Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/March 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] The World is Bardo

 * Weak Oppose - even though some world leaders attended this event, I am not sure whether it has had much global impact. It's a protest against terrorism. Most people don't support terrorism already - but what does this achieve? starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  13:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose First, the blurb should be better (the title of the source is misleading, as it says "hundreds of thousands" in the march, making it larger than the title suggests), however, while similar to Je Suis Charlie, this seems to be a much smaller, and local, scale, and a response to the already-posted Bardo museum attack. I would suggest that DYK is a prime spot for this if this fails ITN. --M ASEM (t) 13:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose as protests against terrorism are not unusual and this specific one doesn't seem like it will have a great impact on laws or policy. The Je suis Charlie protests were much larger in scale and occurred in many countries. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support large protest (see picture) internationally attended. Just object to the word "successful" as odd wording for the blurb. μηδείς (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Strangely worded blurb and rather stale (it happened Sunday, not today). And it wasn't even that big of a march, with only a few leaders of countries in Tunisia's neighborhood joining what Reuters described as "tens of thousands of Tunisians". -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Purely symbolic, and not even particularly significant at that. Joshua Garner (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose government-orchestrated march, changes nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose: does not seem to have attracted particular international attention; we have not included marches of a comparable size with only national significance on In the News before. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Bad article is undeveloped compared to Bardo National Museum attack, little coverage of Tunisian politics. -- Aronzak (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Nigerian general election

 * ITNR items do not require support on the merits as their presence on the ITNR list means they are already considered notable; discussion is to determine if article quality is adequate, updated, and to determine a blurb. It's also generally assumed that you support your own nomination. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you 331dot. Ali Fazal (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support posting ASAP. One of the world's largest democracies (and an apparently democratic result, to boot!) and a major development in regional politics. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with article updates The election, even considering ITNR, has been the subject of news for days being one of the largest in Africa. But the article seems to be missing the results of the election, which I know probably aren't fully complete at this time, but should have a summary of the presidency victory and that the opponent has conceded defeat. --M ASEM  (t) 17:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Jonathan has conceded, NYT and BBC have declared victory for Buhari, the last state to be counted is Borno, which can safely be predicted to go for Buhari. --Varavour (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Election commission has declared Buhari the winner... this really should be posted. --Varavour (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose not sufficiently updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you itemize a few insufficiencies? It looks ready for posting to me.  The article has referenced statements of the results, the winner, and the concession by Goodluck Jonathan.  The rest of the article is solid and extensive as well.  Can you tell me what information you know of, which you find lacking in the article?  It would help people who care to know what to add.  -- Jayron 32 19:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It was mainly the tenses of the sections preceding the polls and results sections, and the fact that we still have "preliminary results" suggesting a rather tenuous claim of a definitive result. Plus there appears a 36th state to confirm results. Also, the National Assembly and Senate tables are incomplete.  But other than that, it's good to go.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not familiar with the sources necessary to do the update, but that is an actionable list of items someone can work on before it is posted.  -- Jayron 32 21:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Jonathan has conceded. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: very important international news story. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. A very clear case of WP:ITNR. -LtNOWIS (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Events on the ITNR list do not need support on the merits as they are presumed notable by being on the list; this discussion is to assess article quality and determine a blurb. 331dot (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, individual instances of an ITNR might be an issue, but the discussion should center on if this specific case is a problem, not the event in general. Not that I don't think this case is close to be one to challenge on the event (Africa's biggest element at 50M+ voters, tight race, etc.), but ITNR is not a guarantee that article topic automatically qualifies, just that we should avoid quibbling on the event's broad nature. --M ASEM (t) 22:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that; I didn't mean to suggest it would automatically get posted. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support – Current top story. Sca (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. - Probably the most important African story of the moment.Nickpheas (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. - Looked for it to be there. As others have said, the current African top story. User:Marfinan 10:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting. Picture can be changed as well. --Tone 14:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Pity it was posted for several hours still with incorrect tenses and even now has incomplete information, but hey, the vote count rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You know, TRM, the problem is both that you're correct and ignorable. The tone of your posts, coupled with a long history of being incivil and unpleasant towards people, means that most people are generally going to ignore you, even when you have something important and valid to say.  It's the reason why WP:INCIVIL exists as a policy, and why it is such a big deal.  It has nothing to do with being a nanny, nor does it have anything to do with being arbitrary.  Being an effective communicator means getting people to do what is necessary by telling them to do so.  Your communication methods and reputation have made you an ineffective communicator, which is why no one ever listens to you.  You were right, are right, and by the looks of things, will still be right tomorrow about this article being incorrectly posted.  You were right when you brought it up before, and no one listened because of the means in which you expressed yourself, the tone you took, and your reputation of being abusive towards others.  Please let this be an object lesson: getting others to act on your say-so requires a certain technique: people don't just do what you say because you are right; it is in how you express your rightness.  We've been trying to tell you this for years.  I fully expect you to ignore this advice, but my compulsion as an educator to improve others makes me give it anyways: Learn from these mistakes, change how you treat others, learn to communicate ideas in ways that make others act.  If you don't, you'll continue to be right and be ignored.  It would be much better to be right and be followed.  That's what I want for you.  I only hope you want that too.  -- Jayron 32 01:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is not prose update at all...but yeah well said. Time overdue to de-sysop him.120.62.30.7 (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Very brave IP, very brave. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * and you still fail to get the point!120.62.30.7 (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't make one. For the avoidance of doubt, what you said was without point. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never made any calls for such. TRM has never abused his tools, and never used them inappropriately.  I'm just advising him to communicate effectively so he can be more useful to the project.  -- Jayron 32 12:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's okay, I think we all recognise who the IP is, couldn't stay away for too long, eh?! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Washiqur Rahman Babu killed

 * Oppose extremely low quality article and "hacked to death", while probably an accurate description, is hardly what we'd see in an encyclopedia. Will this be remembered in a year?  In two years?  In five?  Doubt it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * TRM, CPJ has an article on it, I think the wider issue of free speech and public participation in political life in these countries is important. Yes, this guy won't be remembered in five years time but CPJ and RSF will be fighting for press freedom in five years time - it's just that this guy wasn't very influential. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to wonder if any of our ITN postings will be remembered in five weeks from now. I doubt it. -  Floydian  τ ¢  21:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The primary purpose of ITN appears to be to promote showcase Wikipedia itself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure we'll be talking about the Germanwings crash for some time, and of course the Singapore leader's death. And I know plenty of Australians who will be reminding me about the World Cup for the next four years.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support possibly under an ongoing "Islamist Terrorism" heading. There's no doubt this would be published if it had happened in Manchester or Dearborn. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing where this is "Islamist terrorism". People strongly critical of a progressive speaker used violence to silence them. It's tragic but its not terrorism. --M ASEM (t) 21:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article probably should/will be speedily deleted as it does not seem to meet the notability criteria in WP:N/CA and WP:BLP1E. Mamyles (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that I've nominated this for deletion under the normal process. Mamyles (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose and speedy delete per Mamyles.--WaltCip (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest directing support for deletion to the appropriate forum; this is only for discussing the merits of posting to ITN. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Domestic violence, not a major issue. --M ASEM (t) 21:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Domestic violence" usually means murder by a family member, in this case Second blogger hacked to death this year in Bangladesh (Daily News) "A blogger was hacked to death by three Muslim attackers in Bangladesh's capital because of his anti-Islamic writings, police said today." If killing people to silence a viewpoint is not terrorism, then what is? μηδείς (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Religious violence. Stephen 00:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Terrorism" since 9/11 has become a emotionally-driven word. There are legal/government definitions for it, and then there's what the press claims if they want to emotionally-charge a story, which we should be avoiding at all costs. Killing someone to silence their voice is a tragic event, but it seems part of a larger systemic problem in that area, but I can't see it being defined as terrorism. --M ASEM (t) 01:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Terrorism is a contentious label for politically motivated violence. This is violence with a political motive. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hence the Charlie Hebdo attack was "political violence", not terrorism? 9/11 was "political violence? Noting during The Troubles in Ireland was terrorism because it was political? μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Unfortunately, unlike Avijit Roy this guy didn't have much writing of his own before he was killed, and WP:COATRACK means his death can't just be used to talk about more influential writers. Spokespeople for CPJ, RSF and UN have criticised Bangladesh for not doing more to protect bloggers. This guy wasn't that influential in and of himself before his death - but the wider issue of press freedom and impunity for attacks on dissident voices is an important one. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ehud Olmert found guilty of corruption

 * Comment According to the article page, he was found guilty of receiving bribes in March, 2014 and sentenced in May, 2014. It looks like this is stale. Mamyles (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment In addition to Mamyles' comment above, I note the Guardian states this is a district court ruling that will likely be appealed. I'm not sure if this is a finality for ITN posting or not. --M ASEM (t) 14:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this story is becoming more and more boring and stale by the moment. As Mamyles says, this isn't really news, and even if it was fresh, it's barely of note.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose the reported evidence looks damning, but the conviction was in the Jerusalem District Court, and his lawyers have vowed to appeal. μηδείς (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose because this doesn't seem like the end of the road, aside from being stale as well. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Uzbekistani presidential election

 * Support Classic ITN topic. Updates already look sufficient. Mamyles (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - pathetic "election" but still an election.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - notable ad ITN/R. Ali Fazal (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weakest of all possible supports Article is barely more than a stub, and contains little information that isn't in the blurb above.  It is fully referenced, not that it's hard to fully reference an article that short.  It'd be nice to see it expanded a bit, but I don't have any formal complaints about quality beyond that.  -- Jayron 32 16:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 19:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand that this kind of meets the bare minimum requirements, barely, but it's not really even beyond stub-quality. Is this the sort of thing we post when one of our key pillars of ITN is "To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events."?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * At the time of nomination I saw basically only one English-language source, likely because vote counting had just finished. Now when there are more sources, it's possible to add them. Brandmeistertalk  21:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that, I'm just questioning whether the article, which at the time of posting barely scratched up enough to be a stub, was what we consider to be "quality Wikipedia content". Of course more can be added, but perhaps it should be added before it's posted.  We used to require articles to be B-class or better.... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah there's only six sentences and I added one of them. Posting on the front page was a bit premature. -- Aronzak (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Fall of Idlib

 * Support Note that Al-Nusra is not part of ISIS, and therefore not covered by the ISIS "ongoing" item. And in any case, IMO the fall of Idlib is notable enough for a blurb even if the ongoing item overlapped it. Thue (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Is this anything else that is listed in the ongoing as ISIS? -The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 15:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a typo in your comment, ? I can't work it out. Formerip (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean that is this blurb shows anything apart from the details given in Ongoing? The same thing..-The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 02:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support on the technicality it isn't covered by Ongoing. Perhaps there should be a new Ongoing for this whole ISIS/al-Nusra/Saudi-Yemeni situation that's now going on? Joshua Garner (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - per user Thue.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment this should be covered by ongoing events. And at least one source is not confirming this as definitive.  Suggest if we're going to flood ITN with this kind of thing, we consider another more general Ongoing item.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There needs to be a line somewhere. When do we stop?  When we have a 'Conflicts in North Africa, the Middle East and Subcontinent' ongoing item?  Or a 'World politics' item?  The situation in the region covers:
 * Uprisings against the Assad government in Syria;
 * Ethnic conflict in Iraq arising from the American-led regime change;
 * ISIS' (or whatever we're calling them these days) hijacking of the previous two to establish a caliphate;
 * Popular uprisings in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt over the past several years;
 * Attempts by Islamists to take over those popular uprisings to establish theocratic states, with varying degrees of success and varying connections to ISIS;
 * The Boko Haram insurgency in Nigeria;
 * Boko Haram's connection to ISIS;
 * Efforts by surrounding states to help Nigeria tackle Boko Haram;
 * A rebellion in Yemen which (AFAICT) doesn't owe direct allegiance to ISIS but has similar goals (I may be out of date on this point);
 * Attempts by Saudi Arabia and Iran to influence the outcome in Yemen, possible conflict between Saudis and Iranians as a result;
 * Attempts by Western governments to influence the outcomes of all of the above without getting too involved;
 * Whatever's left of al Qaeda in the region;
 * Activities of the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan, with connections to al Qaeda;
 * The Israel-Palestine conflict, which is not directly connected to any of the above but will be cited as something to be angry about by one side, the other, or both in all of the above.
 * Where exactly do you draw a line around all that to create an ongoing item and not flood ITN with articles? GoldenRing (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Reflection - Hmmm, debates over which ongoing war it belongs to. At what point is this all going to meld into a regional Sunni-Shia war? The nightly news guys keep reminding us that the situation in Yemen is exactly that, and the scary thing is that this is how World War I got its start, with nations taking sides like little dominoes falling in one direction or the other. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not at all a clear Sunni-Shia war - Sunni Kurds are fighting against Sunni ISIL in Syria and Iraq, and in Syria Sunni al-Nusra (al-Qaeda) is fighting against Sunni ISIL. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are 3 different major civil wars ongoing in that region (Iraqi Civil War, Syrian Civil War, Yemeni Crisis (2011–present)) each with several major belligerents. Making a blurb each time a battle happens where 200 people die might result in more than one blurb per week. The blurb text is also very confusing in not telling from which of the many other sides in the war they gained it - you would need something like The Syrian Government loses the city of Idlib to Al-Nusra. LoveToLondon (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Alternative suggestion: Ongoing: Syrian Civil War - Iraqi Civil War (remove Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (participating in both and covered indirectly), the Yemeni civil war is currently covered by the 2015 military intervention in Yemen blurb). LoveToLondon (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose 165k city, article says "The fall of Idlib was more a morale blow to president Bashar al-Assad than a strategically one". Nergaal (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose play-by-play narration, with nods to TRM and GoldenRing's replies.128.214.53.18 (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Cricket World Cup

 * Support Should be something like "Australia win the 2015 Cricket World Cup after defeating New Zealand in the Final".117.192.184.165 (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and the changes per 117.192.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the Broadcasting rights section in the main article is properly sourced. Will support once fixed. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  11:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's just the final article per TRM below then my above comment won't be a problem. starship .paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  13:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - concerns addressed. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  22:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support there's no need for two bold links, the final is the key link here, and that article is in reasonable nick. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for altblurb &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 13:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This is a topic of international importance. Gfcvoice (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On ITNR and the final article looks good to go. Marking [ready]. I suggest using the alt blurb, but only bolding the link to the final itself. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - obviously. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Not knowing cricket or how a game is written in recap, but should there be more of one in the Final page (I'm comparing this to what the Super Bowl page expectations we had this year before posting) ? If that page is going to be linked, it seems woefully missing details on the game itself. --M ASEM (t) 15:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is pretty extensive, TBH. Everything except what happened in the final is there. Well, if TRM supports (and by his "support" meaning this is both relevant and updated) this, then this should pass his standards on being updated so... – H T  D  16:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Final page? The leadup to the match is clearly there, but normally for sports recaps I'm used to see a paragraph or more that talks about the general ebb and flow of the game, in other sports. All there is for the match proper is a summary table, which seems underwhelming. But again, this is not a sport I have a good idea about. --M ASEM (t) 17:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article about the final is pretty extensive, until it goes into the actual match. Unless you count the bullet points as "prose". – H T  D  17:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Going back to your first point, yes of course it's "relevant", it's ITNR, and yes, the final article is updated properly, as I already said. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure it's updated. After people knew who won, this is what happened at the article:
 * Changed the image at the infobox.
 * Updated the attendance and man of the match.
 * Something about changing things to past tense.
 * Added a couple of bulleted "notes" at the box score.
 * Added prose at the lead of a single sentence about Australia being the favorites.
 * Then followed by a clause of the result of the match, followed by a sentence about the attendance record.
 * All in all, about 2.5 sentences of new prose.– H T  D  19:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good, so it's updated. Move on.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * When I compare this year's match to 2011 Cricket World Cup Final, it is woefully not updated. I'm not expecting extensive details but more than details up to the start of the match, no details of the match whatsoever except for the final tally. It needs more. --M ASEM (t) 19:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dude, stop. It's updated. TRM said so already. When it comes to updates, TRM knows his stuff. – H T  D  19:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's more detail now. Gfcvoice (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's good now for ITN posting. It just felt missing to not include any of those in the article for a front page item. --M ASEM (t) 20:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Violins for Howard. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support of obvious significance. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral - the sport is of high importance for a few countries that plays it on a professional level. For the rest of the world it is a non-sport.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is listed as a Recurring Item, which means that it passes notability every time and can only be opposed for reasons such as poor sourcing, glaring omissions, etc. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And you already know that in those "few countries", there's a combined population of around two billion. There never seems such a problem when posting baseball articles.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Cricket is a sport of high importance for the many countries that play it at a professional level. And for many other countries that play the sport, such as the USA, they aren't good enough to qualify for the World Cup. Gfcvoice (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed; I know little of cricket, but I know that it is wildly popular in many places, including India, the most populated nation on Earth. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - India's 2nd -> see World population, China's 1st. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  14:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Clearly I didn't think that through enough.  I know India likely will be #1 in the future as their birth rate is much higher than China's.  Guess I got ahead of myself. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are supposedly only five cricket pitches in the US. They're so bad, they don't care. – H T  D  19:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No matter what you people say it is a fact that Cricket is a sport of high importance for only a few countries. May so big ones, but still only a few. Fact.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No matter what you say BabbaQ, this article is listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Cricket. So debate over how many countries' residents find cricket to be important is irrelevant. Gfcvoice (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Cricket World Cup is the smallest tournament (in number of participating teams in the final tournament) at 14 amongst the major team sports of football, basketball, rugby union and cricket. They'll even reduce that to ten in 2019. Compare, for example, the Football World Cup that would add from the current 32 teams to 40(? 48?), basketball from 24 to 32, heck even the World Baseball Classic has more teams when it started in 2006 with 16 teams (the now defunct Baseball World Cup even tried out 22 teams in 2009). Amongst these "major" sports, cricket has the fewest countries participating; the International Cricket Council has just over 100 countries (compare with the World Baseball Softball Confederation at 141; granted the West Indies is composed of many countries). I didn't even consider the likes of volleyball and handball. – H T  D  19:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So take your whining to ITNR and get it removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The whole Pot calling the kettle black argument gets a new dimension with your comment above :) lol.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But it is cricket which have much more viewership than many other sports. For example, the India- Pak match was viewed by 288 million, a record breaking stuff. -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 02:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As usual, BabbaQ, you're not really making any sense. Try to stay on-topic and use logical sequiturs where possible.  The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not my problem if you have difficulty understanding when You get criticism. I only found it hilarious that you complained about whining, when in fact you keep whining on and on about basically anyone having a different opinion than yourself at ITN. You can read in to that what you want :).--BabbaQ (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, still not getting it. What does your comment have to do with this nomination?  Nothing, other than an obvious declaration that you don't understand this nomination.  Still, job done!  Keep on whining!! :)  (And please, for consistency, have a dig at 331dot, Gfcvoice, AtHomeIn神戸, Aircorn, HappyWaldo,Starship.paint, Lugnuts, Vensatry etc etc, because they have elected to make the same opinion as mine, while you just want to keep on bitching at me – do us all a favour and pipe down or be consistent).    The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the article regarding the final looks sufficiently updated. Any claims about it being a "non-sport" are preposterous. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Article is updated fine and despite the bickering above their is really no doubt about its signifance as a sporting event. AIR corn (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support How is this not on the main page yet? Mind boggling. Like it or not, cricket is one of the world's major sports in terms of participation and viewership. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Most obvious support Just post it already! I can't believe people are actually debating the relevance of this. Very widespread appeal internationally, across continents and literately billions of people. We don't seem to have this debate when it's about baseball, which has a much smaller international appeal..... One would be tempted to mention the words 'double standard' 82.21.7.184 (talk) 06:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why the delay? Now that all the Americans are tucked up in their little beds, we can post this now, right?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If they drag it out much longer, it will be time to start the next world cup. FYI, this American was awake 24 hours ago watching the ESPN-Cricinfo gamecast. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

RD: Gene Saks

 * Oppose article is stub-quality at best. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I was going to nominate and did update the death on the article's page, but as TRM says, the article is woefully poor in describing why he is important. If the article can be expanded (particularly using these obits), that would help, as the DC for RD posting does seem met. --M ASEM (t) 21:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality grounds. Seems to meet the death criteria for his field, but as has been said the page needs work. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support storied film and stage director, a bit missed by WP since his last film, apparently, So I Married an Axe Murderer predates most of the web generation and his last TV appearance was in 1998. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article is little more than a stub - it does absolutely no justice to someone who had the career his awards/nominations/honours seems to indicate. Challenger l (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The article certainly could be improved, but is referenced adequately and already makes the case that he meets the criteria. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment completely outside my comfort zone but I tinkered with the article a little to improve it to at least remove my opposition. Someone else may wish to expand it further and those in opposition on quality grounds may wish to take another look.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Makka al-Mukarama hotel attack

 * Support Seems to be a significant story, article is decently sourced. --M ASEM (t) 16:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Good article, more notable than some other shootings that have made ITN. Joshua Garner (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support an article of reasonable quality describing a notable newsworthy event, should be nothing too much to think about for posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Mass-casualty event, apparent act of terrorism, international incident. Checks a lot of boxes for ITN and should be a no-brainer. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose number is not that high, terrorism is an OVERLY-represented topic at ITN, terrorism in Somalia is common. The only remotely noteworthy fact is that a UN representative died, but that is not very shocking when you realize it is Somalia after all. Nergaal (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Funniest oppose I've read from you in a few days. Good work.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Learning from the master. Nergaal (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not me, clearly. I usually oppose on article quality, something you seldom take into account.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Split decision A lot of terror attacks are posted to ITN, whether in the Western World or elsewhere. However, shipwrecks in Bangladesh and Burma have been opposed on the justification that it happens all the time there. Terrorism is frequent in Somalia. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the 7th article we have on terrorist attacks in Mogadishu alone since 2010. Nergaal (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And that's relevant because.....? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are even more square-headed than you appear. Nergaal (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And that makes no sense at all and is of no relevance to the nomination, not for the first time. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh guys, come on... bring the discussion out of the sandbox please.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I agree completely. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - significant story, good article. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Split decision There probably is too much terrorism coverage at ITN, but 20 casualties (especially when one is a diplomat) is a high enough amount to leave me on the fence. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Amanda Knox

 * Support Definitive end of the trial, article is sufficient state. --M ASEM (t) 15:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as per Masem. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Just a murder case at the end of the day. But, if it does get posted, please note that there were two defendants acquitted, albeit one less pretty and more foreign than the other. Formerip (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Knox is not herself notable except in relation to the murder, and we don't post acquittals, only convictions. I think the fact we are only mentioning the pretty girl in the nomination makes clear the sensationalist bias of the story, no offense to Everymorning. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We post both acquittals and convictions when at the very end of the criminal court cycle, which this certainly is. It is a high profile, international case. I do agree both persons should be named in the blurb, it is unfortunate the press tends to only focus on the "pretty" one. --M ASEM (t) 17:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added an altblurb that mentions Sollecito. I haven't been paying too much attention to this case so I didn't know he had been acquitted as well. Everymorning   talk  17:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was actually kind of surprised that she has her own page, as per Medeis' reasoning. Maybe what should instead be posted is a wrapup to Murder of Meredith Kercher page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I affirm my opposition based on the fact that this is "pretty American" media-pics get clicks-bias and that none of the parties involved was notable. Were this an acquittal in the trial of someone accused of the Olaf Palme assassination, it might be different. μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Light Oppose. Sure, its generated lots of controversy, but like Formerip said, it's still just a murder case, or lack thereof. The blurb basically would just mean that a court has found that an American didn't kill an Italian on Italian soil. Joshua Garner (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think this was just another murder case, you haven't been paying attention. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. This was a highly controversial case with a lot of media coverage during every stage of the process. One can argue that this was just another murder case, but what matters here is whether or not this story is sufficiently "in the news", not if the level of media attention it is getting is justified or not. Count Iblis (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What really matters is neither of those things, but whether or not a consensus to post emerges, or else why do we bother voting at all? Formerip (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your "oppose" is based on ignorance, and you should retract it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Haven't we done this already? Formerip (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Your comment "just a murder case" is an ignorant statement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And your dick's hanging out. Formerip (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for further revealing your ignorance. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. But please put it away, it's distracting. Formerip (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You first. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The media have decided that it is in fact not "just a murder case", by giving the case the amount of coverage they gave. But suppose that one can successfully argue here that the media were wrong to do that. But then, we are not allowed to make that determination, we have to stick to discussing whether or not a subject matter is actually in the news or not, we are not here to determine whether or not by our standards, a subject matter should have been in the news or not. That's why even if one can argue that this is just another murder case, that is still an irrelevant determination. Count Iblis (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I don't believe that's how it works. We don't post everything that's in the news or, say, the top ten most reported stories of the week. We do discriminate, and there are various valid reasons for opposing nominations, one of which is that you don't think a story is all that significant. "But it's on page two of the Guardian" or whatever is also a vaild counter-argument, but a fairly weak one, I'd say. Formerip (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose more politicking and nothing of substance to report. If a Colombian woman and her boyfriend were accused of killing a Peruvian woman, and then it transpired, according to the courts, they didn't, would we be posting it?  Think about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The media decides to report or not report on cases, and we stick to determining if there is sufficient media attention. Count Iblis (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not how things work around here. This is not a tabloid news feeder that just relinks whatever the media decides to sensationalize. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you calling BBC a tabloid? You have no business commenting here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The BBC is not immune to sensationalized news coverage. And with respect, I don't think it's your call where I can or cannot comment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How utterly and completely absurd, and contrary to everything Wikipedia stands for, to attempt to claim that we should be reporting whatever gains "media attention". Competence here is at an all-time low.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're talking to me, I take your comment as tacit agreement to end the interaction ban. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Consensus around here seems to set a very high bar for legal cases getting mention on ITN. I think a strong argument could be made that this has much lower relevance and legal implications than the Bowe Bergdahl case that was also recently shot down. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note - The statement "just a murder" is highly offensive on its face, regardless of the notability of the case. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I'm sure if our readers are interested in this case, they can read all about it in The Daily Mail or The New York Post, right next to the coverage of Jeremy Clarkson being fired by the BBC and Zayn Malik leaving One Direction. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Or they can read about it in the Times. Or is the Times also a tabloid now? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Zayn left? OMG. Much more important (per Twitter, media outlets etc) than this no-result.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Don't get the above comparison to Clarkson and Zayn, which were single recent events, and also simple entertainment stories without crime and law. This is the end of the legal case on a murder which had been making news for seven years or so since it happened. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - a definite ending to one of the worlds most covered murder trials in the last decade. Ofcourse it should be featured on ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support purely because it is the end of a legal matter involving three countries(US, UK, and Italy) and has much wider interest than "just a murder case". 331dot (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. It is a subjectively dumb story, but for good or ill it is in the news and this is the definitive end.  I am also motivated by the fact that Wikipedia has quite extensive coverage of this topic, so it offers a chance to highlight more information than one would get from most news accounts.  Dragons flight (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Legal case is not notable enough. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This case, while perhaps fascinating, really is just a murder trial. The fact that American infotainment networks sought to convert it into an international incident because one of the now-acquitted is a pretty, white, American girl is great for the tabloids, but that is about it. Resolute 23:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose obviously media coverage does matter to a certain extent, but I think that this specific case was overblown and does not rise to ITN level. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. This entire story has received considerable and extended international coverage over a long time frame.  This is, hopefully, the final chapter is this sad story.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Recommend switching from Amanda Knox article to Meredith Kercher murder case article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree to this, the murder case has more substantial details and this would make it less about this specific person and instead the case overall. --M ASEM (t) 23:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with this detail and suggest you update the nom? starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  08:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have switched the bolding from Amanda Knox to the Meredith Kercher murder case article as per above. I hope this is what was meant by this suggestion. Everymorning   talk  17:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per WP:NOT. Running this on the Front Page would be shameful and possibly become a lasting precedent to let further crap like this onto the Front Page. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree that an legal case which had the chance to lead to an international disagreement between the US and Italy and involving the death of a UK citizen is a "tabloid" matter. I think that all the parties involved would disagree that this is a "crap" matter as well. 331dot (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose WP:NOTTABLOID - this case frequently received sensationalised tabloid coverage inside the US and Italy, that doesn't justify it as notable or influential. Murder cases are decided all the time, this is only promoted as notable because the person is a "celebrity" -- Aronzak (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, comment that this day Boko Haram killed and chainsawed 40 Nigerians during elections in the country - but they don't receive front page coverage in tabloids because Missing White Woman Syndrome means only affluent, pretty, young women get to the front of the papers. -- Aronzak (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Boko Haram is still being discussed below; please offer your opinion on posting it. I disagree that BBC, NBC and other legitimate news outlets are "tabloids". This was a case with international issues. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My point is that media coverage as a whole was overblown, and this case is just one of thousands of murder cases.-- Aronzak (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion but the media points to this not being your average murder case. So however you twist it you are wrong about that.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Abductive and per TRM's story. Someone should close this. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as tabloid fodder. This has been a long running tabloid staple because it involves two attractive young women and sexual elements to the murder. In the grand scheme of things it makes no real difference to the world, and is of poor encyclopaedic value. There's no way we should be covering this on ITN. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with what you are saying, but I'm not sure that ITN items are required to make a real difference to the world. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if we should follow Modest Genius reasoning the Cricket World Cup should not be posted as it is a sport without any importance for most parts of the world.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's on ITNR and is played around the world in countries with a combined population of over two billion. Try again.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We didn't run a blurb for the acquittal in Shooting of Trayvon Martin, which was much more significant, so I don't see why we should run one for this. Kaldari (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not exactly the same situation. This case involves three nations(Knox is American, Kercher was British, it all happened in Italy) and had potential international repercussions(as the US had said it would not extradite her). 331dot (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Could an uninvolved editor please close this? I think it's fairly obvious that there is no consensus to post. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I concede that this probably will not be posted, but I have reverted the closure because it only cited a vote count as a reason, and determining consensus is not a vote count so I would request an admin close it and weigh the arguments or at least a better reason be given. 331dot (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ultimately this case is just about the murder of one person. It was sensational, but sensational trials happen from time to time and I would be very reluctant to start posting them to ITN. This is particularly so given the systemic bias issues - as TRM noted, does anyone really think this case would have got as much attention if Knox and Kercher were from poorer countries? It is not true that we just go by the level of media coverage, which is why Zayn Malik leaving One Direction isn't featured despite the news undoubtedly getting more media coverage than some things we post. Neljack (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Propogating the (apparent) conclusion of a tabolid circus. We need to save an ITN space for the next time one of those Kardashians gets pregnant... AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Rod Hundley

