Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/March 2016

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] RD: Denise Robertson

 * Oppose. I've lived in the UK for 60+ years and had never heard of her until yesterday.  Not notable enough.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless you were a big fan of "This Morning" or "Loose Women" chances are you have never heard of her. Not RD material I'm afraid.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, not at the level of Claire Rayner. Stephen 04:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Kolkata overpass collapse

 * Support The article is presently a tad short but as a construction accident from the Eastern world, it will likely take time for proper information to filter into place. But it is otherwise sourced and the incident notable. --M ASEM (t) 15:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - upon article expansion.BabbaQ (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is adequate and can easily be expanded when more information becomes available. -Zanhe (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support now, as the expansion is there. Brandmeistertalk  21:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Getting significant coverage; notable infrastructure project failure. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

[Posted to RD]: Hans-Dietrich Genscher

 * Oppose for now on quality alone. At least 3 sections are inadequately referenced: The section titled "Biography" and then the two at the end with "Other Activities" and "Recognition".  If that could be cleaned up, this would be appropriate for the main page.  -- Jayron 32 11:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on article improvements per Jayron. Importance clear but poor sourcing. --M ASEM (t) 13:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – Postwar Germany's most influential, effective and longest-serving foreign minister. Present at the dissolution of the Eastern Bloc. – Sca (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - influential. needs improvements though.BabbaQ (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - influential diplomat. -Zanhe (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Easily. --bender235 (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added sources now. Please re-evaluate. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Support One of the most influential diplomats, constantly working on the Fall of the Iron Curtain. Actually should get a text like Schmidt before. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – What's the holdup? Sca (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Stephen 04:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

[Reposted] RD: Zaha Hadid

 * Support after update - There currently isn't anything about her death in the main article, I suppose this will change soon. Fgf10 (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Her achievements are notable enough in their own to be on the main page, although someone is going to need to find citations for some of the missing material early on on the page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per above and death cause is there. Brandmeistertalk  16:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, but sourcing needs to be improved before posting. -Zanhe (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support notable architect. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Posted -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 17:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, given that Corbett is ready and is thoroughly sourced while this is not fully sourced in any way, could we please explain the thinking here? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was about to comment that the sourcing problems pointed out above were not resolved at the time of posting. Importance is clear, but sourcing/quality is also a must. --M ASEM (t) 18:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You're an uninvolved admin. Perhaps you could, at the very least, post Corbett.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The posting is premature, I'm afraid. Significant portions of the article are still unsourced. On the other hand, Imre Kertész is ready. -Zanhe (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Can someone pull this please. Consensus is not counting how many bold supports there are and most of the above are clearly conditional on quality. While going through this I've found that, not only are several paragraphs unsourced, existing citations do not support certain statements. This rush to post looks awfully like a supervote and overlooks other nominations that are clearly ready. Fuebaey (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Pulled premature posting Stephen 22:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ready to re-post all "citation needed" tags have been fixed. MurielMary (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Reposted Smurrayinchester 08:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ronnie Corbett

 * Support RD pending improvements Sadly quite a bit of the article is uncited, and that would need to be fixed before he could get listed. Miyagawa (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support There's still a couple of minor uncited items. I'll take a look later and see if I can fix those. I have to go out and get some fork handles first. Miyagawa (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Notability-wise, I'm not sure whether Two Ronnies was that popular worldwide and whether he makes the cut in general. Brandmeistertalk  12:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be popular worldwide. In fact it's most likely that it was less popular simply because it was British humour.  As the article says it ... was watched by 22 million viewers a show ..., that's nearly half the population of the United Kingdom at the time, so its viewership is comparable to the Superbowl in relative terms.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * According to the source] (Ronnie B's obituary) the peak viewing was 17 million, not 22, and this was at a time when there were only 3 or 4 channels available. I've updated the article to match the source. Having said that I support RD once the article is up to standard, but not blurbworthy though. And it's goodnight from him. Optimist on the run (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh well, a mere third of the population. Still comparable to the Superbowl viewing figures.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD as per my comment above. Optimist on the run (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality only. Article is extensive enough, but about 50% unreferenced.  Needs some referencing work to be main page ready.  -- Jayron 32 12:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Change to Support The referencing has improved a lot. There's still a few uncontroversial items in the "later career" section which could use a cite, but I won't hold up posting over that.  Keep up the good work whoever worked on it.  -- Jayron 32 15:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support after improvements. A major figure in British comedy for generations, but the article needs some work. BencherliteTalk 12:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD after improvements for the same reasons as Bencherlite gives. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is in poor shape. --Tocino 13:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, a household name in the UK, a much loved figure and one of the last the pioneering figures in TV comedy (remember, not just the Two Ronnies, but also That Was The Week That Was, which is where the name The Two Ronnies came from). I will light four candles in his memory. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment a lot of work has been done on the article already, for those who are interested, please re-appraise. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Notability isn't really an issue here, household name for decades. Referencing seems to be fine at the moment as well. Fgf10 (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD, major British personality, household name.LM2000 (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - who is that? Allegedly a British household name, but in the same way that we would not post Mongolian/Indonesian/Sao Tomean household names, we should not post anyone who had zero impact outside his home country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.161.249.228 (talk • contribs)
 * Bollocks I'm afraid. That's neither demonstrated in the criteria for posting, nor in the items that are routinely posted.  If you want to change things, try to do something helpful.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If he wanted to be helpful, he'd have an established identity. Instead, he wants to troll, and so hides behind a random IP address. -- Jayron 32 18:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Or she. ;-) MurielMary (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh well, then please show us your IP address instead of hiding behind an anonymous user name...
 * Posted While a few paragraphs in his latter appearances are technically unsourced, they are all about blue-linked shows he was in with sourcing to confirm those works there. Those sources should be brought into this one, but not an issue to post. --M ASEM (t) 18:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - a giant in his field. 217.38.127.254 (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

[Stale] Vojislav Šešelj

 * Comment We do indeed post ICTY rulings. However, the current article has so many tags that it is inappropriate for Main page at the moment. This needs to be addressed first. --Tone 12:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Solved. Those were actually old tags from years ago, and i have also added more references. Its good to go. --Axiomus (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 *  Weak oppose Neutral. Acquittal is less newsworthy than indictment, Šešelj was not an especially high up figure at the time of the alleged offences, and from what I can tell from the court verdict, the crimes he was accused of were not as serious as those of other Serbian leaders (agitating for a "Greater Serbia", recruiting for Serbian forces, and engaging in hate speech against Croats – all of which the court found that he did, but not in a way that broke the law). I don't think we'd post analogous cases in other conflicts (for example, I doubt we'd post the acquittal of an IRA or UDF propagandist in Northern Ireland). That said, we have posted several ICTY acquittals before (Milan Milutinović, Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač).  Smurrayinchester 14:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: perhaps the link was updated after you've read it but he was accused of committing rather serious crimes - "Vojislav Šešelj faced nine counts of which three were for crimes against humanity (persecution, deportation and inhumane act of forcible transfer) and six were for war crimes (murder, torture and cruel treatment, wanton destruction, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion or education, plunder of public or private property)."--Avala (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Having found a more detailed case description, it seems he was accused as an abettor or inciter rather than a direct participant or commander in those crimes (in other words, he was accused of helping murderers and war criminals (particularly, by promoting racist ideas that encouraged Serbian troops to attack non-Serb civilians), and of participating in a joint criminal enterprise with them). From the slightly more detailed link, his crimes were: "to have participated in the recruitment, formation, financing, supply, support and direction of Serbian volunteers", "having participated in the planning and preparation of the take-over of towns and villages in Croatia and in a number of municipalities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the subsequent forcible removal of the majority of the non-Serb population from those areas", "having participated in the provision of financial, material, logistical and political support necessary from the Serbian authorities and from Serbs living abroad for the take-overs", "collecting the funds to support the aim of the JCE", "having recruited Serbian volunteers connected to the SRS and indoctrinated them with his extreme ethnic rhetoric" and "in his inflammatory speeches, he instigated Serb forces to commit crimes, encouraged the creation of a homogeneous "Greater Serbia" by violence, and thereby participated in war propaganda and incitement of hatred towards non-Serb people so that they engaged in the forcible removal of the non-Serb population". I still feel most of these are tangential (although the charge of planning ethnic cleansing is a severe one, and I'm surprised it didn't appear in the ICTY press release), and I don't like the idea of posting the cases of minor participants in JCEs as if they were the main perpetrators, but I also wouldn't be opposed to posting. Smurrayinchester 07:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, we would and should, if it were that the IRA or Ulster loyalists were tried in front of the ICTY &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - very high profile case, trial lasted for 13 years + precedent exists from just a few days ago - .--Avala (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see why Šešelj being acquitted is less notable than a conviction. It was something of a surprise and is certainly arousing quite a response. It may also affect the upcoming Serbian elections by giving Šešelj's party a boost, as various sources have noted. The crimes he was charged with were very serious, in my view. He is and was a major political figure in Serbia, so I am not convinced by the notion that he was not a sufficiently important leader. Neljack (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose the accused being found not guilty is the default assumption. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You are obviously unfamiliar with ITCY way of working then... --Axiomus (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not try asking what I mean, rather than making personal insults? In general, something not happening is not news. μηδείς (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Now, 12 years after his surrender to the ICTY, and after most indictees were convicted (see the list), his acquittal is even more newsworthy than an indictment would be. Unlike many others on the list, Šešelj was a high-profile advocate of Greater Serbia policies, and his ICTY indictment was amongst the most widely followed and covered ones, obviously second to figures like Karadžić or Milošević. --PanchoS (talk) 10:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support.  Being officially cleared of war crimes charges is notable, as such trials are more disruptive and longer (13 years) to the person on trial than garden variety trials; it is also notable that the ICTY found anyone not guilty, as it establishes precedent regarding the fairness of trials in international law. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb or altblurb2, though the article needs much improvement and should at least tell us, on which grounds he was acquitted.
 * Support pending article improvement - significant development, but article has way too many citation needed tags. -Zanhe (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Imre Kertész

 * Support pending article improvement. NP laureate and contributed to awareness about the Holocaust. w.carter -Talk  09:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: Working on cleaning it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't find much info in English sources. Someone else also has to chip in I suppose. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Pending article improvement. Miyagawa (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support pending article improvement . – Sca (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I made some expansion work, but really not too much to find. In my opinion the prose itself and the sources are fine. Only problem might be the unsourced Award table, but I highly doubt that one will easily find sources for many of those without knowing Hungarian... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - notable writer, Nobel laureate, Holocaust survivor. Article quality is adequate. -Zanhe (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - significant improvements made in the article since first offered as an ITN candidate, and the sourcing is now adequate. Notability established in preceding comments. Christian Roess (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment removing ready at this point, too many claims of awards without any citations, particularly with awards that don't have English Wikipedia articles to back up the claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - No brainer. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Marked ready. Sca (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As noted above, too many unreferenced claims of awards, BLP applies. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All but three are now cited. We can just delete them if this is a sticking point.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well as are his unreferenced and unlinked works. Is there a general source (e.g. Worldcat) that can reference those many uncited works?   The unreferenced awards should either be cited or be removed.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All works before 2003 are now cited. Only two remain uncited now.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted good enough, especially in light of the ridiculously quick posting of Hadid. Good work to those involved in the updates. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Patty Duke

 * Oppose on quality. Article is mostly unreferenced.  It is long and extensive and none of it is verifiable because it hasn't been cited to reliable sources.  If someone can reference it, this would be an easy addition to the main page.  -- Jayron 32 17:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Problems have been fixed. Seems main page ready to me.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per Jayron32. An Oscar winner, president of SAG, and mental health advocate is otherwise a promising candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Well done on the article improvements. It's ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality – Meets RD criteria but the article quality is not up to par, as explained by Jayron. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose a serious amount of work would need to be undertaken to improve this article's verifability to ITN's standards.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  23:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on notability but I have strep throat as the least of my current worries, so just let me oppose a snow close at this point. μηδείς (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support notability and giving editors a bit of time to work on the article before closing this nom. MurielMary (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment article has had an overhaul; does it need more work? MurielMary (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support on quality Please check the work done since the last oppose at 23:07, 29 March. Can you still say it's mostly unsourced? JustinTime55 (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's "unsourced" any longer; however, I wonder if there is excessive detail still. Much has been trimmed, but more could be/should be? MurielMary (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support on quality based on this overhaul. The fixes have improved the overall readability & flow of the article which is now well documented because of the numerous citations that have been added. Personally, I liked some of the previous details listed in the "Later years" section that seem now to have been removed, but their removal doesn't detract from the overall quality of this article. But yes, perhaps they were a bit " excessive." I also support on notability. Christian Roess (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * although the filmography section is excessive, IMO. Perhaps this could be scaled back to a "Selected filmography" section. Maybe a "Patty Duke filmography" Wikipedia page could be created, but that's excessive too, because her influence as an actress, and any mainstream attention it brought her, diminished over the years. But that's a quibble, and should not keep it from being added to the main page. Christian Roess (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Sourcing has been significantly improved since the point I nominated this. There's general cleanup that can be done, but that's not an issue for RD posting. --M ASEM (t) 13:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * support - notable actress with a significant career. and good article.BabbaQ (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good job to everyone involved in the improvement work. When I first saw the state of the article, I figured it had no chance for ITN, but I'm very pleased to have been proven wrong! Miyagawa (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It was in a bit of a state, indeed! Lots of pruning and sorting out but I'm pleased with the result too. MurielMary (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

[Removed] Removal proposal: European migrant crisis
This has been in the ITN box since August 2015. I don't think keeping it here serves any purpose any more - anyone who would see it has surely seen it by now (traffic has dropped 90% since we posted it). The most recent significant update concerns news from March 23 - older than the oldest piece of news currently in the template. New updates to the saga can be considered as their own blurbs, but keeping it in ongoing is pointless. Smurrayinchester 15:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support removal per nom.  Spencer T♦ C 15:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong support for removal. Yes, the crisis still exists, but it is nowhere getting the same amount of coverage as when it was first introduced. Ongoing was never meant for stories with this long of a news tail. --M ASEM (t) 15:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support removal per proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support removal from ongoing. At this point a significant update would look better as a blurb, and depending on the update ongoing could then be reconsidered. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support removal, per Masem. Things have calmed down. Sca (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - indeed nothing is really happening, just tens of thousands of refugees trapped in Greece. Maybe we should just wait for Spring, when thousands will die in the Mediterranean. I think the threshold for posting is about 100 dead or so, per incident. Maybe higher, because after all these refugees are not Americans or Western Europeans. So let's just wait for Spring and a few more deaths. Btw, a Hollywood actress, Patty Duke, has just died. Someone should go ahead and nominate her for a blurb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.161.248.248 (talk • contribs)
 * Can you highlight or include a diff to the new text which has been added to the Wikipedia article which merits including in ongoing? If you can't, then all you're doing is being rude because people disagree with you.  That's rarely a means of getting what you want.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support removal now. The last time i remember voting on this, there had been recent activity, but it appears to have died down.  I'm good with dropping it for now.  We can always post a new item or return it to ongoing with another vote later if activity warrants it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove - I proposed removal several times. How did my removal proposals, while this one is successful? Waiting for six months? Well, I don't mind it being a blurb, but being an ongoing on the Main Page for six months and then becoming an ongoing again afterwards... It's too much for now. News coverage of the crisis should go to journalists, not us. --George Ho (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Because when you made your earlier proposals, there were active, substantive updates being made to the target article. There now aren't.  You do know that the world is not static, that things don't stay the same forever, correct?  That just because people are actively adding text to an article today, they may not be in a week, right?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * time to chill out and stop going off on one. Times change, as does consensus.  Please, PLEASE, stop this odd crusade.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed from ongoing ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] EgyptAir Flight 181
{{ITN candidate Busy with a few meetings over the next few hours but ill come back here when its done. }}
 * article      = EgyptAir Flight 181
 * article2     =
 * image        = File:Airbus A320-232, EgyptAir JP6684212.jpg
 * blurb        = An Egypt Air flight from Cairo to Alexandria is hijacked and forced to land in Cyprus.
 * recent deaths =
 * ongoing      =
 * altblurb     = EgyptAir Flight 181 {aircraft pictured), a scheduled flight from Alexandria, Egypt to Cairo is hijacked shortly after takeoff, and is forced to land at Larnaca International Airport in Cyprus
 * altblurb2    =
 * altblurb3    =
 * sources      = Yahoo BBC
 * updated      = yes
 * updated2     =
 * nominator    = Lihaas
 * updater      = Ktr101
 * updater2     = Jolly Janner
 * updater3     =
 * ITNR         = no
 * note         = Breaking story so keep an eye on it.
 * nom cmt      = These days hijackings are quite rare and with the region in flames this could be something.
 * sign         = Lihaas (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe "attempted" hijacking may be more appropriate? My understanding of a hijacking is that one is in control of the aeroplane. Unless the hijackers changed their mind... Also, why is my comment so tiny?  Jolly   Ω   Janner  06:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Once the article is expanded upon more. I also added an alternative hook, since I found the flight number online. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The article looks okay as far as it goes, would be expanded as details emerge. Passes the notability requirement. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - The article is currently way too short, but this is obviously going up when it's ready. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support notable incident. SST  flyer  07:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per above.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Article is still only at half the recommended minimum prose size...  Jolly  Ω   Janner  09:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All passengers and crew were safely released. It would be nice if the blurb were able to mention that, but it's probably not mandatory. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually erroneously wrote that into the article, as he did not release four foreign nationals and the crew. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My fault, I saw it in the article and I saw it in the ref so I called it good. Lack of due diligence on my part considering it's a breaking story. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This is good to go, but we have no real consensus about a blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The blurb is fine, for the time being. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC).


 * Posted with an abridged alt blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * oppose not notable and by the time he gets out of jail his ex-love will have a harem of anothers kids. (probably delete?)Lihaas (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What?? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't know either. I'm guessing Lihaas is having second thoughts because this apparently won't end up being as bloody as it could have. As the first successful hijacking in something like seven years, this is easily notable enough for ITN regardless of the outcome. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * They did create an alternative page at the wrong name, so that could be the root behind that comment. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Pull – None dead, hostages released, hijacker locked up. Ergo, lacks notability. Sca (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to point to the last passenger airliner that was hijacked please? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Pull - Given that the man's claim to have had an explosive belt have been shown false, this was mainly a political message, not any acts of terrorism or the like. It's why we should give stories that are open-ended (like a supposed hijacking in progress) time to develop to cement details before putting them ITN, to actually deem them appropriate for ITN. --M ASEM (t) 15:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Sca (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to point to the last passenger airliner that was hijacked please? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Even though the belt was fake, he still managed to hijack an airplane and divert it. Good thing everyone survived. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not really newsworthy. Sca (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's still my top story on Google News, covered by many outlets. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Slow news day, by current standards. Sca (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to point to the last passenger airliner that was hijacked please? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So, what sca is saying is that because he PERSONALLY wishes that news outlets were not covering this story extensively, that we should ignore those reliable sources, and instead make Wikipedia decisions based on his personal feelings about the matter. Interesting.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Personally, I don't give a rip. I was simply explaining why it appears high on news sites today, despite its comparative insignificance. Given another mass death-and-destruction event, it would quickly move down. (WP:NPA.) – Sca (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinion of slow news days is noted. Now time to get back to work.  Did you discover the last time a passenger airliner was hijacked?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's right, but sadly it's not interesting, nor novel. It happens all the time.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * According to us, either 2009 for something like this, or 2014 if the crewmember did not kill everyone. For a crewmember killing everyone, then that was last year. Either way, it has been quite awhile since someone outside of the crew successfully hijacked a plane, so that is quite notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but irrelevent. Are reliable news sources covering this event?  Is there a sufficient Wikipedia article about this event?  There's no need to bring any other proof in here.  Either the reliable sources exist or don't, and either the Wikipedia article is good enough for the main page or it isn't.  There's no need to bring in anything else into the discussion.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, and was just helping out with the discussion above. Besides, adding that to the main page with all of those qualifiers would make things a lot more complicated with the hook. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I was initially hesitant to post it, because of the article size and not knowing what it was all about. Since then I've slept on it and the article has been expanded to above the minimum and it is still headline news around the world. Unless we had a tonne of other related hijackings going on this week, there's no real reason not to post this.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  20:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] FBI–Apple encryption dispute

 * Oppose - Nothing definitively groundbreaking ever came as a result of this.--WaltCip (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - there are many problems with featuring this:
 * It affects only one country. It is by no means clear what would happen if, say, Pakistan gets hit by a terror attack and the Pakistan government orders Apple to unlock the phone. US law reaches only the US, and the Pakistan government might well decide otherwise.
 * Unlike e.g. the release of a new iPhone, which one could reasonably expect iPhone users worldwide to be interested, because of the above, this only affects US iPhone users.
 * At the heart of it this dispute is a judgment call: about whether one is willing to give up privacy for security (this is simplifying it, but the essence is there). I feel intuitively that when a dispute reaches this point, the logical way forward is to simply poll everyone involved and follow the majority's judgment. In that case the resolution of the dispute is also rather uninteresting.
 * Speaking of resolutions this particular resolution is even more uninteresting. There was no long drawn out legal process with multiple lobbyists on both sides, no formal lawsuit before the supreme court, or anything like that. The core issue is not resolved; it just doesn't have to be because there's no problem (for now) anymore. Not very interesting at all.
 * I'd be more inclined (but still skeptical) to post this if the case were argued before the US supreme court and a binding, groundbreaking precedent made. With this end to the dispute though, I'm decidedly against posting it. Banedon (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you kindly point out the requirement that a story affect more than one country to qualify for ITN? --166.172.58.170 (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no such requirement, and we in fact discourage single-country objections on this very page: "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.". 331dot (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Nothing groundbreaking here, it's not even a court ruling. If it ended up in court and the court ruled Apple had to assist, that might have been a significant effect on US privacy rights, but this means nothing. --M ASEM (t) 01:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose The story was big because the potential outcome, had it gone a certain way, could have held truly significant implications. As it stands, a lot of words and money were wasted, paranoia was fueled, and this all might as well have never happened at all. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 01:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The iPhone is ridiculous, Apple is ridiculous, the people shrieking about the FBI bogeyman are ridiculous, but this ridiculous story is in the news, and the article is ok. There is one fact tag in the whole thing, everything else is sourced to death. --166.172.58.170 (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support it's been in the news continuously for quite some time. Article is in good shape. This is probably going to be the only time left to support it. I think we need to just stand back and realise that it's receiving news coverage without quabbling over whether or not we ourselves find it notable. I added alternative blurb.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  02:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Can we not try to act like an ad-generated newspaper or medium already or Wikinews for this matter? The more serious events are more impactful than this one. --George Ho (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support (alt blurb) – this a return to status quo, not a major change that would have immense security ramifications. However, this is a big story regardless and is in the news and I think that pushes it far enough to be worth posting. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * oppose at the end nothing came out of it that was an earth-shattering encroachment on privacy. (its already gone).Lihaas (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose not really that newsworthy.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose because nothing has really changed; the issue was not resolved. As said above, if this was the final decision in a SCOTUS case, it would be more newsworthy. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed, Pulled from Ongoing] 2016 Brussels bombings
This got pushed off the main page yesterday by a flurry of newer additions, but things are still happening (esp. new arrests) and the article is still being updated. I don't think there will be any opposition to adding this to Ongoing, so I added it without waiting for a discussion here, but I suppose I should provide a forum for anyone to disagree. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose/pull - What is ongoing on the event? I recognize they're actively trying to track down how it was planned, etc. but unlike the Boston Marathon Bombings where there was an active manhunt and a curfew imposes to assist in that, what we're seeing is expected results from an attack.  I'm very hesitant to say "oh, we need to add a story pushed too fast off the news list to ongoing" without prior consensus, as that goes back to timing issues that have been a point of contention on the talk page.  A better solution would be to identify certain types of stories that should have x days on the ticker, while other stories might not. For example, any "mass death" story I think would be fair to say should be up for 3 days, min, overriding stories on elections, sports results, and singular recent death blurbs, which should fall off in natural order. But we should not use Ongoing as a means to artificially extend the appearance of a story at ITN just because there was another flurry of news at the same time. --M ASEM  (t) 15:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support/keep 1) The article is still being actively updated with new information 2) The article rolled off the bottom of the main ITN thread. Ticks every box for me.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose/pull The updated content isn't all that pertinent. Mostly routine arrests. If it does stay up, I would really only recommend for a few more days.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  22:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose/pull per the Jolly one above. There are a few arrests here and there, this was mercifully not an event in the magnitude of 9/11 whereby new developments and impact would follow for weeks as top stories &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support/keep owing to significance of the event. It's probable that this will continue to generate news for weeks to come. Banedon (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose/pull - This should have been discussed before adding it. The bombings themselves are significant at this point. The aftermath, however, does not live up to standards of ITN. I see random arrests, reactions, and investigations that make very little impact globally and do nothing other than to gain revenue for the newspapers. Wikipedia is not a business or a for-profit institution or anything like that. If there are arrests of runaway suspects, that belongs to the blurb, not "Ongoing" ticker. We've done this before on other events that heightened fears of Muslims. We already have "European migrant crisis", which worsens it. Maybe it's time to take it out from Ongoing and make developments of the aftermath... blurb-y next time. George Ho (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually no, it didn't need discussion. It can be moved to ongoing "if small, incremental updates are still appearing in notable news agencies, and if regular constructive editing is continuing on the relevant article(s)." Stephen 05:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ITN also mentions consensus, Stephen. So far, the whole consensus wants it pulled now. --George Ho (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant. You said it should have been discussed before adding it to ongoing, which is untrue. Stephen 06:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But by your logic, we should add the death of Rob Ford to ongoing, as it is still receiving significant international coverage. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  06:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * George, your claim is simply untrue. Floydian, it's not Stephen's logic, that's the wording of the Ongoing instructions, and no, Bob Ford didn't appear as a blurb, so it wouldn't be moved to Ongoing in any case.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, The Rambling Man said it just the way I would have. Stephen 08:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose/pull - Not sure how this is more significant than the Pakistan bombings that killed twice as many and injured roughly the same, aside from it being in a first-world western country that inherently has greater English press coverage. I can't recall any other recent bombings (Paris, Madrid and Boston come to mind) that were elevated to "ongoing". Reactions and cleanup are obviously ongoing, but the main story won't develop much further than identification. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  05:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Pull per Floydian. Neljack (talk) 07:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Pulled by Smurrayinchester. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) I've pulled it per the general consensus. Arrests are a normal follow up to any crime. On a more minor note, with three ongoing events, all with long names, the template looked ungainly. If this does end up being reposted, at least use the noun phrase form "Brussels bombing aftermath" or similar. Smurrayinchester 08:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh. OK, my apologies for guessing wrong. I'm really pretty amazed at this result - it was 6 days old, still on the front page of the BBC NYTimes, Washington Post, and CNN websites yesterday, and I recall counting that in the first 15 hours of 28 March (when I added it)  it was edited 71 times by 25 people adding significant changes (including release of a man from custody). The Paris attacks stayed in Ongoing for, I think, 2 weeks.  Seemed to meet all of the requirements of Ongoing to me.  But I'll bow to consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Me too, and I could see where some pressure was applied because of that frigging Rambler Tosspot and his Boot Race getting promoted despite it being composed of 1920s gentlemen of the manor, and bumping off the Brussels blurb. It did meet the criteria for moving to Ongoing and it did meet the criteria for being removed per consensus, despite that consensus being somewhat odd.  You did exactly the right thing Floq.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite suggesting it be pulled, I agree that you did the right thing considering the circumstances. Our guide is to move to ongoing first and then ask questions later.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  22:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I couldn't nominate the Paris event for removal because... Well, I couldn't repeat what happened to Metrojet Flight 9268. It got removed from Ongoing but then was reinserted as such a few days later. George Ho (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: Mother Angelica

