Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/July 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] 2015 Blackbushe Airport crash

 * 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.


 *  Wait Oppose I'm not seeing anything that rings the ITN bell right now. Bin laden's relatives are not sufficiently notable in their own right to warrant any attention here. Of course this is breaking news so maybe something significant will turn up that makes this a good ITN candidate. For now I'm leaning towards oppose. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb to your pleasure. --George Ho (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The body count is too low for ITN. Something that hasn't been reported so far needs to come up for me to be able to support this. Still leaning to oppose. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Don't see notability other than tabloid sensationalism. --bender235 (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not the first disaster at that airfield, but probably even less notable (unless a connection with the CIA is uncovered, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Obvious oppose. "Four people killed in light aircraft crash" is a routine story, and that some of the people killed were members of the (huge) Bin Laden family is of no significance; given the expense of aviation in the UK, a sizeable fraction of private aircraft are going to be carrying someone wealthy and well-known or their families. – iridescent 19:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I suspect that in four weeks time this article won't even exist. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 1 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] RD: Howard W. Jones

 * Support. No issue I immediately see at article. --M ASEM  (t) 05:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support the image doesn't have a fair use rationale for use on this article so it should either be added or the image removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Rambling Man, no image shall obstruct the nomination. By the way, I removed the image and added an infobox image. --George Ho (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I quote from our IVF article "In 1977, Steptoe and Edwards successfully carried out a pioneering conception which resulted in the birth of the world's first baby to be conceived by IVF, Louise Brown on 25 July 1978, in Oldham General Hospital, Greater Manchester, UK". Jones did create the first IVF baby in the US, but the nominators comments as stated at best oversimplify the situation. Fgf10 (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fgf10, I'm not proposing a blurb. I'm proposing his mere name to be shown as part of RD ticker. Of course, thanks for the heads up. George Ho (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support RD Looks highly notable and important within his field. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Even his bio doesn't claim he "created in vitro fertilization", because it's completely untrue. He introduced an already-existing procedure to the United States, which is not to be sniffed at but isn't of any particular significance. (He's not even mentioned in either the in vitro fertilization article or the bio of the man who actually created it.) – iridescent 19:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose The Henrietta Lacks aspect is mildly noteworthy, but probably not to the extent of being worthy of RD.  Spencer T♦ C 06:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: Not seeing much coverage of this, and it doesn't seem like he was at the top of his field. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Roddy Piper

 * Weak Support conditional on significant article improvements. Pro-wrestling is not really my cup of tea but the subject does appear to have a decent claim to importance in the field and probably satisfies ITNDC #2. That said, there is way too much unsourced material in the article at present to link on the Front Page.
 * Conditional support He's a notable name in wrestling and meets ITNDC#2. The sourcing, though, I agree is problematic. Is "wrestling-titles.com", for instance, a reliable source? "411mania.com"? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrestling-titles is as solid as the world has, for that sort of thing. 411Mania, though, is hit and miss. It's a freelance deal, like every news outlet on the Internet has lately. Depends on the author. Ranks high in Google News, for what that's worth. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The page looks much better now than it did two days ago. It'll be nice when this is posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. A legendary and long lived figure in pro wrestling.  (Sources are reliable enough given the subject; they'd definitely hear about it if they got something wrong.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support pending article improvements See sourcing issues above. Just for importance, I think this barely squeaks by given his importance the WWF at its inception. --M ASEM  (t) 02:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - An important figure in his field. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Myself and a few other editors are currently working on references and other improvements to the article. Nikki  ♥  311   02:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - adding mainstream sources for death to the nomination. CNN said The superstar of the 1980s was arguably the top bad guy in professional wrestling history. The Independent said the actor and wrestling legend ... famed for being one of the best heels, or villains, in his profession. starship.paint ~  KO   02:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. They didn't have anything ready when I nominated. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Support not only wrestling, but acting too..a very descent actor, not something you can say about any professional wrestler.-- Stemoc 03:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not many, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support One of the most notable wrestlers to ever live.LM2000 (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support once updated. Notable enough.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support once updated. An absolute legend in the wrestling community and one of the few to speak out against WWE and still return. Miyagawa (talk) 08:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Article's in good shape.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. Headliner for decades, lots of mainstream coverage, etc. It's a pleasant surprise to see a lack of "oppose, wrestling's not notable" votes this time around. -- Scorpion 0422  11:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Death has four cited paragraphs now. Refs better, but not perfect. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unmarking sorry, as a BLP this is still under-referenced; just take a look at "American Wrestling Association (1973–1975)" (1 ref for the whole section), "National Wrestling Alliance (1975–1980)" (1 ref for the whole section), "1989–1992" (1 ref for the whole section), first four paras of "Second return to WWE (2005–2015)" (entirely without a single reference).  This isn't good enough I'm afraid.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, if and when the referencing issues are resolved. Roddy Piper was among the top figures in his field and one of relatively few to achieve mainstream fame (i.e., it was common for people who didn't follow professional wrestling to be familiar with him) at a time when that was less common than it is today.  However, "reliable enough given the subject" is an unacceptable standard.  (Unfortunately, it appears to be one to which many or most of Wikipedia's professional wrestling-related articles have been held.)  —David Levy 21:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comment was completely unnecessary. Professional wrestling articles are among the most highly edited on Wikipedia. That's a bit of a double-edged sword. It means people edit them thousands of times a day; unfortunately, a huge amount of this comes from IPs and other editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. However, the professional wrestling project is a small group of active, knowledgeable editors with a thorough understanding of verifiability and reliable sources. The "given the subject" comment did not come from a project member, and it would never come from a project member, because they take proper sourcing very seriously. It's particularly troubling to see this unwarranted attitude propagated by an administrator, who should be able to comment on an issue without taking a cheap shot. I certainly wouldn't say that the problem is no more prevalent in professional wrestling articles than elsewhere on Wikipedia. I just flipped through 10 random articles, and I came up with completely unreferenced articles about a Canadian town, ice hockey, commerce, soccer, religion, and a stadium. One article about a biathlon competition had one reference. Another was about a brewery and had 7 references for the 1270 words. That makes 8 out of 10 articles with reference problems. In fact, the only articles that were well-referenced in that random sample were Bathybuccinum clarki and Robert Alaine, two stubs with a combined three sentences. Nobody in the professional wrestling project would look at the state of the Roddy Piper article two days ago and think it was acceptable, but please note that the number of (unique) references has gone from 63 to 110, with the new references being reliable sources, and several of the old unreliable sources have been replaced. Yes, wrestling-titles.com is an unreliable source. Unfortunately, the history for many of those titles is only available in one book, which is out of print and costs a minimum of $130 on Amazon (one project member owns it but is on vacation). I would hope, however, that the project's activity on this article over the past couple of days has helped you see the extent to which you have apparently misunderstood the project. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm only guessing, but I think the crux of what David was trying to suggest was that the article contained and still contains a surfeit of unreferenced claims. That fails WP:V and WP:BLP in this case.  I believe David's quote was a direct response to Smerdis of Tlön's claim that: "Sources are reliable enough given the subject; they'd definitely hear about it if they got something wrong" which is purely subjective and without foundation.  We need WP:RS to support claims within a BLP, especially one that's going to appear on the main page.  Please also note, it's never the absolute number of references that defines whether an article meets BLP, it's whether the references provided allow someone to verify the claims made within the BLP, especially those considered controversial.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your response has me baffled. I'm not sure what aspect of my statement you are trying to address. If you look above, you'll see that I stated that the project members and I are familiar with verifiability and reliable sources (which you have conveniently linked for me, despite my previous statement). I was clear that nobody from the project would be fine with saying, "These sources aren't reliable, but they're good enough for the subject matter." People are working on the article. The number of references was obviously just an indicator of how the project has come together to source the article. My problem is not a complete lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, but rather with an administrator essentially saying, "The article sucks, but that's par for the course from that project", which is neither civil nor accurate. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have baffled you, to have patronised you, to have borderline insulted you and clearly upset you. To be fair I was just trying to interpret what David had said.  He may be able to explain his position in far more elucidating terms.  The bottom line is that until this is referenced per BLP then it "isn't good enough".  Hope that unbaffles you.   I have no dog in the fight other than not putting an article onto the main page with clear and obvious verification issues.  Perhaps it'd be better to focus on that instead of on David's comments, if you really want this to be featured in RD?  Just a thought.  It is also worth pointing out that numerous other admins may well be happy to post this based on the sheer number of references and the innate reliability of the Wrestling Wikiproject, so it may be posted regardless of my personal concerns.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comments have me baffled, given that I neither mentioned the professional wrestling WikiProject (let alone suggested that Ihcoyc is a participant) nor asserted that similar deficiencies don't exist elsewhere in Wikipedia. It may well be true that "IPs and other editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy" have inserted most of the problematic material and that the professional wrestling WikiProject works tirelessly to improve the situation.  You're defending yourself against accusations that I haven't made.  —David Levy 01:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and Slam! Wrestling (a lot more reputable than it sounds) has a shitload of useful information (scroll to bottom). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As three days have passed since this nom was opened and this has not yet been posted, close as stale.--WaltCip (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Significant (and ongoing) improvements to references make this a good candidate to post while still fresh. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for prompt posting. Personally, I'm not sure where I would come down on sufficient notability, but the consensus seems to be that this is post-worthy from that point of view. The referencing has now been improved, and is sufficient for posting in my view, especially that this is coming up on "now or never" time as a "recent death." Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I've tagged those claims which need sourcing. I would hope, in light of recent Arbcom decisions, that they are not "controversial" so the item can be posted as the work done has been impressive.  Some other admins may disagree.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment People ridicule me when I talk about an anti-pro wrestling bias here, but this situation has really strengthened my belief. A month or so ago Dusty Rhodes had sufficient support for posting, then sat ignored for days before being rejected (in spite of several appeals from me for someone to post it). In this case, there is overwhelming support and a number of editors have put in some hard work to bring it up to par. Yet it still sits ignored. Meanwhile, a quick browsing of this page shows that things have made ITN and RD with half the support and in half the time. Can we stop with the games and please just post this already? -- Scorpion 0422  23:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Aye. Time marches on. I hope if this happens again for Arn Anderson, we can close it as brainbustered rather than filibustered. There's a proposal on the Wikiproject Talk about sprucing up the big name articles, pre-obituary, so this wasn't completely in vain. And, if you think about it, being on Wikipedia's In The News means less, the heavier something is actually in the news. It's a drop in the bucket, then. The semi-famous like Lynn Anderson, Billy Pierce and Edward Natapei could better use the recognition. And no, that's not an insult. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support after some improvements. There's still a section in need of attention - otherwise the sourcing looks pretty thorough. One of the most notable of his sport's last half-century, his influence was felt throughout the sport. Challenger l (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted While not FA quality quite yet, that's not the standard we use for ITN. The article has much improved, and most of the major referencing problems seem to have been addressed.  -- Jayron 32 16:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think WP:BLP is strictly related to FA quality. The article had an orange maintenance tag on the free-for-all filmography section.  It has been posted with many BLP claims unreferenced and unverifiable, see the recent edits of User:Kww for context on protecting lists of awards from BLP violations.  But that seems to be okay on biographies on the main page, just not on lists of awards.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't understand how a partially referenced award list or filmography for a non-living person is a violation of the biographies of living persons policy. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case it seems you haven't actually read the BLP policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I certainly have, thank you. Whether or not a deceased professional wrestler once appeared on the Super Mario Bros. Super Show! doesn't seem to fit with "Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it did. I said BLP still applied.  The Rambling Man (talk) 05:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And actually, unreferenced claims like "He was of majority Scottish descent, with some Irish on his mother's side" can easily be considered questionable or contentious. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

(outdent )User:GaryColemanFan, you've inadvertently stepped into the middle of a surprisingly contentious area. By way of just a small amount of background, when the BLP policy was initially created, it focused exclusively on still-living people, and it especially emphasized that negative information on living people could not be included in an article without a reliable source. Unfortunately, this turned out to be too narrow a policy: When a notable person dies, that should not be a signal that it's now okay to start adding unsourced negative information into the article! This is particularly true where doing so could affect still-living people such as the subject's family. As a result, the BLP policy was expanded to the recently deceased; and also over time, emphasis has grown on how it's desirable to have good sourcing for all content in BLPs (and for that matter, ultimatlely in the entire encyclopedia). That being said, there are obviously issues of prioritizing: if an article about an actor (living or recently deceased) says that he won 20 awards in his career and there are sources for 10 of them, then it would be ideal to source the other 10, but if there's no genuine doubt that he also won the other 10, many editors would consider it a stretch to call the situation a "BLP violation."

A separate issue is whether the existence of an unsourced or only-partially-sourced awards section should disqualify the article from being mainpaged, such as on RD. ITN in general and RD in particular help keep our readers in touch with recent events and Wikipedia's coverage, but regardless of the importance of a event or of a recently deceased individual, our article on the event or the person must meet reasonable quality standards to be worthy of a place on the mainpage. For example, an entirely unreferenced article, or one with very few references relative to its length, certainly would not qualify.

There has been a longstanding debate on this page as to whether that means that to be worthy of an ITN or RD appearance, each and every statement or at least each and every section of the article requires referencing. In the past, I have taken the position that where an article as a whole has a decent degree of referencing, the fact that a given section (such as an "awards section") lacks inline cites should not stop us from including it on ITN or RD. Some other editors, including User:The Rambling Man, have taken the contrary view, opining that substantive unreferenced content is disqualifying for the mainpage&mdash;and if the content doesn't get sourced before (for example) the "recent death" is no longer "recent," then so be it. (An effect of TRM's and others position on this, operationally, is that holding the RD listing up until sources are added results in the sources actually being added&mdash;whereas if the article went onto the mainpage straight away, the incentive to improve it might not be there.) As with so many things on Wikipedia, this doesn't call for automatic, bright-line rules, but for editorial judgment and common sense. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. I sincerely appreciate people willing to take the time to explain a situation in a helpful manner. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] India–Bangladesh land swap

 * Comment didn't we already post this, at least the proposal to do this (on 11 June, according to the talk page)? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose as we posted the agreement itself; maybe if it had fallen apart for some reason that would be worth posting. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment yes we posted agreement between India and Bangladesh. But this news is about actual border change.--Jenda H. (talk) 07:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We posted the agreement to make the swap. The consequent technical details of actually executing it isn't as important (unless it leads to a border war or something).  Spencer T♦ C 07:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above concerns. Duplicate nom/post. Suggest speedy close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Billy Pierce

 * Support notability is reasonably clear, even to a non MLB reader, and the article is a tip-top high-quality effort, so this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Notable in the field and article is in good quality. Normally, I would consider the fact that he isn't in the Hall of Fame, but MLB HOF voting is a dramafest approaching ITN/C levels (I kid, I kid) and Pierce could conceivably make the HOF in a future vote.  Spencer T♦ C 21:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are not wrong about the problems with the baseball HOF voting. If anyone who doesn't know about what a farce it has become wants to know more, ping me and I'll show you some stories. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See for example Pete_Rose. Pete Rose is unquestionably a top baseball player who would be posted at RD, but he is not in the HOF.  Spencer T♦ C 11:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - a top pitcher in his day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. His career seems to meet DC2 as very important to his field. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per above comments. He appears to meet the applicable guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support There might be nit-picky things I see on sourcing (it gets less dense later in the article) but its far from being in poor shape for posting. Importance shown. --M ASEM (t) 22:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment have to oppose a baseball player who didn't make the hall of fame which is a lower standard than RD in my opinion. The GA status helps though.--107.107.61.157 (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ITNDC #2 says... The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field. That is well below HoF standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We posted Minnie Miñoso, a teammate of Pierce's, when he died. Like Pierce, Miñoso is on the outside looking in at Cooperstown. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Minnie Miñoso shouldn't have been posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted so sue me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ebola vaccine

 * Oppose The words "interim analysis," "preliminary," and "vaccine candidate" are sprinkled heavily throughout the paper. A new vaccine for this would definitely be notable, but I recommend waiting until the vaccine has been further tested and approved. Let's not jump the gun here. Mamyles (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with we're not in a hurry. Better wait and see whether the results uphold, rather than posting "preliminary" findings. --bender235 (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait The creation of a viable Ebola vaccine is definitely newsworthy but as the BBC article points out, this is still preliminary results and we usually don't post that. I would expect that something akin to the World Health Org. or the FDA approving the vaccine would be the point of news-worthiness. --M ASEM  (t) — Preceding undated comment added 15:29, July 31, 2015


 * Support pending improvement. That there is an effective vaccine regimine is big news, if it is not to be reported now, when would it be?  The article, however "pleased with the results of the result" is tagged, and a mess. μηδείς (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait per Masem. Nergaal (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is far too much reporting of tiny early trials in the media in general, but this is a phase three trial; it's not approved yet, but as far as I know this is the trial that will be used to decide whether to approve it. The WHO seem to think that it's news, and they are normally pretty cautious. I've asked for WP medicine's opinions. I've also fixed up the article a bit. If someone created an article for the trial (which is big and reported upon more than enough to be notable) we could link to that instead. HLHJ (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless/until vaccine is completed and approved for use. No need for a play-by-play of this vaccine's development. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * very strongly oppose - There is a bunch of media hype about this. The results are interim and WP does not communicate hype to the public. The 24 hour news cycle drives hype, but we are an encyclopedia that provides reliable information to the public. So no, and hell no. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * oppose--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't post "interim" trials and test results. If/When this gets the OK from the FDA it should be renominated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Redlinks on main page, well, ce n'est pas suffi.... -- Jayron 32 19:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Very support All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC).


 * Oppose posting results of a trial; when announced it is available for general use, then maybe. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, edit conflict with the closing; I'm posting this anyway since several people mentioned renomination later: As noted above, the Ebola ça Suffit redlink was in case an article on the trial is written; I've removed it. I've updated the article. I also toned down the blurb after reading a pre-publication review that contradicted part of the published paper (see VSV-EBOV on reporting of adverse effects). Since FDA approval will take the better part of a year minimum, it is to be hoped that the epidemic will be over before it gets FDA approval; the continuation of the trial in modified form is broad enough that vaccine may be administered to all the people who would get it were it approved for ring vaccination (whether this is a good idea is another question). When, if ever, do people think this should be nominated? HLHJ (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest renomination once the vaccine is approved by the FDA or its European counterpart for general use. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If by "epdidemic will be over" you are referring to the outbreak in some west African countries, use of the vaccine in those countries doesn't depend on approvals in the US or its EU counterpart. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest renomination if the vaccine is approved by regulatory agencies. Jytdog brings up a good point - I would likely also support renomination if an African country decides to vaccinate a significant portion of their populace. Mamyles (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2022 Winter Olympics

 * Maybe, once it's actually announced. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support when the announcement is made and articles are updated. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably Although given the two choices it seems rather depressing. Apparently the IOC has no interest in barring authoritarian police states from this honor. Hello; 1936 and 2008? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - when host city announced. (probably beijing.. IOC loves awful regimes).--BabbaQ (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Isnt this nom made on the wrong day. As the vote is on 31 July? Might be wrong.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The bot will create the July 31 section in a couple of hours. It would be wise to move this proposal there. Hektor (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support on confirmation, and I would have no problem if it was Beijing to note it is the first city to host a Winter and Summer olympics, if there's space for such a blurb. Maybe The ICC selects Beijing to host the 2022 Winter Olympics, the first city to host both Winter and Summer events. --M ASEM (t) 01:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Once announced.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support once announced. I would use 'selected' rather than 'elected' in the blurb. Modest Genius talk 09:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is Beijing. Hektor (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * By all means, this is an election. IOC members vote. Hektor (talk) 10:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Elections put people into offices. This is neither a person, nor an office being held.  This is a group selecting something.  Selecting by vote is not the same thing as an election.  -- Jayron 32 19:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not all elections put people into offices. The vote takes place, I believe(but could be wrong) by secret ballot. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Then it is your responsibility to find reliable sources and change the text of the Wikipedia article titled Election, the first sentence of which you claim is a blatant lie.(I don't claim so, but you seem to be proposing that it is). And a referendum is a vote and not an election.  Not all votes are elections.  Just those that put people into offices.  -- Jayron 32 23:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming anything is a lie or even that anything needs to be changed on that page; The IOC refers to the selection as an "election". So do most RS:   331dot (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking up the definition on one site, it states "a public vote upon a proposition submitted". 331dot (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This was not a public vote. Still not en election then.  -- Jayron 32</b> 00:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You should speak to the IOC and RS's then and ask them to use different terminology. My point is that a public vote is not necessarily about people. Merriam Webster lists one definition as "the right, power, or privilege of making a choice" which clearly the IOC had.   Other similar definitions not involving people are here . 331dot (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You can be right today. I don't need to win.  Congratulations.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be "right" or "win". It's about using the terminology used by sources, not about what I want. 331dot (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Lynn Anderson

 * Support. Definitely looks notable enough - appears to have been at or near the apex of her field. Once the orange tag and sourcing issues are sorted, looks good to go. 2602:306:31D3:E5C0:11B1:A72B:A65F:E183 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on improvements - Sourcing in the article is hit or miss, but not too far off. --M ASEM (t) 15:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - no one expects to always find "perfect blooms". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, conditional on article improvements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I used to beg my father for quarters to play her on the juke box. The article is in pretty good shape.  I hid a comment about collectable models of her horses and removed non-bluelink items from her selected works.  I tagged four items as CN, some of those claims like later cameos can be hidden or deleted as unimportant. I'll be busy for a while though, so not going to be much help for referencing. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You'll find those adorable li'l plastic horses now unstabled and fully supported, (y'all)... ye-hah!! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment we need to fix those [citation needed] tags, as right now I'm going through an Arbcom mudfest where one specific admin will delete all unsourced BLP claims on sight. Perhaps we should do that here.  THen it would be ready.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can count five. But two of those are chart placings?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, so remove those, and we have three. BLP ain't gonna quit, and given Arbcom and "other admins", we're all in danger.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unable to source her duetting with fiance Mentor Williams on his Drift Away at the 2007 CMA festival. All the rest have now got sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the unreferenced source as no non-primary sources can verify it. George Ho (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Marked Ready a few last claims with no verifiable support removed, no remaining tags. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T♦ C 05:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Mohammed Omar confirmed dead

 * Oppose - April 2013 is as stale as stale can be.--WaltCip (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support One of the most wanted terrorists/war criminals in the world. Even ignoring the problem of the date of death (which realistically precludes RD), I'd support a blurb here on the merits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - A major figure in the War on Terror. It's not his fault that it was announced two years after the fact. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I think we've, by now, agreed that contentious reports of death surpass the "staleness" test. This is notable, that's why I'm seeing it on the main BBC News page today.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support He's dead Dave. --109.149.122.191 (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with this confirmation. It's not "stale" since this was unknown until now. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment marking as ready with a reservation that "spiritual leader" is a little too POV for a blurb. I would suggest we use something more like "Taliban leader..." as a blurb.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It already says he was the supreme commander of the Taliban, which would seem to make "spiritual leader" kind of redundant as well as being nebulous. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the proposed blurb doesn't say anything about supreme commander. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "It" meaning the article. I agree that "spiritual leader" is puffery. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose again, this is the Taliban confirming. And if you can't confirm the death of your CEO for two years, either your corporation is a sham or a front.  Has one single Western intelligence source confirmed this, or did the times get it in an email from a minor Nigerian princeling?  Will we be nominating Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead as a followup? μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If the world only just found out that Francisco Franco was dead, I would definitely consider that to be blurb worthy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - both parties have confirmed the death of one of the most wanted people of recent times. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added a (hopefully more neutral) altblurb. Everymorning   talk  02:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Reiterating from my support from the previous ITNC (before Taliban confirmed). --M ASEM (t) 03:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We still have no reliable source comfirming this, even if they did, that he died two years ago would be stale. Neither a blurb based on facts nor a stale RD is justified. μηδείς (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment — There're report floating that Jalaluddin Haqqani is dead also. Perhaps we can mingle both in one blurb? --Saqib (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. Significant individual and potential implications on the ongoing insurgency. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