 * Oppose, doesn't appear to meet the criteria for RD inclusion. Nakon  03:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - article has only five references and many unsourced paragraphs. Also not convinced he's 'big' enough in basketball player - he's a 2× NBA All-Star but many players have had that over 10×. He might have been 'big' as an announcer though - not sure, but the article's shape must still be taken into account. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  03:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. We can't list every sports figure on RD when they die. He doesn't appear to be at the top of his field or anything like that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Another that has his fans, likely a good number of them - but doesn't meet the criteria for RD. Challenger l (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose seems like just another moderately successful basketball player, not rising to the level we expect for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Scott Kelly, Mikhail Korniyenko and Gennady Padalka launch

 * Oppose as with all such "if it happens it will be..." nominations, I'll happily wait until "it" happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose As much as it breaks my heart to oppose a spaceflight story, this will only be the longest stay on the ISS, there were several year plus stays on Mir. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The launch is a routine ISS launch, the mission will not be, but we should wait until they complete it and safely return. --M ASEM (t) 20:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the year long mission has never been done before, and the twin study with Kelly's brother is a first - and it has implications for future long-term space missions. Kelly was on the front cover of Time based on this mission. Padalka will have spent the longest in space of any human at the end of the mission. If this isn't ITN worthy I'd propose it for DYK. -- Aronzak (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, as I said about, this will neither be the first, nor the longest long-stay mission, several Mir crew members stayed longer. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It will be the longest at the ISS, and will be unique in that Kelly's twin brother will be monitored on the ground for comparison. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Key language is "will be". We hardly post of a potential aspect, but instead wait until that aspect is verified. Assuming all goes well, their return from the ISS will get comparable coverage, as well as now assurance they have spent the most time there, and that's the point where ITN makes sense. --M ASEM (t) 14:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Will support upon completion. Joshua Garner (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for now. I'd support a posting should they complete the mission. Nakon  03:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. It may merit posting when Padalka breaks the cumulative time in space record during the mission, aside from completion of the mission. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above objections. &mdash; Jonny Nixon - ( Talk ) 14:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted RD] Tomas Tranströmer

 * Support per nominator. Truly notable award winning poet, active until death. Bruzaholm (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to refactor your comment, but just to be clear, this isn't a "support per nominator", but "support as nominator". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per Nobel Prize. RD is a no-brainer. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Nit though that there's only the date of death in the article, there should be at least a sentence or so for a better update. The rest is reasonably sources and okay for posting. --M ASEM  (t) 16:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I support RD but Oppose blurb. Routine death of age, and this was not a person of the likes of Thatcher or Mandela. --M ASEM (t) 16:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD but oppose blurb. I don't see this story being "significant" enough for a blurb, but a Nobel winner meets the death criteria clearly. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb RD – Nobel prize winning poet. Influential in his field and active until recently. (Would be a given here if he was from the English speaking world) P. S. Burton  (talk)  17:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I don't see a reason to give a blurb to Alice Munro, for instance. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD only. I don't think that simply being a Nobel laureate warrants a blurb. Brandmeistertalk  17:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD but oppose blurb. Being awarded with the Nobel Prize should not be taken as decisive criterion for posting a blurb at any price, as there have been many controversies in the past over the recognition that the prize gives its recipients. Tranströmer was surely a good writer for his time but not one of his contemporaries whose works have influenced different generations. I doubt that most of us here have ever even heard of him before winning the Nobel Prize.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * He is also the recipient of the Neustadt International Prize for Literature, the Golden Wreath of Struga Poetry Evenings and the Petrarca-Preis. That is all the major international awards, except the international Man Booker. I do not think his significance can be measured by whether or not you have heard of him. If we do not post Tranströmer then I wonder where the thresehold for poets lies. Does any poet warrant a blurb? The only reason I could see for not posting a blurb would be his old age of death. P. S. Burton  (talk)  18:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A rough measure of when we would use a blurb to highlight the recent death of a notable person in which the death was by natural cause/old age would be someone of the ilk like Margaret Thatcher or Nelson Mandela. These two people had significant influence on an international level in politics and the like, and its clear the reaction across the world from their passing was a big deal. A poet is very much unlikely to have this type of influence, much less any other Nobel prize winner, off hand. --M ASEM (t) 18:11, 27 March 2015 (UTChave
 * ^^^ Off hand, I think the distinguished Mr Mandela won a Nobel Peace Prize &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * P. S. Burton, all the prizes that you mention are on the top of the field but they simply don't present an automatic qualifier for a blurb, especially after introducing the RD section. The main goal of introducing the RD section is to replace the massive posting of blurbs documenting deaths with a simple line of showing their names only, while blurbs are not completely excluded and allowed in case the person has made major impact in the world and influenced millions of people and whole generations. Frankly, I do think that we've been very concessive in the last couple of years; the number of deaths posted in the RD section has been heavily inflated and some people have undeservedly received blurbs, thus lowering the death criteria. So, if this had been nominated before applying the change, it would have deserved blurb on the grounds of winning the prizes or even solely the Nobel Prize (Note that the Nobel Prize laureates generally received blurbs before RD came into existence.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. I have not been active in this part of Wikipedia since the introduction of the Recent deaths section. Thanks for taking the time to explain. P. S. Burton  (talk)  19:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD but oppose blurb per all above..-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 17:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD Oppose Blurb above reasons. Joshua Garner (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed "Ready" as the article is far from ready. There is no update that he died apart from the first line and the article has to be fixed in several places to reflect that. --Tone 19:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb His death is not one with the exceptional level of global impact and coverage that would warrant a blurb. This is not to dispute that he was a very important writer, but blurbs are rightly rare these days. Neljack (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD A Nobel Prize winner is obviously a leading figure in writing. I thought I was aware that RD blurbs are for ones which make an event (death of a reigning monarch, assassination of popular figure) rather than the passing at the end of a long and successful life. Terry Pratchett, whose work sold millions (but won no Nobel prize), had no blurb &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted RD Nakon  02:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb - had success as Nobel winner but not the global impact of say, J.K. Rowling. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  03:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

[Re-posted] RD: Dinkha IV

 * Support: Notable religious figure, solid article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Top-level figure in his field, good article, topical.128.214.53.18 (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, notable patriarch of an historically important church.--  K a t h o v o  talk 09:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, Head of a major religious body. Article is in appropriate condition &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support noted figure, good article. &mdash; Jonny Nixon - ( Talk ) 11:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet more sterling work. I see that his death isn't even referenced.  Does anyone read these articles?  Does anyone care about quality and referencing? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * could you explain this posting please? Did you check the death was referenced in the article?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Pulled per TRM. I would not condone his use of belittling tone directed at specific users, but the article cannot be posted with the quality issues, regardless of significance.  Two fixes are needed before posting.  The purple prose describing the death needs to be neutralized a bit, and the entire death paragraph is unreferenced.  We cannot post someone died without any references to the fact, that would be a major BLP issue.  No prejudice to this being returned immediately upon those two fixes. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 21:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is all about one admin who has made two poor errors of judgement in posting at ITN in the past 24 hours. The sooner we rid our process of such failings the better.  And for the love of God, on an RD posting, there's like ONE THING you need to check.  NOBODY here who supported this or posted this checked it.  Sad face.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not like he castrated a baby. [Description of something that admins' actions on ITN are not that TRM can handle] It's reversible. Calm down. --  tariq abjotu  21:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you talking about? Your comparison is disgusting and completely unnecessary.  Think again "Tariq", before posting such crap.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue appears to now be resolved. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, there are multiple references on the death of this subject. Any objection to posting this to RD at this time?  Nakon  02:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I admit, I had to do some research to fully understand who this person was and what significance he actually held. There are now a couple of sources properly cited concerning his death, though none of them directly state the cause of death. Inline citations seem present throughout the article. It looks as it should. Challenger l (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To me, TRM's remarks have tainted yet another nomination. It's surprising we even have admins still willing to post stuff around here with TRM berating anyone whose actions he disagrees with, and then perpetually holding those actions against them. --  tariq abjotu  05:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To me, your vile comparison and the general incompetence demonstrated by some is the real problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please, everyone, could be we nicer to each other? starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  08:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and can we avoid using comparisons to baby castration too? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that's included. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  12:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - problem solved, let's restore this RD? starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  07:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Reposted with some tweaks and a tense change. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Exhumation and reburial of Richard III

 *  Support Skip it - One-of-a-kind event... Jayron notes it's already a featured article. Putting it in ITN would seem redundant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We already posted the discovery, exhumation, and confirmation of the body from 2012. This is just an obvious result from that. --M ASEM (t) 00:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We just featured this as the main page featured article just yesterday. It's already on the main page in the "recently featured" list.  I'd say the story has had enough exposure.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To add, it was nominated and approved to be TFA on the 26th, so yea, TFA overrides ITN here in this case. --M ASEM (t) 00:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something? Isn't that what Jayron just said? --  tariq abjotu  02:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Most TFAs are randomly picked from a pool, but there are about 5-10 a month that people ask for a TFA to run on a specific day - this was done specifically to correlate with the reburial that happened on the 26th. It was not coincidence. --M ASEM (t) 03:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah. I don't think anyone thought it was a coincidence. This event was mentioned in the TFA blurb with the March 26 date. --  tariq abjotu  03:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above objections. Re-interment is really a post climax to all this. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose –The fellow is dead, and has been. What's new? Let sleeping kings lie. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you recuse yourself, RiiiR, on the basis of WP:COI. Otherwise we may have to depose you. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. If there was anything particularly notable about his exhumation, I might be inclined to vote in support, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Joshua Garner (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Baseball Bugs that this is a one-of-a-kind event, but the man was a murderer, and the reburial seems to be of no importance in itself compared to the discovery of the body. Did Elizabeth II attend?  Was there a funeral mass by the Archbishop of Canterbury or a high-ranking Catholic prelate?  This seems stale. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose even ignoring the recent TFA, this is a dead man being buried. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  02:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Saudi Arabia strikes Yemen

 * Comment part of the ongoing Yemen Crisis ongoing? --M ASEM (t) 03:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That was my thinking, but it would have to be shoehorned into the blurb. If you think of a good alt, go ahead and add one. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I added an alt. I'm not super-thrilled with it, but it gets the crisis in and is a little bit shorter. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * support the alt. An important action by Saudi Arabia. Mhhossein (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support regardless of blurb, SA military action is not an every day occurrence. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support second blurb with a Comment I prefer this sentence: As Houthi militants and their allies advance on the temporary Yemeni capital of Aden, Saudi Arabia launches airstrikes in support of Mansur Hadi government.-- Seyyed(t-c) 04:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This suggestion is even more accurate while being short and informative. Mhhossein (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * which suggestion?-- Seyyed(t-c) 05:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ... Saudi Arabia launches airstrikes in support of Mansur Hadi government. Mhhossein (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support second blurb or Seyyed's. Joshua Garner (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While it's unusual for Saudi Arabia to interject itself in a conflict, is this a way for them to fight Iran without actually fighting Iran? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently, but this issue does not relate to this discussion. -- Seyyed(t-c) 04:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - as it's just another step in the ongoing Yemen crisis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, major development. Please have only one blurb and no ongoing if possible. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Too early to tell how significant this is. They have intervened in Yemen before. Either way, I believe that an ongoing mention of the Yemeni Crisis would be much more sufficient than a single blurb. There are many notable events going on in Yemen, and I'm not sure why this should be singled out. Support ongoing. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per RGloucester, Saudi have launched offensives into Yemen several times recently. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Intervening" and supporting a regime about to be toppled are very different things. It's like saying doctors are treating a patient for a respiratory ilness, and the patient has been placed in critical care with intravenous antibiotics. μηδείς (talk) 05:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of that, the important question is why we would single out this one development for a blurb, when many such developments are presently occurring. Ongoing is the only sensible solution. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am fairly certain you mean "irregardless", thou foul, revertory, murthersome hunchback. In any case, an Ongoing blurb wouldn't bother me. μηδείς (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is deserved to be on the main page. We can find a proposal which cover both subjects at the same time.-- Seyyed(t-c) 06:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Marked Ready as this is at 17 Kb and has no orange tags but also 2 to 1 support for posting. μηδείς (talk) 06:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * support, major event with over 10 countries participating in airstrikes and 150,000 Saudis on the verge of crossing the border. If a mini-world war ensues, which is not unlikely, this could be the starting point.--  K a t h o v o  talk 06:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, but oppose calling the rebel government "temporary". Seems a likely outcome, but Wikipedia is not for ball-gazing. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Read that wrong. Temporary capital. All good. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – People need to think, here. We've already got one Yemen blurb in the ITN box. Now we're going to add another one. This is exactly the type of situation where ongoing is used, to prevent a constant stream of blurbs about the same events. This blurb should not be posted. Yemen should go to ongoing, or else we'll keep doing this every few days. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest removing the other blurb to make way for this one. This is an evolving situation we're dealing with, but a foreign military intervention beginning is undoubtedly a noteworthy development, IMO. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 15:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Absurd, let's just rename ITN as "Yemen ticker". When have we ever had two blurbs relating to the same item? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Point me to the rule that says we can't?--WaltCip (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Point me to the common sense approach which says we have ONGOING for such things? "Point me to the rule..."?  Really?  Grow up. And answer the question.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we can be a lot more WP:CIVIL than this, can't we? -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, rude much, Rambling? I would think that warrants an immediate apology. And for the record, two distinctly separate but highly significant in a regionally important conflict, so two blurbs make perfect sense. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, stop it. Consensus was for a blurb. There was nothing technically wrong with this posting. "Grow up"? Seriously???--WaltCip (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Civility aside, you're missing the point. There's no question that there was consensus for a blurb. The question is whether this item should replace the existing blurb related to the Yemen conflict. I see at least half a dozen people who think it should, including the nominator. And that's normally what happens with stories like this. --  tariq abjotu  13:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find your answer in the alternate question: when has this ever happened in Yemen before? Both news items are incredibly important internationally, and are very ITN worthy. - If this were to happen in the US there wouldn't even be a debate about it. - Their "relation" of being in the same geographical area, does not invalidate them, nor make them the same thing. (Note: This doesn't mean I disagree with eventually posting this crisis as an "ongoing" item; it's just that these are currently independently hot items.) <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee  //  have a cup  //  beans  // 23:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, with The Rambling Man, there probably would be.
 * And, much as I hate to say it, I agree with him. I thought this would replace the other blurb. People were even saying just that in the nomination. I can dig through the history if you want, but I'm sure we do this all the time. The two events are related enough -- we could have almost linked to the same article -- that this is pretty much an update on the events in the conflict. This blurb even references the Aden move by calling it the "provisional capital". And note that removing the blurb regarding Aden would cause another Yemen-related article, 2015 Sana'a mosque bombings, to appear back on the Main Page, so don't act like this is something about Yemen. Those bombings and this campaign are distinct enough that the latter doesn't constitute an update of the former, so that is OK. --  tariq abjotu  02:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Speaking as the nominator, I figured it would replace the other blurb, too. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the normal approach. Particularly in this case since the "provisional"/"temporary" capital is covered in the more recent blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please revisit this issue. --  tariq abjotu  13:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've swapped out the Aden capital blurb, as Coffee didn't respond to the ping and even the nominator was expecting this to be a bump rather than a new blurb. --  tariq abjotu  21:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks good, thank you. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Abel Prize 2015

 * Nom. --bender235 (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Both articles are sufficient quality (although their relative lengths show the PR boost that comes of having a movie made about you...) Unless there are any objections, since this is ITN/R I'll post it in a few hours. Smurrayinchester 08:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit: Actually, Nirenberg has a few citation issues. I'll fix them up first. Smurrayinchester 08:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * All his awards are now cited, and hopefully now a lay reader can get at least an inkling of why his work's so important (he's probably brought us closer than anyone to an understanding of turbulence). Smurrayinchester 09:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per ITN/R. The Abel Prize is a recognition of great significance in mathematics.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as articles are both of good quality and this is ITN/R. I've marked this as ready. Mamyles (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted Smurrayinchester 14:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WAIT a sec isn't Nash the first person to win Nobel+Abel? Abel is kinda the Nobel of math, and very, very few people win two Nobels. Nergaal (talk) 05:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have an alternate blurb you're proposing? I'm not sure how your comment affects the current item.  Spencer T♦ C 06:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Abel becomes the first Nobel recipient to also receive the Abel Prize, which he shares with Nirenberg but with better phrasing. Nergaal (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Bowe Bergdahl Charged With Desertion

 * Comment. The general practice here is to post things like this when the party is convicted, especially when involving a criminal charge.  331dot (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose absolutely of no consequence whatsoever, a completely overhyped local issue that really demonstrates nothing other than the inability of the US forces to keep their business clean. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This case seems entirely lacking in wider relevance. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pretty sure I'll oppose if renominated when he's either convicted or exonerated. The prisoner swap was noteworthy, but his particular situation isn't for our purposes. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am curious as to your rational that a highly controversial POW swap was ITN worthy but the subject of that swap being charged with desertion is not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose This will be in the news for the US but it absolutely has little consequence on the larger world political picture. --M ASEM (t) 21:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This page advises us not to criticize things for only pertaining to one country. Everymorning   talk  21:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Those who claim this has no consequence outside the US have no basis for such a claim. However, as it's only one step in the process, I would say Oppose on that basis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless an actual conviction comes of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The overall issue is international, President Obama released five Al Qaeda members to secure his release. But specifically for ITN purposes we don't post charges and even if he is convicted, unless he is executed, the story in the news at that time won't be worth posting. μηδείς (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They were members of the Taliban, not terrorists. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think most reasonable people would say that it is a Distinction without a difference. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * On the news tonight they're saying that his lawyers are likely to work out a plea deal, and if that proves true, the story will likely end in a whimper. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Ongoing: Yemeni Crisis
Today, one or more warplanes raided the palace of recently deposed president, Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, in Aden after his relocation there and cancelling of his resignation following the military coup earlier this year. In addition, special forces loyal to Ali Abdullah Saleh, who led the country during the 2011–12 revolt against his rule and is now loyal to the Houthis who are currently in control of the capital Sanaa, have clashed today with troops loyal to Hadi in Aden, and were eventually expelled from the city. Things are expected to develop further there, so this is why I chose Ongoing rather than a blurb. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)`
 * Support: I've been updating Yemen content on a near-daily basis since January, and I certainly don't think shots fired in anger between army units aligned with the respective rival governments will cool the situation down. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&action=submit
 * Right now, I'll support a blurb on this, and if this proves to be the spark of a powder keg, then it can be moved to Ongoing later. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with User:Muboshgu. Could somebody please renominate as an ITN item, with a blurb? Abductive  (reasoning) 17:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And I stand by my decision to nominate this for Ongoing. Yesterday's events were in Aden, while today's events were centered in Sanaa, where bomb attacks killed between 126 and 135 people at a Shiite mosque. The bombings were claimed by ISIL's Yemeni affiliate who warned of an 'upcoming flood' of attacks against Houthi rebels. If you insist that this should be a blurb instead, please feel free to propose one. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, based on everything that's going on in Yemen, I now support for ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 11:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ? Is there a template for ongoing noms? I fudged one above. μηδείς (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find one, so put in a request at T:ITN_candidate. I'll publicize this on WT:ITN as well. Mamyles (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Houthis, possibly backed by Saleh loyalists, are closing in on Hadi's temporary residence in Aden as we speak. The latter had already fled the city this afternoon. I propose once again pulling all Yemen-related blurbs in favor of an Ongoing link. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Significant ongoing event, recently the President reportedly fled to another location in Yemen. Brandmeistertalk  19:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This item has been bumped from its initial proposal. This seems out of process to me, presumably if it's allowable, it can be bumped up every day until it becomes boring.  Please stop doing this, or at least find a consensus that arbitrarily bumping an item up the nomination page is acceptable for an Ongoing nomination.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment See Coffee's comment above. This was posted. The only reason it's not currently in Ongoing right now is because it's attached to the Aden item. When that disappears off ITN, this will return to Ongoing. This does not need to be nominated again. --  tariq abjotu  21:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Since both Yemeni items have been on the main page already for some time, it's possible to remove and swap them for Ongoing link. Currently the Aden item is just third most recent, so there will be several days before it disappears, while the situation is getting hotter. Recently, the presidential palace, for instance, has been sacked and we may be risking a delay while waiting. Brandmeistertalk  22:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? Items generally stay on ITN until they reach them bottom and are removed. You want us to remove two items (and, therefore, replace them with two staler items), and to what effect? The link you want under Ongoing is currently higher in the template and bolded. And the story you're referencing -- the president fleeing the presidential palace -- seems directly related to the move of the capital, so it seems like an unsurprising development in the story already posted. What's the problem with leaving things as is? After the Aden item is removed from ITN, the link will return to Ongoing. --  tariq abjotu  22:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the proposed article (Aftermath of the 2014–15 Yemeni coup d'état) is not the correct one. Southern Yemen offensive (2015) is the main article which relates to the recent events.-- Seyyed(t-c) 02:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support It's an event of importance to the world. Mhhossein (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Jeremy Clarkson

 * Previous discussion at In the news/Candidates/March 2015. —Cryptic 15:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Seriously? A TV show host getting fired? No significance to world events. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: No way this meets ITN criteria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not very important.  And "fracas" should not be in parentheses - he bullied and hit a junior staff member.    Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: UK citizen here, and a big fan of Clarkson and no way is this suitable --Dweller (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support: Top Gear is the most popular factual TV show in the world, with hundreds of millions of viewers, Jeremy Clarkson is its most recognizable figure, and big talent being fired for punching a member of staff is not an every day event. This is about as big as TV news can get. For what it's worth, it's on the front page of the websites of Der Spiegel (even with German news dominated by the Germanwings crash), De Telegraaf, and CNN. As much as it pains me to admit it, Jeremy Clarkson is well-known worldwide. No effect on world events, sure, but it's a story that millions around the world care about. Smurrayinchester 16:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What people "care about" is irrelevant. It isn't encyclopaedic. It is tabloid tripe. Send it to the shambles. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why I worded it in an encyclopedic mamner. I could have said Jeremy Clarkson punched his producer because he didn't get steak, and then sent it to the tabloids, but this is a factual blurb about some really big TV news about a 20+ year show and a supporting 1 million signature petition. Just saying. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 16:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is the kind of stuff that belongs in a gossip column. Suggest speedy close per SNOW. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose At the end of the day, this is entertainment gossip. --M ASEM (t) 16:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose fails the ITN criteria. This has already been closed twice and the nominator needs to stop edit-warring to keep it open. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Question Why was the SNOW close reverted? Seriously, keeping this open serves no purpose other than to allow more editors to pile on. Anyone can see that this nom was DOA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I can just imaging the howls of protest if either Brian Williams's suspension from NBC Nightly News or Jon Stewart's planned retirement from The Daily Show had been nominated last month. This event is no more deserving of an ITN slot. --Allen3 talk 17:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope no one will mind I've snow-closed this, again. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Curiosity (rover)

 * Oppose There has always been a possibility of life on mars (the blurb should be changed if this ends up posted) . While this is indeed new information, I don't think it has a significant enough impact on the mission to be posted. Mamyles (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mamyles last statement. Not finding any trace of nitrogen would have been the unexpected result. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Kraft Heinz merger

