person departed with a very long career and a depressingly short article. The Broadcasting Career section still lacks proper sourcing (one source in the whole section cited). He seems definitely notable enough for his career both on and off the field, as the expression goes, but the brevity of the article makes me very mum about quality for RD. Challenger l (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A Little Work The article has been improved. There are still half a dozen general unsupported claims that need refs.  The various specific TV episodes are okay if he is credited, but the awards section needs refs, since awards are not primary sources.  The article should be ready to go once those tags are addressed. μηδείς (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Right now, the article is in good condition. Notability plausible enough to mention his name. George Ho (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Article appears to be in good enough shape. Subject is notable and top of his field. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Earlier referencing issues have been addressed. Gifford was at the top of his field both as a football player and later as a broadcaster.—Bagumba (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Users and  deserve praise for the updating that got this posted. μηδείς (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 World Aquatics Championships

 * Support per ITN/R. World Aquatics Championships are a major sporting event every two years and its conclusion is worth mentioning. I have also proposed slightly modified blurb to indicate the nation that won the most gold medals in compliance with the conclusion of the Olympics and the World Championships in Athletics.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per ITN/R.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits (i.e. "support per ITNR") is not necessary as that is the entire point of the ITNR list. ITNR nominations only require discussion on quality and a blurb. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose woefully under-referenced article, the previous supports should be overlooked as they do not seem to indicate any understanding of the concept of ITNR, as noted by 331dot. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * TRM, time to calm down. And get off the high horse... please.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How is TRM not being calm? Simply stating that you don't seem to understand this isn't being on a high horse. 331dot (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I typically use comments to complain on quality issues rather than oppose a nomination and change my mind once the article is improved or updated; I use votes only to express my opinion whether a topic should be posted regardless of it being listed as ITN/R. Having an ITN/R turned down because of its questionable notability, which sometimes happens, is a first revision before taking the matter further to nominate it being delisted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * TRM has it right. There are two major criteria for posting something at ITN. One is whether it belongs there. The other, perhaps the more important of the two, is whether the article is good enough to showcase. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It matters little, most people just come here to "support per ITN/R" without even bothering to look at the quality of the article. This is one of the poorer ITNRs I've seen, but it did make me smile that someone felt the need to needlessly wikilink show which, of course, is a dab page.  It also features swathes of unreferenced claims and poorly written English, but that seems to be irrelevant to those who just show up to say "Support per ITN/R".  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per ITN/R. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment four days have passed and nothing has been done to address the fundamental quality issues with this article. Perhaps we should now look to remove it from ITNR given the significant lack of interest, even from the supporters, in improving it to a bare minimum standard for consideration in the ITN section of the main page.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Typhoon Soudelor

 * Support altblurb mentioning the evacuations. Notable weather event in a populous region. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose We don't usually post weather events of this nature absent a significant death toll. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - The large number of evacuations swings it for me. Article appears ok on first glance. Jus  da  fax   21:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support on a slow few days for ITN, we have a storm that's already caused deaths and $2/3 billion damage. Probably sneaks in at the low end, but article is reasonable too so should be good to post if consensus is just above the margin.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Cyclone Pam was posted, and had "15–16" fatalities. One news source from a few hours ago said 14 are already confirmed dead, the figure may rise to above 15/16. Maybe wait until there's an updated death/damage toll. -- Callinus (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - As TRM notes, this probably gets a bit more of a pass than usual due to ITN being slow lately, but I think it would qualify regardless. Significant disruption across a wide area, non-insignificant death toll, and according to this it's the strongest storm of the year. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note – I would suggest rewording this to include the subsequent landfall in China and damage there. Latest tally for China/Taiwan (as of my writing this) is 21 killed, >402 injured (Taiwan only), and 109 missing. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Cyclonebiskit, do you have a proposed alt blurb?  Spencer T♦ C 15:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Death toll has risen to 29 overall now, so that update is included. Something along the lines of "Typhoon Soudelor makes landfalls in Taiwan and eastern China, killing at least 29 people and injuring hundreds more." Another alternative to include the recent damage/economic loss total would be "Typhoon Soudelor makes landfalls in Taiwan and eastern China, killing at least 29 people, injuring hundreds more, and leaving over US$1 billion in damage." Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted sticking with the death toll. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: Parapan Am Games

 * Oppose - I don't see how this event is notable enough for ongoing. Maybe give a blurb to opening of the games. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Question Does this meet the standards for ITN? I ask as we don't usually post sporting events in ongoing. While I laud your desire to promote this topic, we have guidelines because ITN has limited space and in order to ensure we don't get swamped with stories that are intended to bump an editor's area of pet interest. And let's be honest, we all have areas of interest for which we would like to get more exposure. For now I remain Neutral on this nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know since the rules are hard to understand, but hoped so. It is not in the list of automatic events but it is an ongoing event per reliable sources. At the moment the Ongoing space is empty, so I thought why not add this for the next week while the games are happening. 184.147.128.46 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: We generally don't list sporting events in ongoing unless it has very high worldwide viewership (World Cup or Olympics, generally), and this doesn't appear to meet that standard. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Aside from me personally opposing all sports in Ongoing except the multi-sport Olympics, I don't think this has the level of notability needed- and it isn't our role to help generate such notability and interest. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose For ITN/R, the nominator put in "not yet". This is not an ITN/R event, and I don't see any reason to post it at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Oppose I don't think this meets the ITN guidelines. If it gets enough attention maybe we can consider a blurb when the games close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Manuel Contreras