[Removed] Remove ongoing: Greek debt crisis
Greece has not made news for some time, and no longer seems to be having any impact on the stock markets or commodity trading. Granted, part of the reason for this is due to earnings season having most of the economic impact right now, but if or until Greece threatens default again in the distant future, I see no reason for this to remain as an ongoing blurb on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support removal it's all gone quiet over there. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support removal for now per TRM; we can always readd it should things heat up again. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Makes Sense μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support But you just know that something major will happen over there 24 hrs after we take this off ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support It's still ongoing, but not really in the news much anymore. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove for now, though I suspect it will come back at some point. This has indeed drifted off the front page and into the business section while the details of the bailout implementation are worked out. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD/Blurb: Yakub Memon hanged
This needs some sort of rationale in the nominator's comments other than that it was updated. μηδείς (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 06:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * support - notable and newsworthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. I don't usually support giving attention on ITN to executions, but this was a perpetrator of one of the bloodier terror attacks in history (350+ killed). However the related article on the actual bombings has some issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Referencing issues have been addressed now &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 15:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The bombing and arrest were notable news. This execution, however, is a run-of-the-mill event. Convicted mass murderers are always executed (in countries that allow it). I'm neutral on posting to RD, as a famous and successful figure in the field of terrorism. Mamyles (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually executions in India are extremely rare, even for heinous crimes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, none of the other conspirators were sentenced to death and instead got various lengths of imprisonment. Wer902 (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support RD  - I'm convinced that the hanging execution would be overemphasized as a blurb. Merely mentioning his name looks fine. George Ho (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * After reading capital punishment in India and Ad Orientem, I'll switch to blurb instead. Yes, the story will be overemphasized. Even with death sentences, executions are rare. This is the first one in India this year (or second). We shall display this obituary and attract readers with this. George Ho (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose what's notable is the crime, not the man. μηδείς (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Then why do we post the results of criminal trials? -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Did we not post Ajmal Kasab when he was hanged? &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 18:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A blurb implies the news item is notable--it isn't really major news outside India. An RD listing would imply the creep himself were notable.  I am happy he's dead, but neither the man nor the hanging will be remembered in the years to come. μηδείς (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Being a creep is not incompatible with notability. The man killed 350+ people. That makes him highly notable, in India and pretty much anywhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a major news outside India? In addition to the listed ones—LA Times, The Wall Street Journal, Time—BBC had covered this. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 08:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose not really notable or interesting. It was inevitable that he would be executed, it has happened and it's barely rippled mainstream news.  Gone already.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, not a notable enough person for his hanging to feature on MP. Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just re-asking what Ad Orientem had told, "Then why do we post the results of criminal trials?" &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 08:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support blurb: I don't think RD is appropriate since Memon is only notable because of one incident, which itself is blurb-worthy. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Mohammed Omar reported dead

 * Wait but support if confirmed Given that reports of his death have been issued before, let's give this just a few hours/one news cycle to make sure that it as true as we can assure. This does sound like as-definitive-as-possible report, but both linked sources are cautious to assure true. If affirmed, clearly support. --M ASEM (t) 17:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this can never be confirmed. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait If/when confirmed this would definitely meet the RD guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually sure Recent Deaths would be applicable here; I think it would need a regular blurb(given his wanted status and career, so to speak). 331dot (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

They have claimed his son recognised the body. Obviously its not independently verified, but just updating on the latest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.18.106 (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait; while a government agency stating they believe him to be dead is significant, they haven't really said AFAIK why they think that(and may not). I think waiting for that, or a Tailban admission that he is dead, is prudent here. 331dot (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment As of right now it appears to be only the Afghan government that is reporting this. To be frank, I am not sure I consider that to be a sufficiently reliable source on this topic. I really think we need to hold off until some confirmation is obtained. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose a blurb for "declared dead" is simply out of the question, and "spritual leader" of the taliban is rather stale to consider even notable at RD. It would be like posting minor news from the Watergate era during the Clinton administration; below the fold. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until or if confirmed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Obama speaks to African Union

 * Oppose. Seems more appropriate for DYK; calling for more trade and democracy is not significant unless backed up by action. We don't generally post 'firsts' written as trivia.  Obama was also the first sitting US President to visit Kenya, but we didn't post that. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I think, in diplomacy, the AU is of a whole different weight compared to Kenya. You may read the linked speech notes by the White House to get a more comprehensive grasp. Sometimes speaking can be much more relevant than acting (or induce the latter), as well. This definitely is of historical scale. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking can indeed be transformative(as Obama himself demonstrated in 2004) but I don't think that's the case here, as he is not expressing a new position but one consistently held by the US government. He also spoke on gay rights in Kenya which was already dismissed by the government there. Speculating that it is transformative is crystal ball-ing unless, as I said, there is hard action. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Excepting the fact that he is the first President to address this particular body, which might rate a sentence in an article somewhere, the speech is entirely run of the mill. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose He's also only the second U.S. president to serve during the African Union's existence. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha!  Abductive  (reasoning) 18:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose If this could be a DYK, it should be there. But as for ITN, it would have been a better candidate if the meeting ended with say, a new trade deal or similar firm result. --M ASEM (t) 16:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose trivia goes to DYK. -- Callinus (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closing] RD: Jan Kulczyk

 * Support. Richest man in Poland for the last several years. Note: I've added links to English-language sources. — Kpalion(talk) 12:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Significance of the subject outside of Poland appears to have been fairly limited. Basically we have a wealthy businessman who died. He was ranked 384 in the list of billionaires, so I'm not seeing his importance in the ranks of the super wealthy. I don't think this nom meets ITNDC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Being rich isn't a field. Otherwise, Paris Hilton would make it here some day. I'm not seeing the significance from his business ventures, aside from making him rich. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hilton almost certainly will be posted, not for being rich, but for the whole socialite/"famous for being famous" thing she does. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, she might. I guess it depends on how we define her "field" whenever that happens. Is "famous for being famous" a field? Anyway, it's not the most apt analogy. It seems this individual built his own fortune. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Being "famous" is not a criteria listed under ITNDC. As of this point I don't see anything that would qualify Hilton for an RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe society will view her as one of the "founders" of reality television. Or she'll become one of the greatest DJs of all time. Who knows. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The future is unknowable. Maybe she will become a nun and spend the rest of her life feeding the poor in Africa. For now all I can say is that I don't ever remember a "reality TV star" being accepted for RD and being a famously wealthy libertine is not a "field." -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above; just being rich is not significant enough on a worldwide scale. --M ASEM  (t) 16:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: Seems like just a random rich dude. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose; being rich is not a field, and I don't see in what other way he meets the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Random Polish businessman who seems to have contributed to the contents of expensive suits and very little else. Being the richest in a nation does not meet the RD criteria, AFAIK. Challenger l (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: Turkey–ISIL conflict

 * Oppose- Why limit it to Turkey? There's a lot more that's going on with battles in Western Syria regarding ISIL recently than Turkey's involvement. If anything we should put ISIL back on ongoing. If not, it would be kind of strange to just put Turkey's involvement on ongoing.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 00:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I think, in diplomacy, the AU is of a whole different weight compared to Kenya. You may read the linked speech notes by the White House to get a more comprehensive grasp. Sometimes speaking can be much more relevant than acting (or induce the latter), as well. This definitely is of historical scale. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Microsoft releases Windows 10

 * Oppose. Simple product release; doesn't seem to be anything particularly revolutionary about it. Microsoft can give away its products if they want to; doesn't seem significant. 331dot (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Wikipedia is not an advertisement. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose we usually give 6 hours before closing, but not always, and an advertisement for a long predicted product doesn't merit the wait. μηδείς (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Emergency NATO meeting on Turkey

 * support - notable event. ITN worthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: rather than a blurb, I think it would be better to bring events in Syria and Iraq back into the Ongoing section. Individual developments such as the Turkish airstrikes don't fundamentally change the war(s), but are part of a long-running conflict. Better to cover that via Ongoing than attempt to select individual events for blurbs. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree, the main reason why I thought it would be worthy of ITN is specifically because of the NATO security meeting, which apparently is a rather important and rare event that is all over the news. Nub Cake (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose on the general blurb - ITN would rather see what the net action is of the meeting than the fact there is going to be one. However, I do generally support the idea of bringing back an ongoing here as the situation develops. --M ASEM (t) 14:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait per Masem. It would be better to post the culmination of the meeting, if any notable events come of it. Mamyles (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this meeting was called by Turkey, not called to rein in Turkey. Now, if the outcome is a ground invasion, then that is huge but would require its own article and blurb. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't usually post this kind of stuff until after the event and then only if the results warrant it. Beyond which this is all part of the growing Turkish involvement in the fight against ISIS and their waging war on the Kurds. I am increasingly looking at this situation as a good candidate for ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on conclusion of the meeting - this is a major development in the region and a very important development in the Syrian Civil War. Most of the Western jihadist sympathisers that are recruited to ISIL travel to Turkey and cross the border - Turkey is a key player. -- Callinus (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: A very significant event on its own; only the 5th such meeting in NATO's 66-year history (going back to Korean invasion). NATO can require member states to come to the aid of any other member state, such as Turkey, subject to an armed attack (i.e. 9/11). --Light show (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - How is an emergency meeting bigger news than the incidents, which are subjects in meetings? The background has more context than emergency meeting section. I can't allow this to be posted this way. George Ho (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's bigger news because it's unique and potentially a major turning point. The other "incidents," (aka "slaughters,") throughout the region are happening daily. --Light show (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I know it's NATO, an intergovernmental military alliance. Still, I don't see how newsworthy a meeting is aside from incidents in Turkey. Also, I already voted on the other nomination way below . — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Ho (talk • contribs) 02:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: if we were to post this, neither blurb seems accurate. The emergency meeting was called because of a suicide attack by IS in Turkey. Yet the proposed blurbs make it seem like the meeting was called because of Turkey's response. Calidum T&#124;C 02:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still against making the meeting front page news, but here's altblurb2. George Ho (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And altblurb3 too. George Ho (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that starting any blurb with "after" some incident, will be misleading and imply a direct cause and effect. NATO wouldn't convene because of any single incident. The phrasing should be more general, ie. "NATO allies met in a rare emergency meeting at Turkey's request about its ongoing conflicts with the Islamic State and Kurdish rebels (PKK) amid a spike in cross-border regional violence." --Light show (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb4, but I made some modifications, like dropping "rare" and using present tense. George Ho (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is an ongoing crisis so if we have an item that's properly updated, let's post that to Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Edward Natapei

 * Support on notability, since head of state and head of government. Might need a little more work, but to me, it seems OK. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - head of state. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Article generally in good enough state for posting. Given that for Vanuatu ,the PM holds more power than the President, this is definitely meeting importance as the former leader of a sovereign nation. --M ASEM (t) 14:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as a head of state and head of government. Article is acceptable, although I wish it had more details on his first stint as prime minister and his time as president. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD Clearly meets ITNDC guidelines. (Oppose blurb if one is proposed.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD Definitely meets guidelines, but I must agree with Kudzu - could use more details. Challenger l (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Questionable "fame," seeing less than 10 article visits daily. Lead sentence says only, "was a politician from Vanuatu." As the country has about half the population of Oakland, this could set a precedence for adding all politicians anywhere. --Light show (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Light show. I've never liked the school of thought that says prime minister/president = automatic post. This isn't something our readers will be looking for, this is filler. We don't need filler. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If we′re against ethnocentrism, then we have to look forward to adding people from all countries. Really, this is how famous someone from Vanuatu can get, domestically at least. 2A02:582:C55:2A00:1CE2:7191:C4B1:20DF (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Light Show. Politician is one thing, world statesman is another.  Unless there were some other notable accomplishment than holding office there's no justification for posting this. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Vanuatu is an island (or group of nearby islands). The article doesn't mention greatest accomplishments, even when he was PM for non-consecutive years and an acting President for less than one month. However, as long as his obituary is not a blurb, mentioning merely his name in the Recent deaths list won't hurt much. Also, the article quality is exquisite enough to mention his name. George Ho (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support It seems to me that Natapei meets the second death criterion as a person who had a significant impact on, or made a significant contribution to, Vanuatu. Except for Walter Lini, he was probably the most significant and prominent politician Vanuatu has produced, so I find it hard to see how it could be contended that he doesn't meet the criterion. Neljack (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per IP,Masem and Neljack. -- Shudde  talk 06:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Boy Scouts lifts ban on openly gay leaders

 * Support when article is fully updated. Significant development for an internationally prominent organization. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose the organization has no impact on outside US. Since we posted the supreme court decision, I am not sure what would be the point of posting this too. Nergaal (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This would have been big news twenty or even ten years ago. However, given the shift in cultural norms in the United States, it rates a yawn. As I noted after the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage, I think the whole gay rights battle is pretty much over, at least in the West. Someone ping me if Russia or Saudi Arabia legalizes gay marriage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, not really true. The pieces of shit still allow individual chapters to discriminate. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we please keep the editorializing in check per WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's religious chapters only, which they have every right to do, and you have every right to disagree with, but this isn't the forum to fight giving offense with more giving offense. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Parochial and of no importance these days. Fgf10 (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Says who? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose because this seemed to be the trend since they lifted the ban on gay members and given recent comments by former DoD secretary Gates. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose exactly per Abductive.--WaltCip (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem and Nergaal. One organisation, which had been maintaining its outdated stance in the face of clear changes in public attitude, finally comes to its senses and updates its policies to become normal. Not even a particularly important organisation at that. It's amazing they managed to hold out so long without being sued to oblivion for discrimination. Welcome but hardly trailblazing. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no constitutional right to be in the Boy Scouts. However, I think they have been litigated for covering up child-molesting in the past. Secrecy works to the advantage of predators. Openness may discourage it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD/Blurb: Abdul Kalam

 * Support blurb pending article updates - There's some tense issues in the article but that's expected for this just happening. Sourcing is fine and not an issue. Clearly RD, but would support blurb as a former leader of the world's most populous country and recognized beyond that. --M ASEM (t) 15:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, but how on earth is that article GA? The writing and grammar is full of errors (even in the lede - "was intimately involved in the India's civilian space program"). Black Kite (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the place of death important? Suggestion : "Former President of India and scientist A. P. J. Abdul Kalam dies at the age of 83". If that is ok, I will add it to the ITN. -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> Tinu  <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000">Cherian  - 16:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I've fixed dozens of grammar, spelling and tense problems. I might have missed a few, because the article was in a shocking state prose-wise.  Hopefully it's at least acceptable now. Black Kite (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support blurb, although RD might be preferable. I have gone through and corrected tense issues and some grammatical mistakes where I spotted them. Referencing for the article is strong. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * strong support, he is a very famous person in India, each and every one knows about him. --Dineshkumar Ponnusamy (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Surely notable enough for a full blurb.  ƬheStrike  Σagle   16:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Updating -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> Tinu  <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000">Cherian  - 16:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ . Can someone protect the commons image --> commons:File:Apj_abdul_kalam.JPG ? -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> Tinu  <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000">Cherian  - 17:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * c:User:KrinkleBot got it eventually. That edit notice with the huge blinking stop sign is there for a reason; you left the main page vulnerable to goatse vandalism for five minutes. —Cryptic 17:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm familiar with the rules and procedures and have updated ITN many a times. Thanks -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> Tinu  <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000">Cherian  - 02:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you should know that you never upload an unprotected image to the main page. Please do not do this again. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This rule wasn't there earlier (for ITN), if I remember correctly (<2013). I did leave a note here (for a commons admin) for protecting the image. Nevertheless, Will keep in mind. Thanks -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> Tinu  <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000">Cherian  - 08:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Blurb - Bharat Ratna + People's President + Missile Man of India + Extraordinary Indian (Beyond Doubt) #RIP KalamSahab Regards,   theTigerKing   17:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the quick blurb was a bit generous here. He is undoubtedly RD material at least, but I'm not seeing a large amount of news coverage outside of India - the death of Whitney Houston's daughter seems to be generating more prominent coverage than this. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: Bobbi Brown, definitely getting more news than this, but then again, you have to wonder why.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Bongwarrior did strongly oppose that other nom, and I do see his point here - but can we assess this mans legacy from the facts in the article instead of relying on depth of coverage? --109.149.137.113 (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Google News gives a few thousand results on the news of death. Some other "international coverage":The Wall Street Jounral,CNN, NewYork Times, BBC, The Washington Post  -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> Tinu  <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000">Cherian  - 02:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I had no doubt that coverage existed, but it's not being prominently featured on many of the websites I've checked. Ideally, this should be front page news somewhere besides India (see Mandela/Thatcher), although that's not an absolute requirement. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Can we please use 'passed away' instead of 'dies'. 'Dies'seems to trivialise the context. --Lahariyaniyathi (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that is posted I don't mind keeping it, but for future I think full blurb RD should receive slightly a more substantial consensus and voting pool before being pushed on. This guy should probably be posted because he was quite notable in India where a huge chunk of the English wiki readers are, but otherwise it doesn't really strike me as a full blurb material. Nergaal (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the blurb say "(pictured)" (unless the guidelines have changed about this)?  It Is Me Here  t /  c  21:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support saying pictured. Not to do so is bizarre. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is pictured still the practice? I checked the last 5 blurbs with an image and none of them had one. I saw that it was removed from one of them, when it was added. -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> Tinu  <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000">Cherian  - 02:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The "(pictured)" was removed from blurbs when the ability to use captions for an image was included within the last couple weeks. --M ASEM (t) 02:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks M ASEM for the confirmation. -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> Tinu  <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000">Cherian  - 05:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support keeping blurb: he was a top figure in two different fields, his birthday was officially observed by the UN as "students day", he had been the recipient of highest civilian awards of India and numerous titles from other countries. We did post Hisham Barakat's death (I know his death was significant because it was an assassination), but here you have the death of one of the most influential people in India since 1947. Just read the article and you'll understand why this got posted so quickly. 1.39.61.245 (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added another blurb which could be used. Cheers!  Jim Car  ter  04:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support for blurb. However... I must join some of the other editors who have expressed concern about the speed with which this was posted. The same thing pretty much happened with Jules Bianchi. And unlike the current nom which does not appear controversial, the Bianchi one was. Had more time been allowed for comments I doubt it would have been accepted for posting as a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting concerns this blurb was posted within an hour, and while he is clearly a notable individual, we need to avoid this kind of knee-jerk posting of blurbs, particularly as the death wasn't remarkable or unexpected. Add to that the use of an unprotected image on the main page for a while, and, well... messy. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Accepted that it was a slightly quick decision on posting the blurb - It was primarily because the subject/said person was non-controversial, snowballing support so far, this side of the world was heading to sleep; and a very notable world figure, a very popular President to approximately one-fifth of world's population at a time. Again, with all due respect to regulars at ITN, Point taken. -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> Tinu  <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000">Cherian  - 08:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I do agree that we may have waited a bit longer for creating consensus; as for the death 'needs' to be unexpected and remarkable - most of the deaths are unexpected (if you discount old age and other medical problems - only surefire way to expect a death is if a person is being hanged or someone is at a hospice), Dr. Kalam was 83 yrs old, but his health seems to be ok for the age, so we may argue that the death was unexpected. Describing 'remarkable' is bit more difficult, lets say it has to be something out of ordinary, so a person's death in a car crash might be considered remarkable, Dr. Kalam died while giving a lecture, so we may argue that the circumstances surrounding his death was out of ordinary, hence remarkable (or at least different than supermajority of other deaths). Legaleagle86 (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch: "The word died is neutral and accurate; avoid euphemisms such as passed away." Additionally, the usage of "dies" is traditional in ITN.  Spencer T♦ C 13:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Bobbi Kristina Brown

 * Oppose Subject does not meet ITNDC standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - Only "notable" for being Whitney Houston's daughter; probably shouldn't even have an article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sad as it is, it's tabloid fodder. Not notable for accomplishments, notable for her parents. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not notable enough to meet ITN's RD criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Stale, she died 178 days ago. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I considered nominating this death, but she really is only a celebrity because of her parentage. Doesn't meet notability criteria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose and SNOW close, tragic yet not ITN material. Not notable enough for RD and her death simply isn't blurb worthy. 94.197.121.179 (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose - being the daughter of a former singer turned junky is not notable. sorry.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Flora MacDonald

 * Oppose almost no cabinet-level ministers ever get posted, including US House Speakers, who are third in line for the Presidency. A much better rationale is needed. μηδείς (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the fact that she was the first woman to serve as Canada's foreign minister (a position with international prominence, by its very nature) elevates her above being a run-of-the-mill cabinet official. Her national and international honors are also highly noteworthy. There are fewer than 150 living Companions of the Order of Canada, and it's not every day that one of them dies. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think your nomination is in bad faith, Kudzu1, but I think "first woman to ex" is about as patronizing and meaningless as one can get at this point, given we've had lesbian PM's, and US supreme court justices and VP and presidential candidates. Merkel, for goshsakes. The implication is that there's some reason why we should not expect female office holders.  That's sexist in the extreme. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is great, but MacDonald became FM back in 1979, way before the rise of Angela Merkel or Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir or even Madeleine Albright. She was a trailblazer for women in Canadian politics, and pretty much every news story and obituary I'm seeing now makes reference to that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Or Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Eva Peron, Golda Meir, Queen Victoria, Katherine the Great, Joan of Arc, Catherine de Medici, Cleopatra, or Elizabeth I? I suggest a long hot bath with some bubbles, a cat, aromatherapy candles, and a copy of Sexual Personae. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support I find Kudzu1's argument convincing. Lots of honors (or "honours", as they say up north), in addition to the position. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - One of the first women... Great accomplishment. This is the RD nomination, not the blurb nomination. Just name her in the front page, and you attract readers. George Ho (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On the question of firsts: The Globe and Mail notes that she was "the first woman in the western world to serve as foreign minister". Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not only is this special pleading (Indira Gandhi was a PM of india in the 60's) it's also simply false, as Golda Meir was a foreign minister before McDonald, as well as an Israeli PM before MacDonald was an FM. μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding to that, even if you don't consider Israel as part of the "western world" (the definition varies depending on where you are) it's still demonstrably untrue, since Karin Söder's stint as FM of Sweden also predated MacDonald's. (The first female FM of a major country in the modern era would be Ana Pauker in Romania, 1947–53.) – iridescent 08:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support It seems to me that MacDonald meets the second death criterion by being a person who had a significant impact on, or made a significant contribution to, Canada. Neljack (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support While somewhat on the border of DC2 based on her impact in Canada, the good quality of the article pushes this toward something worth posting.  Spencer T♦ C 16:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Marking ready – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD Conceding that cabinet level officials don't usually make the cut for RD, her unique place in history makes a compelling case for an exception. (Oppose blurb if one is proposed.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted RD.  Spencer T♦ C 17:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Chris Froome wins the 2015 Tour De France

 * Support Pending updates. Both articles in great shape.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 16:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Tour article needs to be "past tensified" but otherwise I'd agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I came here to nominate so of course I support. Have been working on 2015 Tour de France for a GAN. I've just sorted the tenses and will do the lead and other bits and bobs. Change Christopher to Chris though. BaldBoris 19:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hence the alt blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, first time here. BaldBoris 20:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No stress, see next comment... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted excellent work on the race article, this is a gold-standard example of an ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Mexico win the CONCACAF Gold Cup

 * Oppose Regional tournament; not the highest level of competition in the sport. Coverage also seems limited. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Was not posted in 2013 (In_the_news/Candidates/July_2013), undetermined for 2009 and 2007 (used Ctr+F "Concacaf" to find the discussions), but doesn't look like it was either then.  Spencer T♦ C 16:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't see anything about this in the US news even though it is hosted here. If this was every 4 years might manage to be notable enough. Nergaal (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: BBC didn't report on this until the final, although they had wall-to-wall reports on Africa Cup of Nations and Copa América. That shows its appeal to the wider world &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

RD: Ingrid Sischy

 * Weak support not a bad shout for notability, pretty poor article, but overall can't oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support - this should be posted.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Weak Support" means this should be posted. You don't give a reason. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Having worked in the gay press at the time she was at the New Yorker covering AIDS I can assure you there were dozens of names more prominent. I don't actively oppose this being posted, but I don't see any compelling reasons why it should be either. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Merely mentioning her name is good enough to prevent another obituary blurb, which would have been opposed if not for the "Recent deaths" ticker. Well sourced, writing decent (if not good), and well accomplished as a journalist. Then again, readers may not be familiar with this person, but at least featuring her name in the front page will attract most curious ones. George Ho (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am removing the ready, since the net consensus here is two week supports, and two supporting editors have commented on the poor writing. I could just as easily have closed this with my oppose yesterday.  A nice overhaul of the article would certainly improve the nomination, but I don't think we should be posting out of acquiescence to "meh"s. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Though claims are made that she is an influential figure in her field as a published artist of long experience - the article seems to be largely a bullet list of places she worked, without really explaining her connections or influence, beyond a vague mention in the lead. My opinion is that the article could use a very thorough re-write by someone familiar with the community and the subject alike. Challenger l (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Hulk Hogan

 * Oppose - Let's not sink the ITN lower than it might have been. --George Ho (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. This isn't remotely ITN-worthy, not by any measure. Challenger l (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Change Turkey blurb