 * Support big business news. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support You make a good point that business deals are under-represented - we usually dismiss them as routine. But even routine business should be posted occasionally. Mamyles (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on article improvements This was valued around $40B if I remember the stories yesterday - I believe this number should be included to provide the necessary scope (As I'm not sure of the international recognition of both brands). --M ASEM (t) 14:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and agree with Masem on all points. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I generally think business stories that don't involve some wort of innovation (like getting cable channels on your smart phone) shouldn't be posted. (Weak support if they go with the name Heinzkraft or Kreinz :D ). μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Mergers and acquisitions happen all the time. Fifth largest, not largest. If the Comcast & TWC merger is allowed to go through, would that merit coverage? If so, why? If not, why not? And keep in mind that the purpose of these deals is typically to make the wealthy stockholders wealthier, to provide degraded service to customers, and to deprive people of their jobs. So where do you draw the line? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose just the fifth largest food company? What are the other four?  This is DYK material.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * PepsiCo, Coca-cola, Nestlé and I think Dole Foods. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 23:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The 5 largest in the U.S. as of 2010, according to this article were PepsiCo, Dole, General Mills, Nestle and Kraft. World-wide, the top 5 food companies according to this article in 2013 were Nestle, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, ADM, and InBev.  But these rankings often depend on how you define words like "largest" "food" and "company".  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Still oppose then, this proposed merger is small fry in big business terms.  Not to reiterate the fact that it's a "proposed" merger.....  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not so small; you're not going to ever see, say, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola merging since that would violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. So this is about as good as it gets for business mergers in the food sector.--WaltCip (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No Consensus to post the article yet. Nakon  03:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Smaller than mergers like Volkswagen and Porsche or T-Mobile US and MetroPCS. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support this is major business news that also presents a welcome break from the more typical ITN posts. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Yehuda Avner

 * Oppose - not convinced this is a person at the top of his field. Surely we're not going to list every diplomat or advisor. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  13:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose At first I thought that said "prime minister". Then I saw it says "prime ministerial advisor". Not top of his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are times that a cabinet-level advisor might have had significant influence on world politics (for example, Kissinger as Sect. of State comes to mind even ignoring the Nobel prize), but that's more a rarity. Doesn't appear to be the case here. --M ASEM (t) 19:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Does not seem to meet the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article quality is terrible. Mostly unreferenced.  We should not put links to such articles on the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Boko Haram kidnappings

 * Comment Given that Boko Haram seems to be aligning with ISIL, perhaps with ongoing we can add "(Boko Haram)" as a sub-point to the current ISIL ongoing? --M ASEM  (t) 18:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment the BBC headline I read says that they have kidnapped "about 500 children". That seems significant and would need us to modify the blurb.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw that, but I also saw this headline which quotes a government spokesperson as saying that the number was lower than 500. How much lower, as I said above, is still unclear. Newsweek says over 400, for example.  Everymorning   talk  21:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but think we really should just have one Islamist terrorism (not set on the exact wording) ongoing, rather than post every single atrocity daily. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting to ITN:O. Nakon  03:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Lil' Chris

 * Oppose Far from "top of the field". He had a few songs that charted. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * one number three hit, no awards. Unless the death turns out to be homicide, it is just tragic young death which does not really contribute to notability. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose almost marginal that he has an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per others. Not RD timber. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close No notability whatsoever. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not notable, no evidence at him being much more than a publicity stunt. Challenger l (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Germanwings Flight 9525

 * Support pending info on fatalities and some expansion (and also because Airbus is involved). Brandmeistertalk  11:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support since it is one of the most significant crashes in Europe in recent period.--Egeymi (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in principle pending more details when and if available; French President Hollande has said they believe there are no survivors. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as per above. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, looking that there will be no survivors. Obviously worthy of posting. Mjroots (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 12:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * NOTE file:Germanwing Airbus A320 D-AIPX.JPG is of the actual aircraft, and is available to use. Mjroots (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, can the image be replaced with the more recent version which depicts the "Germanwings" logo and colour? -- Stemoc 16:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Mass-casualty, high-profile air disaster. Obvious ITN material. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – At some point we may want to update blurb with statement by French prosecutor that co-pilot Andreas Lubitz appeared to have crashed plane deliberately. Sca (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Update and have proposed an Altblurb. The essence of the story is a murder-suicide, not a mechanical failure. μηδείς (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Although there doesn't seem much doubt, given circumstances, we need to get some element of "apparently" in Altblurb. Sca (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support update as it adds an important element to the story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose update I don't think that a blurb change is necessary. Readers who want to find out what the suspected cause of the crash is should simply follow the bolded link to the article. It would be inappropriate (and a BLP violation) to definitively say the co-pilot is a murderer, since an official report has not been released. Mamyles (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * BLP violation? Are you suggesting the pilot in question survived the crash? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP applies to the recently deceased. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Counter-intuitively, BLP policy does apply for a short period after death. Please see WP:BDP for details. Mamyles (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Define "recent". In any case, BBC is reporting it as an "apparently" deliberate act, based on the findings from the black boxes so far. So, no BLP violation, dead or alive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Update. We don't need to say that the co-pilot was a murderer, but the plane was clearly intentionally brought down. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly support Update – "Deliberate" action by (co-) pilot cited by official French sources and is all over int'l. media, including German. Suggest immediate update via Altblurb 1 with following modifications (adding two words, number and comma):
 * "French officials conclude that the co-pilot of Germanwings Flight 9525 apparently deliberately crashed plane the Airbus 320A in the French Alps, killing all 150 on board.
 * Two adverbs in succession isn't great syntax, but it's clear. Sca (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Two things, blurbs should be in the present tense, and I think "apparently" is an unnecessary qualification, as the investigators are reporting it, and the voice recorder confirms the events,and the descent was controlled. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Whichever blurb is chosen, it should match with what the article says. Consensus, or any change, is needed there first. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree apparently has been superseded by continued coverage in which big media outlets have dropped that caveat. Don't see where suggested (present-tense) blurb above, minus "apparently," conflicts with article, which appears quite complete. Why wait? Sca (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose update the current blurb is factually 100% correct. Other suggested blurbs, although based on the reports in major news outlets, are still based in speculation.  The best an updated blurb could do would be to say that it was concluded from the voice recorder that it was a deliberate act.  We're not tabloid, there's nothing wrong at all with sticking with the facts that the plane crashed into the Alps and everybody died.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * BLP does not apply if we say "Authorities indicate the co-pilot of Germanwings Flight 9525 deliberately flew into a mountainside, killing all 150 on board." Given this is the unanimous declaration of all authorities involved and in every press source reticence is baseless. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Unanimous" is an awkward concept here. There if one investigating body - the French BEA. There is only one black box - the CVR. There has been one analysis of that CVR. Essentially this is what the French prosecutor has decided (although, admittedly, the evidence does look compelling). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are we more virtuous than than the most respected journalists? Sca (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd vote yes for that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support update. We follow the sources.  Our job is not to reach our own personal conclusions.  The sources are reporting the conclusions of the French authorities, so we report the conclusions of the French authorities.  Suggest the blurb say "French authorities conclude that the co-pilot of Germanwings Flight 9525 deliberately crashed in the French Alps, killing all 150 on board."  There's no need to speak in Wikipedia's voice, but there is a responsibility to match reliable sources on this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a very reasonable compromise. Would support. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I will also support that blurb. 331dot (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose update. The existing blurb is simple, short and factual. Any reader who wants to know why it crashed can click on the link and read the article. We should be very careful about reporting an ongoing investigation, clear as it might seem what the conclusions will be, particularly in a short blurb which cannot capture all the nuances. As for the most recent blurb suggestion: French authorities have provided an update on their current interpretation of the crash - they won't 'conclude' anything until their investigation and final report are complete. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 00:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Jayron's suggestion (if someone can make it fit). Here, from Reuters, is another version of the same idea: "French prosecutors believe Andreas Lubitz, 27, locked himself alone in the cockpit of the Germanwings Airbus A320 ... and deliberately steered it into a mountain, killing all 150 people on board."
 * Prefer "Airbus A320," which adds information, to "Flight 9525," which could be any type of plane.
 * The time is now! Clock simple.svg Sca (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * PS — How about: "French officials indicate the co-pilot of Germanwings Flight 9525 deliberately crashed the Airbus 320A in the French Alps, killing all 150 on board." – ?? Sca (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose update based on incorrect claim this would be the conclusions of the French authorities. Jean-Pierre Michel, the head of the French investigation agency, said that some technical details of what precisely happened to the Airbus A320 aircraft were still missing. “At the moment we can’t rule out the hypothesis of a technical fault,” Michel told the French channel BFM TV. LoveToLondon (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Indian Supreme Court strikes down section 66A of IT Act

 * Oppose: Possibly notable in India, but has little to no bearing on the rest of the world and is getting little play in the media. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Has this been under challenge all along? Does it mean that any convictions will be vacated?  A rationale on the impact would help.  I read the article but it was pretty cut-and-dried. μηδείς (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like the law was used in 2012 to arrest two people that posted something critical, which was based on a vague interpretation of the law (as I read it). This would be equivalent to the US's Child Online Protection Act (and various other attempts to regulate speech on the internet). --M ASEM  (t) 19:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources the Hindu, and The India Times, say "many arrests". But no detail is given on convictions, imprisonment, etc.  I would be supportive if there were imprisonments, but if it was just abused, randomly enforced, and challenged from the start it's a bit different.  We need clarity and more informative sources. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Tentative support See my comment to Medeis above, but this would be the equivalent of the SCOTUS striking down a law used to limit free speech, which while only would affect the US directly, did have worldwide impacts. India is far from tiny and would have a similar impact if the law was upheld. So seems reasonable to post. --M ASEM (t) 19:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: ITN didn't post the passage of a far more restrictive law in the Philippines in 2012. – H T  D  19:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Large numbers of multi-national companies operate from India, so this has an impact far beyond that country. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Normally this would not get my support, but India is the world's second most populous country with a massive and globalized IT sector. As such the potential ramifications are a bit more noteworthy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd still like a little more information. We didn't post it when the Canadian government Human_rights_complaints_against_Maclean%27s_magazine repealed its hate speech provisions after the high-profile trial and acquittal of Maclean's, Mark Steyn, and Ezra Levant, after several people's lives had been ruined.  Basically, if people are being released from jail sentences on this ruling I will support it, but I don't have the sources.  Not having seen "India releases dozens after SC overthrows anti-free speech law" I am not inclined to at this point. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The phrasing seems a bit problematic. The sources state that the Supreme Court struck down the law because it violated freedom of speech as guaranteed by the constitution. Saying "which was used to curtail freedom of speech on internet" is both potentially violating NPOV and leaving out critical information that it was struck down because of the Supreme Court's decision that it violated freedom of speech. Also, the sentence should probably begin with "The". --Yair rand (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I checked the article to see if there were sources there not mentioned in the nomination that make this clearer. I found the criticism section is still referring to 66a in the present tense.  Regardless of merits, the article itself is not ready. μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Largest asteroid impact ever

 *  Tentative support These reports usually include a peer-reviewed paper to affirm the scientific analysis. I don't see one listed in the BBC article but I assume one can find it, as showing this would clear support then. --M ASEM (t) 06:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nix that, I see the journal listed in the article now (it wasn't a name I quickly recognized). Support. --M ASEM (t) 06:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I have proposed an alternative blurb, because the first could be read as "biggest in Australia" (i.e. not the world). I will comment on whether I support the nomination after the article is updated. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How is it that the East Warburton Basin article was created on February 20? Does this not mean the item is stale? Abductive  (reasoning) 07:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - created in 2013. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  10:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose as stale. Two years.... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Two years for them to find and validate that 1) it was a meteor impact 2) the timing of the impact and 3) the size of the impact, all through peer-reviewed processes. This is a standard "delay" for scientific process, and the norm when we do post scientific stories that we wait for the peer-reviewed work to appear, not on original claims. --M ASEM (t) 13:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, so the blurb is wrong. They confirm it is a meteor impact, not "discover it".... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: neither article has been updated to reflect this news, and the one on the crater itself (presumably the one to be bolded) is too short to post. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait the impact hasn't been dated yet, that would be a good time to post. Right now we have a preliminary confirmation it's due to an impact, but not much more than that. μηδείς (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, unless certain issues are addressed. The current news seems to be a re-estimate of the size, correct? But also the article says there were two 10 km impactors, so is this crater really one 400 km crater or two overlapping craters? Why is the age estimate so shoddy, and can it be improved? Finally, I would very much like a map in the article before even considering posting. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Clearly some issues with the research here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The age estimate isn't shoddy, it's just these are deep old impacts which have been burried over time, and which had associated mantle unpwelling, further complicating the issues. Normally things are dated by a layer (KT Event) or by the layer in which they are found.  This is a huge structure that basically obliterated the normal layering processes, and which has subsequently been covered over.  A good answer as to age might take years.  I still think we should wait until something like "The Australian impact has been determined to date to the Permian extinction" or the like before posting, as that would be the essential fact of the event. μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] A Rape on Campus

 * Opppose if there were a defamation win or settlement it might be worth posting, but in this case good news is no news. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The ongoing campus rape epidemic is a problem, but the fact that one story was fabricated isn't going to pass muster at ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - so this current news is that previous news was false? So there's nothing substantive. I don't recall the previous news making to ITN anyway. Next. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  02:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Starship.paint read my mind. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Agree with above - this is not really a ITN-type posting. If this might lead to a defamation lawsuit, then the results might be of interest, but this is not at this stage. --M ASEM (t) 02:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wait until a defamation lawsuit goes though. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Protests over the murder of Farkhunda

 * Oppose Protests happen worldwide. If the protest itself have significant impact than just happening, then that might be a reason to post. --M ASEM (t) 02:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not particularly significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Sad, obviously, but seems like a fairly minor event. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

2015 Indian swine flu outbreak

 * Oppose for same reasons - swine flu outbreaks in this part of the world are not uncommon. --M ASEM  (t) 05:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Outbreaks of swine flu may not be uncommon in India, but ones that kill 2000 people are considerably rarer. Neljack (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose the timeline of events goes up to 2 March, if this is really for "Ongoing", we ought to be seeing more than just a tabular update of deaths more than once in three weeks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait US researchers disagree with Indian researchers about whether the strain is mutating (Reuters Al-Jazeera). This is more likely to be ITN worthy if other journals publish that the virus is mutating to a more contagious strain - or if there is a case overseas. -- Aronzak (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM; I think there needs to be more happening with this than just the number of deaths being updated. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose the high death rate per infection seems compelling, but I fear this may be a statistical artifact due to every death, but not every infection being reported. In any case, were I looking for factual information, I would come to wikipedia for comprehensive, non-alarmist coverage, and we have a very good article on this. Looking at swine fu in general, 20,000 + in the US, with a third the population is record. μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - high number of deaths. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment for those in support, can they clarify whether they'd like a blurb or an Ongoing post please, it's not clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ..-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 03:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support due to the unusually high number of casualties (prefer ongoing, but blurb would be fine). Judging from the examples in List of epidemics, an event like this occurs only about once a decade. Mamyles (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The death toll is enough to ring the ITN bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support a blurb - In regards to The Rambling Man's comment above, I don't know about previous cases of an item becoming "ongoing". But to me, it makes sense that an item like this receive a blurb first if it is ITN worthy, then move to ongoing if it remains ITN worthy after a significant period of time (i.e. there are enough newer items to replace it in the list of blurbs). AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand, the article hasn't had a prose update for three weeks, why would you think that would make it appropriate for a blurb? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb: Ongoing seems too far, too fast, but thousands of deaths from illness is significant. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand, the article hasn't had a prose update for three weeks, why would you think that would make it appropriate for a blurb? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer a blurb, but ongoing would be fine too. Neljack (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted as Blurb] RD: Lee Kuan Yew

 * Support with article fixes - Keeping in mind that last week, his death was falsely reported, this seems like the real thing now. The article has several citation needed tags and paragraphs w/o citation. RD is clear and evident for importance, of course. --M ASEM (t) 20:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As above - No doubt over significance, this man turned a small port into a booming economy and had a father-like reputation to the people he ruled over. Just fixes here and there needed. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - major figure. a blurb is appropriate--BabbaQ (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and marking ready per this week's updates. I can't imagine there will be any opposition to posting this major leader's passing. 21:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment it would be better if we could post an article without eight [citation needed] tags. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are no citation needed tags in the article. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While there still remain a few para without citations, this wasn't as bad as when I commented above, and is reasonably good shape for posting. --M ASEM (t) 22:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Tag away, but it's dinner time for me, and I really think this is ready to be posted. Problematic paragraphs should be hidden at this point unless they are essential. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and propose blurb - Lee Kuan Yew (pictured), the first Prime Minister of Singapore, passes away at the age of 91. - he's above RD in my opinion. It would not be a stretch to consider him the most important Singaporean ever. Seriously, can anyone name a more prominent or influential Singaporean? He was part of the Singaporean Cabinet pre-independence from 1959 to post-independence in 2011. After Singapore gained independence in 1964, he was Prime Minister for 25 years from 965 to 1990. Sources for "founding father" of Singapore: Los Angeles Times / China Post / BBC News / Associated Press.  Time says he "Made Modern Asia". Wall Street Journal says he "dominated Singapore politics for more than half a century and transformed the former British outpost into a global trade and finance powerhouse, setting a template for emerging markets around the world". The Guardian says he is "widely credited with building Singapore into one of the world’s wealthiest nations" . starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  22:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A blurb seems a possibility here, given his importance to Singapore's independence. --M ASEM (t) 22:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * He didn't only contribute to independence. He additionally 'raised' a young country after that. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  22:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support RD, oppose blurb Obviously had a huge impact on Singapore, but I'm not sure his global impact rises to the level I would want before supporting a blurb. Neljack (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - since when was global impact a criteria? If so, earlier this month we featured as a blurb the deaths of 3 French athletes killed in a helicopter crash in Argentina. Assuredly, their combined global impact was much lower than Lee's. Perhaps you'll like to read the Washington Post : "But the departure of Lee could also have implications for the United States ... Washington has for decades relied on Lee to interpret events in Asia for it." starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  00:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The French athletes were not posted just because they were athletes; they were posted because of what happened to them; i.e. an event. Blurbs for deaths are generally for either those at the tip-top of their field(such as Margaret Thatcher and Nelson Mandela) or whose death was sudden and unexpected(like Robin Williams).  Is this person in the same league as Mandela and Thatcher? 331dot (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * From reading, while not have as wide a range of impact as Mandala did, as Starship has pointed out, he is considered to have single-handedly influenced the creation and rise of economic prosperity of Singapore. --M ASEM (t) 00:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - if the field is Singapore, he's the top person. No question. IMO, even bigger than Mandela and Thatcher to their respective countries. The UK and South Africa existed before these two statesmen. Independent Singapore didn't exist when Lee took the helm. The Hindu: "a towering figure in post-colonial Asia oversaw tiny Singapore's transformation transformation from British tropical outpost to an affluent, global city in just over a generation, setting the example for developing economies from China to Dubai". starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  00:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * At this point it's a farce he's not at least on RD yet. Singapore is the third, fourth or fifth richest company by GDP per capita depending on which source one uses, IMF, CIA or World Bank.  There are no tags, the article is hugely supported, and we've got both Thatcher's and Obama's endorsements.  What else do we need?   Users who look to the front page can at least click there. μηδείς (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

source: US P Obama: "giant of history". UK PM Cameron: "Lee Kuan Yew personally shaped Singapore in a way that few people have any nation". Aus PM Abbott: "giant of our region". UN head Ban: "legendary figure in Asia". starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  01:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD and blurb - According to this report, Henry Kissinger called him one of the “asymmetries of history.” Margaret Thatcher said “he was never wrong.” Barack Obama called him “one of the legendary figures of Asia.” Tony Blair said he was “the smartest leader I ever met.” Samuel Huntington said he was one of the “master builders” of the 20th century. - A1candidate  00:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted as RD It seems like this may be heading for a blurb, but I'll let the conversation marinate a bit longer. --  tariq abjotu  00:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tariq. I'll say oppose blurb more as a comment than a vote, since he died of old age, but a blurb would certainly not offend me. μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. He rises to the Mandela/Thatcher level of importance, due to key role in the transition to independence, and his extremely long and influential time as prime minister. -LtNOWIS (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - father of a nation, a giant of our era, as Obama said. Definitely worthy of a blurb. -Zanhe (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted as blurb --  tariq abjotu  01:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - just checking should the nomination be updated and would it be appropriate for me to do it? starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  02:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The nomination is fine the way it is. --  tariq abjotu  02:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] US State Department to deny any Italian extradition request for Amanda Knox

 * Oppose of little significance whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's part of the legal case, we only care on the final decision that comes out. --M ASEM (t) 20:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as Masem says, this isn't the end of the matter yet. Possibly, maybe, when the court rules in Italy. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This was inevitable and is only a single maneuver in a long-running legal matter.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * After the close, of course, but I see that this current BBC article gives no indication that the US will pre-empt any extradition attempt. It appears to still be an open question. Hence, good close. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that the Italian supreme court has closed the book on this case today, maybe a final mention of it would be appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * New blurb: "The Italian Supreme court overturns the overturning of a verdict made by a court that was asked by the Supreme Court to review a verdict of an appeals court that had overturned the verdict of a lower court." Count Iblis (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's one way to put it. Another is "Italian Supreme Court issues final ruling..." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Inauguration of Namibian President

 * support - political history.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The elections should have been posted, not inauguration per usual practice. Brandmeistertalk  14:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The election would have been the point this should have been ITN. It looked like no one nominated it then (its at Current Events for Nov 2014 but no ITN as far as I can see). --M ASEM (t) 15:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose we do not do inaugurations, it is doubtful the inauguration itself is on ITNR. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose; elections are ITNR, not inaugurations(as stated on the ITNR page) thus I have removed the ITNR tag. Inaugurations are commonly attended by other heads of state. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Perro Aguayo Jr.

 * Comment A wrestler dying from the end result of a spinal cord injury is not very surprising. But it's also the case that this is not a worldwide known figure who's death has a major impact (compared to Margaret Thatcher, Nelson Mandala, or Robin Williams). Note that I have not evaluated this as an RD, only commenting on the blurb aspect. Also we need a source. --M ASEM (t) 04:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a source. I mean that in this case, the death is the story, as opposed to death of old age. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure at all that he meets the death criteria, but I know basically nothing about Mexican wrestling. Is he just a famous wrestler, or is he generally considered significant to the sport? The bigger story does in fact seem to be that he died in the ring, so a blurb might actually be the way to go here even if he doesn't meet WP:ITN/DC, but I'm not particularly enthusiastic about either option. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Deaths even during combat sports are actually quite rare, and this one happened in a scripted version of wrestling. Nergaal (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say this should be a blurb if posted, due to being sudden, unexpected, and an unusual passing(during his work) but like Bongwarrior I know little of Mexican pro wrestling and am not sure he is considered significant to it. 331dot (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * After some thought, support blurb. This shouldn't be approached as a regular death listing - as I said above, I suspect he wouldn't qualify, although I could certainly be wrong about that. The notable aspect of this story is that a sportsperson died during a match, although studio wrestling doesn't exactly match the definition of "sport" as we know it. Deaths in wrestling aren't unheard of, but they aren't exactly commonplace either. This seems interesting enough to me, and it's getting coverage. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I will support this for reasons similar to those of Bongwarrior, and I have suggested a blurb(please change if needed). There is one citation needed tag in the death section but otherwise there seems to be enough added to the page about it. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Sad, but a wrestler died in a wrestling accident. Similarly, we don't generally post deaths in boxing accidents or any other potentially deadly sport (maybe except Formula 1). Weak oppose because I don't know the scale of his fame. If Muhammad Ali or Tyson would have died after boxing accident in their prime, then we'd certainly have posted them, but not sure whether this merits. Brandmeistertalk  08:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * support - article ready basically, notable subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * oppose for blurb and weak oppose for RD on notability. Was this guy one of the top luchadores at the time of his death? μηδείς (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless someone can adequately demonstrate that he was the Mexican equivalent of Hulk Hogan. The article is well referenced but is full of awfully non-encyclopedic language and hardly rises to the level of a "quality article".  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * He's described as "one of the biggest stars in Mexican pro wrestling." – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not quite Hogan big, but something like the Mexican Ted DiBiase. A second-generation, long-time, big-name heel who was "legit enough" to lead a major stable (bigger draws than The Million Dollar Corporation). InedibleHulk (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Wrestling rings are typically constructed to provide some give, particularly with respect to taking bumps, but also with other aspects of movement. In Mexico, like with other places in the world which thrive on unorthodox wrestling styles, the highly acrobatic style known as lucha libre came to be largely due to the hardness of the rings (boxing rings may be used at times), given the physical toll involved in wrestling a more mainstream style.  While shocking, this could qualify as not so unexpected due to those conditions.  I wouldn't consider this death as spectacular or possibly even as well-reported as that of Oro over two decades ago, more like a freak accident.  While a major star, I likewise wouldn't consider him iconic the way I would Mil Máscaras. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  08:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - even as a member of WikiProject Professional wrestling like RadioKAOS above, I've actually only vaguely heard of this guy (or more probably, heard of his wrestler father). He might have been a star in Mexico (but I don't think he won many major titles), but he wasn't an international star in professional wrestling. In this day, you'd pretty much have to be a wrestler who has wrestled in WWE to be an international star. NJPW in Japan is a way away. Mexican lucha libre doesn't have much international outreach. I agree with RadioKAOS - if it were Mil Máscaras, it would be another issue - that's a true star. Or maybe Rey Mysterio Jr. who was with WWE. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  12:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Upon further reading, seems to me that Aguayo Jr. was indeed pretty big in Mexico in 2004-2008 at least, perhaps even the #2 wrestler. I wasn't actively watching or reading about wrestling in that time. But he was still not the #1 star at the time, that would be Mistico. Other Mexican stars include Jr's dad Perro Aguayo and Konnan in the 1990s. If you're talking Japan, see Antonio Inoki, while Keiji Mutoh has had a lot of international exposure. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  12:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. As I read the above comments, I find myself opposing this more. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending article quality A death during a professional sporting event is extremely rare; all the same arguments for posting the death of Phil Hughes apply here. I do, however, note TRM's concerns over article quality.  GoldenRing (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 New York City house fire

 * Strong oppose Tragic event, but nowhere near far-reaching significance for inclusion on ITN. --M ASEM (t) 02:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is also an article that fails WP:NEVENT. We are not a newspaper. --M ASEM (t) 02:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Certainly tragic, but fires that kill this many people routinely happen all over the world. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose no interest to international Wikipedians. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How do you know? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And though I too think this doesn't rise to ITN level, international interest is not required; events can relate to few or one country(any country) and still be posted if they are updated, covered in the news and sufficiently notable. As stated above, "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." (though your comment is not a "complaint") Two UK news sources seem to think it is of interest to their readers. 331dot (talk) 07:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is being considered for deletion per WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. A 2012 factory fire that killed over 120 in Bangladesh was notable because factories in Bangladesh produce goods shipped all over the world. I should clarify, by "no interest" I meant "not ITN worthy outside the country" (unlike if it is clearly related to corruption in Bandladesh and international discussion around consumerism and globalisation). Admins can hat this section as going offtopic -- Aronzak (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose and delete. This is a tragic event but this unfortunately happens far to often. &mdash; Jonny Nixon - ( Talk ) 07:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Deletion of the article should be discussed in the correct forum; this is merely to discuss posting to ITN. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If ITN has a red-link, that could make Wikipedia look silly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Snow Close this is a bleeds it leads headline, yes, but unfortunately a rather mundane event. μηδείς (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Capital of Yemen