 * Support RD conditional on improvements in sourcing. A very unpleasant man, but he clearly satisfies ITNDC. On a side note, I wouldn't worry about his escaping justice. His case has just been transferred to the one court from which there is no appeal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have now gone through the article, cleaned it up, added referencing, and expanded the section on Contreras' many convictions and sentences. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not influential in or the top of any field by far, dozens, if not hundreds of such thugs world-wide during the cold war era. μηδείς (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say he was pretty prominent in the field of crimes against humanity. And while there are certainly dozens or more such people around, there are also dozens or more doctors, scientists, engineers, members of the performing arts, etc who were/are highly influential in their field. We post them too. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly not a household name. Sca (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I rather suspect he is in Chile and parts of Latin America. But in any event that's not a criteria for RD. If it were we would have to take down Frances Oldham Kelsey. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support RD. Significant figure in the modern history of Latin America. The disappearances in Chile during the Pinochet regime are notorious and well known. Contreras was certainly not a nice person, but that's not part of our criteria, and nor is being a household name around the world. His actions were significant. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Article does a good job explaining his notability and role; well filled out and referenced.  Spencer T♦ C 15:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I don't see what else is wrong with this article. Notable person. Article well referenced and in good shape. I was able to format bare URLs into references. George Ho (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Notorious", "Not a nice person", and "Notable" are simply not ITN criteria. The guy's neither at the top of nor influential in any field, nor a sitting head of state, nor has he died unexpectedly in a way that increases notability. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * He is extremely influential in the modern history of Latin America. And that is definitely a field. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 09:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - A major player in the Pinochet government, and a criminal leader responsible for numerous deaths. Notable and ready to post. Jus  da  fax   04:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] The Ashes

 * Support. Oh, go on then. Could the blurb mention 60 somehow? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to mention that too but it wouldn't be sporting. ;) Sceptre (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ... or maybe "pomicide"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose Who likes Cricket anyway? Support once article is updated, unless it already has been. --81.157.182.65 (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support And add the Australian cricket team to the RD ticker too.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Famous traditional event in the sport. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per ITNR once the article is ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Four tests would mean four summaries. There currently is only one. Fuebaey (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So you're saying: "yes in principle, but only one of the four matches played so far is currently summarised at 2015 Ashes series"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought my comment was self-explanatory really - an opposition based on quality grounds. I didn't see any need to state "I agree with the consensus over at ITNR". Is there consensus here that a single sentence giving the result and a bunch of stats is an adequate update? After all, this is what the previous series looked like when it was posted. With Aus thumping Eng in the 2nd test and Eng crushing Aus in the next two, surely we can get at least a cited prose paragraph per test. Fuebaey (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you did. But thanks for clarifying that your opposition is on quality grounds. I think your comparison with the last series is very useful. This one is so clear cut that a more rapid posting might have been preferable. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand your last comment. Usually we update before we post, not vice versa. If there is consensus to post, it shouldn't be difficult to find a sympathetic admin. Fuebaey (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was suggesting that, because the win this time was so pronounced, editors interested in the topic might have expended more effort to update the linked article, so that the item could be more rapidly posted to ITN. They still might, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Had I followed the series I'd take a jab. If someone could undo this edit, rem some (blatant) England POV and source it, only the second test would need writing up. Fuebaey (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support I agree that the tests leading up to and including the victory need coverage before we post this. If nothing happens tonight, I'll see what I can do.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait Why don't we post it after the fifth match? 117.216.149.233 (talk) 08:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the result is already known, the last Test is a dead rubber. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Similarly, in baseball, say two teams have a three-game regular season series. If each wins one of the first two, the third is said to be the "rubber game". If one team wins the first two, they have won the series. If they win the third, they will have "swept" the series. The difference is that every game means something during the regular season, so it's not "dead rubber". In post-season series, there are only enough games played to determine a winner. That does raise a question: Why do they play a fifth match in The Ashes? Is it simply tradition that all matches are played regardless? Or is that there is statistical meaning to playing the remaining games, even when the winner is not in question? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because people have paid to watch the oval match - not least to say farewell to Michael Clark but also in the hope of seeing another massive Aussie defeat. Oh, and the complete rubber has always been played because there is no formal award. Spartaz Humbug! 15:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * They play the fifth game because of tradition (historical) and commercial issues (contemporary). Having said that, the result of the fifth Test now has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the result of the Ashes;  England have won them, there is nothing more to debate.  No-one can "sweep" the series, nothing about the result can change.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the fifth Test still counts towards the ICC Test rankings. If England win they will overtake Australia in the rankings; if not then Australia will remain above them despite losing the series. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 09:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * support I'm sure this comment has no policy basis and will be ignored but this is too good an opportunity to rub Australian noses in their defeat as they open the front page. ;-) Spartaz Humbug! 15:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is on ITNR so no need to support. I'm tempted to wait until the result of the fifth Test. We'll then have a full article with all of the matches, and that's when the trophy is presented. That's also what ITNR requires ('the conclusion of the tournament or series'). However I won't object if it's posted now; we do seem to be rather quiet at the moment. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 09:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait for the result of the 5th test, then the blurb can include the final result be it 3-1, 4-1, or 3-2. -- KTC (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Needs prose for the second test, and then this should be good to go. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All now updated - ready to go.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted. What a good sport I am. In more important news, Australia is currently leading in the women's Ashes. Also I didn't add the image because I'm always afraid I'll bugger that up, but anyone else should feel free to. Jenks24 (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I added an image of the glorious victors. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Uggie