 * Support Turkey finally intervening in the Syrian/Iraqi conflict is important considering they are a regional power. I also think we should wait for more information on the reported PKK air strikes and the potential breaking of the ceasefire and maybe mention that as well. Jeanluc20 (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This is also major development in Turkish-Kurdish conflict, which shoud be included within blurb. --Jenda H. (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am open to that, but the blurb will probably get quite long then? Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support – Altblurb II including Kurds offered above. Source footnoted in article, which alas mentions these developments only in the concluding Aftermath section. Sca (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support switching to alt-blurb II per Sca, but oppose changing the date. It's still at the top of the ITN news feed. It is possible that this could be the beginning of a serious escalation in Turkish military action. If so we may want to consider an ongoing nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb important developments - the involvement against the PKK is noteworthy, and has implications for US led efforts against ISIS and the interaction of the US with the YPG/PKK.-- Callinus (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be ready to post this soon, but would Turkey–ISIL_conflict be a better link for the new bolded article on the airstrikes? The article itself is more directly relevant, fairly comprehensive and well referenced, and has information that seems to be being updated daily.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That article seems to have a very strongly anti-Turkish slant. -- Callinus (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How so? Can you explain and give examples?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See my change here. That was one of the more notable examples. -- Callinus (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

 ' After a suicide bombing in Suruç that killed 32 people, Turkey launches airstrikes and police raids (pictured) against ISIL and the Kurdistan Workers' Party ' - Nub Cake (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, blurb including police raids, and use Operation Martyr Yalçın article for airstrikes.: Although I don't think the article is 'strongly anti-Turkish', the lead (which admittedly I wrote) did seem to be a bit overtly critical of Turkey's stance on ISIL before the airstrikes. I've reworded it a bit now so it sounds slightly less so. May I propose an alternative blurb, which is:
 * The Operation Martyr Yalçın article is fairly new and currently undeveloped, but I'm developing it as quick as I can. Nub Cake (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: The article, I think is now up to an appropriate standard to go into ITN. Nub Cake (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose, NATO has now held an emergency meeting on the issue. This event has reached a different magnitude of importance and I'm of the view that we should be posting a new entry entirely. Nub Cake (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support only airstrikes blurb - The airstrikes article is ready, but the police raids page has one issue, which I tagged. George Ho (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted ALT2. It would be helpful in the future if a particular blurb is identified as "ready" for posting, since in this case there were 4 blurbs and 2 bolded articles under consideration. Thanks,  Spencer T♦ C 18:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The "police raids" story was proposed, so I wrote down "Airstrikes only". George Ho (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Burundian presidential election, 2015

 * Support I agree that for NPOV reasons we should mention the disputed nature of the election. Neljack (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This ITNR election is especially interesting due to its disputed nature. Mamyles (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support once the article is ready. However I would caution that we on ITN have generally avoided making references to controversy in blurbs about elections. Some very hinky elections have gone through with just a bland statement about the official results. I vaguely recall supporting a similar suggestion about an obviously bogus election somewhere or other and getting shot down. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I wish to reiterate that I have serious NPOV reservations about the blurb which does not appear consistent with normal practice on ITN. We do not generally add cometary about controversies to blurbs about elections.-Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb to your pleasure. George Ho (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That works. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I have serious NPOV reservations about the altblurb. The original blurb is entirely factual - the election was disputed and boycotted by opposition rivals. Failing to reflect that in the blurb would fail to reflect the various points of view on the election. As is evident from the news coverage, reliable sources are prominently featuring the fact that the election was boycotted. We are not putting commentary in the blurb - that would be if we said something like "in an unfair election" - we are making factual statements about the election being disputed and boycotted. Neljack (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support alternative blurb. --bender235 (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Altblurb III. (Grammar: In Altblurb II, "whose" refers to Burundi, not to Nkurunziza.) Sca (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support we posted the coup attempt. -- Callinus (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted a completely neutral and factual blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we update the picture to the Burundian President? With the new captioning system, it's gotten more technical to do so.  Maybe on the instructions page here we can list admins who are comfortable updating pics?  That may be useful so we know who to contact when it is needed.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already added it to the media protection page here, just waiting for Kinklebot to sort it and then we can list it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, already protected (Krinklebot seems to work on new material within 15 minutes, which is better than heaping all this on poor old David, especially since he kindly set this alt-method up for us), so I've replaced the image. Only thing is that the width of 120 was way to wide, so I set it down to 100, not sure if that was appropriate.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thanks!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the blurb say "(pictured)" after Nkurunziza's name? Everymorning   talk  19:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Pictures now have captions. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Sca (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We are no longer encouraged to place (pictured) in the blurb (although this is the second time in quick succession that it has been noted that its absence is confusing...... the irony) as we have the grotesque captions that received some consensus somewhere, I can't point you to it because I never saw a clear indication of such a discussion. It just happened.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Anthem Inc. buying Cigna

 * If this does run, it needs some kind of explanation as to what makes this significant. I consider myself fairly well-informed, and have never heard of either of these companies. – iridescent  15:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose yet another consolidation during bad economic times. They will fire middle managers and there will be one less choice available in American health insurance carriers.  No innovation, no impact outside America. μηδείς (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess this is Cigna's swan song. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * support - significant enough for inclusion,--BabbaQ (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unlike the merger between Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky (discussion still open below), this one is unlikely to have really significant ramifications to its broader industry/sector. Not every big merger is ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Aung Thaung

 * Oppose: No apparent significance outside of his home country. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Article is mostly about his alleged links to political provocateurs and allegations of corruption.  All of this is referenced to political sources that seem difficult to evaluate as to reliability.  May not meet the BLP test. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Does not appear to have been one of the leaders of his nation, significant only in corruption and human rights violation allegations. Doesn't meet the RD criteria. Challenger l (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] LaFayette Grand Theatre shooting

 * Oppose. While an unfortunate event, it does not have the scale to be posted to ITN.  It also sadly is not that unusual these days. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think the fact that it's no longer considered unusual is rather unusual in itself.--WaltCip (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Looks like The Smoking Man, otherwise random murder suicide of no grander importance. μηδείς (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose just another day, another three deaths to add to the 7,000+ so far this year in American due to gun crime. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't it disgusting how stories like this continue to happen despite all the public outcry?--WaltCip (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this isn't a place to right wrongs. It's simply not newsworthy, tomorrow it will be completely forgotten about.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Somebody needs to right these great wrongs. I agree ITN isn't the place to do it but I hate that these shootings keep happening and that the powers that be stop us from doing anything to stop the next one. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think most of the civilised world think it's disgusting that this is allowed, nay encouraged, by the free and easy gun laws in the US. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There were 14 reported murder-suicides in the U.S. from July 17-23. And our elected politicians are doing nothing about it, save a few who are being stymied by the majority. Gun nuts even made Buzzfeed back down today. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - still major shooting. Have received national and international attention.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - It's basically minor relative to all gun-based murders in the US on an annual basis but the notion that it was at a public shooting is something of some weight. But still a minor story and unfortunately all too common. --M ASEM (t) 16:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the 7,000+ deaths by firearm so far this year in the US have happened in public, that this happened in a cinema is nothing novel nor newsworthy given the regularity of this kind of event. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Another day, another mass shooting in the United States. Barring a high body count, terrorist motives, or something else that really sets it apart, these events are sadly becoming too common to be constantly posted on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * can this be snowclosed already? Nergaal (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've no objection to snowclosing it. I mainly just wanted to gauge the response that items like this will get for reference for future nominations.--WaltCip (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Kepler-452b

 * Support on suitable article improvements. This is very interesting news that is getting a decent amount of coverage. I would however strongly suggest that the primary link be to the newly created article on the actual planet once it is ready (it's currently a work in progress). -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the most Earth-like exoplanet yet found is obviously a great discovery. Thue (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support after article improved. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Fairly routine exoplanet discovery. Many similar worlds have been found, and very many more will be found. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So can you point out another similar world which has been discovered? Thue (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure: Kepler-438b, which actually ranks as more Earthlike than Kepler-452b. More listed at Earth Similarity Index. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that one is circling a red dwarf. I think it is noteworthy that we found the first earth-like world in the habital zone around a Sun-like star. Thue (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would prefer an improvement on the current article before posting this. With a surface gravity of 2G is not really that much Earth-like. Nergaal (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kudzu1. Another planet just like this was found earlier this year. This type of discovery is now rather routine. Mamyles (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. While not an expert in this field, I'm a bit concerned that due to the planet's mass, it could be a toxic volcanic world with an atmosphere like that of Venus. However, we must stick to what the media writes about this, and they have declared it to be the first Earth like planet in the right place that would potentially allow life to exist within the same sorts of constraints as exist here on Earth. Count Iblis (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Question is it a sun-like star which making this discovery special? --Jenda H. (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the combination of the Sun-like star that has the same sort of properties like our own Sun, the fact that the planet is not much smaller or much larger than Earth, the fact that it orbits at a distance where the energy from its Sun will warm it so that water can exist in a liquid form. Count Iblis (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - definitely newsworthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support fascinating news getting coverage even during the hourly minute news summary on the car radio today. μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support although I'd like to see the blurb tweaked a little, perhaps just to say that the first Kepler is a space observatory. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support although as The Rambling Man mentioned, it would be a good idea to modify the blurb to "The Kepler space telescope discovers Kepler-452b, the smallest planet yet found in the habitable zone." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wer902 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 23 July 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Support, but there a billions of stars in this galaxy, so please correct it to state "... orbiting a circumstellar habitable zone". Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not ready: Blurb is inaccurate, as Kepler-438b is a smaller planet in its star's habitable zone. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Added an altblurb to clarify that this is an earth-like planet around a sun-like star. Stephen 05:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Not Ready: The article needs some editing, then I would support the Alternate Blurb or Wer902's proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutster (talk • contribs) 07:10, 24 July 2015‎ (UTC)
 * What kind of editing? Which part needs to be improved? George Ho (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Just want to reiterate that only Alt Blurb II is accurate. This is neither the smallest planet in the habitable zone, nor the most habitable. Mamyles (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have modified the altblurb to remove circumstellar as redundant given "around" and "star" are already there. μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Marked ready, given consensus, update, and lack of issues with the article. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Attention needed: As discussed above, the blurb that was posted is not accurate. There have been smaller planets discovered orbiting within the hypothetical habitable zones of their stars, the difference being that those stars (unlike Kepler-452) are not Sun-like. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the "similar to the sun" phrase can't accurately be ommitted. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment please take issues to ERRORS. Also, before marking ready, please ensure a "ready" blurb has been agreed upon.  Sorry for posting something that wasn't accurate, but this nomination is a bit of a mess of blurb suggestions.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] China returns Ai Weiwei's passport

 * Oppose I don't think the passport was the defining issue. I guess hundreds, if not thousands of people get their passport returned to them every month. No big deal.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per RTM. Passport problems are not generally ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Rambling The Man? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well sometimes you do go on a bit... ;-) -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's all about obfuscation.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Support huge in the news when this happened, but doesn't seem to be getting reported on much in the West. A good update might make the case. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh good, totalitarianism over. Sarcasm aside, I don't think this is significant/notable enough to be posted, so I'll oppose. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm assuming this was nominated because of its political significance rather than "man receives passport". Unfortunately, I'm not seeing what political impact this event has. Fuebaey (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Birmingham Quran manuscript

 * Support as nominator. Note that the article has a PD image. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - definitely notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tiny article with a grand total of three references. --Tocino 14:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Tocino, but screams for a great DYK nomination, which this is best suited for. --M ASEM  (t) 14:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose DYK will pick up that hook. -- Callinus (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This is getting good international coverage in mainstream news media. The size of the article is unimportant; it's big enough.  The image is the main attraction and the close-up would make a good replacement for the picture of Jules Bianchi who's been getting far too much attention for someone who never won a single F1 race. Andrew D. (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, no indication that the text is in any way different or of interest to scholars. Age established by only one method—radiocarbon dating—means over-reliance on a primary source. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - agree that this would make a great DYK but doesn't seem to be sufficiently big a deal for ITN even if the article was GA quality. Pedro : Chat  17:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree that there would be something here if this version differed from the commonly used Quran, or provided something that theologians could study. But, this is just an old copy, so hooray it survived, but it's not really fit for ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not the Dead Sea Scrolls or similar, which actually are of value to academics; all this non-story is is "book was written at about the time we thought it was written". – iridescent  18:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This really isn't ITN material. That said, I agree with the suggestions above, this would be a great DYK candidate. I suggest the discussion be closed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's a DYK. The proposed image, considering it's only a suggested oldest Quran, is mildly interesting, but nothing more, and certainly doesn't bolster the reason to post this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Nicholas Gonzalez (physician)

 * Strong oppose Not top of his field, in fact, from a read of his bio appears to be the bottom of his field, without any lasting impact aside from the damage caused by his "alternative cancer treatments". Reminds me of a less funny Dr. Nick. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose given no one has even nominated this. μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Random quack doctor whose death wasn't even reported by any sources aside from his own website. Muboshgu's comparison to Dr. Nick seems an apt one. Challenger l (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per preceding comments. This does not even come close to meeting ITN guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] World Santa Claus Congress starts in Denmark

 * Oppose No article for the event. @User:Count Iblis, with all due respect, is this a serious nomination? If so, you may want to include nominator rationale for explaining the event's notability.  Spencer T♦ C 16:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I hope it's more professional and less annoying than SantaCon. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am assuming the nomination was made in good faith, but this is so far removed from ITN standards that I would normally expect it on April 1st. I think it's about to snow. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:SNOW, no target, fluff news -- Callinus (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support What are we, Grinches? Should probably wait for the formal report on the conservation status of Abominable Snowmen, though. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: E. L. Doctorow

 * Oppose solely for some referencing issues. Would support if references were fixed, clearly important enough to his field and a recognizable name.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD conditional on article improvement. Clearly rings the RD bell. (Oppose blurb if one is proposed.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on article improvements Subject is notable, but needs more sourcing and the lead is short. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support. Definitely notable - but the article is in need of a lot of work. Challenger l (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is woefully under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Widely known and respected U.S. novelist, with the article covering the key facts. --Light show (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Referencing should be solid now, or at least, I'm not seeing anything glaring that would prevent this from being posted. Notability of the subject is established through critical acclaim, cultural currency, and a boatload of awards and honors. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've tagged a bunch of completely unreferenced paragraphs in an attempt to help updaters avoid violating BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Those issues appear to have been addressed, and the intro has been significantly expanded. Is there anything at this point that should hold up posting? -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Theodore Bikel

 * Support on article update/improvements - I think the bar for importance is there (I'm looking at the Austrian medal of honor in the arts as a prime demonstration), but the article is lacking in inline citations and has tense issues. --M ASEM (t) 01:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose based solely on article quality/referencing inadequacy. Would support if the referencing was brought up to standard, clearly a major figure.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support on article improvements Subject is notable. I'll work on the article tomorrow. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

*Support. Article looks clearly sourced now - definitely both well-known and remembered as well as influential. Challenger l (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose article is under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Long, distinguished career; influential in music, film and theater. (Target article now contains 41 refs.) Sca (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's never the absolute number of refs, you know that. BLPs need all claims that are contentious, such as marriages, children, releases etc, to be cited.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support there are a few claims which need references, the primary sources which name an episode or album, and the tv show or publisher and date are primary sources. I have hidden a few items that say he was uncredited--those need sources.  The man himself was important in three fields, acting, singing/voice, and activism. μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment just claiming that a source isn't needed because a "title", "publisher" etc are supplied is entirely inadequate for a BLP. More sources are required if those claims remain in the article.  There seems little doubt that the individual is notable, it's just that his article is full of unreferenced and unverifiable claims, despite other opinions.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Two refs to NYT obit added. Sca (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, if you can address the remaining unreferenced and unverifiable material, we're good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There are six unrefed entries in the discography, out of 40. At this point Clock simple.svg my inclination would be to delete them. Sca (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Three remaining unrefed discography items deleted; marked as ready. Sca (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted not perfect, but good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Philip II remains identified

 * Oppose Feels like a good DYK though. --M ASEM (t) 14:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - after is sourced and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support conditional on significant article improvement. It really needs work. That said, I think the subject is ITN worthy. It can't always be bloodshed and massacres. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support: Wouldn't be a bad DYK, but it's something that just happened (as opposed to a process, like in Timbuktu, that is just now getting play in international media), it involves a very prominent figure in European history, and it's been a bit of a slow news week. Of course, the article must be brought up to Wikipedia standards before posting... -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support when article is adequate. I can remember nominating the findings of the remains of the substantially "younger" Miguel de Cervantes, which was pulled for lack of references &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems like a significant story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose article has serious WP:V problems, evidenced by the bright orange maintenance tag at the top of the page. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Death of Sandra Bland in police custody to be investigated as murder

 * weak oppose. I think we'd normally post the results of an investigation (and the outcome of any criminal proceedings) rather than an announcement that an investigation will happen. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose notice this is not an indictment or even a coroner finding of homicide as opposed to suicide, but just an announcement that the police will investigate it as a bossible murder. There's absolutely no basis for posting this on such preliminary grounds. μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Significant to the Bland case, not yet significant enough for ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Individual cases like this are not important enough for ITN unless they're USSC material. (98.180.69.27 (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC))
 * Oppose per my comment at the AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Lockheed Martin to acquire Sikorsky

 *  Weak Support once the article is updated and the relevant section expanded beyond the current one sentence. I would also suggest adjusting the link so it goes to the applicable section of a rather long article. The merger has considerable significance in the military and defense related industry. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Striking my "weak" in favor of full support per Medeis' comment below. This is more significant than I had realized. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - per Ad Orientem. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Major business news, especially considering the history. Sikorsky was a pioneer in helicopters and has quite the pedigree. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The source article explains its an acquisition based on a shrinking domestic market, one that will not result in the creation (as opposed to simple purchase) or a new product stream, and one that threatens 17,000 middle management jobs. I do suggest reading the article, and the picture at the top is quite cool, I am using it as my wallpaper. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't know; the agreement deal is explained in just one sentence in each page. George Ho (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support because for those who know aviation well are bound to vote support as the pair are two of the most major aircraft manufacturers. This news is just as major as Boeing buying McDonnell Douglas in 1997. Donnie Park (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 Open Championship

 * not yet ready only the second round has more than a sentence of prose. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * support - when ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support when ready per recurring. Curiously, I thought Johnson was young and new as I had never heard his name on the radio. How wrong I was &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: The update is sufficient to post. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment no, it's really not. Barely a couple of short sentences for the third and fourth day reports, given this was one of the most exciting Opens for decades, we should easily be able to write a couple of good and referenced paragraphs.  The Rambling Man (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] UN unanimously approves Iran nuclear deal

 * Weak Oppose  We have already posted about the main agreement which we knew was/is going to be hugely controversial. This is just the beginning of a lot of news that is going to surround the fight over this agreement. Congress is going to have a fit over this, and there are reports that the Iranians may try to amend the agreement or reject parts of it. I doubt this belongs on ITN, but if it does it should be in ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Say "support 'Ongoing'" then because I believe there will be updates over this if you like. George Ho (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb/weak support for ongoing per my comment above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This was part of the deal, which we posted the agreement to.  If this had not passed, it might be notable, but the deal wouldn't have been made unless the parties agreed this would occur. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on Ongoing; I'm not sure there will be regular, incremental updates to this, but I'm not sure there won't be either. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support either as news item or as ongoing - there have been decades of tension between the U.S. and Iran, and this particular negotiation is the outcome of over ten years of international negotiation, so the outcome is notable. -Darouet (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 331dot. This still has to get Senate approval.  That would have been the correct time to post this in any case. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Just another step in the process. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @Medeis and Kudzu1: What about "ongoing" then? George Ho (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think ongoing is unnecessary. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The hard part is presently posted. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] RD: Fred Else
<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 - Based on the article, he doesn't look like he comes anywhere close to meeting the death criteria. "Long career" doesn't necessarily equate to "very important". --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bongwarrior. Not close to the top of his field. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No awards, seems to have had a long sub-par career. Does not seem noteworthy. Challenger l (talk) 05:54, 21 July 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] RD: Alex Rocco

 * Oppose. I am not seeing him as particularly influential. A single Emmy win for Best Supporting Actor back in 1990. I don't think he quite meets the bar, here. Challenger l (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't see how he meets the RD criteria; how is he "very important" to acting? 331dot (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support instantly recognizable face and voice with a long, respectable career, just not a household name. μηδείς (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose He was in the greatest movie of all time, but not much else over the course of his career. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Giving a polite nod to the Emmy, I don't think it is enough on its own to meet RD requirements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose far from important in his field, just because he was "popular" and people in America recognise him, that doesn't mean he's RD standard by any means. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Suruç, Turkey explosion

 * Support article could use a little clean up and inevitably will expand as the news filters through, I would say it's almost good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Clean the article a bit first, it's not confirmed from the Islamic State yet (Decentman12 (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC))
 * Update: It's almost certain now that it was Islamic State. Nub Cake (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support – Brief target article seems OK, but suggest it mention involvement of local Kurds – or at least their predominance in Suruç. Sca (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added some information in the new 'Background' section of the article. Nub Cake (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sca (talk)


 * Support altblurb - we posted the Kobani massacre, this border incident is related with the group planning to cross the border. -- Callinus (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2015 (U
 * Wait - Article still needs some minor improvements (citations, prose) G8j!qKb (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support a notable event with significant potential ramifications (this could nudge Turkey into a more active role against ISIL). -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I think there are four citation neededs in there, so fix those, and we're good to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: I've fixed them. Most of them were unnecessary and were already dealt with in other citations elsewhere, but I've still added sources from different reliable news sites. Nub Cake (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - another notable and horrific muslim terrorist attack.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Marked Ready – Sca (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, secondary sources indicate that it represents a dangerous new escalation. ISIS had avoided antagonizing Turkey (until now). Abductive  (reasoning) 18:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: The Rambling Man: The number of deaths seems to be finalised at 32 (though may increase if injuries prove to be fatal), and injuries at 104. Is it possible to alter the blurb to reflect this information, such as ' A bombing in the Turkish district of Suruç, Şanlıurfa Province, kills at least 32 people and injures 104.' Thanks. Nub Cake (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * this has been done, but for future reference the best place to ask for this sort of update is WP:ERRORS. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Cuba and United States restore diplomatic ties

 * Yep - this is an obvious one. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Both need updating; I added the 2nd article. George Ho (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Of all the recent US/Cuba events, this seems like the one that assures that the thaw is complete. --M ASEM (t) 05:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - An important milestone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - We posted the decision to renew ties in December, and we posted the removal from the state sponsors of terrorism list in April. While this is an important milestone, it does feel like this is just another step in an ongoing story that we have already covered, and perhaps not worth posting again.  After all, we posted when they announced they were going to normalize ties, so I'm not sure there is a need to also post when they follow through with it.  On the other hand, if the Cuban embargo were actually lifted, then that would be a good reason for posting again.  But resolving the embargo requires US congressional action, and does not seem likely to happen soon.  Dragons flight (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Historical EV. Sca (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely an historic event. Resolving some of the last unfinished business from the cold war. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and marked as ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - definitely newsworthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted ALT blurb.  Spencer T♦ C 17:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Galina Prozumenshchikova

 * Support RD conditional on article improvement. (Oppose blurb if one is proposed.) However the article needs work. Although reasonably well sourced it requires updating and the awards section needs to be expanded with her Olympic medals included. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Her medal record is in the infobox. Glancing at other Olympic athletes, that looks pretty standard. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I missed it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support multiple gold-medallist easily notable enough, article is short but well-formed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per TRM. No issues with the article as it is at present, and clearly meets the criteria for an RD slot. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Multiple gold medal winner would seem to be "very important" to their field. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] UNESCO heritage of Timbuktu were rebuilt

 * Reluctant Oppose It doesn't look like this is getting much coverage in the news. I found a few sources but not enough to ring the ITN bell. Also the article linked in the blurb is quite long and it does not reflect this development. Indeed I had to do a bit of looking to find any reference to the mausoleums at all, which is both minimal and clearly outdated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - still newsworhty. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Needs updates article Battles of Gao and Timbuktu not updated with reconstruction efforts. Added altblurb -- Callinus (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: This seems better suited for DYK than ITN. I don't think we usually post ITN items in passive voice. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Shark attack disrupts surfing contest

 * The first article looks short of prose and references. George Ho (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it needs a lot of work. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tabloid silliness. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Drop the dead donkey. Belle (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose As Fanning came out mostly unharmed, this is a trivial news story. --M ASEM (t) 22:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Westgate, Nairobi reopens