 * Support for notability in the field of cable television networks and faith-based broadcasting. Article needs additional citations to bring it up to main page standard. MurielMary (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is nowhere near good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is extensive enough, but much of it is unreferenced. If someone did the research to add cites to the proper places, and got the text fully referenced, I'd support this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is referenced, but much of the content is dubious, and a lot of questionable statements need to be trimmed.--WaltCip (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Article has had a major overhaul, not sure if it's ITN worthy yet though, complicated by other articles existing which describe three of her projects (a shrine, the TV network and the radio network). MurielMary (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Her creation, EWTN is most notable, although I have no opinion on the article quality. μηδείς (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment the article is becoming problematic as editors (presumably members of her religious community) add extremely detailed and repetitive content and defend these edits on the basis of "the Catholic world view". Very regretfully, considering the great tidy-up work done, I don't think it's a good idea to feature it on the main page while this is ongoing. MurielMary (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there some polite way to refer to 's coment as utter bullshit, given that I am an atheist, but that I watched scores of hours on her network, EWTN, regarding Catholic matters in general, and the entire series on G K Chesterton? Such opposition seems partisan, not  objective.  It's like a communist saying Ronald Reagan was of no importance.  Let's be objective, not emotional. μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to have misunderstood. The subject of the article is most definitely notable, as I already stated in my support of this nomination. However the article has become non-neutral due to editing from a religious viewpoint. For this reason, I am questioning whether it is still ITN-worthy as it doesn't conform to the expectation of a neutral point of view. MurielMary (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think what MurielMary is getting at is that there's a potential for this article, with a high number of quotes, to be seen as proselytizing the faith by some editors, and could potentially be a target for those that disagree with that faith to change that. I've looked through the article in the present state and there's a few excessive quotes but nothing that I would consider this to be out of line with expressing what her beliefs were. It's a valid concern but appears to have been dealt with. --M ASEM (t) 16:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to look through the article and give your opinion re the excessive quotes. Appreciated. MurielMary (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia. Mother Angelica is religious and lived in the southern United States. Good luck! Not only is the deck already staked against her as she was Catholic, but the southern American aspect puts the nail in the coffin of this anti-American sentiment laced throughout this British-centric "worldwide" English encyclopedia. Dfvken qwuert (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Agree with assessment on importance for RD. If there were sourcing issues, they seem to have been resolved since nomination. It's a tad quote heavy but that's cleanup and not a blocking issue for ITN. --M ASEM  (t) 16:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's probably quite moot at this pointn since Patty Duke is just about ready to be pushed off the ticker, Unfortunately I have strep, and don't feel up to the hard work. And thanks to User:MurielMary's civil response to my provocation. μηδείς (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] 2016 Lahore suicide bombing
23:00 – BBC, NYT: 69; AP: 65. Sca (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – The three-paragraph article looks okay as far as it goes, but of course would be expanded as details emerge. (Article puts death toll at 73; NYT says 69, BBC "at least" 60.) Sca (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – Looks like just enough to be posted; definitely passed the notability requirement though. Not sure if we need to mention the intended targets of the killing, however. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Joseph2302 (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support we still have a stub really, but a substantial and horrible death toll. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see this expanded before I support. It's under 1000 bytes of prose presently. That's too short for the main page IMO. Even DYK has a minimum of 1500. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The proposed blurb says at least 60. And why is this indented as a response to the note regarding article length?  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support I recognize the article size might be small but I don't think we'll get a lot to expand it out for another 1/2 day or so (given timezones), and it is otherwise well sourced to start with for now. --M ASEM (t) 23:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Our own guideline uses this as the minimum requirement for size (2,148 characters of prose). This bombing is well short at 1,272 characters. By all means post it when it reaches 2,000 characters.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  00:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support even when the paragraph devoted to the Facebook Safety check is removed, it's still over 2,000 characters. Easily passes notability.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  04:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article is a tad stubby, but based on past performance, these bombing articles tend to grow quickly. If and when this is of sufficient length (so long as referencing and other quality concerns keep pace with growth) this should be posted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article has undergone expansion, including division into separate sections. Imo, it meets minimum update criteria and marking "ready".  Spencer T♦ C 03:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Sufficiently long and definitely meets notability requirements. -LtNOWIS (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Definitely notable, popular disaster. Article ready too. Faizan (talk) 05:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted given strong consensus.  Spencer T♦ C 06:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] 2016 Boat Race

 * Support Boat Race as nominator. Oppose women's race: I am unconvinced it meets the notability guidelines. 31.54.154.160 (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support both - Probably the most notable coxed rowing event of the year. As both races are now promoted together, I don't see any advantage in missing the women's race off. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The main race has earnt a place at WP:ITNR. The women's race has not. Do you have any evidence it meets the notability guidelines? It might promote itself alongside the Boat Race, but it has nowhere near the same prestige, history or popularity. 31.54.154.160 (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – Good quality and ITN/R topic. Adding the Women's race might be a nice touch for being more inclusive but given it's lesser importance, I'm not leaning either way with it being added or excluded. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Quick question: is it our job to be more inclusive and right great wrongs, or to reflect the real word without bias? I think it is the latter. 31.54.154.160 (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a fine balance we have to work with. In some cases we're not actually righting any wrongs, we're just giving things more attention than we used to. But on the other hand we could easily be giving it undue weight simply for the sake of correcting a gender bias but ignoring notability (or lack thereof). The merits of such depend on the views of the editors; WP:RGW is a suggestion rather than a guideline, so it's not something meant to be rigidly adhered to. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your clarification. As you say, it is concerning to give undue weight for the sake of correcting a gender bias, which is likely to be the case here, unless someone could find surprising evidence for notability to prove otherwise. The Boat Race made its own way onto ITNR: I highly doubt the women's race could meet the same criteria by itself. 31.54.154.160 (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Did the women's race not really happen? It takes no effort at all to include it.  I can't even say "We should exclude women to avoid bias" with a straight face. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 16:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point here. Should we also include the less important reserve races? In fact, the men's reserve race is arguably more notable than the main women's race. Try saying instead "We should drop notability guidelines and include a race that does not meet the standards for ITN just to make a political point". 31.54.154.160 (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I fully grasp the point you wish to make, I am merely pointing out that neutrality via exclusion is utterly oxymoronic. Exclusion due to notability seems reasonable except that it gains nothing and passes on an opportunity to be more informative - which is our first priority as an encyclopedia.  Arguing over whether or not the women's race has met the arbitrary qualification of prestige and popularity to be permitted a few spare characters at the end of a blurb looks like quicksand we could more easily walk around. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 19:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Updated now by the ever-committed The Rambling Man. First blurb should be free to be posted (since it is in ITNR). Discussion could continue as to whether the non-ITNR women's race should also be included. 31.54.154.160 (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting the women's race. I would hope that it would have the same level of popularity, prestige, and attention as the women's race, but it does not, for better or worse. It is not our job to right such a wrong but to reflect the way things are. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Reflecting the way things are" perpetuates bias. WP can actually make a difference by presenting the world according to reality (women's sports being played and enjoyed at similar levels in the population as men's for example) rather than presenting the world according to media bias (men's sports having more sponsorship money and therefore broadcast time and therefore popular reach for example). MurielMary (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not and should not be the job of Wikipedia to correct biases in the world. That's precisely what RGW describes. It is not just media biases at work here, but the simple fact that the women's race does not have the prestige of the men's race because it has not existed as long.  That is not the fault of the media. 331dot (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've read the Tendentious editing and Advocacy pages twice just now to make sure I'm not missing something. Nothing in either seems even remotely related to the discussion that's taken place here.  RGW in particular appears to pertain to use of verifiable sources rather than original research, which obviously isn't at issue here.  The subsection on RGW doesn't even include the word "bias" once.  Which is ironic, since in the absense of sources, your comments amount to original research.   This article in the Guardian disagrees strongly with your assertion, stating that the women's race this year was historic and repeatedly states the importance of shared billing this year.  Do you have a reputable source stating that the women's race lacks sufficient prestige to be mentioned in the same breath as the men's race?  Googling "women's boat race unimportant" and similar search terms yielded nothing for me. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 07:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I cannot prove that something lacks prestige. I could only give you my personal observations(which is not proof).  There is also the fact that the women's race does not have the history of the men's.  What evidence do you have that it is as prestigious as the men's race? 331dot (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've carefully avoided measuring the worth of this by something as meaningless as "prestige" because of the very difficulty of defending any such claim that you now mention. I have, however, already linked an article backing the assertion that this carries real significance, particularly as this is the first year of shared billing.  Fairly obvious search terms (such as "women's boat race importance") brings up several articles discussing the impact of shared billing and the importance of the race to women.  Which is really where I base my view on this - it may not be important to sports media, or men, or sponsors, but to a great number of women, it is significant, and it profits us exactly nothing to disregard that when we have a free opportunity to counter the inherent bias of an 85% male editor base.  At some point, we must ask whether we are a neutral reflection of reality, or another cog pushing through a distortion of reality (for example, using the "history" of a male event vs a female one as a criteria is a potentially rigged argument given the centuries of discrimination preceding the modern era). - OldManNeptune ⚓ 11:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I thank you for your reply but my opinion remains unchanged. We all should work to reduce bias on Wikipedia, but it's not our job to correct biases in the world at large.  I do think that the ITNR listing should be clarified to mention the fact that several races occurred and not just the men's race(which should still be highlighted IMO). 331dot (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I have failed to convince but I thank you for hearing me out regardless. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 11:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support posting the men's result (per ITNR) and allowing for the discussion to continue regarding the women's race (which was as interesting as the men's, if not more so this year, and televised alongside the "main event"). Please let me know if there are any concerns over the quality of the article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I see no reason not to mention both in the blurb. As stated, the article has been updated and actually covers both races comprehensively. It seems odd to omit one if the quality for both is there (see also BBC coverage). We previously did not feature both prior to 2015 because the two races were run on different dates and on different courses. I wouldn't be against delinking Women's Boat Race though because it doesn't add much. Fuebaey (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support both On it's own, the women's race might not be notable (although I'm pretty sure it's still the single most prestigious women's rowing event, perhaps bar an Olympic event), but combined with the men's event I don't see a problem. The alternative, if we wanted to have a top women's rowing event, would be something from the Henley Women's Regatta, but that has far too many events to select one from. The Women's FIFA World Cup gets a tiny fraction of the coverage of the men's, but we recognise that it represents the highest level of the sport. Smurrayinchester 16:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. The ITNR listing is for "The Boat Race", which historically has referred to the long running men's race. We seem to be now discussing whether or not we want to expand the scope of the listing to the entire series of races(which are now all on the same day in the same location). I have proposed a blurb above to reflect this. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Can we just get some support/comment on the ITNR and then we can discuss adding the women's race? Your blurb is inappropriate, we don't include the year of the event, nor would we repeat "The Boat Race".  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ITNR does not require my support on the merits(though I do support it). I had thought that the year was part of the name of the event and included it for that reason.  I had also thought that "The Boat Races" and "The Boat Race" are different (one referring to the whole event while one referring specifically to the men's race). 331dot (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to remark on the quality of the article, that being the only real issue when commentating on ITNR candidates. And no, the year is just to differentiate it from the other 161 "editions" and no, it doesn't really matter whether or not the event or the race itself is referred to in that sense, you just wouldn't realistically have a blurb with "The Boat Race" twice, it looks and reads terribly.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment there seems little issue with the first blurb and the article itself, so marking as Ready. The discussion over the inclusion of the women's event can continue and we can tweak the blurb should that gain consensus (which is looking good).  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Specifically the version including the women's race. That's like saying that we should only post the men's tennis results, which is frankly absurd. Since we're pretty much agreed to add a blurb anyway, any detractors need to state specifically why we want to actively not work against gender bias. Go on, I dare you - because this is the sort of silly crap that gets picked up about Wiki by the mainstream press to say that we're all sexists. Miyagawa (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted the alt blurb. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * post-posting support for including both races. Since last year, the boat races are essentially one event with a men's race and a women's race with equal standing, and men's and women's reserve races with lesser standing. We rightly don't post the reserve races, as they are not the pinnacle of competition, but the men's and women's events both are. To exclude the women's race is to artificially prolong bias for no reason other than bias existed in the past. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Question. Would it be worth adding the Women's Boat Race to ITNC to simplify this for future years? 31.54.154.160 (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you mean ITNR? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes I do. 31.54.154.160 (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support posting both men's and women's races both races were run, both received media coverage, both were notable. MurielMary (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on merit and will start something on ITNR's talk page. Banedon (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Banedon (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Grammar check request: is it win, wins, or won? I think the blurb for this item is incorrect (or is this a difference between British vs. American usage when it comes to collective nouns?). To my ears, Cambridge and Oxford are singular nouns and therefore need a singular verb (win→wins) so that the blurb needs to read as follows: "In rowing, Cambridge wins the 162nd Boat Race and Oxford wins the 71st Women's Boat Race." Please update or correct me if I'm wrong. This reference I used (here~>Grammar Girl : Collective Nouns :: Quick and Dirty Tips) wasn't clear, precisely. Christian Roess (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Palmyra recaptured

 * Support: major operation, here it was called the largest ISIS defeat since 2014 . Xwejnusgozo (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: - major operation indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - very notable success indeed. Perhaps a game-changer. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Major operation, and highly significant as this will hopefully stop ISIS' wanton destruction of the world heritage site. -Zanhe (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The most significant change in Syria for months. Worthy of a blurb. Miyagawa (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: Jim Harrison

 * Oppose on quality, mostly due to referencing. Notability is marginal in my opinion, but once we have some more citations, that can be re-assessed.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability. Not top of the literary field. MurielMary (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. Obituary notices and tributes from mainstream media outlets around the Anglo-speaking world indicate that Harrison was on top of the literary field. Here are just a few of the obits: Australian Broadcasting Company, Mirror Online, Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, ABC News, The New York Times, People Magazine, The Week, NPR, Variety, NY Daily News, UK's The Independent, NBC News. Also note that there have been prominent stories on Harrison and his latest book at The Boston Globe and at Salon.com among others, and please note that these reviews were given a prominent place in these publications just days before Harrison's death which indicates to me that Harrison was still relevant to readers. In other words, these book reviews were neither puff pieces, nor were they published as an after-thought merely to capitalize on Harrison's death or take advantage of the 'sensational'. I also noticed that Harrison currently has the #1 Bestseller in American Poetry on amazon.com in the United States. Christian Roess (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's all good stuff, if the article could be referenced adequately then perhaps it could be reconsidered. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - thanks for being open to reconsideration. It seems that Harrison also has a very solid reputation in France as this obit (Jim Harrison ne mangera plus de tête de veau) in Libération shows. (I don't read French, but did a web translation). I'll see what I can do, but I cannot clean this article up in time to make the "in the news" deadline (7days?). It will take many hours that I don't have right now. If you know anyone that is good at this type of cleanup, hope you can let them know. It seems to me Harrison would've been a worthy candidate to consider here. Christian Roess (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support pending article improvement. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Imre Pozsgay

 * Question is this reported in mainstream English language media? I couldn't find any reports at all. MurielMary (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any but I don't think we want to forbid any ITN stories that lack major English-based source coverage (since that's not a requirement for any WP article). But that does make the quality of the article something to review carefully to make sure it looks like sources are properly translated/etc. for use in en.wiki. And that might make this difficult to pass for ITN. --M ASEM  (t) 03:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, not my intention to oppose the nom on the grounds of "no English language reports"; rather to be able to read about the person and decide on notability; also to gauge breadth and depth of media coverage. MurielMary (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Lead sentence says, "...politician who played a key role in Hungary's transition to democracy after 1988" but could just as well read, "...wily politician who survived Hungary's transition to democracy after 1988". Ordinary politicians are not RD notable. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: - Important politician.BabbaQ (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose not notable enough for RD plus article is mainly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose The combination of very low referencing and phrases like "key role" being thrown around without sources mark this as not merely not notable, but downright dubious, imo. Challenger l (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppsoe on quality for now. Massive parts are unreferenced, lead is inadequately short.  If those problems were fixed, I would support this. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Garry Shandling

 * Support notability, strong oppose quality clearly a legendary comic, and more than passes the threshold for RD regarding notability, but article is littered with unreferenced claims and BLP applies. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on improvements RD as influential comedian is there, but as TRM points out, too many sourcing issues to post now, though it should be fixable. --M ASEM (t) 21:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's in process. Sources talking about his death were published 30 minutes ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Article is in much better shape than when I first looked, and should be good to go. --M ASEM (t) 04:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits; his Larry Sanders Show is considered very influential. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No Opinion Not a fan, but this guy's show was highly regarded by critics. μηδείς (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * well, if Fred Phelps can make it... Nohomersryan (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What's the point of this comment? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Which one? Medeis or Nohomersryan? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support pending improvements Hugely influential comedian, but the article needs some work. Miyagawa (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, influential and highly regarded by his peers. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, Shandling was very important and influential. The article needs work, yes, but this is absolutely worthy of a mention. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I scanned the article, and perhaps it has been improved, but I cannot find any negative or likely to be contentious statements which are unreferenced that TRM seems to note above. The quality of writing, the comprehensiveness of the article, and the level of referencing seems sufficient for main page display.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, influential comedian. Referencing has improved since the initial nomination. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 01:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I just beefed up the WP:LEAD a tad to make sure that people understand his prominence.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Clear consensus on notability, and a look at the article shows improved referencing. Suggest we post. Jus  da  fax   04:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted - Per the consensus, I've posted it to RD. <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  // 04:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Republic of the Congo presidential election

 * Support a rather well written article by election standards. Certainly not worth of "stub-class"! I'm not sure on our procedure for mentioning that opposition parties claim "fraud", but that appeared to be the case with this election.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  21:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support article seems to have it covered, it's not brilliant, but it's enough to claim updated I think, and it's ITNR so good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Highlighted article is of sufficient quality. As TRM notes, it's not great, but it's also not missing anything that should keep it off the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support article seems to cover all the main points and is well referenced. As Jolly Janner asks, is there a policy/precedence re including comment on the conduct of the election? Not only the opposition parties but the US State Department has expressed concerns over it, which would indicate a certain level of official dissatisfaction. Have added an alt blurb as a discussion point. MurielMary (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now that the current ITN blurb on the Republic of Niger's election result has the phrase "amidst xxx". So there's a precedent right there. MurielMary (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – Per Jay. – Sca (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Radovan Karadžić convicted by ICTY

 * Support One of the most notorious names of the conflict (the manhunt was big news). I've added an altblurb highlighting the most serious charge he was found guilty of - genocide. Smurrayinchester 14:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Hugely important verdict for crimes against humanity against a former head of state, the conclusion of a trial that started in 2008. --Tataral (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Front page news on BBC website and one of the few despots of his generation to be brought to justice. Guy (Help!) 14:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality only. Here are some actionable items which, if fixed, would make this article suitable for the main page: 1) several cn tags on major paragraphs, an orange level "more references needed" banner, and most of the section currently titled "Ongoing Bosnian Genocide Trial" needs references.  2) Prose of the body of the article has not been updated.  There are several sections in the main text of the article which discuss the trial as though it is still ongoing, and the conviction is NOT mentioned in the main text, only in the lead.  The main text should be updated for tense, AND sufficiently updated about his conviction itself.  3) (a lesser issue which won't keep it off the main page, but while we're fixing things up...) A few section suffer from dreadful WP:PROSELINE problems.  If someone's going to be rewriting some of the prose anyways, this would be useful for them to fix.  Fix up 1&2, and this would be tolerable for the main page.  3 would make this top notch.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of these concerns have now been addressed. I'm still working on additional improvements. --Tataral (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Support based on recent improvements.  Well done.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – in principle – though article may need work. A signal development that is rapidly topping mainstream news sites (BBC, AP, NYT, Reuters, Guardian, Spiegel). A more recent pic than the outdated '94 shot in the article would be much preferable. Sca (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 *  Altblurb 3 offered above. Sca (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the picture is from when he was President and when the events for which he is known occured. It might be difficult to get a new picture of him as an old man who spends his days in a prison cell. --Tataral (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Understand the problem, but he doesn't look at all like that 22-year-old photo now – he's lost a lot of weight – and this is happening now. Sca (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Given the severe nature of the war crime. Donnie Park (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, reference issues appear to have been fixed by now. Brandmeistertalk  16:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb II - Notability above discussion, article in good shape now. Fgf10 (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posting. The article has been improved. The blurb II seems the most accurate. --Tone 17:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – There are several recent pix of Karadžić at the ICTY site – perhaps a WP photo sleuth ( ?) could obtain one for fair use? Sca (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Surely the main article for this topic is Trial of Radovan Karadžić, which should be linked instead? 86.190.2.149 (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That article has a giant orange tag on the top and many quality issues that make it ineligible to be highlighted as a target article on the main page. If you were to go through and clean it up to be as good as what we have posted, then we could make that the target article.  Right now, it's not good enough.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * post-support I thought itd be a long shot here but its a good thing it was posted as these things are not common. Although some of the Rwanda/Congo postings I believe didn't make it.Lihaas (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] [Posted to RD]: Johan Cruyff

 * Support RD only. Football is a relatively niche field and I think there are very few living players who would warrant a blurb. Cruyff could be at the same level as Maya Plisetskaya in ballet who was posted at RD, but he's no Pele or Maradonna. Brandmeistertalk  13:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * He might not have won the World Cup or is considered to be the greatest footballer to never done so but is mentioned along with the pair. Donnie Park (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support blurb' Then I'll say it - no argument needed. Although we are only nominating for RD anyway, aren't we? Miyagawa (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've amended my support to include the blurb. Total Football and all that. Miyagawa (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - No Pele, but not that far off. Rlendog (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Clearly very important to his field. I don't know if I would describe one of the more popular sports on Earth as a "niche field" but I'm not yet convinced of the need of a blurb here. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In the grand scheme of things football is niche. Playing football is not the same as discovering peniccilin or inventing an aircraft, for example. Brandmeistertalk  13:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We aren't talking about Australian rules football or lacrosse; this is probably the most popular sport on Earth. Many people would indeed consider significant figures in it to those that you mention.  Everyone has a different opinion. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Many people? Are you advocating the opinion that playing soccer is on a level with discovering antibiotics?  If not, let's wait until this theorized strawman comes forth to defend his opinion. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 14:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What are you and Brandmeister talking about? This is ITN, we post reports of people's deaths who are in the news.  I don't think comparing apples with pears is appropriate here.  And I suspect as many people have heard of Cruyff as have Fleming.  It's posted now, so you'd be better off formulating an argument in favour of your positions elsewhere.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not advocating anything; simply saying that there are likely people who find drug research and aviation "niche" fields. 331dot (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb probably in the top five football players and influences on football in the history of this global game (not niche at all). Influential way beyond his playing years and the article is in very good condition.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I know nothing about football, but I've heard of him. Article looks pretty decent too.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, left an incredible legacy at Barca, Ajax and indeed European football. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD while discussion over a blurb can be had. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm a bit worried how fast this was posted (under 60 min) with no explicit comment towards the article quality - not that the quality of this article is bad (it's in fact pretty good compared to other RDs), but this should be assessed too in the !votes (regardless if it is in good shape or not) to enable such hasty posting. --M ASEM (t) 14:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I assessed the quality. (And what do " the article is in very good condition" and "Article looks pretty decent too." mean if they're not explicit comments towards article quality?)  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, those comments were there, and for some reason I misread them as relating to the player. My bad and my apologies. --M ASEM (t) 14:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support RD, Oppose Blurb Article is sufficient quality for main page, but the two possible criteria for the necessity of a blurb (does the manner of his death, or the worldwide reaction to it, merit additional explanation) are not met here.  RD is not a demotion, and a blurb is not an indication that a person is more important.  RD exists to avoid having blurbs which, in total, state "So-and-so died".  I'm not sure we have anything more to say about this, so RD is sufficient.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right, the worldwide reaction to Cruyff's death is like no other for an association footballer. This BBC article gives just a flavour of the universal impact of his death.  Hence the tens of thousands of news reports across the globe about this "niche" player.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You're using words to describe him that I did not use. If you wish to have a civil discussion about this, and convince myself and others to change our stance, creating things out of whole cloth and accusing me of saying them, THEN raising an objection to the thing I never said, will not help in that endeavor.  I never used the word niche, the first time it appears in the discussion is when you used it.  If you would like to convince me that I should support a blurb, you could actually make counterpoints to statements I ACTUALLY MADE, rather than completely making up something I didn't say and then pretending like countering the point I never made would convince me to agree with you.  That's a strange way of convincing someone you are correct.  Now, back to my point: Perhaps my four lines of text was too long for you to extract my point.  Ignore everything I said prior.  Here is all that needs to be said: For a dead person to merit a blurb, there needs to be something more to day in the blurb than "so-and-so died of such and such disease at age some such".  For this person, what additional significant information needs to be put in the blurb to make it worthwhile to write a blurb?  If you can answer that one question, I would support a blurb.  If instead, you need to make up things I never said in order to find objection to my point, then perhaps I didn't actually say anything you really can find fault with.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what's going on with you lately. You've become all SHOUTY and bold and certainly TLDR.  You seem to miss the point that discussion evolves and brings in ideas from other parts of the debate.  If you don't like it, don't bother commenting.  In any case, thanks as ever for your contributions, but please work on making them more efficient.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What's going on with me lately is that I don't like when you accuse me of saying words I didn't say, and then act like the words I didn't say are a reason to object to my statements (which I didn't say). If you want to convince me to change my mind, that's not the way to do it.  Instead, tell me how what I said was wrong.  Not with how what you incorrectly claimed what I said (but never did) was wrong.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't recall accusing you of anything. Perhaps something got lost in translation.  You mentioned worldwide reaction to death being an indicator of additional explanation for a blurb.  That's what this death has brought, more than adequately demonstrated by the dozens of available sources from all around the world, including many from the US (despite the fallacious objections).  Now climb down from your lofty equine and chill out.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The point was that soccer players come and go, earning their money, while the game sucks out money from ordinary people to feed FIFA-styled corruption and fosters ultras thugs and mass stampedes. Instead, the discovery of antibiotics, painkillers and the like left a lasting impact in the annals of history. Brandmeistertalk  15:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it's clear that you don't understand the impact that this man had on the game, not just playing like Maradona or Zidane, but afterwards too. Hence the worldwide coverage of his death.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support for blurb. One of the top footballers ever. He is accredited for changing the way the sport is played today with Total Football. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 16:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb For those of you ill-informed of Cruyff's legacy, may I suggest you read this excellent article, which surmises that "the effect Cruyff had, and the legacy he left at Ajax and Barcelona, makes him the game’s most influential individual of the last 40 years. His methods led the European football Renaissance" 151.226.35.233 (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, to back up his "more-than-niche" quality, he was was named Europe's best player of the 20th century in 1999. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb This isn't a David Bowie situation as far as I can tell. RD is fine for cases like this. And I'm glad you didn't stick with "no argument needed", since not everyone knows soccer. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well that's precisely where you are wrong. This is a David Bowie moment.  He's a global icon of the game.  Let's reserve RD for American college basketball coaches who have won nothing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Again beating your dead horse. The good ol' U.S. of A. is part of that "globe" you're talking about. I see a mention of him in the Houston Chronicle, but so far haven't seen it in any other American publications. This ain't Bowie. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Scratch that part because looking deeper I do see it in other pubs. But this is not having the impact of global mourning that Bowie's death had. Prove to me that it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not much coverage of the death of a football player in a country that doesn't do football? Quelle surprise! Whether or not there is coverage in the US media is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Fgf10 (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * TRM called the coverage "global", not me. We have "soccer" here, we just don't do it the way you do. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's global. To attempt to assert otherwise makes you look, well, a little silly I'm afraid. Just to make sure that's reinforced by your parochial press corps, I see Cruyff's death reported widely in The LA Times, The Boston Globe, The New York Times, twice, The Miami Herald, The Detroit News, and The Chicago Tribune.  Of course, that was all I could find in a two-minute Google, so sorry if that isn't convincing enough.  I wonder how many of the European big papers reported on the deaths of the college basketball coaches who won nothing yet seem to be considered on the level with Cruyff? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course, I should mention Australia, India, Canada, China, Japan, Thailand as a few other locations whose major news outlets are reporting this death in detail. Of course, that may not be enough.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * please let me know if you need any further evidence of the global influence of this "icon", "legend", "pioneer" (etc) of football please. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Been busy working on my own nomination (and paid job). I see global influence that to me is perfectly fine for RD, but still don't see the death itself having the impact comparable to those who got full blurbs in the past year or so. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The important thing was your realisation that this individual is recognised globally, including extensively in the good old US. Glad you now see and acknowledged that after your initial denial. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support no blurb needed. One of the greatest football players ever. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 16:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - I despise football. I think it's boring as hell and don't see the attraction. Yet I knew his name. There are clearly few sports personalities that are so well know even decades after their active career has ended. I would indeed say a David Bowie of sport. Fgf10 (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support RD, Weak Oppose Blurb per Jayron. I don't see any difference in importance between a blurb listing and a RD, and RD seems appropriate given that Johan Cruyff died from normal causes...unless being an RD listing prevents his picture from being used on the main page. If that's the case I could sympathize more with the blurb supporters. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb the line between an ordinary RD listing and a blurb is difficult to define, as shown by the difficulties that have been had in defining what criteria to use (or articulating what tests have been used in past decisions). Currently the wording at WP:ITNDC is "In rare cases, the death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb." The reaction to his death is to describe him as one of the greatest football players and one of the greatest football coaches. "With Johan Cruyff, the grace of Rudolf Nureyev came to the football pitch. And football was never the same again", says The Guardian]. The ball is definitely over the line for a blurb, without the need to call on the assistance of a Russian linesman (to continue the football metaphor). BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 18:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Soviet or Soviet Azerbaijani linesman to be exact. He wasn't ethnic Russian.Brandmeistertalk  18:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant, he's commonly referred to as the "Russian linesman". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Unfortunately I have to agree with the rambling old man that Cruyff was actually important enough to be featured. Nergaal (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I recall that Eusébio also went to RD rather than blurb (unless one thinks he's inferior to Cruyff). Brandmeistertalk  18:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We work on consensus. That you have such a strong (and odd) objection to footballers indicates that this comment is probably not helpful in assessing consensus.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb for this and all other entertainers (unless they later become heads of government of world powers and die in office). 81.170.43.73 (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per The Rambling Man. Cruyff was not also one of the greatest footballers of all time but also one of the most influential persons in the sport.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Probably one a bit more detailed than that shown above though. Everything I have read suggests he had a major impact on the game. AIR corn (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. He wasn't young and his career was behind him. It would be useless. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment seems like a clear consensus in favour of a blurb, so marking as ready for that, perhaps an uninvolved admin can just check that and post if nothing problematic. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support blurb - I can see the arguments against a blurb (that he was not active at death, if you want to compare to Bowie), but impression I get is that he was a legend, and being afforded attention that even top players would not regularly get on their death at old age. So I would be reasonably okay with a blurb recognizing he was exemplary in the field, not just a top player. --M ASEM (t) 20:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb there's no evidence given of how this individual changed his sport, in the way Michael Jackson was credited with reviving the recording industry. RD is fine, but there is no basis for a blurb given the current high news flux. μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's because you know nothing about "soccer" but I'll just link you to Total Football. If you don't get that, then let me know.  It's about as revolutionary in football terms as it gets.  So yes, there's plenty of evidence.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Even your own New York Times leads with "Johan Cruyff, a brash Dutch soccer star who helped develop a style that revolutionized the way the game is played..." so please, work harder on those assumptions. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume you've neglected to read any of the sources provided above? That's the only reason I can think of why you claim no evidence was given. Fgf10 (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Cruyff has sufficient name-recognition that the RD entry is sufficient. The proposed blurb adds no value. Andrew D. (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. The death of Cruif is a major news headline (for obvious reasons), therefore we need to have a blurb. I.m.o., if there is a big news story then we need to have a very good reason why we would decide to not have a blurb. The reverse may also happen, if a news story is proposed for a blurb that doesn't seem to make big headlines, then we need to have a very good reason why there should be a blurb about that. Count Iblis (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * oppose blurb while its an easy obvious RD for a blurb of exceptional circumstance he never on major international competitions (even euro, if I recall). Total football and all that, but that was a teacm thing. BTW Wheres Jordi these days?
 * Dude, TRM, your point comes acress well enough without having to bash everything American...infact it gets diluted then. Lihaas (talk) 04:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your recollection is wrong. He played on the Netherlands team that made it to (and narrowly lost) the 1974 FIFA World Cup Final, which you would have learned if you read the article instead of relying on your clearly limited recollection.  I'm not saying that this should be posted as a blurb because of that, mind you, but please don't make clearly false statements which take 4 seconds to prove wrong.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 04:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I know they were in TWO WC finals in a row. I said he never won. "if you read" my statement it says clearly that he won no "major international competitions" with an emphasis on the euro (as I didn't recall that part). I know they won in 88 but that was Gullit (who silly arsenal turned down as a kid from Ajax). "please don't make clearly false statements which take 4 seconds to prove wrong".Lihaas (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not what you wrote. Deep breaths all around, please. —Cryptic 04:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * For those without much knowledge of the field, a rankings like this one is seen quite accurate by those with more knowledge of the field - he is usually ranked only behind Pele and Maradona. He did not win a World Cup or Euro, but to be honest, unlike NBA/NFL/NBL/NHL where players get 10+ or chances to win, he had only like 4 chances to win any of those top trophies throughout his entire career. For comparison, LeBron won the NBA title on his 9th attempt. Nergaal (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb has not had a lasting impact on the world in general. MurielMary (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] New Zealand flag referendum