 * Oppose: A dog. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb - I don't think we've ever featured a dog on ITN before, so this is a good chance to counter systemic bias. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Since this has received serious support, I'd better explicitly point out that my above support was my feeble attempt at humor, and I oppose this for the same reason as Kudzu: it's a dog. I have no real objection to posting non-humans if they are notable enough, but I doubt we would post any actor with only one starring role. Cute dog, though. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support – WP:ITND doesn't explicitly exclude non-human deaths. Notable and widely recognized canine actor. News also appearing internationally: Sweden (Helsingborgs Dagblad), Germany (Oberösterreichische Nachrichten). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Even if not a human, he still deserves to be mentioned. This little fella of all friendly fellas warmed and touched our hearts. Sad to see him go. --George Ho (talk) 07:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Because reasons. --109.149.136.203 (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah - Dogs of a given breed are interchangeable. Did anyone notice when the original Jack Russell Terrier in Frasier was replaced? Did any casual viewers notice that two different white stallions were used in The Lone Ranger? And how many Collies have played Lassie over the years? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's because none of them did the job as well as Uggie. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And worth noting that only the very first Lassie has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, out of four dogs total - including Uggie. Miyagawa (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Animals are not actors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Given how much trouble I've had training my dog, I'm impressed by dogs that do things on command, especially on a hectic movie set. I'll say he was at the top of his field of being a dog. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. a) It's a dog. b) We cannot split everything up into exceedingly specialised subfields (like 'dogs who have appeared in films') and then claim that every nominee is top of one of them. The relevant field here is 'actors who have appeared in films'. c) His filmography is hardly impressive; nowhere near the top of the acting field. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. Supported because article quality and referencing is much better than many of corresponding actor RDs we consider here, but"weak" because dog.  Spencer T♦ C 13:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not like we're talking Rin Tin Tin or Lassie here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm worried this is perverting the intent of RD, particularly when there are more well-known b-list actors and the like that actually have had to work in their career to get where they are and still don't make the RD cut. --M ASEM (t) 14:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] James Holmes sentenced to life in prison

 * Support - per ending of trial mentioned worldwide.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose if we don't publish executions, we certainly don't need to be publishing this. μηδείς (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: Would have been more significant if he'd gotten death (not that I'm saying he should have). -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is established precedent that we do not normally (conceding the possibility of some rare exception) cover the sentencing in criminal trials. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. As noted, we don't usually post sentences, just convictions(did we do that in this case?) 331dot (talk) 09:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the community declined to post the conviction since this was just another American mass shooting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: We posted the outcome of the Boston bombing trial, but that was something different in that it was federal charges and federal death penalty. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Frances Oldham Kelsey

 * Support Seems to have had quite the impact on her field. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Solid article, lots of awards, important role in pharmacological history. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable, solid article, and it makes a nice change from the usual lineup of actors and politicians. Fgf10 (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support A good article and an influential person. Neljack (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 09:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD per above comments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] End of the Daily Show

 * Here's some more coverage of Stewart's significance: Sydney Morning Herald, BBC[BBC, NYTimesNYTimes, The Economist, The Irish Times, Harvard Business Review. The links that I've provided quote serious commentators comparing Stewart to [[Thomas Nast]], Walter Cronkite, Edward Murrow, Will Rogers and others.


 * Oppose. This is just a change of host in a TV show. It's not a record-breaking run, nor does the switch have impact on anyone except its viewers. Minutiae of TV schedules are not ITN's concern. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose rich American television host retires from a long-running show is hardly encyclopedic nor main-page worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose It's not world-shattering news, everyone knew it was coming, and its not like neither the show, nor the host, have continued television presence. --M ASEM (t) 16:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Very strong oppose - Paved no new ground where others had not already gone before.--WaltCip (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I agree with that, he did have a major impact. Just not ITN-worthy for stepping down. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose No of course not. Even if he was actually funny it still wouldn't be newsworthy. Fgf10 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nomination header is incorrect as Trevor Noah takes over the show in six weeks. Jon Stewart has a long and noteworthy run on TDS, but for all the "R.I.P. Jon Stewart" posts, he's not dead or retired, just shifting gears. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

ISIL abductions

 * Comment – Similar BBC report here. Bears watching – 230 is a large number. Sca (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Rather than a blurb, should we return the issue to Ongoing? If there are new developments and article updates, but no major changes to the situation of the war, that's a better route to take. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The (reported) fact that "many" of those abducted are Syrian Christians might make this worth a blurb, but info is still sketchy. Sca (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * support - it is important to let people know what these islamic creeps are doing.,--BabbaQ (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral: I have been saying for months that the ISIL conflict should be listed in ongoing. This development, while horrifying, cannot be said to be as significant as the recapture of Tikrit by Iraqi and Iranian forces, or the Kurdish takeover of Tal Abyad (in June) or Hasakah (this week). -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Now Wikipedia is a propaganda outlet instead of picking the merits of the story itself?? OPPOSE its not unusual what the cia-gcc-mossad created creeps do.120.62.23.188 (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC) ( It's not my vote, but it was previously removed without a reason, so I restored it rightfully. George Ho (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC) )
 * Ongoing - as per the Vine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing We really need to just keep them in Ongoing and stop the on/off treatment. ISIL is not going away anytime soon. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't be too sure. I read somewhere that all  'IS'  members are emigrating to Kepler-452b. – Sca (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is so good for you, that you are just reading about this group.--Jenda H. (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait a minute, I didn't read that – it was in a strange dream I had last night. Sca (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Week oppose there are so many mass kidnappings committed not only by ISIS in Syria civil war. Syria is no more a sovereign state in true sense. Does it the taking of Al-Qaryatayn by ISIS make a history? I don't think so.--Jenda H. (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose target has only two sentences on the kidnappings. -- Callinus (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Suez Canal expansion

 * Support - Good idea, I don't see any problems here. Very large infrastructure project, international in scope. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – but there is already an article about expansion, which should be in the blurb.--Jenda H. (talk) 07:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This is definitely a news which could have major implications on the international transport and foreign trade.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Large infrastructure project in an important shipping route. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - International coverage, But the New Suez Canal should be the main blurb.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have now done a double in the Alt 1 blurb. In my opinion that looks better and is more appropriate. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: No mention of the New Suez Canal in the text of Suez Canal. Seems like it should be mentioned. New_Suez_Canal could use some cleanup.  Spencer T♦ C 10:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ and ✅ -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per all the votes above. Should be posted ASAP. 117.216.145.26 (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Major project with long-term effects. Excellent encyclopaedic value. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment once the maintenance tags on the New Suez Canal article are addressed, there's no reason this can't be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support a better blurb. Neither of these 2 are particularly well-written. Nergaal (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In what way? 331dot (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per above comments. This is an excellent ITN candidate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support As an especially interesting piece of world news. Note that all of the updated content is in New Suez Canal, so Suez Canal should not be bolded. Also note that we don't usually link country names on the main page. This is reflected in Alt Blurb 2. Mamyles (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted -- KTC (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The image in the article appears to be a copyvio or, at best, incorrectly sourced/tagged. Its now at PUF so you may wish to consider remedial action? Spartaz Humbug! 19:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not really the remit of ITN, unless it's an image featured on the main page. Feel free to fix the issue.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Nobody noticed the blurb for a subject from a metric country only uses imperial measurements? Really? Have already raised this on Errors, as the blurb has incredibly already gone on the Main page in this form. Fgf10 (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Colorado mine spill