 * Support: Important news in war-stricken state. I would also support a "Yemen crisis" in ongoing, as things are becoming serious out there. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Interesting. Feels ITN/R-y, though I suppose something as infrequent as a capital change doesn't need a listing. Joshua Garner (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - important news. interesting..etc.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Article has a well deserved orange tag for lacking sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that. Well, the main link could be Yemen, I suppose, which is in much better shape than Aden. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest 2014–15 Yemeni coup d'état? --M ASEM (t) 02:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Or Aftermath of the 2014–15 Yemeni coup d'état? (Noted, both are well sourced articles and only are going to be improved with translations of more localized newssources in time). --M ASEM (t) 02:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Those could be good. It's clear the Yemeni crisis needs more representation on ITN than just the mosque bombings. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Is al-Hadi still even the President? He said he resigned a month ago. The Houthis hold the power in the real capital, Sana'a. This seems like a desperation move that won't have any real influence on the current situation in the country. I do support adding the Crisis in Yemen to the Ongoing list, however. --Tocino 01:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether he is President or not seems unclear; he 'rescinded' his resignation but the Houthis apparently are still trying to run the country- though he is still recognized by the international community as President. Hard to say. 331dot (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Is the fact the UN Security Council planning to have an emergency meeting on this tomorrow (Sunday) important to blurb too? . --M ASEM (t) 02:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Even if who is considered to be in charge is unclear, there seems to be enough developments here to have some sort of listing. 331dot (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 10:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 Six Nations Championship

 * The article has 945 bites of prose. Surely we can do better before posting. Otherwise I'll oppose on quality. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: an exhilarating and exciting championship that wasn't decided until the closing seconds of the final game. A total of 660 points across the 15 games, yielding an incredible average 44 points per game. A beautifully clear, well-constructed and meticulously accurate article, with links to every official match report. Not sure that any amount of "prose" could adequately describe the progress or outcome of this competition. And why should it. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Because as somebody who doesn't know the intricacies of rugby, all I see are these images that convey no context to me and I can't follow any of it. This article needs prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest you start here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * People who would see 2015 Six Nations Championship on the main page shouldn't be expected to look for Rugby union. They should be able to click on the link and understand enough from that one page alone. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just like 2014 World Series? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 2014 World Series has 25kb prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And that explains "all the intricacies", yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said "all the intricacies" should be explained. 2014 WS was sufficiently updated with prose. As everyone else agrees, this article is not. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Three people agree. Two people think the proposed blurb is fully supported by the update. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose, until expansion. One hundred and fifty words and a wall of tables. No match summaries; no background; no general summary, etc... Seattle (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose at the moment. Given the absolutely incredible last day of games, in which (I think I'm right in saying) 27 tries were scored across the three matches, we could use some summary of the final week section at the very least.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Chuck Bednarik

 * Support when improved Legendary American football player meets the death criteria. Article needs improvements, especially in sourcing. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose a seemingly prominent American footballer with a strikingly weak article. The "Pro football career" section requires serious sourcing, and, given the alleged significance, a substantial expansion, particularly as it's comparable in size to the rather odd (and full of unattributed unreferenced quotes) "Opinions on current NFL players" section.   The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support if improved a famous name in football, enough so that I who don't follow the support know who he is, but it's obvious the article needs refs. μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support WWII pilot, number one overall draft pick, the last two-way player at his position, Hall of Famer, relevant in the sport even fifty years after he retired, it's clear Bednarik is noteworthy. The article has been improved in the last 24 hours as well. --Tocino 01:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality alone. Large stretches of unreferenced claims with contentious language. Notable subject or not, it's a mess. Challenger l (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Keith O'Brien resigns

 * Comment Blurb should mention sexual misconduct, eg "Keith O'Brien resigns the privileges he had as a Catholic cardinal after admissions of sexual misconduct." The article has a little too much Vatican cruft and euphemistic waffle right now. -- Aronzak (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OpposeThis is the place to feature good articles of widespread or encyclopedic interest. We certainly wouldn't post this person for RD.  The only rationale I see here is righting great wrongs, and that is a deprecated criterion. μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The consensus is only to post convictions. Administrative actions taken by employers are beneath interest. Abductive  (reasoning) 14:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not surprising, barely newsworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Sana'a mosque bombings

 * Support as mass-casualty attack, although I'd prefer ongoing status for the Yemen events. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say this is a good first step towards that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support though would like to see the article expanded more before posting. Should we note that ISIS has claimed responsibility for this? --M ASEM (t) 18:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I can do that now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I actually edit conflicted in attempting to nominate the same thing.  If the current numbers hold up (130+ dead, 340+ wounded), this attack appears likely to eclipse the 2012 Sana'a military bombing as the bloodiest terrorist attack in the history of Yemen.  ISIS has publicly claimed responsibility.  Admittedly, Yemen is a violence prone area, but this is an exceptional event even for that region.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Query. Wasn't it four bombs at two mosques?  The suggested blurb says four mosques, which I believe is inaccurate.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right. I fixed that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support first blurb, oppose alt blurb (at this time). It is not yet known exactly which group carried out the bombing, as mentioned in the article. Mamyles (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I recommend changing the first blurb to have the number be less absolute. The number of deaths is rapidly changing at this point. I've changed it to say "kill more than 130 people." Mamyles (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support first blub. This is exceptional even given the context of the ongoing fighting in Yemen. -LtNOWIS (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Any incident involving 100+ deaths is notable, as a rule of thumb. Joshua Garner (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - notable. 100+ deaths.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - very notable event, was coming here specifically to nominate/support this being included. Joseph2302 (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted - Article is brief, but acceptable considering the importance of the event. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Rae Bareli Derail

 * Comment Does this nomination refer to the subject of the article 2015 Uttar Pradesh train accident? If so, that should be the target article. Everymorning   talk  12:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. But its a stub and I spotted it now. -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 13:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a stub now! Mjroots (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's fairly close to being ready. The article was two sentences when I looked at it earlier, so very nice work by everyone there. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Significant transport accident, and very much in line with the types of incidents we normally post. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - whilst train crashes in India are not that rare, this one has a higher death toll than most. Mjroots (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose in current state. The article is still a bit small, and the text is just a series of disjointed sentences along the lines of "Photographs show that the carriage next to the locomotive was severely telescoped." Also, rail accidents are unfortunately not rare in India, and unless there's something more notable, like a criminal act, or odd cause or notable death it seems just to be a traffic accident (no disrespect) that will be unlikely to draw much encyclopedic attention. (I.e., "not the news") μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * if you can improve the article, please feel free to do so. Six sources immediately available for you to use. Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I do, on many occasions, improve articles that are nominated and borderline for quality. But given I feel this lacks sufficient notability I would rather spend my time elsewhere.  You'll note I opposed the Metro North derailment (fewer casualties) vehemently, and am normally on the side of not posting transportation accidents unless there is some more notable issue like criminality, an inordinate death toll, or an already notable victim. I know this matter hits home for the victims and locally, and I certainly mean no disrespect, but in the long perspective it doesn't reach the "showcase" level. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Death toll now 58, ALT blurb added to reflect this. Mjroots (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Solar eclipse

 * Support in principle. The last total solar eclipse observable from Europe until 2026 is very notable.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ALT blurb added. Mjroots (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Everyone loves a Britocentric blurb. – H T  D  09:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't know the UK had acquired the Faroes and Svalbard. Has anyone told them? Mjroots (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That was not only an absolutely ridiculous blurb, it was also grossly factually incorrect. The vast majority of the UK is not the South-East of England, for your information. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nowt wrong with my blurb, considering it was the one that got posted! Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The Wiki Gods are angry.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support to blurb 1 or 2. Laughed hard at alt 3. Greetings from a greyer than usual Berlin. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support article quality is good, prefer shortness of blurb 1. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - interesting, notable---BabbaQ (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I live in the United Kingdom and saw the eclipse fine, even if I did have to look at people through a spot of purple for about half an hour afterwards. Unless we're saying that anything outside London doesn't really count, which is fair enough I suppose. Formerip (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What!? UK editors outside London will be apoplectic! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, perfect unspoiled views here in Cardiff. I can only assume the second blurb was a joke as well? Who suggested that in the first place? 131.251.254.154 (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting, I'll go with the places blurb. --Tone 13:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: A lot of cloud cover in Yorkshire, although there I was able to get a lucky break about ten minutes before the peak. Sceptre (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Malcolm Fraser

 * Support pending updates. Former leader of a major industrialized country, seems an obvious RD candidate. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Obvious support on importance, but the article needs referencing throughout. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support former head of government of a major nation. Article is in great shape too. GA nomination any time soon? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is in poor shape. Several paragraphs lacking citations, at least one CN tag. --M ASEM  (t) 01:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Admittedly I took a quick cursory look, but it seems to be in decent shape to me, though it does need some more improvements. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. RIP &mdash; Jonny Nixon - ( Talk ) 06:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support 4th longest serving of 28 PMs, elected three times. -- ELEKHHT 07:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Head of government of a major nation. Citation tags can be fixed.-- Aronzak (talk) 08:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Arctic sea ice hits record low

 * Oppose Climate change is a cycle played out over hundreds of years, so I'd imagine this isn't just some spike happening this year alone, but rather a steady decline over those 30 years. In such a case, this is just an arbitrary milestone. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  16:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose "since 1979" says it all. A statistic based on how long we've been looking for something is interesting on the same principle behind why babies are fascinated by peekaboo. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Treaty signed integrating South Ossetia into the Russian Federation

 * Note: I think I've been doing most of the work on updating South Ossetian articles with the new developments today; personally, I would suggest South Ossetia as the linked article instead of the relations page, which has a lot of preexisting issues. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. I originally thought that Russia–South Ossetia relations would be the logical page to point to, but we may as well point to South Ossetia. -- benlisquare T•C•E 03:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. The provided news sources state that the treaty "calls for nearly full integration" while the blurb suggests that the treaty accomplishes that already.  A country formally adding part of another (or just another if you take the Russian position that S.O. is a country) to its territory is notable but the blurb might need to be changed here. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Next stop, the Sudetenland! I am of a mixed opinion on this. The annexation is already a fait accompli.  It's not a major news story (i.e., front apge) in the US, while Mrs. Obabama's having tripped while trying to curtsey in high heels is.  I am leaning towards support based on the historical significance, Putin seems like Hitler, trying to get back his "homeland" after it had been dismantled.  But the Ossetes are hardly Russians.  Last I remember the area had a population of 50,000. μηδείς (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * support - as it is a result of a very publicized war in 2008. a greater context.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Technically, South Ossetia didn't sign an accession treaty incorporating it into Russia as a new federal subject, like Crimea did. As such, less notable, yet expectable move from Putler. Brandmeistertalk  20:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Putler"? You win an <SMALL><SUB>AWARD</SUB> for that! μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In Russian it's a fairly well-known variation actually. Aside from Sudetenland, compare his first appointment by Yeltsin to the transfer of power from Paul von Hindenburg to Hitler, Yanukovych's escape from Ukraine to Gran Sasso raid, Sochi Olympics to Berlin Olympics, Chechen units from Russia in Ukraine to Hilfswilligen, Russia Today to Germany Calling, Dmitri Kiselev to Goebbels and female Putin's Army to the League of German Girls, while Putin is known to speak German fluently. Déjà vu. Brandmeistertalk  21:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I read somewhere recently that his German is just "passable." I wonder how that compares with Merkel's Russian? Sca (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe even though Merkel won Russian prizes in school, it is just "passable". Putin's German should be excellent though, since he spent years in Dresden recruiting German students. I believe they speak both in conversations with each other. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I read somewhere else that German was spoken, for some reason, in Putin's family. Mehr weiss ich nicht. Sca (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and hat this. From some points of view this could be considered mightily offensive, although I'm confident that is not your intention. Mamyles (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Let me make that official, since the annexation is not going to be internationally recognized. μηδείς (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)-

[Closed] 2015 Gothenburg pub shooting

 * Oppose: This incident does not seem to have been reported as universally as yesterday's tragedy in Tunisia. Given as media is often accused of focussing on the West more than the rest of the world, that's quite a sign that this isn't a major new story. Still RIP to those taken and condolences to all that knew them. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Reading the Guardian, this sounds like domestic-level problems "There have been dozens of shootings involving criminal gangs in Gothenburg, many of them in the Biskopsgaarden area - a housing estate with a large immigrant population and high unemployment - in recent years, however fatalities are relatively rare." So while deaths are rare, the violence is not a surprise, akin to how we look at shootings in the US nowadays. Tragic, unfortunately, but nothing akin to the scale of terrorism ala the Tunis shootings. --M ASEM (t) 14:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * support - as a really unusual incident in Sweden. Sweden is not USA we dont have alot of mass shootings. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No lasting impact, simple criminal activity. If it is shown to be terrorism I will change my notvote to neutral; even as a terrorist attack it is minor. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Lasting impact? it happened tonight dear. :D--BabbaQ (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Yes, this would be rare in Sweden, but by all accounts it looks like a 'normal' criminal incident. Not particularly newsworthy. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree that this seems to be a routine criminal case. Mamyles (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Tunis museum shootings

 * Support once fleshed out. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment It sounds like the situation is over (the two militants have been killed along with an officer, in addition to the 8 above), so we should start getting more information here. Note that 7 of the killed hostages were tourists visiting the museum, and as pointed out by the BBC article, this is literally next door to the main legislative building of Tunisia at the same time they were discussing anti-terrorism laws. --M ASEM (t) 14:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support when article is un-stubbed. Despite the usual flurry on deadly attacks, editing has been slow today. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Most sources - albeit only three hours since the attack - say 11 dead (8 tourist, 2 perps and one officer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Almightey Drill (talk • contribs) 10:10, March 18, 2015‎
 * Support: Major news worldwide. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 17:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for same reasons as above. Article looks ready, marking as such. Mamyles (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per above, and I agree the article is filled in enough to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  18:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has been moved (w/ redirect) to Bardo National Museum attack, could an admin adjust this in the ITN blurb? --M ASEM (t) 19:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Seat of the European Central Bank opening

 * As in, "built on the backs of European debtor nations"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I added an altblurb that mentions the name of the group that organized the protests, which seem to be the real story here rather than the opening of the building. Everymorning   talk  18:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Personal opinions aside, and not forgetting the US national debt is currently around $18 trillion, increasing by $2.3 billion per day, this story doesn't really appear to be in the news at all, at least not headlining. The article is okay, nothing to write home about.  Weak oppose from me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Doesn't seem to be generating many headlines, and doesn't seem that notable to me. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Israeli legislative election, 2015

 * Wait: Likud has clearly won the largest number of seats, but it still only has about a quarter of the Knesset's mandates, and it is far from clear who will form the next government. (From what I'm reading, Likud has the obvious advantage, but it basically depends on what the centrist, Arab, and ultra-Orthodox parties do.) -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am inclined to wait, as suggested by Kudzu1. But if the process of forming a coaltion is likely to be a drawn out affair (I'm not saying that it will be), would this news be notable separate from the forming of the government? If so, could this be posted now, then replaced if a government is formed whilst it is still on the front page? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. I think the blurb should be modified a bit to comply with the wording we usually use when posting elections.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Alt blurb does not say what country is being talked about. Not everybody in the world will know what Likud, Netanyahu and Knesset are. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just included that fact. Thanks for your remark.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yours is clearly and evidently better than mine &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 07:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support posting election now (the election itself is clearly in the current news cycle, so interest in the article will be high). We can cross the bridge of formation of a government when it happens, and depending on the time scale there are a number of options on how to handle that, but I see no benefit to not posting this today.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support As far as elections in non-English speaking countries go, this is a very good article.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alt. – Regional & international political significance. Suggest slight revision of word order: The ruling Likud party.... Sca (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alternate The "plurality" part is crucial. Joshua Garner (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ready 10kb expansion since yesterday. (Support Alt) μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  18:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Question for those familiar with the use of the term "plurality", should it really be "wins a plurality"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears to be the case. Perhaps we can double check these things in future before rushing them to the main page?  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I though we weren't using 'plurality' any more anyway? It's a very region-specific term. There are perfectly good widely recognised alternatives, such a 'relative majority' or even a simple phrasing such as 'Likud wins the most votes' etc. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Given it's wikilinked, I think it's fine. You'd have the same issue in reverse with "relative majority". (I'm not American and I've only heard of plurality.) wctaiwan (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Should we delink Prime Minister? There are 6 links in the item, which seems a bit excessive. wctaiwan (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you even SEE the article before posting? Wheres the update? The results don't even have the seats listed and there is nothing else for an update.120.62.27.248 (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's 10kb of updating since 17 March. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

[Pulled] Remains of Cervantes identified

 * Support - Notable enough for ITN. -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 13:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - if only to get name of that convent on the front page. (Oh, and because Cervantes an internationally-recognised author, of huge stature, of course.) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This is a very interesting and significant discovery which deserves inclusion on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - exciting and highly notable discovery. -Zanhe (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – He was in a class by himself – and indirectly contributed a very useful adjective to English: quixotic. Sca (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending article improvements - Several paragraphs are without citations, and while this isn't a BLP, we still should wait until these are addressed. --M ASEM (t) 15:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - above reasons. Joshua Garner (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support once referenced there are massive swaths of the article without a single reference, sub-optimal. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm I don't understand the rationale for "identification". DNA tests have not been done. Nergaal (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems they only need the DNA analysis to identify his bones from those of a bunch of mates he was buried alongside. Shame they didn't wait until next year when it would have been exactly 400 years. It seems that the discovery of a casket with his initials on was the giveaway. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Then the article is not adequately updated because it does not explain that. Nergaal (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Now updated further. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Came here to nominate it myself. This is a very important discovery that has garnered attention worldwide. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 18:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It was known he was buried there, it was known his remains were moved and returned. They didn't even have to use DNA testing.  Basically just an act of cleaning out the basement, forgive the rough analogy.  The "discovery" seem mundane, and this would seem to belong as the featured article or in DYK. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Historian Fernando de Prado spent more than four years battling for funding to make this search. Then it took nine months, even with all that hi-tech equipment. "Didn't even have to use"? - they are still planning to use DNA testing, to confirm the identification? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You do realize saying that they plan to do DNA testing is a strong argument for not posting yet? μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was supporting because it's in the news now. If the DNA evidence is confirmatory, as seems likely, I suspect there won't be much of an additional story. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Neutral It's getting a lot play in the news but as has pointed out, this looks like over playing something fairly mundane. And yes, the article is not really up to scratch. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The small article Convent of the Barefoot Trinitarians has also been updated. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Doesn't seem really important to me compared to world events like wars etc. Also Medeis' makes a good point. Thue (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We aren't just about listing wars. We have listed other discoveries of lost historical artefacts, such as a Japanese warship and Richard III &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 06:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support once referenced. This isn't the war and bad news page, this is ITN.  This is getting much attention (whether it should or not) and is about a notable writer. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - once it is all ready for posting, this is definitely for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What else is needed? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Martinevans123 The section on his literary career is entirely unsourced. Given as that was this man's area of brilliance, the article must source that before it can be featured on the main page. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems entirely reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as an important story relating to the "Spanish Shakespeare." An a side note, it's fascinating that they used clues from his life to identify him.-RHM22 (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Eleven supports. Marked ready. Sca (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As a note the article is still missing significant referencing in some paragraphs. For the sake of ITN posting, we should be looking to have at least one cite per paragraph (presuming the cite covers the entire paragraph fairly). --M ASEM (t) 13:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to sprinkle some more Britannica fairy-dust. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  18:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Bad post, with a maintenance tag for the section about which Cervantes was most notable. Still, no longer surprised by this sort of thing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Pull until sourcing issues are addressed. There are four unsourced paragraphs in the 'Literary Pursuits' section. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Pulled. Maintenance tags? Nein danke.  Perhaps those who supported and posted hadn't looked at the article in detail.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Which four paragraphs? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The ones that you have now sourced. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * All good Martin, now just the works section tag to deal with, including unreferenced floral crap like "it is particularly worthy of attention, as it manifests the poetic direction in which Cervantes moved at an early period of life.".... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We can't heavily reference Brittanica though, can we, as is most of that section? Stephen 21:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Especially as Britannica now seems to be a lame mirror for Wikipedia.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made an effort. Go ask another hapless editor. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mind one way or another, and Donkey hasn't edited for a while so you'll need another hapless editor here sadly. I just think, when we claim we're posting "quality articles" at ITN, we genuinely live up to it, despite the bizarre consensus and even more bizarre posting of an article with grossly under-referenced sections and pure WP:OR writing.  It troubles me that many admins just blindly count votes and don't actually review article quality before posting.  But it's commonplace, so much so that perhaps I should just let it go and we post anything at all, as long as we have a numerical advantage for it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Repost this is an interesting different story. The article shouldn't have to be at FA/GA standards for it to be on ITN. I wonder if all the sticklers for refs would be happier if someone just slashed half of the info in the article so everything left "is referenced". Would that be of sufficient "quality" to go up? Nergaal (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the information that is uncited, presuming true, is useful encyclopedic information. I suspect that the existing sources already are sufficient as references, they just need to at least include a cite per paragraph (A rough bare minimum). If only one or two paragraphs were uncited, sure, that's probably, but this is not case (last I looked). --M ASEM (t) 21:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Always amusing to read people claiming we're looking for GA or FA standards. Far from it.  Perhaps these people aren't aware of what GA or FA standards require.  Here, at ITN, we're just looking to avoid masses of unreferenced text, sections with no references and original research.  It's really simple.  Alternatively, let's have an RFC that just seeks to allow us to post any old toss to the main page.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't wait. Just off to do some in-depth Spanish literary research. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Despite TRM's insistence -- and, honestly, I can't help but think that his quick pulling was just another dig at me -- I did look at the article. We don't need perfect articles for ITN. The relevant section is referenced, and it's in the midst of an article where the orange tags are section warnings for other sections. This standard is understandable in new, shorter articles where the entire article deals with the event. To apply that to longer articles, where there's significant information unrelated to the event, that seems like setting a different standard. But if that's the consensus for article quality, that's fine and that should be codified (right now, the criteria deal only with article tags). In the meantime, the pontificating from TRM based on his unwritten standards for quality is unnecessary. --  tariq abjotu  00:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The standard we are looking for is the same standard for all articles that are "featured" off the main page (not Featured Article, but anything bold-linked from this). DYK has a strong requirement on decent article quality particularly on sourcing and avoiding paraphrasing. There is no reason to weaken ITN's easily-met standards. And yes, while the relevant section is sourced, we are making sure the whole article is of respectable quality. --M ASEM  (t) 00:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Then change the criteria. Obviously there is disagreement on this. Right now, we have complaints about how the standards should be, not what they actually are. And while it is reasonable to take this position, the tenor from the pulling admin over non-codified rules is unnecessary. --  tariq abjotu  00:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That would require the Main Page criteria to be changed, and that requires a massive discussion (see FAQ/Main Page). Also, WP:ITN is clear we are looking for sufficiently-referenced articles. In this case, this should not be this hard. There's about a dozen-odd paragraphs that simply need one citation each presuming it can be met by existing sources. Shouldn't take much work. We're not even close to asking for GA-quality sourcing. --M ASEM (t) 03:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What? You can propose changes to criteria on WT:ITN; there's even a thread there regarding criteria already. And, no, WP:ITN does not say anything about sufficiently-referenced articles; it says sufficiently-referenced updates . It mentions article tags, but the way I read it that's talking about tags for the whole article, not about individual sections. And virtually all of the text regarding criteria is under a section simply entitled "Updated content".
 * The points about article quality and quality of updates are perennial issues here. It seems the criteria have been improved to describe what constitutes a sufficient update -- the criteria section at WP:ITN goes into great detail about what constitutes a sufficient update -- but little is said about overall article quality. It's obvious the criteria are not clear if there remains so much debate. We can change the criteria to say that red- and orange-level tags should not be anywhere in an ITN article (something objective) if that was what was intended. We can proscribe criteria that describe the overall state of the article.
 * Now, if there is no desire for that to be done, fine, but then we're going to have to live with these subjective discussions. And those gung-ho about having higher-quality articles in ITN will need to cease acting as if this issue is black and white and making flippant remarks in every thread about how this is "no surprise". Threads in individual nominations rarely lead to changes in practice, so if some see a pervasive problem, the talk page is that way. --  tariq abjotu  04:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the attempts at wikilaywering around the criteria for posting, let's stick with one of the key purposes of ITN, i.e. "To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events." Now if you consider articles with maintenance tags, masses of unreferenced claims and appallingly unencyclopedic writing to be "quality Wikipedia content" I'm not sure you should be posting items to the main page at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There really is no point arguing with you. If everything was really as clear as they are in the eyes of The Rambling Man, we wouldn't be having these kinds of discussions over and over. Rather than initiate a discussion that will lead to a clarification or change, you choose to go the route where you insist that everyone who disagrees with you is faulty. It's as if you enjoy lamenting about your recurring concerns in threads rather than starting a centralized discussion. I don't think that's productive, but godspeed. --  tariq abjotu  07:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The point of articles being put on the front page is to hopefully draw in new editors that are interested in the topic that can contribute to the article. To make that work, the article needs to be in "good enough" shape to show by example so these new contributors can understand what is expected. Poor citations is not one of those things, and why it is a sticking point here. There's enough uncited paragraphs to put into question how citation on WP works and new editors may add material without understanding the need to reference properly. --M ASEM  (t) 14:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, please refrain from posting such low quality articles in the future. No discussion is required unless it's to discuss certain individual's difficulties in determining what quality means. I am not, nor am I ever, alone in noting these errant posts of yours, just read the threads above. Try harder to maintain the quality of the main page please. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article still contains a huge number of citations needed for rather strong claims, and contains 'sentences' such as, "which was made into a film in 1972, directed by Arthur Hiller, and a song by Brazilian tropicalia-pioneers Os Mutantes." Although I have read him in both English and Spanish, I am no expert, and much work is needed by those more familiar with the subject.  Either that or mass deletion of unsupported claims. μηδείς (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This just in to the ITN newsroom: Miguel de Cervantes is still dead. Sca (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Repost - interesting article subject. if anything mess delete the unsupported claims. this should be in the ITN section. period--BabbaQ (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel we may be just "pissing in the wind" (as they say in La Mancha), over this one, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Internet Explorer ended