 * Weak support I'd have expected to support this without question, but if the article is anything to go by, most New Zealanders didn't care much about the referendum so perhaps it shouldn't be featured. Banedon (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I just don't see this as a big deal at all. If was a vote to remain part of the Commonwealth, I'd buy it, but this is somewhat trivial in comparison.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose While certainly a news headline in New Zealand (where I live), I don't think a failed flag change is particularly notable at a world-wide level. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Interesting referendum, articles in good shape. --Bruzaholm (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose This did get considerable coverage outside New Zealand. However, retaining a flag does not make much of a headline. Would it have been another way round, I might have supported the inclusion here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the status quo was maintained. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it's a little inane to say that since the status quo was maintained, it's not worth featuring. We featured Scotland voting to remain in the UK, Obama winning his second term, and so on. Banedon (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think voting to remain part of the United Kingdom or being re-elected as POTUS (which is ITNR anyway) are orders of magnitude more significant than deciding to keep a particular flag design. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec)A part of a country with a strong independence movement (and which has a political party advocating it running its government) voting not to do so is very different than a country voting to not change one of its symbols, especially when many do not consider it a pressing issue there. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose – There's no change. (The Silver Fern design doesn't do it for me, either.) Sca (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support High quality, interesting, comprehensive article which we should be proud to post on the main page. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - interesting, as stated above it is a high quality article and definitely a story for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Trivial. --Tataral (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support - If the new flag had been adopted, I would think this to be a clear ITN candidate. I agree the status quo result is less interesting, but as mentioned above, the article seems in good state (though not 100% thrilled with a few of the commons image galleries), and the frequency of a country changing its flag outside of regime change is rare. --M ASEM (t) 16:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support culmination of a long drawn out story, conclusion is of interest even if it's a "status quo" decision. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment this is approaching a new low for ITN, a vote on a flag design which is turned down by 57% of those who bothered voting (out of a turnout of 64%). Nothing has changed, this is utterly trivial.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Maintaining status quo in a minor issue. Should have gone with the black and white design.... Fgf10 (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ken Howard

 * Support Article is of sufficient quality and depth for main page linking. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I just fixed the two "citation needed" tags for the audiobook and marriage stuff. TheBlinkster (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support seems to have won several awards and had a high profile position as President of the Screen Actors Guild, but seems to have had small parts in a lot of shows (plus The White Shadow) rather than a "top of his field" place in acting?? MurielMary (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * comment Although he had a good acting career, especially in the 70s (White Shadow was a groundbreaking show and 1776, in which he had a major role, was a huge movie at the time of the Bicentennial), to me it's his repeated terms as president of Screen Actors Guild/ SAG-AFTRA that, on top of his acting career, take him to "widely regarded as important person in his field" status.TheBlinkster (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support for RD per Jayron32 and TheBlinkster. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support for RD per TheBlinkster's comment above.  Spencer T♦ C 21:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * comment I marked it "ready" as having fixed the CN's, the article looks in reasonable shape to me, and it also seems to me like there is consensus here with more than 24 hours having passed. Of course the admin has the final say about "ready" and "consensus". TheBlinkster (talk) 08:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD... <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  // 11:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Phife Dawg

 * Weak oppose pending article expansion. I agree his significance should be well established, but the article is simply too short and provides too little biographical information to be useful to readers seeking to know more about his life and career.  It basically only tells us he was a member of Tribe Called Quest, did a little solo work, liked sports, had diabetes and died.  Really, if his passing is worth noting, his life should be worth writing about.  I agree with the former, but the article does not currently exhibit the latter.  If the article can be expanded, I would fully support posting this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not great, but I've added to the article now and it's about twice the length it had been. As obituaries come out it'll probably be easier to settle it into a solid condition but I imagine it should suffice for now. G RAPPLE   X  15:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose simply does not approach top of his field or any position of influence within it. Compare this nom to that of Frankie Knuckles, which was deservedly posted. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose besides the personal opinions, I'm not really seeing this individual as being seminal in his field, I can't find awards or honours in his own name, etc. Speaking personally, one of Run DMC, Public Enemy, NWA or Beastie Boys would be hard pressed to make it to RD, so I'm afraid someone from Tribe ain't gonna cut it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I nominated MCA when he died four years ago and he was posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was impossible, I say the individuals would be hard pressed to make it. And the groups I gave as examples would generally be considered far more significant than Tribe.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The biggest measure of general importance is usually quality of the article; if an extensive, well written and well referenced article with a relatively complete and extensive biography of the totality of a persons life and work can be written at Wikipedia, that generally means the world at large outside of Wikipedia considers that a person whose life is worth documenting. MCA (Adam Yauch)'s article is marginally more extensive than this one; I'd support this one if the article were of similar length and quality.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In your opinion. The measure of "postability" is by consensus, and that should be judged on both notability and quality, not just quality or article length, that's utterly bogus.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak support seems to be notable within his field. The article is a bit on the small side, which isn't ideal for readers looking for information on him.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  06:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose don't see any evidence of being "top of his field" - no awards nor consistently at the top of the charts. MurielMary (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Three of their five albums charted in Billboard Top Ten, one hit #1, two hit #1 on the R&B chart. If 60% isn't consistent, what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.250 (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * He should have won awards to make him the top of his field. He didn't during his lifetime. Therefore, he doesn't deserve the honorable mention in the Main Page. George Ho (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Nigerien presidential election

 * Support Highlighted article is of sufficient quality, depth, referencing, and updates. Good to go for me.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. notable election.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – Per previous. Sca (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support So it's "Nigerien" for Niger and "Nigerian" for Nigeria? Interesting. And quality sufficient for posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the country is pronounced Nee-zhair these days. Sca (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Niger is a French-speaking country and takes the French adjectival form, while Nigeria is English-speaking and takes the English adjectival form. c.f. Canadians and Montreal Canadiens.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 01:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

[Kept] Removal proposal: Zika
Updates don't pertain to anything new (history) more than once in a few days. Remove it from ongoing? Lihaas (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've refactored your comment a little to make it easier to understand. Feel free to revert me if you prefer your version.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. That helps a great deal, you have no idea.--WaltCip (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal A quick perusal of several diffs from the history makes it clear that substantive updates are being added at least daily, often several times a day. Clearly still appropriate for ongoing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Was going to say pull – while the page is still being edited, no breaking information (bar updates to the cases table) was added in the past week, only old (February) news. However, just yesterday the WHO suggested that Zika is implicated in a much larger range of mental disorders than just microcephaly, which is disastrous news (and if they confirm it, would be worthy of a blurb). Keep, and I'll update the page. Smurrayinchester 08:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, Zika has not yet been exterminated. So why would it be taken down?--WaltCip (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ongoing is not reserved for news items which no longer exist. After all, the world is still filled with wars and diseases and people doing their jobs etc.  Ongoing exists not to document every ongoing event in existance until it ceases to happen.  Ongoing exists to highlight Wikipedia articles about multifacted, long range events which are regularly covered by reliable news sources and which are receiving regular, substantive updates.  Items which fail any one of those four things are inappropriate as a link in Ongoing, regardless of whether or not the "thing" has ended.  Even if Zika exists as a thing, if either a) news stops covering it or b) the Wikipedia article has gone moribund for a long time, then it should be removed.  In this case, both new news stories, and regular substantive editing are still happening, so it shouldn't be taken down.  But that isn't because Zika has been made extinct.  That's an irrelevant thing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * TLDR, too much bold. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. TLDR summary: That's not what ongoing is for.  If you want to know what it is for, read the bold words.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep WHO is implicating Zika in other disorders and that's reflected in recent updates to the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Rob Ford

 * Support Article is high quality, extensive, and extremely well referenced. Clearly appropriate for inclusion on the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD importance is clear, but because it's his infamy that's put him in the news, I'd ask to have a double check of the last part of the article (on his various scandals). I am not a big fan how its written all in WP:PROSELINE even though it is all reliably sourced, and while a read through doesn't show anything I think is glaring I would ask others just to carefully review this part too. --M ASEM (t) 15:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Just in the process of nominating it myself. While I think few mayors merit posting, I think Ford is one of them due to his controversial tenure as Mayor which greatly impacted Canadian politics. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support High quality article, high profile individual. He made his mark. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I was going to outright oppose this one since I would argue he wasn't at the top of his field. Being one of the most notable mayors is like being one of the most notable minor baseball players (in that there are many levels above, so in the overall scheme they are not on top). But to be fair this will get a lot of headline coverage all over the world. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  15:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Passing away that young gives him a lot more notability. Will be a headline news all over the world. -- Ashish-g55 15:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support One of the best-known mayors in the world, even if for all the wrong reasons. I would compare his notability to Marion Barry, also an internationally infamous mayor. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 15:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support'. Was going to nominate this after some of the work I did on the article. Ford was not only the mayor of one of N. America's and the world's largest cities, but he also made news around the world, and has now passed at a shockingly young age. Definitely good for RD. Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: Figure of international notoriety and former mayor of one of the largest cities in the Western Hemisphere. Easy shout for RD. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - an heroic figure and a legend. RIP 91.52.230.140 (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Mayor of one of North America's largest cities who gained a lot of attention. Canuck 89 (what's up?) 16:21, March 22, 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Posted. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 17:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Something broke if you view the template. 142.227.63.2 (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * post support even if for largely wrong reasons he was known outside not just the city but the country.Lihaas (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] 2016 Brussels attacks
Two explosion were heard at the Brussels Airport. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  07:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support once expanded a little more and once facts on casualties/deaths are clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment this will be moved once again, there's no doubt at all this is a terrorist attack, an explosion at a Metro station has also taken place. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, subject to article quality. Another significant terrorist attack by the look of it. Mjroots (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * support came here to nominate. at least 17 dead. Propose naming to 2016 Brussels airport bombingss.Lihaas (talk) 08:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, there's been an attack at the metro as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep,more than one but someone movd it anyways.Lihaas (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support As soon as ready, but it might be smart to wait a few hours for more details - but no undue delay, this is unquestionably top priority news. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 08:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per above.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Article will of course be expanded (and being on the front page will help with that), but the article has no obvious deficiencies as is. Thue (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Call it "ongoing" for a few hours at least?Lihaas (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't understand what the "ongoing" section is used for. BencherliteTalk 09:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In the BLURB not the ongoing section!Lihaas (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't use the word "ongoing" if you don't mean the "ongoing" section of ITN. In addition, adding the word "ongoing" to the blurb would have been inaccurate since at the time this was posted the attacks had finished. BencherliteTalk 09:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The number of 34 is not yet confirmed. Maybe we should not jump the gun on rushing the numbers higher as they might be? Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is confirmed. Nine minutes ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for that? From all I can find, only one media station (VRF) reported 34, while others were still at 26. The source given in the article certainly does not speak of 34... Forget it, now I found it as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Jean-Pierre Bemba convicted by ICC

 * Support The conviction of such a high-level leader is clearly important enough to post. It isn't true though that this is the first time rape has been recognised as a war crime - other international criminal tribunals have recognised it as such before; this is just the first such case in the ICC. Neljack (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support -  clearly important high level leader that is convicted.BabbaQ (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment added altblurb for context. The article could do with a bit more background context in general - I had to go though most of the article just to find what those crimes were for. Usually fair trials involve defenses and/or contempt; there is no mention of this here. Also most of the ICC links are dead. Fuebaey (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * support especially in line with Serbia above.Lihaas (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support article quality is sufficient for the main page. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 04:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 12:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would prefer having the altblutb but the coup article is really short and does mention Bemba at all. If this is fixed, we can add it. --Tone 12:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Andrew Grove

 * Support on update Article is otherwise in good shape, just missing mention of his death outside the lede. Importance seems appropriate for RD, in light he was not just yet another CEO but a well recognized one. --M ASEM (t) 02:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support a few unreferenced claims which could be addressed, but article is in good shape. Notability is clear.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Posted. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 15:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * post support a positive high profile immigrant and leader of a large firm that broke barriers and came on top. (little quick though on the post)/.Lihaas (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] French refuse to hand Joan of Arc's ring back to Britain

 * Oppose. Local dispute overblown in the press. This is not a spat between the French gov and the UK gov, rather a French businessman failing UK regulations. Article is also not updated, and I would not even consider adding this trivial factoid to a FA. Fuebaey (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Seems blown out of proportion. --M ASEM (t) 02:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose no offense meant but this sounds like a silly dispute - the kind that one might remember from one's early childhood. I am not convinced it should be added to the Joan of Arc article, let alone featured on ITN. Banedon (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose try DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Joseph Mercieca

 * Oppose How many Archbishops are there? Are we going to consider every one? This article doesn't suggest any specific accomplishments that might merit posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Muboshgu - article also isn't in very good shape. Also, what's wrong with his infobox image? It looks like somebody sloppily cut him out of an existing picture in MS Paint. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose If his biography were more extensive in Wikipedia, I would consider supporting this, but right now the text of the article does not give a clear enough picture of his life's work and life story. It's simply to short, and declares his importance more by acclimation than by example.  If it made it clear how his life's work was to "thaw in church-state relations" with an extensive biography that's one thing.  This is a very short, cursory article I don't see how it provides enough information to be useful to a reader wishing to learn more about his life.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I can understand the impact the head of the church in a predominately Catholic country may have had, but I can't see anything that would make this any more significant than the level of a local politician. His religious office wasn't particularly high (i.e. not the Pope) and he left the role a good 10 years ago. Fuebaey (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Beninese presidential election

 * Support, looks updated at first glance. And it's not that often an independent candidate wins an election. Brandmeistertalk  19:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: Good job on this. Should be posted as a national election with a fairly robust and well-referenced article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - national elections are notable. and the article seems ready.BabbaQ (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: Anker Jørgensen

 * Support in priciple: Eight years in total as Danish head of government. However, there is a need for more citations, the fact that you have had to ask whether this hostage negotiation happened or not is a red flag that this page is not entirely verifiable. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support notability, oppose quality per The Almightey Drill, the notability is sufficient, the article, however, is not. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose on quality only. Article needs probably a little expansion, and some more referencing to be main page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Obama's visit to Cuba

 * Comment – The reader must slog through 1,900 words of text before reaching the brief section on the presidential visit. Sca (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I linked directly to the actual subsection in the blurb, exactly because of that. Thue (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally, if an event is considered significant news, it should be in or near the lede.
 * (As they used to say in the news biz, "If you've got a bear, bring on the bear.") – Sca (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added a mention of the visit to the lead. Thue (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support significant historical moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – Per nom, TRM. Sentence added to lede helps a lot. Suggest link now be simply to the article. (Pic of Obama?) Sca (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are probably right about not linking to the section (blurb changed). But until we have a pic of Obama shaking hands with Raul, I don't think a generic Obama-pic would make sense. Thue (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right – a stock shot wouldn't really add anything. Sca (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support as a historic visit, though I wonder if the specific amount of time since the last visit (Coolidge in 1928) should be mentioned. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned in the new sentence, but for the blurb I rather like the Cold War reference. Sca (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say I have a problem with mentioning the Cold War per se but "before the Cold War" to me sounds like immediately before, when it was further back. Just a thought, is all. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I personally like the Cold War mention as more meaningful than just mentioning a random year (I also considered the formulation "since the Cuban Revolution"). Thue (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We can't explain everything in a blurb, but how about long before the Cold War?
 * In this context, it isn't really important whether it is "before" or "long before". And "before" is perfectly factually accurate (and shorter). Thue (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Presumably the Coolidge visit was a pro forma official event. And who remembers anything about Calvin Coolidge now – other than "the business of America is business" – ? Sca (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak support - I don't care too much either way on posting this or not, but mentioning the cold war in the blurb would be ridiculous, given the massive gap between the start of that and the actual date of the last visit. It would make considerably more sense to mention the revolution instead. However, since the visit was 31 years before that, it's a bit silly as well. Just mention the actual year and be done with it. Fgf10 (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak weak oppose because the Thaw's been in ITN twice in the last year, and this is an interesting point but it's not anything groundbreaking in terms of legislation or the like. But I also recognize this is considered important and we have that free image of the two meeting currently used on the thaw's page, so... --M ASEM  (t) 01:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose on the grounds that this has already been posted a couple of times last year. Masem also makes a good argument about the overall significance of this visit. Banedon (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weakest of weak opposes, could go support - I have no doubt about how historically significant this is, but based on the number of postings of this, and the fact it's hard to see what impact this visit will actually have, I am hesitant to go full support.--WaltCip (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose We've posted several stories on thawing relations with Cuba already; we're going to go through even more milestones, and they're all going to be "first x in a long time" because we've been parted for half a century and more. I would more strongly favor the ones that have a real impact on citizens (such as lifting the embargo) rather than a celebrity visit. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 03:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Celebrity visit? I think you are confusing the President of the United States with Donald Trump. 81.170.43.73 (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that got a laugh from an old man, but I could think of no other term for it. I recognize POTUS is an important individual, but the "significance" of the visit boils down to a person of great celebrity taking a tour.  Frankly what I see here is an important person doing something of little real import but sounding the trumpets very loudly about it - and perhaps the sounding of the trumpets is the whole point, but that doesn't make it an historical event.  The best case here is that it is, undeniably, all over the news. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 09:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * IMO symbolic events on the political scene have actual consequences and significance, are more than celebrity news. See e.g. the very relevant 1972 Nixon visit to China. Thue (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether or not we personally believe this to be historic or not, it will always be historical. Besides that, major news outlets are also describing it as "historic" and as we go with such reliable sources, I don't see this being any different. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Internationally significant event, must be posted. STSC (talk) 08:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We must do nothing. Fgf10 (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Historic visit.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support A very significant and historic visit that is widely covered in the news. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – What are we waiting for? Marked ready. Sca (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * oppose the first Iran prez to visit Lebanon since the war was a major direction change in a volatile region and wwe dint post that. Plus we posted the Cuba thawing (twice?).Lihaas (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If I am reading and understanding your post correctly (which is no small feat), no such visit was ever nominated. A Saudi king and a Syrian president visited Lebanon back in 2010 but I recall that not having much significance.--WaltCip (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * comment the section is pretty poorly updated (with the Colombia/FARC thing we had a much article section updated). It has one lone quote and that he touched down basically. There's plenty of reaction on both sides of government and i'm sure Fl Cubans.Lihaas (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Lihaas, and if this must go up, the since 1928 blurb is far better. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Obviously a symbolic event, but just as obviously an important one. It marks the end of an era the lasted 55 years and produced political and economic difficulties for millions. Not as weighty historically as Nixon's '72 visit to China, but a significant parallel, and one that might precipitate far-reaching changes in Cuba long-term. (And Cuban-American cultural relations had a long history.) Sca (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: I would support either the original or the (1928) Altblurb, whichever.... Sca (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose this has pretty much been posted twice already, at the visit itself is simply symbolic. There is nothing consistent coming out of it. I would prefer to post the Congress taking Cuba off the embargo list instead. Nergaal (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: Significant news and a major development in relationships between two countries in one of the world's longest diplomatic feuds. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – I make it 7 1/2 supports to 5 1/2 opposes (or does "weak, weak oppose" constitute only 1/4?) That's hardly "mass opposition," . Marked ready yet again. Visit continues. Sca (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015–16 FIS Ski Jumping World Cup

 * Oppose in its current form. The lead is all fluttered up, the rest is just tables and there are several grammar and spelling mistakes. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me play with the layout a bit, like the Alpine skiing article. --Tone 15:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, please check again ;) --Tone 15:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks better now cosmetically, but it is still slim on prose and several statements are unsourced. Other statements are only referenced with unreliable sources (Youtube videos) that do need even back the statement they make (only events won while falling). Still plenty of spelling errors in the footnotes as well. I believe I have to stick with oppose on this one. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I'd expect an article linked to the main page to at least explain the sport or what makes this season particularly notable; this is just an article of which 90% is composed of tables. Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose No evidence that this is actually in the news in a significant way, even when just compared with other sports. Andrew D. (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per three previous comments. Sca (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose was going to close but some comments relate to article quality. I can't see any reason at all that ski-jumping should be an ITN item, full stop, unless someone breaks a world record by ten metres or fails to land because they fly off into the aether.   But that's just me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No matter where you go, there you are. Sca (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Would someone failing to land truly be ITN? I think we shouldn't crystal-ball in that instance, because they may land at some point in the future, and we do not want to look stupid by declaring that they won't.--WaltCip (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Six Nations Championship

 * Oppose but curious. There have been 15 matches that contribute to this tournament.  Some things are decided on the way (e.g. Calcutta Cup, Triple Crown etc) and some things wait to the final day/game (e.g. Grand Slam).  Are we now expecting every Six Nations article to have a prose summary of every game before it's posted?  Right now the currently linked article "summarises" the result, but is it enough?  Is it?  Has this ITNR been posted before?  What was the condition of the article if so?  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've gone back and checked (March archives annually). Was posted every year since at least 2009, except 2012 and last year due to quality. Articles were posted with a tournament overview, so have adjusted nom to reflect. Fuebaey (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - There's going to be comments on how there's not enough prose. I call bullshit on that. The sorts of info we give about games comes across far better as tables, and the article contains all relevant information. There's also going to be comments on how nobody cares about rugby, and how it's not a premier tournament. As for the former, I refer you to the interest in the last world cup. As for the latter, this is the de facto European Championship in rugby union. We post the equivalent tournament in association football. There is massive interest in this in the participating nations, the games draw massive crowds and large viewing numbers on TV. (Yes, I know it's on ITN/R, so all my comments bar the first should be unnecessary, but just anticipating the inevitable). Fgf10 (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose on article quality. With all due respect to Fgf10's point above, this is almost entire a list of stats, which violates WP:NOT. Prose to describe the matches is nearly required to make this more than just a statbook. --M ASEM (t) 02:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. No match reports included and very little sourcing - none of the match stats have any referencing at all and the "notes" section which give brief statistical highlights of each game appear to be almost entirely unreferenced. ITN/R so no issue at all about suitability for ITN, only the article quality needs improvement. --Bcp67 (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Half of the world probably don't know about 'rugby union'. STSC (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's of little relevance I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Entirely irrelevant, and far fewer people know about American Football etc anyway, which we happily post. Just because you like football, doesn't mean we don't post rugby. Fgf10 (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - I have added a prose description of the tournament describing all the games, I hope this is enough? 86.139.155.61 (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Moving towards support now - the notes are still unref'd but the prose section for each week is a considerable improvement. --Bcp67 (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've cited most of the statistical notes, bar the ones about players making their debuts, which could be removed TBH. 86.139.155.61 (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support And mad props to 86.139 and whoever else fixed the article problems. Quality looks to be not an issue, this could be posted soon, since all of the above opposes related to quality have been fixed.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've struck my oppose, the others are all on article quality which has been addressed, with the exception of one (which is irrelevant), so this, being ITNR, is good to go, marked as such. Echoing Jayron's compliments to IP86 for the work done.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support ITN/R, agree the quality is sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support after the very good work from 86.139 --Bcp67 (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted so sue me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] 2016 Milan–San Remo

 * Comment on article quality: while there's one general source used for the three para of the race summary, it would be nice to have a few more sources in that to flesh it out. and the table looks incomplete since all the subsequent placing are time +0 which doesn't make sense. I can't comment on the importance of the race but being an international participation event, could be important? --M ASEM (t) 18:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I will add more sources to the race report, but considering that the race ended two hours ago, there is not too much to find yet. On the table: In cycling, riders are scored on the same time if they arrive at the line in a group, therefore all are +0". Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I understand, and I looked at that extrenal website and I see there were several clusters. You might want to indicate that only the top 10 results are shown out of the nearly hundred raced - obviously not the whole table, but give a bit more than just 10 people were riding in it. --M ASEM (t) 22:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no interest on even commenting on this, I will pull the request, since the race is now already too old to be posted anyway. I find that a pity, we hardly ever have very comprehensive articles on recent sport events on here. Please close. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] March 2016 Istanbul bombing