 * Note I just created this article and it is NOT ready for posting yet, obviously. I would like some help from the community to make this a good article before consideration for posting. Thank you. Brian Everlasting (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I boldly added it (didn't realize there was a process). I had developed a more expanded article at 2015 Gold King Mine waste water spill, also boldly redirected. Sadads (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support huge, long term economic, environmental and legal impact on a vast region. μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Long term impact still unknown, but with 22,000 other abandoned mines, this canary in the gold mine disaster is worth noting. --Light show (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose still too soon. The rivers are clear upstream. No harm indicated to wildlife or humans. EPA says there will only be sediments. The rivers are still open to the public and drinking water is still drawn from them with a request for testing but nothing concrete that it is a long term or a meaningful spill. --DHeyward (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per DHeyward. I would have opted to wait, but this started 5 days ago so if nothing "major" has come about by now, odds are it won't be terribly bad. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume "rivers are clear upstream" is a joke? Rivers don't flow upstream.  The EPA lied about the original amount of the spill, stonewalled on notifying the locals, and is saying that the toxins will sediment out, but that is what the polluters of the Hudson who opposed the Pollution_of_the_Hudson_River said.  I suggest that the oppose votes point out a worse case of river contamination in US history.  This one affects the Navajo Nation (who are suing) and the Colorado river through the Grand Canyon and to the Hoover Dam. μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Read over a few more articles, but the main issue I keep running across is how bad are the effects? EPA hasn't said anything about potential health effects nor environmental impacts; however, some areas are possibly (EPA isn't being clear...shocker) already back to "pre-event conditions" (per the Denver Post). I've stricken my oppose in light of lack of complete understanding on my part, but without a clear indication of the effects, I can't necessarily support either. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're still interested,, you can look at yesterday's article from the NYT. Note the yellow deposits on the river banks.  This is cadmium, which is highly toxic--for which see cadmium poisoning. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "clear upstream" is the source. The spill is a plume which travels with river.  Being clear upstream is part of measuring when the event ended just as downstream measurements will indicate when the plume passes.  The pictures where it was yellow are snapshots and they are no longer yellow in those upstream areas.  The plume has passed them.  See the stats below on Lake Powell for dilutions and why water officials in AZ are not concerned about safety of the water supply.  That doesn't mean that states and localities looking for compensation will claim it's safe but we've not seen dead livestock or fish or anything else that indicates a biohazard.  This is quite different from BP spill or Exxon Valdez where the impact is readily apparent.  --DHeyward (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - No need to wait the consequences. This disaster affects the natural environment. Rivers were affected. George Ho (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, media are treating it as an inconsequential "in other news" story. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why else opposing it besides how the media treats this story? George Ho (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason, I suspect, that the media is not interested is that there are no dead fish or birds to take pictures of. This suggests that this spill is not all that bad. The Santa Barbara oil spill a few months back was not posted, because it was not considered bad enough.
 * There could be pictures of it, but the press can decide whether or not to post them. And suggesting the spill is not that bad underestimates possible harm to society. Do you think either blurb can mislead readers into believing the spill is harmful or harmless? George Ho (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose "no evidence yet of human injury or wildlife die off."... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support It's still showing up in the top stories on Google News, and one of the most recent includes: '"Over the next few days, the waters in the river are going to clear up," said Jeff Witte, New Mexico's agriculture secretary. "That's doesn't mean they're safe folks." Mark Hayes of the EPA reminded residents not to use the water until they get an all clear. When that will be, they don't know.' I'd call that significant and ongoing. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 11:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support We wouldn't buy "no evidence yet of human injury" from BP or Exxon-Mobil if they caused a similar catastrophe; why are we buying it from the EPA? Attempts from them to downplay this are pure CYA.--WaltCip (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. --<b style="color:grey">ceradon</b> ( talk •  edits ) 16:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support A significant environmental disaster. When you are closing rivers it's a big deal. And no, I don't trust the EPA anymore than I would BP to be upfront about this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment this has barely scratched the surface of news outside the US, and it currently has no clear consequences. In other such situations we usually wait to find out if anything truly detrimental takes place, rather than relying on editors' personal opinions on conspiracy theories or cover-ups.  This posting is poorly thought through in my opinion, Gold King Mine doesn't have an article, and all the news outlets are suggesting nothing has actually really happened.  Of course if something does, we could post it, but right now it looks completely absurd to post this item with no real definition of the impact of the spill.  Of course, once we start seeing all the animals and humans nearby dying, we should re-consider, but right now, nothing is happening.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A list of mostly smaller waterway spills throughout the world that received major attention with the damage observed over time. FWIW, the 3 million gallons for this one equals 25 million pounds. --Light show (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pounds of what? That's just a conversion of water volume to water weight.  Here's another one:  It's 9 acre-feet of contaminated water (which already has a dilution).  Lake Powell is 24,000,000 acre-feet of water.  It takes in 9,000 acre-ft of water a day.  The dilution rate is order of magnitude over a mile and the spill is 250 miles upstream of Lake Powell.  The total volume of contaminated water is 0.1% of a days worth of water. By the time it gets to Lake Powell it will be spread into multiple days (the 9 stays the same, the 9,000 grows so dilution in the stream is likely to make it unmeasureable).  It then gets added to the 24,000,000 acre-feet.  Whatever the PPM was at it's highest concentration, divide it by 30 million for worst case.  Every day that passes, double the 30 million. (3rd day after spill means 120 million).  --DHeyward (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right that one can't talk about gallons of solution as if they equal pounds of pollutant, but cadmium is lethal (LD50) in humans from between .35g and 3.5g, with inhaled dust being far more toxic. The estimated 3 million gallons spilt includes not just solute but also tailings, which means sludge.  Comparing the volume of the spill with the volume of Lake Powell is an apples and oranges thing.  What matters is the inflow from the spill and the outflow from the Colorado.  This will be affected by the sedimentation, but the problem is the sedimentation still poisons bottom feeding fish, and doesn't just disappear--rather it become sequestered, causing long-term damage.  What is known hear is worth posting, what is not known here is no objection to posting. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The safe levels of cadmium in drinking water is 5 ppb. The post-spill measurement was 6 ppb at the highest concentration.  Lead was a much higher increase than cadmium and cadmium is being played as a red herring.  It's not an issue.  In the entire 25 million pounds of water, there were 65 grams of cadmium total.  It's considered safe to drink with 50 grams of cadmium in that amount of water.  --DHeyward (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