 * support definitely notable. and ITN worthy--BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Form the CNN piece, it appears that A) Microsoft is going to ship a new not-backwards-compatible browser (codenamed: "Spartan") based on a new platform independent from IE, and B) that the current IE (or something like it) will continue to be shipped with Windows to support legacy applications that need it, but that IE will be relegated to the background while the new browser is given emphasis.  If that's an accurate account, this "elimination" of IE doesn't seem very radical.  Dragons flight (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perfect case for recent deaths? – H T  D  23:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. It doesn't really seem like it's being eliminated, just supplanted.  From what I can read it will still exist for some time. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Talk of plans to 'eliminate' IE are just wrong - as Dragons flight notes above, IE will continue to ship, just not as the default browser. And, honestly, who cares?  People who care about which browser they use will 95% not be using IE anyway; people who don't care, well, they don't care.  GoldenRing (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for RD when they stop supporting IE. Hopefully they will bring back Netscape, the last browser that was not designed as if you belonged to it, rather than it to you. Oppose until there's a stake in its heart. μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not as significant as it seems. If W10 shipped with zero internet function, that might be a case, but just the end of one browser and the start of another. --M ASEM (t) 02:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Perhaps when support officially ends (January 10, 2023 at the earliest) I will support it, but until then, IE could hardly be considered "eliminated". Joshua Garner (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem and Joshua Garner. As an announcement of a plan, this is not worthy of being run on the front page. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. I almost spilled over my coffee to hear it but could find it not enough notable for being an ITN promo for Netscape in future. -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 03:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not sure why this seems to be in the news right now. Spartan being the default browser for Windosw 10 was announced back in January. As for Internet Explorer, it is not being "eliminated" (whatever that means) and will likely be supported for years to come. Isa (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

RD: Andy Fraser

 * Oppose: I don't see how he's all that notable. I've heard "All Right Now", of course, but I don't recognize any of his other work, and I'm a pretty avid classic rock fan. RDs are for people who are at the top of their field, or household names, or somehow otherwise very independently notable. I just don't think he qualifies under the criteria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not at the top of his field. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not seeing how he could be considered applicable for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm not seeing how this person meets the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose No awards, no recognition - I understand why fans would want him listed, but he doesn't remotely meet any RD criteria. Challenger l (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral – "No awards, no recognition" (don't know what that means exactly), hung up on hit singles, hmm. I'm reminded of Frank Zappa's monologue about "The Blowjob"; bass players generally don't rank very high on the totem pole.  While obviously lacking the celebrity stature of Paul McCartney, he certainly was a hugely influential musician.  I suspect we'll be having this same conversation somewhere down the road about Jack Casady, RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  09:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Xu Caihou

 * Oppose I am not seeing anything especially remarkable about the death of an allegedly corrupt Chinese general. He certainly meets GNG. But ITN/RD typically requires a much higher degree of notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article reads like that of a lot of midlevel American politicians who eventually get caught in some open scandal once they no longer hold any cards with which to defend themselves. Certainly no military hero or reformer. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Doesn't seem notable enough for ITN standards, doesn't seem to have international recognizability. Busy Moose (talk) 05:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Doesn't seem to be an important military leader, just someone who fell out of favor. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm dropping my oppose given the explanation below. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, and actually I'm quite appalled at the level of ignorance with the comments here (although I know it is probably unintentional), particularly those that describe him as "not important." Unfortunately seems to be the result of systemic bias. This has been the top story on almost all Chinese-language news portals, and is the top story on the main page of Chinese WP as a full ITN item. For what it's worth, we posted (on ITN) a full item regarding his expulsion from the Communist Party in June 2014, which was the top headline in the New York Times and BBC, also on every Chinese-language news portal around the world. This man was essentially the number-2 figure in the Chinese military for nearly ten years, subordinate only to the commander-in-chief (the president), as evidenced by this article from the South China Morning Post. I would put his notability to be around that of the U.S. Secretary of Defence and the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff combined, his military rank is equivalent to a US "four-star general", if we were to compare apples to apples, and it is somewhat sad that I have to do this comparison because of the scant knowledge about Chinese affairs on WP. Moreover, he is the highest-ranked military officer ever be implicated in corruption in PRC history. With these facts in mind, I would ask the users above to reconsider. Colipon+ (Talk) 14:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, of course it's headline news in China, but this is an RD nomination, and second in (a highly politized at that) military is simply not the top of a field, no war decorations, nor does the fact he was accused of bribery make him any more noteworthy. Calling editors ignorant is not the way to make the case here. μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I do apologize if anyone felt my comments were personally directed, they were not intended to be. Colipon+ (Talk) 23:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support we posted a story about this guy some 1-2 years ago. I think a fine rule for RD is if we posted it within the last 5 years it should be on RD also. Plus, from the explanation above, it seems to be something along the line of China's Dick Cheney. Nergaal (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dick Cheney? You mean he shoots people, and drinks children's blood? μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment User:Colipon offers a compelling argument. It's practically impossible for me to verify most of the article since the references are in Chinese, but given good faith that they're not a work of fiction, this is a mild support, hoping for more sources in English.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, per Colipon. The BBC calls him the "second most senior officer in the People's Liberation Army - made up of 2.3 million people - behind President Xi Jinping." and notes in an article before his death that he was the "highest ranking soldier ever prosecuted" . Espresso Addict (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Seems to meet notability criteria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending article improvements: I'm going to have to agree with the idea this would be equivalent to, say, the chiarman of the Joint Chief of Staff for the US. And this fellow was still in the position (as I read) when he died. RD is met, even if the number of English sources is low.  The article does have some paras w/o any inline cites, this needs to be fixed. --M ASEM  (t) 04:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem not to have read the lead paragraph of the article, Masem, where he was expelled from the PLA and stripped of his rank. We didn't post Tom Foley, third in line for the White House when he died, or famous gadfly James Traficant.  At least they held elective office.  Xu had no military distinction, led no military campaigns, held a sinecure, was a rent seeker, and sold influence.  None of that ammounts to an achievement or makes him influential as an artist. μηδείς (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, yes, I missed that, but there's still the fact he was stripped of that and was shortly to go on trial about this. That part makes the death "interesting" for RD. --M ASEM (t) 05:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That would make sense if he were shot after a show trial (and might deserve a blurb like all those friends of Kim in NK), or was poisoned to save the state embarrassment. This is just the case of a pathetic party hack ("political commissar of the 16th Group Army in 1990... was offered an air conditioner as a gift from a classmate... chief editor of the People's Liberation Army Daily newspaper... became the political commissar of the Jinan Military Region,") dying in old age of natural causes.  Being fired for corruption is not an accomplishment. μηδείς (talk) 05:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support With due respect to Medeis, wishing that a story wasn't a big item in news sources is not the same as recognizing that it is. This seems to be big news, (admittedly in China rather than an English-speaking country) and for that reason, this seems worth at least an RD note.  The article has a few clean-up needs, but nothing I would think would keep it off the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 05:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean by my "wishing". Do you actually think I am emotionally invested in this?  My point is to offer other points to consider, not jump on a bandwagon.  I am not troubled or offended by the posting. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per . The claim that the former highest-ranking soldier (outranked only by the Chinese president) of the world's largest army was not at the top of his field is simply laughable. -Zanhe (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted consensus to post and some good updates have taken place over the past few hours, well done to those involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Swine influenza in India

 * Oppose - Considering both the tiny amount of detail that the given source provides and the amount of detail in our article on this, this doesn't sound like an unusual thing in this region. (the source article gives "this season", implying that its an unfortunate reality). --M ASEM (t) 13:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless this is declared of epidemic proportions. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Relentfully Withdraw- Looks like this is going to be SNOW. -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 14:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Lahore church attack

 * Oppose Given the size of the list of the second article, this doesn't seem to be anything unusual or special, an unfortunate common event in that area. --M ASEM (t) 13:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Tragically, not an unusual event there.  331dot (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: This is not a usual event to ignore. Such attacks are rare in Lahore. This event should not be considered ordinary. —<span title="Wamiq" style="font-family:serif;color:#006600;border-radius:5px;border-top:2px solid #006600; border-bottom:2px solid #006600">ШαмıQ ✍ @ 14:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose just reading Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2015 (which is a better link than the second suggested linked article) enlightens us that this is commonplace and unremarkable. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Terrorist attacks like this is common in some parts of Pakistan, like the FATA, KPK, and Balochistan, but an attack on a church in Lahore is rare. Lahore is relatively peaceful. This is significant. (Update:) The news source above supports my statement. —<span title="Wamiq" style="font-family:serif;color:#006600;border-radius:5px;border-top:2px solid #006600; border-bottom:2px solid #006600">ШαмıQ ✍ @ 14:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this should be looked at with a more national eye than a local one; while it may be unusual in Lahore, it isn't for Pakistan. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Inter religious terrorist attacks are of concern to people of both the parties in various countries, and not just a specific country. Even in this particular country, attack on minority Christianity (is not very common in Pakistan), which is a world majority religion, is of significant interest religious communities especially to Christian religious community. --Samuelled (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 331, TRM. Besides, reluctant though one is to choose on the basis of body count, three times as many were killed in a bus crash in Brazil. Sca (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This type of deaths, which are caused by hatred/ideology is very different from deaths due to accident. And are more significant issue to be looked into than say a traffic accident. And current head count of deaths which has now increased to fifteen, and sadly increasing, is definitely not a small number. --Samuelled (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The group behind this has a very crooked ideology. They want to establish an Islamic State, and if the government doesn't agree to that, they'll kill Christians. Both ways, Christians lose. } —<span title="Wamiq" style="font-family:serif;color:#006600;border-radius:5px;border-top:2px solid #006600; border-bottom:2px solid #006600">ШαмıQ ✍ @ 16:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Terrorists are not known for adhering to rational thought. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No. See psychopath. Not for nothing was Hitler labeled The Psychopathic God. Sca (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A bit like Christians during the Crusades then, but the other way round? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * A Request Could we please refrain from posting editorial comments, a number of which appear rather incendiary and are likely to be offensive to some editors. This is not an appropriate forum for those kinds of posts. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What is offensive or incendiary? Everything I see written above is factual.  If you don't like the facts, that's another matter.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing fact with opinion. But again, this isn't the forum for that discussion anymore than it is an appropriate venue for attacks on religious groups. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM. The Crusades have no relevance to 2015 -- Aronzak (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing discussion with relevant and factual discourse with making attacks on religious groups. Again, if you personally find it offensive, that's a different matter altogether.  It may be worth your while appraising yourself of the article I linked, for some context.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Little to no mention of international significance in the article. I've added a section on violence to Religious discrimination in Pakistan - these events are part of a trend in Pakistan where the official use of the blasphemy law creates a culture of impunity for attacks on religious minorities - be they Hindu, Ahmadi, Sufi or Christian. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Attack on religious minorities is of concern to the civilized world. --Kinderlander (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Terrorist attacks with those levels of casualties are fairly common around the world. This also seems to be related to an ongoing matter. Busy Moose (talk) 05:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Bomb attacks on minorities in a religious center in Pakistan is not very common, also not common around the world. --Kinderlander (talk) 05:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support on principle. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Valentin Rasputin

 * Support Article does a reasonably good job situating him in is genre and describing his writing style.  Spencer T♦ C 02:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems to meet DC2 for his field, given his recognition. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support A major figure in his field. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted seems to meet the criteria and the article is decent enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Indian Gang Rape sparks large protests

 * Oppose unless protests are notable or come to something, this kind of disgraceful behaviour seems all too commonplace in India. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think there is enough here to raise this to ITN level attention. That may change, and if it does we can revisit the subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Respectfully oppose Morally disgusting behaviour to be condemned in the strongest words possible, but not reached the level of protest and questions asked as the 2012 Delhi case...yet, at least &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose; while getting much coverage, I agree with the above posters that this doesn't rise to ITN level. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Mohamed Nasheed

 * Support - Notable. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note - If reporting a former national leader being jailed is typically done here, this guy would seem to qualify. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support a former national leader being jailed is probably significant enough anyway, but when the guy is being jailed for terrorism (legitimately or otherwise) that definitely qualifies for ITN. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support A former president being jailed for an allegedly terrorism related offense is ITN worthy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Former head of state becoming incarcerated is newsworthy. Do not know enough about any aspect of the Maldives to know if this is legitimate incarceration or otherwise, but both of those options are still newsworthy &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Former heads of state being jailed for their activities (actual or otherwise) along with being named a terrorist is noteworthy. 331dot (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article needs the two sections referring to this amalgamating, out of date material removing, and the events need to be mentioned in the lead. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have trimmed it up Espresso Addict..-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 08:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Support A head of state going to jail merits inclusion (even a former one), although it's a country without a lot of influence on the global stage. Busy Moose (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted Per Espresso Addict, fixes look adequate. There are a few "cn" tags and maybe one or two other sentences that could use a cite, but that usually doesn't keep something from ITN.  Article is in decent enough quality now.  I tweaked the blurb to be a bit more complete and grammatically correct.   for the pic, there's a good one in the article infobox.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I found one in which Nasheed isn't smiling. —David Levy 17:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait, there are posting admins pinging David now? It's really not that hard to add a picture... --  tariq abjotu  18:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So do it yourself. Yes, there are admins who aren't confident in doing this, and it's a 10000% no-no to get it wrong.  Plus David is a Commons admin too. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, ok? I can, and I do, and I would have done the same here had I seen this first. I understand non-admins pinging David when they want a photo changed, but it's a bit strange seeing an admin doing it. We shouldn't be relying on just one or two admins to do this, especially when it -- as I said -- is not that difficult. Now, if Jayron knew how to, but just didn't feel like doing it/didn't have time, that's a different story; that's fine. But that's not the impression his request gave. --  tariq abjotu  23:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Jayron used to do it every time he posted a blurb, for many years, and literally every single time he did so he would screw it up, and every single time he screwed it up, David Levy would graciously and politely fix his screw-ups, so Jayron started cutting out the middle step and just pinging David to do it, since he had to clean up after him anyways. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * tariqabjotu: What, exactly, is your problem with someone who is willing to do something, being kindly asked to do it every so often, and then them doing it? Seems like regular Wikipedia collaboration to me. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 02:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I answered that question quite clearly in the comment that you just replied to. Maybe doesn't mind or otherwise enjoys being seen as the guy who knows how to add a picture to ITN. But why, exactly? What if he goes on vacation for a couple weeks? Is the section lost without him? Maybe one or two admins not feeling confident enough to add a photo is no big deal, but we shouldn't make this a thing, where David is the guy who adds images to ITN. And, as I said, the procedure is not very difficult and does not require Commons adminship. If the admin instructions still result in mistakes, the solution is to devise better instructions, not give up and put the task in the hands of a single individual. --  tariq abjotu  03:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No one has tried to stop you from doing it... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You'd think I was speaking Aramaic here. Anyone else have any points I've already addressed that they want to bring up again?
 * There isn't anything revolutionary in the idea that there should be more admins involved in this section aware of how to do a common task, and I'm shocked at the resistance to this concept. --  tariq abjotu  04:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a common task, but the process is a bit arcane, and as noted below, the fact that David is a Commons admin (whereas many of us are not) actually makes it easier for him. I did do this many times, for quite a while, and fucked it up so much that I just started asking David, because he was kind enough to clean up my mistakes so often.  I know you believe differently, but I'm not a total idiot, and jumping through the hoops to upload and protect the picture can be a bit of a hassle.  David is good at it, and people who are good at things who also don't mind doing it can be asked.  Your defense of David's free time is admirable, but let him speak for himself.  Again, if you want to do it yourself to save him the work, no one is asking you to NOT do it.  If David has no problems, you certainly have no reason to object to him doing it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 04:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are others who can do it, but (a) David is more efficient as he can ensure protection at Commons rather than a local upload, and (b) it's often not a case of lacking skills but rather lacking time or resources (there's no way I'll switch a picture while editing from an iPad, for example). Stephen 04:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Cropped images need to be uploaded locally anyway. Now whether waiting for David to do this is more efficient... Right. I give up. There's no point in me even commenting in this thread if nobody is going to read my comments. --  tariq abjotu  04:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think giving up would be a good idea, you don't seem to want to hear the many editors here. We all have things we're good at around here, and as there's no actual problem, I suggest this portion of the "discussion" which is entirely unrelated to the ITN item be collapsed.  The Rambling Man (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 06:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 Myanmar ferry accident

 * Weak oppose. I'm not sure this is notable enough to post; further, as the Reuters article states, "Marine accidents are common in Myanmar where many people have to rely on small, crowded and old boats for transport". 331dot (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – Alas, these ferry disasters seem all too frequent in the region. Sca (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose- The page is nowhere close to informative.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ferry accidents are unfortunately a bad and all too frequent type of traffic accident. Unless there is something else notable here, the number of deaths alone does not merit posting a nonce article.
 * Comment - unsigned, why is this article a paedophile? &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too quotidian and probably not enough deaths/damage to warrant ITN p  b  p  04:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

RD: Al Rosen

 * Note - Perhaps better known as an executive, so maybe there should be more emphasis on that part of his career. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I feel like Baseball Hall of Fame should be the minimum requirement for MOST former players/executives (Pete Rose would really be the only notable exception). Hit under .300, under 200 home runs, a little over 1000 hits and was one of the most error-prone third basemen in his day per . Only championship he ever won was as a bench player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'd be interested to see how many baseball players have won the "World" Series, he seems like "just another baseball player" to me, e.g. we don't post every footballer who dies who won the FA Cup.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I don't think he quite rises to the level needed to meet the RD criteria.  Baseball has been around a long time with many notable people which makes it harder to be "very important" to it; as TRM points out merely winning the FA Cup would not merit an RD posting. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note - I would say Rosen ranks as a good but not great player, also a respected executive, but is at best a borderline case for ITN. To the furriners out there, the term "World Series" has been around since the 1880s, at a time when baseball was pretty much exclusive to North America. The game is now widely played in Latin America and the Pacific Rim, but MLB is still the top level of the sport, with a strong international flavor to its rosters, so the term "World Series" still fits. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] World's first successful penis transplant

 * Support once it's expanded. Updates usually require three sources and a full five sentence prose paragraph. Should be simple to add doctor/team, etc., to reach full size. μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with a couple suggestions. First, should we be clear this was a human transplant or is that obvious enough? Second, I would suggest that the article could use a bit of improvement to state some of the things the BBC article mentions, that S. Africa is a place where this type of operation is needed due to botched tribal rituals. --M ASEM  (t) 02:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I am trying really hard to resist the temptation to a blue pun here. But yeah, it seems like ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As if anyone would be so superficial as to make a cheap and tasteless blue pun. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support p  b  p  04:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Posting this shouldn't be a hard choice.--125.70.124.36 (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems a notable medical advance.  Agree we might want to clarify this was a human we are talking about. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but, as already noted, it needs a lot of, erm, expansion first. Formerip (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added the word human to the blurb. Everymorning   talk  13:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support International significance for future surgical procedures in other countries. Would be good if someone from Wikiproject Medicine looked at adding a history of phalloplasty to the article to provide context. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - as User:Masem suggests, the back story is perhaps more significant, that "Dozens, although some say hundreds, of boys are maimed or die each year during traditional initiation ceremonies." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's good we finally got it up. μηδείς (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, nicely inserted. Formerip (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Cyclone Pam

 * Support: Deadly and powerful natural disaster. Article is long enough and well-referenced throughout. Only minor point of improvement is a couple of bare URL references. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait nothing to report as yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Seems obvious this is a major weather event impacting many thousands of people. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait but expecting to be posted once we have an idea of death tolls/damage. --M ASEM (t) 21:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This story will continue to develop over the next few days, but since the eye of the storm passed directly over the most populous island in the chain at category 5 intensity, it is clear that there will be massive devastation and a substantial death toll. Looie496 (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - major weather event.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Too soon This looks like a possible future ITN candidate. But we need to have more information and a better article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Will post - Once we have the impact information, this is definitely ITN worthy. Especially considering the historical strength of this storm... which should be mentioned in the hook somehow. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 23:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Article is still in need of further work, suffers from an abundance of irrelevant links per WP:OVERLINK and an over-reliance on primary data sources for referencing. 3142 (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - latest is 60 dead in Vanuatu. Mjroots (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support this should be posted now, the article is well updated, and it's a category 5 that has made landfall. It's absurd to think any formal issues won't be addressed or that people aren't already looking for this now. μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article currently has no information about the effects in Vanuatu. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hard to get, currently no electricity in Vanuatu...-- Stemoc 05:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait until it causes trouble to White people in New Zealand. – H T  D  09:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that a joke? 331dot (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * More like "satire". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Technically, it is irony, saying what you don't mean. μηδείς (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - The Cyclone has now moved on from Vanuatu and is tracking towards New Zealand. Multiple fatalities have been confirmed and the Cyclone is nearing the half-way point in its life. Definitely ITN worthy... 23:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrashesToAshes (talk • contribs)
 * Posted <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 12:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The current blurb is ungrammatical. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to rectify the matter. —David Levy 16:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, thank you. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Grazie. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 16:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Exceptionally strong and destructive storm. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Egypt's investment summit

 * Oppose based only on article quality. Right now it is a tiny stub of an article, so we don't have any content to highlight on the main page.  If someone can do the hard work of properly expanding and referencing the article to something to be proud to show off, I'd support this easily on significance.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Might support a blurb about the proposed new city if someone gets an article going. Formerip (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Proposed new capital of Egypt. Formerip (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to suggest a different blurb. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Conferences happen all the time. The fact that it took place doesn't merit an ITN blurb in its own right. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, they happen all the time, but some are significant enough to be posted here. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Nothing exceptional about this conference. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Any reason why a summit that was attended by several world leaders and delegates from 112 different countries, three of whom already pledged a total sum of $12bn, with huge projects that were already announced, including the new capital city megaproject, has "nothing exceptional" about it? I'd be thrilled to know. Why are BRICS summits (WP:ITN/R item) more "exceptional" than this one? If you had opposed due to article quality it would have been understandable. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Egypt is the third largest economy in Africa. 15 Heads of State and Government attended this conference. At least $12.5 billion has been pledged.
 * Alt blurb: A major economic conference is held in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. Ali Fazal (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose a conference with world leaders that pledges some cash? What is significant about this particular meeting?  We have them all the time.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the event garnered up to $45 billion as of this afternoon, so it's not "some" cash. Secondly, major projects have been unveiled during this conference, particularly the one regarding Egypt's proposed new capital city between Cairo and Suez. Thirdly, when was the last time an investment summit of this size took place? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand you're very keen to get this posted, but it's simply making the grade. By all means continue to answer every single oppose, but don't be surprised if it makes no difference.  Most here have a clue what's going to post at ITN.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't you come up with better arguments then, rather than patronizing me with those unnecessary remarks? I'm not keen on bludgeoning every oppose comment that shows up here, but I will address badly informed !voters, unless it bothers you of course. I know you can do better than that. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not obligated to supply you with "better arguments" nor am I "patronizing" you. Meetings like this happen all the time, so called "commitments" for various investments happen all the time.  The level of quoted investments here seem to match those at regular shows like Farnborough Airshow.  And those deals are usually done and dusted, not just political talk.  I have nothing more to add here, this is a locally interesting story which isn't really in the news and may have some interest to a microcosm of our readership, but given most of it is show-and-tell, I doubt it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Pledges and proposals fly around quite often. Summits happen often too. If anything tangible comes out of this, sure it should be posted, but until now it is just a summit where proposals and pledges have been made. We post few summits and ALL have had a worldwide audience, not just a country. Nergaal (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Attendance by delegates from 112 countries seems pretty worldwide to me. We have five summits on the ITNR list including one that has five countries attend (BRICS) and another with eight (the G8). 331dot (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support as a notable conference; announcement of a proposed new capital for a country adds to the notability as well as that doesn't happen too often. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I also feel that the announcement of a new capital, considering the 1100 year history of Cairo as one of or the dominant city of Egypt is the more news-worthy blurb. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it definite then? Or is it simply proposed?  It's unclear.  If the former, and Cairo will no longer be the capital, I could be more interested.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly no expert, but it seems so after reading between these three trans-continental articles (referenced on the new page).   Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, just looks like "plans" to do so. When it happens, i.e. in five to seven years, I'll be interested.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: It may be major and it may be significant, but this would have gone largely unnoticed even in Egypt outside the world of policy-wonkdom if it weren't for the "new capital" "plans". (Speaking as the child of Egyptian immigrants, with many relatives and friends in Egypt, I gather it's something that most Egyptians were only vaguely aware of the summit until the "plans" were declared, at which point they began paying attention chiefly to make fun of the "plans". I admit that anecdotal evidence isn't notable, but I felt it worthwhile to tell everyone anyway.) Lockesdonkey (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Daevid Allen

 * Oppose - I'm not seeing anything that shows top of the field, even in the Guardian obit. Important bands in psychedelic rock, yes, but not groundbreaking ala Grateful Dead. --M ASEM (t) 15:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - founder member of Soft Machine. Off to that flying teapot in the sky. A massive following in Europe. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose No chart topping releases, no awards so far as I can see, not top of field. μηδείς (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Sorry, but this is beyond obscure. Members of bands are no sure thing even when the band is much bigger than this. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Orange tag up top - not a single sign of honors or influence or notability. Challenger l (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not at the head of his field. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mellowed Fillmore. A loss for music, certainly, but he was never a figure on par with, say, Rick Wakeman or Syd Barrett, and his Wikipedia article proves it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