 * Support - highly notable attack in the heart of Istanbul, potentially with important implications, all over the international headlines right now. The article is currently being improved. --GGT (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment is there appetite to merge this with the Ankara blurb, since it's still on the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm proposing exactly that, see above. --PanchoS (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Was going to suggest a plausible merger (TRM and me agree?). Although I dont think this is notable. The country is in civil war (regardless of what the media is reluctant to call) and 5 deaths is not relevant considering we consistently dont have Syria stories.Lihaas (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Syria is a very, very inaccurate comparison for Turkey. Some of those killed were tourists, which by itself shows the absurdity of such a comparison. A more appropriate comparison would be with Pakistan, which is being made by some media, and we do post the attacks in Pakistan that receive widespread coverage. The conflict or civil war is in a city and a few towns in the country's southeast and Istanbul is a bustling, touristy (despite all the decline in tourism) metropolis that has not seen anything resembling a civil war. Bombings in Syria don't receive anything close to this much media coverage (it was very hard to gather the details in the article for February 2016 Homs bombings when I researched it, for example, and that is probably as detailed as it gets). Note that nobody even proposes the posting of attacks that take place in the war-stricken regions of the country (e.g. 2016 Diyarbakır bombing), against which this "civil war" argument would stand. --GGT (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I've modified the proposed combined blurb and put the bold in the right places. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support in principle on the topic and the article quality, but I'm worried about the combining of the blurbs to imply there is a connection beyond timing and geography, even if it is to reduce the blurb count in the box. It implicitly suggests these were connected or done by the same group or for the same reason. --M ASEM (t) 18:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support and honestly the close time/place ties and similar suspected perpetrators seem enough to me to merge the two blurbs. LjL (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment agree with above, it's not that the blurb combination is intended to imply some kind of connection, simply that the two biggest cities in Turkey have been struck by terror attacks in the past few days. It would be odd to have two completely independent blurbs to cover this.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - notable, worldwide coverage, further escalation of Kurdistan terrorism in Turkey.BabbaQ (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Posted

[Posted] flydubai Flight 981

 * Support Would give this just a couple hours to get better details though what we have is not bad to start. --M ASEM (t) 03:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – 737 crash with 55 passengers, significant event. Article quality is acceptable. sst✈  03:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Per recent trends. However, that image was uploaded by a WMF banned user, so I do not think we should be using it on the main page of Wikipedia. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Crash site of flydubai Flight 981 at Rostov-on-Don Airport.jpg is available to use. Mjroots (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the politics of who is and isn't banned, why they were banned, or indeed whether or not they will ever be unbanned. A ban on en-Wiki is not a ban on Commons, is it? Just pointing out that we have one of the wreckage available to use as well as one of the aircraft pre-crash. Mjroots (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The user in question is globally blocked from all projects by office action. I have removed their contribution from this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note the image has visibile credits/copyright so should not really be used but it is protected so cant add the watermark tag. MilborneOne (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note, replaced. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - significant number of deaths. Mjroots (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Barry Hines

 * Oppose not seeing this individual as important in the field, most of the works section is unreferenced, where are the awards? (Threads was and remains one of the most haunting things I've ever seen, however). The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The awards are right there, under Barry Hines (they include the screenwriting award at Cannes Film Festival, a BAFTA for best drama, Broadcasting Press Guild Award and special prize at the Monte-Carlo Television Festival). I'll add refs to the works section. Smurrayinchester 09:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw them, but I'm not sure of their significance: "special prizes" usually mean "sympathy prizes", could Hines have claimed to have won that BAFTA or was it more about the film itself (per this, Hines doesn't get a mention by BAFTA themselves)? The Broadcasting Press Guild seems to be a bunch of awards for journo's by journo's.... Ref 3 doesn't include the BAFTA "win" by the way.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops, fixed. Admittedly, it does look like the BAFTA is officially given to the director, rather than the writer. I've added a couple that were unambiguously Barry's. Smurrayinchester 11:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Bollea v. Gawker

 * Weak oppose eye-watering amount of money, but subject to appeal where it's virtually guaranteed that this won't be the final amount. Having said that, article is sufficient quality and certainly in the news, even outside the microcosm of American wrestling.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the reasons above, as well as the fact it doesn't set any precedents in US law regarding media and privacy, and the like. --M ASEM (t) 18:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, relatively trivial, non-landmark case, unlike The Fappening leak for example (and I bet not receiving that money wouldn't hurt his wealth). Still, Hogan appeared on some collectibles of my childhood. Brandmeistertalk  18:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Has potentially major ramifications for freedom of speech in the United States if the damages are upheld.--The lorax (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - because of major coverage (also outside of the US). Freedom of speech could become a major issue.BabbaQ (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To both above: this was not a federal case in any way. If the appeal process takes it to the Supreme Court or a district court, that might be something, but there is no way this case will have any binding caselaw or direct impact on freedom of speech at this point. --M ASEM (t) 22:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But this is "ITN", not "Legal Review 2016". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are both preaching to the deaf...BabbaQ (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It is not particularly interesting legally, and gossip column material doesn't belong on ITN. Fgf10 (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Supermarket tabloid drivia (trivia about drivel). Sca (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm sorry, are people really suggesting that it's a great threat to freedom of speech that you can't post sex tapes without the participants' consent? I find it hard to imagine a more clear-cut example of an invasion of privacy. And indeed is has been treated as such in the past, both in the US and in other countries, so this is hardly breaking any new legal ground. Neljack (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Paris attacker arrested

 * The blurb needs to be reworded to avoid BLP concerns, particularly since the article suggests he was found to be complicit, rather than actually involved in killing people. I suggest "Salah Abdeslam has been arrested in Molenbeek, Belgium, in connection with the November 2015 Paris attacks".--WaltCip (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * support - major update for this terrorist story. worldwide attention and article seems ready.BabbaQ (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – Seems a significant conclusion to the Paris Attacks saga. Tops news on Friday. Sca (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Posted - High profile story -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 02:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Guido Westerwelle

 * Oppose - The article is littered with templates, from beginning to end, to the point where we can't even verify where he was born. There's going to be a lot of work that needs to be done to bring this up to snuff.--WaltCip (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Took care of some, will try to do more. Should be ready in a short while. At least you can now verify where he was born... Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to support in light of the improvements.--WaltCip (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support RD Long-standing, visible party leader, vice-chancellor and foreign minister of a G7 country, in 2011 President of the UN Security Council, being the first openly gay person to hold any of these positions. His opposition to the 2011 military intervention in Libya in spite of staunchly supporting the uprisings of the Arab Spring was internationally acknowledged. --PanchoS (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Agreeing with PanchoS, very important politician until recently not only by German and European but international merits. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per PanchoS. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per PanchoS.BabbaQ (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment For some reason, User:Caseyrile removed a large number of citations that I added. I will re-add them. No idea where this kind of destructive behavior comes from... Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Article is detailed and thanks to Zwerg Nase, in good condition. Smurrayinchester 21:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Meir Dagan

 * Comment – Significance seems largely limited to a specialized niche audience. Sca (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - It will very often be the case that only a specialized audience will be able to fully appreciate significance. But his death is receiving wide coverage (I added further links), indicating a consensus that he was at the top of a very specialized field. No longer a penguin (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Important figure in modern history. --bender235 (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems to meet the criteria as very important to their field(intelligence). 331dot (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support important figure. BabbaQ (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Alpine skiing world cup

 * Support - Happy ITN are always scarce and this marks the conclusion of one of the winter's major sports events. It is more or less a list-article, but so are most sports results. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  15:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - major winter sport event. BabbaQ (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Posted - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 05:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Paul Daniels

 * Support upon improved referencing. Seems to be very important to his field; several awards, and outspoken in his field(as well as in others). 331dot (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support when the article is ready. Quite probably the most notable magician in the United Kingdom, certainly since Tommy Cooper, and important in the wider field of entertainment. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support but only on the condition we can post Penn & Teller if either of them happen to disappear off this Earth.--WaltCip (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose on quality. The "Showbusiness career" section is mostly unreferenced.  If someone can fix that problem, then we can post this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's now mostly referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I like it, but not a lot.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support and marking ready - the sourcing is much improved from earlier. BencherliteTalk 15:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral, leaning towards oppose. As a magician had around a fifteen year stint as a TV regular ending over twenty years ago.  Yes, a household name in the UK (for people over a certain age at least) but I don't think he can be regarded as genunelly one of the top in the world. 3142 (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Odd perspective. We don't need "top in the world" but certainly there's been no bigger magician from the golden era of magic that's made more of a lasting impact than Daniels in the UK over the past thirty years.  In the US there's Copperfield and perhaps more recently Penn and Teller, but nothing else.  After all, we have posted US college basketball coaches who win nothing, since when did the "household name" thing become a "thing"?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sick of hearing you demean these "US college basketball coaches", especially since the two specific examples involved (Dean Smith and Jerry Tarkanian, for those who don't recall, since they both died in February 2015 and TRM can't let it go), have won awards and been inducted into halls of fame. These comments aren't helpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not interested. People who think that US college basketball coaches "are" household names outside of the microcosm of college basketball are kidding themselves.  Awards and halls of fame all incestuous to the little club they were part of.  What I can't let go of is the bias that allows and promotes those individuals as if this was somehow American Wikipedia.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How many people make RD who aren't household names? Plenty. RD criteria doesn't say "worldwide fame", it says important in their field. Again, I suggest you drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. It's been more than a year. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you haven't been reading properly. But the point still stands.  If this was an American variety show host who had been in television since the early 1980s, there'd be no argument whatsoever.  Plus ca change.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Boat race goes then too. It's collegiate, no hall of famers, not household names.Correctron (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension skills before misinterpreting everything, it's not a good look. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Objectively, I just can't see how a man who hosted a variety show for 15 years and who won one international award merits posting, especially when we have so many candidates. The "personal life" section is just a list of random items.  I've never seen the show, but were this on the front page and I followed it I would wonder what the editors who posted this article were thinking. μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly you've never clicked on anything in the DYK section. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * From The Telegraph's obituary: "the most successful British magician and illusionist of his time; throughout the 1980s and early 1990s he was a permanent fixture on BBC television"; "By 1989 The Paul Daniels Magic Show had been sold to television companies across the world"; in its news item the Telegraph says: " Daniels was one of Britain's biggest stars" and calls him "One of the most popular magicians of the 20th century, with success that was unrivalled in the magic and entertainment worlds" while The Magic Circle said that "In this day and age of fragmented media platforms no other magician is likely to be able to achieve such a TV ratings record" (at times, 1/3rd of the UK population watching his show). The Guardian says that his career "defined the TV magic genre in the 1980s and early 90s" while one of their columnists says "we are in danger of forgetting that he was actually one of Britain’s greatest postwar entertainers. He ought to be grouped with the likes of Bruce Forsyth, Eric Morecambe and Ken Dodd: the mastery of his art was complete." Dismissing him as someone who hosted a variety show for 15 years rather misses the full impact he had. BencherliteTalk 21:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * He clearly wasn't American enough. He'll be missed, even by those of us who thought he was "corny".  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also. His wig made £1,100 on eBay. Class. 86.189.224.126 (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 *  Weak support as the article stands at present. Definitely RD material, but I'm concerned that there is undue weight on his supposed "Outspoken views"; the section for this is almost as long as the section for his career. Yes, it may all be referenced, but it is not what he is best known for, and including it all smacks of POV. Optimist on the run (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Bit late for this now as it'll probably drop off the RD soon anyway, but just for the record the section has been cleaned up, therefore I'm pleased to now give this full support. Optimist on the run (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per μηδείς. – Sca (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I was about to mark this as not ready as I don't see consensus either way at the moment and the concerns about undue weight of controversial views should probably be responded to. I stand by my earlier support on notability grounds, but I'm unsure where I stand on the article quality issue. I'm neither calling for nor objecting to it being pulled, but I wouldn't have posted it at this point. Thryduulf (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Mild, minuscule contention does not lack of consensus make.--WaltCip (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, Walt, that's almost double alliteration! Sca (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015-2016 Brazil protests

 * Support Article seems in a good shape, I have added an altblurb. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - major story, good shape article. BabbaQ (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose until blurb has a dose of reality, the sources seem to indicate that it could be less than half the amount suggested, and after all, "up to 3 million" could be 27 people, or 2.99999 million. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Per TRM, regardless of whether the article is posted or not, the blurb cannot use language like "up to". It's makes the statement meaningless.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Sylvia Anderson

 * Support - a major influence in Thunderbirds and subsequent series and great actress. Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 11:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose poor article, and while popular, not award-winning, not near or at the top of her field. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is an IP user on the article who is vandalising it - constantly reverting all edits without giving reasons. With regard to top of field, she was co-creator with Gerry Anderson so it can be considered that the awards he received were in large part jointly earned by her work. She complained often that her contribution to the work wasn't acknowledged by Gerry, and that later in life (after their acrimonious divorce) Gerry tried to minimise the contribution she made. MurielMary (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not clear what awards G. Anderson won either, in particular anything that could be co-attributed to his wife. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI, after doing some digging, it appears that the couple received one award together, Gerry received one on his own and Sylvia received one on her own. MurielMary (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, according to the RTS itself (page 31), the award was presented to the show itself (for achievements in front of the camera), not just the Andersons themselves. And the award Sylvia won (Pulcinella Award) doesn't even have a Wikipedia article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that source, very handy. Gerry's article needs to be corrected then as it states that *he* received that award personally. MurielMary (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I've given the article a 24h break from IPs. That should give us time to correct any deficiencies. Mjroots (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - No major issues with article now. Mjroots (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - While the article is in good shape, and I love the Thunderbirds, most of her work revolved around that show. The Thunderbirds and her other works are not significant enough to warrant m'lady being at the of her field for a RD spot. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Not really very "top of her field" from what I can see. --109.145.136.158 (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article seems in good shape from previous comments. Given the cultural relevancy of Thunderbirds and that we also RD'd Arthur Rankin, Jr., I think its fair to include. --M ASEM (t) 20:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rankin won the Peabody Award, this individual was awarded basically nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, Sylvia Anderson received a joint award with Gerry and one on her own as well. MurielMary (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thunderbirds won an award. The one she won on her own was harldy a Peabody Award, and doesn't even have a Wikpiedia article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't see anything here or in the article to suggest importance in her field. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * FAB "Yus, Milady"... Andrew D. (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - on reflection, I think that part of the issue here could be that her contributions to the Thunderbirds (and other) successes are described in other articles (Lady Penelope and Thunderbirds (TV series) for example) and not fully described in her own article; therefore the article doesn't sufficiently demonstrate her notability. I will try to spend some time expanding the article. MurielMary (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Even as a massive Thunderbirds fan, I don't really see the notability. Fgf10 (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI, as you mention you're a Thunderbirds fan, she created the TBs characters, storylines, costumes, dialogue lines and also provided voices for some of the characters. MurielMary (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Per Rambling Man. Rhodesisland (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm surprised to see no one mention the fact that Gerry Anderson was posted when he died 4 years ago with a large amount of support. When you have a show created by a husband-and-wife team, posting the husband but not the wife reeks of bias. Especially in this case where the two divorced rather messily after the show came out, as MurielMary discussed.
 * I'd also point out that this nomination got 4 supports (including the nominator, and assuming FAB is a reference to the show) and 1 weak support compared to 3 opposes and 3 weak opposes, and yet was closed within less than 24 hours. Sure there might be no obvious consensus but I would have thought there's no need to close it quite that quickly - it's certainly not uncontested. For the record I would have supported had I seen it in time. 143.167.195.184 (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to me from looking at their articles that Gerry was more accomplished than Sylvia. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think they had their own strengths in different areas but because Gerry's strength was the more obvious/clearly visible one (the animation of the puppets) that he got the praise and recognition. Sylvia's work was the plots, characters, dialogue lines - also essential to a quality TV show but not as well recognised as remarkable. And for the record, Gerry only won one individual award for his work, so saying that Sylvia didn't "earn enough awards for notability" is odd - Gerry won just one award and was considered notable enough for RD. MurielMary (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with the IP editor above, this does seem to be a rather speedy close to the discussion. 24 hours doesn't seem enough time for people to see and comment on this. Also, the article has been further developed since the nom. Could an admin re-open this for further discussion? MurielMary (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Although please consider that just because we post A, it doesn't mean we have to post B.  And consider that most opposition was posited on her lack of significance in her field, not the quality of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've expanded the article re Sylvia's contributions to their joint successes, which may not have been previously clear. MurielMary (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support article quality is adequate for main page presence. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it appears on the face of it to be full of errors/unreferenced claims. I've had a couple of quick looks but it's not great.  Besides that, this individual is not important enough in her field/won no awards etc to meet RD requirements. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, The Times runs her obituary today, which says "Initially employed to make tea and do the filing for a shambolic and disorganised production company, Anderson graduated to key creative roles and become widely regarded as the first lady of sci-fi." BencherliteTalk 14:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, indeed. "widely regarded as the first lady of sci-fi", yet it seems impossible to find any reference to her wit that epitheton before her daughter called her this yesterday. The title of honour has been given to many women, from Mary Shelley to Sigourney Weaver, Gale Anne Hurd, Amanda Tapping, Summer Glau, Barbarella, Majel Roddenberry; Nichelle Nichols, Caroline Munro, Carrie Fisher, ... but it seems quite certain that the Times is just being nice but incorrect, and that until today she was clearly not regarded as such. Fram (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Bangladesh Bank cyber heist

 * Support A country's central bank governor resigns over a hacking scandal. I'd opt to highlight the event article to give more background info to readers unfamiliar with the story. Has coverage and is updated. Fuebaey (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to be a significant event, and both Rahman's article and the event article seem in good shape to post. --M ASEM (t) 20:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose clearly. The Rahman article has no indication of this event whatsoever.  Poor call.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There was a reference to his resignation in the infobox, which you may have missed so it's not exactly "no indication". But for the sake of clarity, I have copied the paragraph from the event to the bio. Fuebaey (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, clearly. Probably the biggest bank heist in history. Nsk92 (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - most likely the biggest bank heist in history. Updated article. BabbaQ (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support looks pretty obvious to me. Banedon (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose not written in clear English, target article is bizarrely titled. Resolve those issues and we may have a case for posting.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Assuming we're discussing the event, I'm surprised you did not notice this issue 2-3 days ago. I get that I might've missed a few grammatical errors when I first tried to copyedit it - I tend to make quite a few typos myself - but, while not perfect, I thought it was reasonably readable when I stopped editing. Could you at least point out examples and, if not extensive, take your own advice and fix them yourself? Fuebaey (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have only looked at this article today, and the lead is a joke. As is the title.  Hence my opposition.  If you care enough to write all that, feel free to get on and do something about it.  (And for what it's worth, I improve dozens of articles a week.  You?) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The thing is, this (19 March) doesn't seem to be your first opposition !vote on this nom. Given the regularity of your comments here at ITN, I'd assume that you know that it says at the top of this page to read nominated articles before commentating (16 March), or at least acknowledge otherwise.
 * Which leads me to my next point, in that I don't see how 2016 Bangladesh Bank heist as a title is "a joke" (I had changed this prior to your last comment, although you don't seem to have, again, read that). I have also clicked one button to revert a good faith, but ungrammatically written, edit. Honestly, I don't mind editors not expanding stuff/researching refs/extensively copyediting (not everyone is interested) but this is a wee bit extreme. Fuebaey (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you bothered, you'd know I read the Rahman article. That was incomplete.  As for the article about the heist, when I reviewed it in light of it being marked as Ready, it was clear to me that it obviously was not ready.  Perhaps you aren't aware of the title of the article when I reviewed it either.  Never mind, you don't get it, I understand.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Marked. Given that I'm unaware of any outstanding issues, I would appreciate the opinion of an uninvolved admin as to whether this is ready to post. Fuebaey (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weird, what's "involved" here? I assessed the article this morning based on someone tagging it as "Ready" and it clearly was not, the lead was garbage and the article title likewise.  I'll take another look when I get a spare few minutes.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, two minutes and there are some fundamental issues with the BLP. Please fix those.  If I get time, I'll have a look at the revised heist article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Htin Kyaw as new President of Myanmar

 * altblurb2 but there should be an election page.Lihaas (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support as an historic event in the country's political development. Alt blurb or something close to it (no need to state "the majority of" as that is self-evident given the election was successful) is probably best - it needs to be clear that Htin Kyaw was elected by the parliament, not in a general election. His article needs some tidying up, though; there is some non-native English which is slightly unclear/oddly expressed. MurielMary (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. ITN/R. The article quality may not be the best, but this is a historically significant event in the country. sst✈  11:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality only. The article is currently not in depth enough on his life and political career, and the presidential election section is entirely unreferenced.  If this were expanded and fully referenced, I would support putting this on the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready. Phyo WP did a decent job fixing this up. Tweaked blurbs - no point in highlighting an unimproved article and removed "the new" as extraneous. Fuebaey (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] 2016 Abel Prize

 * Support The Abel article is updated and ready, it would be nice if the few lingering CNs in Wiles article could be fixed but as its not the target, it's not required. --M ASEM (t) 14:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment We also have Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem which we may add to the blurb. --Tone 14:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support with Tone's addition. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Added. Smurrayinchester 15:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Adding a row to a table is quite a minimal update, which doesn't impart anything more than what is in the blurb. In previous years we have preferred to highlight the winner of the award, not the award itself (judging by the lack of talk page templates). Wiles' article has citation issues that could do with addressing. Fuebaey (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would post it as is, with an aim to improve Wiles' article to embolden it if and when sufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ITN has posted the Abel Prize annually since 2010, with the exception of 2013 which didn't get enough attention. On each occasion, including in 2013, the winner was bolded. Adding that to the start of WP:ITN/R, which states that winners of the events listed are normally meant to be highlighted unless otherwise stated, I see no rush to post a BLP with serious referencing issues onto the Main Page. Fuebaey (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you read what I wrote. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we're talking past each other at this point. Fuebaey (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, concur with Tone's suggestion, but be aware that Andrew Wiles' own article is a BLP shocker so any tweaks to that would be welcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support but we should bold the winner's article and not the award's article. The winner's article is the one that contains the extensive text which expands upon the blurb.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as nominated - We can't bold the Abel Prize article, that would imply that every year we feature the same article. I say bold either Andrew Wiles, Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, or both. Banedon (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I too think that Wiles' article should be the bold link, and have put an altblurb up as such. However, there are several cn tags on the article which need to be addressed before the BLP is on the main page. <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  // 01:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment if this candidate is now determined to have to embolden the recipient, please ensure that consensus is reflected over at ITNR for future reference. (P.S. I note the comment by Fuebaey, but we have often posted a decent award article in bold (e.g. Nobels) while the subject article is improved.  It's called "being timely" and a "sensible compromise").  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've cleared the final two cn tags and No longer a penguin has taken out the rest. I'm not a big fan of the uncited In popular culture section and would rather see it gone, but I'll leave that up to the posting admin. Fuebaey (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this is sufficient now, I commented out the popular culture section. Posting. --Tone 09:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Russian military withdrawal from Syria

 * oppose Possibly major news. But we do not know and will not know for some time. Especially because it is only a partial withdrawal of forces. My guess is that it is one of many moves in the peace negotiations that restarted, and that as such it is not ITN-worthy... L.tak (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait Potentially big news... but it's not a full withdrawal. A "small" contingent of Russian planes will remain and carry on the bombing campaign, and at this stage it's not clear what "small" means. Once the situation is clearer, we can post. Smurrayinchester 12:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait/leaning oppose – My concerns about the Syrian Civil War article remain very much the same: atrociously large and cumbersome for readers. It took me several minutes to simply tag the article as such because of lag I was getting from it. Suggestion is either clean up the Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War article and/or the Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January–April 2016) article and use that as the target. Notability is borderline as mentioned in above comments so I'm opting wait on that aspect. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Full Oppose per Sca. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – They're still bombing. If they really stop intervening in Syria, we can return to the topic. Sca (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - False truce.--WaltCip (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - This is a significant decision from Russia who is a major player in the civil war. STSC (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - I think a withdrawal of ground troops is still worth posting, although this should link to Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War, PoV tag or not. Banedon (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose if they withdrew wholesale, that'd be something to post. Proposed target article is too general.  Suggested alternative is maintenance tagged and, as such, cannot be used.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not a question. Did the yankees withdraw wholesale from Iraq or korea? the permanent base stays, the current conflict ends, (from their side) btw.Lihaas (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose – potentially incorrect information. RT is obviously a heavily biased source. sst✈  12:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is the announcement of a proposed change, not a done deal. μηδείς (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - an announcement for such a thing is not significant enough. Revisit when it's actually happening. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  15:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Women's World Chess Championship