A river sample had 12,000 times EPA's acceptable levels of lead Of course there's a huge lake called Powell in Arizona but what about the fish upstream of that lake? Just because fish can survive a few days doesn't mean that they can't die off in 3 weeks or 3 months or all die from cancer in 3 years and bioaccumulate in the food chain. I know cadmium accumulates up the food chain and in animal bodies and it apparently collects in the human kidney for 20-30 years. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See above. Levels of cadmium are not particularly high. Lead is though but dilution will quickly change it. --DHeyward (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Update - The event occurred on August 5, so I moved the discussion accordingly. George Ho (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

2015 Copa Libertadores

 * Support. Came here to nominate it myself. This is the most-important football club tournament in the Western Hemisphere, and the 2nd in the entire globe. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 14:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Since this is on the ITNR list support based on the merits is not necessary; we only need to judge that an adequate update has been made and decide on a blurb. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: The prose summary for the finals is acceptable. Referencing is at acceptable levels. No reason not to post this now, even if the articles aren't perfect. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose you think seven sentences of prose, including one dedicated to an injury and one dedicated to a red card, is an adequate summary of two 90-minute matches in an ITNR? I don't think so.  Seven paragraphs would be more appropriate.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's raising the bar a bit high: two or three well written and properly referenced paragraphs would suffice. But I agree that the update is currently insufficient. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It was a direct comparison to the seven sentences. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Question I don't want to get into a debate about OTHERSTUFF type matters, but the community roundly decided to NOT post the CONCACAF tournament earlier this month, but a similar CONMEBOL tournament would get posted? They are equivalent FIFA regions, why is one regional FIFA tournament worth posting and another not?  I'm not arguing we should or shouldn't post either this one (or should have posted the other).  I'm just trying to understand what the standards are for deciding which tournaments to post and which to not.  If there's good reasons, I'm quite understanding, but I can't figure out how two nearly identical tournaments would have differing levels of support.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Any reasonable football observer knowledgeable about both regions would say that the CONMEBOL tournament is a significantly higher standard than the CONCACAF standard. Also, Mexican teams, which are the strongest in the CONCACAF region (judging by the winners of the CONCACAF Champions League) also compete in the Copa Liberatadores.  The South American tournament is also much older and more established and valued by its fans.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate that. The standard supposedly argued for not posting the CONCACAF tournament, however, was "We don't post regional tournaments", not "We don't post this one tournament because it's not good enough".  I'm just looking for consistency and understanding.  Your explanation makes sense, and would have made sense at the last (non-)posting of the CONCACAF tournament had that been the argument; but the argument posited there was "We don't post regional tournaments"... Thanks though, your explanation is reasonable.  Still inviting more commentary.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Naga truce

 * Support A peace accord in a very long-standing conflict. Neljack (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Significant development likely to bring conclusion to a lengthy rebellion in one of the world's largest and most diverse countries. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I should note that even the most cursory glance at these articles shows them being well far removed from being fit to post. Somebody with greater knowledge of the subject than I have should clean them up with suitable, preferably scholarly, references. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose condition of highlighted article is woeful. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Saudi–UAE invasion to Yemen