RD: Ada Jafri

 * Support RD, oppose blurb - Clearly meets RD, but not to a blurb level. Article's fine for sourcing but could use some prose TLC. --M ASEM (t) 16:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with the terminology here at ITN. What's TLC? And how can I make this meet the blurb level? —<span title="Wamiq" style="font-family:serif;color:#006600;border-radius:5px;border-top:2px solid #006600; border-bottom:2px solid #006600">ШαмıQ ✍ @ 20:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Go back in time and change history so that she was a head of state or acclaimed Nobel laureate? She meets RD criteria, but a blurb, no way. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why so harsh? I thought that the article didn't meet the blurb level due to some problem with the article which I could rectify. —<span title="Wamiq" style="font-family:serif;color:#006600;border-radius:5px;border-top:2px solid #006600; border-bottom:2px solid #006600">ШαмıQ ✍ @ 03:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * TLC = Tender loving care - basically someone to massage and clean up the prose to be a bit more elegant. It's current state (at least, when I checked) would not prevent ITN posting but it can be better. --M ASEM (t) 21:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. —<span title="Wamiq" style="font-family:serif;color:#006600;border-radius:5px;border-top:2px solid #006600; border-bottom:2px solid #006600">ШαмıQ ✍ @ 03:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support RD per Masem. Also, is "poetess" really the best descriptor? -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I chose to write 'poetess', rather than 'female poet', since it is shorter and both convey the same meaning. It would otherwise be 'The first major female Urdu poet' which has a lot of crowded adjectives. 'The first major Urdu poetess' is more concise and sounds better. —<span title="Wamiq" style="font-family:serif;color:#006600;border-radius:5px;border-top:2px solid #006600; border-bottom:2px solid #006600">ШαмıQ ✍ @ 20:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb  This would inevitably involve more of a significance judgement than is consistent with OR: we are not here to lavish praise on people. What constitutes a "major" poet?  I'm not madly keen on even an RD listing either but I'm not opposing it at his stage. 3142 (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The significant thing here is that she was a woman, and the first woman to not just compose poetry, but to also get it published like a mainstream male Urdu poet, despite the social issues. She received a lot of acclaim for her Urdu poetry. That's what makes her "major". Sidenote: I had got this article for DYK, too. There, the hook was: "The first Urdu poetess..." (as sources say). Some people objected to that and weren't ready to accept the claim. So I added a qualifier this time to make the claim more credible. —<span title="Wamiq" style="font-family:serif;color:#006600;border-radius:5px;border-top:2px solid #006600; border-bottom:2px solid #006600">ШαмıQ ✍ @ 04:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So the fact that she is a woman makes her more significant as a poet? Sorry, but I don't accept that.  If that is the basis of the claim to notability then my evaluation has just gone down a couple of notches which is why I have amended my position to outright oppose.  That, and I don't see the interest to our users.  Remember that ITN is a convenience for our users rather than a judgement of significance - what is there here to signify a broad level of interest in an Urdu poet with an English speaking readership? 3142 (talk) 05:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not evaluating significance by myself in any way. Sources recognize her being a great poet, but also assert her importance as a woman poet (since her poetry deals with feminism, too). That's why the blurb would be just ordinary if it said: "Famous Urdu poet, Ada Jafri, dies at the age of 90." That fact that she was a woman (and a feminist) is significant and I mentioned that in the blurb. However, it's up to you. If you think that her being a woman, and her struggles as a woman which male poets didn't have to go through, are insignificant, go ahead and just mention that she was a famous poet. But don't completely discard her importance as a poet. —<span title="Wamiq" style="font-family:serif;color:#006600;border-radius:5px;border-top:2px solid #006600; border-bottom:2px solid #006600">ШαмıQ ✍ @ 06:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose If the significant thing here is that she is a woman that is an insult to humans of all genders. Let's honor merit, not identity politics. μηδείς (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't identity politics. Women have to struggle a lot to get a name in this part of the world. She did just that. She took a field which is heavily dominated by men (Urdu poetry), excelled in it and made her name in the field. Her poetry won her plenty of awards to justify her merit. She was the first woman to do so. How does this undermine her merit in any way? —<span title="Wamiq" style="font-family:serif;color:#006600;border-radius:5px;border-top:2px solid #006600; border-bottom:2px solid #006600">ШαмıQ ✍ @ 05:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In any given country, typically there is going to be a dominant ethnic group. For anyone either not male or not in that ethnic group, the social barriers to success are typically higher, and historically much higher. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue is whether she is at the top of her field as a poet. There are plenty of noted women poets. I am a big fan of Plath.  But being born a woman is not an accomplishment, and at the time of her birth the nominee was a subject of the British empire, which had just been ruled for 60+ years by a female monarch.  If the nominator wants my support he can provide evidence she was at the top of her field, not a woman in a field. A good comparison would be Umm Kulthum, widely considered to be the best Arabic singer of all time, regardless of her gender.  Her funeral had more attendees than that of Nasser. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Query. Is her death being reported internationally? I realise it's not necessary but I found it hard to get a sense of her notability based on the article, and eg the BBC are not covering it as yet. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Did not find anything in international newspapers. But all local newspapers have an article on her death. —<span title="Wamiq" style="font-family:serif;color:#006600;border-radius:5px;border-top:2px solid #006600; border-bottom:2px solid #006600">ШαмıQ ✍ @ 06:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (Update:) Here's some coverage by VOA Urdu: 1, 2, 3. —<span title="Wamiq" style="font-family:serif;color:#006600;border-radius:5px;border-top:2px solid #006600; border-bottom:2px solid #006600">ШαмıQ ✍ @ 07:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Clarifications: Let me clarify a few things here:
 * 1) She is notable and significant as a poet: She was an internationally acclaimed Urdu poet (regardless of her gender).
 * 2) She was a woman: This is remarkable because women face various hindrances when pursuing careers like this. The fact that she did that is worth mentioning.
 * 3) Why I want this on the English Wikipedia: Because most Urdu speakers (in Pakistan as well as abroad) browse the web in English. They are most likely to see this article in English rather than Urdu. For example, see the sorry state of the Urdu Wikipedia and the entry on Ada Jafri there.

See Death of the first lady. It mentions her merits as a poet and next mentions her struggles as a woman. It ought to be significant enough for inclusion. —<span title="Wamiq" style="font-family:serif;color:#006600;border-radius:5px;border-top:2px solid #006600; border-bottom:2px solid #006600">ШαмıQ ✍ @ 06:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Appears to be significant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD only. Clearly meets the RD criteria as "very important" to her field, but I don't think a blurb is warranted here.  331dot (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, notable enough for coverage.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 17:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not seeing this "in the news", the article is poor, including a section which says she was "humble, polite and austere", come on, is this an encyclopedia or a fan club? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not a fan or anything. That was what I could find about her personality in one of the sources. (BTW, when someone is writing an article on a recently deceased person, you often find words like these. So it isn't odd to find that in the news article there.) If you can word it in a better way, you are most welcome to do so. —<span title="Wamiq" style="font-family:serif;color:#006600;border-radius:5px;border-top:2px solid #006600; border-bottom:2px solid #006600">ШαмıQ ✍ @ 09:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You might also like to see this: ET —<span title="Wamiq" style="font-family:serif;color:#006600;border-radius:5px;border-top:2px solid #006600; border-bottom:2px solid #006600">ШαмıQ ✍ @ 09:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support RD- Meets DC, no tag-worthy issues with article.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 00:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD I believe she does meet dc. I also think this is ready to be posted, there is sufficient consensus for it and her article seems fine. SeraV (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess it's fine if you think phrases like "She spent her early life within impassable social bounds" belong in an encyclopaedic biography. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Small sacrifices are acceptable. Marked ready. SeraV (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you consider non-encyclopaedic writing as a "small sacrifice"? Think again.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome to come and improve the writing. That part about "impassible social bounds" is true. Her family had strong traditions and as mentioned in one lengthy article on her, women of her family could not even go out of the family Haveli. She didn't go to a school/madrassa. She was homeschooled. She didn't even leave that Haveli after marriage and in fact stayed with her parents following the family tradition. Those were some of the bounds. She only left her Haveli during the partition of India when she migrated to Pakistan. —<span title="Wamiq" style="font-family:serif;color:#006600;border-radius:5px;border-top:2px solid #006600; border-bottom:2px solid #006600">ШαмıQ ✍ @ 20:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Look @ TRM you really are starting to annoy me, you can't decide yourself what is ready and what is not. Also we need more rd and more blurbs from parts of world that aren't english speaking, and the fact is that articles that are from those parts just aren't going to ever stand up to your standards of perfect english, because they aren't most likely written by natural english speakers. But if they othervise seem fine they should be good enough for us. As Wamiq said you are more than welcome edit the article yourself if you are not happy with it, even though most everyone else is. But your dissent is not enough for it to not get posted. SeraV (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm "starting to annoy" you? Please, spend more time improving the article in question, bringing it up to the encyclopedic standards we required for main page inclusion.  You do realise that I am a lone voice here, that if you have consensus for it to be posted, then it will be.  I'm not asking for "perfect english" nor am I interested in this particular individual's article (nor do I have time to spend energy trying to get it to a minimal standard).  I have no supervote, you know that, so the pair of you can stop berating me for trying to uphold English language Wikipedia's standards.  By all means continue to support such poor writing, this is just my opinion.  You don't like it?  Get over it.   Find an interested editor who writes in non-hagiographical English, and we could move on.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

RD: Michael Graves

 * Support once adequately referenced, given that Encyclopedia Britannica described him as "one of the principal figures in the postmodernist movement".  Everymorning   talk  22:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support once there are more inline citations - Definitely looks like one of the most influential architects of the past century. Challenger l (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, subject to referencing. Appears to be at the top of postmodernist architecture in the US. The article is currently inadequate, though. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support A hugely notable figure in the world of architecture. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose until that huge list of mostly unreferenced works receives some attention. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending article improvements, as subject was at the head of his field. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose based solely on referencing problems. Too much is uncited, especially the giant list of works at the end.  Also, it would be nice if the text of the article is expanded (with cites too!) some, if you removed that huge list of works, it would almost be a stub.  If the articles quality issues were improved, I'd support on significance (and consider this vote exactly that, without me having to change it).   -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending article improvements. Highly notable within his field. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment last time I looked there's absolutely zero about his death in the article, no reaction, no detail, nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added the detail of his death to the article, but more definitely can be added as to his impact. --M ASEM (t) 20:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Two police officers shot in Ferguson

 * Support - definitely notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The initial posting of this(the protests) was sufficient; the two officers will recover.  This incident does not directly have to do with race issues there as it seems the officers were targeted or "ambushed". 331dot (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Racial motivation is hardly precluded by evidence of premediation or ambush. That said, this news does not rise to ITN level at the current time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is still a lot of mess going on as a result of the DOJ's review of the earlier shooting, this is just one facet. There will likely be a lawsuit based on the DOJ's findings, and the result of that would be he point for posting. --M ASEM (t) 18:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Officers are shot in this country with disturbing frequency. Such shootings are almost never covered by ITN. In this case the officers weren't killed (thank God). Is it a notable event? Yes. Is it ITN worthy? Not at this point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose since both officers will recover there is not much here. SeraV (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Masem. I think that there will be significantly more notable events in the near future relating to this topic. Mamyles (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose really nothing to see here. People get shot in America every day, dozens of them.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually hundreds would be more accurate. On a typical day in America there are ~30 gun-involved murders, ~50 suicides-by-firearm, and ~150 other incidents where someone is wounded by a gun.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The original officer was not indicted and the Obama Admin has decided not to bring Civil Rights charges, but the press and agitators have ginned this up, we don't need to provided notoriety to an incompetent terrorist. μηδείς (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Terry Pratchett

 * Support RD: Very well-known author, virtually a household name in some English-speaking countries. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb; well-loved and influential author, easily passes the death criteria. Sceptre (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * RD is obvious, but just like Nimoy last week, a blurb here is really not appropriate. He had Alzheimers, so it was a matter of when, not if, he'd die. And while he's "nerd popular" (eg I'd suspect a majority of WPians would know of him readily), he didn't have that much influence to the level of a blurb - eg it could be a dangerous precedent. --M ASEM (t) 15:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD very popular and "a household name" also in my country. Sad news, he and his humor will be missed. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD only for the same reasons as Masem. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) Support for RD only per Masem. The article is both a good article and one with a long-standing orange-level tag, so needs some work (but hopefully not huge amounts) before it will be ready. BencherliteTalk 15:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As a note, most of that stuff about adaptions (where the orange tag is at) is all about Discworld adaptions, so potentially a simple solution would be to sweep that under the rug, pushing the issue to the adaptions page but summarizing that his works have been adapted for television, games, etc. --M ASEM (t) 15:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support For RD as per long standing health problems. Miyagawa (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for RD I guess his egg timer ran dry. Legendary modern fantasy author. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for RD Among the very most notable in his field by miles - awards, honors and even a knighthood. He spent the last years of his life documenting and chronicling Alzheimer's in himself. Another that I will miss. Challenger l (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 15:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbolic support. One of the greatest authors of our time. Joshua Garner (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Support ITN: Probably one of the most prolific English writers in modern fantasy & sci-fi aside JK Rowling & Neil Gaiman. 2602:306:336B:CB00:7582:2B4:C6B4:72D0 (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 Eglin Air Force Base helicopter crash

 * Oppose military crash, it happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present) and I'm seeing a lot of crashes, but this one seems to have a large amount of casualties for a military helicopter in a non-war zone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support article seems barebones, but the number of casulaties ought to be high enough for ITN. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, at least 41 people are killed in another accident with risks they didn't sign up for. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per TRM. I don't think that this meets the threshold for ITN. There are countless examples of military crashes we didn't post, like the USA's February 22nd, 2012 crash that killed 7 in an Arizona training base. Mamyles (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I'm considering that this was a training exercise (at night) and while unfortunate, was, as TRM says, something they knew the risks going into; compared to, say, the reality show helicopter crash the other day. --M ASEM (t) 19:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not notable enough to feature on ITN. Despite the higher than average death toll, a fairly routine military training accident. Mjroots (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are numerous similar and even more severe accidents that we omit every day. I cannot identify anything that makes this one different.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No - Too common an event to justify ITN. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose This is a bit more than your run of the mill training accident, but even so, it's still too common for inclusion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Hunga Tonga

 * Comment - Checked this? Ṫ Ḧ <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 08:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have now - comments were that the event was too recent and still ongoing. The event is now finished, and the news is that it is safe and goes from naked rock to supporting life, like primordial Earth. TGCP (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Conditional oppose: The article is seriously out-of-date and is very short for ITN purposes. Once it is filled out and brought up to present, I would likely support posting. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would beg to differ: It is not "seriously" out of date. The eruption ceased on 25 January 2015. The first visit to the island (accompanied by photos) occurred 10 March 2015. That's all the news there is. The article is also not "too short". As the primary contributor to the article, I can honestly say that almost every single published, neutral news source available has been used on both eruptive events. (An isoalted, developing nation simply doesn't get the coverage an Alaskan or Japanese eruption would.) - Tim1965 (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Consider updating the intro, then, and possibly the infobox as well. Right now, the actual news (that a brand-new island has formed) is buried at the very bottom of the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support but it needs an update, the only material added this month is one sentence and one ref saying that birds are nesting there now. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Jeremy Clarkson suspended

 * Oppose: I enjoy "Top Gear" as much as the next bloke, but there is no way this meets the notability criteria for ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * These things happen and unlike Brian Williams, he's not accused of malfeasance, it's just a quarrel. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose: Not only is this trivial news, this was also something that most fans of Top Gear figured was bound to happen due to Clarkson's attitude. --M ASEM  (t) 01:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Frei Otto

 * Oppose unnecessary duplication (see below discussion). Also, as I wrote there, the article is not referenced. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any duplication at all. This is nomination about the death of Frei Otto; the one bellow is about the winner of the Pritzker Prize in 2015. These two are completely independent nominations.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We're not going to have Frei Otto mentioned in a blurb and in RD at the same time, are we? Of course not. One nomination is enough. BencherliteTalk 23:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. He meets the criteria and he has died. I don't see why the coincidence of him being part of a new story that has also been nominated matters. The article only has one reference at present, though. Formerip (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Had he simply died, he might have been listed at RD. Had he simply won the prize, he might have been listed with a blurb.  Note that blurb and RD are both part of the single ITN template--these are not two separate areas.  Had he been awarded the prize, and a blurb been posted, we would neither pull the blurb if he died and move him to RD nor also add him to RD: we'd simply update the blurb.  That's all this is, except the two things both happened before posting.  We simply need an "updated" blurb that includes both facts. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose RD is a part of ITN and was meant to speed up the process of nominees who really didn't need blurbs. It would be unprecedented and hugely overblowing this to give him two listings, as well as the fact that it would be pushing someone else off ITN or RD. μηδείς (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose if the writeup about the prize also mentions his death. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a time where even if the rules of ITN would require a separate entry for the prize and the death, IAR says to treat them both together. --M ASEM (t) 01:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me all. Why am I the nominator of this? Ṫ Ḧ <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 03:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support I agree with Formerip. Consensus below is that the award deserves an ITN blurb, so "pushing someone else off ITN" is not a factor to consider. Currently, there is only one person listed at RD, so "pushing someone else" off there is also not an issue. I can't see any harm in one person appearing on the same page twice for different reasons. Conversely, mentioning his death in the blurb for the award could lead to conflation of the two events in the mind of the reader, which would be unfortunate since it is entirely avoidable. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support He qualifies as being at the top of his field - the award does merit a blurb, so I would suggest 'Frei Otto is awarded the Pritzker Architecture Prize posthumously.' Does this work for anyone else? Challenger l (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently he was told about the prize before he died so it wasn't given posthumously, though it was announced posthumously. I've suggested an alt blurb below which you can change if you want; I might suggest to everyone that we confine this discussion to the already-existing one below where this can all be worked out. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] GOP's letter to Iran

 * Oppose - Run-of-the-mill political gamesmanship. --WaltCip (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Usually run-of-the-mill gamesmanship doesn't include letters to a foreign country. p  b  p  23:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Very much run of the mill. If an agreement is cancelled or a new one created and signed by all parties, that's a news item. --M ASEM (t) 23:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – This isn't news. Backbenchers playing games, that's all. We're not a WP:SOAPbox for political advocacy, either. American politicians take themselves too seriously. That's the fundamental problem with republicanism, as there is no God or Monarch to keep up the old boys' humility. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per whose comment may be the finest and most politically incorrect, but I repeat myself, I have read on here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Meaningless domestic political debate(despite involving Iran, the GOP just wants to undercut Obama) as their opinion is not relevant until and unless they are asked to vote on removing sanctions.--331dot (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Frei Otto wins the Pritzker Architecture Prize

 * Question. Should the blurb mention his death or just focus on the award? 331dot (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It could mention his death, we could arguably run him at RD at this point, clearly top of his field.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would mention that he was posthumously given the award in the blurb, as that gives us "two" items for the space of one. --M ASEM (t) 22:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a blurb at ITN trumps RD for this particular person. Winning an award the day after dying is ITN material. So I Support for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on article improvement Otto's article has one inline reference. While no longer "blp", this needs to be much better sourced to be a front page item. But once that's done, this is clearly good to ITN. --M ASEM (t) 22:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for blurb mentioning his death. It appears to be the first time the prize has been awarded posthumously. The list needs updating in the text part. If Otto is also to be bolded, work will be needed on referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. The decision that he would be awarded with the prize was made shortly before his death. You can check on the official pages that the jury members do not mention his death in his biography and that is awarded posthumously.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is even reported in the official news that the architect was informed about the decision made by the jury and the news includes his reaction to it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per ITN/R but I strongly oppose mentioning his death in the blurb or making any combination. It was known that he would be awarded with the prize before his death and it practically didn't have any impact on the decision. If you think that his death merits inclusion, then you're encouraged to run another nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So a blurb about the prize and an RD nomination too, because he was clearly top of his field. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I second you. Just go for it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already done it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * RD is a part of ITN, he should not be double-listed, it would be entirely unprecedented and he's not that important to become the first to set such a precedent. That being said, given he does deserve listing at at least RD, and the coincidence of the death and the prize, I certainly:
 * (This is not a vote) Support blurb mentioning prize and death and oppose RD. μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support there is no point in double-listing him, just mention prize and death in the blurb. Something like German designer Frei Otto wins the Pritzker Architecture Prize shortly after his death. SeraV (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with your wording is that our readers may easily get confused that he was awarded posthumously as it's already the case with one of the fellow users commenting above. In fact, the jury made their decision shortly before his death and the architect was even notified about it and had time to react to it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment for those supporting a combined blurb, please suggest one. It appears to be quite awkward to succinctly capture this in one short blurb, and get it factually correct, i.e. the foundation moved the announcement of the award forward, they let him know, he reacted, he died.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggested blurb; I invite others to alter or change it. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It somewhat misses the focus, i.e. that Otto won the Pritzker Prize, by placing more emphasis on his death and the rescheduling of the announcement (which, in the big scheme of things, is relatively trivial). I still can't see a succinct way of combining all of the elements into a neat blurb.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't say I disagree with that assessment- but maybe others will know better than I. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the big fuss is about him having the Pritzker blurb and an RD listing. It's just a sad coincidence, that's all.  The ITNR is really all about the prize and probably ought not be derailed by bloat about Otto's death.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. The quality of Wikipedia depends on the conciseness of presenting facts but not on stylistic changes that may harm originality. The fact that many users participating in this discussion and that above wrongly perceived that the prize was given posthumously is sufficient indicator that we should pay special attention on the conciseness in the blurb and avoid any bloating.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I've attempted to make a start on improving the references on the Otto page, it's a little outside my comfort zone so any other help in sourcing/excising OR would be great. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ALT II, but with both bolded once ITN requirements re article quality have been met. This neatly addresses the issues raised above. Mjroots (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Which articles require further addressing? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ALT II blurb but not RD duplication is not necessary. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment do we really want "The awarding of..."? Sounds dreadful to my ear.  I prefer, for expediency, we stick to the facts, and go with the first blurb and worry about the death issue subsequently.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support my ALT III (but not RD) which bolds both articles and makes it clear that the award was pre-death. Marking ready as both articles appear to be in decent shape (the prize article is a featured list). BencherliteTalk 17:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Alt III as short and sweet, covering both important facts. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted, Alt III, seemed the most concise, and negates the requirement for an RD. Stephen 22:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

[Removed] Remove "War in Ukraine" from ongoing

 * Events have settled down since the end of the Battle of Debaltseve. There is no need for this item to remain in ongoing. If events start to pick-up again, it can be put in again. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree; this has died down and can be removed. 331dot (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support removal A quick check of the article history shows no major substantive additions to the content in over a week. All of the edits have been basically style fixes and cleanup.  If no new information is being added, it isn't appropriate for ongoing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 22:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Jayron's summary. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait Today's headline: "More Russian tanks, equipment cross Ukraine border: U.S. official" There are also 3,000 US troops deploying to Eastern Europe and Britain saying it will start broadcasting Putin-critical information into Russia. What's needed is attention from someone with te time and familiarity, the issue itself is nowhere near out of the news. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's of no consequence if the article is not being updated. As of now, there still isn't any major additions to the article in the past week.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Almost 12 hours after the headline Medis mentions, there have been no updates to the article so readers wont be informed about the latest developments, it thus fails the "updated" criterion for being featured in the ITN section of the main page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not the right article for Russian involvement. You must be looking for 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. There is a clear division of content with Ukrainian crisis articles. Regardless, this is hardly a new development. Ms Nuland has been making such proclamations on a regular and repeated basis. If one takes a look at the military intervention article, one will see that. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Removed.  Spencer T♦ C 15:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Villa Castelli helicopter crash

 * Strong support per nom, major event with international coverage. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  08:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support, but is there any reason that all four articles can't be bolded? Mjroots (talk) 08:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note The "Aircraft" section is currently in need of expansion. There are sources which identify both aircraft, but these do not meet WP:RS, which is why I haven't used them. Expect these will be covered by RSs in due course.
 * now . Mjroots (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support per nom, also the fact two of those are recent Olympic medalists should be mentioned as news sites included this fact as a headline, hence I included it as an alternative blurb. Donnie Park (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support I came here to nominate this by myself. Considering the notability of the sportspeople who were killed on board, this accident definitely merits inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Marking ready - the article is in decent condition and there is strong support. I suggest that the blurb is trimmed to omit mention of the reality show and Olympic medal, though, otherwise it's too long: perhaps – A mid-air collision between two helicopters in Argentina kills ten people, including French athletes Florence Arthaud, Camille Muffat and Alexis Vastine.  (If there's a better description than "athletes", please use it, but not "celebrities"). BencherliteTalk 13:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Athletes" is fine, and gender-neutral. Agree with not using "celebrities". Mjroots (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to propose the following wording: Ten people are killed in a mid-air collision between two helicopters in Argentina, including French athletes Camille Muffat, Alexis Vastine and Florence Arthaud.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's two words longer than my version (because it's written in the passive rather than the active voice) but whichever version the posting admin thinks sounds best is fine by me. BencherliteTalk 13:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted Used original blurb and added descriptor "French athletes" -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, if we want a picture, we have two of the three named athletes who have free pictures, Camille Muffat and Florence Arthaud. I'll leave it to people to decide if we want to include a pic or not, then perhaps ping the Picture Czar if we arrive at one of these.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's one of Vastine available too, but I think it would look odd to prioritise one. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with above. Why have we chosen just one image of a deceased in a crash which killed 10, including two others with images? &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

[closed]Wikimedia Foundation sues National Security Agency
I won't write it but someone should mention something. -- dsprc   [talk]  16:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/
 * http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/10/us-usa-nsa-wikipedia-idUSKBN0M60YA20150310
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/opinion/stop-spying-on-wikipedia-users.html?_r=0
 * IAR support I think ITN is a good way to inform our readers about this. wctaiwan (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To elaborate a bit more: I think we should let our readers know about this and judge for themselves a) what they feel about it and b) whether it would affect Wikipedia. A site notice seems excessive, but this is somewhat more directly relevant to our readers than usual goings-on at the foundation. wctaiwan (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We're not here to right great wrongs. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not why I'm supporting. The reader can decide for themselves the morality of the foundation's actions, but I think we should inform them. wctaiwan (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not our duty to "inform". WP:ITN "serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." There isn't even an article suggested to link to. And is it of wide interest? To those of us commenting here, maybe, but that's where the navel-gazing concern comes in. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose The announcement of a lawsuit? We wouldn't post this if it was anyone else, so why should we post it just because it's Wikimedia? The result of the lawsuit may be worth posting, but it's mere existence isn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Ignoring the navel-gazing aspect, this is just filing of the court documents. If this actually actually has a trial and the decision is significant, then we should post that. But just that a court filing has been opened is not sufficient for ITN --M ASEM (t) 16:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Navel gazing aside, Wikimedia Foundation oversees one of the top visited Web sites on the planet. They are joined by a broad coalition of civil liberties groups seeking an end to unconstitutional mass surveillance of hundreds of millions of their users and the broader Internet community and have directly taken legal action against the Government of the United States and its security apparatus to stop it. If it was Joe Blow it would be one thing, but these are huge organizations. "Pakalitha Mosisili forms a coalition government following a snap election in Lesotho." is really more notable than this? -- dsprc   [talk]  16:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If the Foundation felt it was important enough to let its users know that they have filed this suit, they can easily add it to global page header notice box, like they do when they have funding drives, etc. In terms of ITN we need to ignore the fact this has to do with WP and recognize that without that, this is just filing court papers. (The SOPA thing is different as it was an action joined by many many many sites, not just WP, and made actual news). --M ASEM (t) 17:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia aren't the only ones, they've just the biggest megaphone. ACLU, The Nation, Rutherford, Amnesty International, Pen American, Human Rights Watch. This isn't just about the Foundation either but the coalition. "Made actual news"? Since when is The Paper of Record not news? There is plenty of news ; everyone from the Russians to Slate, Politico, CBS, The Verge, WSJ, McClatchy, Der Spiegel. Yeah it is not making any news at all. Just navel-gazing. -- dsprc   [talk]  17:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's "in the news", but not in the manner SOPA was (as because of the blackout it affected the way the web work, so had huge coverage, while here I'm seeing a story of interest but not "news shattering". But other points still remain: this is only the filing of the case, and would never by ITN by itself if WP wasn't involved, and there's no article proposed at all (or even one I can see until a court case is actually made). --M ASEM  (t) 17:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose, however if the lawsuit is won or any significant changes to common practice result then I think that would be news. <b style="color:DarkOliveGreen">Chillum</b> 16:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with others that the time to post something like this is if it results is significant changes, rather than at the mere filing of court papers.  Dragons flight (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Too soon. This may eventually rate a mention somewhere on the Front Page. But we are a long ways from that point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per Masem. This In the News section is to highlight quality improvements to articles about recent events. It is not to help the foundation make or publicize a political statement. (But I agree that this filing is relevant to WP users, and would accept a news line in the Wikimedia global header, not ITN, if/when that decision is made elsewhere.) Mamyles (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I'm too paranoid about it all to vote either way on this. You never know what the consequences might be. Formerip (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's bit sad if you are actually serious. You should think bit more positively, if there would be consuquences at least you would know that you don't live in democracy with an actual free speech. SeraV (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a serious vote. My handler made me do it. Formerip (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose for all the reasons above. -- Calidum  19:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose; the resolution of this lawsuit might merit posting, but not now. It's also not entirely clear the suit will even get to a trial as standing seems to be an issue. 331dot (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

US708

 * Oppose, the star was discovered in 1982, all that's new is the theoretical model of what gave it such a kick. Stephen 23:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So says the alt blurb...Ṫ Ḧ <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 02:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

RD: James Molyneaux, Baron Molyneaux of Killead

 * Support when improved for RD. From his full-page obituary in The Times today: "to many writing the history of Northern Ireland, [James Molyneaux] achieved greatness by prevailing in a long and bitter power struggle with the Rev Ian Paisley for the Unionist vote, and helping to prevent the province from descending into a full-scale civil war." At the top of Northern Ireland politics for decades, and thereby an influential player on the UK stage. He and Paisley were known as the "Laurel and Hardy of Unionist politics"; Paisley was posted to RD in September 2014. Article needs some work, though. BencherliteTalk 13:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, one of the most important Unionist politicians of the last three decades of the 20th century.--The Theosophist (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support based on the sources about his death making him seem critically important in discussing Northern Ireland separation, but I would strongly suggest that this relative importance be reflected a bit better in our article, as it doesn't seem to give this same indication towards that. (This importance at least should be documented in the lead, and keep in mind that not every reader is fully aware of the long detailed history of Northern Ireland/UK politics. --M ASEM (t) 15:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support when the "Political career" section is more thoroughly referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support when referencing is improved. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support A very important figure in the history of N. Ireland and its politics. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support once article/referencing improved. Though never as much of a household name as Paisley, obituaries make clear he was one of the top NI politicians for decades covering much of the long and slow peace process in the country. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Look like its improved now with new 2kB of cites. Ṫ Ḧ <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 12:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On a few quick spot checks, not all the biography is covered by the references cited, unfortunately. There's an expand tag under the section on his death, but I've not seen a cause of death, and I'm not sure what else needs to be added here. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Will it not appear on the main page? Ṫ Ḧ <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength  09:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , you've marked it "ready" without addressing the citation problems that Espresso Addict mentioned here (hence the cns he added to the article), so it's not ready, and I've un"ready"ed it. It will appear on the main page once it is truly ready. BencherliteTalk 09:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Bring back Boko Haram to Ongoing
Countries in the region have sent troops into Niger to fight Boko Haram, following but not totally related to their new allegiance to ISIL.