 * Oppose. I understand the emotions attached to this event for the families affected, but a shopping mall reopening, really? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's going to be 94 where I live, but I think SNOW is in the forecast for this nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose A nor'easter of consensus is moving swiftly into this region.--WaltCip (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not of any note other than a memorial to the terror attack. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Charlie Hebdo ends Muhammad cartoons

 * Oppose I don't really see the significance. If I'm understanding the editor correctly, he is saying the cartoons have made the point about freedom of expression that the magazine was trying to convey, so they are going to move on to other things. He doesn't want the magazine to be just about criticising Islam. They don't seem to be stopping because of danger or threats, so I'm not sure it's that newsworthy. Neljack (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The two do not seem to be connected. Even if it were, the wording is vague - everything Charlie Hebdo does is after the January shootings. Twirlypen (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Luz already left in May - it was his Muhammad that made people furious in 2011 and on the survivor's edition. -- Callinus (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Editorial revision at low-circulation magazine. Remember STRAIGHT after the attacks they had Mo on the cover? This isn't as sensational as it's being made out &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Post hoc ergo propter hoc.--WaltCip (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Yoichiro Nambu

 * Support on article update - In principle, Nobel prize winners typically are RD material. Article is not updated (present tense, and some paragraphs without sources). --M ASEM (t) 06:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - He shared his Nobel with two other scientists, essentially receiving half-credit, and I don't think he is a well-known enough individual to overlook the extreme staleness of his passing (nearly two weeks ago). --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I do not find the reasons given in opposition persuasive. We generally treat the date the death is announced as the relevant date for ITN purposes, so I don't think this should be regarded as stale. The question is not how well-known he was, but how important a figure he was in his field. Highly significant scientists often aren't very well-known. It is very common for Nobel Prizes to be shared between three scientists, including when very important scientists go it - Crick and Watson, for instance. Nambu made highly important discoveries concerning spontaneous symmetry breaking. Like most Nobel winners, I think he clearly qualifies as a very important figure in his field. Neljack (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Other than Nobel Prize, the article mentions his other scientific awards and things named after him, such as Nambu-Goto action. Brandmeistertalk  10:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support An obvious RD candidate. Article is not long but it covers the essential points and is well sourced. Marking it as Ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad Orientem (talk • contribs) 16:11, 18 July 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Two paragraphs of his career are unreferenced, this is a BLP violation according to some, so we'd be better off citing them before we post this to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * BLP does not apply to dead people. Mjroots (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * BLP applies to those who are "recently deceased." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (Roughly 6 months to 2 years after death, depending on circumstances. The instant someone dies does not mean we can suddenly drop unsourced claims about them on their article page.)--M ASEM (t) 21:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and these two para definitely need sources. The tense has been fixed but that's not enough. --M ASEM (t) 21:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - definitely notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending Improvement - Definitely notable enough as a Nobel winner, but the sourcing needs some work - and for someone with that long a career, the article seems very short on information. Challenger l (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per above on notability of discovery assuming CN's are addressed. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I added sources (although bare URLs) to uncited paragraphs. All of us must work on it. George Ho (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This looks better now. Posting. --Tone 09:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Jules Bianchi

 * Support: Good article, accomplished racer, quite a detailed death update. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD Article is impressive and well sourced. Subject meets qualifications for ITNDC. A sad loss. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb While a talented figure in his field, it is mainly the circumstances of his death that qualify him for RD under ITNDC. The bar for giving a blurb to the recently deceased is very high. I don't think he meets that standard. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per above. Just a question: Would it be possible for this to be a regular In The News item rather than just a Recent Deaths item? Since Formula One hasn't had a driver fatality in more than 21 years (meaning, not since Ayrton Senna). Given that the death of someone who helped save Jews was on ITN despite being relatively obscure today, whereas Bianchi was a lot more well-known, maybe he could get a similar treatment? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Full blurb pls, as was the consensus more than a year ago when the accident happened. Nergaal (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @Ad Orientem, Kudzu1, and Narutolovehinata5: RD or blurb? George Ho (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied either way. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb I don't think Bianchi meets the RD criteria - he never won a Formula One race and only picked up two championship points, so it's hard to describe him as a very important figure in the field of motor racing (or even Formula One). But a driver dying from injuries sustained in a Formula One crash is sufficiently noteworthy news to warrant posting as a blurb, in my opinion. Neljack (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - first death due to F1 race for 21 years. Mjroots (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per others, but feel it should make mention of the 20-year gap as that is what makes it newsworthy beyond RD. Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, though if added, should mention the event at which the accident occured, the 2014 Japanese Grand Prix, as weather conditions played a very significant role and we don't want to send the reader through hoops to get to the information. The time difference gap, though what makes this significant to be blurb-worthy, is a technicality. It is 21 years between driver deaths from injuries sustained at a Grand Prix event, though since 1994, several other people have lost their lives directly involving Formula One crashes, and indirectly as well, as speculated with Maria de Villota. The distinction would be too long to explain in a blurb. Twirlypen (talk) 06:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Post this as a blurb. Article is GA. Death is tragic and highly notable. 117.192.178.212 (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - sad, but important enough for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted (by ) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Non notable whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.181.22 (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Pull He came in first in three minor races.  Pardon me, but it's not like he won the final race and then died because someone hit him.  That a person dies in a risky occupation does not elevate his notability. μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support blurb - Notable enough despite appearing in minor races, as noted. His death should prompt aspiring racers to be careful from now on. Death might not be unusual, but it's so sudden and heart-wrenching. George Ho (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Pull, although I certainly have no say in this. When I saw this posted I nearly fell over. No one can argue the only reason this is supported is because it is not in the United States. If you will, flashback for a moment and just imagine trying to post Dale Earnhardt's death as a full blurb. I can see the replies now: ("US centric", "Indeed tragic, but Wiki is not ESPN", "A redneck who didn't wear his seatbelt correctly", etc.) Additionally, Earnhardt was far more successful in his racing career, regarded as a legend by some. I know this is not about him; however, this young man had not established such a career to merit such exposure on here. Don't get me wrong; I know this is already posted, and again I have no say in this, but you are blind if you don't see a double standard. While this is tragic to the international racing community, this is not a headline worthy of a full blurb on Wikipedia. 69.73.10.197 (talk) 05:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * At the time of Earnhardt's death, he was middle-aged (but successful). Bianchi was too young to die, but it happens to young aspiring race drivers. Still, Bianchi was promising... until his deadly coma. We could have posted Earnhardt's death, but there was no ITN at the time. ITN was created when... 9/11 (or 11/9) happened. --George Ho (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Pull This doesn't seem to meet our extremely high standards for posting deaths as full blurbs. wctaiwan (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The main story here isn't the notability or achievement of the driver, but the circumstances of his death. While deaths in motorsport in general certainly aren't unusual, deaths in Formula One seem to be slightly rarer, and that's apparently one of the reasons this received such strong support. Viewed in that light, this is somewhat analogous to the death of Phillip Hughes, the cricketer who died as a result of injuries received during a match. Neither Hughes nor Bianchi meet the death criteria, but the circumstances of their deaths were deemed sufficiently unusual to justify posting. Obviously, racing is more dangerous than cricket, but you see where I'm coming from. (As an aside, I suspect the death of Earnhardt would have been posted quickly, with little to no opposition). --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support part of the point of ITN is to highlight quality articles that are in the news. Regardless of personal opinion (and nearly falling over when seeing it posted is pretty extreme), this is one such example of a quality article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Pull The topic is not really in the news with any prominence and the subject barely merits an RD entry so a blurb seems quite undue. Some imagery from Pluto would be better as the picture and so that discussion should be reopened. Andrew D. (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you'd be better off participating in the discussion over what item is actually pictured at ITN, right now, if we removed Bianchi, we'd put the plutaquark back, and I bet that would really pluta-irk you. By the way, your reasoning against Bianchi is way off, and your clear misunderstanding between RD and a standard ITN blurb lets you down a little, not that you'd be too upset by that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Pull- It has to have strong article and notability, and this story is barely RD-level.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 16:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a good article, which is super-rare on articles we post, and if you don't think it's notable, try Googling it, it's in the news all over the world, even the United States. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would not disagree that the article is well written. Nor would I suggest his death is non-notable. But the standards for WP:BIO and WP:ITN are different. The subject arguably meets ITNDC because of the tragic circumstances surrounding his death. But there is no way this should have been posted as a blurb. And I am somewhat disapointed that it was posted so soon after the blurb was proposed, before most editors had a chance to weigh in. The rush to post has IMO resulted in giving a borderline RD candidate far more attention that he merits. A quick glance at the post-posting !votes makes it very clear there would have been no consensus in favor of posting had some patience been exercised. This blurb is a mistake and really should be pulled. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the blurb, but the post-posting comments suggest it should be moved to RD. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as is. As suggested by Bongwarrior, the story here is not the person who died, but the manner of death, which is unusual and is being widely reported on.  The posting was valid as there was virtually no opposition to the idea at the time; if consensus has changed, okay, but the posting was not improper. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. The blurb was proposed and approved, all in about 4 hours. But the time frame was in the middle of the night for everyone in North America where you have one of the largest groups of English speaking peoples. In short, outside of Europe and the odd insomniac there was little input. Even in Europe it was very early morning when the blurb was approved. I am not sure how you define "valid" but I would label this as rushed with true consensus being highly doubtful. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for a chance for people in each time zone in the world or even just those with English speakers to post their opinion or otherwise have an arbitrary minimum discussion time before posting(both of which have been proposed before and never gained consensus). A good article with clear support at the time should not be artificially delayed in posting, especially in the recent slow period here for postings. No decision is written in stone here. Again, if you are saying consensus has changed, that's a different subject.  331dot (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There's still a clear consensus and if someone would like to propose a 24-hour delay so that all corners of the globe get to weigh in, please feel free to do so. It's something I proposed a while ago which was roundly shot to pieces.  The Rambling Man (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - An unusual case, and it seems to have received international coverage. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Tolikara riot

 * Oppose: Not seeing anything that would qualify this for ITN, and in fact, although I'm not about to nominate it for deletion, I'm not even sure it meets notability criteria for an article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article fails EVENT and NOTNEWS. The riot is completely non-notable. Suggest a SNOW close which I can't do as I just sent the article to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Khan Bani Saad bombing

 * Support once the article is ready for Front Page linking. Huge death toll, no question this is ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, rare death toll even for Iraq (and 15 children are reported among the dead). Brandmeistertalk  16:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems short of meeting DYK rules, but the story so gruesome yet fresher should be featured on the front page. George Ho (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, a gruesome massacare G8j!qKb (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not ready The article has a big tag at the top of it indicating issues with the lead. It doesn't even seem definite on the number of casualties. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've expanded it now, in proportion to the rest of the article. Brandmeistertalk  17:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Thanks for the updates. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've copy editted the article for style and idiom.. There are no structural issues to prevent posting. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted with a few tweaks to both the article and the blurb, inline with our "house style". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * why posted with wording 'killing' and not 'massacres'? gruesome crime, referred to as massacre widely in the press...
 * Because we report the facts, i.e. at least 130 were killed. You could say "massacred" or "slaughtered" or "mercilessly destroyed" or whatever, but here we keep it simple and neutral and link the article.  If you still disagree, I'd suggest you add a note to WP:ERRORS so that others can weigh in and determine whether your personal preference for the blurb is more acceptable than the one I posted, no problem at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Alcides Ghiggia

 * Oppose not close to being significant in the field of association football. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose A professional athlete and one that meets WP:N, but does not appear to rise to the significantly higher bar set out in WP:ITNDC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Famed for scoring the winning goal in a World Cup Final. His career does not otherwise show how he was widely significant in his field. Fuebaey (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If one event was enough he seems to have done the ultimate event in soccer, he won the Game is the Century before the largest live sports audience in the history of man (excluding racetracks over Olympic size). But I don't know much about soccer. His (short) article is good to read, they talk about his goal like it's the God-goal and quote poetry about it that compares it to Kennedy dying. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Pluto pic?
A diagram of what a presumed 5-quark looks like is neat, but should it displace the historical photos of Pluto that will never be seen again (this century) at this res? Nergaal (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, both the artist's image of the probe and the entirely fanciful and useless pic of the pentaquark have been a nadir for ITN. Let's get a picture of Pluto itself, it being the biggest astronomical event since Voyager 1.  μηδείς (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, let's not discourage a scientific diagram for a scientific pic. As magnificent the Pluto pic is, something newer and fresher would attract readers more. The pentaquark thing seems newer, so a diagram should reflect what's new. I did move this to talk page because it interferes with Candidates page, a page for articles, not pictures. I did request in talk page of Main Page swapping a pic of Serena Williams with another pic of her, but newer stories got in the way. --George Ho (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hard to decide if you are trolling considering both stories happened the same day. Nergaal (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trolling, but I knew I shouldn't have moved your message without permission. How can I convince you to forgive me? George Ho (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid this discussion is going to moot. The racer's obituary takes the lead, so his headshot picture takes over, making the Pluto image unlikely. George Ho (talk) 10:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Nexen pipeline oil spill at Long Lake

 * Oppose not in the news, not clear by the blurb or the article what the impact of this spillage is. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait: Not clear yet how significant this spill is. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment For context, this is roughly 200 times smaller than Deepwater Horizon (210 million US gallons) and 10 times smaller than Exxon Valdez (11 million US gallons). Fuebaey (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * .016 km? Oppose. (For those who speak English, an NFL field is ~5351.2 square meters.   μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean km2? George Ho (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, three times the square meterage of a football field. μηδείς (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Nice to know a football field is 5km² but i dont think its remotely correct. 91.49.94.143 (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You're making a common error. I said five thousand-plus square meters, not five thousand meters squared. George was right I did mean .016km^2 for the spill, the 16,000m^2 figure had already been given.  Next time you're driven to anonymous sarcasm, try first figuring out what I might actually have meant if I wasn't entirely bonkers (i.e., AGF) and you might realize the misunderstanding. μηδείς (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I THINK this is the first such incident involving oil sands/shale oil. Nergaal (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Spilt oil is spilt oil, whether from a pipeline, tanker, or oil rig. The source is not really relevant to the damage, which is very minor in the scope of things (not that I'd want it in my town). μηδείς (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I... don't... understand... the logic other than it's-just-an-oil-spill excuse. You guys are relieved that oil didn't spill into a sea or an ocean and that contaminated area is not big. Such opposition makes many environmental news... not cut out for ITN. Of course, I can't advocate such stories to be posted in the news because Wikipedia is not an advocacy or soapbox. George Ho (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2012 Aurora shootings

 * Comments gained international attention, both at the time of the shootings and now.. Martin 4 5 1  23:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I don't think there was any doubt to this ruling and in light of the Charlotte shooting it's been buried in the news cycle. However, we did ITN the original shooting and this is the point of proper closure from our side (there certainly will be appeals and the like, but that's beyond our normal scope for such reporting). --M ASEM (t) 03:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Chattanooga Shooting or the Charleston shooting? I'm not aware of any major incidents in Charlotte.  Maybe too many southern U.S. cities with "Cha" in them?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 04:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, meant the Chattanooga shooting (the ITN item just below). --M ASEM (t) 04:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Whether the trial captures international attention does not reflect whether it deserves to be featured ITN. The trial was just other trials of mentally ill people with various sentences, either mental institution or jail, no matter how tragic and newsworthy the shooting was. Let's wait for sentence, appeals, and other method. George Ho (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If he gets death, the appeals will probably still be going on after Wikipedia perishes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Week Support per Masem, assuming the article update quality is present. (Which is the target, please?  Two targets here makes no sense.) μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, most casualties have already occurred long ago. Come back here when he's dead too, not earlier. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose barely a passing note in today's news, and hardly surprising. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support once updated per Masem; we typically post convictions in notable cases, especially ones posted previously, though (as with below) I'm sympathetic to the arguments against. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait for sentence before making a decision. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We posted the shooting, which was highly notable, but I don't see that this very unsurprising verdict has the same level of notability or attention. Neljack (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all. Another routine news. You kill some, you get hanged. Nothing of sort of news here. Not Boston Marathon case or any thing of that level which could draw international audience. -The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 12:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, although the tone of some of the comments above is unfortunate. It was not disputed that Holmes committed the shootings, so the only issue at trial was whether he would found guilty of murder, or not guilty by reason of mental illness. The resolution of that issue, while it will help dictate Holmes' future place of confinement, is not ITN material. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 Chattanooga shootings

 * Weak Support Mass shooting in the US are sadly not uncommon and I generally look for a high death toll to support. However, Islamic terrorist attacks are not that common here. On that basis, coupled with the extensive news coverage, I think it merits an ITN blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Ad Orientem. It's already been called "domestic terrorism", which makes this more than some guy who got fired shooting up his office. The shooter targeted the U.S. military. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as per the above. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Mass shootings happen all the time. This may or may not be a terrorist attack, but we do not put all terrorist attacks up. We did not put up the one in France last month, probably because of its low body count.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Which one is more tabloid-ish, this or conviction of Hungarian bookkeeper helping the Nazis? Ah well, tragic for soldiers, but media has already sensationalized this story toward anti-Arab demographics. But that's not the case for terrorist bombings at the start of Ramadan season in North Africa and Middle East. Nevertheless, even when the blurb may not reveal names, readers would still be curious about the event. George Ho (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You know what? I'll oppose this. Isn't there a fresher story not sensationalized? --George Ho (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - We should be clear between the difference between domestic terrorism and international terrorism; the latter would be a hugely significant event, while the US has many many domestic terrorism events and this feels like another, sadly, run of the mill case, barring knowing the exact intent of the shooter. I know they're trying to figure out if he was following the ISIS directive to cause chaos during this month, or if this was just his own action. Until we know this, they're just calling it domestic terrorism, and it is a rather minor one in such cases. (Contrast to the shooting last year on Capital Hill in Ontario, which also was termed domestic terrorism, but such is rare in Canada). If it does turn out to be an event directly linked to ISIS or similar groups and elevated to international terrorism, I would be willing to support it. --M ASEM (t) 03:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: Tragic, but a fairly low body count and no evidence yet of ties between the shooter and groups like ISIL or al Qaeda. If we don't post occurrences like this in other countries, we shouldn't "bend the rules" for the United States. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support The fact that one can simply walk onto a military base and shoot disarmed armed servicemen is notable enough, and this is by far the top story in the US.  The article meets posting requirements. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Point of note: The first shooting was at a strip mall where a Nat. Guard recruiting office was, far from any security of a base; at the base itself he rammed his car into the gate to get onto the base, and did not "walk" onto it. Further, as I understanding the training base was a weapons-free facility so it was a matter until cops actually came around to stop him. --M ASEM (t) 05:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until it's confirmed a terror attack (and it would be a shock if it weren't). Shootings happen every day, but it's seldom that the military are targeted here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose an unfortunately common occurrence, regardless of the motivations. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support because it seems to be terrorism against military personnel, though I am sympathetic to the reasons in opposition. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait somewhat dubious there's an international link, FBI still investigating but nothing conclusive - The 26 June Kuwait bombing and Sousse attack were included, but not the France one as it was lone wolf/unlinked. -- Callinus (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * News reports are now saying there is no direct link to international terrorism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Terror attacks on national military is a common occurrence in the rest of the world. Even the death toll is relatively low for such an attack. 117.192.161.191 (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kudzu1. Neljack (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We've saturated ITN with enough U.S. shootings stories for a while. It needs to be something truly outlandish for a shooting to make it to ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't recall where in the ITN guidelines there's a max on posting news stories by category. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not in the guidelines, but I think it's safe to say that a number of editors are tired by the continual posting of mass shootings in the US. After all this is English language Wikipedia, not American shooting Wikipedia.  Of course, that's with no disrespect to all the victims.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that non-US editors are tired of these stories. As an American, I'm tired of them too. Australia had one mass shooting and they fixed their problem, while we can't get around the NRA to do anything. That doesn't make these shootings any less newsworthy, though. (Not all of them, but some of them.) – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In Europe, they don't allow guns. So the terrorists have to resort to bombings. That's called "progress". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It does make them less newsworthy to English language Wikipedia I'm afraid. If we published every suicide bomb/Boko Haram attack/ISIS killing, we'd have no room for anything else.  Sadly, mass shootings in the US are now on that level of frequency which makes them need something beyond just a few people being killed by a lone wolf gunman.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * support - terrorism is always notable. the day we start thinking of terrorism in the free world we will go down a dark path.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Heart land of Pluto named Tombaugh Regio

 * Oppose - This is an incredibly trivial update to the story we just posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice gesture for the planet's discoverer, but I don't think it's ITN material. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose but prime DYK material. --M ASEM (t) 12:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Wan Li

 * Oppose Comment  We don't usually post heads of legislative branches in RD, such as a former Speaker of the House. What makes this individually particularly more notable? Does the Chinese Congress have any political power in the country, or is it like Russia where they are puppets to the oligarchy? Mamyles (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? I would say that a former Speaker of the US House of Representatives meets RD standards and would support posting such a nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you also support posting the other 50 countries that have a Speaker of the House? How about 50 countries' Vice Presidents, since they head up the Senate in the American congressional model? That would be a bit much. A role like head of a legislature is not enough justification for RD, alone. Additionally, all politicians advocate for their opinions, so that phrase from the nomination is also not particularly notable. Mamyles (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It would depend on the power of the individual. The US Vice-President has virtually none. The Speaker of the House is extremely powerful, arguably 2nd only to the POTUS. ITND criteria #2 says "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." So yeah I do think the Speaker of the House meets that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The "head of national legislature" argument is problematic and I recognize that, especially given that the body is known more to be "rubber-stamp". However, the position in China carries with it a certain level of prestige and is always given to individuals with significant personal clout (cf Zhu De, Qiao Shi, Li Peng, Zhang Dejiang). Wan's importance however is not simply derived from the five years he spent in this office. In my opinion he will be remembered for 1. pioneering the implementation of the household-responsibility system, which immeasurably changed the lives of some 800 million Chinese peasants, 2. attempting to push through constitutional reforms to make the National People's Congress a bona fide law-making body and 3. Almost summoning the body to resolve Tiananmen through constitutional means but being isolated in Shanghai. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This probably belongs on the talk page, not here. Two recent nominations, Jim Wright and Tom Foley were not posted due to lack of serious influence or accomplishment in the office.  I would expect Tip O'Neal would have been posted and expect Newt Gingrich will also be posted.  But I think the Chinese nomination should be discussed on the merits, not in comparison to the US. μηδείς (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Article quality is very good and seems to be referenced well.  Spencer T♦ C 15:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Stricken, article has referencing issues. Weak Support if those issues are resolved.  Spencer T♦ C 15:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is his name in the "Eight Immortals" article? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I asked myself the same thing... Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The article can't even agree on who the "eight" actually are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support conditional on article improvement. I am not altogether sure how much juice the position has in China, i.e. is it mostly ceremonial? That said the corresponding article indicates it is the # 2 position in the political hierarchy of the PRC. That's good enough for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose inadequately sourced, BLP violations. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support if article improved. Equivalent would be posted in US.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 19:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As Medeis said above, two US Speakers of the House, Jim Wright and Tom Foley, were nominated but not posted due to lack of serious influence or accomplishment. Would you consider those equivalents, or is there something else special with this individual? Mamyles (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose per Medeis, plus article has problems. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: while it may be a long shot now, I will add here that I have updated the article and improved referencing. Even if this does not ultimately end up on ITN/RD, I would like to ask any interested party to review the article to see if there are any further glaring deficiencies to the article. I am especially puzzled by User 's suggestion that there are BLP violations - what are these violations? Colipon+ (Talk) 19:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Quick response, last para of the "National politics" section is unreferenced and therefore contains BLP violations. Please be aware that BLP applies to recently-deceased individuals, and V applies throughout. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is now fully referenced and also significantly improved, with an expanded introduction describing his significance. Please reconsider. Colipon+ (Talk) 00:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not sure how long RD's stay up but this nom is getting a bit stale. If it is going to be posted, I would do it soon. Otherwise let's close the discussion and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * His state funeral (or equivalent) is sometime this week, so it's not too late yet! Colipon+ (Talk) 01:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Oskar Gröning trial