 * Support Ground invasions are obviously notable. But I would prefer not calling the Houthis "rebels", since neither side has much legitimacy; We did not call the current Ukrainian government "rebels" after arguably illegally ousted Ukrainian President Yanukovych invited the Russians into Crimea. Thue (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - absolutely for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose can't see any relevant updates. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Just want to note that this conflict has already received a few blurbs here. I would prefer putting this back to Ongoing, over posting a new blurb. Mamyles (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless the situation changes significantly. All three sources you cite are very careful to make it clear this is not an invasion but just the supply of military equipment and advisors ("local journalists told the BBC that Emirati troops had recently disembarked in Aden and were deployed as advisers, rather than in combat, while a Yemeni military official denied foreign troops had landed in Yemen"). That Saudi and UAE are willing to commit expensive equipment rather than just providing moral support is significant, but it's a long way from a ground invasion (by this logic, the UK is currently engaged in an invasion of Ukraine). – iridescent 15:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per iridescent. No evidence that this is a major event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless this so-called "invasion" escalates significantly. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Newsflash from "so called" invasion: Saudi Arabia sends new military equipment including tanks from Sharura into northern Yemen to support government forces fighting Iran-backed Houthi militants. VOA --Jenda H. (talk) 08:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The key word there being "equipment". Supplying weapons to an ally, along with instructors to show local troops how to operate it, is not an "invasion", or by that reasoning the US, Britain, Russia and France are between them currently invading most countries in the world. – iridescent 09:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Discovered debris probably of lost Flight 370
The wait is implied, but at this point it seems all but certain that the flaperon belonged to MH 370. An official annoucement might come as early as today. This ITN/C is just so we can decide on which blurb to put eventually. --bender235 (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thanks for the nomination, Bender235. Under the rules, it goes to the date of event. Id est ("that is") the date when the debris was discovered. I assumed it was August 1, but it turns out to be July 29. I've moved the nomination twice to earlier date. But we'll see how it goes. --George Ho (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My triple mistake. July 29 was a debris discovery. August 1 was a debris transfer to France. The blurb is still too soon to tell. But I still can't figure out which date to put in. For now, I've moved the nomination back to the date of nomination for further updates. George Ho (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I put it here because today's the day when there will be most likely an annoucement regarding the origin of that flaperon. --bender235 (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't we wait for the results of the expert examination of the debris? Neljack (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously we should. But anything but a confirmation later today would be a huge surprise. They already confirmed it was a Boeing 777 part, and there's no other airplane of that type missing in that part of the world. This entry is just to discuss the blurb, not to post anything prematurely. --bender235 (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How long does it take the French to check a serial number?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , bleve the proper form of this joke is, "How many Frenchmen does it take to check a numéro de série? Sca (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Répondre de Calais: not long. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The analysis begins today, I suspect it will continue into next week. Brandmeistertalk  07:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * A possibility is still a possibility. Let's wait until we're crystal clear.--WaltCip (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Altblurb 2. Wait until BEA has official announcement. -- Callinus (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The finding of a piece of debris does not of itself resolve any of the questions surrounding the plane's fate.Will reconsider if/when they actually find the plane or reach some definitive conclusion about what happened to it. Finding a piece of debris is not ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - the flaperon has been confirmed to have come from the missing aircraft. This is a significant development in the mystery. Mjroots (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support why we needed to wait for a few days after this discovery to confirm the ultimate fate I know not, an as-built record would have confirmed this in seconds. Nevertheless, we can now claim the end of the beginning, we now know for a fact that the aircraft was destroyed.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per TRM and others. If/when the actual cause of the plane's loss comes out, that can be posted as well. Calidum T&#124;C 18:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Agree it's a significant development. But wholly agree with comment by Ad Orientem. Let's hope people don't think "surprising it crashed if that's all that fell off." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, there's no chance of people suggesting that, it's more a case of "at least we now know it's crashed". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, it could never fly with all those barnacles on it, could it Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Now confirmed, see . shoy (reactions) 18:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, this is the first totally independent piece of evidence that confirms that the plane indeed crashed somewhere in or near the current search areas in the Southern Indian ocean. Count Iblis (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Quite swift confirmation today. Major breakthrough and clue in this whole MH370 story. Brandmeistertalk  19:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a suggestion on the errors page that there is still some doubt about the certainty of experts regarding this piece of debris. The person raising the concern links to a NYT article that implies the experts are still not 100% certain. No one has responded to the error suggestion there, so I thought I'd mention it here. Are we sure they're sure? Rhodesisland (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, it has been confirmed that the piece of wing they found was that of a Boeing 777; this flight is the only Boeing 777 that is missing. There were indeed varying statements from the different agencies involved- but it is very hard to see how this could be anything but part of this flight. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There seems to have been some embarrassment over the timing of an announcement, rather than any technical dispute. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Natalia Molchanova

 * I would support on notability, but her death doesn't seem to have been confirmed. Neljack (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait per Neljack. If her death is confirmed, I'll support the posting of an updated and improved article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb now that search-and-rescue efforts have been called off. Highly notable person at the very top of her athletic field, believed to be dead in an unusual and poignant way. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait per Neljack. Her death is not confirmed yet. Plus article needs improvements. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Dilemma - Presumed dead is not the same as dead. But unless something unusual happened, it's unlikely she's alive - and her body might never be found. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support once the article issues have been resolved and once some level of confirmation is given by RS. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until confirmed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment possible blurb, considering that she was literally a legend and has gone missing underwater for three days. She could hold her breath for nine minutes.  Given it's making the homepage of the UK version of the BBC News website, this is most certainly significant.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. A blurb might be a good idea. Just need confirmation, possibly article update afterwards, and her career section needs sources. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this. I don't think this would be a suitable blurb candidate in any way, shape, or form. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That the greatest ever free diver is missing, presumed dead? Well there you go, the idea of a blurb was that it would cover the idea that she is missing, presumed dead, rather than confirmed dead, which RD would require.  Either way I can see that you aren't interested in this nomination, fair enough.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Lack of confirmation is a good reason to not post it at all, not elevate it to a blurb. With all due respect to the presumably deceased, this is a minor death of a niche athlete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "minor death"? Strange way of putting it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, really. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Calling someone's death "minor" is highly offensive. Non-notable by Wikipedia standards, maybe. But not "minor". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I made an accurate appraisal of the nomination. If that highly offends anyone, that's something I have no control over. I said exactly what I meant to say. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't appraise the nomination, you appraised the person. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the difference here. How exactly do you evaluate a death nomination without evaluating the person who died? --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't evaluate the person as a person, you evaluate their public notability per ITN guidelines. To call anyone's death "minor" is cold and callous. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely very odd to describe the death of anyone as "minor". Perhaps it's a language thing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Would being shot by an anti-aircraft mortar count as a "major" death?--WaltCip (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support RD as an important figure in free diving. I'm learning toward weak oppose for a blurb, based on my subjective evaluation of this individual's importance, though I do understand other editors may judge her importance differently. Mamyles (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD oppose blurb. This is rather clearly qualified for RD but the article is too small to meet the prior ITN criteria before we had RD.  Should go up ASAP. μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. She clearly meets the bar for notability in her sport, with the sheer number of world records and gold medals - but the article is little more than a stub with an attached table that isn't completely sourced yet. Challenger l (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the General Criteria link at the top of this page, . Her article clearly meets the Fuzhou derailment criterion for article size. μηδείς (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Posting a blurb means that this person is special enough to be featured on the front page. However, she's not prominent enough to be newsworthy; neither is her presumed obituary. As for the RD, that would mean she's dead. She's just drowned into the deep waters. Her body just disappeared, so perhaps I'll propose the missing persons ticker. In the meantime, let's not make death presumptions a real indication of death. George Ho (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment If we are going to do anything with this, it should probably be soon. We are inching towards the point where this nom is going to start looking a tad stale. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Harda twin train derailment