BBC - Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad send in troops. African Union plan 8,000-man regional force

BBC - NATO train African forces to fight Boko Haram

More reliable sources: Al Jazeera, Reuters, CNN, The Independent, Bloomberg. 2,702 articles in Google News.

If it can not be added to ongoing, then surely Nigeria, Chad and Cameroon's entrance into Niger to fight Boko Haram is worth a blurb? &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support just as I opposed the pulling last time, which was immediately followed by an attack. Although I think a merged Islamist Terrorism sticky would be just as good. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest we expand the existing Ongoing to cover all significant developments in the subject of Islamic terrorism and the various responses to it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: In order for it to be listed under ongoing, the article in question needs to be updated regularly. It was orginally pulled because the relevant article wasn't being updated. Has that changed? -- Calidum  03:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No - the only development to be added to the article since it was pulled from ongoing is that Boko Haram has declared allegiance to ISIL. Nothing about outside troops being trained/sent in. BencherliteTalk 09:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Over two days after my last comment, still no updates to the article. BencherliteTalk 20:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Bring back Boko Haram? Channel 4 must need a ratings boost.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Sam Simon
I don't know how these are formatted (help would be nice) but I would like to nominate Sam Simon for RD. He co-created The Simpsons one of the biggest shows of all time. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Added the header for you. --M ASEM (t) 18:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Support with leaning more towards oppose. Several Emmys and the like show "top of the field", but at the same time, for his work he wasn't the only agent involved (not to dismiss his creative genius). He wasn't a household name even though the shows he did were. --M ASEM  (t) 18:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Nine Emmys, co-creator of one of the most well-known animated series ever made, worked with big-named shows quite a few times over his career. Article quality looks very good. Challenger l (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Per the above and the article is a GA too.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems to meet the RD criteria and is a decent article already. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As EA says below, sources are needed despite the reasons to support this. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Before someone jumps into posting this, there is as yet no reliable reference for his death in the article, and I haven't found it picked up yet in major news sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Added a RS on the death to header, though yeah, not yet seeing it by non-entertainment sources. Also to note while "young" at 59, this was a matter of when, not if, as he had been considered terminally ill two years ago.  --M ASEM  (t) 19:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And NYTimes has checked in now, so more expected. --M ASEM (t) 19:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And now the article has these sources and I cleaned up a bit here. Looks like there's not much more to add since Simon was already preparing for this event (eg his late charity efforts already documented). --M ASEM  (t) 19:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts; I don't yet see any other barriers to posting once sufficient support is present. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note, NYT doesn't give the date of death. But hopefully more news agencies will get onto this over the next few hours. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't think that's relevant here, if the NYT have only just got wind of it, why wouldn't we do the same? We're not journalistically superior to the NYT (mostly) and we certainly should be posting news items, IAR if he died way back... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, even with the current article (Which I noted has a URL date for tomorrow) they mention they don't have details on Simon's living relatives that survived him. Variety is in no way a non-RS source, (NYTimes affirms that this was a significant entertainment personality) and they establish the date, so it's confirmed. --M ASEM (t) 19:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no objection if the fact & date of death are covered in RSs. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Variety has the date on Sunday as reported by Simon's agents, so I think we're good there. --M ASEM (t) 19:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

&Support - Important cultural figure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. There's little doubt that the works of Simon have defined modern animation, he was top of his field and his untimely death makes this even more easy to sanction.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Per Challenger l. As well as his long career in television, Simon was also an advocate for animal rights. - JuneGloom07    Talk  19:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongest Possible Support as a Simpsons fan. If developing some of the most influential comedy shows of all time doesn't put him at or near the top of his field, I don't know what does. His article is also a GA thanks to my good friend Gran2, so there shouldn't be any issues over quality. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  20:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. So sue me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - You don't get more well-known in animated comedy (in North America at least) than The Simpsons, and this does seem to be a rather young age for him to die as well.--WaltCip (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Support hugely influential writer/producer in far more than just The Simpsons. μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] University of Oklahoma bans Sigma Alpha Epsilon

 * Oppose While a major headline, this is not the type of thing ITN covers, at least at this stage. There's certainly going to be legal action involved and that might be something, but otherwise is simply internal politics at a university. --M ASEM (t) 18:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's a video of people chanting a racist song? Universities shouldn't be in the business of recognizing fraternities in the first place. That they chose to ban one chapter from campus is of no consequence. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as of right now. This doesn't seem like it will develop into anything bigger; just internal politics at work. 331dot (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have reopened discussion on this subject, without prejudice. A topic deserves at least 24 hours of discussion. I will remain Neutral on the subject matter. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  22:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't agree with reopening this (the NSA lawsuit nom was closed quickly, too), but I won't reclose it. This story is social media fodder that doesn't meet ITN standards. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conf) I'm not going to edit war this, but there is no arbitrary 24 hour requirement; this was closed with no support because the internal workings of a university are not ITN material; otherwise ITN would be a university news ticker. If you (or anyone) supported it, then OK, but I don't think this needed to be reopened when you are not adding support for it. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Solar Impulse 2

 * Comment wouldn't it be better to wait for it to complete? We'd look a bit silly if it didn't actually make it... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Let's not jump the gun with this. Better to give a final report on it (pass or fail). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, come back in five months. Stephen 08:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose until it is finished. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree that it is better to wait until the feat is accomplished, although many of its milestones along the way will be historic firsts, such as first solar powered aircraft to cross an ocean. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would still wait until it either completes the trip, or has to end prematurally - assuming it does even the ocean crossing, the failure can still be highlighted with the "best" record. But we should be looking to only highlight the circumnavigation as the ITN item. --M ASEM  (t) 15:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until the voyage actually ends, one way or another. Then we can assess its historical worth. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the voyage is completed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] City of the Monkey God

 * Comment The NGC article says the ruins were discovered in 2012 so this seems more like a follow-up. And the target article has an orange tag. With some work and a better blurb, this could make a good story. But even then, the proper date is 2 March, which is at the bottom of the ITN box... --Tone 17:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose with regret I have to agree with Tone's observation that this news is a little dated. Otherwise I'd probably support it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There's been extensive criticism from other archaeologists, indicating that (1) this is not a truly new discovery (2) the 'discoverers' have taken a pretty insensitive approach and (3) the 'city of the monkey god' is a wholly fictitious name dating from the 1940s. So I don't think there's as much of a story here as is claimed. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Appears to be old new. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Suicide bombing in Maiduguri

 * Support if the article can get up to par. It will be nice to not have to post news about Boko Haram any more. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Tentative Support, once the article has been substantially improved. Nakon  04:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: I updated the article.  for assistance. Big news; Should be updated as soon as possible.   Jim  Car  ter  05:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm an admin, I can get this added to ITN. However, per the guidelines, the article needs "around three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs.".  I'm all for getting this added, but the article needs to be a bit longer with some more details before it can be posted to ITN.   Nakon  05:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done.  Jim  Car  ter  06:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Reviewing now. Nakon  06:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted. Nakon  06:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, supporters (or any other commenters) aren't usually allowed to post blurbs unless no one is man enough to post something that has at least more than 3 people talking about it. – H T  D  06:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR  Jim  Car  ter  06:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course we can invoke IAR if it is urgent. This, is... not. – H T  D  09:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So we can ignore the fact that the blurb unambiguiously attributes this to Boko Haram on evidence that is at best skethcy? We can ignore the fact that the article plays Chinese whispers with referencing, citing the BBC but giving an alternative source to support that?  I think not.  I invite the posting admin to withdraw this at the earliest opportunity   Then consider your position as administrator.  Oppose and pull. 3142 (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to pull the blurb IMO,, I have correct that part. Yes, Boko Haram is not unambiguiously responsible for the attack and I corrected that in the article as well. , Can you please remove "Boko Haram" from the Live Hook?  Jim  Car  ter  13:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Procedural query - Is there any sort of consensus for this? I am neutral, but it looks like this is a very premature posting. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, there's no consensus for this at all, not per our usual rationales. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Since not many actually bothers to insist for this to be pulled I assume most are happy with this. I can also say that I Support this. SeraV (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think "stunned" might be more appropriate than "happy". This posting by Nakon was completely inappropriate. Isa (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed! I thought it was completely out of process. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We wikipedians are too stuffy with our processes sometimes. Also this was open for twelve hours, some blurbs have been posted much earlier than that. But if you disagree you should ask for it to pulled, shouldn't be too hard. SeraV (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Stories are not usually posted early and when they are, they end up with a lot of unpleasantries. Stories that generate little to no discussion like this one are not usually posted. Posting a blurb requires consensus. You can't have consensus with two people.
 * As for the story itself, ITN is meant to showcase good articles that are in the news. It is not a news ticker. Stories are not posted just because they're "big news" (whatever that means). I will not personally call for a pull (I disagree with the posting, but it's not a catastrophe), but I do hope Nakon will wait for consensus next time. I suggest that someone uninvolved close this discussion. Isa (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment next time submitters should wait for the articles linked to get to a quality level appropriate. With some events, later reports contradict earlier reports, so no need for a rush. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

2015 Bamako shooting

 * support indeed first attack in Bamako. casualties, etc.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * wait Al-Qaeda has been involved in a widespread civil war there since 2012. This doesn't stand out in the wider context. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support when cleaned up, per nom. &mdash; Jonny Nixon - ( Talk ) 22:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support given if this is indeed a terrorist attack. Joshua Garner (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article is not yet sufficiently developed to post. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Still very minimal, not enough to post - still a stub, just 10 sentences including the lead and quotations. BencherliteTalk 20:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Dawn@Ceres

 * Support. First mission to arrive at a dwarf planet.  It might be easier to count Ceres (dwarf planet) as the primary article, since it has been updated over the last several weeks with new photos and information gained during the approach.  Dragons flight (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Major achievement in the field of space exploration. Agree with the suggestion of making Ceres (dwarf planet) the primary. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as this is especially interesting, and has been getting significant attention from the news recently. Mamyles (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Significant achievement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, but no reason why both articles can't be bolded (I tweaked the blurb to this effect). Mjroots (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Suppprt, the milestone of this craft's mission. Agree with bolding Ceres since the article's been updated as Dawn's approached it. --M ASEM (t) 18:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Will free use images of the light side be available? Abductive  (reasoning) 19:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This is both the first close encounter and first orbit of any dwarf planet. --Njardarlogar (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. I'll leave someone more competent to swap the image. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Calling . -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Image updated. —David Levy 02:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] DNA barcoding and Universal primer technology

 * Comment Do we have sources for this? --M ASEM (t) 20:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. (Nature Group of Journal), (IBN7), (Times of India) and 36 other news articles published in more than 20 countries. Educationtemple (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those.
 * Oppose This is equivalent to the start of trial - it is probably important that who rightfully is credited with the technique is acknowledged (as this has a potential for Nobel prize in the far future) - but we should wait until the legal decision is made on who rightfully has the claim. --M ASEM (t) 21:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose like Masem, this is an accusation, nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment P D N Hebert has given a statement that he was not aware of "UPT" that's why he could not credit it because its patents were not visible to the broader scientific community due to a substantial interval from its filling in 2001 to grant in 2006. Science ethicists find hole in this argument since Patent inventions do not go with "date of Grant" but with "filing of patent" which was earlier (2001) for UPT as described in the article than the publication date of DNA barcoding in 2003. So this is not just an "accusation" from one side since Hebert's comment are available, and assessed as being published. Cheers! Educationtemple (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No indication of significance, and from my previous interactions I think that the nominator may have undeclared ties with the subject. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The nominator should make the rationale much clearer than it is, and discovery in a civil trial (which is what the above comments seem to apply) is certainly not worth posting. The OP should clarify this more if I have misinterpreted it from the comments above. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Edward Egan

 * Which of the RD criteria does he meet? --331dot (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I imagine that being the archbishop of New York City meets criterion 2, "being a very important figure in his or her field", if his field is defined as that of Catholic priests. Everymorning   talk  02:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose seemed amiable but was nowhere near as noted and influential as his predecessor, John Joseph Cardinal O'Connor. There are over 130 American dioceses (seats of bishops or their equivalent) and there have been some 60 Cardinals.  In no way influential or outstanding in his field. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Medeis. It isn't because of some arbitrary distinction like "Cardinal" or "Archbishop of a major diocese", but rather that Egan didn't have any major influential events of his episcopate.  Nearly everything in the biography is standard sort of administrative stuff that every diocese goes through, etc.  Nothing outstanding.  As Medeis notes with Cardinal O'Connor, one could hold a major relevance with such a position.  I just don't see it in Egans biography.    -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am not seeing his notability or influence, despite being an archbishop associated with one of the world's major cities. Compare with say Desmond Tutu who has notability and influence far beyond his home nation and diocese. Challenger l (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Egan didn't have any major events happen during his post. Being an Archbishop of one of the largest cities in the world doesn't automatically qualify him as being very outstanding. Epic Genius (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Respectfully Oppose Although notable by virtue of his clerical rank he does not seem to have stood out much among his fellow bishops. As a "Prince of the Church" he seems to have been rather a nonentity. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not notable outside US. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Nimrud

 * Comment I've added a couple more news sources. Note that this event is not particularly unique - Mosul Library is suspected of being burnt down just last week. Slightly off topic, but I would recommend that an article similar to this one be created for ISIS-related iconoclasm. Mamyles (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, important historic site. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 23:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Isis wiping out 3000 year old ruins is tragic. SeraV (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support a blasphemy along the lines of the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan, the destruction of the Twin Towers, acid thrown in the face of liberty. An historic atrocity. The vandalism of antiquity.
 * Question: Not a statement for or against this, but why should this be posted while ISIL is in Ongoing? That article linked in Ongoing does mention this happening.  Spencer T♦ C 04:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A perfectly fair question. A great deal of what is listed in the "ongoing" area is what might called routine, if there is such a thing, war news. This however, I believe rises far above the routine. It is, if I may editorialize, a war crime and an atrocity of historic dimensions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. A significant site was destroyed, which is Main Page-worthy. Epic Genius (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support It is tragic that a city of such significance was ruined. ISIS closely resemble the USA. They both destroy things of historical significance and kill people.--Droneanddrone (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is irrelevant here whether ISIS is like the USA. We are discussing whether to post the nomination, not how similar these two are. Epic Genius (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Droneanddrone really should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the word "government" in the blurb be decapitalized or it's sometimes acceptable? Brandmeistertalk  13:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, I can't find any advice in the stylesheet -- "Government of X" is often capitalised, while "X government" is often not. I've lower-cased it for now. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please update, include Hatra. (Al Jazeera), (BBC News) --bender235 (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. SeraV (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Updated. If anyone can find a better wording that incudes both Assyria & Parthia without being repetitive or using "respectively", please suggest. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The demolition of Dur-Sharrukin has reportedly started today. Brandmeistertalk  22:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Propose photo: The photo of Ceres has been on the main page for 2 days, and is not easily distinguishable from other planets. This Nimrud / Hatra sentence would do well to have a picture next to it, I suggest File:Iraq; Nimrud - Assyria, Lamassu's Guarding Palace Entrance.jpg which is from the now-destroyed site. Oncenawhile (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Seconded, but that image will not work well at 100x100px -- can you suggest another? Also we have an unfortunate scarcity of admins who are image savvy enough to put them on the main page. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * i disagree with "The Iraqi government reports". Why are we hedging?  Either it happened, or it shouldn't up there at all.  Let's go with "The ancient cities of Hatra and Nimrud are destroyed by ISIL, who claim they were blasphemous." or better yet, convert to active voice: "ISIL destroys ... Nimrud, which they claim are blasphemous." -- Y not? 14:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL is a good article, and could be linked in future. -- Aronzak (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

[closed] India's Daughter

 * Oppose numerous films have been banned in the past, what makes this any more significant? Could make a nice DYK though. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: No apparent reason why this should be ITN. It doesn't meet any of the criteria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting the mere banning of a film, but there may be some international issues arising from this that might merit at least consideration; the Indian Home Minister has threatened unspecified action against the BBC. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment In December 2012, ITN posted "A gang rape in Delhi sparks widespread demonstrations." A better blurb would be "BBC broadcasts banned documentary on Dehli gang rape" or "BBC broadcasts banned documentary on Dehli gang rape to mark International Women's Day." The film's title is not notable, but India's response to gang rape is an issue of international coverage. If Emma Watson or a UN feminist mentions rape in a speech about gender equality then that would definitely be notable as an international women's issue. -- Aronzak (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If spokespersons such as Emma Watson have commented on this film and its banning, that would shore up its importance. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What's going on? Have I been asleep for a decade and Emma Watson is the new Pope? Formerip (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be the Pope to speak out on abuse of women. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, but the person that said it needs to be either a religious leader, political leader, or a Nobel Peace prize recipient before you can start saying "So and so said this, that makes it important!" -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 22:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Who says? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Society, culture, and 99% of humanity says. My post has been clarified, I switched up how I was going to say it. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 23:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Which of those required entities is Malala Yousafzai? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Added Nobel Peace Prize to that list, I don't remember Emma receiving a Nobel Prize. TBH, I'm a bit offended that you compare Emma to Malala, Emma was never shot in the head in an assassination attempt. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 23:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, but I see your list keeps expanding. Now it includes being targeted by a killer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No. The assassination was in addition to the other things. My point is not that it has to be those things, my point is Emma Watson is not important and that was the only way I thought I could explain it to you, to me Emma Watson is just an ordinary actress trying to act like Malala Yousafzai. But I'm done arguing with you, this is ridiculous. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 23:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like the BBC broadcast was only in Britain. Stephane Dujarric says "I'm not going to comment on the unspeakable comments that were made by the person accused of raping this girl, but I think the secretary-general has spoken very clearly on the need to halt violence against women and on the need for men to get involved in halting violence against women and decrying it loud and clear every time it occurs." Story could break into a bigger issue on March the 8th if anybody highlights rape during IWD events, which would make it notable -- Aronzak (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Agree with BBugs, but not sure it's (yet) ITN worthy. An intriguing decision by BBC - surely it would have made more impact if broadcast, as planned, on Sunday, International Women's Day. It's been rushed out before many people would even realise. The Times of India seems to read this as a slap in face of the Indian ban. But was it BBC damage limitation to avoid an even bigger controversy? I suppose it is now available on iPlayer for all to see. (By the way, Daily Mail is usually avoided as a good source). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC) .. on second thoughts, it looks like it was a "viral YouTube slap in the face."


 * Comment Both "BBC broadcasts banned documentary on Dehli gang rape." or "BBC broadcasts banned documentary on Dehli gang rape to mark International Women's Day." seem good. But, a few editors' opposition set obstacle for further move. Even though, article has good view here and the keywords has good reception on the search engines. -- Anton Talk  16:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Read about this here as the documentary was being promoted and considered writing it up. Agree with TRM and 331dot; how it's panned out since then hasn't reached the diplomatic repercussions as say the last film that ended up here at ITN. I wouldn't mind proposing this over at DYK if this doesn't happen to escalate. Fuebaey (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Presumably the other five countries are still set to show it on Sunday, despite the protests of Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose, a film was banned, big deal. To expand on that (although I am not obligated to do so), I've never seen anything about this on the news, I've never heard of the movie, films are banned all of the time, and apparently Emma Watson making some remark is the biggest reason the supporters have. This is just not significant. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 23:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - To counter the offensive comment immediately above ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What a mature action, BB. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 00:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well your oppose is very immature, so you're one to talk. SeraV (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This exchange as well as the above one are not helpful to this discussion. --331dot (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Every time I contribute here I think about retirement, and I thought I would come back from a one week break and start contributing here again, but I can think of only three or four nice people here, this is my final goodbye to the disgusting page filled with darkness on Wikipedia we call ITN/C, filled with hypocrisy, hyperbole, drama, and nonsense. Better I leave ITN/C than leave Wikipedia, right? (I can hear a hundred voices saying "no, retirement's better" right now) The tone of people discussing things with me here are similar to what you'll hear at AN/I, taking away threats of blocking and the word "boomerang". Goodbye. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 00:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't say I blame AG for feeling that way; I'm not sure what was offensive about his post but even if it was it didn't warrant the response it got. I hope it was worth driving away a contributor. --331dot (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, and I thought The Mist was creepy! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Respectfully Oppose Films are banned and or censored all the time in the world we live in. That's not to say that such an event cannot be ITN worthy, but there would need to be something that sets the given instance of censorship apart from all the others and makes it uniquely worthy of prominent attention. I'm just not seeing that here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Lesotho general election

 * Support article is in decent shape, no obvious errors or anything missing. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Standard ITN fare, no issues apparent here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted ITNR and as Jayron states, no glaring issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * for a picture update? Thanks in advance.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the ping.  —David Levy 17:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sterling work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Oldest Homo fossil

 * Support when updated A major archeological find. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, mostly because it is an incremental result. The problem is that the jawbone does not represent a new species, it is still Homo habilis. A jawbone that has been sitting in a museum was assembled incorrectly years ago and now is a reassembled as a bit narrower. It pushes back the age of the genus Homo from 2.33 million years ago to 2.8 mya. So, how can that be justified ITN? The blurb should read, "Paleontologists make a small correction; the genus Homo is now 20% older. Sorry about that." Abductive  (reasoning) 20:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what you mean? None of the sources mention any museum. The BBC source says "The 2.8 million-year-old lower jawbone was found in the Ledi-Geraru research area, Afar Regional State, by Ethiopian student Chalachew Seyoum." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My bad, that was the other Homo find article. My argument stands; a fossil find that does not change the tree; it just makes the tree trunk a bit longer. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not convinced by your non-argument, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm just being stupid, but it seems to me like a period of half a million years during which we previously thought there were no people but now we think there actually were people does at least rise to the level of interesting. Formerip (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There were many kinds of people at that time, check out List_of_human_evolution_fossils. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - a major archeological find. period.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not an archeological find. Paleontological. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably why New Scientist says "this period, between 2 and 3 million years ago, has long been an archaeological blind spot". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Archaeologists would tend to disagree with you Abductive. Most of them, consider the study of early hominin fossils and artifacts to be a part of their field.  Our article on archaeology gives it a 4 million year domain and discusses the study of early hominin fossils, even though fossils would more typically be an area of study for paleontologists.  Dragons flight (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The fossils are paleontological finds, the tools are archeological. In this case there are no tools. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So if something is "sticking up out of the ground" it can't be "archaeology", even if it's 2.8 million-year-old? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The people might call themselves palaeoarchaeologists. Fossils are paleontological finds and tools are archeological finds. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this fossil from the Piacenzian age? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Abductive. I find his explanation of the situation more compelling than simply stating that it is "a major archaeological find." The only impact I can see is that it proves a narrower time period for evolution of the genus.Mamyles (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Abductive. And we know how the radiocarbon dating is, it's like "oh, this metal tool is two mya, oh wait, what is this here... a writing that reads... 'Black & Decker', oops!" -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 20:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, why not write in to New Scientist to complain? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Radiocarbon dating had nothing to do with this story. I'm guessing you meant to say radiometric dating, but even so, the scenario you describe is without foundation or relevance to the current story.  Dragons flight (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "It's all metric now, mate, you can't even get jawbones with proper teeth no more." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Radiocarbon and radiometric always confuse me. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 21:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support populates a half million year gap in the fossil record. A "mere" 400,000 years is about the amount of time it took Neanderthals, for example, to evolve, live, and disappear from the fossil record. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. A nearly 20% increase in the range of Homo isn't something that happens often.  As discussed by the BBC, it also makes it more likely that the evolution of our ancestors was a response to changing climate in Africa at about that time.  It's no moon landing, but I'd say finding new evidence for an oldest member of our genus is at least as interesting as rediscovering a sunken battleship.  Dragons flight (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with other supports. SeraV (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I also agree that 400 million thousand years is quite impressive on the timeline of human development and warrants inclusion. Considering our documentation lists the latest homo discovery as taking place in 1991, it's not as if this will tie up the ITN ticker in the foreseeable future. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  01:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean 400 thousand. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed I do. Whoopsie! -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  00:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support 400,000 years of difference, reported in Science and Nature, is major news. The history of the genus Homo is important, and widely misunderstood. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose only for lack of significant update. We have no article content to judge here; all of the votes above are based on the significant event; if we posted this now, readers would have nothing to read in any Wikipedia article which covers this information.  If anyone bothers to fix this, consider this a full support on significance.  But this can't be posted as we have no content to highlight as yet!!!-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is true; at present the entire update consists of changing .33 to .8 here and there. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's definitely significant news, but Jayron is right - there is no article on this. None. Challenger l (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can someone more knowledgeable point to a better target article? This seems clearly suitable, but the current state of Homo is not postable. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Somebody would have to create the article. Before this was even nominated I considered creating LD 350-1 about the specimen. But there is only one primary source article at present, which is paid-access. Using just the secondary sources, one would have a hard time building a long enough article to post. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * CommentWhat about this? Educationtemple (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WHo expects us to create an article on this? When several other suitable articles are available. Stop making a huge issue out of a small one.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No one expects anything except content. So far, we have none.  It can be a new article.  It can be an existing article where we add content.  However, we cant post content we don't have.  We have, as yet, nothing to post.  ITN exists to highlight quality Wikipedia content which covers material that people may be reading about in the news.  If we have no content, we have nothing to post.  So either create a new article or add the information to an existing article it doesn't matter.  But you can't say it's a "small issue".  Content is the ONLY issue at Wikipedia.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But just think, the longer we wait, the older this fossil gets! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC) But alas, by his own admission, the oldest homo fossil was this guy.
 * Nearly all the specimens have articles, just look at this Category:Hominin_fossils. And how dare you attempt to stifle debate. What is wrong with you? Abductive  (reasoning) 23:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So nearly all, not all. You could probably write a good one. But it's not a requirement for ITN, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I can't. I need to see the primary source, but also need analysis in secondary sources, preferably scientific articles. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes it a requirement? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For an article? Yes, Wikipedia's rules require secondary sources. Presently there are only the news sources that repeat without analysis the claims made in the primary source. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ...for posting at ITN. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What about Piacenzian, or is that just a geological concept? Obviously the significance of this find is more on our idea of human evolution. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Piacenzian is a not well-known designation. This find does not represent any evolution, it just changes a date. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a mention at ITN would help make it better known. These pesky encyclopaedias, eh? What's 400,000 years between friends. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No amount of promotion on ITN will change what terminology scientists use. Pliocene has about 280,000 results on Google Scholar, Piacenzian has only 1,850. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And which is the more precise? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Abductive, are we here to find a good solution, or are we here to tell you that you are right?. Seems like your ambition is to be right, not finding a good solution.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I suppose you are correct about the direction this debate has taken. All I really am trying to do is point out that none of us is capable of writing an update to an existing article (or writing a new article) that would be long enough to post to ITN. My argument is that it is impossible; if somebody proves me wrong, then it could be an ITN item or a DYK for sure. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ask one of your 1,850 Google scholars to take a look at Piacenzian. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Prove "you wrong", this is a collaborative effort not a Abductive-Wikipedia. You do not call the shots.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. If anyone can suggest an article with a few sentence update and no orange level tags, I'm happy to post this, but it's going stale. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Have been trying: Piacenzian? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted. The compromise I've come up with is to link directly to the new section of Piacenzian as the target using the wording "late Pliocene Age". This is far from my comfort zone, so please correct me if I'm in error. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Espresso Addict. I think that's a really elegant result (however long it lasts). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Japanese battleship Musashi found