 * support - an historic sentence.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How do we know it's the last one? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct, we don't know that.--Jenda H. (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This looks more like a kangaroo court. According to article, Gröning was responsible merely for counting and sorting the money taken from prisoners, not directly for their executions (and he later expressed some dissent to his Auschwitz boss). Brandmeistertalk  12:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's our place to question the outcome, rather to report the facts.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTNEWS some editorial judgement is often useful. This time book-keeper, next time they may find and sentence Auschwitz toilet cleaner as well. Brandmeistertalk  13:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources which state that the trial was not legitimate(a "kangaroo court")? It isn't for us to act as a second judge or jury and render our own opinions about the outcome. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You think they cleaned the toilets? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Would the murder of 300,000 Hungarian Jews have stopped or been disrupted if Auschwitz lacked that money-collecting book-keeper? No. In the grand scheme of things this four-year sentence for a 94-year man is almost nothing. Brandmeistertalk  15:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether he could have stopped the whole thing or not is not relevant; that's an argument for his trial, not here. This is in the news and involves major war crimes. I would again ask if any reliable sources have said this trial is not legitimate. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Widely reported trial related to war crimes from a historic conflict. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – This particular trial – not of course the Holocaust itself – is a footnote in history. Sca (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support it certainly is more than a footnote in terms of "in the news". Of course, if we had crystal balls, we could all determine which news stories will become inconsequential in fifty years time.  I'm seeing it widely reported, and while the sentence is remarkably short considering the crime, it's still newsworthy.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I didn't think this would draw much attention outside Germany, but it did. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this topic tends to be overrepresented in any form of media. A comparable number of Armenians died a few decades earlier yet that one barely reached the news outlets at the centennial commemoration. Nergaal (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This is likely to be one of the last, perhaps the last, major trial for Holocaust related crimes. Also Gröning is a well known figure for speaking out over the years about what happened and refuting Holocaust deniers with his "I was there" interviews. In response to charges that this was a kangaroo court I would have to strongly disagree. It is a well established principle in law that those who provide material assistance in the commission of serious crimes can be held liable as accessories. Germany's refusal for many decades to apply this principal to the SS guards at the death camps, and only prosecute those who could be proven to have actually killed someone was extremely controversial. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Question – Did Demjanjuk's conviction on May 12, 2011, make ITN? (From cursory skimming of his article, he seems to have been more directly involved in genocide than Gröning.) I don't find Demjanjuk in the ITN archive for May 2011. Sca (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Maybe he wasn't even nominated. I am not sure I see the relevance, unless there is more than an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I found this: In_the_news/Candidates/May_2011. I can't tell if it was actually posted or not due to article quality issues but it looks like there was at least consensus to post at the time.  Spencer T♦ C 15:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Aha. Thanks for the info. Sca (talk)
 * Demjanjuk was a big story due to his high-profile trials and legal proceedings. Gröning seems to have been less notorious – but in a way more thought-provoking as the bag-man, so to speak. I do think this should be posted; either blurb would work. Sca (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Question is this going to get appealed? If yes, what are the realistic chances that he will actually serve jail time before he dies? Nergaal (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 *  Weak Support – I've been dithering. Finally decided that Gröning's ostensible bystander status as 'the bookkeeper' – and his conviction nevertheless – makes this notable. And it's certainly 'in' the news, today anyway. (Regarding the sentence, presumably his age was a factor.) Sca (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this was on the US nightly news as a feel-good story, with camp survivors forgiving him. It's tabloid level, and certainly in no way of enough historical importance to merit posting. μηδείς (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support - Forgiven or not, historical or not, this is a notable story. I prefer altblurb, and I marked it as ready to go. As for "tabloid", I hate to admit that the news tend to overemphasize connections between accomplices and horrific events. But let's use Sydney hostage crisis as a precedent to tabloid journalism already invading ITN, so let's do the same here. George Ho (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it has been sensationalized. While attractive, I guess this is nothing new. There are other living jailed convicts from the Nazi era, but there is nothing special about this story other than... obviously. Changing to oppose. --George Ho (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support - I have no love towards giving any attention towards this three-ring circus of a trial, but sham or not, it's undoubtedly historical. It's also possibly among the last few news events that will surface on ITN that has origins from World War II.--WaltCip (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "2. Informal: A situation characterized by confusing, engrossing, or amusing activity." I was wondering which of those you think applied? Or do you think it was a sham, politically motivated or just a pale reflection of the world paragon? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's confusing. Confusing they would try to convict someone 50 years after the fact, and yes, it reeks of a sham trial - a resurrection of Nuremberg. In the U.S., at least, we have a statute of limitations, so this is rather bizarre.--WaltCip (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying it's unusual. That's how things get into the news, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hence my support, albeit weak.--WaltCip (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If any good has come of this, it's probably the humanity and good sense shown by Eva Mozes Kor. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: This feels like a weird show trial, and while it marks the conclusion of a legal saga, I don't know that it's so hugely notable that we need to put it on ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The British Schindler was prominently placed on ITN for about two weeks. Do we really need another WWII story? Especially one as inconsequential as this? --Tocino 07:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. We are not here to judge Gröning, we are not here to judge the German judicial system, and it’s irrelevant if someone on the other side of this dreadful equation died recently. And we’re not here to guess whether or not there will be a future prosecution of a camp “toilet cleaner”. The fact that this trial has simply happened at all is notable. That’s why it’s in the news, worldwide. Various experts have said it’s likely to be the last of its type. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Remove "Schindler"?
RDs get 1 week and this guy has gotten 2 weeks of full blurb, most of which had his face as the ITN pic. Considering that its posting wasn't even close to unanimous, could we take his entry down (next)? There is absolutely no source still mentioning his death. Nergaal (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Be patient, my dear. I nominated more stories to push his obituary down or out. Meanwhile, I need your vote on the Chinese stock market crash, or just vote on newer and fresher stories below. --George Ho (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The 2015 Indonesian Air Force Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash occured the day before. And I'm pretty sure "there is absolutely no source still mentioning the crash". Shouldn't that be removed first? How many gaps are we allowed to have when news goes stale? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is there a more and more clear POV pushing mentality at Wikipedia. If we do not get what we want, we nitpick at the subject... Tiring to say the least.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose I don't understand what the rush is. Does having this humanitarian who saved hundreds of children's lives and was given top honors by two countries on the front page for a couple of slow news weeks after his death really hurt and offend you so much? Move on. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose as unnecessary. It's highly likely this is going to get knocked off ITN within the next 24 hrs by new blurbs now under discussion. We had a slow news cycle. It happens sometimes. But thing seem to be picking up again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose; the way to get this off is to nominate and generate consensus for new postings. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - seriously? Drop the WP:STICK! Mjroots (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as per the above comments. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Just for the heads up, the British "Schindler" obituary is pushed out by fresher, newer stories. George Ho (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: M. S. Viswanathan

 * Oppose While he looks to have had a successful career, it doesn't look like he has many/any national-level awards that put him above average enough for RD. The best he received was a regional lifetime achievement award, long after his career's prime, which I don't think qualifies for RD. Every section needs more citations, so perhaps some more awards will be found while searching. Mamyles (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 *  'Weak Support ' Conceding Mamyles's point about a lack of really big awards, I do think there is enough to demonstrate this was a very important person in his field. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Switching vote to weak oppose mainly due to WP:V issues raised below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support conditional upon article improvements. More citations are needed. I do think the honors he has received and his extensive body of work qualify him as notable enough for RD. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - per honors.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose highly tagged article, and no rationale given for posting. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Have to agree with Medeis on this one. Challenger l (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - The composer is not well known in India (atleast outside Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. I doubt many people know about him there as well!). The RD is not covered notably, by major publications in other parts of India, as well. The awards bestowed upon him do not make him noteworthy to be posted for RD as well! Besides this, the article needs many improvements, as pointed out previously. Regards,   theTigerKing   03:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not seeing anything backing up all those honours, WP:V, WP:BLP and all.... ironic considering my current exploits The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Pentaquark

 * Support in principle per above. Some slight expansion would be nice though. Brandmeistertalk  09:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, I guess - This sort of thing is just a bit over my head, but science news is always a good thing to feature, unless there is some sort of major hole in this story. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - noteworthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support 9 sigma of statistical significance is much better than any pentaquark discovery claim before, and the first to cross the 5 sigma limit. Not peer-reviewed, but very unlikely to be overturned at 9 sigma (the equipment and analysis will of course be world class, and the odds of it being a fluke measurement are 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000). Technically, pentaquark isn't a particle but a type of particle. CERN discovered two pentaquark states (one with more energy than the other - this comes from the fact that the two particles have the same quarks but with their spin arranged in different ways), so it's two for the price of one. I've added a more accurate altblurb. Smurrayinchester 13:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)}
 * Hold - Where is this in the news and why is it significant? I am not convinced this rises to the level of ITN. Jehochman Talk 13:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Added some more popular news sources. Many sites have only broken it in the last hour. Even the Guardian, which has a correspondent based at CERN, only published the story at lunchtime GMT today. Smurrayinchester 13:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (As for significance, it's probably not unlike the Higgs boson - pentaquarks have been predicted for years, but difficult to create. Creating one more-or-less as predicted suggests our theories are correct and gives us a way to investigate previously untestable theories about (in this case) the strong force that binds quarks together.) Smurrayinchester 13:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - The newest developed is mentioned twice in just one sentence: in the lede and in body. George Ho (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've expanded, and tried to make (a bit) clearer to the layperson what it means. Probably not yet lay-user-friendly though... Smurrayinchester 14:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Read WP:LEAD. By the way, I moved expanded content to body. George Ho (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Cautious Support When it comes to this stuff, I'm definitely swimming in the deep end of the pool without a life jacket. But it sounds important. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Followup comment After taking a closer look at the article I am concerned that as written, it is likely beyond the grasp of anyone without a PHD in physics. I understand that some articles will by necessity contain a lot of technical terms and jargon, but could we not put something in there that would be comprehensible to the science layman? -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: Maybe the blurb should try to briefly explain what a pentaquark is and why it's significant. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe the article should do that too. To the ordinary reader this is inscrutable.  We can't post it in the current condition. Jehochman Talk 17:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For what is always going to be a very technical article, I actually think it's pretty good. I'm no physicist, but I understood most of it, and what I didn't I got through the wikilinks. Support. Black Kite (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm no physicist either but I read the first graf and I would say it's not unmeaningless. Sca (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support I have only a layperson's understanding of physics, but the article largely made sense to me and wikilinks elaborate well on whatever you need - which, depending on background, may be quite a long wikiwalk, but we shouldn't shy from something because the subject is difficult. It is probably true that the vast majority of wikipedians, myself included, will not truly grasp the significance of this, but the same could be said of all variety of business and political stories that go up.  It is still worth knowing that great and momentous things took place - and who knows, that extralong wikiwalk may prove fruitful to more people than we guess. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 22:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks there have been some significant improvements made. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ready I have removed the maintenance tag I put up earlier. While still, and unavoidably, technical; the article is hugely improved in its readability. I think its good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Per notability of the discovery. Post it at the earliest!  Regards,   theTigerKing   03:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is massively improved since I read it a few hours ago. Good work, all. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * [Posted] I've updated, since support seems unanimous now (although as a full declaration of interest, I've been quite heavily involved in cleaning up this article). If I've been remiss, please revert. Smurrayinchester 07:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support is not unanimous. This item should be pulled until the following major problem is addressed:  "This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. " You can't put an article on the home page while there's this sort of maintenance tag at the top of it. Please address the issue and remove the tag, or else pull the article until it's ready. Jehochman Talk 12:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The tag was not present at the time it was posted (Ad Orientem added the tag, but then removed it when satisfied that the article was cleaned up). The tag was then re-added by an IP user after the article was put on the main page. I don't know should remove the tag - who can judge whether an article is too technical? Smurrayinchester 12:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Pulled and unpulled, since someone else removed the tag. Smurrayinchester 12:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec)Me. I'm a total physics dummy and I was pleasantly surprised that I understood most of the explanation (whether it is accurate is another question, but I shall parrot it to anybody that asks). The only drawback for me was the discovery of the Belle experiment. Help! I don't want to be a guinea pig. Belle (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Endorse posting Support doesn't have to be unanimous. There's consensus that the discovery of a new kind of particle is worthy of ITN, and the article has been updated. The re-addition of the maintenance tag was not properly justified; science articles are inherently technical. Cenarium (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Iran nuclear agreement reached

 * Support - Certainly seems like a big deal. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Consistency please We didn't post Greece, which was an agreement in a neverending story. This is also an agreement in another neverending story. Please be consistent. I would have said post both... So I guess I still *Support this, but please, start being more consistent here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Greece was already in Ongoing; this is not. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Valid point, even though it hasn't always been there, it was rather quite a fight to get it there. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - a huge progress in the Iran question. I guess.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Iran agreeing to anything ever is an ITN lol especially when it comes to Nuclear -- Ashish-g55 11:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - very important agreement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – After a a decade of knotty negotiations, this is a milestone – even with congressional ratification pending. Arguably significant to a greater number than yesterday's 'agreekment.' Sca (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe Congress can pass a disapproval resolution but Obama could veto it; it doesn't need to be approved by them- though as 47 GOP Senators pointed out it can be changed in the future. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support This has been building up for awhile, and finally seems to be coming to fruition. Important story. Mamyles (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article looks a little too long. The "14 July 2015" section looks a lot to be desired. The page needs improvements now, like restructuring and condensation. George Ho (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it could use some work, but C on the quality scale is sufficient for posting to ITN. Most articles we post here are not GA-level, and need a significant amount of work. Mamyles (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, it looks awkward in list format. Should be reformatted to prose instead. George Ho (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In the article, the news should be in the first paragraph, not the fifth, IMOEO. Sca (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong support Major deal between major belligerents, or however you would term them. Thanks, Obama! – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Obviously a major development in foreign affairs. I would also like to give a tip of the hat to 331dot for the neutral tone in the blurb. The agreement is obviously going to be controversial. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: A huge development in the field of international relations, with political and economic impacts that are expected to be far-reaching. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see the article renamed or merged, or at least a decision not to do so, before posting this. Jehochman Talk 17:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nine supports, no opposes. (Signing has been moved to first graf.) Sca (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Congresswoman μηδείς voted Nay. Count Iblis (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I read that as a wait. Sca (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Nobody seems to be looking at the fact that this goes to Congress, who can turn it down based on the "deal" arranged beforehand, and can probably still be taken to the Supreme Court and nullified unless it gets 67 votes. This should be a big wait. μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And/or that Iran's own parliament might squash the deal. Either way, we'd be back where we were, giving the Republican hawks some campaign material. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, it's the end of the decades old mini-cold war between mainly the US and Iran. Count Iblis (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Nergaal (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Support The deal, may change the geopolitical equations in the region, moves the country out of many imposed sanctions (considering the fact that the size of the economy had plummeted by more than 20%) and change the political situation in Iraq, Yemen and Syria in the future. But would request to have a relook at the blurb once. Maybe some outline of the deal signed/agreed could be described in there. Regards,   theTigerKing   03:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There are so many sections, so I tagged it as such. George Ho (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks tidy now. 59.88.206.124 (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * EV – And it even has a link to the full text. Sca (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This looks ready now. Posting. --Tone 14:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Go Set a Watchman

 * Oppose - No thanks. Story should be handed to promoters and media and Wikinews, not ITN. --George Ho (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, we got more serious stories than this. George Ho (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. I believe it is of interest to our readers that a Nobel Prize-winning author who has said she would never release a book again, has released a book again. Thank you, --<b style="color:grey">ceradon</b> ( talk •  contribs ) 07:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think we need to advertise this on Harper Lee's behalf. The factoids in the nomination would suit a fine DYK however. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Already in DYK; I did the DYK nomination. George Ho (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is the previous discussion. I support this for the same reasons I supported it then. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not notable enough in my opinion. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think this should have been posted at the announcement; doing so now just seems like advertising, as others indicate.(The same argument was made previously, but I think it was less the case then than now.)  If there was something else to hang our hat on in this case(some sort of sales record, maybe) it might be worth posting now, but I think we missed the boat.  I don't oppose posting it per se if that is desired, though. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. I still support it now, but I think it was a bigger story then. Some wanted to wait until it was published, though, so we'll see. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * At the time of the announcement, it was rejected because it was just a press release. Now that it's for real, it's being reject because it should have been covered when it was announced. Like a Marx Brothers cabinet meeting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, all the Opposes say that it is not notable enough or that we should not advertise. The only one who mentioned "we should have posted" earlier was not an Oppose, but a comment. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The earlier opposes were mostly of the "wait" variety. Now that it's here, they had to come up with other excuses. Maybe more newsworthy than the book itself is some controversy around it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Historically speaking, far more notable than most of the items regularly featured in ITN.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Exhaustively hyped early effort from a writer who IMO should have been content with the iconic fame of Mockingbird. From initial reviews, this prequel / sequel is not its equal. Sca (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support more people are aware of these books than the #5 now on ITN. Nergaal (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We do not do advertising here. When this book wins a major award, it will likely be postable. In the meantime, it's just one of millions of books released each year. Mamyles (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: Now there's talk of a third Harper Lee novel. Mercy! Sca (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per most of the above comments. Books, including notable ones, are released all the time. We don't post them on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, unless we posted Radiohead's most recent album or something. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Uhh, I'd like that ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose ITN is not your local Amazon/bookstore front. No prejudice against renom if it goes on to win a major literary award, but "book released by notable writer" is not something I would consider significant enough for ITN. Fuebaey (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this can always be posted if the book wins an award, but we don't post any new book by an author who's previously penned a masterpiece. μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is the literary equivalent of a 60s band releasing an album of their unreleased demos. If it becomes the fastest selling book of all time or something, that would be news, but if "something goes on sale, gets press coverage and sells a lot to fans" is the bar for inclusion we may as well reserve a space now for iPhone 6S. – iridescent  20:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Joan Sebastian

 * Support RD as soon as the article is properly updated and otherwise made ready. Subject clearly meets RD guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * is handling the updates and expanded on the Illness and Death section. If there's anything else that needs to be done, let us know. 03:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC) EDIT: I will continue to work more with Fundude later it is late where I live after I add some awards and do more clean up. Erick (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support pending improvements I fully support RD tag because the subkect is notable, but the article needs sources. There's huge sections in the lead, Early life, career and awards that need sources. Add more sources and it's a go! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * and, have another look and let us know if there's anything else that needs to be done. Erick (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Marvelous job. Shall we have four names in RD ticker? I think we should retain the dead Saudi prince for a while until either stale or a new death. --George Ho (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the article is copyedited, phrases like "Before he had a big successful music career", "he soon realized that music was his true calling", "he remains one of the most famous singers and songwriters Mexico has" etc etc don't belong here. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The phrases have been removed from the article.—Fundude99talk to me 07:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Those were just a handful of examples, the rest of the article isn't much better, e.g. "His versatility has helped him remain in the popular taste of the public.", "and the positive results came fast when in Ciudad Obregon, Sonora.", "The year 1977 was a transitionary year for Sebastian it was the moment when he stopped using his legal name Jose Manuel Figueroa and picked up his artistic name Joan Sebastian (Joan is how the name John is said in the Catalan language of eastern Spain) and Sebastian from San Sebastian." .... the whole article needs to be copyedited for tone and grammar. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The grammar throughout the article has been fixed.—Fundude99talk to me 08:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And I have helped improved the prose with Fundude99. Could you have another look? Erick (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - article has been expanded and looks ready for ITN inclusion. Best, jona   (talk)   12:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Notability is clear, but we need a source for his discography. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a source for his discography from Allmusic. Erick (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thank you. I'd say this is ready to go now, and I support RD. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T♦ C 16:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting thanks to and  for making the various changes.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] New Horizons' Pluto flyby

 * Support Hard to know when the time to post really is, but since we're already learning things, such as Pluto is bigger than we thought, I see no problem with posting it as soon as it's updated. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, no brainer; suggest we use an actual NASA image, since they are free images. μηδείς (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note from nom about above comments: I actually just realized that the communications antenna will be pointed away from Earth during the closest point of the flyby, so data won't be received from the probe until about 1:00 UTC, 15 July (about 13 hours after the closest point of the flyby). But of course, the actual feat will have been accomplished before then and will be widely reported in the news. I think the artist impression is ok for now. It could be changed after data is received from the flyby. Currently-available images of the planet aren't very high resolution or particularly impressive. 208.54.85.185 (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that what we have already from a few days ago (eg as from ) is a great image, it's the first time we've seen significant surface detail of the planet. --M ASEM (t) 03:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I'd support when we have news reports that say it happens, but I'd also be okay with when we get the best images per .185 above. --M ASEM (t) 03:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I would use the alternative blurb, but I suggest you start it off with "NASA's New Horizons space probe" instead of the just "The New Horizons space probe". Also, for the picture, you should use the most recent capture of Pluto (for example, this). Aria1561 (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support posting this shortly before the flyby, possibly right after the TFA is bumped out. Either of these actual images are far more interesting than an "artist" drawing. Nergaal (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Google posted their little fly-by cartoon on Monday, well before the point in time where New Horizons is at its own "peripluton" or whatever it would be called. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of celestial body, periapsis would be an accurate term - if it were orbiting. I actually don't know what the "correct" term for exact point of closest non-orbital approach is.  Maybe still periapsis if it's influenced by that body's gravity? - OldManNeptune ⚓ 06:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support once updated with article freely available images of the flyby, which could come hours after the event. -- Callinus (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support posting near as reasonably possible to the "actual" time of closest approach using most recent available images, to be updated with free NASA images as they become available. This is a goldmine of extremely valuable free images, we might as well enjoy it. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 06:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until the radio blackout ends and initial contact is made following the flyby. Until then it is slightly speculative - there is always the chance of hitting something in a fairly crowded and poorly mapped system. 3142 (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The flyby has already been historic enough. If there was something wrong (very small chance since it crossed Charon's orbit pretty close to its L3 point), the blurb may well be updated. Cato censor (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done - If a low probability collision occurs, we would update the blurb. "New Horizons is destroyed while performing a flyby of Pluto" or whatever. Jehochman Talk 12:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * New Image! Hi res latest image. Suggest changing to this one.. its free as well. -- Ashish-g55 13:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do. I'm not updating the image yet because we've got Pluto as the Featured Article, and here we've got a picture of the space ship.  Once Pluto is no longer the FA the image could be updated.  Would be silly to have two pictures of Pluto on the home page at the same time. Jehochman Talk 17:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thats fine i didnt notice the pluto on left before. its same image there now anyways -- Ashish-g55 22:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Flyby" is a kind of an unusual word. Could an admin please tweak the text to link to planetary flyby? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely Dumbfounded Why have we posted an image of the camera that photographed Pluto, rather than Pluto? Any picture of Pluto would be better, and we have lots of them, all free.  I posted this crie du coeur at Errors.  Please rectify this ASAP. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Today's featured article/July 14, 2015 kind of answers this. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Alaa Bader Abdullah executed

 * Comment: I'm not sure what makes this item particularly special. I can't say there's necessarily been enormous press coverage about it. Are women usually not executed?  Spencer T♦ C 14:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Capital punishment in the United Arab Emirates is rare but legal. Too bad that article is inadequately sourced. There is one or no executions per year despite fifty death sentences, according to this source. --George Ho (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose I am not seeing anything exceptional about this story. And as noted above, coverage seems pretty thin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Philipp Mißfelder

 * Oppose. I'm not seeing how any of the RD criteria are met in this case; the equivalent to me would be a US Congressman who also headed a youth group, who would not be posted as it isn't "very important" to their field.  "Foreign policy speaker" doesn't seem significant to me as he was not a Foreign Minister or other official.  News coverage seems limited.  His unexpected death would warrant a blurb more than RD. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose tragic early death but of a mediocre politician who held no real seniority in German politics. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose didn't have the prominence or the career to warrant an RD entry. BencherliteTalk 13:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above comments. Sad but not really RD material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Greece bailout

 * Conditional support: Very much in favour of posting this, but the article should be expanded a little more. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Must we wait for EU's approval on this bailout plan? If we post this now, this would show impatience. George Ho (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Greek parliament has to agree a) the package and b) the reforms, and other Eurozone parliaments have to agree the package. That said, most news analysis is saying that the chances of anyone saying no (or nein, or οχι, or perhaps most threateningly of all, ei) is small at this point. No-one wants to go through even more of this. Smurrayinchester 09:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose then. We shall wait for decisions of other Eurozone parliaments then. George Ho (talk) 09:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But at that point it's less likely to be in the news. For complex international stories, we generally post agreements rather than waiting for parliamentary ratification - for example, we posted the announcement that Cuba would be taken off the US State Sponsor of Terrorism list when it was announced, rather than waiting the one-month period that the US Congress had to object (which it ultimately did not). Smurrayinchester 09:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I also say: Post it while it's still in the news. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Another stage in the interminable Greek debt crisis which is already in the ongoing section. Andrew D. (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Since the Greek Parliament has three days to endorse key provisions, this epic is still "ongoing." But if Parliament accepts them, that would be an ITN-worthy deal-clincher, and it wouldn't be necessary to wait for other European parliaments to act. Sca (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: Donald Tusk termed it "an agreekment." Sca (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Tusk? No jokes about that deal being a white elephant, then. Or about Donald being the long pole in the tent. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait until something actually happens. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It looks they are going to get another bailout and stay in the Euro. If it had gone the other way I would have supported, but this looks like more of the same. I think it is adequately covered in ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose no concrete agreement has been reached. We already have ongoing. Nominating this every few days is counterproductive, we have a sticky, and an actual settlement or Grexit can always be proposed should it happen. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, at least until Greek government votes. Even with their pound of flesh it seems the European Ministers have decided the Greek economy is worth saving, even if that involves years of minute control and humiliation. As Ad Orientem suggests, largely covered by the ongoing. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Singles Finals at 2015 Wimbledon Championships