 * Support When sufficiently updated.Correctron (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. The men's tournament is ITNR, this should be too, but it's certainly notable enough for ITN.  I have updated the article for tenses, grammar etc. Laura Jamieson (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Because A exists does not mean that B must also exist.Correctron (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What possible relevance could that have in this context? If an ITN/R item actually specifies one gender's competition holding recurring status and the other's not, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to question the neutrality of that arrangement. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 10:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, irrelevant comment. Anyway, I've started the discussion to include the women's tournament at WT:ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support I would almost venture to call limiting this to men's as an oversight/error in need of correction. Strongly support posting this as soon as ready. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 01:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The World Chess Championship is open to women, and some women, such as Judit Polgár, choose only to play there. Stephen 02:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Judit was the only person to do that (granted, she was also the only woman to be competitive at the very top). Banedon (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. The question is, does this tournament get the same attention as the Men's? 331dot (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that the tournament struggled to find a host I would suggest not. Stephen 02:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, although it varies, e.g. since Yifan is from China the WWCC receives more attention there compared to the WCC (the top male players in the world aren't from China). Banedon (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support (ETA) On improvements The article seems to be in decent shape now (in reviewing above comments); it seems chessbase.com is a reliable source in the chess field. I would agree a discussion at ITNR should be had to consider this at ITNR to avoid systematic bias. --M ASEM (t) 03:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So no coverage in what would be considered mainstream sources? Stephen 03:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It might be early now, I do see the Telegraph reported on last year's winner . --M ASEM (t) 03:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't place much emphasis on article quality. With that said I'm surprised you think the article is in decent shape since I personally feel the article quality is pretty bad. There's no prose describing the games and no list of moves either. While I don't think this matters for something like Tennis, in board games this kind of prose is expected in coverage (see e.g. reports on the ongoing AlphaGo vs. Lee Sedol match). Following the moves with expert commentary is how most ordinary people appreciate the games, and studying opponents' games is how top players prepare for tournaments as well. Banedon (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, yes, there should be at least a write up on the general matches (though not necessarily at the game level) A list of moves is probably something to be added in time but for the average reader, that will make little sense. --M ASEM  (t) 03:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's ... nonstandard in chess coverage as well. Compare World Chess Championship 2014. Banedon (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * When we talk sports results, it's more important to have the prose of the matches in place for ITN posting over box scores and other stats. I would see the chess matches in the same manner: prose on the individual games to merit ITN, while the move list can come later if it will take more time to get in place. I would certainly expect the move list by the time it was nominated for GA or better, but ITN's not that high a quality standard. --M ASEM (t) 03:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak support - as far as championships go this doesn't receive much coverage especially outside the mainstream chess media. Even within the mainstream chess media it's debatable that this attracts more attention than the ongoing Candidates Tournament 2016. It's still something, but it's not something that garners as much attention as other items. Whether or not to post it, in my opinion, depends on whether one feels this can replace any of the current blurbs. The Slovak elections blurb is 10 days old at this point, while the eclipse blurb is six days old, so I think this is worth posting (I personally think it's more interesting than the other two nominations below this one as well). Banedon (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Switching to weak oppose - the chess world seems to be following the ongoing Candidates Tournament 2016 more closely, and who can fault them? First the level of play is significantly higher, second there are more games, and finally the result is more uncertain. No disrespect meant to Mariya Muzychuk & Hou Yifan, but there's a rating gap of over a hundred points between the two, and the 6-3 victory is reflective of that. And if the chess world cares about the candidates tournament more, it seems unlikely that the rest of the world might care about the women's world chess championship instead. Banedon (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Adding an alt blurb - don't see a reason not to give the score, as well as a word on who's the challenger and who's the champion. Banedon (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * House style, we don't publish scorelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as chess has gained popularity as both game and sport worldwide, with no divide between geographical regions and different cultures. It's probably the only sport in the world that is popular in continental Europe, the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries, so that there is no chance to argue that nobody cares about it somewhere. The article still needs improvements, especially in the section on the games and results.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support and would support adding to ITN/R. shoy (reactions) 12:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already started the discussion at WT:ITNR to discuss its inclusion. Feel free to join in there. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment added altblurb and sources. The lack of breaking news coverage may be due to continental bias and the popularity of chess in general, rather than gender. If you search news sources for 侯逸凡 (Hou Yifan) or Музичук Маріяor (Mariya Muzychuk) there are more recent stories about the championship in Chinese, Ukrainian and Spanish than in English. Quality-wise, the article is still lacking 8 more game summaries, which is something I'd like to help with but, being unfamiliar with chess notation, would rather not hash up. Fuebaey (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment You don't need the game scores, any more than you need a play-by-play description of, say, the Superbowl. A summary of the result of each game is enough.  Any notable games can always be added later. Laura Jamieson (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose on the same ground I have just spelled out at ITNR: this is not equivalent to a (non-existent) men's title, it is a second rate title for players who are not good enough to feature in the open tournament. This is not a case of promoting only one gender's top tournament, it is to distort the nature of a tournament open to both genders out of a false sense of equality. 3142 (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment your statement that the Women's Championship is for players not good enough for the "open" tournament is false - if that were the case, then men who are not good enough for the "open" tournament could compete in it as well. The Women's Championship is as the title states, a competition for women. MurielMary (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How is it false? They aren't good enough to beat the men so they have a second-tier, sexist tournament. The other tournament is open to everyone and features the best of the best.Correctron (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @ Remember though, Judit has never played in the Women's World Chess Championship. When asked about it her responses indicate that she thinks it is somehow an inferior competition compared to the "open" tournament. Banedon (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Correctron, the statement that "Women's Chess Championship is for players not good enough for the "open" tournament" is false because, as stated above, it's not open to all players not good enough for the "open" tournament, it's only open to women players. Where do men who are not good enough for the main tournament compete? MurielMary (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So you've just admitted it's sexist and the women aren't good enough to compete with the men? It's open to all women not good enough to compete in the open tournament.Correctron (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope now you are twisting my words. I have stated that the competition is open to all women. Period. Not (your words) "players not good enough to feature in the main tournament". MurielMary (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And the premier tournament is open to everybody.Correctron (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support on notability and on article quality. Specifically support Alt Blurb II as this puts the news story into the appropriate context of "in chess". MurielMary (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose I think it is like posting the winner of the college football finals (in America football). This is NOT the highest tier of players in the world. In an age where everybody panders to praises feminism, there is absolutely no reason to post a women's title when the regular WC title is open to females too. There is no physical limitation in chess so there should be no difference between sexes. Nergaal (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment to state that WP is "pandering to feminism" by potentially posting this item is rather an unfortunate choice of words as it would imply that (1) feminism is something distasteful and (2) being in agreement with it is only gratifying it, not validating it as a worthwhile vision. Personal opinions on politics shouldn't come into these discussions, which are based on the significance of the event as noted in media reports and as agreed on by consensus. MurielMary (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the new verb is closer to what the original meaning was. Also, top ranked female in the world rankings is listed at number 73. Nergaal (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a comment here that Judit is the only woman to have ever reached the upper echelons of the Chess ladder. Nobody else (including Yifan, who is leagues ahead of all her competitors at the moment too) has even come close. This led British GM Nigel Short to argue that women are somehow not "hard-wired" to play Chess at top level (see ), i.e. there might be a "physical limitation" in chess. Short's comments have been severely criticized however, and some people think that the generally-sexist atmosphere in chess is the cause for the difference. Conclusions are yours to draw; in the end I think it's a judgment call. Banedon (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "In an age where everybody panders to praises feminism.... - utter bollocks, but sadly symptomatic. And very revealing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose, hasn't received the attention necessary for inclusion. In general, some sports get quasi-equal attention for men and women (tennis, swimming, athletics, judo, most winter sports...), some sports are competed together (equestrian), and in some sports the attention for the men's (or open) competetion is much greater than for the women. Of those, we have on the one hand things like soccer, where the attention for the women's world championship is considerably smaller than for the men's, but is still more than sufficient for ITN inclusion. On the other hand, there are things like chess, but also e.g. snooker, boxing, ski jumping, where the specific women's compettion gets little to no attention compared to the men's (or open) competition. If someone starts a women F1 racing championship tomorrow, it shouldn't automatically get equal treatment at ITN with the existing (open but in reality men only) competition, unless it gets sufficient attention. ITN (or wikipedia) is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Fram (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It took me a while to decide on this one but I believe the above "oppose" arguments bear weight. A standard to include a sport of the opposite gender (when, as argued above multiple times, the main event is open to both genders anyway) should not be arbitrarily imposed on ITN; the event has to bear out on its own as sufficiently notable.--WaltCip (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality only. The article looks like someone started to add prose synopses of each match in the championship, but that's not been finished yet.  If that is completed with full references, consider this a full support when completed.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone has completed the referenced expansion now, so I've unmarked that section. Brandmeistertalk  08:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've marked this as ready as to get some (preferably uninvolved) admin attention here. The article quality is okay so all someone has to do is adjudge whether there is consensus to post. Since there hasn't been any additional comments for a few days now, I think it's really a case of post or close. For the record, I have no opinion either way. Fuebaey (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Abu Omar al-Shishani killed

 * Comment. The alt blurb should be the one used, as the first makes it sound like he was immediately killed by the airstrike. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose How is this ITN?Correctron (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait I'd say notability is not in doubt, but the details of are very murky, as the Guardian article makes clear. It's unclear whether he is actually dead or 'just' clinically dead; it's unclear what his role was in ISIS, and so on. He's also been falsely reported to have been killed several times. Hence: wait till clearer details are available and he is confirmed killed. Banedon (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Hilary Putnam

 * Support blurb. no-brainer. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  15:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD, not blurb Importance clear and the FA quality hasn't degraded, though I don't think a blurb is appropriate here. --M ASEM (t) 15:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD although I'd like a source added for the claim that the Rolf Schock Prize is "(in Philosophy it is as prestigious as Nobel)" please. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man: This would seem to support that claim. <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  // 15:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool, I wasn't disputing the claim, just thought it was a very good idea to reference it in the article where this claim is made. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted - Featured Article, completely referenced, highly notable... as I don't foresee any argument on those matters I've posted it to RD. <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  // 15:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 *  Support RD, not blurb – Notability seems largely limited to a specialized, niche audience. Sca (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This could be the fastest posting to ITN we have ever had. Post-posting support RD since there is literally nothing wrong with this article.--WaltCip (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I've never seen an item posted by consensus to the main page in 11 minutes. I have no problem with it, but it creates something of a nervy precedent.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As long as there's been an assessment in the quality of the article (such as mine and TRM's previous comment) so the posting admin knows that that's been evaluated, and otherwise a clear line of supports, that's fine. It would have been more an issue if there was no comment on the article quality outside of mentioning it was an FA (as FAs can degrade), which I have seen happen before and required a pull to get the article fixed up. --M ASEM (t) 16:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you miss the point. Consensus ought not take 11 minutes to achieve.  I've seen hundreds of ITN stories get three supports in ten minutes only to then get a dozen opposes.  It's not a problem here, so you don't need to continue with the commentary, but eleven minutes to post this Nobel Prize winner (not) when there's a Nobel Prize winner (actual) sitting a few sections below ready to go for a day or so is a little .... odd.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that one still has sourcing issues, identified early on in the ITN process (it's improved but there's still a CN tag on that page). We've emphasized the need for a quality article regardless of importance, because we are dealing with front page material. Here, quality was assessed to be in find shape in the first three !votes, as well as reassessed by the posting admin. --M ASEM (t) 16:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you going to help with that? There's one cn?  Ok, it's gone.  You really missed the point three times now, this discussion is serving no purpose.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with TRM here; this posting might have been OK in this case, but I'm a touch uneasy about it. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support RD, oppose blurb That may have been too fast a posting to ensure consensus was there, but this doesn't seem to be a case where anyone is going to complain about quality or notability, so a quick posting on this one isn't a major issue. I don't think the subject deserves a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Longstanding precedent has been about 6hrs, and four supports, with no opposition or technical problems, before a posting. This gives time for much of the world to see an article.  I don't at all see where Putnam deserves this singular treatment. μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WADR, precedence is utterly meaningless on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would also disagree with the assessment that there is a "longstanding precedent" of 6 hrs(even leaving aside what WaltChip has said). I have seen articles posted within an hour given the correct event(and proper update). 331dot (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support RD While I do think this was posted rather fast, Putnam was one of the most important philosophers of the past half-century. Neljack (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD as posted. Contrary to some of the others who have commented, where notability/newsworthiness and article quality are clearly satisfied, I don't see any objection to posting RDs expeditiously (although I agree that 11 minutes will not become routine). Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Peter Maxwell Davies

 * Support on article improvements Importance seems justified for RD. Several CN tags and some claims (such as first para of Political Views) that need to be sourced thoughout, more on the back half of the article. --M ASEM (t) 14:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Undoubtedly one of the most important composers of recent decades. Neljack (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Hell yes. Preferably with blurb. This is one of the most significant classical composers of the 20th Century. Guy (Help!) 17:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about a blurb, but the blurb that someone has put into the template above is obviously unusable. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 18:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb Still needs some citations before it's ready, so not fully "updated". Needs an infobox, too. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb -- especially this one, which reads as esoteric editorializing. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on notability; certainly one of the leading British classical composers of the second half of the 20th century. I could support a blurb, but not the one proposed. The article still needs some work on referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Ignoring that fact that the article still needs more references, I have no idea what the current blurb means. It is also noticeably missing the article it is meant to highlight. Perhaps the proposer can explain this to me? Fuebaey (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would simply work on the basis that this is an RD nomination, the blurb is unsuitable and there's no consensus for it in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] ExoMars

 * Comment Just FYI this would be ITNR when it arrives at its destination(not that it can't be discussed now too). 331dot (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. Even if the mission is not successful the collaboration between ESA & Roscosmos over a Mars mission appears noteworthy. The article looks adequate for posting but if the blurb mentions the heaviest fact it might need stressing more clearly as I'd missed it. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Undue weight (geddit :)). Please get back to us if it arrives and produces some results. Andrew D. (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait For starters, it hasn't even left Earth orbit yet (final burn is scheduled for tonight). Arrival of planetary probes is on ITN/R, so we might as well wait for that. Fgf10 (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait – Per previous. Sca (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – It has reached escape velocity (and Earth orbit), and is on the way to Mars. --Jenda H. (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support it is extremely rare that anything of this magnitude is done without NASA being involved. Nergaal (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per Espresso Addict. shoy (reactions) 12:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Due to arrive Oct. 19. Sca (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Sorry, what put me off was the DYKish factoid in the blurb. It feels rather empty if that's the pinnacle of significance in this story. Feel free to come back in 6 months for ITN/R. Fuebaey (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Our article is incomplete. Phobos 1 and 2 by the Soviet Union seem to be the heaviest Mars spacecraft, therefore this cannot be the heaviest interplanetary spacecraft ever. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The article uses a reference from Nature. Nergaal (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was referring to List of heaviest spacecraft up above, not ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter. And the Nature quote is "the heaviest Mars mission ever to take to the skies." so they must've not considered the orbital insertion hardware of Phobos 2 part of the mission (maybe the Soviets didn't trust their aiming skills enough to orbital insert by aerobraking). Though it's only purpose is to stop the thing and then get discarded I'd still count it especially for the interplanetary spacecraft record. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per Espresso Addict. Oppose the mention of weight however. That's a barely significant piece of information: would we say, e.g., "the first pink-painted spacecraft is launched" if that happens? Significance comes from the ESA-Roscosmos collaboration, not otherwise. Banedon (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Launch is stale. Sca (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - rare and interesting mission.BabbaQ (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] March 2016 Ankara bombing
without prejudice NOT updated' only a reactions section without incident details or contextLihaas (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as a no-brainer, unfortunately. I also heard at least 27 dead (like the article now says), not 5. LjL (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - large scale attack in the heart of the city of Ankara with a high number of civilian casualties (likely to rise as things become clearer in the coming hours). --GGT (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC
 * ... what? LjL (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Details on context have been added. I do not think that there is much more detail to be added about the bombing itself currently, and there certainly is as much detail as in February 2016 Ankara bombing, which was posted. --GGT (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - large scale. high number of deaths. worldwide coverage of the incident.BabbaQ (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - a large scale attack on an important area of Ankara with a large fatality count. Has received international press coverage and is the third bombing in Ankara in the past year. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 20:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted – Article is large enough and well-sourced, no need to wait for this one. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] 2016 Grand-Bassam shootings
without prejudice dicky doo da of an article. ivory coast certainly need context stemming from outtaras election and the farce. instability is not new since albeit this is a large scale incident Lihaas (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Now that there's sufficient detail on the who and what. Wait to get more details. It does sound like terrorism but not affirmed yet. --M ASEM (t) 16:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well of course it's terrorism. Gunmen shooting people on beaches at resorts?  There is not one single other explanation.  What kind of terrorists is another question altogether.  But all that aside, the blurb doesn't even relate to terrorism.  The article needs work, perhaps you could help with that?  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Terrorism" is a label, this so far is only a shooting, with no identity yet of the attackers, we should avoid jumping on it as news because it is "terrorism". That said, with the death count apparently up to 12, this is probably still meriting ITN, but I would rather see more details known about the attack (which is not on WP's end, this is on news sources to figure out for us) before posting. --M ASEM (t) 17:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Indiscriminate assassination of people is terrorism. But please, do help improve the article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There's nothing more in sources to go on, that's my point. Details are still being figured out by news sources, so we can't improve until they get those details into press for us. --M ASEM (t) 17:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well others seem to be improving the article, please join in. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What?? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - article is well-updated and sourced and about a terrorism incident with a high number of deaths (so far).BabbaQ (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Clearly notable due to the high death count, part of a worrying trend of attacks in Africa. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 20:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Lloyd Shapley

 * Support Nobel Prize winner, hugely influential in game theory. A bit more sourcing needed in the article though. EternalNomad (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on improvements RD is clear. "Contributions" section is entirely unsourced and that absolutely needs it for the claims being made there. --M ASEM (t) 16:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I did a bit of work in referencing the article, others may like to do the same. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Shapley was definitely a great mathematician, with landmark contribution to game theory, and also a Nobel Prize winner.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not questioning his notability, but I'm not finding obituaries in the usual places yet, which would definitely help towards strengthening the referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need strengthening in particular. This has consensus and is ready to go.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted - Per The Rambling Man's assessment and my own, this is now gtg. <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  // 18:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Ideonella sakaiensis

 * Comment Same issue I feel with the "Lens Regeneration" blurb below (initially): a single article on this topic is far too little and doesn't necessarily demonstrate notability. Is there a larger topic (perhaps Polyethylene terephthalate) this can better fit as the highlighted topic? --M ASEM (t) 18:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The story is clearly in the news (unlike most of the items currently up at ITN) and makes a good change from the same-old, ITNR stuff. Andrew D. (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Plastic-degrading bacteria were reported as far back as in 2003. This just seems to be a new one. Brandmeistertalk  19:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that change it significantly. I seriously believed that Ideonella sakaiensis is first one not just another one. So, there is no reason for keeping nomination. --Jenda H. (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Brandmeister, this is hardly newsworthy I'm afraid, nor is the article anything more than a very stubby stub. Supporting this is clearly designed to make some kind of WP:POINT as it clearly fails the criteria needed to be posted.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the grounds that the stub article is not built on a strong foundation of secondary sources. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Comparison to the Higgs boson is inaccurate; its discovery belongs in the field of theoretical physics, and was a confirmation of theoretical prediction - hence the discovery itself was the entire story. In this case, the field is applied biology, and hence the real measure is results.  This will obviously be newsworthy if it produces a useful way to cleanly biodegrade plastics, but all applied fields (perhaps especially biology, medicine, and related fields) have numerous promising but fruitless leads, many of which make headlines because the potential is so sensational. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 00:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Iolanda Balaș

 * Support RD on notability. Article is very short and needs bare urls filling in. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD per Espresso Addict. Article is, frankly, a bit of a mess, and needs some work, but the notability is beyond question.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. Will spend some time on the article later and see if it reaches a post-able standard. MurielMary (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD, not blurb. Article problems aren't too far off and I see people working on it. --M ASEM (t) 14:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment marked as ready, a few more bits and pieces added, formatting issues addressed, fully referenced, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Thue (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Keith Emerson

 * Support pending improvements. Emerson was a prog rock giant. Notability is unquestioned, but the referencing is quite poor. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm in there trying to fix up the very large unreferenced section on instrumentation and playing style now.TheBlinkster (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support RD subject to article quality. Mjroots (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, but oppose on quality. From a quick skim, it seems like it needs a deal of work. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Question - is this being reported in any mainstream media? We've had discussions in the past as to whether reports in non-mainstream media are sufficient to establish ITN-worthiness. MurielMary (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's currently (see this post's timestamp) on the home/front-pages of BBC, CNN, Spiegel, La Repubblica, El Mundo. Other mainstream media I checked don't have his death as a front headline, but still report it prominently within their culture section. ---Sluzzelin talk  23:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, with blurb if one is suggested. A genre-defining artist. Guy (Help!) 00:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Guy, what do you think? George Ho (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support without blurb. This is certainly being reported, I heard a one-sentence mention on ABC's World News Tonight which is unusual for a non-American non-frontman rock artist. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support As others have said, he is hugely notable. It also appears that a number of editors have jumped in today attempting to remedy the referencing quality issues. TheBlinkster (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Blinkster, do you favor RD or blurb? George Ho (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To me it is a close call but I would lean slightly towards blurb. As someone else said, he was a prog rock giant. TheBlinkster (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * @Bongwarrior, Mjroots, and Muboshgu: I added a blurb. --George Ho (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I oppose blurb, support RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What Muboshgu said. I like ELP, but let's be realistic here. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb. As to RD, the article is far from ready at present, with a lot of missing citations. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD on improvements, but not blurb Importance for RD is no question, but I don't see him as the equivalent powerhouse as David Bowie was. There are sourcing issues (other have identified) but I would call out specifically that "Partial list of pieces based on other composers' works" needs a source for any entry where his contribution is uncredited (as credited ones, I should be able to read the credits to affirm, but can't do that on uncredited ones). --M ASEM (t) 04:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD, neutral on blurb: Clearly a notable figure in music, perhaps even a household name. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support for RD A notable musician. Canuck 89 (chat with me) 07:49, March 12, 2016 (UTC)
 * Support for RD - Indeed a notable musician. BabbaQ (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is full of unreferenced claims. Needs a lot of work before it can be supported even for RD.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD – Oppose blurb – Band is a household name but not Keith Emerson, IMO. Sca (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You do know his name is in the name of the band, right?-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rainbow trout transparent.png
 * Whack! – Sca (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Whack! – Sca (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - Just need a drummer to go with Emerson, Squier and Grudzinski to create the defining prog-rock act of the afterlife. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  06:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment this could be the most heavily supported RD item which has shown no few signs of improvement in the history of RD. If any supporters actually want to see this on the main page, please address the referencing and maintenance tag concerns!  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's tremendously unfair to the people who are working on the article. It has seen immense improvement over the past few days. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's still tremendously far from ready. Which is a shame as it's running out of time.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I myself have added something like 25+ references to the article in 2 days and still adding, as well as reorganizing sections of the article for readability and keeping topics together rather than spread around. A couple of other editors have also made many significant changes. I am not sure how you see this as "no improvement", but I would welcome you to join in seeking out references and improving the article. TheBlinkster (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's good, but I'm afraid there's a long way to go and time is running short. I have no interest at all in this individual so I won't be working on it, but my original point was that with so many supporters, it seems a shame that most of them have disappeared into the cracks when some work needs to be done.  Adjusted "none" to "few".   The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Throwing a suggestion out there. It appears that we can likely source everything in the article pretty quickly with the exception of the long list of "uncredited" musics used at the end. As someone noted, the "uncredited" stuff needs a cite - it might be possible to see the actual credits of the individual albums as providing support in the "credited" cases. Would it be possible to delete the "uncredited" stuff off the page like move it to a sandbox so we could find cites for it, then sometime in the future put it back, without having it hold up the RD? Technically we should be able to just delete unsourced stuff, and I don't think that long list is crucial to the man's article. If the "credited" stuff would also need a cite then we could just move the whole list off the page elsewhere.  With respect to the other sections, I need to fix the "pipe organ" section and going through adding refs for the others and it seems realistic to be able to get this done, if the giant end-list goes away... thoughts?  If this won't help from an ITN standpoint then I wouldn't bother. TheBlinkster (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Now a moot point - hearing crickets, I just cited everything. I and the other editor Martinevans123 mainly working on this only had to delete a few small things that could not be sourced anywhere. TheBlinkster (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The other matter that strikes me on a very quick glance is the only reference for his suffering depression immediately prior to his death is the Daily Mail; I'd like a second, preferably more highly regarded, source on that point -- that seems important in terms of the BLP policy. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, he's no longer a "living person", but I see your point in view of the family, etc. If there is something I'll put it in, if not then we can take that out since I'm sure there will be some more RS print something on his death down the road, and since WP is not a newspaper, no rush to be pronouncing what caused his death. Also, re the above issue with classical music, I did find a book source that contains a lot of the backup for the uncredited classical music uses (it's apparently a reference book tracking this for prog rock bands) so I will put in as much as I can and anything that can't be sourced will just need to come out for now. Most of the stuff is either credited or can be sourced so it won't be a huge loss of information.TheBlinkster (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Re the depression - his girlfriend is giving interviews now in the Telegraph and other papers that he was depressed so it doesn't look like wrong info. I can cite to the Telegraph and any other papers that carry it TheBlinkster (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, TheBlinkster. The BLP policy does continue to apply in the immediate aftermath of death: "...for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." I should be around for a couple more hours if you want to ping me to take another look. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem since like I said there is now the Telegraph and Independent reporting much the same thing, due to his partner's interview. I cited all three of the papers as the story was consistent between them all (he was depressed due to nerve damage affecting ability to play) and this is also his longtime partner's statement. So should not be anything controversial there. TheBlinkster (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I believe that between the efforts of me, Martinevans123, and a few other folks who stopped in to make an edit here and there, the article is now fully sourced, including the long list of credited and uncredited classical pieces. I hope this is sufficient to get it to RD as I really tried to source everything, and also address people's comments about other concerns such as Daily Mail, as well as doing some reorganizing of the article for flow and to keep it from skipping around. Please take another look and hopefully this time some improvement will be seen. TheBlinkster (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: Syrian Civil War

 * Oppose for the same reason I did last time: this article is atrociously cumbersome. It's far too large to be of use to readers and presently has over 800 references more than 125 kB of prose. It needs to be reduced in size and split into reasonable sub-articles concerning either phases or specific years. There are articles such as Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (May–December 2013) floating around haphazardly, but they're clearly not being used to their full potential. The main Syrian Civil War article has to be a summary one and not cover minute details of every individual conflict, there's far too much going on for that. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January–April 2016) would be most relevant to readers, but it hasn't been touched in four days and the quality is less than stellar. It also has fewer than 50 edits in the past 2.5 weeks, far below the activity you'd expect with an ongoing event. There's no background context and only minimal information regarding what happens to pop up in the news day-by-day is present as opposed to event-based groupings that would be more useful. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose if it's "barely updated", why should this be re-featured on Ongoing? The last major event was the US-Russian brokered ceasefire at the end of Feb, so it's also somewhat stale. I'd like to reiterate that Ongoing isn't for stuff that just has tons of media coverage. Fuebaey (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose paradoxical nomination, I don't see why we should add something that's barely updated to the Ongoing section of ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose/??? I don't know what's intended here, but I am impressed that "Barely updated" could be a punchline that gets a smile. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 07:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - 84.161.247.158 (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So instead of lodging an argument to match your actual thoughts, a sarcastic, snide commentary on the state of editors is more appropriate? Thanks for your contributions. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems I was right, given how sensitive some editors are about it. So sensitive, they have to remove the comment, misrepresent and lie about the nature of it, and threaten me with blocking. Q.E.D. 84.161.247.158 (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - We have European migrant crisis (mostly Syrian refugees) but not Syrian civil war? Not quite logical. STSC (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't follow that. The migration crisis is in the news, the civil war much less so.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There're plenty of 'Syrian civil war' news when I searched Google News. My point is the war must be ongoing to produce ongoing migrant crisis. STSC (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ken Adam

 * Support on the merits. Clearly a leader in his field. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Multiple Academy and BAFTA awards for non-Bond films, but arguably his Bond film designs were even more influential on generations of visual arts designers. dmmaus (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support As per dmmaus. 46.189.67.113 (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Importance there, and I sourced one section I found weak (his donation of his body of work to that museum) so the article should be in good shape to post RD. --M ASEM (t) 23:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support No reason not to, as he was quite influential during his lifetime. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment slightly concerned about the reliability of some of those refs (a tabloid, a blog, IMDB, etc). Am working on this but wouldn't mind if others chip in. Fuebaey (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've nixed the blog and IMDB with a few book sources. Plus caught a few statements that should be sourced too. --M ASEM (t) 00:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Did some editing. I don't think there any statements needing cites now, unless I missed something.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 01:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of the awards could still do with citations, especially the lifetime achievement award from ADG which isn't in the article and doesn't seem to be at the website. The BAFTAs seem to be in the relevant article but are unreferenced there; I can't readily find them on the BAFTA website. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Good work everyone on citations. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually heard this on the radio at the top of the hour news. Which was odd, since they couldn't actually show any of his sets.  Just "You can't fight in here!  This is the war room." μηδείς (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Tilikum (orca)

 * Oppose I'm kind of mixed on this one, as there is notability in some ways, but I don't think it would be something that would qualify a mention on the front page of Wikipedia. Maybe his death would be enough, but I don't see just becoming ill worth a mention. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose at the moment; the orca's death (whether directly from this or if a manner done in a humane fashion) would be the right ITN point. I can't necessarily say that at that point it would be appropriate to post, just that the announcement that the orca has a fatal condition is not something we'd post for any human in a similar case. --M ASEM (t) 17:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait I doubt we'd post a blurb about a human contracting a fatal lung infection either, we'd wait until the person's death.  I will gladly support RD for this orca upon his death, and consider a blurb when that time comes (though to be fair, Tilikum is ~34 years old, exceeding the usual life expectancy for captive orcas). - OldManNeptune ⚓ 20:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose there may be a just cause for posting a blurb when Tilikum dies if the reaction to it and SeaWorld's barbarism comes to an end, otherwise this is not ITN stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Lens regeneration

 * Support Much more long-term significant than a random terror attack, sport event, or plane crash. This will have huge consequences for many thousands of people. More ITN candidates like this, please :). Thue (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose More on quality, less so on notability, though I think that's borderline as well. The article is basically a stub, with only one source, not even citing the actual papers in question. Fgf10 (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The paper has been published in Nature but unfortunately is not open access. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So? That doesn't mean you can't cite it. Fgf10 (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't cite it because I can't read beyond the abstract. I've added it into the article as further reading. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting development, but article is very brief - no background to the field or the research, reads like a press release on the result of this one trial. MurielMary (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as this seems to be significant scientific achievement. The article needs improvement, though.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article is an orphaned stub and is of insufficient quality. The story is neat, it's already come and gone in the news, perhaps it's a good DYK candidate? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The BBC put the story up just 19 hours ago so it's still quite fresh. Compare this with the current top story on ITN - the Samoa general election.  If you try searching for that on the BBC website, their top story is Super Tuesday!  Going by the numbers: population of Samoa = ~200K. Number of cataract operations each year = ~20 million.  That's two orders of magnitude more significant.  I'm quite busy today but thought this story was so important that I took time to get a stub started. Espresso Addict did a good thing by adding a link to the paper in Nature.  That's our general editing policy,"Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content."