 * Support - two trains, over 30 killed. Mjroots (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support given the death toll. Neljack (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support given the casualties and unusual nature of the event. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is already an article about it. It was created before this one. Harda twin train derailment - Supdiop ( Talk 🔹 Contribs ) 10:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I proposed that Kudawa derailment be merged into Harda twin train derailment because latter is older. Harda is also more notable and several sources say that accident happened in Harda not Kudawa. "The Hindu" also says Harda twin train derailment. Thank you Supdiop ( Talk 🔹 Contribs ) 11:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support but I recommend the blurb mention India (perhaps attached to the pipe of the Madhya Pradesh link), as neither location to me strikes me as well-recognized in the English-speaking part of the world. --M ASEM (t) 14:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This tragic accident meets the bar for posting to ITN. I agree with Masem, and suggest an Alt Blurb that includes the state and country for recognition, and because the district article is of low quality. Mamyles (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Kudawa derailment is now redirected to Harda twin train derailment. Please don't consider me as a creator or updater. Thank you --Supdiop ( Talk 🔹 Contribs ) 16:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb per above comments. Clearly meets ITN criteria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted and subsequently fixed by Mjroots. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Robert Conquest

 * Support - I improved the article by adding sources. The subject is notable. I was about to nominate him myself! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Highly regarded, and highly critical, British-American historian of the the Stalin era: influenced generations of historians. Sca (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Absurd that this was marked ready while comments refered to him in the present tense; the article needs a good going over. I certainly support the nomination of any anti-marxist of his stature, but we need sources for works and awards that don't have dated and specified blue links or full in text descriptions. μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your politically motivated comment is utterly disgusting. Have some respect. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's hardly the worst of all the forum-esque comments I've seen around here. Have some perspective.--WaltCip (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support for RD post haste. — <span style="border:1px solid #000073;background:#4D4DA6;padding:2px;color:#F9FFFF;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"> AjaxSmack   03:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD Obviously meets ITNDC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] RD: Les Munro

 * Oppose As a New Zealander, I have to say that describing him as a "national hero" is pushing it - he was pretty well known, but probably not a household name. He is obviously a highly decorated war veteran, but there are lots of those and I don't think that's sufficient to warrant posting. It should also be noted that he was not the last of the Dambusters - he was the last Dambuster pilot, but there are still two Dambuster aircrew alive. In any case, I'm not sure that being the last survivor of a particular WWII operation - albeit a famous one - is sufficient to justify posting either. Neljack (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose A highly decorated war veteran. But is that enough to satisfy ITNDC? I don't think so though I'd probably support if he had the VC -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * References needed I have no opinion as to notability, but the article has entirely unreferenced sections. μηδείς (talk) 02:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The much-dramatized "Dam Busters" raids killed 1,600 civilians, including 1,000 forced  laborers, for what British RAF historian Jonathan Falconer terms as "a minor inconvenience to the Ruhr's industrial output." (Such attacks on dams were banned by an amendment to the Geneva Conventions in 1977.) Sca (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral there's really no need to start claiming collateral damage and dragging up historical hatred here. To do so is simply grotesque.  Whether certain individual editors or writers believe it or not, the Dam Busters are an integral and notable part of the Second World War, just as the Nazis who murdered millions of civilians and forced labourers.  We are not here to re-define what is and is not important in the context of history, news outlets have published this individual's death.  Having said that, it's just another epoch-passing moment, the history will remain whether it's subjectively decided to be significant or not, it's still there.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – This user suggests that those interested in the topic read this section of the relevant article, and decide for themselves whether Mr. Munro's participation in the raids qualifies him for RD posting. Sca (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And this user suggests that other users reappraise themselves of the purpose and criteria surrounding ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The orange tag and sparse sourcing, along with the rather disjointed nature of the article - it needs a re-write into a proper article, and not simply a disjointed association of sentences and a handful of paragraphs. Another that is a depressing sight for one with his honors and long history. Challenger l (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 23rd World Scout Jamboree

 * Er, what INTR is this? I'm not seeing anything scouting related there. And generally Oppose, not a significant event. --M ASEM  (t) 22:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Why would we post a scouting jamboree? Also the article, which is pretty short, says nothing about Israel boycotting it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Being the 'world's largest' X doesn't automatically mean it makes ITN.  News coverage of this seems limited. I've also removed the ITNR as this is not on the list. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see this meeting any ITN criteria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Scouting is nice, but sorry, this isn't front page headlines or events.  Aerospeed  (Talk) 23:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Clean Power Plan

 * Weak Oppose posting the announcement of a domestic policy 'plan' that will almost certainly be challenged in court or possibly overturned by Congress. It will probably be a long time before this is implemented. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Since when do we post domestic policy announcements? Snowclose, one would think. Fgf10 (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * DYK Since the article was just created today, it'd be a good fit at DYK (with some expansion). – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This should be posted only after there is no remaining ways of shutting it down (i.e.: Supreme Court ruling and such). Nergaal (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose unbinding policy fluff meant for press consumption. Even if it were a law it would have no guarantee of any actual effect four administrations from now. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above comments. It's a policy goal, likely to be aggressively challenged in Congress and the courts. These kinds of announcements are a dime a dozen. - Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The word Plan says it all. Sca (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Think this still would need Congressional approval, and I also believe it is in response to a recent court case where the EPA's previous clean power plant rules were overturned. Not seeing immediate newsworthiness here but DYK is good target. --M ASEM (t) 22:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Greek Stock Market Crash