 * (formerly Serena Williams wins Women's Singles)


 * This being one of most prestigious tennis tournaments, I would think we would post all the winners at once - although Serena's dominance is certainly exceptional. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment as far as I know, we usually post both men's and women's singles winner in a combined blurb (they are, after all, ITNR) but there'd be no reason not to post the women's result sooner if the article was up to scratch. Men's final will conclude within the next eight or so hours.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We can update the blurb or merge two blurbs as we did two separate football tournaments. Why else should we not post it soon? George Ho (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC) (I misread; I concur with you. George Ho (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC))


 * support - when everything is updated and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per TRM once the men finish theirs we can do a combined blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Djokovic has won the men's. I don't know about the doubles competitions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't usually post doubles, AFAIK. Adding combined blurb now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've swapped "gentlemen" to "men", as it's more recognizable to non-Brits. Brandmeistertalk  17:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Do we need their nationalities in the blurb? To me, it's distracting and not that important. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If it were a single stand-alone blurb, we can post nationalities as it's usually done, especially to sports teams. Omitting or posting nationalities in a combined blurb is up to administrators. --George Ho (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment the main article has a decent summary of the women's final; the men's section could do with the same. I'd avoid bolding/highlighting the single draws, because there's barely any prose there, and omit the nationalities/opposition if we're short on blurb length.
 * One question though: is it possible to have two images or someone combining (side-by-side) an image of the two winners? I say this as the last sporting blurb involved both genders but was not changed, with a comment deeming it too US-centric - which ironically could well apply here. Fuebaey (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I now recovered and de-struck Williams-only blurbs due to quality concerns. We can post when the Men's Singles portions improve, right? --George Ho (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Non notable sporting event, should also be removed from ITN/R. WP is not ESPN. Aaaaaabbbbb111 (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Probably the most prominent Tennis competition in the world. I don't know what planet Aaaaaabbbbb111 where this can be considered 'non notable'. 22:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Planet Thatcher, perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * support - notable tournament. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Both are ready now, blurb, In tennis, Novak Djokovic and Serena Williams (pictured) wins the Wimbledon singles titles, the third for Djokovic and the sixth for Serena.FiringAces (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree both are ready to post and I support a combined blurb. There may be more expansion that can be done, but there's nothing obvious to hold up posting now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Both marked as ready; switched back to Dokovic pic. George Ho (talk) 08:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why take Djokovic and not Williams? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We have had a lot of photos of men lately, including for the combined soccer blurb. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I'm getting at. I support switching back to Williams. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed to different Williams pic; admins, take your pick. --George Ho (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Posting. --Tone 08:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Satoru Iwata

 * Support. This is a very notable person. Shocking news in the video game world. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 00:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Video game community is in complete shock from his passing. Loved by many for making Nintendo the company it is today and will be dearly missed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Support for RD Extremely notable person in a huge industry (and still a leader in that industry until he died) whose death, while not a *complete* shock, was still unexpected. I might lean toward a full blurb if the article is improved. -- Mike (Kicking222) 00:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support –notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Unsure if it's blurb-ready, but the name must be posted soon. --George Ho (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD is a no brainer, blurb is completely reasonable to me given he was relatively young and still very much active in daily business, and in fact the face of the company in some regards. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 01:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD or blurb. Clearly merits posting in some form; I would lean towards a blurb given the unexpected nature of his death and the fact he remained notable in his field and continued to work until recently. 331dot (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a closer crop of his face, s'il vous plaît: File:Satoru Iwata headshot square.jpg – czar   01:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - among the top of field, RD at least. starship.paint ~  KO   01:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD, as there's a clean consensus; any discussion of a possible blurb can continue here. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Seeing that he was the CEO of a major company at the time of his death, I would support giving him a full blurb. Calidum T&#124;C 05:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD / Strongly Oppose blurb No question the subject meets the criteria for RD. But blurbs for deceased persons are extremely rare with the standards being much higher. The subject does not warrant that level of attention. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Big news, but let's not get carried away... Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb meets the RD criteria but blurbs aren't for people who are notable in their field, the face of their company, or similar phrasing (essentially per Ad Orientem). BencherliteTalk 13:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb just look at #4 and you will realize that this person has had a higher impact on the world, therefore deserves a full blurb if #4 has had one for weeks now. Nergaal (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Saving thousands of lifes vs. taking up thousands of hours of thousands of people's lives with computer games? Hmm.... Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Each person and/or blurb posted is weighed on its own merits; every field is different and gets attention and merit in its own way. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb and try to stop comparing apples with oranges folks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Iwata was an important figure of an important company who made an impact on the gaming industry. His death should be in the news section. Aria1561 (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean "blurb"? George Ho (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] El Chapo escapes prison again

 * support - both the dignity of the person and that it is his second escape makes this ITN worthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose blurb - We can't rush the story as is. Prison escapes... When was the last time these stories were posted? The escape from the Clinton Correctional Facility wasn't posted as a blurb, so why would this one? If you insist, support ongoing until the person is either dead or captured alive. (Must rescind; see further down) George Ho (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Clinton escapees did not quite have the stature of this man, and their crimes were not international in scope(I think) as this man was wanted in both Mexico and the US. I don't "insist" on anything; this will either be posted in some form, or not. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: Arguably the most-wanted man in the post-Bin Laden world escapes from prison a SECOND time. Prior to his arrest, he headed the Sinaloa Cartel, the largest drug trafficking group in the world. This is huge news in Mexico. This story is headlining a bunch of international media outlets as well. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 14:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We can't post this just because it's "huge" in Mexico and elsewhere or he's the second most-wanted man. Not all most-wanted people are featured on front page. Terrorists like bin Laden may have been media's attractions, but I haven't seen yet one prison escapee posted ITN (unless I'm proven wrong). --George Ho (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't stay that this should be posted because this is huge news in Mexico. If you read the rest of my comment, you will know that the notability of this man is what makes this worth for the main page. The fact that there hasn't been any prison breaks before isn't a good reason to not post this. He is the first man to escape from that prison, the top one in all of Mexico (he escaped in 2001 from another). He heads the world's largest drug trafficking group. That is pretty notable to me. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 19:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The man's notability would not affect how Wikipedia's ITN works. Of course, I did vote for "ongoing", but now I must rescind. If it's posted, we might mislead readers into believing he's unstoppable or frighten readers into fearing for their lives. We did post his arrest, but we had no idea of whether he would escape again. Id est it shouldn't have been posted in the first place, but majority supported it. Probably the best thing to re-feature the BLP is either his capture or death. --George Ho (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The WEAKEST of possible supports and with the stipulation that this should not be seen as a precedent. Normally prison breaks, even those by notorious gangsters, would get a quick oppose from me as tabloid news. However I note that we are in an exceptionally slow news cycle and some of the posted blurbs have grown decidedly stale. To that end I think we might give this story a pass. If you like, we could file it under IAR for convenience purposes since I really don't think it meets ITN guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying but this isn't a garden variety gangster; he seems to be regarded as #1 in the criminal world. Escaping from prison twice is also somewhat unusual. 331dot (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You should read this article to understand the significance of his escape a bit more. To add on what 331dot said, he also escaped from Mexico's top maximum-security prison. This is likely going to have big impacts in U.S.-Mexico relations, considering that several U.S. federal courts had requested his extradition. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 15:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would relations between two sovereign states be impacted by one vicious drug lord? He is dangerous, but there are other more hugely dangerous escapees crossing the border. --George Ho (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert in U.S.-Mexico relations, but I'll try to provide my understanding of things. At least in the U.S.'s eyes, it shows that they cannot fully trust Mexican officials and that their anti-drug efforts (which are bilateral, by the way) are often pointless if things like this happen. I think it affects U.S.-Mexico relations in the sensitive areas of bilateral law enforcement cooperation and intelligence sharing. In addition, it is frustrating for the U.S. to pour billions of dollars and have Guzmán walk away just like that. They played a pivotal role in Guzmán's decade manhunt, and apparently in his arrest as well. Considering that corrupt officials already let Rafael Caro Quintero go, Guzmán's escape is pretty bad. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 20:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What about Mexico's eyes? What do they see the American government? --George Ho (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your question completely. But it's difficult for me to assess how things will play out at home. The administration's best trophy in the drug war is now gone. The President said an escape would be "unforgivable" in an interview last year, so we'll see. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 22:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose the item is interesting in the tabloid sense, but unless he leads an armed resurrection or another cation which would merit posting on its own terms the mere fact of his escape is rather minor. μηδείς (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the most strange opposes I have ever read.. but whatever works for you.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Mexican drug cartels essentially are leading an armed struggle. 331dot (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, he'll just go back and head the world's largest drug trafficking organization. The fact that we can't predict exactly what will happen after his escape shouldn't be a good reason not to post this. His escape is very notable given the incident and the person involved. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 19:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: We don't normally post prison breaks, but this is an independently notable figure, an infamous Mexican crime boss considered one of the world's most wanted criminals, escaping from prison for the second time. This is a big-deal story and the update to Loera's page is certainly sufficient to post. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Conceding this would get some attention in any event, I think one of the reasons this story is getting so much coverage, is again, the incredibly slow news cycle. My God, I think even the sharks have stopped biting! -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - this guy is more important than the leaders of many countries. I mean, the Mexican cartels are no ordinary gangs - they hold more sway in northern Mexico than the Mexican government. Wnt (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted a bit more quickly and with a slightly weaker consensus than I'd usually prefer, but it does have consensus, the update is there, and we've got to post something. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Shall we inspire prison escapes to be posted in the future? Perhaps I'll nominate terrorists escaping prisons then or prison escapes during prison riots. George Ho (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Isnt that a matter of case to case basis. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. One case is not similar to the next.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed; each case is considered on its own merits. It would depend on the terrorist that escaped, or the extent of the prison riot.  Each case is different. 331dot (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , we report the news here. Would you rather we don't report things that you believe would inspire other news stories, like MH17 or Germanwings Flight 9525 or 2015 Sousse attacks?   The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why comparing prison escapes to plane crashes and terrorist attacks? As I said, posting one prison escapee has been unusual, even in this case. What's your point? George Ho (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You were the one making the point George. Perhaps it's lost in translation but your post " Shall we inspire prison escapes to be posted in the future?" seemed to suggest that you thought posting this story would encourage other events of a similar nature to occur.  My point was that if you were suggesting that, other posts would inspire other such stories to be repeated.  Do you understand?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I did ask whether this would be a predecessor to many other escapee stories. It would inspire more escapee stories to be nominated, but chances of posting a prison escape is... slim. In this case, since we did post his arrest, we posted his escape just for the heads up. I was thinking: if we hadn't posted his arrest, we wouldn't have posted his escape unless consensus agreed with the escape, not the arrest. George Ho (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jon Vickers

 * Support pending article updates - Importance seems there but the article is virtually unsourced. --M ASEM (t) 15:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Major Improvement Needed the article has an entirety of seven citations, two of which are about his death and three of which support only two claims in the entire multi-paragraph acreer section. Each stage appearance will need a reference, since a blue link to the Opera will not link us to a primary source in such instances. Even then, that he got a high civilian award from his homeland doesn't strongly establish RD-level notability. μηδείς (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Very weak oppose largely due to the state of the article currently; but I'm also not convinced that the one award is sufficient. Usually when people get those sorts of awards they already have a lot of other awards.  In this case it just seems to be recognizing his long career.  If it was clearer how this person is "very important" to their field, I would support. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support While I agree that the awards would not by themselves establish that Vickers meets the criteria, he easily meets the criterion of having been "widely regarded very important figure" in his field. The Guardian obituary calls him "one of the outstanding operatic tenors of his generation", the BBC says he was "considered by many to be one of the greatest opera singers of the 20th century" and the Washington Post states that his voice "was regarded as one of the finest sounds to fill an opera house in the past half-century". Neljack (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support with improvements. Honestly, I don't see a tremendous case for notability, but the Order of Canada honor maybe just nudges him across the line. However, the article needs some work to track down additional citations, and there may be some BLP issues. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Article has been improved and should meet acceptable standards for posting. Marking ready as consensus appears to exist; feel free to unmark if there are still problems. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support now that the article has been improved. As for notability, if you read the many obits, Vickers was an opera legend and widely considered the greatest Wagnerian tenor of the 20th century. Among opera lovers he is ranked up there among Callas, Domingo, Pavarotti, Sutherland, Sills, etc. as one of the great voices of the 20th century. Notability is not an issue. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, per 4meter4, a legend, - I added sources, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This man died later in Ontario than Sharif in Cairo. George Ho (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent update/ref work, suggest posting admin make sure  gets update credit on her talk page. μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: This has been ready to post for 48 hours. If the page admins are not interested in posting it, it should be closed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted apologies for the delay. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Roger Rees

 * Oppose - Even with the Tony Award, he doesn't really strike me as someone "widely regarded as a very important figure" in acting. Good career, yes. But not quite notable enough, in my opinion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I loved him in Warehouse 13 and enjoyed many of his other roles, but he was a minor character actor and unfortunately doesn't rise to the level of ITN. Rhodesisland (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending article improvement. Meets the RD bar as a stage actor with a Tony, Olivier and Obie award. Paragraphs need inline references and the death cite could do with being replaced by something other than Twitter. Fuebaey (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose a lot of the article is unreferenced, including numerous of his theatre appearances. Also, not RD level per Bongwarrior. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A thinly-sourced and very bare-bones article for a well-remembered actor that sadly falls far short of the RD criteria for notability and influence. Challenger l (talk) 09:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Potential Support per Fuebaey, if improvements made to article. μηδείς (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

 * Comment: Article needs update to explain significance.  Spencer T♦ C 12:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Omar Sharif

 * Support I've now marked as updated, as the article shows. Brandmeistertalk  14:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support Some refs need date tags. Other than that, I support this. Academy Award nominee is certainly top of his field, article seems well referenced. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Conditional support once those first two sections are referenced. Connormah (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Conditional support - Notability is there. We need the referencing though. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Lawrence of Arabia and Dr. Zhivago are absolute classics. Oscar nominated, multiple Golden Globes. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support conditional on article improvement. Clearly meets ITNR criteria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Highly influential culturally for his roles in David Lean's epic films. Sca (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per all the other appropriate supports. The article needs work.  This has nothing to do with ITNR.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – influential. Oscar nominated.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources I have removed the section tag and a few unsupportable claims from the acting career section. No reference is needed for any role in which the film itself, a WP:PRIMARY SOURCE credits him.  Some of the early life and bridge playing claims need citing, but I would be just as happy to see them hidden so we can post this asap, the claims are not essential and the nomination should go up asap. μηδείς (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur. Articles do not need to be perfect to be linked on ITN. They do need to be reasonably well sourced and free of any other serious problems. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Then feel free to instigate a discussion to remove "Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level tags at either the article level or within any section, may not be accepted for an emboldened link." from the instructions. Yes, it says "may not be accepted" because it used to say "will not be accepted" and several admins over-ruled that.  If you wish to allow items with orange or red tags and multiple citation needed tags then I think it's worthwhile capturing that in the instructions so we don't go round this discussion again and again.  Please make a proposal.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I am working on resolving the tags or hiding the problematic material, the section tags are based on this and will come down once I can address the specific issues. μηδείς (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have hidden or cited all material with tags and removed the page tag. The only section that may need addressing is the filmography; normally we require refs for films that are redlinked.  They can be deleted, and the section changed to selected filmography, which is what I will do if no one else takes action over the next 30-60 minutes. μηδείς (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Support - Oscar nominated, Golden Globe winner, appeared on classics, death is reported around the globe, and had a very high impact on the Egyptian movie industry. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Listed in RDs of French, German, Dutch, Danish & Spanish WPs. Sca (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Once again, irrelevant and knowing the standards of those WPs, worse than irrelevant I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This user no longer responds to, or comments upon, statements made anywhere on Wikipedia by TRM. Sca (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And that has no relevance whatsoever to this discussion, your position has been made clear on your user page. Either way, the point remains that your post, while interesting, has no relevance here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Idem. Sca (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Idem. But thank you for responding now twice despite saying you would not respond at all ever again.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So who exactly is this IDEM? And have they just died? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , i.e. the same as before. Sca (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * shucks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support well known for Lawrence of Arabia. -- Callinus (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ready the article is actually ready now, as of these edits removing the last of the unsourced items - the redlinks can be restored if they get citations or become blue links, see that article talk. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Notability is clear. Good work by Medeis to bring the article to a level fit for posting. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am good on even numbered days, evil on odd numbered days. μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Alas, Medeis, adieu. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Overwhelming consensus supports posting this now.--WaltCip (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Compared to what I had seen at the time of the nomination, the article is tons better shape and ready to go. Kudos to Medeis for the improvements to that. --M ASEM  (t) 19:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you blind? Did you see that there is one sentence alone on his death for an "update."120.62.30.168 (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are in no position to talk having nominated an egregiously sub-par article for ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The bar was lowered for such RD nominations so that a five-sentence three-source update is no longer considered necessary. Our hostile anonymous IP is welcome to add to the update. μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (To add, specifically only for RDs - as the update for most is one or two sentences that explain the circumstances of their death. For all other topics we do still expect five-sentence, three-source update, hence why ITNR sporting event results we push to have a describe of the winning event). --M ASEM (t) 22:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing, but I don't think Brad is blind. He may be, in which case he does a decent job of not making it obvious.  For your information IP120, the criteria for RD include the following: "In addition, the article must have been satisfactorily updated and have no major omissions of the person's life and effect. " So, a satisfactory update might be thousands of characters about a tragic passing, or a series of testimonies from prominent B-class figures, or it might just be a sentence to say, sorry guys, he's died, and that's all we have right now.  If you'd like to "update" the "update" criteria, feel free to start a discussion mandating an objective and testable update criterion.  In the meantime, please stop being so offensive (or puerile), and try to actually do something to improve Wikipedia (rather than expecting everyone else to do it on your behalf).  You could even log in to one of your accounts and do something positive!  WaltCip makes an excellent point, by the way....  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] BRICS
<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 item is barely stub-quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article requires massive expansion from its current state. Currently it's simply name of event, people who went. Cowlibob (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Summits are typically meet and greet photo-ops these days. If something really important comes from it we can revisit the subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this should not even be on ITNR since the phenomenon is essentially accidental; for a while those nations, which had been underdeveloped in comparison to the G7 economies, were growing at a faster rate. As of now China, Russia and Brazil have major economic issues.  Posting a stub on this would be like free advertising for a selection of junk bonds. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment objections to BRICS summits being on ITNR should be addressed via proposal for removal at WT:ITNR. I think we're all agreed that we won't be posting a stub, in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 10 July 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] China bans stockholders from selling stocks for six months

 * Support - first blurb is okay. Why are more alt blurbs needed?Jonpatterns (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Glad to see an article now, since there wasn't one last I looked. Amazing how this story has flown under the radar, what with the tumult in Greece, the Iran nuclear talks, the Pluto flyby, and a rash of recent deaths. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Has been in the news, notable Chinese economic development. I feel like the "Causes" section meets the bare minimum but I'm not sure what else could be added since it does feel on the short side.  Spencer T♦ C 16:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the story on notability; no opinion on quality of article. μηδείς (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I eliminated uncited statement and added another source verifying another statement. George Ho (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't Enron do the same thing? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen (talk • contribs) 23:28, 14 July 2015‎ (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Christian Audigier

 * Oppose Yes, we should obviously take into account the balancing effect that his not being a Mormon has, but the article is far too small, with no awards or proof of standing in the fashion community that would accomplish the desired revisionism. μηδείς (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose on notability, and article quality is obviously not quite up to snuff. Fairly well known in the fashion world, it sounds like, but I'm not seeing a ton of awards or evidence of outsize celebrity. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Saud bin Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

 * Support posting as Saud Al Faisal. Article has been improved and is suitable for posting. Longest-serving foreign minister for any country, ever -- definite notability on that front. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD Clearly meets ITNR criteria. Article appears to be ready for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Important... but not that important. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Longest ever, and the architect of current foreign policy there, should be a blurb.120.62.18.109 (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's face the facts RD or blurb, this guys name is going to take up a whole line at least. Support for RD. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  03:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * His name can be shortened, as I suggested, to Saud Al Faisal. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD once the article is tidied up. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD, strong oppose blurb - DC is met, but I'm not seeing so much importance to require a blurb at all. --M ASEM (t) 15:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support list, oppose blurb as he was apparently not seen as a pivotal figure in the region by overseas sources. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD tag but oppose blurb, he was an essential and highly ranked Saudi politician, but not notable enough for a RD tag since he wasn't an internationally-renowned political figure. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Important world leader, but largely behind the scenes.  Article seemed fine when I looked last. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose no real accomplishments listed nor participation in historical events implied, not a head of state, simply one of a large nepotistic (which I mean only objectively) monarchy. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. Note: If posted to RD, please note that he died before Omar Sharif. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No big deal, they'll both be removed at the same time when they become stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T♦ C 12:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Srebrenica veto

 * Comment: Not seeing any update in the article right now.  Spencer T♦ C 15:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Updated. 198.16.164.205 (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * support - when updated.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose This looks like business as usual at the UN and I have serious doubts it rises to the level that we usually look for in terms of coverage and significance. That said, we are in a pretty slow news cycle so maybe we could give it a pass. In a busier news cycle I would oppose this more strongly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as significant in the burgeoning historical treatment of one of the most horrific acts in Europe since the 1940s and 1950s. Interestingly, the scuttlebutt from Belgrade is that Serbia agreed to abandon its application for NATO membership in order to obtain Russia's veto here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As said, it's "business as usual". Russia vetoes any UN resolution that is deemed a threat to international security, including sanctions over the Ukrainian crisis. Look at vetoes by the US regarding Israeli–Palestinian conflicts. George Ho (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per above. The massacre is already considered a genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Court of Justice. So UN's decision to adopt a resolution on the 20th anniversary of the massacre and not much earlier looks like a publicity stunt, considering for example four toothless resolutions on Nagorno-Karabakh. The famed UN blue helmets of the 90s are unfortunately gone almost everywhere, in time of dire need... Brandmeistertalk  21:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose When is the last UN veto we posted? Just because it's obviously craven patronage doesn't make a policy decision into an historical event. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This would be interesting if it was tied in any way to the Donetsk People's Republic - but I don't see anything like that reported. -- Callinus (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: New Horizons flyby of Pluto
I've see 3 different articles on BBC about New Horizons in the last week, and since the actual flyby is less than a week away I think this would be a fine chance to give some spotlight to what some still want to think this is the 9th planet. Nergaal (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * support - a blurb however. This is interesting and notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support a blurb during the actual flyby, which I believe is set for 14 July. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing, support blurb when it happens - It's going to be interesting when the first photos come back to us for analysis and wonderment, but I can't see the leadup to this being a ongoing element, as it only seems to be "it's getting closer -- it's getting closer..." type news until the closest passing actually happens, in contrast with daily violence in conflicts or near-daily match updates for sporting events. --M ASEM (t) 15:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - One suggestion would be to post it when consensus has been established as it is already all over the news and in fact ongoing until 14 July atleast.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the article recieving substantive updates, or just changes to the distance figure? Abductive  (reasoning) 19:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The article now has some detailed pictures of Pluto in it! Which I think rather counts for something. Wnt (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support a Pluto blurb to run on July 15. See  - there is a plan to cover image returns live on television starting 3 p.m. EDT that day.  The probe will actually be OUT of contact on much of the 14th, so there won't be anything for us but the not-news that it MIGHT be recording things, AFAIK.  We should be ready to move on the story to feature it the instant the images start coming out... or alternatively, to cover the tragic story of the probe that went into safe mode on flyby day (let's hope not, NASA says it has failsafes...)  The first of these blurbs thus should be that New Horizons returns images from its July 14 flyby of Pluto... Wnt (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support posting the flyby per ITNR (the arrival of a probe at its destination) but I don't think ongoing is appropriate. There isn't a lead up to the flyby warranting coverage; the media attention nonwithstanding. 331dot (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting until next week, best pictures are expected Weds. Posting anything now is far too premature, and since this is a flyby, ongoing is also a bad idea. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Next Wednesday should be the 15th, so I think we're in agreement. I'll add though that I don't know we'll see the best pictures the 15th - the probe is expected to take 16 months to upload images to NASA, and I have a feeling we'll be contenting ourselves with thumbnails and technical parameters at first.  But ITNs tend to hang around a long time, so if there's an incoming stream of flyby images with fresh news coming in daily, it'll be good to have it up from the 15th till whenever it expires. Wnt (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose (for ongoing) All that's ongoing is that every day, we get a slightly less blurry photograph of the planet. Wait a few more days, and the best quality photographs (plus most of the best scientific data) will come out, and we'll have a good blurb. Smurrayinchester 07:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing post it per ITNR when it "arrives at destination". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing: 2015 Pan American Games