 * Further assistance of this sort is most welcome. Please don't stand on ceremony – strike while the iron is hot.  Andrew D. (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ITN looks for "quality content" before posting. This is not quality.   And you already know and have been told countless times why the Samoan election is on the ITN section of the page, there's no need to continually flog that dead horse. My !vote stands.  (P.S. It's not really "in the news" unless you consider sixth story on the BBC "science and environment" page [behind old pine, snake slithering and rhino slaughter, to name but three] to be "in the news".  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In any case, trialled – as the past tense of to trial – isn't in general usage, and violates the Looks Funny rule. Sca (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nah, trialled is perfectly normal and used frequently. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe in pharmacology or medicine. Not in general usage in U.S. English. Sca (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Certainly commonplace as far as BritEng is concerned. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In U.S. English trial is a noun; not in general usage as a verb. Sca (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, so what? This isn't US English Wikipedia.  It's in common usage in other variants of English.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sigh.
 *  This isn't British Wikipedia, either. It's the English-language Wikipedia.
 *  The 306 million native speakers of English in the U.S. constitute 77 percent of the 340 million native speakers of English worldwide.
 *  My (naive?) assumption is, those responsible for English (-language) Wikipedia seek to serve all their readers. Or to put it another way, to serve the greatest number with the greatest good – the latter including readily understood, unequivocal language and syntax.
 * – Sca (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sigh away. There's nothing wrong with its usage.  Time to do something else I guess.  The Rambling Man (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * John Bull pointing.png


 * Nothing wrong if you're British. Sca (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with using trialled, perfectly common both in science and general use. Fgf10 (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not if you're British or, ahem, Scottish, apparently. Sca (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment This feels like a very odd article as it basically is just resting on the result of one paper, eg it almost fails WP:RECENTISM. Normally, I would have expected this to be put into, say, Cataract, instead of creating a separate article. Has there been prior work in lens regeneration for other creatures besides humans? If we can't expand this further, I feel this fails the basic aspects for supporting an article and so can't be ITN. --M ASEM (t) 15:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As well as starting the stub, I put a bunch of relevant templates onto the talk page to assist editors in finding sources and to alert the Opthalmology taskforce who are no doubt racing here with blue lights flashing. If you browse the search links, you soon see that the topic is notable.  For example, Google Scholar has over 2000 papers.  Andrew D. (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I would support having a blurb related to stem cell research or cataract, not a separate article. Nergaal (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We can have both. The bold link could be to cataract or cataract surgery while the new page about lens regeneration would be an ordinary blue link.  I considered this option when creating the nomination but didn't have time to explore all the alternatives.  There's a lot of history about this general topic; for example, I recently came across the horrific history of Chevalier John Taylor.  Per WP:ASTONISH, I felt it best to take the reader to a page which is primarily focussed on the new technique.  If they then want to browse the general background, then they could follow links within that. Andrew D. (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If we are talking about bold linking cataract or cataract surgery, both are in poor shape from a sourcing standpoint. --M ASEM (t) 16:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The cataract article has 62 inline citations plus external links, a bibliography and lots of blue links and navigational templates. It seems to have no clean-up tags and is graded B-class/top importance by the Ophthalmology task force.  Perhaps my own eyes are at fault but I'm not seeing the problem. Andrew D. (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There are around 10-odd paragraphs presented without inline sourcing, including much of the "Surgery" section where this topic would seem to fall. It's fixable if this is chosen as the highlighted link. (Just sheer reference count or lack of tags does not mean the article is in good shape). --M ASEM  (t) 17:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So, B-class isn't good enough, eh? As I suspected, that's the problem linking to a big page with lots of content – too much scope to nitpick irrelevant aspects.  Better then to focus on the narrow topic, rather than the broad one. Andrew D. (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the type of sourcing that a knowledgable editor in that field can likely fix within an hour or so, likely borrowing sources from other articles to simplify it. I would not expect the sourcing to be perfect, but to have sections or several consecutive paragraphs in a row without an inline source, while okay for a B-class, is not sufficient for front page inclusion. But its definitely not a lost cause, as to me it just needs a once-over to fill in more inlines; we'd ask the same for every other topic to be posted here. --M ASEM (t) 17:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But we don't have any knowledgeable editors here, eh? All these !votes are from editors who know next-to-nothing about the topic, right?  Note that all the main articles currently posted at ITN have project ratings by one or more projects who presumably know something about those topics.  None of them are better than C-class or mid-importance and several are graded start-class/low importance.  Why is it that ratings by knowledgeable editors are given less weight than ratings by editors who lack knowledge.  Simply counting citation density in a mechanical way without any regard to whether those citations are accurate, comprehensive or reliable not does not seem as good as a project rating by a subject-matter expert.  The projects are saying that the cataract article is of better quality than anything we currently have posted. Perhaps we just need to consult a project representative to confirm that their rating is up-to-date. Andrew D. (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am looking at the article from a standpoint of "we want to use this as a highlighted link from ITN now", so I'm reviewing it's present state, which is somewhat lacking in sourcing that we'd except for front page posting. I have no idea when it was assigned a B, could have been yesterday, could have been years ago, but relative the quality of front page material, it's not sufficient. Wikiproject ratings are unrelated to front page requirements. And I'm not looking at density, per se, I am looking at the fact it has many unsourced paragraphs which means it fails WP:V because it doesn't provide where to find where to verify this information. Hence, for myself, I like to see each paragraph have a single source, even if it is a repeated source that provides that information. As Mjroots points out below, once at front page, improvement in sourcing will likely happen, but we want that sourcing to be at a minimum level so that new editors that are interested in helping know how to add and source properly. --M ASEM (t) 20:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Masem doesn't seem to be conducting a proper review; merely looking for citations in a facile way, regardless of whether the text makes any sense or not. This approach is all you can do if you're not familiar with the topic but it's largely worthless.  This is not what is required by WP:V, which only requires citations for quotes and controversial statements.  What really matters in our articles is that they are right; that someone is checking that the main text is coherent and correct.  As a fresh example of how easy it is to have garbled meaning regardless of citations, please consider the current top story in ITN – Solar eclipse of March 9, 2016.  This is a pretty poor article – an obvious violation of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK – and it has lots of data dumps and paras without clear citations.  But it's worse than that.  A recent edit garbled the lead.  The next editor didn't notice and the editor after that made a faux correction which embedded the garbling more deeply so that it takes some study to figure out why the lead now makes no sense.  I just figured all that out and the citations were quite irrelevant to this process – you actually have to read, parse and understand the main text.  If people don't understand what's written and merely check superficial appearance, you end up with junk like this. Andrew D. (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not reviewing for GA or FA quality, but making sure that the article starts as a good template for editors that might be drawn in by the ITN posting on the front page. The current section Cataract has three large paragraphs that are unsourced. The information appears to be true, and it certainly doesn't seem contentious so it doesn't need removal, but it does fail verifability, because I have no idea where to go to find information on those procedures, even if this is just a summary from a medical textbook or the like. And per WP:V, it potentially can be removed, just not with the immediacy of a BLP or unsourced quote. These large swathes of unsourced but apparently factual sections lead new editors to come in and add material they "know" is true without sources, which may or may not be a good thing. When we have sufficient sourcing, it does help to stop new editors from throwing in material without sources to prevent massive reliability problems. --M ASEM  (t) 01:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If the article is an obvious violation of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK then you should do the right thing at take it to WP:AFD, or perhaps you don't actually believe what you claim. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Astronomy articles tend to get a free pass at AFD. See Articles for deletion/June 2058 lunar eclipse, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Tell that to transit of Venus from Mars (might be seen by people in 2032 or 2059), transit of Earth from Jupiter (which happens every few years), transit of Mercury from Venus, transit of Jupiter from outer planets and transit of Saturn from outer planets (which just looks sick, we should undelete that just for this image). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. So, AFD or just another unfounded moan?  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * COMMENT - the nomination of an article at ITN/C can lead to massive improvements in the article, whether or not it ultimately gets posted. Therefore it is more helpful for constructive criticism to be given that negative criticism. That way, Wikipedia as a whole benefits. Mjroots (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The Doctor Is In I've been adding some more citations to the cataract page, as wanted by Masem.  This has attracted the attention of Doc James who says he'll stop by when he gets a chance.  Please hold off closing this pending his arrival. Andrew D. (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Every sentence of the led of the cataract article is referenced to a fairly recent high quality source. Added a bit about the new procedure to the research section of the cataract article. This is a good ref for supporting a general overview . Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Update The cataract article has more citations now – 71 in total. I have expanded the lens regeneration article too so it is no longer a stub and Doc James has linked it in to the main cataract article.  Google indicates that the matter has been widely reported – over 150 news sources.  Anything else?  Oh yes, there's the matter of the usage trialled.  Here's what Oxford says, "VERB (trials, trialling, trialled; US trials, trialing, trialed)".  Note that the trial primarily took place in China which has British English as an official language thanks to Hong Kong, so we're good.  But it wouldn't be difficult to reword the blurb to avoid any confusion.  Anything else? Andrew D. (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied it has sufficient sourcing to be used as the target article now. (It can be improved yes, but it's got all bases effectively covered to not be a problem for front page posting now) --M ASEM  (t) 07:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose as i do all these biomedical things, where a paper is published and the media goes nuts on it. This may turn out to be completely meaningless.  See for example Stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency which had a big Nature paper, was hyped in the media, and then was retracted.  We should not jerk readers around like the media do - we are an encyclopedia and we provide the public with accepted knowledge; we are not part of the medical hype machine.  This is too new to even be discussed in a review article in the biomedical literature, which is generally our minimal standard for sourcing biomedical content per WP:MEDRS.  Jytdog (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Present 200-word text contains no time element outside footnoted article dates and reads like a technical abstract. In terms of news, stale. Sca (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The article had better coverage at its peak but has since been disrupted by Jytdog in support of his position that we shouldn't cover medical news. Healing people is apparently a bad thing at ITN – all that's wanted is a steady diet of deaths. Andrew D. (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What you call disrupution, I call fixing the WP:UNDUE problems created by relying on sources that fail WP:MEDRS for a medical treatment.  See in particular the section, WP:MEDREV which discusses exactly the situation of a primary source getting hyped in the media.  That is included in MEDRS because it is a common error.  Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have an informed opinion on this nom, but I agree with Andrew D. that the article seems to have been gutted. Sca (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose posting a trial in 12 children with no indication of long-term efficacy. As a wise man once said, "don't believe the hype." Stephen
 * Which wise man was that? Sca (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] #CreatorGate

 * Comment. The paper seems to have been retracted on 3 March. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The story is published in March 10 issue of Nature, March 8 issue of WaPo.Sk741~enwiki (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Nature article appears to be dated 3 March at the top and has comments from that date, though I notice it does say 10 March at bottom. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Here it is in print.Sk741~enwiki (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose I see no real angle for notability even if this wasn't long-stale news, and even if the language in the nomination and blurb didn't carry a distinct whiff of bias. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 02:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Retractions are not uncommon in science, and I don't see anything particularly special about this one. According to the article there were "67 post-publication reader comments and 129 responses on PLOS ONE site", which is by no means large either. Banedon (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems like a somewhat overblown situation that wasn't intentionally created. --M ASEM (t) 04:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose This isn't news. PLOS need to seriously look at their editorial polices, but it's not news. Fgf10 (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you think WaPo lists this item on a page that has "In the News" in the upper left corner? And in Nature it is categorized as Popular topics on social media?Sk741~enwiki (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Clyde Lovellette

 * Where has this been reported in the media? MurielMary (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose no sources reflecting upon his demise, article is not much more than a mainly unreferenced large stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Naná Vasconcelos

 * Comment. The current article is a poorly referenced stub that does little to indicate his notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to see refs for those Grammys first. Looking through the Grammy archives gives no results, yet there is one in 2011 for a Latin Grammy. Are there any other Grammys out there or is that obit wrong? Fuebaey (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - I've done a bit of work on the article, and while it needs more, I will support an RD listing on the basis of his honors and formidable discography. Jus  da  fax   05:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE Nothing really suggests his importance. Long career doesn't mean good. It also doesn't mean top of his field. It also says ( Grammys but doesn't say for what or even when. There is nothing special in this short article.Correctron (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article quality is badly lacking - there is precious little information there, aside from a lengthy bullet list discography. Challenger l (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose he has made a lot of records, and not much more. There's no evidence from the Grammy database that he won even a single regular Grammy, let alone the eight claimed in the article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose no evidence of being "top of his field". Also article is only a brief section of prose followed by a long list of recordings; needs more prose and detail. MurielMary (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Jon English

 * Support. Seems to be important to Australian music. 331dot (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Icon of 70s & 80s Australian music, good article, reliable news coverage in Australia.Find bruce (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support article quality is good, notability not quite so clear, a few awards but mostly minor ones. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose doesn't reach the level of notability for RD; don't agree that he was "an icon of Australian music" - he is listed as one of around 20 popular acts for the late 1970s section in the Australian rock article, which indicates a brief period of popularity only. Of his hits the highest in the charts was number 5, others around the teens and twenties; and he received only one Logie award, for new talent at the beginning of his career. Article may be thorough, but if subject isn't "top of their field" then it's not suitable for RD. MurielMary (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Mo Awards are the pre-eminent live entertainment industry awards in Australia, and he won "Entertainer of the Year" three times in a row, and a fourth award for best male vocal performer as well. His field encompassed both recorded music and live entertainment, ad he was at the top in the latter. dmmaus (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. His most notable and long-lasting contributions in Australa were arguably his stage and theatrical works, including long runs in leading roles for Jesus Christ Superstar ('72-75 and '79 and The Pirates of Penzance ('84-86 and '94). Therefore notability does not rest with Australian rock contribtions, but with light/comic opera and other stage/opera works. Also note major news in Australia and UK: The Guardian, ABC, Daily Mail and more. Klbrain (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Long-running career" does not equate to "top of his field", which is the RD criteria. He won one award for his stage work, and that was a local Melbourne-only award. MurielMary (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose along the same lines as MurielMary. English is not "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field" (per WP:ITN/DC), unless "Australian live music of the 1970s and 1980s" is a field we're going to concern ourselves with. This is demonstrated by the fact that he won only minor or obscure awards, and apparently had very few of his albums even chart in Australia. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> IgnorantArmies  (talk)  06:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] AlphaGo versus Lee Sedol

 * Oppose if the story is about the first match, then there's basically no prose at all about that individual game. The article is pretty much a stub.  Why not wait to see how the series pans out and then we can add reactions etc if AlphaGo actually wins overall? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In the first series of Deep Blue vs. Kasparov, Kasparov won. That did by no means diminish the fact that, at that time, a computer had won a single game against a human opponent within that series. This is the same thing.--WaltCip (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I reread the post and see that you aren't dismissing the item on the basis of it being a single game, but rather of the article not being up to snuff.--WaltCip (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that's true, but on further thought, we've already posted a computer beating a human at Go, this is just a better computer beating a better human at Go. I'm not sure why we'd need two blurbs in two months to cover what is principally the same thing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you have been opposed to posting Deep Blue vs. Kasparov too, when that happened, with the reasoning that some other professional chess players had already been beaten? Thue (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If it had happened within a month, yes. It's like we're advertising AlphaGo.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We should post what is significant. If we changed our coverage with the purpose of advertising alphago, then that would obviouly be bad. But it would be equally bad if we changed our coverage from the optimal because we did not want to seem to be advertising alphago. We should simply post what is true, without regards to the advertisement value we are bestowing upon alphago. Using "It's like we're advertising AlphaGo" is simply not a valid argument IMO. Thue (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man, you said "Why not wait to see how the series pans out and then we can add reactions etc if AlphaGo actually wins overall?" This has now happened, with a 3-0 win achieved. There will be lots of reaction over the next few media cycles. Hopefully that will be added to the article (I am unlikely to have time to help with that). Would you and others consider support the alt blurb I added? Carcharoth (talk) 10:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support on significance, wait on article. I supported our new AI overlord when it won against a lower-ranked player previously, and it would behove me to do the same again lest it go full Manila on us all. G RAPPLE   X  10:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait The win in this game alone means I support posting the full match. But let us wait for the full match result. Thue (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait till after the match is over, then support regardless of who wins. Banedon (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is receiving so much media attention – 1.5 million views of the YouTube video in a day – that I'm switching to post now, continuously update (so e.g. "AlphaGo wins game 2 of its ongoing match with Lee Sedol", and then "___ wins game 3", etc). Banedon (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia, and ITN by extension, is not based on popularity, and in fact we should avoid systematic bias that is created by popular stories. (Otherwise, we'd be looking like a TMZ headline list). Broad coverage is important (and there's no question this has it), but massive pageviews on a YouTube video is not something we should consider. --M ASEM (t) 01:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ITN explicitly states that one of the four purposes of ITN is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". Therefore if something is popular that is an argument to feature it. Massive pageviews on a YouTube video is a statistic that argues in favour of the item's popularity - similar to, e.g., pageviews of the article. Banedon (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If Lee loses tomorrow (c. 8:00 UTC) then he loses the match. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be posted then and the blurb updated as needed (the rules sound like the match continues to 5 games, there's a $20K/win prize and it sounds like he gets $150,000 for completing 5 games). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that if Lee loses before the end of the series we should post at that point. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose We just posted about AlphaGo in January . The distinction being between handicapped or not seems unnecessary to warrant a new article. --M ASEM  (t) 15:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In that discussion people were opposing because he's several ranks below the highest and now people are saying that the de facto world champion is not impressive enough. Computers have beaten the highest rank with as little as 4 free moves before the human starts but never a fair game. They did those kinds of games a lot in computer go before October 2015 (even failing to defeat humans with 25-30 free moves as late as 1998). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that we don't really want to see this become a Go ticker. Wouldn't it be better to post a winning series?  I would imagine that if the series was won by AlphaGo, you'd be asking for a blurb to be updated in any case?  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see the harm in posting this win, and then bumping if AlphaGo wins the whole series. One bump does not a go ticker make. Thue (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And if it does happen again, we could always make it an ongoing event. *snicker* --WaltCip (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To me, the story that is ITN is that "humans created an AI to successfully beat one of the best players in one of the most difficult + strategic board games developed by mankind", a remarkable feat of programming and computer science. Which was met in January. That this is the best player is a minor footnote. --M ASEM (t) 17:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, go is a really big deal in Asia. Given how much western sports is posted on ITN, why would it be controversial to post the world go champion being beaten in a remarkable way (with scientific ramifications). Thue (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Because this seems just as another test of the software, and not so much a competition or ranked match but a showcasing event. Now, if there was a Go World Championship Event, and AlphaGo, entered and tested as any other competitor, won that, I would completely agree with posting that story even if we already posted the January event. --M ASEM (t) 17:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Deep Blue vs. Kasparov was not a ranked match either. So you would also have been opposed to posting that if it happened today? Being a ranked match is not the end-all important criterium for a sport event to be important. Thue (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably yes; the ITN element there was humans developing an AI good enough to best a recognized world chess master, but not necessarily the world chess master. That is, in both cases, the impact is on the "science" aspect, not the "sports/competition" aspect. --M ASEM (t) 17:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I must admit that I am baffled by your reasoning. Go is from the 4th century BC. A computer beating the Go world champion for the first time is a one-in-2500-years event, which is surely more important than a hundred Go yearly world championships. This is a milestone event for Go as a sport. This is history. And that is ignoring the significance of the event in pure AI research. Thue (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Historic, absolutely. Sport, bah! Computers are still the inferior creatures till a robot beats our best at pankration. I imagine it would happen quickly, but probably not soon. Support. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Regular rules or Sparta rules? (biting okay, eye gouging okay). For some reason putting finger in anus and ripping is okay even though they fought naked. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In the style of the almighty Zeus. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Masem, I think you have really misunderstood what has happened here. The result in January was promising, but it is this result that will really make the news. The pundits thought that the best human (far, far better than the European champion who lost) would still win easily. They were wrong. This really is a big leap forward for machine learning and uses deep neural network technology. A lot of possibilities are being opened up by this. Carcharoth (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment tweaked the blurb. Interesting that Safari thinks there's no such word as "unhandicapped" (Google thinks it's rare).  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, if the previous item would have been nominated with the clarification of being handicapped win, it would not have been posted and this would have been posted instead. Since that has been posted, there is no need to post this incremental upgrade. Nergaal (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The previous item was not a handicapped win. Thue (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) That's not the context of the previous nomination, which was the first AI to beat a professional Go player without handicaps. This is a massive upgrade over the previous achievement, as the defeated European champion was only ranked 2/9 Dan and this player is ranked 9/9 Dan and one of the best Go players in the history of the game. The difference would be posting the first match soccer robots beat any old professional team and the first time soccer robots beat say Manchester United. Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support and update when it's over - The one win against one of the best Go players in the world is significant in itself, but winning the series would be more impressive. So regardless if Alpha Go wins or loses the series, this one win means it should be posted and then updated when the series ends. Or at the very least posted at the end regardless of outcome, since this one win is so important. Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait, though I'm leaning toward oppose, since we just posted about this same computer weeks ago. This is the first of five matches, and winning the series is more meaningful. Mamyles (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support either posting now, or posting at the end of the series, whichever wins. I admit myself baffled by the opposes on notability here. This is a real milestone for both Go and AI, and even three Go posts in a few months does not seem OTT to me. I agree more prose on the match would be good. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait until all five matches are done, then Support so as to post a blurb with the full story. March 15 is not too far away.ZettaComposer (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait until all five games are played, then Support, regardless of eventual outcomes. Tayste (edits) 21:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Now AlphaGo has won the series I think we should post this as soon as the match update has been completed, rather than waiting for the final two games. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What Espresso Addict said: ASAP. Banedon (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support posting when updated (all the news about the overall win in the media will come now, not in two days time). I had come here to support a nomination that I thought would have appeared after AlphaGo won the series within the last hour (establishing an unassailable 3-0 lead in the 5-match series). I was surprised to find a nomination about the first win, that was a premature nomination IMO. Please don't hold the earlier posting about the win against the European champion, who was a much weaker player, against this nomination. Lee Sedol is one of the world's strongest players and this is genuinely a really big deal (pundits before the match expected the human to win easily). BBC story here, and there will be numerous other stories being published on this soon). Report from The Verge. Added alternative blurb. Carcharoth (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Lee Sedol is one of the world's strongest players is he not the world's strongest players? Are we to have another blurb shortly about AlphaGo beating the best player?  I'm confused.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Read how it is being reported in the news. Go doesn't have an actual world championship, as far as I know. There is an amateur world championship and the top professionals (7-dan and above, I think) play in the leagues and international championships (List of professional Go tournaments) where they earn their money. South Korea, Japan and China are the main countries that play go. There are people on Wikipedia who play go who will be able to explain it better than me. I phrased it that way, because I didn't think we should say he is the best player. But he might well be the current leading player. Carcharoth (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, here we go: Report from Wired: "Google’s artificially intelligent Go-playing computer system has claimed victory in its historic match with Korean grandmaster Lee Sedol after winning a third straight game in this best-of-five series." and "a major milestone for AI" and "Lee Sedol is widely regarded as the best Go player of the past decade. But he was beaten by a machine that taught itself to play the ancient game." (deep neural networks and reinforcement learning). "Machines have conquered the last games. Now comes the real world." Carcharoth (talk) 10:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I did read it, thanks for the advice. I was concerned over the fact that we could see yet another AlphaGo blurb in a month or two when it beats another "better" human opponent.  Now, if that's not possible and this individual is considered to be the best living Go player by numerous reliable sources (as there is no official world champion) then that would be fine.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Apologies for the patronising tone. Carcharoth (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have adjusted the alt blurb but still find it to be unsatisfactory. If someone could make it read better, yet maintain the truth that the human is only "considered" to be the best Go player, please do so and then we can post this.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The phrasings used in reports vary from "the game's best player is generally reckoned to be" to "the best Go player of the past decade" to "the world's best Go player". Maybe add "considered" or "reckoned"? Can't think of anything better. Nice article from The Economist here (the score was only 2-0 at that point, but the writing was on the wall). Carcharoth (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted I await the slings and arrows at ERRORS for the wording. But at least the story is up, per consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: George Martin

 * Support - An obvious RD, and I'll support a blurb too. Jus  da  fax   06:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Article in good shape. RD for sure, a bit hesitant on blurb. --M ASEM (t) 06:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Added another blurb. Thoughts, Masem and Jusdafax? George Ho (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll support either. Yours is more concise, though "contributor of" is a bit awkward. I'd say "producer of" instead. Jus  da  fax   06:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support RD and I'd probably support blurb too. Huge influence on the music industry. Seismic. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose blurb Few producers will accomplish as much as Martin has. However, the large majority of his hits were Beatles songs.  The Beatles, as the primary artists and performers, helped Martin vastly in his career by catapulting him to fame very early on.  As another example, musicians credit Butch Vig as a great producer, but no one seriously believes that he is primarily responsible for the success of Nirvana, among others.  Without his early success with the Beatles, Martin would have had a respectable, professional career as a producer but would otherwise have been non-notable.128.214.53.18 (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD Mjroots (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD but Oppose Blurb. I'll be blunt and say that I don't think the death of a record producer at age 90, whose main accomplishments are decades in the past (and undeniably tied to the extraordinary fame of a single band, evidenced by the very choice of blurbs presented), meets the minimum threshold for a blurb.  This is a textbook RD case, in my opinion - very high notability, but death is nowhere near blurb-level impact. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 08:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb Not quite at the blurb level. The IP makes a fair point. Neljack (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD and blurb - the article is a good article and a number of improvements have been made today on top of that by numerous editors. Martin is notable without the Beatles as head of Parlophone and having produced other charting artists, but his status of "the fifth Beatle" and having produced the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed group of all time, it doesn't surprise anyone that his death has hit the top news headlines on both sides of the Atlantic, , , , which does qualify it as worldwide news. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, RD was created for precisely this sort of situation. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb This is a great candidate for RD, but not important enough and not discussed enough in his passing for a blurb. The death itself isn't a notable event. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. This is a highly notable and influential person at the end of long years, departing due to old age, not sudden illness or misfortune or worse. I take David Bowie or Robin Williams as exemplars in this - Robin was extremely well-known and died very suddenly and unexpectedly. David Bowie's illness was kept from the public, so his departure seemed to most no less abrupt and shocking. My two cents. Challenger l (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Solar eclipse

 *  Conditional support One section is currently marked for references, but otherwise looks ok, especially since it's a total eclipse. Brandmeistertalk  09:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support have added references and cropped the image to Main Page-suitable dimensions. Smurrayinchester 15:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are a couple of unreferenced sections and some bare urls. I tried to fix but they seem to be bundled in templates or perhaps at wikidata. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would have posted this, but sections of the article are still in future tense and refer to weather forecasts rather than what actually eventuated. Stephen 05:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Fixed that. Smurrayinchester 08:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Stabbing spree in Jaffa

 * Weak oppose. Saw a story about this, but I don't think we would have heard much about it had Biden not been in town.  Attacks in Israel are far too frequent- and this particular attack was not targeting Biden. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless this leads to some major response by Israel or other enormous protests.  Spencer T♦ C 02:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Sad but small tragedy. Happens very frequently. No clear connection to Biden (it might make a difference if there was; then again it might not) - meanwhile there's almost always some big fish visiting Israel, and a Vice-president who'll be gone in less than a year is not even all that big a fish. In fairness I should perhaps also be honest enough to admit that my case is somewhat weakened by the fact that there's probably at least an element of WP:I don't like it in my attitude - if at all avoidable (it isn't always), I don't like giving killers "the oxygen of publicity" that seems to motivate so many of them, and getting yourself onto Wikipedia Main Page must be pretty satisfying to many such killers, and pretty encouraging to many of those thinking about becoming killers.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Relatively minor in scale, especially for Israel. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Maria Sharapova failed drugs test

 * Strong oppose She has admitted that she's been taking a drug for medical purposes, so there's an ongoing investigation, and they are temporarily suspending her while fully investigating it. Far far too soon to post alongside BLP issues. --M ASEM (t) 04:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * She has failed the drug test and there's nothing to investigate. She's just waiting for the decision on any ban imposed on her. STSC (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * According to the BBC article, yes there is. Yes, she failed the test, but that opened up investigation if she willfully broke the ITF's anti-doping regulations or not. No final decision has been made. --M ASEM (t) 04:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose we should not report something like this on the main page of Wikipedia. It is too tabloid-ish. Jehochman Talk 04:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ambivalent - I was thinking of nominating this myself. On the one hand, this is unlikely to be an item of lasting significance. What happens to one athlete in one sport that will not produce lasting consequences (other than possible ban on her) seems rather minor as well. On the other hand, it's been generating multiple news stories. I've seen follow-up stories in mainstream media about sponsors dropping Sharapova, about what the drug actually does to the body, and opinion pieces about whether she was at fault or not. All this strongly indicates that the general public are interested in the story. I have no strong opinion either way, just putting this out there. Banedon (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose An athlete takes a medication that gets put on a banned list, now faces a suspension. Not noteworthy for ITN purposes. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait could be an appropriate item depending on the outcome of the investigation e.g. if she receives an hefty punishment, or if she reveals other athletes were in on it as well etc. But right now, too early, oppose. MurielMary (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose hardly on the Lance Armstrong level, she's admitted to doing something wrong and taking something that has only been banned since the turn of the year. Big headlines because it's Sharapova and she makes for good stories, but it's somewhat trivial in the big scheme of things.  If she is banned for life, we can possibly re-visit this, otherwise it's business as usual.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Adrian Hardiman