 * Highly tempted yet weak support a really interesting story and an excellent, high quality subject article. It could use more than just two sentences on the discovery, but otherwise this is good stuff.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, important finding. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 19:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support significant story that is a break from all the sports events, deaths, disasters and elections. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - A nice find, being widely covered. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. A notable finding. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - A notable finding.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, I would like the article to be a bit more updated. For instance, why was the wreck hard to find all these years? Abductive  (reasoning) 22:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A quick inspection of the geolocation coordinates suggests that this is nowhere near the Philippines, but rather inside it. – H T  D  22:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Depends whether you're thinking of just the islands or also their territorial waters. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Depends if it was found more than 12 miles off the coast. The Philippines is one of the archipelagic states so any waters inside its baselines are territorial waters. – H T  D  22:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Though it would be nice to expand the article a bit more. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with a comment: This is probably the wrong place to raise this, but wouldn't Musashi (battleship) be a more appropriate name for the article? I can't see anywhere in the article's talk page where it has been discussed before. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Japanese battleship Musashi follows Naming conventions (ships), like lots of others in Category:Ships built in Japan. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Cool, obviously notable find. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this really doesn't seem to have been a mystery, just a necessary bit of drudgery. Had it been found off the Azores we'd have a different story. μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Just passing, but curious as to why it is prefaced with Paul Allen and his profession. Would it not be better to just concentrate on the battleship or is the fact that the co-founder of microsoft found it what makes this notable? AIR corn (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Alt blurb proposed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Making a big thing out of Paul Allen's team happening to be one that found it, is probably overkill... unless he was actually directly involved in it, as with guys like Robert Ballard (the Titanic) and James Cameron (Challenger Deep). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears he was. I had that objection at first, but reading some of the articles, it was his ship, he was on board, and he was leading the expedition, from what I can tell by reading the sources above. I first thought this was a case of "rich guy pays people to do stuff for him, then takes credit", but this looks more like "rich guy spends his own money to do something cool himself".  Of course, he was not the only person on board, but he was actively involved in the search, from what I can tell.  I'm ambivalent about his inclusion, but it is at least accurate to note he was involved.  Whether we should not it is a different story, but it isn't strictly wrong.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alt. – Historically significant for what was found, not for who found it (or paid for finding it). Sca (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Support alt blurb but the update is super-short at the moment. I'd like to see a couple of sentences more before posting. --Tone 14:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Btw, the current wording in the article is "what appears to be the wreck", not something more definitive. I think this should be cleared out before posting. Brandmeistertalk  18:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting the alt blurb with some corrections. Jehochman Talk 20:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] 2015 Zasyadko mine disaster

 * support - important enough.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is stub quality and inadequate for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the event is not important enough, and the article is just a stub that hinges on a single source. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 18:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm not even sure this merits a page, let alone posting to ITN.  Doesn't seem significant; the slight relation to the crisis there can be covered by the ongoing listing. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - New official death toll of 17. Can't say that doesn't merit an article. I admit however the article is too stubby. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify, my merits comment was based on the initial one-death information. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose based solely on article quality. Too stubby, and based entirely on a single source.  If the article is expanded and improved, consider this equivalent to a full support.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I wish to withdraw the nomination. The article is not of a decent standard. I have no expertise in Ukraine or disasters, thus I have practically no possibility of improving it. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] FREAK

 * "Affects"?--WaltCip (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, "threatens" might be better: but with online banking and other high-risk sites vulnerable when accessed from two of the world's most common web access platforms, historical experience suggests we can be sure it's either being exploited right now, or will be very soon. And "millions" puts it very mildly: Android has hundreds of millions of users. -- The Anome (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Potentially" isn't good enough; has this caused any actual damages that can be quantified monetarily?  Spencer T♦ C 02:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This might turn into a significant story, but right now, it isn't one according to any criterion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this vulnerability isn't as widespread as previous ones. Nakon  04:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This seems over-hyped. The weakness is that some browsers allow 512-bit encryption, but that still takes a month to break with even high-end consumer electronics. (Compare this to entirely unencrypted cell-phone SMS & calls). Mamyles (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I believe you're mistaken on this in several ways, as follows: (a) no, you no longer need a month of elapsed time to perform the computation -- cloud computing services let you use vast numbers of CPUs concurrently, and the cost of breaking a key is only about $100; (b) no, you only need to factor the key once for each site, and you can do that off-line; thereafter, the exploit is instantaneous, and you don't need to attack millions of sites, attackers will select a few high-profile sites (eg. banks) and attack them selectively (c) cell-phone SMS and calls are at least partially protected by encryption: they're typically encrypted over-the-air, but with a weak (in several ways) cryptosystem, and SMSCs should in general run either on private networks via encrypted links. However, the whole system is exploitable in many ways for state-level actors with the technical/legal resources to do so. -- The Anome (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that because of cloud computing, it is relatively easy for amateurs to gain access to supercomputing tier resources that could shorten exploitation. Though, modern websites generate a new key for every session, so such factoring will only break a single individual at a time. I also agree that state-level actors can exploit many, if not all, other methods of communication. Cell-phone's broken encryption is an example to show that this weakness does not particularly stand out. Mamyles (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue here is not to do with up-to-date protocols: it's old cipher suites still being supported by sites that shouldn't really be using this older stuff, but can be forced to use it by a cipher suite downgrade attack. -- The Anome (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose as a "potential" threat. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Thorbjørn Jagland demoted

 * 1) His name is Thorbjørn Jagland, not Thorbjoern Jagland.
 * 2) He has not been demoted at all. The committee elects its chairman for each term.
 * 3) The main story is the election of the new chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Kaci Kullmann Five. Bjerrebæk (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Snow close if what Bjerrebæk is saying is correct, it's a non-story. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The election of the new chairman of the world's most important prize committee would however be a reasonable story, especially compared to the story concerning an obscure British soldier getting an obscure award (at least compared to the Nobel Peace Prize). This is merely a question of emphasis and wording. I would rather suggest: "Kaci Kullmann Five is elected chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, replacing Thorbjørn Jagland". Bjerrebæk (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The first four Kaci Kullmen were't even nominated. I think it may be be a bit late to start now. Formerip (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Is she related to Dave Clark Five? BencherliteTalk 19:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Guardian headline "Nobel peace prize committee chairman Thorbjørn Jagland demoted", and talks about it being an "unprecedented move" following right-wing parties gaining a majority of appointees on the committee. Reuters also uses "demoted" in its headline, saying "No serving chair has ever been ousted since the awards were first made in 1901, even with shifting political majorities." It is thought to be retaliation for Thorbjørn Jagland presiding over awards of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama and the EU. This is the story. BencherliteTalk 19:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In which case Bjerrebæk isn't telling us the truth here. Simple.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The committee elects its own chairman and has not commented on its reasons for electing Five rather than Jagland, and the new chairman was involved in all those previous decisions cited as much as Jagland. Everything else is speculation, and speculation from foreign tabloids with little knowledge and understanding of the process is not really relevant. And why would the conservative members oust Jagland over the EU prize, something they are entirely in agreement with Jagland on? In fact the new chairman has praised Jagland's leadership of the committee. Bjerrebæk (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Snowclose per above and lack of international import or coverage. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Wave/partial duality of light demonstrated

 * Oppose without much stronger rationale. We are able to look at population ecology by the cycles of predators and prey and how air pollution drives the evolution of spotted moths, but no one would make a claim that the secret of ecology or evolution itself had been observed on these bases.  I don't oppose the subject per se, but let's have a much clearer explanation of the importance of this press release. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well first it is a paper that just has been published by a peer-reviewed journal (the usual metric for scientific stories). The importance is that until now, the duality of light photons (and other subatomic particles) has been a theory that matches with experiment but not observed directly. This shows more directed evidence the theory holds (within the scope of scientific principles). The importance is that much of quantum mechanics - which is the driver behind advanced computing, power, and material applications - is based on duality being a property of sub-atomic particles. It's not ground-breaking, but it is comparable to finding the Higgs boson particle via direct experiment rather than just theory. --M ASEM (t) 20:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Appears to this layman to be a significant scientific discovery. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A paper has just released a press release is not a strong rationale. We've been doing difraction grating experiments in high school in the US for the better part of the last century.  Let's have an actual rationale for the importance of the new experiment, not just the fact that it has been pressreleasen. μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Could you point to academic commentary/editorials that assess the significance of this work? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources that are more academic/scientific in nature Phys.org, Wired, Discovery, Popular Mechanics. --M ASEM (t) 23:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Much though I like airing science items on ITN, I think I'm going to have to oppose. Most of the news sources appear to be based on the same press release, I've failed to find independent editorials/commentaries/news items in major journals explaining the significance of this experiment, and as Modest Genius points out, Nat Commun is not Nature. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support once article is fully updated:
 * Light Can Be Both Wave and Particle&mdash;
 * The proof deserves a mainpage article.
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 *  Weak oppose. I'm always pleased to see science in the news, and this is an impressive experiment, but it's not a scientific breakthrough. Note that the paper was not published in Nature itself, but Nature Communications, an offshoot journal which handles results which do 'not necessarily have the scientific reach of papers published in Nature and the Nature research journals'. It's a cool image of something which scientists have known - and had ample experimental evidence for - for over a century. It's also hardly the first image to demonstrate wave-particle duality (this is the most famous one). Edit: upon further investigation, I'm not even sure that this result demonstrates light exhibiting wave-particle duality at the same time any more than low-illumination double slit experiments. That rather undermines the premise of the item, so I've dropped the 'weak' part of my opposition. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 00:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose if the blurb would actually be accurate with a "for the first time" at the end this would not end up anywhere below Science (yes, even the Nature is below Science). Nergaal (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. They excited and then "photographed" a microscopic standing wave.  (Whereby "photographed" means measured electron transmission.)  It is a difficult technical achievement, but I can't figure out how to get from there to "first-ever observation of the wave-particle duality of light".  There are lots of studies that show wave-particle duality, and I can't figure out why this study is THE ONE that finally makes the case, except to assume that the authors enjoy hyping their own work.  Also, there is nothing particularly unexpected here.  The experiment behaved just as well-accepted theory said that it should, so it isn't like we gained a new scientific understanding.  Technically impressive work, but I don't see it as an ITN-type discovery.  Dragons flight (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The news is that they devised a new experiment to verify a phenomenon that had already been verified before. Though, this experiment is more technical and harder to understand than the double-slit experiment, as Modest Genius mentions. Mamyles (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not that that the duality of light hasn't been shown before, but the experiments have always been showing one or the other (eg the double-slit experiment). This experiment proposes it is the first that captures both at the same time by the same experiment. --M ASEM (t) 16:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The discrete particle version of the double slit experiment also shows both wave and particle behavior happening at the same time. The new experiment shows that energy is absorbed in discrete amounts (particle behavior) and the spatial distribution is determined by wave-like interference.  Despite the claims, I don't see that as especially unique or something you can't infer from other experiments.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That's the one I was thinking of, thanks. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 23:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * support - per a unqiue experiment.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose looks like it's far from a new demonstration. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, clickbait, not a real result. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The methodology may be novel, but the result is well-known and there's already a massively famous standard experiment to demonstrate it. So this isn't news of the scale that's being implied by the headline, or really news at all. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Dave Mackay
Notable Scottish footballer Dave Mackay dies. A writer's association Player of the Year in England and a notable playing career.--72.69.70.247 (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Question Who are you referring to, 72? Dave Mackey is an American runner. Did you spell his name wrong? Some sources would also be nice. Everymorning   talk  01:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * think I got it right now. I'm editing on a tablet so it's a little difficult.--72.69.70.247 (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Posted BencherliteTalk 17:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support variously referred to as a "legend" and "one of Spurs greatest players" (and, in fact, as the greatest Tottenham player by Brian Clough), won The Double with Spurs, won leagues and cups in Scotland and England as a player, and successful as a manager too.  The BBC article summarises it nicely: "He won 10 major honours as a player in British and European football.  The Edinburgh-born player also won 22 caps for his country and was named 'Footballer of the Year' in both Scotland and England." Article could use a few more references in the career section. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I don't follow soccer, but he looks like a major figure in the sport. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Apart from the team honours (full set of Scottish trophies with Hearts, three FA Cups and a double with Spurs), Mackay earned individual honours which cement his legacy. 1969 Footballer of the Year and a member of the Football League 100 Legends, as well as an inaugural inductee of the English Football Hall of Fame. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Given his honors he seems to meet DC2. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. He meets the criteria for notability in his field - once the references issue is taken care of, should be good to go. Challenger l (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment much better referenced, ready to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Immense figure in English and Scottish football. --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Repost Boko Haram to Ongoing

 * Oppose for now at least. The admin was correct to remove it, since the article hadn't been updated in at least a week. It can't qualify for ongoing unless it's been updated. It still hasn't been either. -- Calidum  21:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would probably not have argued against a removal, except for the current beheading, which was reported after the closure. But there was no discussion, and black's lives do matter. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The trouble with strawman arguments is that they can easily look like back-handed insults. I'm almost sure you didn't mean to accuse anyone here of saying or insinuating that such lives don't matter, but clarification would put minds at rest. BencherliteTalk 22:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose From WP:ITN An accepted blurb may be transferred to 'Ongoing' by an administrator if small, incremental updates are still appearing in notable news agencies, and if the administrator is satisfied that regular constructive editing is continuing on the relevant article(s). Major developments should be nominated for a new blurb. An article listed as 'Ongoing' should not be taken as being considered as a featured article or otherwise maintained on the front page for reasons other than its newsworthiness. One sentence of new information has been added to the article since 5 February 2015 - this, on 6 February, nearly a month ago! To judge from our article (which fits with the news that I've seen, or rather not seen, about it) it's not "newsworthy" at present and if it's not in the news, it doesn't belong in "In the news". If Boko Haram comes back into the news, sure, let's have a discussion about re-adding it, but there's no need for strawman arguments like "we are doing our readers a disservice by telling them it is only happening in northern Iraq." BencherliteTalk 22:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what this is, a discussion based on an update, see the sources. Is your oppose, Bencherlite, based on the fact that only one Nigerian was beheaded, or that I posted this before there was news to support reinstating the item? There's nothing formally wrong with my nomination. μηδείς (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Bencherlite. The ITN policies were followed to the letter, no issue here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bencherlite. Regular constructive editing is not continuing on the relevant article, and the last updates concern events from early February.  This should be closed once the accusations of racism are rescinded.  Stephen 22:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bencherlite. I await an apology from Medeis for her unfortunate off-hand comment. --WaltCip (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose without prejudice to User:Medeis. I understand and sympathize with her perspective, but right or wrong, Boko Haram has not been generating the amount of press and frequent updating to warrant ongoing status as of right now. I would note that a number of other ongoing events that I, personally, have been following more closely (the civil war in Libya, the political standoff in Yemen, etc.) are also not listed for the same reason. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. On a quick skim through the websites of Nigeria's main national newspapers (The Sun, The Punch, Nigerian Tribune, Vanguard, The Guardian), only one of them (The Guardian) even mentions the Boko Haram conflict on their main page at present. If the people on the ground no longer consider this newsworthy, neither should Wikipedia. That isn't to belittle the casualties or those affected by the conflict, but just a recognition that this isn't currently in the news. Conflicts like this can run for decades, and it's not reasonable for Wikipedia to keep them permanently highlighted on the main page unless they're being covered elsewhere—ITN is intended to demonstrate that Wikipedia is covering topics which are currently in the news, not to highlight topics Wikipedia considers newsworthy. – iridescent  13:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing this myself. μηδείς (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Boko Haram removed from ongoing
Just as an FYI, I have removed Boko Haram from ongoing - there have been no additions of substance to the article for a few weeks now, and the story has dropped out of the news. The latest event mentioned in the 2015 section is from early February. BencherliteTalk 16:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Yaşar Kemal

 * Oppose I am having a hard time seeing how notable Mr. Kemal actually is or was. The biggest claims to fame were that he collected folklore and stories? As for accolades - for all his claim to fame in Turkey, the awards listed are from Sweden, Germany and Norway, and not his own country, which seems more than a little bizarre to me. It also doesn't help that the whole first paragraph about his works is lifted directly from the man's official website - couldn't a secondary source be found? It makes me think that the article needs attention from someone more directly familiar with Turkish history and literature than I am. Challenger l (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A possible explanation for a lack of awards in Turkey is that he appears to have been in conflict with the government throughout much of his career. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm surprised that anybody can question his notability. --Hegvald (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent - as I said, he is from an unfamiliar field. My remaining objection is the lack of references for his accolades and his works. Challenger l (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. The UK press is clear as to his importance: "ground-breaking Marxist Turkish author and activist" (Independent), "one of Turkey’s greatest writers" (Guardian), "one of Turkey's best-known writers" (BBC). The article could be improved and requires some work on citations. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Maybe a borderline case to some, but that's likely a product of anglocentrism (this being the English-language Wikipedia). He's clearly quite renowned and well-known in Turkey and among the Turkish-speaking diaspora. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems to meet DC2 for Turkish writers. 331dot (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I tagged one section which has a number of claims of accolades, most of which are unreferenced. Most of his works are unreferenced.  Needs fixing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, seems to be one of the best in his field (Turkish writing). Mellowed Fillmore, I'll try to become a regular again, if I don't get nauseous. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 14:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, extremely important figure for Turkish literature. Fixed the issue with his works, will work on the accolades shortly. --GGT (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Should be more or less OK now. --GGT (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose a Nobel nomination is not a grounds for posting--can we have a better explained rationale? μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say that he satisfies WP:ITND, #2: as a Turkish speaker, he would have been one of the first 2-3 authors that I would think of if asked about living Turkish-language authors, very well-known and acclaimed. Arguably the country's most important author. Hürriyet, one of the country's most popular newspapers, wrote a lengthy eulogy detailing how he is a symbolic figure in the country and was one of its most prominent authors: . He was also world-known, I reckon, from the worldwide recognition he got and per Espresso Addict's comment. --GGT (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted - he died on 28th Feb, so posting in that position in the RD list. BencherliteTalk 22:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Estonian parliamentary election

 * Comment. Can you post some news sources? 331dot (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article is not ready. The lead is not updated and there is no commentary on the results whatsoever. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that the article has been updated and that full results are included. Will post it now, and am sure further improvements will be made soon. Jehochman Talk 14:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. In the past, ITN consensus has required a paragraph of discussion of the electoral results prior to posting. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: Replace "War in Ukraine" with "Minsk II"
Hi, since the current Minsk II protocol and its realisation is the dominating topic as opposed to the conflict in general we had up there for ages, could you replace "War in Ukraine" with "Minsk II" please? Thanks and cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose a peace summit presupposes a war. The war is ongoing. μηδείς (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The war has continued despite the ceasefire agreement, which fell short of a permanent settlement as it is. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Even if the war stops at some point, it's still most notable as a war. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose; I disagree with the premise of this nomination; the conflict itself is still the major story. The peace is tenuous at best. 331dot (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I obviously oppose the idea expressed by the proposer. However, I'd argue that, even though low-level skirmishes continue, this event can be removed from ongoing. Nothing significant is happening, to the point where updates have been very slow (I'm the chief writer of both articles). If high-level conflict starts up again, it can be re-added. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Nothing significant is happening"? Such as Boris Nemtsov's assassination not happening, him being Putin's most outspoken critic and an opponent of Russia's war against Ukraine? Even Nixon didn't have McGovern shot, and Nixon ended the war against Vietnam, as well as the draft. Еще Рас...Пүтин μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't know why Mr Nemstov was killed, or whether that has anything to do with Ukraine. You are making inferences not supported by reliable sources, i.e. WP:OR. Are you sure you are capable of contributing to this project? WP:V is essential, as is WP:NPOV. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose but only because I think even if Minsk II is the most active thing, more people will recognize this as part of the ongoing Ukraine war. --M ASEM (t) 01:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Minnie Miñoso

 * Support for RD based on notability and article quality. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Rather notable in baseball. Joshua Garner (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as per the above. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as highly notable sports figure. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article has swathes of unreferenced claims, I've tagged the worst offending sections. Perhaps some of the keen supporters who overlooked this issue can help fix the article.  Otherwise, no doubting that this is a decent RD shout.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been adding sources throughout the day, and will let you know when those sections are addressed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 56 total cites now. No major passages uncited. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in principle on the merits as meeting DC2. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, but if you've read the article, you'll see an unreferenced BLP issue in this sentence, "The earlier extensions to his career with the Sox were publicity stunts orchestrated respectively by one-time Sox owner Bill Veeck and his son Mike, who at the time owned partial or controlling interest in the team." Please either remove the claim or cite it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Plenty of articles refer to it as publicity stunts. Veeck was the master of the publicity stunt. I'll make sure it's cited. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Of course, personal anecdotes are all very well, but this is an encyclopedia so claims like that should be referenced with reliable sources, or removed.  I appreciate your work.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To those of us following the White Sox at the time, there was absolutely no question it was a publicity stunt. The various milestones are connected with it: Oldest player to get a base hit, only player to bat in five, six, etc. different decades. He was closely associated with Veeck for many years anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that adding citations is desirable, but it is obvious that when a long-retired ballplayer is given a single at-bat at age 55, this is not because he is the best available player. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You might as well be speaking Mongolian, that your assertion is "obvious" is clearly out of step with many English speakers, particularly those who have not the foggiest idea about baseball. Don't forget, this isn't American Wikipedia, and importantly that when you assume ....... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The 1976 and 1980 appearances were late in the season after the Sox were well out of the race. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Better cited than not, especially for those who don't understand enough about baseball to know what that means. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Cited is better than uncited. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * comment. I know this is way after the fact but I think MM is way below our notablilty standards.  He doesn't meet DC2.  He was never considered one of the best baseball players.  He wasn't recognized as such (he never won an MPV).  His career stats don't put him among the very best.  He's not even a MLB hall of famer.  His latin origins maybe boost his case, but it's way short for me.  This is not a 'pull' vote, merely an observation.  (but i'd be fine with it being pulled).--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just as a counterargument, there are nonquantifiable intangibles that make someone noteworthy enough to be considered for RD. Counting awards or positions held is a fine metric for people when they have no experience with the person in question, but ultimately there are some people who don't have any tangible or quantifiable way to express their importance to some field or endeavor.  For a recent example, I remember recently we posted the death of a politician which had fairly widespread support even though they had never been a head of state or similar position (I can't remember which country it was from, forgive me), but because they were the leader of a vocal opposition party, and had been for such a long time, and had become a cultural touchstone within that country.  One does not need to actually win an award or hold a position to be considered newsworthy enough for people to notice your death.  Cultural relevance is really the thing we should be judging here, and while many people with cultural relevance would also have lots of awards, some times a person is clearly relevant enough for their death to be noteworthy, but no one gave them any awards for doing anything.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just as a countercounterargument, these particular individuals are promoted through clear systemic bias. The "cultural relevance" is usually US-dominated here which is of no surprise since most editors are from the US.  Hence why we have had non-entity college basketball coaches posted at RD recently.  As a project, it's great that we try to promote a diverse set of RDs, but when we falsely lower the bar, as we seem to have done more and more often for these minor US sports personalities, it undermines the process.  The problem with claiming "cultural relevance" is that it is often mistaken around these parts as an opportunity to wax lyrical about how individual editors remember the nominated people, how much of an impact the nominated people made in their individual lives; when pressed on how those nominated people actually meet the RD criteria, we get a hand-wavy "cultural relevance" argument and not much more.  Sure, every nomination is subjective, but the more we encourage and allow this overt systemic bias, the less likely this section of the main page will be taken seriously from an encyclopaedic perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand how posting Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, which is the person I note in the argument above, represents a pro-US bias. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat was far more significant than Minnie Minoso. Just not famous in the West  Also I think Minoso's 'cultura relevance is mostly from his publicity stunts which made him known to a generation after his playing career, but didn't really make his career more notable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Plus I wasn't referring to Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, although Johnsemlak's point is a perfectly good one on that subject. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)