 * I find the lack of widespread coverage outside of the host country to be a bit of an indicator this may not be up to snuff in terms of an ongoing link. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 07:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support We need to look at these multi-country several-week-long events and evaluate them for ITN. Having something this big hidden away from the frontpage would seem counter-productive to WP. The ongoing ticker would alert many casual users to the event, and hopefully bring in more editors too. So I fully expect this to be closed by lunchtime today as a "No".  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: I've moved this nomination back to today so we don't have all the empty sections which will cause chaos. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Ongoing for this regional competition(aside from opposing the presence of sports on Ongoing in general but it looks like that ship has sailed). 331dot (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Eh, ongoing is pretty harmless, and we posted the Commonwealth Games. ITN is not very busy at the moment, and that will continue as we dive into silly season. Smurrayinchester 09:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is not the highest level of competition in the relevant sports, and is not of world-wide relevance. To get a spot on ongoing a sporting competition needs to tick at least one of those boxes. The opening, closing and/or any significant individual records/happenings can be nominated for a regular blurb if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a whole hemisphere, which is half the world... over 40 countries, tied into IOC competition, seems like the next closest thing to the Olympics. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  13:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support ongoing only.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as per BabbaQ. And there is no requirement that ITN be restricted to murder and mayhem. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Thryduulf. This is a slippery slope. If we say yes to this it could open the door to all sorts of other regional and hemispheric sporting events. I would support ongoing for the Olympics, but that's probably it in sporting events. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Supporting RD for an obscure religious figure is even more of a slippery slope. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Not just Americans and Canadians and Mexicans, but also other athletes from Latin America. This is the Americas' version of Olympics, so why not feature this on Main Page? George Ho (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Scheduled sporting events don't need to be on ITN for readers to find the story. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't they? What's your rationale behind that statement?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the reader who is presently interested in the Pan American Games already knows that they are interested in the Pan American Games. Once the games conclude, readers who were not following the games can be directed to the article. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Same thing for the Women's FIFA Cup? --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Same thing for any news event. ITN is not intended to take the place of BBC.com, it's intended to showcase Wikipedia articles. And confining it to murder-and-mayhem is a rather narrow scope. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * One could take your first three arguments as reasons not to post to ongoing.... Abductive  (reasoning) 03:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Or not to post anything - to abolish ITN altogether. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, I have an anecdote to this. I generally just change the url after the /wiki/ in my browser to change pages, rather than searching them. I tried "Pan-am Games", "Pan-Am Games", "2015 Pan-am Games", "2015 Pan-Am Games" and "2015 Pan Am Games" before resorting to the search bar to find "2015 Pan American Games". -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  03:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support since we posted the Commonwealth Games under ongoing last July. Calidum T&#124;C 04:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting one item (in my view, wrongly) doesn't itself mean that this item should be posted. We consider each item on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't even understand this nomination. The games haven't even started yet, so why not nominate the opening cermony? Abductive  (reasoning) 10:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose I can hardly believe that the 2015 Tour de France was easily dismissed for Ongoing, which is a global event (in terms of competitors) on the highest level of sports, but this regional circus is supposed to be posted? Really people, this is exactly what I meant when I urged for more consistency when it comes to sporting events in Ongoing!! Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe because the Tour is a single three-week event, while the Games are a variety of ongoing events. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense. The Games are a multi-sport event, which means it is even more a variety of ongoing events, while the Tour is one event split into severeal stages. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm getting at. The Games cover a variety of sports. The Tour is merely a single sport consisting of a three-week long race. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And if you check any major news site, you'll see that no-one gives a damn about the Pan-American Games, but everyone is reporting about the Tour. And I might remind you that this section is called In the news. For what it's worth, I am against posting any of them to Ongoing, I simply supported the Tour because the Women's World Cup was posted. But since then, a majority of people here have spoken against posting sport events to Ongoing (see the general discussion on it on the talk page), so I say: Let's be stringent and post nothing. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (Actually, any major news site, like the BBC, are reporting on The Ashes and Wimbledon. The Tour is mentioned in passing on a sidebar.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Still more than I found about the Games, on Guardian.co.uk for example... Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Pan-Am games may not be such a big deal as they once were. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But the Pan Am Games haven't even started. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Question: Which article would be updated consistently with results? Chronological summary of the 2015 Pan American Games? It doesn't look like consistent updates are happening (Chronological_summary_of_the_2015_Pan_American_Games).  Spencer T♦ C 14:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I originally posted this for July 10, which is the day of the opening. The intent was to get consensus in advance. The parent article (2015 Pan American Games) is very well updated and cited, so I imagine whomever is taking care of that article will also be updating the chronology. More eyes is always better. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  19:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Still not seeing any prose updates. Oppose unless we can show that an article is being suitable updated.  Spencer T♦ C 14:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: We didn't post Asian Games or any of those regional games, so why should this be posted? I don't think these Games will get any major coverage outside its region. 61.3.104.2 (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jerry Weintraub

 * Inquiry is there a complete filmography? What's listed in the article seem to be mostly midlevel comedies and remakes. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not seeing him as a leader in the entertainment industry, as Medeis points out, his film work is mid-level works and recieved no direct awards for any specific work. --M ASEM (t) 02:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose; no sources indicating this is in the news. If there is, please explain how this person meets the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Added sources. Pretty widespread coverage. Weintraub was a talent manager and agent who worked with some of the biggest names in music (Led Zeppelin, John Denver, Dolly Parton, etc.) as well as being the producer behind movies like Nashville, The Karate Kid, and Ocean's Eleven, and HBO shows like Behind the Candelabra and The Brink. I think notability is fairly clear. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose What awards did he actually win? Outside of Nashville, I don't see any movies that he was involved with that were award winning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.252 (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The original Karate Kid won a couple of Young Artist Awards and was nominated for a couple of bigger awards. Oh, God! won a couple of Saturn Awards and was nominated for an Oscar. Years of Living Dangerously won an Environmental Media Award and was Emmy-nominated. Behind the Candelabra won several Emmys. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Had an important impact in the music industry and "made show-business history" with large concerts. Brought us live shows with John Denver, Elvis, Sinatra, Neil Diamond, Bob Dylan, Led Zeppelin, Moody Blues, and others. He also won three Emmys during a 50-year career. Currently a top news story. --Light show (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not see any reference to his winning three Emmys. It's not in the article. Do you have a source for that? If it's true I might reconsider my oppose !vote. The other stuff is pretty run of the mill. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I too would reconsider if the three Emmys was in the article with sources; right now he just seems notable for being associated with notable things(for the most part). 331dot (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I added some new cites to the lead noting the Emmys, although all three were already noted in the article with sources, so the new cites could be removed. --Light show (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK I see the source of the confusion. You said above that he won three Emmys when in fact the Emmys were won by programs or persons in programs that he was associated with. There is a very big difference. I stand by my oppose !vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If you want to see some top producers, look at the work of people like David O. Selznick and Hal Wallis. It might be a sad commentary, but nowadays Adam Sandler's producing credits rival those of Weintraub's. μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure if Adam Sandler died, he'd be posted on ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But not through his work as a producer. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Support I have to say Wow! at the incredible update work, more than doubling the size of the article. Notability is good enough, but this is a great article to feature given the quality of the update.  I did add one CN tag about his early managing years, I assume that can be cleared up.  I'll also mention that we used, at least, to consider being in two field (music agent, movie producer) another plus for posting. Maybe users,  and  would like to take a look at the article improvement. μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As Medeis said, excellent work on the update. The page looks great and should absolutely be featured. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Light show (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Very influential producer and manager and promoter - notable on those grounds alone. Article looks well-sourced and in excellent shape. Challenger l (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support now that it's updated. Smurrayinchester 14:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - updated and ready. producer manager on top level.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - an important figure in the industry. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, household name, CEO of United Artists. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't agree with Abductive (household name? he's nowhere near one, indeed outside the US he's unknown) but Support. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Ongoing: 2015 Tour de France
<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 The winner of the Tour will certainly be posted but as an ongoing, the event is far too niche in terms of viewership and interest to merit an ITN ongoing. The scale of the Tour is much smaller than Olympics or FIFA World Cup, too. --M ASEM  (t) 20:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose because unlike the World Cup(which I don't think should have been posted to Ongoing either) the Tour is one continuous event involving the same competitors; the Cup has different teams playing different matches. Ongoing is not for sports events in progress. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The general rule of thumb here is that we only post the result of ITN worthy sporting events. In the same vein we don't post the various games of the World Series. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:06, 6 July 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] Grateful Dead perform final show

 * I like the Grateful Dead, but for all intents and purposes, their final show was 20 years ago. If they had been playing continuously for 50 years, I'd support. But not this. Neat story, and something I look forward to watching, but not ITN material. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Definitely an iconic group, but we don't usually post this sort of story. It's significance outside of a subsect of the entertainment world is fairly limited. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Final show until the next time they decide to do a show. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We generally don't do retirements, and this is much more like the end of a traveling paraphernalia fair and tribute band than the breakup of The Beatles. μηδείς (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've lost count of how many bands and artists have come back after "final" tours or albums. Adpete (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose feels like a DYK at best. If there's a recording that goes on archive.org then it could be a hook for DYK (50 years of public domain recordings) but this is not for ITN. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Hacking Team is hacked

 * Oppose Amusing, but not ITN worthy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Seems to have limited coverage outside the niche news website given as a source. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose would make a DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

An interesting story here is that every copy of Adobe Flash in existence had a vulnerability that HT knew about, which was revealed (with complete instructions for use) in the hacked data. They just offered a patch yesterday -- do you have it yet? Wnt (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] RD: Burt Shavitz
<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.


 * Comment little small, 12 refs, personally never heard of the product, and I don't think this would be worthy of inclusion unless his actions have influenced other companies to change environmental practises. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if the article was more expansive, this is a rather small company and without the influence in the world, failing RD importance of leadership. (compare to Vidal Sassoon who we did post). --M ASEM (t) 06:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That was before the RD-era (or RD-implement). His death was posted as a blurb before "Recent deaths" ticker. George Ho (talk) 06:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The product appears to be primarily or exclusively available only in the US. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've certainly seen it lying around in my British bathroom &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom. Subject appears to have been a successful businessman. Beyond which I am not seeing much that sets him apart. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. He clearly merits an article, but merely being successful does not meet the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 6 July 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] 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup

 * Support once completed, obviously. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: as a recurring item (or any other of the kind), is there ever any point asking for opinions before the result is in? This goes for sports, elections, the Oscars, even the Nobel Prize. We can't say no to it for any reason before the result is in... &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment #2: Suggest a combination with the Copa América result from last night. Two bullet points on soccer is a bit much &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as separate blurb. Women's and men's soccer shouldn't be lumped together. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Obvious American bias, no one outside the US knows or cares about this. It would never be a full standalone blurb if Japan had won ...... USA! USA! USA! --166.170.56.126 (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC) — 166.170.56.126 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It's not true that "no one outside the US knows or cares about this", and even if it was, single-country objections are not valid as stated under "Please do not" above. I'm not sure how the linked-to discussion demonstrates that there would have been no stand alone blurb had Japan won, which I don't think is true either. 331dot (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the anon was being facetious. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, but not a good thing to do with text communication. 331dot (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Article updated, WP:ITNR item. -LtNOWIS (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The article looks like it's in good shape - it would be news regardless of which country won the finals. Challenger l (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Marking ready: Let's get this up while it's timely. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support USA! USA! USA! – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Challenger — Ruby  2010/  2013  02:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Do we vote on all of the men's competitions too (NHL, Prem League), like when they're on the front page within minutes after the game ends? This is ridiculous. JanderVK (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, as TRM states- and if it is posted "within minutes" of the game ending it is because it got updated "within minutes" of the game ending, which did not happen here. If you would like to see something like this posted quickly, please work to adequately update it quickly. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted - yes, we do "vote" on all such competitions, just take a look at Copa America below... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Non notable competition. Viewership is a tiny fraction of the FIFA World Cup and even then, WP is not ESPN. Aaaaaabbbbb111 (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC) — Aaaaaabbbbb111 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It's the top level of women's soccer, and is listed on ITNR. It is also included partially as a matter of fairness with the men's tournament.  If you feel it should not be included, please propose its removal. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On the evening news tonight, they reported that the TV ratings for the women's soccer final were higher than for any of the games in the recent NBA finals. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Question: Would the Men's World Cup have had to share their moment ITN with some regional tournament? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.24.20 (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ouch! On reflection, I think the answer to your question is probably not. But FTR I don't think the other match should have been posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Lol: Top 25 Report. Nergaal (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't ever really need two "In This Specific Sport..." headlines at once. The US Triple Crown and the Epsom Derby were hugely disparate, but I don't think anyone was damaged by the combined blurb. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it would be absurd for us to feature to consecutive headings commencing "In association football, X wins the Y, defeating Z in the final". Combined blurb is fine.  And if the World Cup coincided with another huge tournament result (which it never does) then we would have to consider it similarly.  Nergaal's link makes a good point, more than one sports article made our top 25, including a little-known female British tennis player.  Who knew (other than us Brits)?  Sometimes, just sometimes, we need to stop the snooty dickhead attitude that some people here adopt and realise that our readers like reading about popular things.   Without our readers, we're nothing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Greek referendum result

 * To be updated when the result has been tallied (~2pm Eastern Time today) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.181.22 (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Complete result expected by 18:00 GMT (9pm local Greek time). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - It's been huge news for weeks (even here on the other side of the world), and it could have far-reaching impact. Adpete (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Big international news, obviously. Target article has a neutrality tag at present, though the Talk page reveals the issue may be resolved. Jus  da  fax   01:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd support this, but for the orange tag. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Two Concerns First, the article has long detailed paragraphs with numerous claims, almost all cited to just one source. Second, isn't this symbolic, since Greece has already defaulted, and the referendum is not in any way binding on the Eurozone?  If the actual first default ever of a first-world country wasn't posted, I am not sure what significance posting the results of the referendum gets us beyond the ongoing story we already have in place.  Either an end to the crisis, when it comes, or the "Grexit" when it comes will be news.  Interim manoeuvering can simply remain covered by the sticky. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support conditional on article improvement for reasons too obvious to bear repeating. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I share Medeis' concerns, and would also point out that if the referendum retains the status quo, isn't it really just much ado about nothing? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd go so far as to support posting it as "too close to call" and then updating it when known. I think the result of the vote itself is noteworthy, regardless of which way it goes. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But my earlier comment about the orange tag... it's still there and needs to be dealt with. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Also a no-vote would be much more newsworthy than a yes vote, and exit polls strongly suggests the No-campaign has won. So, this is already big news, it's likely to cause turmoil on the financial markets in about 7 hours when the markets in Asia open. While Greece has formally defaulted to the IMF, that's not a big deal, because you then get a few weeks more to pay back. The IMF is used to dealing with problem countries, they have enough reserves to deal with problems, their intervention is aimed at containing problems. But other defaults may have a snowball effect. I'm sure that the Norwegians won't be happy about this. Count Iblis (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Obvious support following article improvement, given that the no campaign seems to have won. This shouldn't even need debating. The people who think this isn't newsworthy should maybe read a newspaper once in a while. Fgf10 (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What's a "newspaper" – ?? Sca (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You know, what you get to wrap your doner and chips. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Make mine currywurst & frites. Sca (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support If this is not news, then I don't know what is. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is news, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --bender235 (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support conditional on the article being free of maintenance tags and updated adequately. As Zwerg notes, this has been all over European news for four or five days.  It's certainly ITN-worthy, we just need a quality article to back it up.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, especially as the result is now clearly "No". Black Kite (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Of course it's news, big news. However, like several colleagues heard from above, I can't support a blurb linking to that avalanche of an article – even as pared to a 'mere' 15,000 words. (A good target total would be 2,500 to 3,000 words, IMOEO.) Nor am I qualified to fix it. Alack and alas. Sca (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is another incident in the Greek debt crisis which we already have as an ongoing entry. Whatever the result, this is going to go on through more stages and the point of having the ongoing entry is to avoid covering it blow-by-blow. Andrew D. (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ongoing doesn't prohibit significant, highly noteworthy developments from being elevated to a blurb should they arise. It could be temporarily removed from Ongoing and restored once the blurb falls off(or is removed). 331dot (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've taken the liberty of amending the blurb to add the European Commission to the institutions that proposed the bailout. This reflects the referendum question. Anyway, support. Neljack (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, - for obvious reasons. International attention.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, millions of people voted, this really should qualify under the spirit of ITN/R. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Marking ready: Article could be better, but it's adequate, and this is definitely ITN-worthy. I support promptly posting. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Utter Bollocks Kudzul has simply removed the tags and marked it ready. There are still 16 citation needed tags, not to mention all the other defects.  In the meantime it stays on Ongoing, so can we please have this panic to post put to rest until the necessary improvements are made? μηδείς (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed one tag that no longer applied, thank you. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Highly-publicised non-event. Greeks said "no" to an expired bailout proposal, it doesn't change a thing. --bender235 (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not what the politicians say, and isn't that what matters? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Politicians in all parts of Europe (apart from Greece) confirm just what I said. The Greek referendum does not change anything. The only real "news" will come in a couple of days, when Greece has to introduce a parallel currency. --bender235 (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I tagged the article with "refimprove". The inline tags are too small to see. George Ho (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support – Comment – This target article is much better than the previous one, and it's an OK length – 3,000 words. Sca (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the answer! Much better indeed. Suggest we make that the target article and post. Jus  da  fax   15:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ready – It is the target article. Marked as ready. Sca (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not ready, it has a massive orange maintenance tag at the top. Feel free to work on that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I ask the tagger and others to discuss the tag on the article talk page. Jus  da  fax   19:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea. In the meantime, it's not ready.  Please let us know when it's up to scratch.  Thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I specifically invite you to share your specific concerns about the article, aside from the fact that it has been tagged. Jus  da  fax   19:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I read that, thanks for the clarification. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Jusdafax, there are people there edit warring from what appears to be a POV standpoint and who are removing tags without justification. The best alternative would probably be to remove entire sections which already have sub-articles to get rid of the problematic editorializing and unsupported text, and to remove various unattributed claims.  But the problem is not with our efforts here, it's with disruptive editors there hell-bent on making their points. In the meantime the entire matter is still under ongoing, and posting the already well-known results is not a critical matter. μηδείς (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC


 * Tag removed without improvement note that again the general tag has been removed although multiple sections still have citation needed flags. μηδείς (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet again a misleading and non-constructive comment. I argued why I removed the tag. You can also read Template:Refimprove: "Please consider marking individual unreferenced statements with Citation needed instead of placing this template" (my emphasis). Overall 90% of the article is referenced and uncontested. One could simply move the contested sections to the talk page, and post the news. -- ELEKHHT 00:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the personal attack, I certainly have not getting enough roughage in my diet. As for you "argument", it was this edit summary: "generic tag not needed as there are inline tags and only minor points are contested".  Things like the president approving the referendum are not "minor" and the purpose of the general tag George placed is to bring attention to the fact that this article will not be posted with citation need tags.  Rather than removing the orange tag and making personal attacks you should focus on addressing the needed citations.  Come back with that done and nothing will stand in your way. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Still ignoring what I said. -- ELEKHHT 01:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Man, at this rate Greece might solve their problems before you guys post this. Nergaal (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing is, it is not "we guys" who are the problem. The unaddressed cn tags and other issues at the article are the problem.  When someone makes the issue our actions, but the article is still problematic according to half a dozen explicit complaints by others above, and what is addressed is not getting refs, but edit warring over removing tags, then the process grinds to a halt.  I have put a lot of effort into things like the Dal'nij Vostok sinking, The Congolese People's Palace stampede, and the Catalan independence protests even when the sources were largely non-English.  But when you are faced with hostility from the local editors there's little incentive to continue.  If the article is fully referenced now, maybe it is ready to go up, if not it is still on the sticky.  But at this point I am taking the article owners' advice, and am ignoring the issue. μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Tour de France

 * Support Major sporting event, ITN/R and well updated article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I believe ITNR means that we post the result of the Tour, but I have to admit that it's not definitively stated there, perhaps we need to clarify that? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. This will be posted upon conclusion when we have a winner. Resolute 20:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not in the ITN/R for openings, only for closing, so therefore this has to wait. Donnie Park (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until it's over - 3 weeks from now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The result is notable, but the event is nothing like the Olympics or FIFA world cup to draw that much attention until the end, so ongoing is not appropriate. --M ASEM (t) 22:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Copa América Final

 * Oppose unless expanded. 1175 B of prose is not enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's now updated. Support ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not sufficiently updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Will you change your vote, The Rambling Man? George Ho (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * How about making 2015 Copa América the main (bolded) article instead? It's sufficiently expanded. HaEr48 (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - final now suitably updated &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Since it's updated now, and a listed recurring event, and arguably already decided to be posted on conclusion when discussed at the beginning of the event, here Cato censor (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as per above. Even though this nomination clearly does not seem to come from a neutral POV... Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I think the third blurb is the most neutral, wikipedia-like Cato censor (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Nergaal (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - updated.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 11:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why were the two blurbs merged? If anything, Copa America is more watched worldwide so it should be listed before the women's WC. Nergaal (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This was done by User:Smurrayinchester. I presume the ordering is due to the different dates of the respective items.  Spencer T♦ C 17:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * All I did was delete the asterisk between the two, so yes, date is the key point here, although I think a world tournament has precedence over a continental tournament even if men's football is bigger than women's football. I merged them because having two parallel blurbs starting "In association football..." is intolerably ghastly. Smurrayinchester 20:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You must be from the US if you can thing women's football is on equal terms to men's. Nergaal (talk) 05:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, for one thing, the women's game certainly seems on a par with the men's in terms of violence. And by the way, the women's final outdrew the Copa final by about 8,000. What's up with that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Both matches sold out, but Canada has larger stadia than Chile. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Their largest soccer stadium holds less than 50,000? How come? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And for what it's worth, the supposed "last concerts" by the Grateful Dead (already rejected for ITN) each drew over 70,000. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you actually want to make comparisons check the broadcast numbers. The 1994 WC had the highest attendance ever even though the sport itself is far away from being the most popular in US. Nergaal (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is hard to believe that the opinions of such poorly informed individuals matters equally. Sigh, Top 25 Report. Nergaal (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * From the list, it's clear the public is well-informed on the latest Terminator movie. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And is clear that there is more interest in Copa America than in the women's WC. Nergaal (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 5th vs. 9th and 21st. Meanwhile, all three soccer articles are considered to be of more interest than ISIS, but not as interesting as various blockbuster movies. It's possible there were more hits on the Copa just because people were wondering what it is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well there's not consensus on the merge. Please don't rule by fiat.120.62.25.133 (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC) — 120.62.25.133 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