 * Support upon update. I'm not sure I would equate him to Scalia(who wasn't posted merely because he died in office), but he does seem important to the Irish legal field. No death information added to article yet. 331dot (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. What little biography is in the article is unreferenced, mostly.  If the article were expanded and fully referenced, this could be posted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Perhaps the most well-known Irish judge of recent times, at least internationally. Article will need quite a bit of work though. Neljack (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on improvements based on my read as being a highly influential justice in Ireland (not just any highest court member). Referencing can be improved and there seems to be a load of potential expansion on his influence. --M ASEM (t) 03:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support when article is ready. I know little of the Irish judiciary but what is in the article is convincing of his importance. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 05:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per everybody above.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Can I flag it as ready? (I think it is, but others may be better judges than me.)Tlhslobus (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Done it on your behalf. George Ho (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, George. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted, and I've left four RDs listed on the template for now because the two oldest listings were only posted about 12 hours ago. I trust that this will not cause anyone any undue hardship. I'm thinking we can drop it back down to three listings about 12 hours from now, so at least one of them will have a full day on the template. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] MythBusters: last episode aired

 * Oppose. I don't view the program so, even from reading the article, not sure how Wikipedia and Mythbusters are similar. Besides, ITN doesn't exist to pay homage to or give free publicity. On a more serious note, I'm failing to see a cited update or this being in the news. Cancellations occur all the time, not seeing anything special with this one. Fuebaey (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd consider the show more akin to Snopes.com than Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose TV shows end all the time. This isn't any more special than any of the others. Call me when The Simpsons is cancelled. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's only a few shows I would consider so much of an institute as to merit ITN posting, and that's a bare minimum to start (something akin to 60 Minutes or Meet the Press). --M ASEM (t) 00:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose; As Masem states, I too think there are very few TV programs whose ending would merit posting. 331dot (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest SNOW. I've enjoyed the show as well but the above comments pretty much say it all. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 02:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Nancy Reagan

 * Support Influential first lady and actress.--NortyNort (Holla) 16:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Certainly one of the most beloved and influential First Ladies of the nation. - TDKR Chicago 101
 * Weak support RD, oppose blurb I am a bit hesitant, as she was mainly known for being the wife of a famous person, and relatives do not automatically gain notability, but I think she was influential enough to be included, such as with the "Just Say No" drug awareness campaign, and starring in several films as an actress. However, I don't think she was a major world leader to merit a blurb. EternalNomad (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD only. Notability is clear.--109.150.5.94 (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD for certain. Article is featured and still appears to be in good shape. I would propose that because she was generally one of the few First Ladies, similar to Ladybird Johnson, that are well recognized for championing humanitarian causes (in her case, the Just Say No anti-drug campaign), that a blurb may be appropriate, particularly in light that we also have a featured article here to post at ITN. --M ASEM (t) 17:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - if you feel a blurb is appropriate, feel free to write one. Mjroots (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I added one, but that's only if there's clear support for it. I definitely can see where the line is drawn between RD and blurb being an issue here, but I think it's worth proposing given this is an FA. --M ASEM (t) 17:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Whether people want a blurb can be decided later. Thue (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose/pull. Would we post the death of the wife of a former Polish, German, French or Italian President? I think not. She doesn't seem to be independently notable for anything, and notability is not inherited from one's spouse. --Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please name a wife of a "former Polish, German, French or Italian President" as well known or influential as Nancy Reagan. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest you give the article another read, as she is notable on her own for her advocacy on drugs and stem cell research(the latter of which occurred after she was first lady). 331dot (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. Don't disagree with posting, but posting within the hour? Bit fast... Anyhow, influential for sure, but 'simply' death from old age, and not influential enough to still qualify for a blurb. Fgf10 (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Well known and influential First Lady, advocate for "Just Say No" and stem cell research. RD is appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD Many first ladies would not qualify, but Mrs. Reagan was active and influential in her own right, and quite well known for that.  A blurb might be an overreach but RD is entirely justified. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 19:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Not every first lady would merit RD, but most sources describe Nancy Reagan as "one of the most high-profile and influential first ladies of the 20th century" so she would seem to be very important among US first ladies. If someone could demonstrate that a first lady of another nation was equivalent to Nancy Reagan, I would support that too. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Pat Nixon indeed would not. Barbara and Laura Bush probably shouldn't. Betty Ford might've, Hillary obviously should. Michelle Obama, too soon to know. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Obama definitely has her picture taken the most. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support and thanks for posting so promptly, makes ITN look up-to-the-minute and responsive! MurielMary (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you mean a blurb or an RD, Mary? George Ho (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support for the post in the form it was made. MurielMary (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be RD. George Ho (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Babak Zanjani

 * Wait If I remember correctly, in case of death sentences they are posted when they are carried out. Brandmeistertalk  17:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait and I'm not sure it would merit posting then; "rich person committing a crime and being punished" doesn't seem notable, unless it was a sham, but that's not clear in the article if that's the case. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait as per above. Blythwood (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Remove "European migrant crisis" from Main Page?
The latest prose update is March 1 key event in "Greece" section. Even when the ongoing crisis is newsworthy, must I use this article as a precedent to other proposals, like the Syrian Civil War, which was featured for just one month due to this precedent? --George Ho (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep there's been an increase in coverage of this lately, e.g. the BBC yesterday. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * remove the point of ITN has always been on an update not to cherry pick. Whether it is in the news or not WP/ITN precedence is (for ongoing) the necessity of an update.Lihaas (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove No recent updates - and by "update" I mean major developments, not some random politician making a sound bite. It's been up on the ITN template for six months now and, while undoubtedly still ongoing like the Syrian Civil War, there have been no significant events since January. I would expect Ongoing to be for articles that have frequent blurbable updates, not just constant media coverage. Fuebaey (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Wasn't there something on a couple of days ago about some issue between Greece and Macedonia over a fence erected by the latter? Miyagawa (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see the link I already provided. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove Major changes to the article are going on a week stale. Article is not being updated regularly with new information.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment very much in the news, top story on the international BBC homepage right now is Migrant crisis: Leaders gather for Turkey-EU summit so our readers would most likely want to see this kind of article, even if it's a little behind. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment If they actually close down the "Balkan migrant route", that may qualify for a full blurb (and then we could leave it roll out). --Tone 08:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If the government actually does that, Tone, a consensus for a full blurb is required. If not required, it should be recommended. We can't do as we please. Also, even the Balkan route closure seems to make no significant difference as there have been other border closures to EU territories. George Ho (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This time, it seems that there are several countries along the route agreeing on something, apart from previous unilateral border closures. So this is a bigger story. Anyway, it's up for discussion, as always. --Tone 08:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But we must add substantial updates in prose. I searched events of February 2016. So far, the 26 February one at "Slovenia" section doesn't look significant enough to strongly keep the link featured in the Main Page. Even the emergency funds proposal this month... How does that help? Same for NATO's comments this month. George Ho (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Wikipedia's readers should really have this on the Main Page. As for updates, I will try to make some later today, once I am home. Instead of complaining about lack of updates, some of you might be bold and do the same... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But we shouldn't overemphasize announcements or add pointless announcements of plans that do not yet happen. George Ho (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, we shouldn't. But when a refugee camp in Calais is torn down or refugees riot in Idomeni, that is newsworthy and should be in the article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Can we propose it as a full blurb right away? George Ho (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd only opt for a blurb if the current summit would agree on something really substantial. If the Balkan route is actually closed, that might be worth a blurb, but to be honest, who believes that that will actually work? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Remove - This is a very news-worthy event, but the article hasn't received substantial updates lately. As soon as updates to the article pick up again, I would definitely be in favour of adding again. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify, by "substantial updates", I mean something similar to Fuebaey. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep this is still a major ongoing event.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove - Not primarily for lack of updates, but on quality grounds, broadly construed. This article shows Wikipedia at its Eurocentric/West-centric worst. In its brief section on the global refugee crisis, it briefly tells us there's a global crisis involving about 60 million refugees, and also gives us 'See also Syrian refugee crisis'; there then follows a very long article about the situation in Europe (unsurprisingly, given the title of the article). The net effect is that the intelligent reader is likely to get the impression (quite likely correctly) that about 75% of Wikipedia's refugee coverage is about 1 million refugees in Europe, about 24% is about 5 million other Syrian refugees, and about 1% is about the remaining 54 million refugees. Of course arguably all this is grounds for Keep, on the basis that the intelligent reader will be well-served, not by getting a balanced picture of the refugee crisis, but by learning something unflattering but true about the nature of Wikipedia. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove Tlhslobus has it right. When the migrants first started to come to Europe, that was international news and brought attention to the civil war in Syria, but while there are still issues with the migrants in Europe, its so much of a narrow cut of the larger picture (That being the Syrian civil war which encompasses all 60 million refugees). To focus too much on the Euro-centric issues relating to the refugees is a problem. Further, this is not what Ongoing was meant for; we knew on posting this would be a high interest story for a few weeks, but this is now going on months, and is not serving the purpose here. The arguments being proposed to keep, that it's still in the news, I would argue means we should clearly post all the US election coverage too, since that dominates most news headlines too. Clearly, I do not propose this at all but the comparison is there. If there is a major change in the European side of this story, that can be ITN, but the ongoing has well served its time here. --M ASEM  (t) 15:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, M ASEM . Though one minor quibble: it is not correct to say the Syrian civil war encompasses all 60 million refugees. It encompasses about 6 million of them, or 10% of the total, and they get perhaps 24% of our coverage, presumably mainly because they are the ones most likely to move into Europe next. The remaining 90% at least seem to get almost completely ignored by us - or at least that's the impression one gets from looking at our article (and the linked Syrian one). (Minor technicality: the 6 million figure for Syria perhaps omits a few million more internally displaced within Syria; and presumably 1 million of the 6 million are already in Europe; but such details don't change the substantive point about our absurd Eurocentric coverage). Tlhslobus (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I have made a few updates. I would appreciate if some of you could look over them. Thanks. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just plans. Just plans. All over the changes you made. I've yet to see the EU pass the proposal. Also, the article didn't have to be very big to collect news headlines or last year's troubles in Europe. Although I didn't want to address it here, Masem and Tlhslobus here addressed Wikipedia's Eurocentrism better than I could or could not . --George Ho (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, George Ho.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep this crisis has had a history of generating news. Banedon (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So has the Syrian Civil War, but we haven't kept that. That was done correctly, per our rules. But by the same logic our rules should make us get rid of this item too, on grounds of lack of enough updates, and lack of quality(broadly construed) - unless of course you agree, per WP:IAR, that we do a service to our readers by showing them how absurdly Eurocentric we are, though the trouble with that argument is that intelligent readers mostly already know this, and the others probably mostly won't even notice.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course we could put the Syrian Civil War back up there, if alleged Eurocentrism is your main concern... I find that argument ridiculous. The section is called In the News. If what is actually in the news is centred in Europe, we will not be the ones who change that injustice. We have a duty to provide our readers with information about what they are interested in, which the Migrant Crisis certainly applies to. Even if I am repeating myself: Stop complaining, do something. Update the article. I started and I will add more again today. Everyone can feel free to join in, instead of waisting their time here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Bravo! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * While I don't agree with the opposition based on this being a European story, neither do I agree with an update of old/not news (France/empty Turkish summit) to keep this up indefinitely. Expecting someone else not to disagree and to simply "update the article" is dismissive and doesn't bolster an argument. Fuebaey (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It clearly is not "not news" as evidenced by being the top story on the BBC News homepage. Expecting others to do all the grunt work while heckling from the sidelines is all too easy and doesn't improve Wikipedia for our readers which, after all, should be the primary reason we are all here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we have different definitions of news then. I personally wouldn't want to post everything BBC News puts on their main page onto ITN. If merely stating an opposing opinion is "heckling from the sidelines" then perhaps you should consider making a proposal on WT:ITN to change the structure of how we address candidates here. Fuebaey (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The point of "Ongoing" was to highlight a news story or two that had a longer burst of news (compared to a typical news story) that was coming in with frequent updates both in story and article updates. This was anticipated to be a week to a month or so. It was not meant to drop in a enduring piece of news (eg like the US election period which started mid-last year and would run to Nov of this year). The migrant situation has become that. It's a problem, its not going away in a long time. As such, while it might be highlighted as a top story regularly on RSes, does not make it an appropriate story anymore for "Ongoing". If there is a massive change in the future (like, say, a passage of bills that would affect a majority of the migrants in a major way) that would be ITN/C then. At this point, though, it has far served its purpose to highlight the large wave of migrants that happened late last year. --M ASEM (t) 15:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Purpose of the ITN section, bullet 1: "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." Simple as that.  Your opinions are both interesting, but the item is in the news, and its inclusion meets the primary purpose of this section.  But it's clear we won't agree so I'll leave it there, I suggest you both do too, and actually crack on with improving some articles from which our readers can benefit.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What about bullet 2 and 4, respectively: "To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events" and "To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource"? The article itself seems to lack enough quality due to insufficient substantial changes within the major subject. Also, featuring the article itself on the Main Page doesn't make Wikipedia "dynamic" more than it makes Wikipedia... Euro-emphasized and Euro-exceptional. Check the dictionary and thesaurus of "dynamic". --George Ho (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As for bullet 1, that would be insufficient reason to keep it on the Main Page anymore. Anyone watching the news would search for the article, frankly. George Ho (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep & Update: Keep and update with the latest news which just came today regarding United Nations announcing the deal with Turkey might be illegal. That is a major news. News: U.N., rights groups say EU-Turkey migrant deal may be illegal  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 23:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How does the UN help much? By sending peacekeepers or peace troopers? If neither, how do their resolutions and wordings work for all five permanent Security Council members and more than one hundred UN members? Also, EU is more relevant than the UN nowadays. George Ho (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC) (Pinging Sheriff. George Ho (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC))


 * Remove This item has been on the main page for months now, and could stay there for months or even years more before the number of arrivals slows down. The article is already too long, and can’t be continuously updated with every little news or announcement reported by the media. Actually, what it needs is rewriting the part about the events since last summer, which is chaotic and doesn’t properly summarize the main events. I also agree that giving too much prominence for too long, on Wikipedia’s main page, to the consequences of the global refugee crisis in Europe, is rather Eurocentric. Nykterinos (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: As an Italian and a European, maybe I'm a bit influenced but I think that the migrant crisis is a major current event and we should keep it on the Main Page. -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Remove "Zika virus outbreak" from Main Page?
In prose, the March events of the Zika virus outbreak (2015–present) are absent, even when the ongoing event is currently newsworthy. Some sentences are tagged as "citation needed". Some other updates are also needed. --George Ho (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Still in the BBC news on an almost daily basis, highlighted article has been edited 50 times in March already, and there are at least five related articles, all being updated actively. If there are events that you believe should be added, feel free to add them, or ask for them to be added on the talk page, which is being actively patrolled by the medical wikiproject. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I also hear new reports on the virus each day basically. Too soon to remove.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I checked this just the other day, it's being regularly updated, and will no doubt rise to more prominence as we approach the Olympics. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Still receiving substantive updates. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove Pandemic stories are boring. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL, InedibleHulk. And if a story isn't boring to somebody or other, it clearly can't possibly be encyclopedic, so let's shut down ITN altogether, and boring old Wikipedia too :) Tlhslobus (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's still very much ongoing. STSC (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Al Wistert

 * Oppose from reading the obit, it looks like he achieved at state level only?? Not national or international level. I know we shouldn't compare noms with noms, but I'm going to anyway - an Olympic medal winner was just considered unworthy of an RD so why should a state level athlete be judged worthy? MurielMary (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree, not top of his field (which we'd have to take as all of American football), more of a local legend. --M ASEM (t) 02:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not sure where this "state level" stuff is coming from. He had a very successful career in the National Football League, which is a top-level professional league, but apparently not successful enough to be elected into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He was elected to the College Football Hall of Fame, but I don't think that's enough. Good player, but one that falls just short for our purposes - it's hard to justify posting a non-HOFer when being in a hall of fame is no guarantee of an RD listing anyway. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Echoing Bongwarrior, there is clearly some mistake about the level of football he played - he was certainly competing at the highest possible level for his sport. He was evidently good enough for his jersey to be retired, but not to be elected to the Hall of Fame; HOF isn't the one true dividing line but I agree that he falls short of RD notability. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 05:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Bongwarrior's excellent summary of the situation.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Close - This should be closed per WP:SNOW. I'd close it myself, except that having just posted my oppose, I think I should perhaps wait longer before doing so myself, but I don't think others need wait if they agree that it appears to be WP:SNOW.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Slovak elections
Comment: This is unquestionably WP:ITN/R (as the President of Slovakia is a largely ceremonial office, so it's not a 'presidential system', where there's some room for debate over the meaning of 'General election', and it's also a single round of voting), so it should definitely be posted if and when quality standards are satisfied.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added some prose. I'd appreciate it if someone could either mark this ready or point out what is lacking. Fuebaey (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, Fuebaey. I think it still needs some citations for stats and the results source needs to be made into a proper reference. It would be useful to have more discussion of the results, which seem rather unexpected, with a selection of references to different sources not just a single one. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time. I've added a bit more info and refs. I'm not sure which stats you're referring to, but everything seems to be cited. I'm reluctant to add result analysis this early because of the lack of reliable sources (lots of speculation on why 'a' lost/won). The prior campaign background and the proceeding government formation could be expanded in the near future but I don't think either are a barrier to posting since the article is still larger than two of the previous three elections that have appeared on ITN.
 * Surprised this isn't bigger news actually; came across "'Neo-Nazis' making it into an EU parliament" a lot while looking for sources. Fuebaey (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added a direct citation for the turnout but all now seems cited. I'd prefer more analysis before posting but other admins might disagree. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 22:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Today's Zaman

 * Support, subject to quality, as it seems a significant and unfortunate development for democracy in the Muslim world. But see my Comment below.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm afraid you've basically got the wrong article, the English edition instead of the mass-selling Turkish one at Zaman (newspaper) (incidentally a much better article, tho I'm not a good judge of how good is good enough). I won't bother with an altblurb, as you have to correct the main blurb. (Incidentally I'm afraid I probably won't be helping with the editing, as I'm thinking of going on a kind of protest ITN private strike to remind myself that Wikipedia is not compulsory and in protest at things I don't want to risk saying about a third party due WP:NPA, so I probably won't be doing any more editing of ITN articles for quite some time - my previous one lasted about a year, triggered by the same third party).Tlhslobus (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, article link fixed. Thue (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I think this is important news on a global level, given the broader implications of a seemingly overt setback to freedom of the press in a regional power. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 09:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Whilst obviously not itself a BLP, there are claims against individuals within the article that are unreferenced. If more citations are added this could be posted. Stephen 22:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support A major national event, and interesting enough for the rest of the world to support. Banedon (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment this is stale, the event actually happened on 4 March, eight days ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Closed as stale, per my note above. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Nikolaus Harnoncourt

 * Comment While he does seem to be at the top of his field (even won a Grammy), and the article prose appears sufficient, some things in the article lack references. Once those are added, I give my support. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on article improvements. Importance seems appropriate. There's a few unsourced statements, and in the awards, any no-link or red-link award line I would expect a source to confirm. --M ASEM (t) 15:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose on quality alone. Article needs a few more cites (first paragraph in personal life section, most of the awards section).  If that were done, this could be posted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support A leading figure in historically informed performance, probably the most important movement in classical music in the past half-century. A 2010 BBC Music Magazine poll of 100 leading conductors ranked him as the fifth greatest conductor of the recorded era (I am usually wary of "greatest ever" polls, but this does show the extremely high esteem in which he was held by his peers). Neljack (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on notability; he was one of the founders of the authentic performance movement for Baroque music and some of his recordings have been very influential. The referencing has improved since I last reviewed it, but some more citations are still required. This discussion should probably be moved to his date of death (5 March). Espresso Addict (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Moved MurielMary (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Now fully sourced + Support. I have sourced the Awards section completely, and I think everything that needed to be done to get this ITN ready has been done. I fully support addition to RD, one of the few truly important classical directors. Fram (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted good work Fram. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] UFC 196

 * Oppose it seems that these "hyped up fights" occur all-too regularly, and that the "upsets" also seem to be quite standard. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe One record was already broken when McGregor made a million dollars in disclosed purse. Beat Anderson Silva's record by $200k. At the post-fight press conference, Dana White said it was set to break other sales records, without elaborating. If it turns out to be the biggest PPV draw, it's worth a mention. But Robbie Lawler is the Welterweight Champion. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose The men's fight wasn't even a title fight as noted above. Even if it was, it would be the equivalent of posting every boxing weight championship fight, and we don't do that. Laura Jamieson (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Highly anticipated card featuring not one but two upsets; unfortunately I don't know if either has enough impact on the sport to merit posting, as McGregor's fight was non-title and Holm's fight was her first defense of the title.  I also don't especially love the idea of posting back-to-back McGregor fights (especially as his previous was, to my knowledge, the first and only MMA fight we've posted and kept up). - OldManNeptune ⚓ 19:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. Holly Holm and UFC 193 had a few hours. During the 194 debate, there was some concern about a pattern of acknowledging these highly-covered extra-mainstream sport events. I said then that I'd probably not endorse another till UFC 200, and I'll probably stick with that now. That's not to say it isn't still "in the news" today, just that Wikipedia is also well-served by shedding light on more "highbrow" competitions that the typical reader hadn't already heard about. Rowing, decathlon and stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Hassan Al-Turabi

 * Tentative support on significance for RD, not as a blurb. He seems influential enough to Sudanese politics, with the BBC saying he was 'the de facto leader of the country' during the 1990s, even though he is not a name I would know of without having to look up. I'll need a bit more time to assess quality, but on first glance it seems a bit bloated - excessive quotations and a massive lead section that could both do with trimming. Also, there has been no update other than the addition of his date of death in the lead/infobox. Fuebaey (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * support - for RD influential in Sudanese politics.BabbaQ (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on article improvements There are a few cn and other tags but not too many. Importance seems high here for RD. --M ASEM (t) 02:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * full blurb more than arguably responsible for the civil war that led to the break up of the country (that in itself is notable). Reponsible for turning Numeiri from secularism to Islamism and the consequent rift with the south. Just power mad plitcs that claims hes in opposition Bashar.Lihaas (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose clearly notable, but the article, a BLP, has numerous uncited claims which will need to be addressed before this is highlighted on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems sufficient quality for the main page. A few cn tags could probably be resolved, but I don't see anything keeping this off the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Turabi is a very important figure in contemporary Sudanese politics, for better or for worse. He is significant enough for his own blurb. Kurtis (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ray Tomlinson

 * Support - It appears he invented email. It's pretty tough to say no to that. Article needs work. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support when updated. Invented system for e-mail between different computers and use of "@" for addressing. The article requires referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Support I think "invented email" qualifies as a pretty big deal, in so many words. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 06:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on article improvement; article could use more references and is fairly brief. Historic significance seems to be well established in the article's text. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support notability but oppose on quality. Really needs a good overhaul.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support with improvements, per TRM and Espresso Addict. (Also to be clear, he invited the means to send messages across different parts of ARPANET, as intra-organization messaging had been in place; he deviced the @example.com aspect that we all know and love, which is still critically important for RD). --M ASEM  (t) 17:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support pending improvements. Speaks for itself. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, an obvious inclusion and a reminder that IT has a history of its own. This story is trending on BBC World Service. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - please add ASAP. --Fixuture (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you wanted added ASAP, it is incumbent upon YOU that YOU fix the problems with the article so it can be added. Literally one second after you fix all of the problems, I or any admin can post it.  The article is currently ineligible for highlighting on the main page because of quality issues that YOU could fix if YOU wanted it posted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 22:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So first of all I don't think important recent deaths just be excluded from the main page for quality issues (if they're not totally disastrous; saying not just incomplete and badly written but full of errors and vandalism). Then I don't think that the article is in such a bad state. Also I previously edited the article - not much of an effort, but as of right now I can't see how I can improve it further...also as of today I sadly don't have anymore time (if one could abandon sleep I'd do so). I'm kinda frustrated with the lack of people doing the relatively easy but significant major tasks as well. I also think that this could be solved if one would implement the appropriate technological changes to Wikipedia (e.g. somehow notifying the right people about the edit-task of improving / adding references to this article). --Fixuture (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I received an email today form a Nigerian Prince wanting help to fly to his funeral, all he needs is his visa fee paid up front... Guy (Help!) 22:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I dare say this is now good enough to post. Not great, but good enough. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's short but well-referenced and fairly comprehensive about the important bits of his career. Can we post it now? —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Samoan general election, 2016

 * There has not been enough of an update yet. A results table is needed, for starters. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose It seems silly to be bigging this up when the entire electorate was about 100K and we're saying nothing about events like Super Tuesday. Andrew D. (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Then suggest an alternative to the current ITNR. WT:ITNR is a good place to start that discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I gather this is a perennial issue there and so some new angle would be needed. Perhaps nations in Category:Small Island Developing States shouldn't get automatic acceptance but have to demonstrate significant news coverage? I'll give it some thought but have other things on my to-do list too. Andrew D. (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it has been discussed ad nauseam. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Super Tuesday is political parties choosing their candidates, not the election itself. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Andrew D. ITN/R or not, it would be illogical to run this when we didn't run the Feb. 26 Iranian legislative election. – Sca (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, we don't "not run A because B wasn't run". Consensus can change.  Voting should be made on the individual merits of the nomination, not on some perceived logic.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Merits addressed adequately by Andrew D., whom I cited. "We don't do this" is not logical exposition. Sca (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and that's why we have ITNR to supersede your opinion on what is and what is not considered notable by default, in this case. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How would TRM rate the relative significance, politically and otherwise, of Iran and Samoa? Sca (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sca, we only closed the Iran elections while awaiting the second round of voting. Whenever that happens it can be re-opened and there seems to be a clear consensus that it is ITN/R and should be posted provided it meets quality standards.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – This seems to be a matter more about the fact that it is Samoa. Had it been Germany or whatever country do you honestly think we would have had the same discussion. Doubt it. This is a General Election, results are in. post.BabbaQ (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not about Samoa per se, it's about a country of fewer than 200,000 people vis-vis countries of 81 million (Germany), 78 million (Iran), etc., etc. Sca (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is explicitly against our stated goals and purpose. It would appear that posting the Iranian election blurb was postponed due to an expected second round of the election; if a similar circumstance exists in Samoa then that may be taken into account, but what you've said here is entirely at odds with established policy. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 18:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Policy and previous practice are not prima facie evidence of logic, or of sound editorial judgment with respect to news. Sca (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Does this really strike you as a useful venue to bring forth an argument on the fundamental value of neutrality or policy by consensus on Wikipedia? The logic has been settled, repeatedly, hence its inclusion in ITN/R.  You're comparing apples to oranges with the Iran blurb, for reasons I've explained already, and I'm certainly not getting sucked into an argument about whether we should intentionally introduce new bias to the project. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 22:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? See below. Sca (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - I'm aware this is ITN/R, but posting this item when we failed to post the Iranian election is somewhat of an idiosyncrasy.--WaltCip (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It was my understanding that the Iranian election was not posted because there will be another round(and we typically only post the last round); is that not the case? 331dot (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is indeed the case.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Article appears to have a reasonable update and citations given the usual difficulty of finding sources for elections in nations of similar size. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 18:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article is a reasonable length and election results are ITN/R (not "election results of large countries" or "election results of the countries which people personally have connections to" because either of these criteria would lead to systemic bias). MurielMary (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The oppose votes citing the Iranian election are irrelevant - we didn't decide that the Iranian election was insufficiently important for ITN, we just decided to wait for the second round. Similarly, with regard to Super Tuesday, we aren't going to post all the different stages of the US Presidential election process, but nobody is suggesting that the US Presidential election is not important enough to be posted. This is ITN/R and the position of elections in small states has been discussed at great length, always with the conclusion that they should continue to be ITN/R. So we should not be relitigating that on this nomination. The only relevant question is whether the article is sufficiently updated, which it seems to be. Neljack (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Stats Here's some peak viewing stats for some of the articles currently in question. These are a good measure of relative importance and relative newsiness, in my view:
 * 257,241 – Super Tuesday
 * 14,412 – Iranian legislative election, 2016
 * 8,672 – Berta Cáceres
 * 4,667 – GN-z11
 * 1,151 – Samoan general election, 2016
 * Notice that Super Tuesday had more readers than the entire Samoan population. Andrew D. (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All those stats aren't really relevant. You are welcome to attempt to somehow limit the nations that have their elections posted, but it has been tried and failed numerous times.  Any limit is arbitrary- assuming one could be agreed to, which has never occurred, let alone a limit itself. Until such a limit is made, there is little reason to not post this. I actually learned quite a bit- which is the goal of this whole place.  Excluding small nations would also be an example of systemic bias; every nation deserves a place here. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - let's not be biased towards the larger countries. Article is short, but well referenced. No reason not to post it. Mjroots (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * From a journalistic point of view, gauging importance or significance on the basis of the number of people affected has nothing whatever to do with bias or discrimination based on inherent or purported characteristics of the populations affected; it has to do with logic. One person killed in a train wreck is of little note unless the person is very eminent or circumstances of the accident are highly unusual. It doesn't matter whether said train wreck is in Samoa, Germany, Iran or anywhere else. Fifty people killed in a train wreck is news. Sca (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And that's why this is Wikipedia, not a journal, newspaper or ticker. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Marking as ready Updated and ITN/R (plus a majority in favour of posting, not that it needs it). Neljack (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article states the results are not final: "The final count will commence on 7 March." Espresso Addict (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Espresso Addict, we don't usually wait for final results. To take an example I am particularly familiar with, New Zealand elections have preliminary results on election night and final results about two weeks later, but we never wait for two weeks to post the results (even though the number of seats won often changes slightly). Neljack (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Repercussions of Berta Caceres' assassination