 * Support conditionally The Greek debt crisis was quiet when it was removed from ITN/R. Now, it's loud again. Athens Exchange is not a particularly great looking article at the moment, though. Also, neither source you provided refers to this as a "crash". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is not the greatest article, but I think it is adequately referenced and will serve. Greek government-debt crisis, which I would normally think the better target, unfortunately has issues that probably can't be resolved in a timely manner. I have also added two sources that specifically use the word "crash" though I do believe that commonsense would allow for that adjective when talking about these kinds of one day losses. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose the target is a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I just rerated it as start-class. It has about 2500 B of prose, and seems to be beyond a stub class article. I do agree though that the quality isn't presently sufficient for posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Wait – Tomorrow's another day. Sca (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow. I don't usually question other editors in their vote rationals, and in fairness there are some reasons I could think of that might give an editor some pause on this nomination. But yours is not on the list. I don't see how that oppose rational could not be applied to the vast majority of what we post on here. The word "frivolous" comes to mind. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Now, now, WP:NPA! A bleak day on the Athens Exchange, no doubt, but stock markets are notoriously volatile. In deference to Addy's sensitivities, though, I'll change my vote to wait – for now. Sca (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't criticizing you. I was criticizing your vote rational. That said, I will admit that I am not altogether happy with the article quality. I just think this is a news item that should be posted on ITN. I would call my own vote as the nom a weak support.
 * Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad Orientem.
 * Update: – On Tuesday the Athens Exchange index declined 1.2 percent, compared to Monday's net loss of 16 percent. Sca (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Cilla Black

 * Support Long and notable career. I came to nominate this myself (would have been my first here). Julius R.S (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on severe article improvement Right now the article is a massive BLP failure and needs serious sourcing work. --M ASEM (t) 13:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. This is not a world-changing death and we really need to be a lot more careful on where blurbs for RD candidates are used. --M ASEM  (t) 14:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support / Support blurb - Icon of the 60s Merseybeat scene, unexpected death, worthy of a blurb., I'm not seeing any tags in the article. Mjroots (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * More than half of the paragraphs on her bio and career are unsourced. No, there are no tags but just the lack of a maintenance tag doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist. --M ASEM (t) 14:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose right now. Far too many unreferenced claims for this to be even close to posting.  BLP still applies here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support when article sufficiently improved. Clearly meets RD criteria. 82.132.228.143 (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless the article can be completely reliably sourced by midnight tonight, or when she stops being on the front page of BBC News, where she is currently the lead story. There are just too many unsourced quotations and claims. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that this does not currently merit posting but on what basis are you imposing a time limit? Usually people have until a nomination drops off a page, especially if there is support for posting on the merits(as there is here) 331dot (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Most deaths stop being news in a day or two, unless it's suspicious circumstances, in which case maybe a week, a member of the Royal family, maybe two, or in the case of Diana, Princess of Wales, I'm not sure the Daily Express has ever stopped. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your view, but your initial post seemed like a deadline or ultimatum after which this would no longer be valid for discussion. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember waiting nearly a week to get Francesco Rosi posted at RD. I'd suggest that Cilla, being many times more notable in UK than Rosi, ought to expect to be posted regardless of any time limit. But then I'd also expect far more editors to help in improving the article. All the sources required will be in English for a start, well roughly English, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Calm down, calm down, Martin, I'm sure people will leap in to help update our Cilla's page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure dale be dare sooon. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So what still needs supporting? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support conditional on major improvements to the article Subject is clearly ITNDC material. But as noted above the article has significant issues, mostly in the WP:V area. I have added a ref improve tag. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - a major force within her field of work. definite for RD mention.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Anyone who had a heart would post this. Sca (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - the article is in pretty good shape now (well done Martinevans123) ... marked as Ready. Black Kite (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not Ready Martinevans work has indeed been good, but there are plenty of claims like comparisons with other artists that need citations. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but it was only minor copy editing and stylistic changes. I did not search for any new sources. Thanks for marking up. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * After the diligent work of User:Yorkshiresky, now looks ready. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As one that had issue with the sourcing, the current version does look sufficiently inline-sourced to post now, good work. --M ASEM (t) 14:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - surprise surprised this hasn't been posted already. Optimist on the run (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks Great kudos to . μηδείς (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging to post assuming he's happy with cites. μηδείς (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, well done all those who worked hard on getting this up to snuff, so now posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Hammer throw world record

 * Support We certainly should post women's world records just as we would post men's. They should be treated equally. This was the first women's hammer throw to break the 80 m mark. It beat the previous record by 1.5 m. I think that warrants posting. Neljack (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support The same athlete broke the same record in August 2014. Do we keep posting new blurbs if she keeps breaking her own record? 61.3.105.64 (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I don't think an athlete extending their own record is as notable as a new person doing so, especially in one small track and field event.  I'm also not seeing a great deal of coverage of this. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – In the grand scheme of things, even in the record-crazed sports world, this seems rather trivial. Sca (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom records in sport are important. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  12:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ITN is not a sports record ticker. Some are important enough to be posted, but not every one.  331dot (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose we really don't need to set a precedent for publishing a blurb every time a world record is broken, where do you draw the line? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't post sports trivia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. I also agree with TRM's observation. We really don't want to set a precedent here. Sports records are set with great frequency and it would be a nightmare trying to decide what gets posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose this broke last year's record by ~0.2% if I have my math correct. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Meh - Sorry, I know what the instructions say, but this is the definition of "meh". --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose More trivial than newsworthy I think, and the article quality doesn't beg for a posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The hammer throw is only marginally important to the general sport audience for a few days every four summers, and even then, pales next to the track events. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closing] African golden wolf

 * They elevated a subspecies to species status based on DNA alone. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. The CNN story states "On closer look, researchers propose new species: African golden wolf".  This isn't someone finding a new species in the jungle somewhere, but a reclassification of existing species(based on DNA as Abductive states). 331dot (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 331dot. This looks more or less like a renaming or reclassification of something that has long been known to exist. That's too trivial for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support if we have an accurate blurb (see atlblurb) specifying exactly what has happened. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is just a reclassification. Maybe important for some zoologists, but has no effect on the real world. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly notable, but also per μηδείς. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: I'd definitely back this if it were a new species being discovered, but these sort of taxological reshufflings happen fairly often and with literally no effect on the world outside the particular scientific discipline. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)