[Closed] Tupou VI now crowned King

 * Oppose. He has been king since 2012. Calidum T&#124;C 05:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Calidum. Not a new title. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why did more than three years pass between his ascendance to the throne and his coronation? Is this long delay customary? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb. George Ho (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Coverage seems limited; has been King for three years already. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support (pending article update) - a coronation is a major event in any country, it's certainly a big event in Tonga (one person here says "Once in a lifetime"), and it's not often Tonga is on ITN. The fact that it's 3 years from his ascension is not really relevant. I'm guessing that, for the US president, both the election result and inauguration are in ITN. The article does need updating though. Adpete (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The inauguration of the US President isn't usually posted; an exception being Obama's first one due to its historic nature. Generally inaugurations/coronations are not posted, because they usually occur much closer to the choosing of the successor(and barring some unfortunate event are a certainty to occur) and/or receive much less coverage. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing we'll post every inauguration of a *new* US president, and Obama 2009 is the only time that has happened since ITN existed. As for gaps between ascension and coronation, it's not unheard of, it was 16 months' gap for Queen Elizabeth II. This is a major cultural event in a small country, exactly the sort of thing ITN should be covering because we try to have a global focus. Adpete (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't support posting the inauguration of a "new" President, as their election would have been posted per ITNR a few months prior.(Here the difference is a few years.) Obama's first was an exception as the first black president- I don't think subsequent black presidents would merit posting necessarily. If Hillary Clinton is elected hers would be posted as the first woman.  We will have a lot of double postings if we consistently post both elections/successions and inaugurations/coronations of all countries, at least without weighing news coverage(which, in this case, seems limited.) 331dot (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, per my comments when this was first suggested a week ago. Smurrayinchester 10:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support on the principle we did not post when he was actually named king some years back (not even an ITNC). We are talking the leader of a country here and I think we can make the exception here, but be more attentive when other king-namings are done at that point as we would have done with election results. --M ASEM (t) 15:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Coronation of a king, even if he's held the role for some time already, is a significant moment in the history of a monarchy. Resolute 16:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE. Royal coronations are extremely rare events and a big deal. To the extent that this is not recognized by the guidelines, they are deficient and should be ignored or set aside until they can be amended. For the record, I almost never invoke IAR, tending towards the view that with apologies to one of our former presidents, it should be safe legal and rare. But this would seem to be the sort of situation that it was made for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is an oddity, the coronation is simply a big party, three years after Tupou VI actually became Tupou VI. It changes nothing as far as I can see, it's been mildly reported (in somewhat guarded reports) so is in the news, but it's hardly significant.  That Ad Orientem claimed that "royal coronations are extremely rare events and a big deal", I went looking for our own article on List of coronations and drew a blank.  Further investigations revealed that they certainly don't happen every day, but mainly they happen in a timely manner, normally following the death of the predecessor.  All that notwithstanding, the article is a shambles and is nowhere near good enough for main page inclusion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment As mentioned above, Queen Elizabeth II became queen in February 1952 and only had her coronation in June 1953, well over a year later. I would imagine both her death and (presumably) Charles' coronation will be instantly posted, regardless of the delay. Three and a bit years for Tupou does seem extreme, as far as I can see the previous king of Tonga ascended in September 2006 and had his coronation in August 2008 (nearly two years) and his predecessor ascended in December 1965 and had his coronation in July 1967 (a year and a half). A reasonable gap isn't that uncommon, though this does seem more than usual. Rejecting it by saying "he's been king for years already" or comparing it to the two month delay for US Presidents do seem to be missing the point. --86.188.96.158 (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The U.S. president isn't officially elected until the electoral college vote is counted in Congress in early January. So the official delay is less than 3 weeks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't post the US President at the 'official' election; we do when the electoral college is chosen, as they almost never change their votes. 331dot (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the claim that it's a 2 and a half month gap is incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What matters here in when it is posted, not technicalities of the election process. News and the public generally see the EC vote as a formality. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, ofcourse. a crowning of a king is ITN worthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not big news, given the years of delay. Jus  da  fax   01:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't post inaugurations of presidents, so coronations shouldn't either, especially not for the minor monarchies. Nergaal (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is a ceremony, not a change of head of state. The altblurb is not idiomatic English, and an accurately worded blurb, like "Tupou VI is formally coronated after three years on the throne" points out the stale, anti-climactic nature of the nomination. This makes a much better DYK hook than anything else. μηδείς (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Boyd K. Packer

 * Support If I understand the Mormon hierarchy correctly he was the #2 man in the church and heir presumptive to the top job. That qualifies for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on importance. Article seems mostly fair-minded and establishes his significance as a major figure in the LDS church.  I tagged a sentence in the article as wanting clarification: the article says that he died "a martyr" of old age, and I'm not sure how that works. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - A mere name mentioning is fine. I've never seen one of influential figures like this man. And the quality is nice. --George Ho (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yes, a long-serving member of the old guard, (From the article: Packer advocated that LDS historians should refrain from discussing history that does not promote faith. In a 1981 speech to educators in the LDS Church Educational System, he cautioned, "There is a temptation for the writer or teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.") but no recognition outside the church beyond being interviewed for a PBS documentary. If there's more that justifies his recognition as an influential figure it should be in the article. μηδείς (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem like a meaningful oppose. Putting the guy on RD isn't an endorsement of who he was or what he said, simply an acknowledgement that a notable person (who was clearly significant enough to merit coverage in a wide range of reliable sources, not just Mormon or Utah outlets) has died and we happen to have a biographical article for him that is in decent enough shape to post. I think those qualifications are met. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a straw man. Point to where he was influential or recognized outside the church.  He has one building in Utah named for him.  The most notable thing about him seems to be that quote, which I did not add to the article or go looking for.  If he's somehow important outside the LDS higher bureaucracy, let's hear it. μηδείς (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Setting aside the notion that him being a longtime leading figure in one of the largest and fastest-growing churches in North America doesn't qualify him as notable -- his comments on homosexuality and feminism certainly got some play in the media:  -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support despite my personal disgust for this individual, whose beliefs appeared to be somewhat aligned with Nazism, there's no doubting his death is in the news, and no doubting his article is adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not grasping this person's notability or influence outside of being a senior bureaucrat in the LDS. The misunderstanding my simply be my own. Challenger l (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * He's a Mormon apostle. At least for Mormons, that's a bit bigger deal than a senior bureaucrat.   He was a prophet, seer, and revelator; he had the authority to proclaim new divine revelations and get them written into LDS doctrine.  Even more powerful than the Pope, in other words, but they're a committee of twelve guys and he sat in the first chair.  That's a big enough deal for RD, IMO. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There are over a billion Catholics in the world, while the number of Mormons is about 1 percent of that. Maybe a bigger fish, but in a much smaller sea. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Questionable - Not the actual leader of the LDS, but of an organization within the LDS. I'd like to see some evidence that he was widely known outside the LDS. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – For what it's worth, I've never heard of Mr. (Dr.?) Packer – although the eastern corner of my state is adjacent to Utah and heavily LDS. (Presumably if I were LDS I would have heard of him.) Sca (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How does this discussion qualify as "consensus"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say that based on the discussion it's a borderline post/not post based on notability (could go either way) that was pushed into the "post" side due to the quality of the article--I would judge this as consensus to post with that rationale. I'm not venturing to speak on TRM's behalf, but that's just my opinion. Best,  Spencer T♦ C 07:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Jacobo Zabludovsky

 * Weak Support for RD. I'm not seeing a lot of awards or anything of that nature. Further the article is quite brief. However, he does appear to have been very prominent in his field and I think he meets the guidelines for ITND (#2). -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article points out his being criticized as a government shill and mentions allegations he took bribes from drug lords, but I am not seeing major awards or recognition. μηδείς (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support on notability, but the article needs some help, as it seems to have a pretty obvious bias against its subject. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not really seeing any evidence that he was important in his field. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Phil Walsh killed

 * Oppose blurb, weak oppose RD: I definitely don't see how this event, no matter how tragic, meets notability criteria for ITN. And Walsh could qualify for RD as a coach of a well-known pro sports team, but I don't think he meets muster in terms of accomplishments. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Walsh was the current coach of the 7th-ranked team in the most popular football code in Australia. If the 7th-ranked coach in the NFL was murdered, it would be an automatic inclusion in ITN. WWGB (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Says who? Don't make strawman argument. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's entirely true, it would be on here in hours. However, that doesn't make it right, and I don't see how hits belongs on ITN. Fgf10 (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree; I would not support such a hypothetical situation. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nor would I, which is why we should debate this case on its merits and not set up strawmen. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose If you take away the unusual means of death, he likely would not qualify for an RD, so I can't see how what may be killed in domestic dispute would merit a blurb. --M ASEM (t) 06:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose breaking news in Australia, but no long term or international notability for ITN. -- ELEKHHT 06:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD - He would have been a wonderful coach if not for his death. Sure, his career didn't attract international attention or wasn't long-term. However, I learned that being notable in mainly Australia shouldn't prevent him from being mentioned in RD. As for the blurb, let some sleazy journalist sensationalise the murder case, especially in Wikinews (no offense). Not in Wikipedia's ITN though. A mere mention of his name is enough, so let's not make his obituary a spectacular one. George Ho (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On second thought, oppose. Maybe he should have gained more attention while he was alive. George Ho (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As said already, he likely wouldn't qualify for RD based on his career. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb/weak oppose RD Definitely does not rise to ITN blurb level. There is an argument that he might meet RD standards under criteria #2 but I think it's a stretch. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. I can't claim enough familiarity with the subject to judge how it fits the RD criteria but I suspect it is a bit of a stretch.  No such problem with the wider assessment criteria for a blurb which allows us to consider the circumstances of the death too.  As such I support this because I believe there will be a significant level of interest in the story - it may be subject to a heavy regional bias but the anticipated interest justifies posting. 3142 (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Minor additional - I this does go up (which I admit looks unlikely) I would modify the blurb to avoid implicating the son. Sure, the news media is doing so but I don't think a necessarily brief blurb can address that in the appropriate context. 3142 (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose not due to the item being local to Australia (the same people who complain above the American items are always posted routinely oppose items simply because they are American) but on the Pistorious precedent. If we didn't post his much higher profile arrest on murder charges, I can't see how this warrants greater coverage. μηδείς (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose He played for a few years, coached for one, with what appears to be an unimpressive career, so he doesn't meet RD criteria. I see a few news sources on the killing, but I don't see how this meets our criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD per Medeis' bad faith oppose. Also, because of his apples and oranges comparison, given someone being arrested is not the same as someone being murdered.  Even then Trial of Oscar Pistorius was posted at verdict. Resolute 17:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So, if you weren't sniffing my butt, resolute, you wouldn't have bothered to wipe your own? There's nothing bad faith about my oppose, although your vote reeks of it.  We'd never have posted this as RD, we don't post crimes before trials, we didn't post Pistorius when the murder was in the news.  The judgment here is very easy if put in perspective. μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Neutral not a significant person in the history of the game, death is shocking, sure, but really not blurb or even RD par. Mind you, we did post a college-level basketball coach who didn't die in such circumstances and who had won very little, so perhaps this aligns with that level of notability?The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose (and I'm from that city). I'm sure mid-level professional sportpeople die from time to time and I've never seen it in ITN, unless they die playing the sport (like Phillip Hughes) or are so famous that their death would be ITN anyway. For instance, wasn't there a gun death of an active NFL player comparatively recently? I might be thinking of Jovan Belcher, who died during the 2012-2013 NFL season, and there's nothing on his Talk page about being on ITN. Adpete (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - i am not familiar with the sport but the sportsman seems notable enough for inclusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Charlie Sanders

 * Oppose Very small article, third-round draft pic, good to middling career but nowhere near the top. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Tom Brady was a sixth round pick, he'd tell you that didn't get in the way of his career. Also, HOF = "good to middling"? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * First pick or round would count for him. Third does not, nor does being one among 287 in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how his draft slot from 1968 is relevant. Nor the number of players in the hall. His being in the hall marks him as "very important" in his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There are various trophies and records he might hold but doesn't. Again, I think he had an above-average career.  But 4 TD's a year on average doesn't bring one to the same level as Tom Brady, even if the latter had shrunken balls.  Muboshgu has done a good job of doubling the size of the article, and should be commended.  I still can't support this at all, but I am not in the position of attacking it either. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD conditional on article improvement. Sourcing is a little weak. That said a Hall of Fame football player satisfies the guidelines in ITND. On a side note there seems to be a misconception among some editors that one must be at the pinnacle of a given field to qualify for RD. That is not true. The guidelines reads... "2. The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." A Hall of Fame athlete certainly meets that criteria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Along the lines of Medeis. If this was an important player, our article does not reflect that beyond calling out the Hall of Fame. --M ASEM (t) 02:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support on the merits but oppose on quality. The honors in his sidebar would seem to suggest he his important to football, if not the most important, but the article is not in shape for posting. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , what do you think of the quality now? I've done some work. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems much improved. Thanks for your efforts. :) 331dot (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral I'm shocked that one of the top 250 American football players of all time has such a woefully brief article. But it meets the minimum required for RD.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Thirty-seven touchdowns in nine years... That's a decent amount, even if not a lot, id est four touchdowns per average year. The sport is not internationally well-known, but his record was good, making his name worth mentioning. Also, he became a sports commentator and was given a Hall of Fame. --George Ho (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Super Bowl is the second most watched annual sporting event worldwide- hardly "not well known". 331dot (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, change to oppose. He could have done more to be mentioned in the front page. George Ho (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support: NFL Hall of Famer, probably meets notability criteria. Article is acceptable. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems ready with a rough consensus in favor of posting, so I'm marking it as such. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Tied for 217th Sanders is tied for 217th in career touchdown receptions. (A glance at the top twenty receivers shows somewhere between 8 and almost 20 a year; 4&1/9ths TD receptions per season is nowhere near notable.)  I have no idea what 's mention of the Super Bowl is for, since he never played in one.  We need more of a consensus and one based on facts to post this. μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the Super Bowl to show George Ho that football is indeed known internationally to counter his claim that it isn't. 331dot (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * He's also one of only eight tight ends in the Hall of Fame (Sanders, Dave Casper, Mike Ditka, John Mackey, Ozzie Newsome, Kellen Winslow, Jackie Smith, and Shannon Sharpe. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Every single one of whom had more career touchdowns. In fact, if our article info box is correct, Sanders had 31, not 37 career touchdowns.  This is beating a dead horse with a fake whip.  I am removing the ready given the lack of basis for the claims. If an admin wants to post this on the quality of the update that's one thing, but the stats simply aren't there. μηδείς (talk) 03:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm tagging this for an admin to decide on. As far as I can see, you're the only serious opposition to this, and you're citing touchdown stats that aren't relevant. He's in the HOF, very important to the community in Detroit, no reason I see not to post this. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that's just it, important to Detroit? This is English language Wikipedia.  Is he important to those English-speaking people who frequent this website?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * He is as a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, yes. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. He had an above-average career, played in the Pro Bowl for 7 of the 10 seasons he was a player, and made it into the Hall of Fame. He retired with (according to the HOF's website) numbers that put him at or near the top of the game back in 1977. He worked with the Detroit Lions off and on after that, sometimes as a commentator, sometimes in the office. My issues with the article are the length of it - it's a short, stubby article, and the fact that it completely summarizes his career and life - instead of actually giving details, the way (IMO) an article here really should. I am also very ambivalent about his notability, since he did retire nearly 40 years ago, but hasn't had the influence and notability of say, Dick Butkus or John Madden. Challenger l (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I'm fairly sure we wouldn't post the cricketer with the 217th highest number of runs in Test cricket, or the footballer with the 217th most career goals. This doesn't exactly scream "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose the arguments in favour are weak, the article is weak, the individual is parochially significant but nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015 Sinai clashes

 * support - significant number of deaths. notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Major events in that part of the world with lots of geo-politcal implications. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate some of those "geo-political implications"? HaEr48 (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Islamists attempting to destabilize the military/secularist government of the most powerful country in the Arab world. If they succeed it could undermine the governments of many of the other moderate Arab states in the region and threaten the oldest peace treaty between an Arab state and Israel. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If they managed to topple Egypt's rulers, sure. But it seems to me the clashes are local and have very slim chance to destabilize Egypt nationally. If, say, the opposition staged a huge protest or civil disobedience like 2011, that would have the destabilizing effect you mention. But this is entirely different and more isolated. HaEr48 (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per Ad Orientem's rationale. --GGT (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not convinced of the significance, see my response to Ad Orientem above. HaEr48 (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose isolated incident, not significant in the big scheme of things, weak article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Howard Stern to leave America's Got Talent

 * Strong oppose - Celebrity news and not even of A-list talent. --M ASEM (t) 19:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * SNOW close. Thanks for the nomination, but the makeup of a TV show judging panel will simply not be posted; this isn't a celebrity news ticker.  Please review the page about ITN for more information on what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Snow close We wouldn't post the glorious day when Antonin Scalia resigns from the Supreme Court of the United States, and that actually matters to human society. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Does he have performing dogs? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon oil spill settlement

 * Support Technically should be closure on this matter, and major settlement costs. I'm not sure how much expansion there can be on the settlement unless there are additional terms beyond the funds. --M ASEM (t) 17:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and concur with Masem's thoughts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose target article has a maintenance tag slap-bang at the top, plus given its girth, I'm finding it difficult to see the update that must have been applied to cover this? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The update is presently (when I last looked) one last sentence at the end of the Lawsuit section. It should be reflected in the lede. On that maintenance tag, it is basically asking for a re-writing of the lede to summarize better which is far from a severe problem (compare to the greek debt crisis that had a huge lead section).  It can be fixed but its far from sourcing issues. --M ASEM  (t) 18:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Update inadequate, understood. I would expect to see this story summarised or at least covered in the lead, after all that's where our readers land when they click on the link from the ITN section of the main page, and if it's so significant, it should be therefore be covered in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I've slightly tweaked the blurb to clarify this isn't a kind of settlement when one pays just to avoid legal prosecution. Brandmeistertalk  19:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose BP gave the Obama Administration $20 billion at the time of the spill, for the feds to dispense as they saw fit. This is anticlimactic and getting almost no coverage. μηδείς (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That was them realizing what deep shit they were in so they gave a large amount of the money for the purpose of public relations. The scientists researched the long term effects and the oil lawyers spent 5 years haggling the amount they spilled down to 3.1 million so now they finally figured out the final amount. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support High international significance and broad global media coverage. -- ELEKHHT 07:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - assuming the huge target article is fixable or a postable target is identified. Jus  da  fax   10:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - per jusdafax--BabbaQ (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment as it's been marked for attention, I cast a quick glance, there seems to be two sentences, one in the lead and one buried in the main body, each contradicting one another for the terms of the fine. This simply isn't adequate.  Please demonstrate (using diffs where appropriate on an article of such a size) where the appropriate updates have been made before re-marking this for attention.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Val Doonican

 * Weak oppose: From the chart positions, looks pretty darn close to a one-hit wonder. No apparent international impact beyond his native British Isles. No awards or significant honors to speak of. Him having his own variety show on British television is probably the biggest thing he's got going for him in the notability department, but the show doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article and there's almost nothing in his biography here about it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support: By all accounts a very genuine and warm individual. Did enjoy chart success and even one series on USA TV. Was a UK TV "Doon-icon" for over 20 years. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support: Article is in OK nick. As for the bloke himself, he seems to have been very popular in the 1960s (he knocked the Beatles off number 1). Maybe more should be written on his 20 years presenting on the telly. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - The article has a big old maintenance tag, but I'm aware that much work has been done today; if it meets sourcing requirements then a RD post is probably worthy. Pedro : Chat
 * It now has 12 different sources and they all seem to be reliable. Only one paragraph remains without any refs. "Big old maintenance tags" would be much more useful if accompanied by a Talk Page summary of where attention was needed? One might even suggest that as a policy, lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * When I say "big" that's subjective. When I say "old" I really mean old  Pedro :  Chat  20:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I've only been alive two score years plus nought but Doonican was proper household name for most of my life. Like many nominations, this therefore stumbles into "well-known" territory, which is oft cited in many other RDs we see passing through.  I guess my score is based on the fact that when I saw it noted on the BBC homepage I was "saddened".  The article is reasonable and nobody gets bumped from RD if we post Val, so, like the above, I'm in weak support of this nomination.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Aww. Tell us another one, Rambler. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * well ... ---Sluzzelin talk  19:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Listen, the love you get is equal to the love you give. The end is nigh.  Simple.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's only me pursuing somethin' I'm not sure of... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Far more famous as an individual entertainer than Chris Squire who's currently heading RD. Andrew D. (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to meet criteria 2 in ITND. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - An iconic and internationally famous entertainer. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 15:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ace Limited acquiring Chubb

 * Oppose Other than big sum, I'm not sure whether these two companies are trendy. Both sell insurances which is not the same as producing foods or electronics, for example. Brandmeistertalk  21:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Chubb Corp article was only three paragraphs before today, and has only two refs before 2015 - even with updates, it's not a strongly public/consumer facing company, meaning it's not as much of interest to average readers than consumer facing companies.-- Aronzak (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is yet another consolidation which will end up with middle management getting shafted. The effect on the public will be nil. μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] US/Cuban embassies

 * Wait per nom. Significant, but news will be when embassies do open. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Waiting is not an unreasonable proposition, all things considered. Pandeist (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait for the opening, which should get decent coverage then(unlike other announcements). 331dot (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We already got this posted twice if I remember correctly. I think whatever happens there should not be any more than another entry for this saga. Nergaal (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until it happens. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted & closed] RD: Nicholas Winton

 * Support The British Schindler. A truly great man whose fame extended well beyond his own country. If someone wanted to argue that he rates a blurb on ITN I doubt I would oppose it. Memory eternal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Importance is super-clear, article is in good shape without any sourcing issues. --M ASEM (t) 15:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support a rather interesting case, very good article for us to feature. μηδείς (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Proposing ITN blurb I think he warrants it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb - significant figure in modern British and Jewish history, deserves a blurb. Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for RD, under the criteria of very important to the field of life-saving. Mamyles (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Saved many lives during WWII and has a great impact and truly significant figure. Blurb-worthy! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, this man definitely deserves the attention of the mankind. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 18:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb - well known figure - the 1988 TV program is famous, and this is influential in the history of refugees and internally displaced people. -- Aronzak (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb In this case his age is a pro, not a con, for significance, as there are sadly not many persons with such an active hand in WWII still alive. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 18:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb, a hero blessed with the precious gift of humility. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Pull. Not a head of state and nowhere near meeting the ITN criteria. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you joking? The man is universally recognized as one of the great humanitarians of the last century. We post blurbs for the death of top notch film stars like Robin Williams but Nicholas Winton doesn't qualify? Remind me again, how many lives did Williams save? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Williams influenced a far larger number. Nergaal (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no guideline limiting ITN to heads of state. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Williams sudden death by suicide (the death was "interesting" per ITN standards) is why he had a blurb, not solely because he was a famous comedian. --23:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement to be a head of state for a blurb - the man is an inspiration as a humanitarian, someone who went against the policies of the government of his day. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Pull wth? I didn't think we would somebody who got famous for doing something 70 yrs ago, but did not do something else since that got him recognition. Schindler maybe would have deserved it, but not somebody titled [insert country]'s Schindler. That is why we have RD, for notable cases that might not necessarily reached popular culture. Nergaal (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the article itself is not very clear about his exact role, what did he do to he help save the 600+ children. Nergaal (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * He used his Jewish contacts in London to secure homes that would be willing to house 669 children, and, to put it bluntly, he bribed officials and fabricated travel documents to get the kids out of Czechoslovakia as quickly as possible - right before the outbreak of war. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "doing something" - he worked to save the lives of 669 children - not just "something".-- Aronzak (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Pull Debatable whether he should even be on RD, but in any case, this is the sort of stuff RD is made for. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support blurb. Was honored by two countries for his actions, as stated in the article.  Seems to be a tip-top humanitarian, and blurbs do go to those at the tip-top of their field. 331dot (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD, pull blurb - Clearly notable, but since it is simply a death from old age, it should go to RD. There is no reason for a blurb. Fgf10 (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - A great hero. And dying at 106 is not your everyday "old age". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * support RD only. per Nergaal. This is way short of blurb standard, regrettably --Johnsemlak (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 *  Post Posting Strong Support for RD - definitely among the most notable for humanitarian actions - over six hundred human beings owe him their lives. The comparison to Schindler is an apt one, but I do not see the rationale for a blurb - he was not a head of state, nor did he die during a freak accident or tragedy - he simply died of old age. Challenger l (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Post Posting Support To Keep Posted As a Blurb because dying of old age doesn't necessarily disqualify one from deserving a full blurb. Christopher Lee got one just a few weeks ago. Calidum T&#124;C 03:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Post posting support RD and Oppose Blurb - Unsurprising deaths from natural causes should only receive blurbs when the death itself makes an incredible impact in news coverage. While I 100% agree that Winton was an incredibly important figure, his death has not been covered as breaking news -- indeed, it's already off the front page of the BBC.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - top humanitarian, inspirational story, "happy" news. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  04:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Pull Blurb Death from extreme old age. Clearly highly qualifies for an RD, not a blurb. Jus  da  fax   04:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nominator comment: I say this a lot, but I don't like blurbs for people whose death doesn't rock the world. I'd prefer to see the blurb pulled and RD (for which there can be no doubt that Winton qualifies) posted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support blurb - A story like his needs to be better known, and he has had considerable impact even as he tried to avoid the limelight. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Leave blurb as is. The decision in favor of a full blurb was quite reasonable, as this is an extraordinary story; and in any event, sometimes we just need to make a decision and move on. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * After thinking about it, I have to agree - I hadn't realized it was already posted until most of the way through my own thoughts on it. A tremendous contributor to our world's history, I'd say. Challenger l (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)