 * Support big national news for Honduras, with impact not less than an election. Banedon (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose until an article exists for the unrest. If it's that big a deal, it shouldn't be too much to expect to see a fully referenced standalone article covering the riots.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, there is also an alt blurb there which focuses on the political response rather than the riot. MurielMary (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If the focus is now on unrest, I'd expect to see a new article about it, or at least a substantial section of an existing article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that this framing blows the violence out of proportion. Student protests often end in violence in Honduras. However, as suggested below, a blurb about the international reactions from the OAS, UNCHR, and so many others, would be appropriate. -- Irn (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So is that support for the alt blurb then? The alt blurb in this nom is taken from your suggestion on the RD nom discussion thread. MurielMary (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, absolutely! I hadn't even noticed the alt blurb, sorry about that! -- Irn (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter, and it was a perfectly understandable mistake that anyone could easily make, but just for the record, that altblurb was actually from my suggestion, Irn merely supported 'a blurb'. In the event, Bongwarrior's better altblurb2 is the one that got used. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for setting the record straight, . I ought to have double-checked who exactly said what! MurielMary (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not at all,, life is far too short to be double-checking everything :) Tlhslobus (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Altblurb or something like it seems wiser to me, since the above objection could not apply to it, and it emphasizes international reaction. I would find it acceptable to have Cáceres and the aftermath that we are here writing about in the same article, as it is now; even if it is argued that the murder and reaction supersedes the person in importance, a title change would be more appropriate than an article fork given how inextricable the two subjects are (the background of the murders would be her bio, the Death section of her article would be a link to that article and a summary thereof, etc).  But that's a matter to be settled in that article's discussion, no? - OldManNeptune ⚓ 19:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support notable enough for a slooooooow news period. Nergaal (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per my earlier comments. I've added another altblurb because I think the main focus should be the murder itself - it's the larger event, and a much more ITN-worthy event. The violence and calls for investigation are secondary stories. The article has been much improved over the past two days or so, and it looks ready. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted with Alt2. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support (and support for the use of Bongwarrior's Alt2).Tlhslobus (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - interesting and unusual topic, worth covering. Blythwood (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - World Bank's role in covertly financing dam at issue should be included. Activist (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Pat Conroy

 * Weak oppose for now on quality only. There's some referencing issues in the article, and the writing needs to be cleaned up a bit.  As soon as someone takes some care to improve the article, this would be an easy posting.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 05:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose poor article and no real claim of personal notability, the movies nominated for Oscars were not his nominations, and he seems to have very few awards, indicating that he's not important to the field. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No awards, books made into Oscar nominations, but not for the writing. Article's not in the best shape either. Someone who definitely has his fans, but doesn't quite meet the bar IMO. Challenger l (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Most distant known galaxy
Nom. Typically encyclopedic news, if you ask me. --bender235 (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Does ITN make such an announcement every time a new farther-yet galaxy is discovered? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose "farthest observed" for now - Hubble and other telescopes will continue to scan and find even more distant objects. Now, recognizing that there is a correlation between distance and the time it took for the light to reach Earth, if this discovery led to a fundamental shift in understanding the age of the universe or the rate of its expansion, that would be interesting but this just seems to be saying "we found this". It's a metric that should easily be broken in time. --M ASEM (t) 16:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To add, this article is easily fair game for DYK. It's a perfect match there. --M ASEM (t) 16:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Article is short, but appears to be as comprehensive as it can be, and is well referenced. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Does not represent a fundamental change in our understanding of the universe.--WaltCip (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's been less than a year since EGSY8p7 took the record for most distant galaxy; one expects that this record will be broken again and again, especially once new telescopes are in place. It would appear to be less than 2% more distant than the previous most distant known, and therefore does not change our conception of the universe. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 17:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies, OldManNeptune, the figures seem more like 5.8%, up from 30.5 billion light years, see my 'Correction' below.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I have misrepresented facts; I based my (casual and inexact) figure on light travel distance. That may be in error; I chose it as we are comparing observation to observation, and in my thinking, estimated actual physical distance in the present day is a matter of scientific trivia.  We certainly are not observing light originated 25 billion+ LY away or years old, though if this is an improper way of thinking of it then disregard my comments. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 19:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment No matter how good a shape the article is in, if this article doesn't meet the ITN criteria, it shouldn't be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As others have said, this is likely to be superseded in relatively short order. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all the other "soon to be superseded, incremental change" opposers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How soon is that, then? 217.38.79.252 (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Alt Blurb 2 it's redshift 11, compared to redshift 8. That's quite a large increase. Alt blurb 2 because it illustrates what is significant about the discovery. Banedon (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: These records for the oldest and most distant galaxy/object are not expected to be superseded anytime soon, as part of this breakthrough is that astronomers literally do not believe the Hubble can go an iota deeper with exploration. Beyond that, the redshift makes for a significant increase in both age and distance from the previous record-holder, so I believe this merits a mention for ITN. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 10:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hubble is an aging telescope; the James Webb Space Telescope is scheduled to launch in 2018, and to quote our article, "One particular goal involves observing some of the most distant objects in the Universe, beyond the reach of current ground and space based instruments." Hence we might fully expect this record to be superseded in the predictable future, nevermind what Hubble might do in the meantime (as mentioned, it's been less than a year since the last time this record was broken). - OldManNeptune ⚓ 20:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I know; that leaves at least two years until the James Webb Telescope is put into space, meaning that it won't even begin to attempt to discover more primordial objects until then. As the astronomers said, the Hubble's at the edge of its limit, indicating there's not much likelihood for it being capable of finding something beyond over the next two years. Hence, the nearly-yearly records should be at an end for a while. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 21:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So is that "soon"? Does ITN ever report on things that happen annually? lol. 217.38.109.72 (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A record is less notable the more constantly it is broken. That's very different than an annual event. "lol". 331dot (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So how often has this record been broken? Maybe the table at Wikipedia article List of the most distant astronomical objects should have an extra column added to show date of discovery. 217.38.109.72 (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think so, perhaps you can add that to the article. To answer your first question, "pretty often" I would say.  I clicked the top six links on that list and all had pretty clear dates in the lead, if you're looking for specifics. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 22:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Large Hadron Collider began taking data in 2009, but it took till 2012 to discover the Higgs. I doubt this record will be broken for a couple of years more at least. Furthermore, I quote from the article, " The fact that a galaxy so massive existed, so soon after the first stars started to form, is a challenge for some current theoretical models on the origin of galaxies". If this record is broken again, especially if it's broken by a wide margin, there'd be more issues. Banedon (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support: - breakthrough. it is a record that will likely take a look time to be exceeded. BabbaQ (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment What's the time gaps for discovering the most distance objects? If it's not happened for "a while", then I see no issue in posting this.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that this is a galaxy, not object. Galaxies take time to form after the Big Bang. That means there will be a "most distant" galaxy simply because one further away does not exist (but there may be plenty of more distant objects!). Banedon (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support we would certainly announce a new planetary body in the solar system. Can someone who opposes list the last furthest galaxy we posted?  It would be easier to switch to oppose if the difference were a minor one. Medeis (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I already did exactly that in my comment above. Additionally, the list of most distant known astronomical objects (most distant galaxies) will provide a more comprehensive overview. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 20:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But your above comment appears to be partly mistaken or misleading, through ignoring redshift, a 25% difference of about 7 billion light years is not a minor one, unlike your claimed 2%. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies, OldManNeptune, the figures seem more like 5.8%, up from 30.5 billion light years, see my 'Correction' below.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

*Support, mostly on the basis of Banedon's point that redshift is up from 8 to 11 (actually 8.7 to 11.1). Tlhslobus (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Adding altblurb saying it's about 32 billion light years away. That may interest, shock, and educate, a lot of readers who mistakenly think nothing can be more than 13.8 billion light years away because the Big Bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago and nothing can travel faster than light (the 32 billion is something to do with the expansion of the universe). I'd like to be able to say 'up from about 25 billion' in an altblurb2, but that will need a reliable source, as 25 billion is currently just my possibly mistaken calculation. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Correction: My calculated 25% is also far too high, as this calculator here gives it up from 30.466 billion light years to 32.227 billion light years, or about 5.8%. Sorry about that. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are thinking about this in the wrong way ... the key variable here is not how far the galaxy is from us now; it is rather how soon the galaxy formed rather the Big Bang. Yes, these two variables are connected and one can be derived from the other, but the impact of this observation on astrophysics is based on the latter variable. Think about it this way. What emerged from the Big Bang was a hot "soup" of particles. No galaxies, no stars, just particles. At some point the particles coalesced into stars and galaxies. This, however, takes time. A theory of galaxy formation from the primordial soup must be able to account for how long it takes for inhomogeneities to form galaxies. If galaxies were able to form earlier, they'll be further away now, but we are still concerned mostly about the time, not the distance.
 * Based on the calculator you gave then, a galaxy at redshift 11 formed 420 million years after the Big Bang, while a galaxy at redshift 8 formed 650 million years after the Big Bang. That's a difference of some 30%, not 5.8%. Banedon (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point, Banedon, though our blurb (and perhaps the article) arguably then needs re-wording to reflect this, as its talking about most distant from here, not nearest in time to the Big Bang (of course they're "both the same thing", but ...). An argument could also be made for 10 to 15%, based on distance from the beginning of the Cosmic Microwave Background, seemingly given in various places on Wikipedia as z=1089 and about 46.5 billion light years. All these figures (5.8%, 10-15%, 30%) are 3 to 15 times greater than OldManNeptune's 2%, and I may have been over-reacting a bit due to my embarassment at being so far out with my 25%.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

*Neutral: switching to neutral due above correction. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: I fear those opposing because it is only an "incremental increase", or a record "soon to be superceded", are mistaken. Firstly, whereas previous records can be considered fairly insignificant increases, this one is significant: It is the first observation of a galaxy that has formed at the start of the reionization period (thought to be around ~z=10 or 11), an important discovery which adds to our understanding of the early universe, and provides some surprises regarding luminosity and star-formation rate. The fact that GN-z11 is am early reionization object wasn't mentioned in the article until yesterday. Secondly, as others have noted, the scientists involved all say that this discovery is at the limit of what is detectable with current equipment; the record probably won't be broken until at 2019 at the earliest. --Hillbillyholiday talk 14:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Adding 2 new alblurbs (one shorter, one longer) that mention the point made by Hillbillyholiday that the discovery (allegedly) challenges some current theory, as indicated in the article, backed by a RS (it'd be nice to have more on which theories are challenged, but I guess we can't have everything) - most importantly, this contradicts some of the Oppose claims that the record doesn't change our understanding of the Universe. I'd like to mention the beginning of the Reionization era too, but we currently seem to have a problem with sources and definitions on that - currently our wikilink goes to something which gives "This occurred between 150 million and one billion years after the Big Bang (at a redshift 6 < z < 20).[citation needed]". This covers both the current and previous records, neither of them at the beginning of that era, and those sources for our GN-z11 article that I've checked so far (including the one that was used as the RS for 'at the beginning of the reionization era', until I replaced it with a Citation Needed) don't mention that era except arguably implicitly with one scientist quoted (NOT in the RS that I replaced with a CN) as saying "very close to the end of the so-called Dark Ages of the universe". A Reliable Source for Hillbillyholiday's z=10 or 11 might help, but it would be hard to know whether that was representative given the z=6 to 20. I'm thinking of switching back from Neutral to Support based on the recent arguments by Banedon and Hillbillyholiday, but I'd like to hear a bit more about some of the points I've raised first.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: Switching back from neutral to support after finding a RS for 'very beginning of the Reionization era' in Astronomy Magazine (here), which I plan to add to the article ASAP.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Above citation now added, along with useful quotes from it regarding challenged theories from several different scientists (so it's no longer just one scientist saying this - all the more reason for Support).Tlhslobus (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've reduced my altblurbs to 2 to leave 1 spare, and the first one now reflects the more relevant fact that it's unexpectedly early.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments/Questions: 1) Can somebody with more experience of such matters than me please indicate whether the quality of the article is sufficient to deem it ready for posting, and if not, indicate what still needs doing?
 * 2) Blurbs: I'm equally happy with either alblurb, so altblurb2, favoured above by Banedon, will do fine. But I'm happy to see this posted with any old blurb, and leave any possible arguments about blurbs to WP:ERRORS (where they doesn't need to be consensus, so any alleged or actual lack of consensus over blurbs should not be used as an excuse for not posting).
 * 3) Does anybody agree with me that, despite 4 initial opposes (and my period as a neutral), we now appear to have consensus for posting - there have been 7 new supports since the last oppose was posted 3 days ago, and since then the objection that "this doesn't change our understanding of the universe" has been thoroughly refuted, leaving only the questionable views that "it's only a small increase" (depends on how you look at it, as pointed out above by Banedon, and to a lesser extent by me, and in any case, so what, given that it changes our understanding of the universe), and "it will happen again soon" which is WP:CRYSTAL, is contradicted by the statements of knowledgeable scientists, and ignores the more fundamental point that this does challenge our understanding of the universe (or at least of that part of the universe that leads to galaxies getting built), according to many scientists.
 * 4) Please note that time is fast running out on this. So if nobody responds by tomorrow, I plan to mark it as Ready myself. (Note: Jayron, who seems to know a lot about our quality requirements, was already agreeing it had the requisite quality 4 days ago, and there have been several further improvements since then). Tlhslobus (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There does seem to be an emerging consensus here, so posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] European Flag teared down in Bulgaria
Followers of Attack teared down and jammed by their feet the European Flag at 3 March 2016, at the meeting of the party, dedicated to the commemoration of the 138 anniversary of the liberation of Bulgaria from the Turkish yoke. --Иван (talk)
 * Oppose not unusual to protest against the EU. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see any significant update to either article about the event. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unremarkable protest. 331dot (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this a nomination or just a general comment about a minor current event?--WaltCip (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Regardless of procedural irregularities with the nomination, simply tearing down a flag is a relatively civilized protest - meaning one that isn't exactly big news. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 04:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Request speedy close - no article and no chance of there being one. Nationalists stomped on the EU flag. Compared to Ataka's previous japes of stealing and burning prayer rugs and booing Islamic prayer, this has no perceivable victim &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 07:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support For free speech in the free world! Power to those rascals! Or something.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed, but is now a March 4 news item, not RD] RD: Berta Cáceres

 * I think this should absolutely be a blurb rather than RD, if the story is big enough. I'm not sure that it is, but it's quite possible, so I'm probably leaning towards support right now. The article doesn't really tell us much right now. I'd also be careful about using the word "assassinated" rather than "murdered", but it's not quite an ITN-level story if this was just a random act of violence (it was posited by local police that this occured during a robbery at her home). --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering the government most likely ordered her assassination (according to what she told Al Jazeera), I'm not sure how much we can trust what the police say in this case. (If that sounds implausible, see Tlatelolco massacre and 2014 Iguala mass kidnapping.) Of course it's speculation either way, so I suppose we have to go with the more conservative interpretation of events. Kaldari (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose minor individual killed in a minor country. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Organized the indigenous Lenca people in a successful grassroots battle against construction of the Agua Zarca Dam. --The lorax (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is too short and does not have an adequately comprehensive biography of the person's life and work. If it were SIGNIFICANTLY expanded, I would consider supporting a blurb.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support notability seems to be established in the reports of her death e.g. won the Goldman Award for activism. Will do some expansion later and see if the nom is supported then. MurielMary (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I want to support this. If it's expanded, I will. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support sufficiently expanded. No preference for blurb or RD. Whatever the consensus says. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I could potentially support an RD here, if the article is substantially expanded. At present it's hard to see this as quality content and equally tough to judge her importance (though the media coverage suggests it's significant). Almost half of the content is about her death. I would oppose a blurb though. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as a blurb. Berta was one of the most prominent human rights defenders in Honduras (possibly even the most prominent), and for years she had been denouncing threats she had received due to her work (specifically calling out the state). Global Witness highlighted her case as an example of the dangers faced by environmental activists in Honduras in their April 2015 report. -- Irn (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, though would support RD. If this person is that important, we should have a much more comprehensive article. Yes, we're going to get more obits to help build out the bio, but that really needs to show a lot more than just being a local activist; right now it's just not there. --M ASEM (t) 15:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think RD actually makes sense in this case. It's the murder itself that is notable, not her life. Berta herself doesn't come close to being notable enough to make the 2016 article, for example. However, it's her murder that's an important and notable event, given the context in which it ocurred (her work, its international recognition, the threats she faced, the recognition of the seriousness of those threats by various international NGOs, the harassment from the government of Honduras, and, utimately, the failure of the government of Honduras to protect human rights defenders). -- Irn (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's 100% the point. With respect, the story is important, not this individual.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * support continuing coverage; but the photo is a problem, maybe a fair use one will be required. Duckduckstop (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Great input. However, a fair use photo will not be applicable to Wikipedia's main page.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment+Question: Oppose RD, but I might well support a nom of a blurb somewhat like "The Organization of American States (OAS) and other international organisations call for an investigation of the murder of Honduran environmental activist Berta Cáceres" (plus a few altblurbs). So perhaps this should be closed as an RD and re-opened as a blurb story to see how it fares. What do others think? Tlhslobus (talk) 05:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I would support a blurb pending updates (assuming a blurb can be made fit for the main page), but I oppose RD. RD carries an implication that the subject is independently notable such that their death is the whole story.  In this case, the potentially state-sponsored killing of a political activist is the real story. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 05:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Sarah Tait

 * Support upon expansion; seems to be important to Australian rowing, if not rowing in general. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support will try and do some expansion tomorrow unless someone else gets to it first. MurielMary (talk) 10:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Minor athlete in a minor sport. For an athlete, winning a medal or being in a hall of fame has never been enough for RD on its own. The article is infrequently edited and infrequently viewed, and she doesn't appear to have made much of an impact in her sport. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I suppose being part of the world's best women's crew and winning an Olympic silver medal makes her a "minor athlete". If we're now looking to count edit counts and page views, please strive to have those included in the RD criteria.   The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, she's notable. Just not notable enough for RD, in my opinion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You missed the point. Never mind.  Long live systemic bias.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure I didn't. I apologize for having a differing opinion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you 100% did. But no need to apologize.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak support Article does not have any obvious problems excepting its short length. It would be nice to have a more comprehensive biography.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose since rowing is a minor sport and even the most notable rowers are not going to be well known. Kaldari (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I suppose one's opinion of rowing may differ, but she was a three-time Olympic medalist and the circumstances will arouse reader interest. μηδείς (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Slight correction: she was a one-time Olympic medalist, but a three-time Olympic participant. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, she won three World Championship medals, including a gold, indicating that she was part of the best crew in the world, but "only" one silver at the Olympics in this "minor" (i.e. non-American-centric) sport. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you put a sock in it already. At least this is on the WORLD level unlike a purely amateur race between two schools.Correctron (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contribution but I'm not sure what relevance it has to this nomination. You sound confused. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Can't agree with the judgment above by that "she doesn't appear to have made much of an impact in her sport" - as mentioned in the article, as she was the first mother to compete in high level rowing, Rowing Australia changed their attitude and policies around athletes who are parents, to enable athletes' children to spend time with them during extended periods of competing or training. That's an ongoing legacy for both women and men striving to excel in elite sport. In addition, she captained the Australian women's rowing team at four international championships i.e. showed leadership in the sport - also evidence of making an impact in the sport. MurielMary (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, lots of rowers (and other athletes) have won lots of medals in a lot of different events. We can't post them all, and there's nothing that sets this one apart from the rest of them. Her primary accomplishments were winning one Olympic silver medal and one World gold (as part of an eight-person crew). I don't think it can be objectively said that she meets the death criteria with those accomplishments - she's not any more notable than her Olympic teammate, or her seven World teammates, or any number of living rowers who have also won multiple medals. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The factors which set this person apart from the rest of the rowers have already been stated - captaining the team four times (which would suggest she was considered top of her field, which is the criteria for RD notability); and being a pioneer in terms of being a parent in elite sport and causing policy and attitude changes. If she is equally notable as other rowers then she is still notable. It doesn't make her less notable because other people are also notable! MurielMary (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think being a captain necessarily equates to being to being among the top of her field of rowing in general. A sign of respect and proficiency, absolutely. But every team has a captain. Her pregnancy resulted in a minor internal change to one country's rowing organization. That's some impact, but not really ITN-level impact. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose Silver medalist. Correctron (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And a three-time world champion. How many world rowing championships have you won? 331dot (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * By that logic, let's put every athlete in RD. I've never claimed to be top of my sport. However, I assume the Olympics are the most important for rowing and she didn't even win that. Correctron (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The point is that winning three world championships is nothing to sneeze at. She is also important to her sport for reasons other than championships or medals.  331dot (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your logic is flawed, as is your assumption, you know what they say about assuming things!! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Rowing at the 2012 Summer Olympics shows 46 Olympic rowing champions just in 2012, and there were 25 other sports. She only got silver. The World Rowing Championships has far more disciplines than the Olympics, is held every year, and she only won one gold. World Rowing Championships shows seven rowers won at least 8 golds. I guess hundreds won more than one. Thousands of athletes at this level must die every year. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support for not only her accomplishments in the sport, but also her death at a young age, as she would have still been active in the sport if not for her diagnosis with cancer. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Satisfies virtually every RD criteria.--WaltCip (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per PrimeHunter, whose arguments are persuasive. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose The year she won her gold medal in the World Championships, there were 29 total gold medals awarded (including a few people who won multiple golds). Being one of ~25 world champions over a decade ago in a fringe (at best) sport is not worthy of RD. -- Mike (Kicking222) 20:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Utter bilge, you cannot claim a "sport" to be not worthy of RD. For instance, if Steve Redgrave died, are you seriously suggesting that he would not be worthy because he's a rower?  Absurd thinking.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per PrimeHunter. Ninety-two individuals equalled or bested her 2012 Olympic medal in rowing alone, nevermind across other sports and other Olympic years, which must put her as one among tens of thousands.  The numbers given for the World Rowing Championships suggest that the gold there is likely an even lesser accomplishment in terms of rarity of company.  It is very sad to die at that age but I don't see a good argument for RD notability even within rowing. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 20:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Martin Crowe

 * Comment I would support but I'm not well versed at cricket, and the problem is that it's difficult for me interprete his athletic career based on his stats; I would leave that to others to assess though everything else leans me to support. The article is otherwise in good shape with sourcing and updating. --M ASEM (t) 00:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Widely considered one of the finest batsmen of the 80s and early 90s and the greatest one ever produced by New Zealand. Neljack (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Even as a proud Aussie, I have to acknowledge that New Zealander Crowe was one of the best ever. The article appears to be well sourced, so I see no problems with it being listed. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support One of the big players of the 80s-90s. He was the Player of the Tournament at the 1992 World Cup. He also introduced some tactical innovations at that WC when he captain. Things like attacking in the first 15 overs, or opening the bowling with spinners are common nowadays, but not then
 * Support on notability (one of the best cricketers in the world at his peak, one of New Zealand's greatest sportsmen), oppose based on article quality. Needs a lot of work, barely any detail on his career. Don't think it ought to go on the main page without an expansion. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> IgnorantArmies  (talk)  05:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Article is now up to scratch as far as I'm concerned. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> IgnorantArmies  (talk)  09:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support while the article isn't brilliant, what's there is reasonably well sourced and it covers the most major aspects of his career. I'll try to do a bit of tidying up later on today.  The Rambling Man (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as per The Rambling Man. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted good work from in particular in bringing the article up to snuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] ISS year long mission

 * Support as it is a conclusion of an interesting scientific research. The news is widely reported in the media and is of very high encyclopedic importance. The article is also in fairly good shape.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Conditional Oppose Pointless misuse of scarce scientific resources hyped without contradiction on places like BBC News as supposedly being necessary for humans to go to Mars. If we ever decide to go to Mars, experiments about how the body copes with long periods of weightlessness will be irrelevant, as, if we want crews to be anything more than wrecks unable to walk on Mars, we will have to use artificial gravity - 2 spacecraft tied together by long cables and rotating about each other, as anybody who has thought about the problem must know, but which our readers almost certainly won't be told because that's not what the so-called 'reliable sources' will say - though I probably would change to support if a reliable source is found to say this, and this gets clearly presented in the article (because we would then be providing our readers with useful background information that they probably won't get from anywhere else, which is what ITN at its best is supposed to be doing). Tlhslobus (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you. See my criticism of the ISS here (you have to scroll up a bit to section: "Days occupied / continuous human presence in space"). Brian Everlasting (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose malformed nomination, weak "story", hardly in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support due to the uniqueness of having one twin in space and one on the ground. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. For a start, it wasn't even a full year - making a mockery of the name. There are at least four people who have previously spent longer in space. The fact that a) they were Russian and one of the current experiment is American and b) he has been posting a lot on Twitter during the mission, means that this has received coverage in the media well out of proportion to its importance in the history of spaceflight. It's one more data point in an ongoing investigation. That's not ITN material. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How many of the others had their twin being tested on the ground? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * By a similar rationale we shouldn't have space launches as ITNR. Not sure why we wouldn't post A FEW of the more notable missions when they end. Nergaal (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support even though it wasn't a full year, or a "record" (who says only records get posted?) it's very important as NASA is testing the effects of being in space for longer times with an eye towards making the trip to Mars, which I read would take 2.5 years with current technology. That makes this significant enough in my view, and Twitter or no, it's been covered in the news. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The trouble is, Muboshgu, that a trip to Mars will almost certainly use artificial gravity so the idea that it's needed for a mission to Mars seems to be mistaken, so we will currently just be misleading our readers - see my above Conditional Oppose, and Brian Everlasting's "I totally agree with you". Tlhslobus (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair point. You probably know more about this topic than I do. It doesn't seem there's consensus to post anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose on the basis of just being a "Year-long" mission. But I would support a different nomination (Which I don't know if can be made at this time) of the expected medical study to compare the influence of long-term weightlessness on humans that part of that year-long mission was to test, as this is a key factor for space travel. But it sounds like there are only preliminary results available at this time. --M ASEM (t) 17:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I think the big story will be the results of the medical experiment (if any) and I would definitely support the release of any significant findings. ZettaComposer (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Modest Genius. I don't think this counts as a big deal as far as scientific advances go; on the other hand if it captures the imagination of the non-scientists, why not post it? Banedon (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Questions: 1) Does somebody have an answer to the artificial gravity objection raised above by me, and supported by Brian Everlasting?
 * 2) Alternatively can somebody please explain why such experiments are still important and worthy of ITN even if they are irrelevant to a trip to Mars? Tlhslobus (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Turing award

 * Support on article updates - Diffie's article lacks but an infobox mention of the award. Hellman's article could use a bit more sourcing, but also lacks mention of the award. Separately, I agree this is an ITNR and will start that over there. --M ASEM (t)
 * Support - goes without question. Like you and Masem I'm surprised this isn't on ITNR. Banedon (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support both articles seem fine and ITN needs an update. Nergaal (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support bio articles are okay, award article is above average, subject is highly notable, no reason this can't go up now. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither bio mentions the award outside of the infobox. The update is not there. --M ASEM (t) 06:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Then do something about it rather than continually noting it. By now you could have added a sentence to each article rather than just repeating your complaint.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The do something about it :). I have added a paragraph to each article in "awards" sections. Thue (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And I've added inline references before anyone gets too worked up. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks :). Thue (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Major award, and raised even higher than usual by the identities and achievements of this year's winners. These are key issues for the modern world, which we have good articles about. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Since the articles have been updated, I've posted the blurb. <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  // 14:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)